There's already an audio standard that takes no prisoners: DVD-Audio. As soon as it becomes the standard instead of C D :eek: you will have no more licesnce ot go aroundcomplainging about lack of sound quailty. And people though CDs are hifi! Ha!
<strong>There's already an audio standard that takes no prisoners: DVD-Audio. As soon as it becomes the standard instead of C D :eek: you will have no more licesnce ot go aroundcomplainging about lack of sound quailty. And people though CDs are hifi! Ha!
Well, it would've been huge step forward, I was certainly rootin' for it, but Sony and a few others didn't want to go DVD - probably because they'd rather people keep buying separate CD style players with enhanced bit rates for music and separate DVD players for movies, sell more boxes that way (perhaps because, after all, they're in the business of making hardware) - regardless, for whatever reason, they wanted to sell this whole new crazy non DVD format so the whole DVD audio thing floundered.
By the time any such DVD red lazer standard finally gets any real traction (and the likes of Sony quit kidding themselves, there's no way consumers who are going gangbusters hooking up 5.1 home systems, will want to spend the extra cash for "enhanced" CDs and another separate box to play them)- Blue lazer DVD's will likely start coming out anyway ...
Meaning - if the music industry's got any sense - and yes that's questionable - there's a good chance we'll see "DVD Audio II" by then anyway.
Figured I'd take a moment to remind you what my earlier post was about:
1 - Most people can hear the difference and can hear it on a half-decent pair of bookshelfs. No magic required - because ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd have to disagree. Most of it is psychological. You wouldn't noticeably hear a difference unless you were trained to hear it.
<strong>
2 - You don't have to be able to hear 20k to hear the difference.
</strong>
Agreed this is technically correct, but I still digress!
<strong>
And as a special bonus:
The SPL vitalizer was nice for some things (like mushing up low end to give a distinct low-fi sound),
</strong>[/QUOTE]
don't agree it mushes!. Definately don't agree the quality is lo-fi.
<strong>
but mostly it wound up being an over-used mid 90's fad ...
</strong>[/QUOTE]
I thought it's best use was for radio broadcasting , on low bandwith communication etc.
<strong>
if I had a nickel for every mix that came in over-mushed, over separated and over "shiny" thanks to that box and others like it, I'd be up to my eyelids in hookers and cocaine ... but alas - the artists beat me to it <sigh>, and so many mixes came in over-mushed, over separated and over "shiny" - but I digress.
</strong>[/QUOTE]
Agreed that over use of this box is an easy way to completely fvck it up. However when used on a single channel, ie bass line, it does improve perception. The key was to keep the FX mixed in about 10-25%. Anymore and well, it got silly. Its easy for newbie mixers to get possessed by the sound and completely overdo it. But they're amaters falling for the ear candy. Most commercial recordings of dance music i heard, I really couldn't say if it was being used. Most pro recordings done properly wouldn't need more than a sprinke of SPL, if at all.
<strong>
All these things, the Aphex, the BBE, and the Vitalizer, where all designed as compensators for bad storage mediums ... magic one stop "fix it" boxes (which, if you actually believe in their effectiveness as you claim, means you're actions are admitting to the limitations of the medium, you're ability to hear those limitations despite your mere "techno-babble claim", and your personal need to fix them) so put your lips together and say "Mia Culpa".
</strong>[/QUOTE]
While I agree with this statement, I'd also point out that a 44.1khz recording done by a professional would sound pretty damn good anyway, and the whole point I was trying to make is that most people could enjoy a pro 44.1 recording as much as they could a 192 one. And I bet if you sat 100 average people in a room, played them a minidisc(5:1 compression), CD, or a 192 recording on good equipment, most couldn't tell which was which, even if they could hear a slight difference, *because*, at the end of the day, some people would say that they preferred the sound of minidisc, and they'dd tell you that it must be the 192 recording because it sounds better to them. When you're talking differences this small, personal psychoaucausic preferences would be the overall preference factor. And I bet if you gave all the recordings a 15% SPL trreatment, everone would say that it was the best sounding. Of course, audio engineers like us would turn in our graves.
<strong>
... that out of the way, here's a simple idea ...
\t... why don't we just build an audio standard we don't have to compensate for?
Like say 192/24.
:eek: </strong>[/QUOTE]
Sure, Ive got no problem increasing resolution, it certainly is good for recording bandwidth, esecially of real instrumentation, but I still disagree that 99% of the population would notice a benefit.
