Music Player Network Home Guitar Player Magazine Keyboard Magazine Bass Player Magazine EQ Magazine
Topic Options
#1797940 - 08/20/07 04:42 AM WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution?
Neil Wilkes Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 07/06/02
Posts: 515
Loc: London, UK
I've posted a similar rant in a couple of other forums as well, but want to run it by the members here as well.
It seems to me that us surround fans are being badly ripped off here, as there have been some potentially great releases that have dribbled through to us in the ghastly Dolby Digital format.
Imagine the outcry & furore if the stereoheads were only given MP3 or AAC encodes, and told they are fortunate to have it? You'd hear the howling on the Dark Side of the Moon!
Grea examples are the "new" Warners MVI titles. What a serious waste of time. I have the Rush one, Snakes & Arrows.
There is a 24/96 stereo, but the 5.1 gets Dobly only - and it sounds bloody terrible. Thanks for the "interactive" bits though guys - just what I always wanted as value for money, a Ring Tone generator & MP3 stereo versions. As I do not have a USA or Canadian post code, I cannot even file my feedback in the much-touted "We want your views, they are important to us" section.
Complete & total waste of plastic IMHO.
Another classic.
Steve Miller's "Fly Like An Eagle" 30th anniversary. GREAT surround mix, but again Dolby bloody Digital only. They do add a close on 2 hour concert that IMHO is boring beyond belief, and a documentary on the making of. Nowhere in this documentary does it mention DD only, but there is talk of "how great the mixes & the masters still sound after all these years". Well - we wouldn't know, would we - there is no High Resolution version available.

It's not the money. The mixes are not created in lossy crap like DD, they are done at least in 24/48. sometimes 24/96. Yet the trouble I can see here is that if the DD mixes do NOT sell, the labels will claim there is no demand & stop making them altogether. If they DO sell, the labels will claim we are happy with DD mixes. It's a fight I cannot see how to win, as whatever we do we will lose out.
It's not the authoring costs either. That is not as high as people think.
I don't believe there is no market - look how many the Beatles "Love" album sold in double pack, and the Doors Box Set also sold out. Warners have even reprinted these DVD-A there is that much demand for them.

I'd like to know what our members think on this matter.
_________________________
www.opusproductions.com

Top
#1800179 - 08/24/07 05:56 PM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Neil Wilkes]
Sunbreak Music Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/15/06
Posts: 138
I've only got one DD-- Foreigner 4. All I can think about is how good it would sound if...........
_________________________
Cass Anawaty, Chief Engineer
Sunbreak Music, LLC
High Resolution Stereo and Surround Mastering
http://www.sunbreakmusic.com

Top
#1804331 - 09/03/07 05:35 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Sunbreak Music]
Neil Wilkes Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 07/06/02
Posts: 515
Loc: London, UK
How strange that nobody seems to care about this.
Maybe people genuinely do not care about quality any more then.
I hope not.
_________________________
www.opusproductions.com

Top
#1804502 - 09/03/07 11:11 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Neil Wilkes]
JT77 Offline
Member

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 15
Loc: Austin, TX
I'll play Devil's Advocate here and say that it's hard to get people incensed about what amounts to a small difference in sound quality. Sure, you can hear it if you have a fairly high quality system, but most people don't. Buying high end stereo gear is expensive enough, and high end five channel is another world entirely.

So if the last word in quality isn't important enough for people to buy a good playback system, then they probably won't care whether the format is lossy or not. Let's face facts - AC3 is a fine sounding format for 99% of listeners (and in general, I think). I had my audiophile days, but now I find listening intently for smallish differences to be annoying. When I listen to music I want a good, clean, balanced sound but that's as much as I demand these days. I can't be bothered with the minutiae of audio reproduction when all I want is to listen to music I like.

That being said, there are some phenomenal MLP releases. "Hotel California" and "Sea Change" both leap to mind. These two albums were major factors in making me think that maybe hi-res is worthwhile for audio. It's just a shame that more care isn't taken with most releases.

Then there's the little matter of DVD-A and SACD being dead in the water due to consumer apathy... :\

Top
#1807756 - 09/10/07 06:28 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: JT77]
Neil Wilkes Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 07/06/02
Posts: 515
Loc: London, UK
Hello, Mr Devils Advocate.
Glad to get some response from someone.
IMHO - and in that of everyone who has listened to a Dolby Digital stream, followed by the DTS and then the lossless and can plainly hear the increase in quality - the difference is far from a small one. It is like night & day, and if you cannot hear this, then there is truly no hope. Crappy system aside, there is no excuse producing 3rd rate output just because there are a lot of people out there deaf as a post with crappy systems.
If we took that attitude, then nothing would ever improve as everything would always be deemed "Good Enough".

