How long before more mainstream music comes out in High Resolution?

[tsdh]

barrows said: "still, there is a healthy enough market for vinyl (which is expensive to produce and distribute-more so than high res digital) to be produced encompassing very many titles."

 

You'right that vinyl had ressurected in the last ten years. But you have to see the differences between vinyl and hi-res download. Vinyls able to secure a healthy market, not just because of its sound quality, but several other factors:

 

1. Vinyl is a physical medium. Some of them become collectible or memorabilia pursued by collectors(thus can be auctioned at high price).

 

2. The exotic and complexity of vinyls playback, become an "art" and pride to some audiophiles.

 

3. Vinyl is re-saleable, even some used-vinyls may command higher than its original price if it become a rarity.

 

Those three factors, plus the fact that hi-res download is easily copied/shared to many people, will put vinyl at different league than hi-res download, at least from the marketing point of view.

 

 

[MarkS]

Perhaps Steve Jobs can get some high end audio designers together and say:

 

"Design a pair of speakers and an integrated amp/DAC with an iPod and iPad dock in it."

 

 

Have you checked out what Wadia and Peachtree Audio are doing in this regard? I use the Wadia i170 (i171 should arrive next week) and 151PowerDac in my office with an iPod Classic and a pair of Dynaudio X-12's and find it a very nice little system.

 

[bernardl]

Have you checked out what Wadia and Peachtree Audio are doing in this regard? I use the Wadia i170 (i171 should arrive next week) and 151PowerDac in my office with an iPod Classic and a pair of Dynaudio X-12's and find it a very nice little system.

 

Also Onkyo does have a much cheaper pure digital iPod dock that is sounding pretty OK.

 

http://www.jp.onkyo.com/audiovisual/premiumcompact/nrx/nds1/index.htm

 

They have just released a new version it seems.

 

Cheers,

Bernard

 

 

[Paul R]

That is a great point, and I get what you mean.

 

I am not sure that vinyl is an apt comparison though. Vinyl is no longer something available to the mass market, and even when it was, $99 Receiver/Turntable combos were the most popular kit they were played on. (Remember watching those things actually peel vinyl off the disk as it played?)

 

A $50 iPod Shuffle sounds better than even the best viynl on one of those old kits, and a $149 iPod not only sounds better, it gives you a decent interface to select your music with.

 

Indeed, to most people, a $149 iPod produces the best sounding music of any equipment they have ever owned. When I say most people, I mean perhaps, 90% of the population, though that is arguable.

 

To make the picture more confused, a Peachtree iDecco amp will make an iPod sound much better, and with a decent pair of headphones, rival sound from vinyl played on a 5 figure system in the minds of the average Joe. (Rival! We know they are not equal!

 

If such a combo; an iPod cable of playing HiRes music, an iDecco like amp, and decent headphones were available at a package price of around $299, and a decent set of speakers like PSB Image 4Bs were available as an add on for $149, the demand for HiRes music would be pretty big.

 

In a way, that is exactly what happened you know, music from an iPod sounded so much better than what most people had available to them (as well as being an order of magnitude more convenient) it started selling and selling like crazy. Both factors, sound and convenience, had to be present of course. Apple's genius lay in putting that together in a uber-cool affordable package.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

[audiozorro]

I think it’s worthwhile to differentiate between mainstream music and the mass market for music.

 

More and more mainstream music will be offered in high resolution because much of this is just converting and repackaging much of the older existing music. Simple formula, take the top one to five thousand analog or digital albums of all time and resell it in the higher resolutions, whether that be 24/88.2 and higher PCM, DSD or top audiophile vinyl. Nowadays new music is generally being recorded already in high resolution digital (assuming we agree that is anything greater than 16/44.1, but preferably 24/88.2 and higher) or analog with the easy task of offering many multiple formats and resolution from the lowly MP3 to the high resolution, albeit with increasing price.

 

IMO the record labels have a onetime opportunity to sell high resolution digital music. I say this is generally a onetime opportunity because of the laws of diminishing returns; that is there is more reason to go from 16/44.1 to 24/192 than there is to go from 24/192 to DXD. I think for computer audiophiles there may be strong impetus for repurchasing some of your favorite CDs as 24/88.2 and higher digital downloads. And unless you have an excellent quality recorder that can easily digitize your SACDs and LPs, you may want to repurchase some of the favorites as high resolution downloads for the convenience of computer audio.

