If you could go back in time..............????

Jud · January 29, 2015

a major shift in the space/time continuum causing Steve Jobs to actually be able to program and he understands why MP3 is inherent wrong (because he can actually do math and perhaps even has a heart that cares) and adopts a dual format for his players (24 bit and DSD) while claiming MP3 to be a bag of hurt.

Have you read his biography? Mp3/ALAC versus "CD resolution" was discussed, and the reason the former won out was (wait for it)...

Steve wanted to be able to run the ad campaign that introduced the iPod: "A thousand songs in your pocket."

fallington · January 29, 2015

When bandwidth increased and the price of memory dropped, I wish Apple had used its vast resources, including its marketing machine, R&D budget and influence in the music industry, to make hi fidelity hip and affordable.

Skeptic · January 29, 2015

Yes,........but that would have taken quite a while and like the DVD markets better encryption, sustainable for quite a few years. HDMI was already in place and players could have only HDMI out. The video industry had a solution already in place. As i mentioned, this time would have given the record companies time to establish their own digital distribution network instead the hack job by iTunes and others.

SACD (1999) was around long before HDMI. (~2003)

It is unreasonable to expect that people would not only have to replace their CD players with SACD players that only have HDMI out, but then what, that they would also have to replace their speakers/amps with active monitors that accept an HDMI input? You can't have an analog output anywhere in the chain if you want a system that cannot be recorded.

And there is nothing that can be done to prevent microphones from recording the sound coming out of a speaker. Sure, that would not sound as good, but if people are downloading <128k MP3s, I don't think quality is their primary concern.

If anything, abandoning CDs and only releasing SACD discs would drive potential customers away.

And it would no doubt have come at a premium even after investing hundreds or thousands in new players and speakers.

The music industry seems intent on sacrificing sales in order to charge a premium for content that the mass market doesn't care about.

If you want high res audio to become a big deal, as I said before, you need to have a single price for the album, regardless of what quality you want to download it in.

If it were possible to act as the midwife at the birth of the CD I would have pushed for the redbook standard to be 24/96 instead of 16/44.1.

CD would never have taken off if it could only store 24 minutes of audio instead of 80.

Napster and iTunes would have never happened as the file sizes would have too large for the individual users' hard drives that existed back then and, even if one down sampled to mp3, anyone with a pair of ears would not be interested in hearing their music so severely dumbed down from the 24/96 standard.

Do you really think that in a time when people were content with 64-128k MP3 files compared to lossless 16/44 anyone would have cared about 24/96?

Even today with relatively widespread high-res availability, it is highly debated whether or not there is actually any benefit to it, compared to a properly produced 16/44 track. (properly produced meaning dithered to eliminate distortion, and bandlimited to eliminate aliasing)

Most people are still listening to compressed audio today, even with 24/192 and 2xDSD available.

If anything, going from years of lossy compression on an iPod or now streaming services to high-res lossless audio should be a revelation if it was that much better. But most people don't care, can't hear the difference, or don't think the difference is worth spending 4x that of a lossy download.

I can ABX the difference between lossless 16/44 and lossy even at 320k with complete certainty, but I'm not yet convinced that there's any need for high res.

Most of the actual benefit seems to be that many DAC chips perform better when fed a higher sample rate, which can be handled via upsampling rather than delivering a high-res file.

And many of the high-res releases are of modern remasters that have less dynamic range than the old CDs, and sound worse as a result.

That's because at that time, the only way you could get mobility or streaming, and for some people the 'convenience' of downloads (with the unfortunate illegal downloads as well) was to have the files compressed and then put on the iPod (or the other pod clones) or streamed as music or through a video like on Youtube.

And this is still a problem today - the largest device for playing music that you can buy from Apple is 128GB, and that's an iPhone which costs 3x that of the 64GB iPod.

If you want anything more than that you'll be spending twice as much again, and that will maybe get you 192GB capacity. (64GB+128GB MicroSD)

Anything higher capacity than that, and you'll be spending $2500+ on an AK240 - which is still only 384GB max, and people don't want to carry a separate player around when they already have their phone with them.

I'll just be happy if Apple release the next iPhone with a 256GB option this year. That will hold a decent amount of 24/48 tracks.

Around 2000. Sony would have introduced SACD as a hybrid technology from the get-go. All discs would have been two-layer; both SACD and Red Book and they would have priced them and licensed the technology the same as regular CDs. That way, the average Joe wouldn't have known the difference, there would still only be one format, but those with SACD players would hear the discs in DSD and the rest would hear them normally. It would be the standard now.