DVD-A is still not dead - despite all the stories. And it's current ill-health is not consumer apathy, but consumer ignorance due to a non existant marketing campaign & a total lack of desirable titles unless you're an old West-Coast hippy. Sad but true - and we all know it is.
Look how well the Doors set sold, and the Beatles Love album. very nice numbers - yet still no mention of the format at all in advertising. WHY?

As to care being taken, then you have a very good point here. It does seem somewhat bloody stupid to remix at 24/96 (or even 24/48) and destroy it in the so-called 'mastering' stage as is all too common these days.
_________________________
www.opusproductions.com

Top
#1808548 - 09/11/07 12:05 PM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Neil Wilkes]
JT77 Offline
Member

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 15
Loc: Austin, TX
Well, I've heard some pretty poor 24/96 material and some fine 16/44.1. So I tend to lean towards the "it's the production" train of thought.

I am wary of perceived differences between AC-3 and DTS. AC-3 has stringent dynamic range requirements whereas DTS does not. Quite a few DTS releases have higher average sound levels than their Dolby counterparts and that is often interpreted as "better".

As for hi-res stuff, it's hard to get an accurate comparison because the mix is often completely different from the CD release. Take, for example, Natalie Merchant's "Tigerlily" - the DVD-A sounds very different from the CD, but when you play them back to back it's very obvious that it was remixed and remastered (I'm referring to the hi-res stereo track).

My most impartial experience with hi-res has been going from 24-bit sessions to 16-bit bounces. In all fairness none have been beyond 48 kHz, but beyond a small loss in detail I can't be bothered by the difference. It's not the sort of thing I'd hear (much less care about) outside of an A/B listening situation. I think that plays into my other point: most people don't care enough about sound to A/B so why would they care about any hi-res format?

I only call DVD-A and SACD dead because I haven't seen their catalogs change significantly in a few years. I do like DVD-A being snuck in on DualDiscs though. \:\)


....and let's be real - there is an enormous installed base of DD and DTS systems out there and not nearly as many DVD-A and SACD systems (and many DVD-A/SACD owners may not be aware of their capabilities due to poor promotion, as you said).

The nice thing about DVD is the sheer saturation level. It won't be long before it's cheaper to just press DVDs instead of CDs and I get the feeling more hi-res tracks will sneak in. The space for "bonus content" is more likely to draw the average consumer away from ever-so-convenient MP3s than a CD as well.

Then we have HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Their storage dwarfs even DVD's capacity by a long shot and both Dolby and DTS have developed lossless surround for the new format. I think they have a better chance of weaselling their way into the market than DVD-A or SACD ever did (between consumer confusion and apathy and half-hearted promotion by the labels, did they ever have a serious chance?). The average Joe may not care, but we get the hi-res surround we want too.

Top
#1818574 - 10/02/07 11:56 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: JT77]
Neil Wilkes Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 07/06/02
Posts: 515
Loc: London, UK
I hear your points.
but - to me, MLP (or any lossless) sounds significantly better than DD or DTS - and I can pick the DTS from the DD as well, played on the same system.
I have even encoded both streams from the same 24/48 source, off the same timeline. Dialnorm in DD set to -31, so no attenuation. DTS set the same. DTS is better - period. much more detail in the top end. More natural sounding. with DD, you can hear the effects of the data reduction - it may be okay for film, where the centre channel is king, but not for music. It just does not work as well, and I have disc after disc I have authored where the difference is clearly audible from the exact same source files.

I do not expect either HD DVD or the Blu Ray discs to take over either - these are still the same problem as DVD-V - they are essentially VIDEO formats, where the visual component has domination - if you swap the visuals, the audio has to change and glitch with it. Only workaround is a bit-wasting movie. I cannot use browseable lyrics, or browseable galleries as I can in DVD-A without glitching audio playback.
And there is my concern - wityh video formats, the audio will not be given priority - it is not possible to do this.


Edited by Neil Wilkes (10/02/07 11:59 AM)
_________________________
www.opusproductions.com

Top
#1896597 - 02/22/08 06:34 PM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Neil Wilkes]
HarryE Offline
Member

Registered: 02/22/08
Posts: 10
Oh I hear you Neil.