Comments
[ 02-25-2002: Message edited by: cdhostage ]</p>
<strong>There's already an audio standard that takes no prisoners: DVD-Audio. As soon as it becomes the standard instead of C D :eek: you will have no more licesnce ot go aroundcomplainging about lack of sound quailty. And people though CDs are hifi! Ha!
[ 02-25-2002: Message edited by: cdhostage ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, it would've been huge step forward, I was certainly rootin' for it, but Sony and a few others didn't want to go DVD - probably because they'd rather people keep buying separate CD style players with enhanced bit rates for music and separate DVD players for movies, sell more boxes that way (perhaps because, after all, they're in the business of making hardware) - regardless, for whatever reason, they wanted to sell this whole new crazy non DVD format so the whole DVD audio thing floundered.
By the time any such DVD red lazer standard finally gets any real traction (and the likes of Sony quit kidding themselves, there's no way consumers who are going gangbusters hooking up 5.1 home systems, will want to spend the extra cash for "enhanced" CDs and another separate box to play them)- Blue lazer DVD's will likely start coming out anyway ...
Meaning - if the music industry's got any sense - and yes that's questionable - there's a good chance we'll see "DVD Audio II" by then anyway.
Originally posted by OverToasty:
<strong>
Figured I'd take a moment to remind you what my earlier post was about:
1 - Most people can hear the difference and can hear it on a half-decent pair of bookshelfs. No magic required - because ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd have to disagree. Most of it is psychological. You wouldn't noticeably hear a difference unless you were trained to hear it.
<strong>
2 - You don't have to be able to hear 20k to hear the difference.
</strong>
Agreed this is technically correct, but I still digress!
<strong>
And as a special bonus:
The SPL vitalizer was nice for some things (like mushing up low end to give a distinct low-fi sound),
</strong>[/QUOTE]
don't agree it mushes!. Definately don't agree the quality is lo-fi.
<strong>
but mostly it wound up being an over-used mid 90's fad ...
</strong>[/QUOTE]
I thought it's best use was for radio broadcasting , on low bandwith communication etc.
<strong>
if I had a nickel for every mix that came in over-mushed, over separated and over "shiny" thanks to that box and others like it, I'd be up to my eyelids in hookers and cocaine ... but alas - the artists beat me to it <sigh>, and so many mixes came in over-mushed, over separated and over "shiny" - but I digress.
</strong>[/QUOTE]
Agreed that over use of this box is an easy way to completely fvck it up. However when used on a single channel, ie bass line, it does improve perception. The key was to keep the FX mixed in about 10-25%. Anymore and well, it got silly. Its easy for newbie mixers to get possessed by the sound and completely overdo it. But they're amaters falling for the ear candy. Most commercial recordings of dance music i heard, I really couldn't say if it was being used. Most pro recordings done properly wouldn't need more than a sprinke of SPL, if at all.
<strong>
All these things, the Aphex, the BBE, and the Vitalizer, where all designed as compensators for bad storage mediums ... magic one stop "fix it" boxes (which, if you actually believe in their effectiveness as you claim, means you're actions are admitting to the limitations of the medium, you're ability to hear those limitations despite your mere "techno-babble claim", and your personal need to fix them) so put your lips together and say "Mia Culpa".
</strong>[/QUOTE]
While I agree with this statement, I'd also point out that a 44.1khz recording done by a professional would sound pretty damn good anyway, and the whole point I was trying to make is that most people could enjoy a pro 44.1 recording as much as they could a 192 one. And I bet if you sat 100 average people in a room, played them a minidisc(5:1 compression), CD, or a 192 recording on good equipment, most couldn't tell which was which, even if they could hear a slight difference, *because*, at the end of the day, some people would say that they preferred the sound of minidisc, and they'dd tell you that it must be the 192 recording because it sounds better to them. When you're talking differences this small, personal psychoaucausic preferences would be the overall preference factor. And I bet if you gave all the recordings a 15% SPL trreatment, everone would say that it was the best sounding. Of course, audio engineers like us would turn in our graves.
<strong>
... that out of the way, here's a simple idea ...
\t... why don't we just build an audio standard we don't have to compensate for?
Like say 192/24.
:eek: </strong>[/QUOTE]
Sure, Ive got no problem increasing resolution, it certainly is good for recording bandwidth, esecially of real instrumentation, but I still disagree that 99% of the population would notice a benefit.