How much longer will Audio CD's last?? They've been around for as long as I can remember. Is there a better format on it's way in? I've heard of DVD-A and SACD. Can anyone give me more information?

The search button can

Yea, there are other formats, but I don't think people care. Personally, I think 5.1 and 7.1 are overkill for music. Stereo give the best sound to me.

I totally agree.
I never dreamed of hearing my old blues records played on a 7.1 equipment.
Concerning SACD, the big problem is that we have only little choice of albums available to choose from (I live in Old Europe). The only one worth buying (given my tastes in music) is Pink Floyd's DSOTM. But, honestly I wouldn't buy a new and expensive player just to get my Pink Floyd experience, though it's probably worth a try. The same thing about DVD Audio.
Audio CD may be dying, but only slowly...

edit: typo

And I can't rip nor copy DVD-As nor SACDs, so why would I pay more for something less ?

I don't think the future will be SACD or DVD-A....the future is what we are doing now, that is digitized music on flash chips or HDD's, and electronic transmission/delivery. A format not tied to a particular physical disc or media means that music could potentially sound better or contain more features without the obsolescence issues that come about as a result of going from LP to CD, etc. An example of this: I didn't need to change hardware when I went from Blade Mp3's to MPC, but the increase in quality was astonishing. CD's offer better features than LP's (and according to many, better sound), but playing them required new hardware. Non-media specific "formats" sidestep these issues. Thus, I don't see another disc format gaining popularity in the (near) future. See where I am going here?

I also would envision the day when music delivery would be completely electronic.....however, the greedy bastards at the record companies are making such possibilities awkward, restrictive, and expensive. For the time being, CD's fit most people's needs, including my own.

Lets build our own format based on FLAC There is nothing that can't prevent us using both CDs and DVDs in data mode filled with flacs. If DVD players can play mp3s, why not flacs?. Of course i would love to have MPC support as well, just for flexibility

It'll happen when we can write our own operating software for DVD players. Or, you could just make an HT/Media PC and be done with it.

I agree.

When you listen to a band, the sound is coming from the front... There's no need for 5.1 and 7.1...

Big recording company want us to buy new equipment because of piracy, cd-r and filesharing. Sound quality and innovation isn't their goal.

I second that.
The "new" formats are only being promoted because they will carry copy protection.
The standard Audio CD still a very good medium for HQ audio, despite what the industry says.
I would like to see plain DVD-A or SACD without any of those garbage built-in: macrovision, encryption etc.
Its funny to observe how the industry is using technology in a way to only benefit itself and not showing any concern about costumer's rights or improve quality.(corrupted cds, region-locked and encrypted DVDs, etc...).
Just wondering...

Personally I hope the new formats will popularize quickly... why? Not becuase of quality superiority or anything related to that. Instead, CDs would quickly fall to the place where vinyl is at today... can you say cheap?! You can still rip CDs and there are a ton of them out there. I wouldn't mind it if the CDs which go for $16 now would fall to $1-2. I still would not upgrade to 7.1 surround, but keep buying CDs - which I can't really complain about, except that listening to a classical concert in surround is truly more realistic than stereo.

Anyways, if CDs were that cheap I would easily be able to buy so much high quality music... it is like a dream. So I am all for the new formats!

Never sat in the middle of a playing symphony before. As far as I know, all the sound came from the front, and only reverberated off the walls as 'surround'.

All concert halls are designed to reverberate sound from the side and back. The direct sound of course comes from the front, but direct sound is not everything. The reverberation is precisely what makes it more realistic on a good multichannel system.

EDIT: I guess you just have to try it out and see which one you like better. Make sure to have 5 identical speakers.

I don't see why you people dismiss 5.1 and 7.1 so quickly. To be sure 'remastering' a track not specifically recorded for 5.1 will probably damage the source more than it improves it.

But for a proper orchestral recording with 7.1 where the listener is put in the place where the conductor usually is... wow I think that could blow simple stereo away.

Small print: Provided of course a completely balanced 7.1 system i.e. identical datapaths, output amplifiers and speakers on all 7 positions. A 2 cheap-ish frontspeaker + 5 milk carton speakers system will of course be laughable compared to 2 awesome stereo speakers.

Very well said; my thoughts exactly. If anyone proposes a format to replace Audio CDs it must very clearly answer the question:

"What problem does it solve?"

DVD-A / SACD do not improve on any of the following most important factors and I'm not sure they solve any problems other than music industry control.