This would have been smart - it's a similar situation with Blu-rays and DVDs. I don't have any friends/family that buy Blu-ray discs.

The DVDs are cheaper, more widely available, and play on everything. Even though I know they have a Blu-ray player hooked up to their main TV (which they only own because it came with the TV) I've been asked to stop giving Blu-rays as a gift, and get them a DVD instead.

The quality doesn't make up for the lack of convenience.

And I would argue that the difference between a DVD and a Blu-ray disc is far more noticeable than the difference between lossless 16/44 and 24/96.

esldude · January 29, 2015

I think we will get the perfect SQ the day that 20 TB hard drive will store only one album:)

I don't see how anyone would be satisfied with such a low bit rate. Now maybe 20 TB per song would be of reasonable sound quality. Thus far I haven't seen any report that going to a higher bit rate fails to improve sound quality. Highest I have seen much about is 768 khz. Maybe 1.536 mhz at 48 bit will start to get us somewhere useful. It just sounds like there is no limit. The good news is as long as storage capacity and processing speed progresses there is no end to how good sound can get. It can forever improve.

esldude · January 29, 2015

John Lennon meets and falls in love with Patti Smith instead of Yoko Ono. The Beatles become the first punk band and stay together. The Ramones have to play "gig" rock to be different.

This sets a series of changes in the universe disrupting the natural order of things as we know it. The main impact to the audiophile world (aside from the remastered collection of The Ramones coming with a 24 bit USB stick and countless bootlegs of their endless songs) is a major shift in the space/time continuum causing Steve Jobs to actually be able to program and he understands why MP3 is inherent wrong (because he can actually do math and perhaps even has a heart that cares) and adopts a dual format for his players (24 bit and DSD) while claiming MP3 to be a bag of hurt.

I'm not saying EVERYTHING is Yoko's fault...some of it rests with Steve.

No, it is all Yoko's fault. I believe Joanne Schieble was a cover, and Steve was actually Yoko's first child.

beetlemania · January 29, 2015

The good news is as long as storage capacity and processing speed progresses there is no end to how good sound can get. It can forever improve.

The CAPS 37 (TBA) should easily read and decode a 5 minute song of 20 TB.

esldude · January 29, 2015

I would have stuck with FireWire. I have several 24/96 ADCs for recording that used Firewire to record/playback via a Mac laptop and always had good luck with it. Much better than USB.

I use Windows or Linux. And I have the opposite experience. I have one Firewire recording interface, and it gives more trouble while I don't have any with my USB interface. Firewire was pretty okay for playback, but not as good as USB and from time to time I had dropouts which I never have had with USB. Maybe Windows just did a lousy job with Firewire. Though I must say the issues seem much reduced once I went to Win 8.1 for an OS. Of course that could all be peculiar to the device I have. I have an external firewire DVD drive which has never been anything other than great.

realhifi · January 29, 2015

If it were possible to act as the midwife at the birth of the CD I would have pushed for the redbook standard to be 24/96 instead of 16/44.1. A whole generation of listeners then would have been exposed to hi res as a routine and the debate today would be all about digital vs. vinyl, disc vs. download and which was the preferred remaster. A huge spotlight would be thrown on 24/96 music files given that a much larger segment of the population could be involved in scrutinizing the music and getting the word out whenever recordings were up sampled from lower resolution versions. Napster and iTunes would have never happened as the file sizes would have too large for the individual users' hard drives that existed back then and, even if one down sampled to mp3, anyone with a pair of ears would not be interested in hearing their music so severely dumbed down from the 24/96 standard. Lastly, hi res as standard res would support a boom in production and sales of better home and portable systems, also giving the then still existing brick and mortar stores a reason to stay in business.

Yepper.

Jud · January 29, 2015

I don't see how anyone would be satisfied with such a low bit rate. Now maybe 20 TB per song would be of reasonable sound quality. Thus far I haven't seen any report that going to a higher bit rate fails to improve sound quality. Highest I have seen much about is 768 khz. Maybe 1.536 mhz at 48 bit will start to get us somewhere useful. It just sounds like there is no limit. The good news is as long as storage capacity and processing speed progresses there is no end to how good sound can get. It can forever improve.

Until we get all the way to analog!

sandyk · January 30, 2015

I don't see how anyone would be satisfied with such a low bit rate. Now maybe 20 TB per song would be of reasonable sound quality. Thus far I haven't seen any report that going to a higher bit rate fails to improve sound quality. I have seen much about is 768 khz. Maybe 1.536 mhz at 48 bit will start to get us somewhere useful. It just sounds like there is no limit. The good news is as long as storage capacity and processing speed progresses there is no end to how good sound can get. It can forever improve.