I am a die-hard fan of DVD-A (how many of us are there?), and I hate SACD (although I think Blu-ray is uncharacteristically a format that Sony hasn't tried to screw both the industry AND the consumers with, like SACD. Man, don't get me started with SACD, my blood's already starting to boil. \:\) )

You know, I think it's two main problems:

1. Mainstream trends have more gone the other way - portable, iPod, and shudder (I can hardly say it) - mp3. And this, I am very sad to conclude, has changed the way a lot of people listen to music. They listen to it in their car, , they listen to it when they exercise, they listen to it when they travel, basically, when they're doing something ELSE, and they take THAT as their music experience!

And I think this is a cultural change which is extremely worrying to me, as I'm a musician by profession. I fear it is a change which is watering down the experience of recorded music, when it should be going the other way. And even recorded music is second best - the live experience is where the 'real' stuff happens (double meaning intended). The power and experience of music has been reduced to almost NOTHING.

There will always be at least a niche for it. People like us will love 24-bit surround forever. But it seems society in general is becoming so fast-paced, stimulated, and entertainment-based that that they are no longer entertained enough by just listening to music. They will sit down and watch VIDEO, but anything less is like a waste of their time.

About that, one thing I prefer, is to just LISTEN to a DVD-Audio, not use the TV. If you do that you end up staring at the screen and that's not music, is it? DVD-Audio should have been the successor to *CD*, and JUST that. IMO that is where SACD does do something right. Not for simplicity's sake, but the simple reason that it should be MUSIC, and nothing else. Yeah yeah, it may add more value to the product and be genuinely interesting and all, but really, leave the video to DVD if people want to watch it. When there's video, people will want to turn the TV on, so it's best to just not have it there in the first place. Also, I'll tell you what, the name SACD is what DVD-Audio should have been named. If you could have combined the respective advantages of both formats, (and unified industry support for crying out loud) it would've (perhaps) taken off IMO.

The Hi-res surround experience is the only one which is very static physically. It has to be in a fairly large room (the average bedroom can only accommodate some crappy PC 5.1 system more suited for (again, shudder) Dolby Digital. So it really is limited to one place in the house, and sadly people only usually want to spend their time watching the screen in that space. for me, it is a haven for experiencing what's on the other side of the world - in Europe, where it's too dang cold anyway \:P (Aussie here)

Like you, I don't know how we can change this. I'm thinking blu-ray 24-bit movies might help spur interest, but music at the end of the day is a completely different ballgame. And that's just it - in movies, the music is secondary. People don't seem to care about the music on its own. It's taken second fiddle, to, uh...man this is getting depressing. ;\)


2. The second main problem - good enough equipment is ruddy expensive! Why can't great-sounding systems be cheaper, maybe they will sell more, then (component) companies will have to manufacture more as a result, and they will actually make MORE money! I have always thought this. Get great equipment into people's homes, and then they will hear the difference. Maybe this needs to start from the beginning - cost to manufacturer. I dunno.

I have often wondered, what about amazing (albeit stereo) headphones, like the Shure E500PTH (there's probably ones much better. I don't care too much for headphones)? That's portable, yet great little speakers for your ears. But then, the low quality of what's driving the music is exposed, seriously exposed. Will technology ever get so good that great audio can be squeezed into portable devices?? I dunno. certainly not at the moment.

-----
On the side...

One of the other reasons I like DVD-A is that I can play around with my own tracks. I have some studio stuff of my own and how nice, even if only at 48kHz (wish MLP was cheap), is it to hear my very own stuff in 24-bit surround in my living room. SACD can't do that for me.
-----

I'm with you brother.
Phew. that was a rant.

H

Top
#1896942 - 02/23/08 01:23 PM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: HarryE]
AudioMaverick Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 05/19/01
Posts: 1794
Loc: Outskirts of Big Bear, CA,UNIT...
Hey, Neil... I decided to pop in and see what's been happening around here, lately. I see the same "rant" on a new day. I agree with you, and see similar followings on the debate sides. I have the same tune playing on my violin as I did 5 years ago.

I don't have a really 'clear' answer for the phenomena of people settling for less. But, I see this trend in many arenas, not all in the way of audio. Video is running into the same dilemma. HD video is slow in adoption. People are happy enough with their "standard definition" cable, satellite and DVD material on their HD TVs. Even with HD-DVD falling off the radar this week, I will speculate Blu-Ray will still be slow to be adopted. I am even waiting to see what Blu-Ray offering will be available late this summer.