Cost - equal to or more expensive than CD
Sound quality - the vast majority of people and equipment, and mastering limitations indicate that CD is just fine for sound quality for 99% of customers. Some points given for multichannel; not sure the other factors are outweighed by this or not. But a very inconvenient I/O requirement of 6 analog cables seriously compromises the elegance of the solution.
Convenience - about the same or worse considering copy protection, lack of digital I/O, complex GUI for DVD-A, etc.
Durability - same
Compatability - worse, DVD-A and SACD do not have nearly the hardware support of CD

Then again, I'm not sure that CD has any problem that needs to be solved, at least from a customer's viewpoint for physical media. Compressed digital audio files solve the convenience and durability problems of CD with some compatability and sound quality compromises which are getting better over time.

I completely agree with puntloos' post. For many people, stereo is apt, but that doesn't mean that surround can not be better. Still, it is much too expensive to seriously invest in as of right now.

EDIT: @digitalman: Just read your post... Most consumers don't think this way. Of course you are right that new formats are not really worth it for customers like us, but we are not the people targeted by AV manufacturers. Average people like big numbers such as 196Khz instead of 44.1Khz, 7 speakers instead of 2, etc. The industry always has to come up with something new to at least give an illusion of major technical advances. (Like all those speaker companies with patents on crazy "new" cone types, which are all essentially your average dynamic moving cone transducer.) Correct me if I'm wrong.

As I said in a previous post, the advantage would be cheaper CDs. I really hope it turns out so.

I disagree here. The way I see it, DVD-A or SACD or any high sample rate format should turn out cheaper for the costumer: the most complex part to construct in any audio system is the analogue section, and it is this that costs most engineering hours, which translates to higher equipment prices.
With high sample rate formats, alias-filtering can be done with cheaper components and less attention for detail, since it is in safe distances from the audible spectrum.
A confirmation of this idea can be found in the fact that (imho) a mainstream multichannel Philips player sounds as good as many CD-players coming at the same price, while offering four channels extra, and video.

(Actually, it's the same as with LP vs CD; regardless of the argument which format has more potential, it is sure that CD-players offer good quality at much lower pricepoints.)

[Edit]Well, ofcourse the software part is more expensive at the moment, but it shouldn't necessarily remain so. When studios have won back their investments in high-bit equipment, prices could be coming down. After all, a DVD doesn't carry any more plastic than a CD, and pressing isn't intrinsically different. [/edit]


Agreed... they should come up with something like a UTP cable with 12 leads
Your other points are very strong for CD as well. I, personally am totally satisfied with 16/44 stereo and good recordings.

Interesting point, although I do disagree somewhat. Normally numbers and "the latest" are indeed a very strong marketing tool. However, faster computer speeds do not require buying a whole new replacement set of software but they do make your current software perform much faster. Higher horsepower numbers (talking cars now) do not require new roads, etc. A 70" TV will be obviously larger (better?) than a 63". At the end of the day the mass public will tend to figure out the difference between an "illusion" and real benefit. Even with Placebo affect, I really question whether most consumers will perceive a need for higher signal resolution. Some people will and they will spend accordingly, but with DVD-A and SACD already about 3 years old there is not a lot of market momentum for "the latest." They could be niche products, which is fine.



Not sure I agree here. With 8x or more oversampling for CD the analog stage is not an issue. I saw a CD player on sale yesterday for <$50 - I don't think the cost of the analog stage is an issue at all. Even if it was cheaper to make the analog stage (and I don't agree that it is necessarily so - higher speed digital sections have more EMC/RFI and slew rate issues), you need 6 channels of output so the analog cost would have to be less than 1/6 the cost of a CD analog stage and then you would have a player for <$50 that requires you to rebuy your whole music collection to take advantage of it?

I love newer, faster, better just as much as the next geek. In my dream world I also have a collection of DVD-A 192kHz/24 bits "just to be sure," but back in the real world where I can't ABX LAME APS on most tracks I'm really happy with CD technology. I'll spend my tech dollars on something more tangible that solves a real problem I have, like a TiVO....

You are right about the fact that SACD and DVD-A have been out for quite a while and have not gained very much momentum. I think this is partly because they were released too soon. It has almost become a trend in the US that "every household should have a home theater system" - I mean this very loosely. The mass market as a whole has only started to getting into multichannel systems in the past few years. This is clearly becuase of the popularity of watching movies at home with awesome special effects and such.

