Slashdot Mirror
New Digital Audio Formats
Hack Jandy writes "Anandtech is running an article about new digital audio formats, including DVD-A and SACD. It also discusses how the newest digital audio processors from Intel will handle these audio formats in the future; a good primer for anyone interested in something a little more capable than CDs."
No doubt we'll be paying for these new audio mediums in a direct proportion to CD capacity and cost (holds 2x audio, we pay 2x much).
Almost all speakers connected to current DVD Video, DVD Audio, and SACD players use an analog connection. In countries whose copyright traditions recognize audio space-shifting as fair use, there's no reason, given a high-fidelity DAC and ADC, that the median listener (or even the 90-odd percentile listener) can't get acceptable quality through the analog hole. Therefore, any digital restrictions management on audio is moot.
Nobody needs an audio format that has a frequency range of more than 40kHz anyway because they can't hear the difference. You can only hear up to 20kHz, and you only need twice that because of the Nyquist theorem. What people need is good engineers mixing and mastering at ludicrous frequency ranges and then dithering it to something reasonable. Even though sound is also mixed at higher (and often floating point) bitrates, having 24-bit sound for the consumer would be more practical since it offers a wider dynamic range. Not that any rap or pop music has a dynamic range :)
English is easier said than done.
There are NO new audio formats that will replace CD. There are only two groups that want something other than CD Audio anyway: Audiophiles and the Recording Industry. Audiophiles want better fidelity and the industry wants DRM. 95% of consumers don't want either. As long as that is the case, I think it really will be something the market will control and not the big corporations. Add to that everyone already has a CD burner... and new audio formats are destined to failure.
The "Hi-definition" formats all have completely different mixes to the CDs making meaningful comparison impossible.
Why do people assume that the people who designed CDDA were stupid? No amplifier/speaker/room combination at any price is accurate enough to resolve the resolution of CD audio. The air current around your ears is louder than the CD noise floor, and the human ear is not equipped to hear a 20khz tone.
Ok, I'm in my mid 40's, you need to know that as it gives some sort of perspective on my views on this.
I still own the old 7 inch reel to reel Sony Tapecorder 500 that my dad bought in the sixties, they still had many of the ten inch (?) 78 rpm records, as well as the newer 45 rpm singles and 33.3 rpm "long playing" records.
The reel to reel was the god of quality, especially on the faster speed settings eg 3.75 (?) inches per second, and even better it was of course stereo, long playing records were still mono.
A few years go by and long players and singles went stereo, but rpm stayed the same, disc material changed and most notably turntables and pickups changed and quality improved.
Along the way there were a few wierdos, I still have a Philips quadrophonic system with active (mains powered with integrated amplifiers and feedback circuits) speakers (which are a lovely sound) but pretty much by the time _I_ started buying music the standards were set, noticeably enough that things like picture disks and coloured vinyl had sufficiently different physical characteristics that any reasonably good stereo could show an audibly loss of quality with such media.
Only trouble was, especially at parties, you ended up buying copies of records you already owned because the last copy got scratched yet again...
Then came compact cassette, (i'm going to gloss over 8 track, because it was the betamax of self contained audio tape formats, technically better but still sidelined) much lower audio quality than vinyl but a really user friendly physical package and very very tough, until the tape got chewed by worn pinch rollers...
Compact cassette evolved, notably the run times, especially for blanks which everyone bought to record their vinyl onto to save the vinyl from wear and tear, grew to 60 minutes, 90 minutes, 120 minutes etc, but most people thought the longer tapes were too prone to stretch, and a C90 TDK SA tape was just long enough to hold a complete long playing record on each side, which was nice and not just by chance.... autoreversing players saved even the hassle of flipping the tape.
Apart from this the real advantage was the ability, just like the old reel to reel jobs, or making your own compilation albums.....
Players with dual decks made especially with high speed dubbing ability were cool too....
Then CD's came out, CD's were totally indestructible, so despite the fact that I had probably already purchased, for example, Hurry On Sundown / Hawkwind 6 or seven times on vinyl and 2 or 3 on compact cassette, I bought it yet again on CD.
I was pretty disappointed that the quality, although much better than compact cassette, wasn't quite up to a new unscratched vinyl quality, but the indestructibility of this new medium won me over, this was the same as compact cassette, only with better quality......... then about 3 months later my first CD delaminated and started skipping..... then more did......
Now I have 100 gig of Mp3's, at 192 kbps and digital at that (as opposed to analogue) the quality is not as good as new vinyl, but it is reasonably close to new CD audio, and as good as compact cassette, more importantly, by the time the vinyl has become scratched, the compact cassette deoxidised and the compact disk delaminated the quality of the mp3 beats them all, quite apart from anything else because it STILL BLOODY PLAYS and notably compared to the CD being digital it isn't fucked up by the medium it is recorded on to (unless the HD crashes I suppose)... perhaps most significantly it is really compact in filesize so I can get around 170 tracks on a CDR of the same capacity as will hold 12 original cd audio format (red book) tracks, blank cdr cost me pennies, literally about 1% of the cost of a shop bought music CD.
Sony minidisk was cool too, but it seems to be another betamax / 8-track type casualty, technically superior, but never reaching critical (useful) mass and so forever destined to niche / speciality mark
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
99% of people are happy with 128Kbps MP3. They have crappy stereos or listen to FM radio in their noisy cars. For a format to be very successful it has to be compelling to the masses and not offer something so boringly incremental that it doesn't even matter.
IMHO the labels/music industry are just trying to create yet another format in order to try and get everyone to buy all their music AGAIN. Their sales are nothing like they were during the '90s when everyone was busy buying all their old music on CD.
On a final note, I went to see that Star Wars digital thing on a digital projector. Unfortunately, the projector was out of order so they were just using the old 35 or 70mm projection system. At the end of the movie the guy next to me (who didn't know that the digital was out of order) commented on how amazing the digital quality was. I didn't have the heart to break the news to him. This is how I see these new higher quality (not multi channel) audio formats.