The human "good enough" factor seems to go into other areas, too. I can explain the reason why it is bad to buy the cheaper copier paper and toner cartridges for the network printers, at the office. But, the 'cheaper' stuff gets purchased, and we spend the money to have the systems worked on after the lint and abrasive toner causes them to fail early.

I could follow into other territory and take this way off topic, but I stop. In the end, I also wish there was something to take advantage of the capabilities we have these days. As it is, I don't buy much in the way of audio these days. I too often end up importing CDs into Audition and trying to make it sound such that I can tolerate the tracks. My 5.1 mixing room is packed away these days. I enjoy trying to make really sonic recordings. I can't find many clients who would be interested...

Keep on with the quest. If enough of us keep at it, people may listen. If we could only get the masses listen to live performance of something that would get them to understand...
_________________________

"It's all about the... um-m-m, uh-h-h..."

Top
#1897046 - 02/23/08 05:51 PM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Neil Wilkes]
Griffinator Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club

Registered: 03/28/02
Posts: 20318
Loc: Lynchburg, VA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Neil Wilkes
IMHO - and in that of everyone who has listened to a Dolby Digital stream, followed by the DTS and then the lossless and can plainly hear the increase in quality - the difference is far from a small one.


You missed the point here, I think.

Consumers (you know, the village idiots out there that consume this stuff in sufficient quantities to make manufacturers care) aren't willing to invest in the gear that lets you hear the difference in quality.

When people go out in droves to purchase $100 complete surround systems (that's amp, dvd player, speakers, and "subwoofer" - using that term as liberally as it can be) you have to know that they're hearing a bunch of shit, not good surround. They wouldn't know the difference between DD and Pro Logic I - except that they'd complain about the Pro Logic not putting enough volume in the back channels...

Top
#1899882 - 02/27/08 02:33 PM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Griffinator]
miroslav Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club

Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 14215
Loc: NY Hudson Valley, USA
I don't think consumers are consciously picking lower quality...it just happens that the medium that is most acceptible from a convenience/cost perspective...only runs as low quality crap.
If iPods were able to deliver high-end audio at the same cost and storage capacity, then the consumers would be happily listening to that.

It is the technology that has created the lower standards, and the consumers have simply stepped up to the watering hole.
You will never beat them over the head and force them to choose "better" quality.
It has to be made very affordable and very available...and right now MP3 is King... \:\(
_________________________
miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Top
#1900176 - 02/28/08 01:30 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Griffinator]
Neil Wilkes Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 07/06/02
Posts: 515
Loc: London, UK
Harry.

You're wrong about Blu Ray.
The sole reason this exists is because Hollywood wanted better Copy Protection. Something had to be given back, so a flawed HD was it.
AACS is mandatory on BD discs, and the license is seriously expensive & has to be bought - per title - by the content owner. Plus the authoring house has to have a license.
2 applications exist for replicable content - Scenarist 4 & Blu Print. Both are $50,000 plus mandatory extras (Sony's Blu Print carries a $7000 or a $10000 per annum service agreement that is mandatory)
All other "tools" are for BD-R and BD-RE only. Now Sony have a monopoly, this is not likely to change either.
Again it is a video format, and the adoption of this has all but told small studios to get the hell out of the ballpark as you cannot afford to play. There will be the occasional concert release, but not many. It is just too expensive to create & author.
_________________________
www.opusproductions.com

Top
#1900228 - 02/28/08 05:36 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Neil Wilkes]
HarryE Offline
Member

Registered: 02/22/08
Posts: 10
 Originally Posted By: Neil Wilkes
Harry.

You're wrong about Blu Ray.
The sole reason this exists is because Hollywood wanted better Copy Protection. Something had to be given back, so a flawed HD was it.
AACS is mandatory on BD discs, and the license is seriously expensive & has to be bought - per title - by the content owner. Plus the authoring house has to have a license.
2 applications exist for replicable content - Scenarist 4 & Blu Print. Both are $50,000 plus mandatory extras (Sony's Blu Print carries a $7000 or a $10000 per annum service agreement that is mandatory)
All other "tools" are for BD-R and BD-RE only. Now Sony have a monopoly, this is not likely to change either.
Again it is a video format, and the adoption of this has all but told small studios to get the hell out of the ballpark as you cannot afford to play. There will be the occasional concert release, but not many. It is just too expensive to create & author.