You have to be joking! The forum is awash with links to such material , including even the recent "insider" from Apple (?) attack on high res , which is a current thread.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mac-observer-says-44-16-all-you-need-23189/

And you wonder why some members have suggested that a few find their "Jollies" in another forum?

Your whole reply may be the source of a giggle for some "objective" members, but this kind of smart arse "humour" is wearing very thin with many other members.

esldude · January 30, 2015

You have to be joking! The forum is awash with links to such material , including even the recent "insider" from Apple (?) attack on high res , which is a current thread.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/mac-observer-says-44-16-all-you-need-23189/

And you wonder why some members have suggested that a few find their "Jollies" in another forum?

Your whole reply may be the source of a giggle for some "objective" members, but this kind of smart arse "humour" is wearing very thin with many other members.

Maybe there should be fewer complaints that objectivists are humorless then.

Or maybe the automatic assumption higher and more is better is wearing thin.

Every idea is welcome in this thread. I find it curious that a few have wished SONY/Philips had waited for higher sample rate and/or more bit depth. Despite claims to the contrary I find higher resolution makes little if any difference. There was a much larger quality gap in sound between regular and metal cassette tape. Now I too wish the standard would have been a bit higher for PCM. But as for that being a watershed big difference altering the entire face of high end audio, sorry I don't get that. More emphasis on speakers and room interaction would have paid much larger dividends.

TubeLover · January 30, 2015

I would have seen to it that even pondering inventing MP3, and any other lossy format (as well as anyone they were related to, or knew) were drawn and quartered. Those evil forces have caused nothing but ruin, ignorance and suffering since their advent, and the world would have been far better without them. Steve Job's would have been forced to purchase larger storage for the iPods, and Apple Lossless would have let everyone dump their cd's, with listenable quality onto the devices. Napster and the like would also never have happened.

JC

sandyk · January 30, 2015

Maybe there should be fewer complaints that objectivists are humorless then.

Or maybe the automatic assumption higher and more is better is wearing thin.

Every idea is welcome in this thread. I find it curious that a few have wished SONY/Philips had waited for higher sample rate and/or more bit depth. Despite claims to the contrary I find higher resolution makes little if any difference. There was a much larger quality gap in sound between regular and metal cassette tape. Now I too wish the standard would have been a bit higher for PCM. But as for that being a watershed big difference altering the entire face of high end audio, sorry I don't get that. More emphasis on speakers and room interaction would have paid much larger dividends.

As would have not using typical mains polluting, bandwidth challenged, Class D amplifiers which affect Audio source devices adversely. Many people are already aware of the mains pollution caused even by small SMPS plugpacks and many LED lighting supplies, that degrade Digital Audio, and unplug them for serious listening sessions.

esldude · January 30, 2015

As would have not using typical mains polluting, bandwidth challenged, Class D amplifiers which affect Audio source devices adversely. Many people are already aware of the mains pollution caused even by small SMPS plugpacks and many LED lighting supplies, that degrade Digital Audio, and unplug them for serious listening sessions.

And the reason I get no different result when listening through other systems with nary a SMPC in sight and full analog amps with 150 khz plus bandwidth? Fed from their own dedicated circuits for what it is worth.

sandyk · January 30, 2015

And the reason I get no different result when listening through other systems with nary a SMPC in sight and full analog amps with 150 khz plus bandwidth? Fed from their own dedicated circuits for what it is worth.

Given that MANY members hear the benefits of high res.LPCM and DSD128 etc ,as well as differences between USB cables etc. and you can't, should give a few clues ? When was the last time you used a full analogue amplifier with that bandwidth and no digital EQ with high quality source material such as DSD128 or 24/192 from the likes of Barry D. ?

Perhaps you should try that with ESL speakers again?

esldude · January 30, 2015

Given that MANY members hear the benefits of high res.LPCM and DSD128 etc ,as well as differences between USB cables etc. and you can't, should give a few clues ? When was the last time you used a full analogue amplifier with that bandwidth and no digital EQ with high quality source material such as DSD128 or 24/192 from the likes of Barry D. ?
Perhaps you should try that with ESL speakers again?

Few months ago. Wasn't ESL speakers, but some very highly regarded universally praised excellent speakers. Ditto for everything else in that system.

sandyk · January 30, 2015

Few months ago. Wasn't ESL speakers, but some very highly regarded universally praised excellent speakers. Ditto for everything else in that system.

No DSP either ?