 

The market high resolution music will always be a niche market that provides very profitable returns but relatively small revenues. While I think everyone should buy a copy of Barry’s album, compared to the AC/DC Back in Black with 50 million in sales, Equinox is neither mainstream music nor the album to be promoted to the mass market by the big record labels.

 

IMO audio for the mass market is being led by the video and home theater markets on one hand and the portable audio market with compressed lossy music on the other hand. As far as music industry is concerned for large sales and revenues 16/44.1 and lower resolution is more than adequate for the mass market. Audiophiles will complain but they do not drive the mass market.

 

 

[James1776]

I agree that the solutions to high res are often very expensive. To me, the ideal solution goes like this...someone builds an iPOD type device (preferably apple) that supports 24/96. Someone also builds a device like the Audioengine W2, but digital

 

http://audioengineusa.com/Store/Audioengine-W2

 

That is to say, a device that attaches to the iPOD, strips off the digital signal before it goes to the iPOD DAC, and sends it wireless to a receiver plugged into ones existing outboard or receiver DAC and then on to the already owned audio system.

 

Audioengine already does that for analog signals directly to the receiver for under $120...the technology exists to strip the digital signal from an iPOD already as seen in the Wadia iTransport for under $350...Skip the Dock, go wireless digital and high rez and you have an audiophile winner. I would be amazed if it cost more than $1K total.

 

[wgb113]

The problem with this whole mess is that there is no cooperation between the parties involved.

 

The pro-audio industry has pushed hi-res technology into every major recording studio yet the record industry butchers the mainstream music so that it's the loudest thing on your iPod.

 

Artists don't make much off of record sales so they become less interested from a quality standpoint.

 

Record companies want to move to a rent/subscription model so that we don't own anything, only they do. By doing this they're encouraging the mass market to push music listening further into a background activity.

 

There are still too many file types - they're the new format war.

 

Our community (this board less so than other forums) tends to shun and put-down newcomers and their current gear selections rather than encouraging them. As stated earlier:

 

"It is up to the audiophile community to loose some of its elitism and embrace the general public so that our own costs for hi rez music will be lowered through their demand."

 

If the iPod + iTunes are what dominates the mass-market and mainstream music, rather than constantly nit-pick at what those users should use that costs multitudes more, why not lead them with baby steps? If they still buy CDs on occasion, have them make sure they're using WAV, AIFF or ALAC. If they only download, suggest a pair of Grado 60's to replace those stock earbuds. Don't suggest they go and buy vinyl and a rig to go along with it or purchase Pure Music along with a $1,000 DAC and $2,000 speakers.

 

Hell, let's start by just suggesting they set aside one continuous hour per week listening to music. Let's start there and hope it will snowball.

 

We all get wrapped up at times in being "busy" that we forget to take time out for ourselves.

 

Bill

 

 

[sandyk]

Bill

A well thought out, and interesting P.O.V.

The "baby steps" is good advice, as it will encourage them to take more steps as their finances permit.

Alex

 

[barrows]

Like I said, I do not expect the mass market to adopt high resolution digital as a standard format, so no 24/192 Ke$ha or Britney... The mass market is never about quality, whether we are talking food, cars, snowboards, or cooking utensils. But I do think there could be an small explosion of high resolution music available for those who care; both music lovers, and musicians (there are plenty of musicians who do care greatly about sound quality, rock, jazz, and classical) will drive demand for better sounding digital. Yes, this is a niche market, but I believe the niche is plenty big enough to make high resolution digital distribution profitable for most music of high quality.

The most important thing we can do as music lovers is to purchase high resolution music anytime music we love is available in high res, and to encourage others to do so as well.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

" so no 24/192 Ke$ha or Britney..."

 

I actually have 24/88.2 Britney. Couldn't resist commenting :~)

 

[wgb113]

Chris,

I understand it'd be nice to have Britney "in the room" but I'm calling BS that you've got her in high-res.