This is a side of the story I haven't seen before.

I'm not too knowledgeable on what "replicable" discs are, and how much better they are with compatibility/performance "standards" and all that (or if I misunderstood what you were saying), but I'm pretty sure nice respectable quality BD-R discs can be made by prosumers like me, with inexpensive tools and without content protection. So maybe they are screwing the industry (which doesn't sound good/too surprising anyway), but I wonder if DVD is much different...I honestly don't know. And maybe more affordable licences/pro authoring software will come out in time. Minnetoka didn't come out straight away, as far as I know. And there's MUCH less interest in DVD-Audio!

So, you can't say that with Blu-ray Sony's "screwing" consumers, not like SACD. But this is very interesting and maybe my love/hate relationship with Sony just teetered more to one side. But it is a simple fact that Blu-ray is currently, technically, the "highest" definition in both video and audio available to consumers. Honestly, from a consumer pov I think it's not too bad at all. You know why I'm interested in making my own cheap BD discs maybe some time in the future? It would allow me to burn the simple (and beloved) PCM of my 24/96 multitrack mixes I have lying around, without having to worry about stupid commercial, expensive and closed codecs. I could even try 7.1.

I really don't want to get on each other's wrong sides, because we are rare DVD-Audio buffs. Let's keep it that way. I suppose I only mentioned blu-ray to assert that while I detest SACD, I do not hate ALL Sony-created formats (and definitely not their products). I appreciate their portable Hi-MD recorders e.g.

H

Top
#1900272 - 02/28/08 06:59 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: miroslav]
Griffinator Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club

Registered: 03/28/02
Posts: 20318
Loc: Lynchburg, VA, USA
 Originally Posted By: miroslav
I don't think consumers are consciously picking lower quality...it just happens that the medium that is most acceptible from a convenience/cost perspective...only runs as low quality crap.


We have been conditioned in this country (thanks, in large part, to the personal computer) that technology cost deflates over time, and that whatever version of a technology that was creme de la creme two years ago can be had at a bargain today.

The problem is, while surround audio experienced a "deflation" of sorts, it never got any cheaper to make a quality speaker or a quality amplifier. The public is (tragically) mostly unaware of this reality. They waddle out in droves to buy $100 surround systems because they assume such systems will sound just as good as the multi-thousand-dollar surround systems sold a few years ago - and they're wrong, but no one at the stores is going to tell them that...

Top
#1900306 - 02/28/08 07:50 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Griffinator]
HarryE Offline
Member

Registered: 02/22/08
Posts: 10
 Originally Posted By: Griffinator
 Originally Posted By: miroslav
I don't think consumers are consciously picking lower quality...it just happens that the medium that is most acceptible from a convenience/cost perspective...only runs as low quality crap.


We have been conditioned in this country (thanks, in large part, to the personal computer) that technology cost deflates over time, and that whatever version of a technology that was creme de la creme two years ago can be had at a bargain today.

The problem is, while surround audio experienced a "deflation" of sorts, it never got any cheaper to make a quality speaker or a quality amplifier. The public is (tragically) mostly unaware of this reality. They waddle out in droves to buy $100 surround systems because they assume such systems will sound just as good as the multi-thousand-dollar surround systems sold a few years ago - and they're wrong, but no one at the stores is going to tell them that...

Yes, it's because speakers are not an evolving technology like computers, DVD players, projectors, or even A/V receivers. They haven't gotten cheaper because they haven't evolved, because they don't need to evolve (at least not in the sense that computers do). Electronically, they're very simple pieces of equipment and all they need is raw quality. In fact, technically they're electric, not electronic, right? It's a shame that they've constantly been expensive. I think, for their sakes, they should make them more affordable. Maybe they they would see a boom as a result. I've always been stumped at this.

Or, maybe we should all accept speakers for what they are, that they're like the piano - already perfected a craftsmanship, and you pay less for a not-so-impressive piano and you pay max for a concert grand made by Steinway. But it's a shame because a lot of people are missing out on how good a sound quality they can experience. And if we want widespread adoption of quality surround speakers, they are going to HAVE to be cheaper.

Top
#1901404 - 03/01/08 07:27 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: HarryE]
Griffinator Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club

Registered: 03/28/02
Posts: 20318
Loc: Lynchburg, VA, USA
 Originally Posted By: HarryE
It's a shame that they've constantly been expensive. I think, for their sakes, they should make them more affordable. Maybe they they would see a boom as a result. I've always been stumped at this.