Then that suggests something an entirely different reason then! (grin) But I would be far from the first one to suggest it.

esldude · January 30, 2015

No DSP either ?
Then that suggests something an entirely different reason then! (grin) But I would be far from the first one to suggest it.

No DSP.

lmitche · January 30, 2015

+1 I2S over HDMI is the way forward.

InfernoSTi · January 30, 2015

In the future, there will be universal agreement that cables and higher sample rates do/do not make an audible impact...and more importantly, the degree of impact is recognized as secondary to much more impactful areas that begin to consume the audiophile community. Audiophiles spend countless posts finding solutions to real problems like speakers/rooms and recording/mastering. Audio has never sounded better (both higher fidelity and more engaging music).

The craziest part (as if that wasn't crazy enough) is that diversity of choice in formats, types of amps, etc is considered better, not worse. Future audiophiles just seem to understand that there can be something that is just right for one but it may be different for another. This freedom is embraced and celebrated, especially on audio forums.

As a result, real advancements in significant areas that dramatically improve sound quality are made and the ranks of audiophiles grows as music reproduction is significantly improved...

trithio · January 30, 2015

I'll stop JGH from selling Stereophile and make sure TAS never hapened. Not sure if that could have stopped the golden ears invasion but the audioworld will surely be better with just the normal ears that we all have. Plus, more science and less elves did not hurt anyone. Anywhere. On the contrary.

Jud · January 30, 2015

I'll stop JGH from selling Stereophile and make sure TAS never hapened. Not sure if that could have stopped the golden ears invasion but the audioworld will surely be better with just the normal ears that we all have. Plus, more science and less elves did not hurt anyone. Anywhere. On the contrary.

Stereophile, maybe. But in TAS back when they were a small mag just starting out and didn't take any advertising, Harry Pearson was an acid-tongued delight puncturing audiophile manufacturers' pretensions right and left. It was wonderfully entertaining stuff. (I would love to see one or more of the first couple of years' issues republished online.) In fact: I'd go back and ensure there was funding for TAS so they'd never have to take advertising and would owe no one any undeserved respect.

beetlemania · January 30, 2015

I'll stop JGH from selling Stereophile and make sure TAS never hapened. Not sure if that could have stopped the golden ears invasion but the audioworld will surely be better with just the normal ears that we all have. Plus, more science and less elves did not hurt anyone. Anywhere. On the contrary.

I guess you didn't notice that you posted this on "Computer Audiophile". But, yeah, we'd all be in a better place getting advice on audio from Consumer's Reports . . .

&_&

Jud · January 30, 2015

Stereophile, maybe. But in TAS back when they were a small mag just starting out and didn't take any advertising, Harry Pearson was an acid-tongued delight puncturing audiophile manufacturers' pretensions right and left. It was wonderfully entertaining stuff. (I would love to see one or more of the first couple of years' issues republished online.) In fact: I'd go back and ensure there was funding for TAS so they'd never have to take advertising and would owe no one any undeserved respect.

More about this: It's interesting to note, and might be educational for both "subjectivists" and "objectivists," that TAS's stance in favor of subjective listening started out along the lines of "Your solid state amp might have these particular great measurements that you market, but it sounds like camel dung." In other words, the intent was to puncture the marketing use of incomplete specs that didn't honestly portray the sound quality of the equipment. Subsequently, a solid engineering basis was found for what people were hearing from these solid state amps (high distortion measurements that weren't part of "the usual specs" at the time). So subjective reviews (though not blinded) were used as a service to audio consumers - no accident, as I think the initial refusal to take advertising was modeled on the U.S. consumer magazine Consumer Reports.

Fairly soon, unfortunately, Harry Pearson, who was not a great businessman (understatement) found he needed advertising to survive, and (just coincidentally, I'm sure) subjective sighted reviews unattached to measurements started to appear that claimed wonderful ineffable sonic qualities for the reviewed pieces.

trithio · January 30, 2015

Stereophile, maybe. But in TAS back when they were a small mag just starting out and didn't take any advertising, Harry Pearson was an acid-tongued delight puncturing audiophile manufacturers' pretensions right and left. It was wonderfully entertaining stuff. (I would love to see one or more of the first couple of years' issues republished online.) In fact: I'd go back and ensure there was funding for TAS so they'd never have to take advertising and would owe no one any undeserved respect.

Wasnt sure when exactly did TAS switch into all-ears mode so I just cut from the beginning. It's the only way to be sure . Otherwise I'm sure they did publish some interesting stuff at some point or another. Couldnt have survived so long from nothing.

To beetlemania

If you want to put it like that, you could say that I'm commenting on "Computer Audiophile"

If you could go back in time..............????

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in