High Def Video BIG success.......HiRes Audio Not so much...How come?

[mayhem13]

Consumers jumped on HD Video enabled gear and movie studios 1st release just about all titles on BD so why is the music industry so far behind? Is there not enough of a demand or are the majority of listeners satisfied with CD and MP3?.......Whadda YOU think?

[sandyk]

mayhem13

Seeing that many recent mainstream recordings are compressed to blazes these days, would YOU want to purchase them in a higher resolution format, at a premium price with the same heavy handed mastering ?

Alex

[Musicophile]

Has been extensively discussed already. Very easy answer:

 

1) way more huge TVs out there than high quality hifi systems (and a huge flat screen is really cheap these days)

 

2) on a decent size new HDTV, even my mother or any other average consumer can see the difference immediately (and once you've seen it you don't want to go back). Not sure my mother would immediately hear a difference between redbook and 24/96 (and even less sure she'd care for the difference).

[realhifi]

Consumers jumped on HD Video enabled gear and movie studios 1st release just about all titles on BD so why is the music industry so far behind? Is there not enough of a demand or are the majority of listeners satisfied with CD and MP3?.......Whadda YOU think?

 

The majority of music listeners are definitely satisfied with CD quality (or lower in the form of Apple's 256k). The action in audio is really more in the surround formats and the capability of more channels of sound in a given soundtrack. If you notice, the biggest developments are with Dolby True HD and DTS Master Audio on Blue Ray which are uncompressed formats.

 

Here is a little blip from Dolby:

 

As a lossless audio codec, Dolby TrueHD ensures that the listener hears every nuance of a movie, television program, or music soundtrack, without any loss of quality.

 

On Blu-ray Disc, Dolby TrueHD supports up to eight full-range channels of 96 kHz/24-bit audio and six full-range channels of 192 kHz/24-bit audio, for perfect studio-master-quality lossless audio playback of high-definition movies, music, and television shows. The result is the most authentic audio experience available for your home theater system.

 

Now, if you are a consumer that has an entertainment system that revolves around a HD display for movies and also uses the system for music through the home then THIS is where you are looking IF you are looking at better high resolution sound. Notice the specs on the Dolby True HD and then see where consumers are looking for better sound. What this has the potential to do is to start the conversation into better music reproduction along with better movie sound. When consumers start to get used to seeing that they need Dolby True HD or DTS Master Audio in their playback equipment and that equipment deals with 24/96 as the standard THEN we will start to get some movement into thinking those same numbers for music also. BUT, if the streaming paradigm (ie. Spotify, Pandora, Rhapsody) keeps exploding and more and more people adopt it as their main source of listening then forget it.

 

In other words, the Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio that people are getting 7.1 channels of 24/96 is INCLUDED in a Blue Ray disc that also happens to include the best high definition picture available today and sells for $25. Then look at the cost of a simple high resolution download. People are NOT going to be looking at spending $18 for a download of one album in 24/96 when they can barely hear a difference (on the equipment they have!) between it and the same album played on MOG or Rhapsody. Period.

 

Not sure what the recording industry did not learn from the failure of SACD. Consumers did not think the cost justified the improvement in sound. That has not changed. MOST people will not pay a premium for slightly better sound. They most certainly won't pay more for a better sounding download that is not compatible with iTunes that won't even play through their main A/V system without jumping through software and hardware hoops on the computer side of things. I don't even ask my clients to do that. Even I think it's silly.

 

They want simple access to high quality reproduction of video and audio. As it stands right now that is not the case with high definition music. IF Apple should decide to bless the higher resolution gods and start to offer that as either an option or simple as THE standard then the possibility of it coming to mass consumption in the market MAY happen. If that doesn't happen it will continue to be a very small niche offering to a small number of quality seeking music lovers.

[bleedink]

Because you can't buy it? I'd think that was easy. Until whatever artist you happen to like is available on release in high res it's not really a fair comparison. All movies come out on Blu Ray. All music does not. You have to have a product to buy right?