Perhaps there will be a push in audio, maybe not. My point is, I was one of the first people in my community to get a DVD player and multichannel system (I mean at least a year before others did) and my friends at that point tought I was crazy. They didn't see any point in investing money when they could just go watch a movie at the cinema. Now some of my friends (most of them have no idea what sampling is and what 44.1Khz means) are already thinking about buying SACD players because "they are clearly better than CDs". My real point is: don't underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer - here in the US marketing forces are much more powerful than common sense, at least for most people.

Actually I was speaking more in terms of a $300 player; but I haven't listened to any $50 cd-players lately. Have they become as good? You're right about upsampling solving most issues, but is it possible to implement even that properly for $50? If it is, my argument falls apart
I was thinking, it is always a more complicated solution to upsample in the player than to have the studio upsample for you (hey, results should be better on a xxx-bit DAW? ).

To take advantage of the player only requires that you buy your new albums in DVD/SACD-format. Your standing collection is perfectly playable on the new players, right?

About future formats, this is a good read: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/4...133/opium1.html - scroll down to "The future role of multi-channel sound".

A little copy/paste: "When trying to reproduce the exact soundfield as created at an original (live or artificial but artistically intended) event, normal 2-channel stereo is painfully inadequate. We can have an image with width up to the speakers' edges, some depth (either real or suggested) and sometimes height (suggested by psycho- acoustic phenomena, never real). To really capture and re-create the original event's acoustical field more channels are needed. Even stronger: recent European research (Eureka project, executed by the Danish Technical University, KEF and B&O) suggests that in order to correctly recreate the mere timbre of just a mono source in a given room, multiple channels are a necessity. ..."

All DACs oversample today. An M-Audio Revolution has 8 (or 4 stereo) good quality oversampling DACs and costs just $99. And I'd say that good PCM DACs (such as the Revo ones), are today quite cheaper than DSD DACs, so the cost argument is not true in practice.

I agree with that. I'm just thinking that most surround masterings wouldn't be subtle enough to capture the precision of the reverberation, but I'm no expert in this.
I do have a 5.1 setup, just that I never use it given that I have no space, no money (and currently no time), to experience this.

Ah yes, I would like prices to drop as well, but I can forsee a drop in quality occurring at that same time if something like it ever occurred. CD quality these days has already dropped far enough.
One benefit I have understood that these new technologies allow for is less of a chance for mastering screw ups and lless of a motivation towards over compressing. I have read that because of the higher sampling rates and lower noise floor it is much easier to produce a high quality album. Rounding errors are not an issue as they can be with the regular CD, which is theoretically a plus... Regardless of the ease of recording relating to price, I would rather look at the the ease of producing a higher quality album being benefitial in that it simply raises the bar for the lowest common denominator. Heck, if SACD falls in price and it makes it less likely to receive overly compressed garbage, I'm all for it. But like I said, price, and I guess selection, are really impeding this. I for one would love to see more 2 channel SACDs and/or DVD-Audios, and leave the surround sound for movies and orchestal performances.

Old recordings won't benefit, this it true.

But if 5 or 7 microphones are set up in approximate imitation of a 5.1/7.1 setup & the concert recorded... BOOM! There you go, all the nessesary reverberation captured.

It isn't true that you can't achieve excellent "surround" properties with 2 channels. We humans have only 2 ears, and the way the brain decides to give depth is with the delay a sound reach one ear before the other.

The easiest way to verify this without any overhyped 7.1 gear, is by doing your own recordings. Take some old headphones and remove the speakers but place mics pointing out instead. Put them on and record from your favorite seat where you love the sound most at your local auditorium. Try now listening to this recording using headphones. Also try recording noises walking in the street, its real fun

While it is true that some "surround"is needed to fully reproduce the original experience, that doesn't mean you can't have good surround with 2 channels. Also, surround is a problem in big rooms with their own accoustic characteristics, not to mention all those wires and speakers. Of course i see nothing wrong of having the option of using more channels, but i don't see it as a "must have". In fact, if those discrete channels were used for, say, different instruments on different channels (with options for real time mixing so they could also come from about the same position), then we could have something interesting. Umm i remember the "tracker" formats were like this too.

I was one person wondering aloud in a previous thread (about Dark Side of the Moon, I think?) whether the different structure of SACD would force people to apply more analogue engineering-style margin of safety that would prevent a loudness war of approach the rails.

That might conceivably be the case if mastering studios used native single bit delta-sigma equipment throughout the production process (as Sony suggest they could), but they'll probably stick to their existing 20- or 24-bit PCM at high sampling rate (the ADCs may use oversampled delta-sigma internally, but the storage and digital processing will operate on PCM data).