Fact: MDF has a fixed cost - it ain't gonna get any cheaper. Similar problems with other crucial components - quality cone material is expensive, titanium is expensive, heavy magnets are expensive, etc, etc.

The only way to reduce the cost of building a speaker is to cut corners on one or more of these fronts - and there goes the quality of the speaker. The reason the $99 surround system sounds so woefully bad is because everything was sacrificed for the sake of cost - the satellite speakers use cheap, inefficient, clock-radio-grade 2" paper midrange drivers. The "subwoofer" is a 5" paper midrange driver as well, with a cheap crossover built in. Oh - and the built-in amplifier is capable of mustering a mere 100 watts peak for all 6 of these cheap, inefficient (<75dB 1W/1M) hunks of crap.

What people are demanding is a complete package that includes amp, speakers, and media player, for less than $200, and it just can't happen without destroying the sound quality - but they don't know that.

Top
#1906067 - 03/09/08 08:31 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Griffinator]
HarryE Offline
Member

Registered: 02/22/08
Posts: 10
 Originally Posted By: Griffinator
 Originally Posted By: HarryE
It's a shame that they've constantly been expensive. I think, for their sakes, they should make them more affordable. Maybe they they would see a boom as a result. I've always been stumped at this.


Fact: MDF has a fixed cost - it ain't gonna get any cheaper. Similar problems with other crucial components - quality cone material is expensive, titanium is expensive, heavy magnets are expensive, etc, etc.

The only way to reduce the cost of building a speaker is to cut corners on one or more of these fronts - and there goes the quality of the speaker. The reason the $99 surround system sounds so woefully bad is because everything was sacrificed for the sake of cost - the satellite speakers use cheap, inefficient, clock-radio-grade 2" paper midrange drivers. The "subwoofer" is a 5" paper midrange driver as well, with a cheap crossover built in. Oh - and the built-in amplifier is capable of mustering a mere 100 watts peak for all 6 of these cheap, inefficient (<75dB 1W/1M) hunks of crap.

What people are demanding is a complete package that includes amp, speakers, and media player, for less than $200, and it just can't happen without destroying the sound quality - but they don't know that.

thanks for explaining that.

well then I guess this whole issue will always remain. just like, say windsurfing, hi-res music will always stay within the status of something either for the wealthy who just see it as just another plaything/show off item as part of their lifestyle, or the enthusiasts who are really into it as a hobby/passion. sad. SO then - why did the music industry even AIM for dvd-audio/sacd to become the mainstream replacement to cd? they should have realized that the consumer can't even enjoy it properly unless you have expensive equipment to play it back. sigh...yet another fault/mistake of the industry...or perhaps, more so the manufacturers like sony/toshiba. well at least they've given something, however small, for people like us to enjoy.

Top
#1914145 - 03/22/08 06:00 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: HarryE]
Neil Wilkes Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 07/06/02
Posts: 515
Loc: London, UK
Sorry to differ here, but I still refuse to see High Res Surround as in any way for "the wealthy".
A decent system is certainly not unaffordable.
Let's do some sums:
1 - 5 Decent speakers - going down to 40Hz will be perfectly acceptable, even 45/50Hz. You can use management to offload anything under that to the LFE. Cost? Not out of reach by any stretch - we have a perfectly rreasonable sound in the bedroom using Tannoy Reveals in a 6.1 config. Sure, they're not studio grade - those are in our studio. But believe me, they are perfectly listenable.
2 - Amplifier/Reciever - In UK money, £250 upwards will get you there (Cambridge Audio are very under-rated & make some fine Hi-Fi)
3 - Player - A Universal is used by most, Denon 2930 or better, and older 2910 is still fine, go more if you want to. The 2910 will give you everything except newer Blue Laser, and that is for films. I also keep DVD-A/SACD apart from DVD-V Movie (different setup in the firmware) and also have a fileserver for CD. DTS-CD will work of all of them.
4 - Some form of screen, then you can combine DVD-Video into the setup & keep the wifey happy. I'm lucky, my partner is as heavily into Multichannel as I am. She has her favourites, I have mine & there is much common ground.