[mayhem13]

Has been extensively discussed already. Very easy answer:

 

1) way more huge TVs out there than high quality hifi systems (and a huge flat screen is really cheap these days)

 

2) on a decent size new HDTV, even my mother or any other average consumer can see the difference immediately (and once you've seen it you don't want to go back). Not sure my mother would immediately hear a difference between redbook and 24/96 (and even less sure she'd care for the difference).

 

But the electronics mfgrs and film industry developed and cultivated the market of HD video.....and in the process set up pretty stringent copywrighted protection via HDMI.......and consumers grabbed it up double fisted. It's more of a chicken or the egg dilemma.

 

It would be easy to guess that there simply isn't a demand for Hi Res 2channel music to make it profitable.....which is in starK contradiction to how much 'audiophiles' spend on playback gear. Although not intended by this thread....and interesting paradox.

[spdif-usb]

It's just supply and demand, really nothing more IMO. People believe what they want to believe, and they are in the vast majority of cases easy to fool with marketing. They aren't interested in the science behind the numbers, they just assume the tech's good if the specs say so, and they do it without questioning the true meaning of those specs.

Add to that the fact most people can't hear a difference after they've been told enough times that it's impossible to hear a difference and they'll swallow low bitrate mp3 files and CDs with a dynamic range value of 5.

[James1776]

One can do serious high definition video for well under a grand but one cannot begin to do serious Hi-Rez music for many times that...In addition to the source you need all the high end audio gear that goes with it. As long as we have 4 digit cables, we will not sell Hi-Rez for the masses.

[Musicophile]

But the electronics mfgrs and film industry developed and cultivated the market of HD video.....and in the process set up pretty stringent copywrighted protection via HDMI.......and consumers grabbed it up double fisted. It's more of a chicken or the egg dilemma.

 

Obviously, industry invested. But I'm still convinced that you can fool consumers only so far. If people wouldn't see some difference, this wouldn't have been that successful.

 

It would be easy to guess that there simply isn't a demand for Hi Res 2channel music to make it profitable.....which is in starK contradiction to how much 'audiophiles' spend on playback gear. Although not intended by this thread....and interesting paradox.

 

Where do you see the contrast? We have probably at least 10 if not 100x more demand in hires video than hires audio. But then my guess average consumer has 1 $800TV, a $100 player and buys 3-4 Blue Rays, whereas the serious audiophile probably invested upwards of $5-10K in the system (or way more), and buys probably 30 albums per year minimum. Classical mass vs. niche market.

[sdolezalek]

I actually think that if you put even the average person in front of (a) the best high definition display and (b) the best high resolution full audio system; they could tell as much difference in the audio as in the video, BUT, BUT , BUT: (i) you can get to that video result with an ok blu-ray player, and a good, but cheaper every day display monitor and you can show it in almost every room; (ii) the equivalent audio requires (a) a high definition source product -- of which there re far fewer than good blu-ray; (b) far more and more expensive electronics, which aren't coming down in price the way TVs do; © a great set of speakers -- which also don't seem to be coming down in price; and (d) the right room with sound treatments -- also not coming down in price.

 

As to some of this we legitimately can ask why not, i.e. the prices of speakers and electronics. As to other parts the answer is more difficult - great rooms just aren't going to get cheaper and source material only gets cheap when we buy it in huge quantities; which first requires that we accomplish affordable (b), © and (d) above.

[Alice Wonder]

Consumers jumped on HD Video enabled gear and movie studios 1st release just about all titles on BD so why is the music industry so far behind? Is there not enough of a demand or are the majority of listeners satisfied with CD and MP3?.......Whadda YOU think?

 

My personal opinion is because HD audio is snake oil.

 

12bit is enough for most music, 16bit is enough for all music.

 

44.1kHz sample rate is high enough for the sensitivity of the human ear.

 

I believe in double blind tests. I have yet to find a "high resolution" audio that I can distinguish from 16bit 44.1kHz downsample.

Maybe it is just me, but I've not seen ABX tests that others have done either. Doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them. So why waste the disc space for extra sampling and higher bit rate if my ears don't benefit?