So I'm coming round to the view that things will most probably be mastered for PCM formats such as CD or DVD-A, with all the temptation to max it out to the rails by means of dynamic compression and peak limiting. If SACD is required, it would simply be a conversion from the PCM source, adjusted to meet the spec (which specifies a maximum power versus frequency measurement to ensure that the desired 120 dB SNR and frequency response can still be achieved). As such, they'd adjust the gain accordingly to meet the limit, but the sound would still be identical to the PCM (i.e. potentially horribly dynamically compressed and dull and bland).

More probable is that the CD loudness war will eventually self-correct. That time could be imminent, or it could still be many years hence (it's as fruitless as trying to predict the end time of a ludicrously overpriced bull market). At such a time, loudness will once again be used for emotional effect, radio stations will be left to their own compression, and some of the tools enabling exceptionally high CD volume to sound fairly OK and undistorted will be useful for those brief passages of fortissimo and moments of sforzando that go way beyond normal listening.

As for rounding errors, that's not a problem with CDs because of dither. If it's not dithered, it's simply not done right, which isn't a problem with the format but the mastering engineers.

Ambience in multichannel surround is an advantage. I think 2Bdecided has posted of some interesting experiences listening to an alternative multichannel layout of David Chesky's, which added a great perception of depth of soundstage (distance from the listener) without positioning the extra speakers behind the listener, but instead wider to the side. He also found some subtle differences between 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz PCM outside the sweetspot.

Personally, I'd be interested in whether vertical channels would be beneficial. While most orchestras and bands are horizontal, some ambient reflections come from above, as can natural sounds, applause, fireworks, etc. and we don't hold our heads perfectly horizontal throughout a performance. The pinnae give psychoacoustic clues to height (around 8kHz frequency the attenuation increases as sound moves lower), but cocking your head almost subconsciously can help resolve vertical position better. Binaural recordings are superb, but I'd imagine that 3-dimensional surround could be better in some situations.

Still, I love the quality of well-mastered CDs at 44.1 kHz in stereo

My sentiments exactly - and as long as mastering engineers continue to get orders from above to clip and compress, there's simply no point in exploring the marketing angle of better alternative formats...

I was looking into what it would take for me to take the audio off a DVD-A that I own. It seems that the crack for DVD CSS just came slightly too early, DVD-A was about to be released with CSS2, read about it here:

http://www.surroundmusic.net/articles/highres.html

DVD-A are encrypted with CPPM which AFAIK has yet to be cracked, once that hurdle is overcome there is another one in the form of MLP - the lossless compression for the audio. It will be a while before I can 'fair use' put the audio that I own onto my computer. No doubt the people who first provide this solution will also find themselves being dragged through the courts.

Hello everyone,

I find these forums rather entertaining. I should actually be listening to some music, but I am playing on the replacement for TV,,,,The Internet.

My opinion on THE DEATH OF AUDIO CDs.

My Answer is nothing in the near future.

Defense of my answer:

1. The folks that populate these forums are generally audiophiles, or PC nuts that love these techno gadgets. And we are always looking for something new and better.

SACD, DVDA, MD, MP3, Harddrive storage of music, da da da da da da da

2. However, the general population of this country does not really care, they have a good format that most of the population adopted over LPs and still remember LPs.

I have worked in the retail audio/video business for a couple of years, and the bread and butter of the industry is as follows:

Audio: CD followed by Cassette - yes cassette, there are still folks out there who have not converted to CD.

Video: Its amazing, but the post popular seller is the VHS/DVD combo. DVDs are taking over the industry, but VHS supporters,,,,like my mom and dad don't even have a dvd player, don't care, and will probably never own one.

3. Now with the General Public Mentioned, the Consumber Electonics industry caters to them,,,,,how long have MP3 players been around and we are just now seeing MP3 in car audio.

4. Formats Formats Formats,,,,,,the general public likes standards (even if they don't know it) they want to be able to play a cd/cassette no matter where they are:
Home, Car, Office, Friends House.

The formats coming out need to be accepted by the GREAT MASSES before they will replace anything. I love the sound of SACD and DVD-A, but the general public has not probably even heard of them, they are just now understanding what MP3s are.

5. Convergence kind of fits into this,,,,,,but not the way everyone thinks.

The General Public currently has no interest in using a PC (MP3) to record or listen to music. Remember, the general public,,,the general public(GP) will dictate what if the Audio CD will go the way of the LP, and for the GP, they have no incentive to make that decision.