 

[bleedink]

in all fairness to the parties using DTS-HD MSTRs, does sound significantly better than even their DVD-A counterparts. I have heard both mixes from the Talking Heads and you seriously cannot compare the two. Of course, your mileage from the format may not be satisfactory to you. I personally see it this way: the only way high resolution music, whether it be the multi-channel variety, or the ultra high rez stereo, will ever take off will be because of a 'trojan horse' effect from consumer's previous purchases of things to augment their home theater and gaming systems and will not come about in and of the format itself. Every year more and more 'audiophile' reviewers are turning consumers on to low-cost HTIB systems that give quite a bang for their buck considering most are in the sub-$600 range. Technology has evolved such that these low end systems can in some instances provide great sound for less technologically savvy. It is these people who represent the vast majority of the market for these kind of things. Even these cheap HTIB's I am confident should be able to reveal some of the subtleties in blu disc formats in particular, and higher resolution formats in a more general sense. The other thing that cannot happen is to force the consumer to buy into one more gadget for that audio experience. If it be disc based so be it, but make it blu ray and leave it at that. It is more than sufficient space wise for whatever high res formats are released in the audio world. They have reached a reasonable mass in the market particularly with the PS3. I have no doubts the studios will blow the opportunity but it does satisfy their DRM requirements for high-res formats so the pieces are already in place so to speak. And I think we are at a unique point historically in terms of purchasing power in this space. It does not need to cost a lot of money to get a great home theater package that is also superb at delivering high definition studio masters in 7.1 on down. Like anything else, it certainly doesn't hurt. My modest system would have cost many many times more 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. The technology in the speakers I own only existed in speakers costing 5 figures. The things needed to drive an analog system of sufficient excellence required much more interaction on the part of the consumer and was much much pricier. So again you can make fun of that stuttering mess in the poor implementation of HDMI. I do too. I don't make fun of the quality of those recordings remastered specifically for the technology seen in blu discs. I am for any situation where there is something that drives interest and demand in the consumer space for better audio and I think blu ray represents probably the best hope of having that dream come true. I also don't think you will need worry too much about much music coming out that way anyway. I think the studios are more than content to hold onto those masters and serve up 256 kbps of pure sonic agony. I can listen to Blu Disc Audio for a couple hours at high volume and never suffer the kind of fatigue I get with 20 minutes of MP3s or 60 minutes with CDs. I never get that with high resolution audio. Without the trojan horse of video games and home entertainment systems I do not see high resolution audio going anywhere.

 

[bleedink]

And at least according to my OPPO Britney does indeed seem to be coming out of my speakers in 24bit 96K...and sounds quite good doing it. It also happens to be a favorite of mine in the DVD-A genre, though I never cared for her music before I heard a higher resolution version of her music. Tracks 1-7 are all brilliant and represented the format well. That was also the last we heard of Britney high res and likely the last.

 

[wgb113]

NICE!

 

OT but in terms of baby steps...I just saw a Cambridge Audio setup in the Audio Advisor catalog that I'd recommend to a budding hifi enthusiast in a heartbeat. It their Sonata AR30 receiver + iPod dock and a pair of their S20 bookshelf speakers for $500. That's not much more than they paid for their iPod and bound to offer much better sound. It's even got SLEEP in addition to alarm clock functions! Hell, I might order one for the bedroom!

 

Bill

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Britney Proof :~)

 

 

 

 

 

[sandyk]

Hi Chris

Have you verified by ripping , then opening in an Audio program such as Sound Forge etc. that it is actually 24/88.2 ?

I have seen copies of this DVD-A on ebay for over 300GBP !!!

 

However, attached is what I have found from a site that appears to stock HUGE numbers of DVD-As

I won't jump in and try to grab a copy until I have confirmation from you as well, that it worth more than 1 play out of curiosity !

Regards

Alex

 

Title: Britney Spears DVD-Audio : In The Zone - DVD-Audio - Britney Spears - In The Zone

 

Artist: Britney Spears

 

Region: N/A

 

Sound: 24 Bit 96 kHz

 

Screen Format:

 

Price: £19.95

 

 

 

 

[darthlaker]

Well, Sony made a VERY big announcement recently.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-24/sony-record-labels-to-rival-apple-s-itunes-with-music-service-in-the-u-s-.html

 

I am sure, eventually, most of their albums will be downloadable in a high rez format (at a higher cost) in the future.....just when????