In summary, we spent around £1500, plus another £1,000 on a Plasma screen. I got lucky with the DVD-V player & Fileserver, as I was given those. It would have been another £1,000 if I had to pay for them. So in all honesty we have a very good sounding system that cost under £1500, and it's not a lot of money these days. Where is the "wealthy" part of that?
Okay - now let's talk about an ideal system.
I would go for the Meridian DVD-A player - the 8000 series.
Now we're talking £20,000 upwards for the complete system. Out of my reach.
For now, anyway......

 Quote:
more so the manufacturers like sony/toshiba. well at least they've given something, however small, for people like us to enjoy.

Sony never gave anyone anything. They are making a huge loss on every PS3 sold not because they want to give you anything at all, but because they want to own - outright - the so-called "next big thing".
CD & Vinyl still refuse to go away & die (nobody told them they are meant to be "dead" I guess)
_________________________
www.opusproductions.com

Top
#1917648 - 03/28/08 08:56 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Neil Wilkes]
DanS Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 11/14/00
Posts: 6500
Loc: Montréal
I agree, great sound doesn't have to cost a fortune.
I have Adam P22's in my studio, and a Rotel/Boston Acoustics amp/speaker combo for 2 channel listening upstairs.
I plan to spend around $3-5k for a surround system one of these days. Then again, I'm not into all the esoteric tube amp stuff either.
_________________________
What we record in life, echoes in eternity.

MOXF8, XK1c, Motif XSr, PEKPER, Voyager, Univox MiniKorg.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Daniel-Steckos-Blunt-Instruments/556480307717684

Top
#1917981 - 03/28/08 05:04 PM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: DanS]
HarryE Offline
Member

Registered: 02/22/08
Posts: 10
No, it certainly doesn't cost a fortune. But it's just too expensive to be within the mass adoption circle.

People don't appreciate audio as much (as video). So they won't place as much value on it. Combine that with the fact that an average decent 5.1 system will cost MORE than an average decent HDTV ($1000 entry level), indeed noticeably more.

I reckon a way out of this would be to...<politician's voice>educate the people<p v>. If only they knew how amazing quality surround sound is, on both movies and music, they would realise that it's good stuff so it's a little expensive like an HDTV, but worth it.

Top
#1918781 - 03/30/08 11:50 AM Re: WHY so many lossy releases? WHY no High Resolution? [Re: Neil Wilkes]
Griffinator Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club

Registered: 03/28/02
Posts: 20318
Loc: Lynchburg, VA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Neil Wilkes
Sorry to differ here, but I still refuse to see High Res Surround as in any way for "the wealthy".
A decent system is certainly not unaffordable.
Let's do some sums:
1 - 5 Decent speakers - going down to 40Hz will be perfectly acceptable, even 45/50Hz. You can use management to offload anything under that to the LFE. Cost? Not out of reach by any stretch - we have a perfectly rreasonable sound in the bedroom using Tannoy Reveals in a 6.1 config. Sure, they're not studio grade - those are in our studio. But believe me, they are perfectly listenable.


Well, 6 Tannoy Reveal 6's (the cheapest they have) would set you back about $1300. That ain't cheap by any stretch of the imagination.

 Quote:
2 - Amplifier/Reciever - In UK money, £250 upwards will get you there (Cambridge Audio are very under-rated & make some fine Hi-Fi)


That's another $500 - and you're still in an entry level combo unit.

 Quote:
3 - Player - A Universal is used by most, Denon 2930 or better, and older 2910 is still fine, go more if you want to. The 2910 will give you everything except newer Blue Laser, and that is for films. I also keep DVD-A/SACD apart from DVD-V Movie (different setup in the firmware) and also have a fileserver for CD. DTS-CD will work of all of them.


Hell, for a player, you can pretty much get a combo player that'll do it all for <$300 - but our current tab is now $2100 total.
 Quote:
In summary, we spent around £1500, plus another £1,000 on a Plasma screen. I got lucky with the DVD-V player & Fileserver, as I was given those. It would have been another £1,000 if I had to pay for them. So in all honesty we have a very good sounding system that cost under £1500, and it's not a lot of money these days. Where is the "wealthy" part of that?


$3000 (£1500) is a LOT of money for the average consumer to drop on an audio system.

[quote]Okay - now let's talk about an ideal system.
I would go for the Meridian DVD-A player - the 8000 series.
Now we're talking £20,000 upwards for the complete system. Out of my reach.[quote]

My dream system is somewhere in the $40-50K range as well. I know the feeling. *sigh*

Top