6. The Recording Industry, yes the great Death Star in the Sky, for all of their falts they are doing the one thing that a industry needs to do to stay afloat,,,,make money, and by continueing to support the CD industry,,,,,they are supporting the GENERAL PUBLICs interests.

I was in the General Publics main retail outlet today,,,,"WAL-MART" Rows and rows of CDs, one row of DVDs with a half of a row to VHS. All, and I mean all of the computer related products, software, computers, accessories were in one row. You may hate Walmart, but they know how to make money,,,,by selling to the GP, they may sell some cutting edge stuff, but, I don't see memory sticks there (except in the photo section), no SACDs no DVD-A. I mentioned the duel VHS/DVD machines earlier,,,,,,they had 7 different units, about the same for stand alone VHS and stand alone DVD players. (I had a discussion with the kid working in the Walmart Electronics dept a while back, and asked him what the most asked question about DVD players was) The answer: will it play my CDs.

Robert

I have over $25,000 of CDs in cracked, dirty jewel cases; I want no more... [But, I did spring for Mo' Horizons' -- in cardboard container --"...& the new bohemian freedom" -- today I discovered it can't play in my Rio Volt MP3/CD player.]
Tower Records has just filed bankruptcy, and, just prior they put a significant percentage of inventory on sale at $10; there seemed to be few takers. Who needs to pay for all that square footage and staff overhead for music that can fit in under one square foot?
A different storage medium would be preferable, perhaps something like Sony's smart stick, or Sandisk plugins, but I think paying $1 for four minutes of lossily reduced music that is not absolutely mine to use as I wish is tantamount to extortion.

why doesn't anybody else get frustrated by how flimsy and non-durable cd's are? audio technicality aside, cd's are HORRIBLE to me. not only do they feel like incredibly cheap pieces of plastic (i hate plastic), but they scratch way, way too easily. even the majority of storage booklets scratch cd's up to the point of making them unable to rip without read/sync errors. true, you can buy a cd, rip it, and put away the actual physical product as a mere backup -- but who wants to buy BACKUPS? i truly wish something came out that you could touch and handle without ruining so easily...i have no experience with minidiscs, but they looked cool. they remain in their small plastic 'catridge' case at all times, dont they? anyway....

i would really like to see music sold in a physical format that involves some sort of chip or ramdisk. SOMETHING that doesnt involve spinning/scratches/skipping.

Hello again,

My 23 year old nephew and I had a similar discussion after I posted my earlier message.

- I totally agree that the CD or spinning disc formats what ever they may be are
costly and apt to break. (I use 4 400 disc changers to store the media, and make
copies for my own use in the car and other places, this saves my original copies
and still provides me with a removable storage medium for playback). This only
adds to my techno weeny status, what can I say I love Stereo Componets.
- I don't really care for the sound quality of MP3s. I use them in mostly
background music applications, but find that my DirecTV sound is much better,
and if I want generalized non scripted music it fits the bill. I control my CD
Changers with a Slinke, which works find, and so far is the nearest I have gotten
to convergence. (I still spin LPs), and I like the sound of LPs over MP3s,,,,,
- I restate my original comment: Until the GENERAL PUBLIC jumps on whatever
format is going to replace? CDs there won't be a replacement.
- Removable Storage what ever it is,,,,CD, DVD, SACD, Smartcards, Memory
Sticks, MP3 players will be the stepping ground for what ever does replace CD
Audio. I am so sure of this, just by talking to my customers, and others.

I love the sound of SACD and DVDAs, will they replace CDAUDIO, probably not.

MP3s on little MP3 players,,,,,its just to hard for the General Public to
grasp this format yet. I know folks (half my block in an middle to upscale area)
who still do not have computers, some don't even have DVD players, when I ask
them why, THEY DON'T CARE, THEY DON'T CARE, THEY DON'T CARE. Their CD
Audio players are doing the job, all of their cars have CD players, and they have
a portable unit at work and for playback. And this is with the physical limitations
of the CD. Rather big (wierd saying that considering I grew up on LPs, I actually
remember someone made a record player for the car once,,,,wild).

I really think that the MiniDisc is a viable replacement, can hold the same amount
as a CD, and be used as backup to the CD, and with the newer technology can
store data, and therefore MP3 files. And is about the same size as most MP3
Players out there.

What a good solution, not only does it replace the Cassette, it can take over the
role of the CDR, and the MP3 player, and its on rather bullet proof physical
medium. It can be intigarted well in most folks Audio System and make
recordings of what ever they have.