 

Some good reads on the subject:

 

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

 

24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!

[spdif-usb]

The real reason why nobody has bothered to conduct ABX tests to prove the audible difference between HiRes and Redbook exists is because the audible difference is in fact so big that it would be ridiculous to conduct them.

 

My personal opinion is because HD audio is snake oil.

 

12bit is enough for most music, 16bit is enough for all music.

 

44.1kHz sample rate is high enough for the sensitivity of the human ear.

 

I believe in double blind tests. I have yet to find a "high resolution" audio that I can distinguish from 16bit 44.1kHz downsample.

Maybe it is just me, but I've not seen ABX tests that others have done either. Doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them. So why waste the disc space for extra sampling and higher bit rate if my ears don't benefit?

 

Some good reads on the subject:

 

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

 

24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!

[Alice Wonder]

The real reason why nobody has bothered to conduct ABX tests to prove the audible difference between HiRes and Redbook exists is because the audible difference is in fact so big that it would be ridiculous to conduct them.

 

That's possible, none of my cables cost over $3,000 so maybe I'm just not properly equipped to hear the difference.

In which case, again, why pay for what I can't hear?

[wgscott]

My personal opinion is because HD audio is snake oil.

 

12bit is enough for most music, 16bit is enough for all music.

 

44.1kHz sample rate is high enough for the sensitivity of the human ear.

 

I believe in double blind tests. I have yet to find a "high resolution" audio that I can distinguish from 16bit 44.1kHz downsample.

Maybe it is just me, but I've not seen ABX tests that others have done either. Doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them. So why waste the disc space for extra sampling and higher bit rate if my ears don't benefit?

 

Some good reads on the subject:

 

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

 

24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!

 

There is actually some merit to the higher sampling frequencies and bit depth.

 

The increased dynamic range from 24 bit recordings allows for more clarity in the very softest (lowest volume) passages. This actually can be demonstrated objectively via speech recognition.

 

The higher sampling frequencies are of value when they move the folding frequency into the ultrasonic range.

[Alice Wonder]

There is actually some merit to the higher sampling frequencies and bit depth.

 

The increased dynamic range from 24 bit recordings allows for more clarity in the very softest (lowest volume) passages. This actually can be demonstrated objectively via speech recognition.

 

The higher sampling frequencies are of value when they move the folding frequency into the ultrasonic range.

 

That's possible, but I can't hear it.

 

And that may be why HD took off in video but not audio.

 

When computer screens were 800x600 - upsampling SD content to view full screen wasn't that bad.

But as monitor resolution increased, the amount of upscaling needed to watch full screen also increased so you either had fuzziness or had to watch in a small window.

 

That's is precisely why I bought a Thinkpad T520 instead of a MacBook Pro - I needed a Blu*ray drive because when I ride grayhound I like to watch movies but Apple doesn't have Blu*ray drives and with SSD reducing disk space, huge digital media files are not what I want to fill the disk with. But DVD upscaling looks bad so I need HD content.

 

But with audio, physical dimensions of things like screen don't matter. Buying better newer audio equipment isn't going to make your CDs sound worse like higher resolution screens on laptops and TV's do. So there is no need to go with HD audio.

 

But really, testing I've personally done, I can't hear the difference. Maybe it is my equipment, I can't rule that out, but I'm not going to spend a bunch of money on better audio equipment just to find out if *maybe* it makes a difference. Especially since I'm entering my 40s next year so I'm going to be losing high end anyway and that's the only place I can possibly see a higher sampling rate making a difference.

[wdw]

That's possible, none of my cables cost over $3,000 so maybe I'm just not properly equipped to hear the difference.

In which case, again, why pay for what I can't hear?

 

 

Chris,

 

Here's the latest one. Dumb as a horse but shooting for bear. It seem that is now a weekly event.

 

Dear Cousin Alice,

 

Are you eighteen? Is most of your musical catalogue stolen off the web? Do you walk down the street looking at your iPhone while we are all obligated to step aside?

 

WDW

[Alice Wonder]

Chris,

 

Here's the latest one. Dumb as a horse but shooting for bear. It seem that is now a weekly event.

