What he said....

[amirm]

This is the main relevant point in the article:

Again, Waldrep prefers to capture the extra octave, though. "If somebody says you can't hear that, I'm not concerned with that. But, as a format that's easy to deliver and cost effective, why not? Why would you roll that off just because somebody says I can't tell the difference?"

I don't want to hear a couple of guys whose expertise is in lossy audio compression talk about what is good for me when they have little expertise in that domain as evidenced by the FHG guy making the mistake of thinking dynamic range gets added to room noise floor. And that the room noise floor is the silly single number values. This is ABCs of audio reproduction which someone only spending time at algorithm level on a computer would miss. Just because they have audio in their titles doesn't mean they are the appropriate experts in this field.

 

[Orb]

Most pop/rock recordings use both types of compression.

And I get the sad feeling most studio systems used for majority pop/rock has to go through autotune (even if it is not required for the artist/band).
Would be interesting to see a study/investigation on how invasive/transparent autotune is (context when it is not really doing anything and also when being applied where I assume transparency really does go out the window).

Cheers
Orb

 

[thedudeabides]

The IPOD was pretty much the death sentence of "reasonably good sounding music" (to the average public) let alone hi - rez.

Hate to be the pessimist, or perhaps the realist, but from a large scale / public perspective, hi - rez, or other attempts to optimize consumer sonic quality, is going nowhere. There's simply no viable economic market.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This is the main relevant point in the article:

Again, Waldrep prefers to capture the extra octave, though. "If somebody says you can't hear that, I'm not concerned with that. But, as a format that's easy to deliver and cost effective, why not? Why would you roll that off just because somebody says I can't tell the difference?"

I don't want to hear a couple of guys whose expertise is in lossy audio compression talk about what is good for me when they have little expertise in that domain as evidenced by the FHG guy making the mistake of thinking dynamic range gets added to room noise floor. And that the room noise floor is the silly single number values. This is ABCs of audio reproduction which someone only spending time at algorithm level on a computer would miss. Just because they have audio in their titles doesn't mean they are the appropriate experts in this field.

You've been pretty clear that your position is " why not?" I don't disagree. The industry seems to though, perhaps because they've tried to find markets for hi-res before and have not found them to be worth the investment. And so decades of music have been hobbled by bad mastering and re-mastering.

Re-mastering back catalog, though, even badly, has proven to be profitable. Maybe it would go really well for them if they did it right. Worked out ok for the Beatles catalog. Little niche companies like HD Tacks can continue releasing their very limited offereing of hi-res, but I seriously doubt the major labels will ever go there, so I really wish the emphasis would shift toward mastering quality, where there's a chance to make a difference.

Tim

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I am for anything that advances the reproduction of music in our homes. I welcome the Hi-Rez that make a clear improvement IMHO. I very much like what HrX from Reference Recordings bring to the table. The music however is at best passable , would like more and better music to come through this extraordinary process .. I am not holding my breath and continue to buy music I like regardless and more often for modern fare be they Pop or Rock they are heavy-handed-ly compressed.I don't mind hi-Rez if indeed it does advance said cause. On that I am not clear, I have some Hi-Rez and some are great and some are from so-so to plain bad... Mastering is clearly the diferentitator in my view not the sample rates.
This said, I believe that we audiophiles would be an interesting subject of psychological and social study: We will fret on things which are definitely too small to account for anything , yet entirely neglect elements those that make a clear, repeatable, obvious and measurable difference. a quick example. Some are debating at length the power cable to use on an amp while there is certainly 10 dB peaks and valleys in their system overall frequency response at the listening position. Some will listen to half-million dollars system in a completely untreated and likely horrible rooms claiming incredible bass and great resolution.. examples are numerous and fit an interesting world-view. Which is exploited by many selling us up-sampled redbook as Hi-Rez...

 

[JackD201]

The IPOD was pretty much the death sentence of "reasonably good sounding music" (to the average public) let alone hi - rez.

Hate to be the pessimist, or perhaps the realist, but from a large scale / public perspective, hi - rez, or other attempts to optimize consumer sonic quality, is going nowhere. There's simply no viable economic market.

I'd go further back in time and point my finger at the prerecorded compact cassette.