With that said, will it take over, well overseas it really has made an
impact, here in the US, the GENERAL PUBLIC has no idea about the format and
its capabilities. And in the techno audio arena, its the little format that everyone
loves to hate.

Now if a convergence tool comes out that allows you to copy your current Audio
content directly into the MP3 format, now theres something that could make it.
Wait a minute, its called a PC, but darn,,,the General Public does not consider the
PC an audio device, most (if they have them) use it to rent netflix movies and
surf the internet.

I am very interested in the Audio/PC bridges that are coming out,,,,but alas,,,THE
GENERAL PUBLIC gets in the way.

Don't ya just love technology, and oh ya,,,the general public.

Robert

You say you don't like the sound of MP3's yet you see MD's as a viable option. MD's are compressed audio, just like MP3. And unless you use some shocking MP3 encoder (i.e. Blade) at some shocking bitrate (i.e. 64kbps) then an MD will almost definately sound worse than a LAME APS MP3 (which is, on average, at a lower bitrate than a standard play 80min MD).

I really don't want to get into discussion about what is better here.

I only make that statement because, I perfer removable media formats over the MP3 Players because of their options.

MP3 is a great technology and should not be discouraged. And I would probably use MP3 on my MD player.

Thats all,

Robert

Interesting statement. Remind me what codec DirectTV uses?

(Hint: It'll be mp2 or AC-3)


Anyway...

When people saw LPs coming, they said "but folks will always have some 78s and something to play them".

When people saw CDs coming, they said "but folks will always have some LPs and something to play them".

You're right that the CD killing format isn't obvious yet. But make no mistake - CDs days are numbered, and that number will be amazingly small. You'll buy whatever they want you to buy. Some folks won't, but most will. The replacement just has to be "cool" enough.

My money would be on downloads. Despite all the reasons you just gave for this not being the case!

My prediction: 15 years until "Do you remember those CD things? They were so nice and shiny back then, but didn't they only hold like an hour of music, and stopped playing if you scratched them enough? Can't believe I paid money for them! Hey, and you know my brother? He still collects them - he's so retro!"

Cheers,
David.

Dude - you're not looking like someone who actually knows what they're talking about here!

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were talking about. It's just that even the recently announced next generation MD doesn't allow mp3 IIRC. Correct me if I'm wrong, because it happens!

Cheers,
David.

P.S. I can't believe I've just used the word "Dude" in a public forum!

Dave,

Apparently your not getting my point.

MP3
Directv
Minidisc
Streaming audio from the Internet

Are all background music sources for me.

I usually listen seriously to CDs SACDs DVDAs and LPs

I will mention the general public again, they only listen to CDs and Cassettes and until we can convince the music industry to retool their entire production chain away from CDs we will not have a replacement.

Robert

So much of these discussions neglects the fact that there are people who listen to symphonies and operas through living room speakers and expect superior fidelity (not knowing that Fatboy Slim is the ultimate in musical complexity!). This is a market, along with Jazz, that may evolve to be served quite differently from Top 40 pop music. Quite likely, they'd want pre-purchase listening rooms; perhaps there will be specialized boutique stores.
I really doubt that this audience will settle for MP3s or AAC. That said, I've been impressed by the Baroque music on radio@aol.

Sorry to go slightly off-topic, but those of you who are disregarding MP3 and AAC at the moment do not understand these format's potential. It is much more complicated than this but let me try to make it simple: There are bitrates and settings tat are used with these codecs where you CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE between the original and the lossy (MP3, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, etc) version. Actually, I would think that digital music IS the way of the future, with the general public slowly catching on. I don't think it is the older generation that matters so much. There probably WILL be people who stick with their CDs, which by the way, if done right is a perfectly fine format. It is the NEXT generation of people that have begun going digital. I already see TONS of iPods walking around at college. Digital is the next thing.

Regardless, you would be amazed with what these formats can do. I recently attended a sponsored Surround Sound seminar at my university, with equipment and software from Tannoy, SRS Labs, and Steinberg, and others. The presenter gave a demostration of an SRS Labs Circle Surround Sound encoded musical piece. To give a simple explanation, this technology allows the transmission of a surround recording through special filtering over a stereo signal. You might reccognize the symbol for this technology used for NFL football games on cable TV. Getting back to the point, he encoded this piece as a 128kbps AAC file, and stored it on his iPod. He used the iTrip FM Transmitter for iPod to transmit this stereo signal over FM to an antenna in the room. The antenna was attached to a receiver and Circle Surround Sound decoder which was hooked up to the outstanding surround setup we were privileged to listen to.