 

 

[Paul R]

HiRes music hits the mass market within the next 4 years.

 

"Mass Market" != "Lowest Common Denominator" - just means there is a critical mass to it.

 

I agree with you though, and I do support the Artists I like and purchase their stuff direct if possible, and in HiRes whenever possible.

 

Right now I am listening to Vanessa May playing her interpretation of Bruch. I wish it was in HiRes. I'd fork out the money for the album yet again...

 

-Paul

 

 

 

[Paul R]

Is that the same as Cambridge Soundworks?

 

If so, their stuff is workmanlike, but I have never really enjoyed listening to it. Even if it does have a ghost of that Advent sound I have loved for two decades.

 

-Paul

 

 

[rom661]

I totally agree with the sentiments expressed but I think/hope it may be building up a little head of steam.

 

Someone mentioned the DG record of Kleiber and the Beethoven 5th which many consider the authoratative performance of the piece. I'm very happy about that.

 

I'm listening to a 24/88 HD Tracks of one of my favorite trad jazz recordings, a Ray Brown live release.

 

Last but not least, the new Peter Gabriel is being released in CD, on high quality vinyl, and high rez (24/96, I think) digital on a thumb drive.

 

More, please.

 

Rick

 

[audiozorro]

That is until I did an extensive review of customer comments of blu ray players and movies on sites such as Amazon. With the exception of the Oppo universal players, the number of 1 and 2 star comments are pretty brutal. The blu ray movies do not fare much better. This is the video and home theater market that is driving everything. I had my first experience with blu ray when I bought the Legends of Jazz. The blu ray disc shipped to me directly from the manufacturer, LRSmedia, is unplayable in every blu ray player known to man. Scores of other buyers experienced the same unable to read disc message.

 

DRM is a mess and most audiophiles want nothing to do with such restrictions. The industry attempts to force or sneak DRM onto music buyers has been a disaster for the industry. Furthermore there is not a DRM that cannot be defeated or bypassed. Fortunately high resolution audio does not depend on DRM and all my high resolution downloads have no such DRM nonsense. And when high rez downloads are not available my fallback is to digitize the available high rez formats, such as audiophile LPs or SACDs into DSD128.

 

[bleedink]

Seriously not a fan but this album is mixed extremely well and is quite melodic. I gave it a spin just for kicks. Turns out to be one of my favorites in the DVD-A genre (multichannel--not a fan of the stereo version...YMMV).

 

[barrows]

The music industries desire to have DRM is really causing more problems than it solves. There will always be some level of piracy, and every DRM scheme gets hacked pretty quickly. I doubt that there ever will be a DRM scheme that is truly secure. I am not in favor of piracy and sharing, and I discourage anyone I know to take part in it-it is ripping off the musicians we love, plain and simple.

But, the publishing industry has always been supportive of sharing books, and their view is that sharing books improves their sales, rather than hurts them-that sharing is really a form of marketing. For those music lovers interested in high resolution audio, I think it is reasonable to expect that most are going to purchase the high res files, and not share them widely.

It is time for the desire for DRM to be abandoned, and a more reasonable policy adopted.

 

[wgb113]

No, Cambridge Audio is a long-time British HiFi firm. They're the lesser known brother (here in the U.S.) to NAD in my opinion, offering similar value and performance. I've had an integrated amp by them and a CD player as well. Enjoyed them both at the time and wouldn't hesitate to recommend that packaged system to a budding HiFi enthusiast looking to take a step into the computer audio world with their iPod.

 

Bill

 

[bleedink]

@AZ only brought up DRM because I just don't see studios releasing masters without some kind of protection, not it's merits. Also you are correct about older reviews but I am noticing more favorable reviews as time goes by with the format. My ears have convinced me of the relative merit of dts-hd masters over their same DVD-A counterparts having identical sample rates and bit depths. Their own literature suggests their having identical sounds to the masters once it's been converted in a receiver if they are to be believed. There is only a handful of good content in this format (think the pixies stuck to Dolby for Minotaur) so it's hard to say how this would sound with current music as these are all going to be mixes that are 25 to 40 plus years old and despite the quashing of dynamic range today's engineers can get great sound from far less information--tho more is usually a bit better. ;-)