 

Dear Cousin Alice,

 

Are you eighteen? Is most of your musical catalogue stolen off the web? Do you walk down the street looking at your iPhone while we are all obligated to step aside?

 

WDW

 

What the hell?

 

I'm 39 and I generally don't steal music.

Most of my music collection is various Flamenco, some Bluegrass, some americana / blues rock, some hard rock (Rush - I love Rush)

 

The only music I "steal" are amateur taper concert bootlegs - I have a thing for Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton bootlegs.

 

But seriously, what the hell? Where do you get off insulting someone because they are expressing a view that is different than yours?

[mayhem13]

The real reason why nobody has bothered to conduct ABX tests to prove the audible difference between HiRes and Redbook exists is because the audible difference is in fact so big that it would be ridiculous to conduct them.

 

Interesting. This hasn't been my experience with HiRes at all.

[wgscott]

I can't tell the difference between standard and hi def TV.

[wdw]

What the hell?

 

I'm 39 and I generally don't steal music.

Most of my music collection is various Flamenco, some Bluegrass, some americana / blues rock, some hard rock (Rush - I love Rush)

 

The only music I "steal" are amateur taper concert bootlegs - I have a thing for Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton bootlegs.

 

But seriously, what the hell? Where do you get off insulting someone because they are expressing a view that is different than yours?

 

Well, I must apologize.

 

But...and PeeWee Herman said, wisely, ....even one has a big butt....your observations are so completely wrong that I can only imagine you've never had the opportunity to hear a high resolution system. You have no metric to have noticed the difference.

[Alice Wonder]

That may be the case, but if that's the case, that then answers the question as to why HD audio isn't taking off.

If people can't hear the difference, why are they going to pay for the difference?

 

If it requires a major investment in audio equipment to hear the difference, most people I suspect have other priorities with their finances.

 

But mathematically, I can't see how it would make a difference anyway.

[mav52]

Consumers jumped on HD Video enabled gear and movie studios 1st release just about all titles on BD so why is the music industry so far behind? Is there not enough of a demand or are the majority of listeners satisfied with CD and MP3?.......Whadda YOU think?

 

I don't think its the music industry as it is the customer base which is families and the younger ipod crowd just wanting to watch a movie and/or JUST listen to music regardless of how it was configured. I would think the world wide percentage of those families and the younger crowd and perhaps the normal TV watching crowd is not that interested in HiRes audio. They appear to be happy with HD video and BD or just PPV, playing games and playing games on the internet or maybe just normal TV, CD players and/or itunes and Amazon downloads. I would think that overall the majority of people are pretty much satisfied with what they have and what they can afford or want to spend on audio.

 

(2011 )The number of U.S. homes with Blu-ray players, including Sony PS3s, home theater-in-a-box systems (HTiBs), and BD set-tops, now stands at 33.5 million--a year-over-year increase of 52 percent. Plummeting prices of Blu-ray players, which now sell for under $100, played a role here, no doubt.http://www.pcworld.com/article/242893/blu_ray_still_alive_as_disc_sales_soar.html

 

http://www.degonline.org/pressreleases/2011/DEG_Q3_2011_REPORT.pdf

[wdw]

you say "If people can't hear the difference"...no, it is you that can't hear the difference...it must be known to you.

 

but it is a saddening fact that people may let this die; music is far more lively than you can imagine otherwise you'd curious as to its delight

[Alice Wonder]

I'm a programmer with a passion for the sciences, especially physics and biology.

I like to see claims backed up with reproduce-able tests.

It's just the way I'm wired I suppose.

 

I have not seen reproduce-able tests that show > 44.1kHz sampling can be ABX'd against 44.1kHz.

It should be easy to generate such a test using computer generated tones if it is real.

I haven't seen them though.

[mav52]

you say "If people can't hear the difference"...no, it is you that can't hear the difference...it must be known to you.

 

but it is a saddening fact that people may let this die; music is far more lively than you can imagine otherwise you'd curious as to its delight

I would think most people in the world don't care