The result: It blew me away! I could not have imagined such hi-quality (not to mention full surround sound) from an iPod, a 128kbps AAC, and over FM! I can't wait to get back home to check out a Circle Surround Sound broadcast on my family's new surround system. If the encoding was good enough for THAT system, it is most definately good enough for the system back home. But to get back to the point, you would be suprised how good lossy encoding actual is, and has become. Test it out yourself. Run some ABX tests to compare. Generalizations and broad statements about lossy audio just don't hold water on this board.

I wonder how many of these people saying "2 channel stereo is good enough" have actually heard a properly mastered multichannel recording played back on properly setup multichannel system? Granted, there is a fair amount of marketing and $$ to be made from the hardware and the recordings. Also there are a fair amount of crappy sounding multichannel recordings (and equipment) aswell, so bad that the stereo playback is better. However, based on what I have heard, a properly mastered multichannel recording sounds much closer to the real thing. Live recordings sound far more realistic and are much more involving in my opinion. (with the exception of binaural recordings that require headphones) I don't own a proper multichannel system myself due to cost and space restrictions, but I know my 2ch system is not going to give me more realistic playback then a compareable multichannel system. I have nothing against existing stereo technology, it has served me well. If cost and space were not issues I would own a multichannel system. My $0.02

Well, there is a place for both. Expanding upon what I said before, this very issue is what we discussed at the seminar. Basically, there are millions of installed multi-channel systems as a user base, and there is something big to be made off of good material to be played off of these systems. Properly produced surround sound recordings have great potential. Artists and recording engineers just have to get creative and find smart uses for the technology. No, for a song that is purposely recorded to be stereo, for say radio play, there are not as many benefits. That is not the point. With some music, 2 channels is perfectly fine. But, for example. live music can sound so much more realistic in multichannel. Instruments can be virtually, or recreatively placed around the soundstage. Artists can make use of the multiple channels to do new, entertaining things with the music. Heck, of all the failures involving original quadraphonic sound, one main problem, besides the technological limitations, was the lack of knowledge and creativity of actually making use of all four channels, instead it was just treated as a gimmick. One example of a band doing it right was Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon in quadraphonic sound. It sounds great and is VERY inventive.

To conclude, I see surround as a supplement to standard stereo audio, not as a replacement, but it can have a greate market of its own if done right.

Standards in the audio/visual world are few and far between. Looking into the past history of the music industry and mediums they used, every standard started off as a revolutionary new invention. Even before there was the phonograph, there was sheet music. Sheet music was pretty much the first comercialized audio standard. Someone would buy sheet music and play it on a piano that they had access to. This was the first movement to the comercialization of the music world. Sheet music was innovative and it basically spawned the music industry. Radio came next along with the phonograph. These two mediums were the next big revolutionary step for the music world. Vinyl became popular with LP and Stereo formats brought about in the early fifties or so. Thus the term records was born. After vinyl, came the tape, which was revolutionary for the sole purpose of its ability to be consumer altered, or recorded upon by the mass public. This certaintly was a revolutionary medium because it was something new, which was interaction(recording ability) with the medium. After tapes came the compact disc. In terms of ease of use and sound quality, nothing like it was ever seen before. The CD has evolved into a recording medium for the public as well, a trait inherited from the past experience with cassettes which produced a demand for a recordible medium. Now the next medium....

Basically my short history of the main mediums is used to develop my hypothesis of what is going to be the next medium. Simply stated, for a new standard medium to be born, it needs to be revolutionary. For example, I do not believe that DVD-Audio or SACD(though I would like either or to become the next standard) will become the next standard, because they are too smiliar to the audio CD, which is already too widely known as a standard. The mass media and public do not see anything very revolutionary in something that looks the same as a CD they already have. Therefore I do not believe DVD-A or SACD will be successful enough to become new standards. DVD-Audio and SACD will fill the hi-fi market niche, but will not become a standard. They are just too similar to the already existing CD. The next medium will come from the interaction with computers. I see either some format, be it mp3, mp4, or any other lossless codec that might be born becoming the next standard. DAP players and mass storage on computers, with the addition of new online music stores have given the music industry a new, and revolutionary medium. Never before has there been a way to carry an entire music collection in your pocket. As buying music becomes easier and easier off of music stores on the internet, more and more people are going to be looking into DAPs. I see a trend with the popularization of iTunes and the Ipod. They may not be even close to the standard of the CD right now, but I believe in the future, CDs will be replaced by solid state players with a form of compressed digital audio. Compressed digital audio offers the ease of use that CDs introduced. It offers recording capability that tapes introduced. It offers a new way for the music industry to get back on it's feet and control the digital music world. I don't see anything else out there with the potential that DAPs and compressed digital audio offers. As for the next medium after this.....

ChangFest,

you may have mixed up the history of recorded sound somewhat, but I agree with your conclusion. People need something which they perceive as being revolutionary to make a change, and DVD-A isn't (yet) perceived as being revolutionary. 1000 albums in your pocket is.

I also agree with other posters though - done well, surround is revolutionary.

Sadly, surround sound (as it grows) will just add to the general decline of the audio industry. People will still buy audio equipment for the same price, but that money will be split between 5.1 speakers instead of 2!

Cheers,
David.

i find it interesting that multichannel is treated as something new and extraordinary when it has in fact been around for over 30 years (albeit in rather unworkable and quaint forms).

i think there's something to be said for Ambisonics in surround systems, but it has yet to reach critical mass it seems (though it has grown quite extroadinarily in the last year).

also, apart from the fact that CD and SACD are not going to be perceptibly different to most people (and the golden-eared would have to concentrate rather hard as well), there is another engine driving the "necessary" upgrading to new formats - the record companies.

i had a rather compelling (but possibly paranoid) thought that maybe the loudness race is allowed to escalate in CDs simply to make damn sure that SACD/DVD-A sounds better than CD. already i'm getting horrible sounding CDs with "limited vinyl issues", which are sold as being better quality! why is it that if you want dynamic range, you have to opt for a format with such a disgracefully high noise floor? it's brain-rottingly stupid to me, but the majority of people buy this as being reasonable - a record is bigger after all, and don't all those audiophiles say they sound better?

i can see the loudness race helping push new formats in the near future, just as soon as an agreed standard emerges (it seems to be SACD at the moment, but things could change).

Actually Revo has 1 higher quality stereo DAC for the front outs (also buffered with one additional op-amp per channel to achieve a lower output impedance) and one 6 channel DAC for the rest. Not that is any noticeable difference between the implementations However the DAC's implementation is very good, M-Audio even claimed that it surpasses the manufacturer's reference.

http://volny.cz/needsoft/revo.jpg

Back to the original topic, it's very difficult to achieve proper speaker positioning for stereo speakers in a room, you'd need a rather large room to obtain proper 5.1 placement. And a good 5.1 system costs an arm and a leg... I'd rather pay $1500 and get a decent stereo system (which I did) than getting a 5.1 system that doesn't do any justice to music and is average when it comes to movies.

I just came across a topic here these days when somebody complained about the fact that the rear channels sound was weaker than the fronts. They're surrounds! You want them to complement the fronts in music! In a good setup you don't need to 'hear' the speakers but rather have a 'recreation' of the original event as close to the truth as possible. Which is rather impossible . Just my worthless 2c...

I do alot of audio editing using Adobe Auditon working at 32 bit, sample rate 96000. To get the music onto CD means downsampling and thus losing quality. I've just a got a DVD-A machine to play back audio data (2 channel). Anybody got any ideas on how to get the music onto a DVD disc? Something like a audio version of TMPGEnc?

Yeah, I wrote it pretty fast. I figured I have the radio and LP stereo somewhat mixed up. Being truly chronological doesn't hinder my conclusion IMO.



Totally agree. I had to spend well over $5000 for my STEREO system for it to be sufficient to my needs. I'd much rather go multichannel, but the price/quality ratio makes for an astronomical price that I simply cannot afford. At the same time I CAN afford a DAP that contains 1910 songs of my music(ogg format of course).

Losing quality when converting to 16/44.1? That is quite a controversial statement that you should back up with some ABX per this forum's TOS - search for the many threads related to the TOS and to sound quality claims like this.

One of the problems with DVD-A is that it is a very closed format - can't rip it, can't record from/to it with consumer gear, and I don't think you can burn a DVD-A on a computer either. I could be wrong about not being able to burn a DVD-A, I just have never seen any consumer applications that can do it - someone may know more about this.

Just some of the reasons its a crippleware format born from outdated thinking.

i wouldn't doubt that downsampling to 16/44.1 reduces quality. alanuk didn't say it sounded any different.

you don't need an ABX to know that data is lost in such a conversion, but of course it would be nigh-on-impossible to tell the difference using just ears.

i'd be interested in keeping high sample rates for other reasons than simple playback - like if i wanted to slow things down, amplify quiet bits a huge amount, etc. audio is more than just playback after all.