Should Sound Quality of Computer Audio be improved

Unable to respond to, "Mach2Music and Amarra: Huge Disappointment"- Thread. Other Members take free pop-shots!
Apparently some have more Freedom Of Speech than others! I
don't know how many times I have said it, I want Computer
Audio to succeed! It will only succeed if Computers are designed from the ground up to reproduce Music (Same minimum standard applied for Equipment of ALL Audio Formats)! This is common sense Audio Engineering Design. Bandaid Modifications cannot be substituted for absence in design to produce Music! Design it right to EARN the right to become a New Audio Format- same as all other Audio Formats! No Freebee's, No Cutting Corners! Lack of design is what's causing such varied results in S.Q. between
listeners of Computer Audio. I see about 50% negative
responses here on these Threads. It will continue to happen unless you fix it! Blaming me won't help! I am an
Engineer, and I can read results! 50/50 success/ failure
rate- you have an inherit Engineering Design Flaw for the
reproduction of Music via Computers! Shock! Suprise- since
they were never designed for Music! So when is someone finally going to properly design the Equipment/Computer
(From the ground up) for Computer Audio? Do we continue
to treat any real criticism as "HERESY" in the lack of
design in Computer Audio for Music? You tell me what I am
allowed to talk about, and we will both know!
Hi Mapman,

I love jack Russell's. Great little dogs with huge personality and attitude.

His ears I bet would be pretty good for the upper frequencies. Do you think he worries about multichannel downloads and the demise of other playback formats?

I bet he won't let go of that stick either ;-)
Simple question Folks. If you don't need 24/192 Multi-
Channel on MLP Disk, why in the world would you pay the
same for a 2 Channel 24/192 Download? Why Digitally
Record at 24/192 if the Sampling Rate makes no difference?
Digitally Record at 16/44.1 for Downloaded Music Files.
Keep everything at 16/44.1 since it makes no difference.
Who are you kidding, you guys ARE buying the High Rez.
Download Stuff expecting what- 16/44.1 performance? I
don't think so! If this is the case, I suggest putting
your dog in charge. He would probably make more sense.
It is really simple. Garbage in- Garbage out also applies
to Sampling Rate, as it applies to everything else in
the Audio Chain. You guys are arguing otherwise- we are
back to Reversing Entropy/ Flat Earth debate ad Nauseum.
I am ending this lunacy now! It is starting to make me
Nauscious. Argue with yourself in a mirror- I am out of here! Arguing with someone who can't add, I'm better off arguing with a drunk! Recreating your own Math because
2 + 2 = 4 is too inconvenient for you? Well, it has just got to go! Right? So do I. If you can't figure out why it
doesn't add up- don't come to me. After all, you know

I will make this clear. Maybe this is complex.

Once you get to 24/192k sample rates, any higher sampling rates become less important than othe issues for recording studios. At that point (way above 44.1k. i.e 192k) technical requirements get tricky. PO is this clear to you?

This is why some speak of PCM while others talk of DSD and DXD. The technical requirements of the hardware in studios starts to become difficult. For instance there are very few multitrack DAWs that can handle DXD. Most studio kit is 24/192 compatible and under only. Are we clear on that too PO?

Obviously a 16/44.1 recording will NOT sound as NATURAL as much HIGHER sample rates. At least double and upwards of 44.1 and depending on the RECORDING quality of course there will be a nice gain.

Now i will muddy the water. Your clever joke about staying at 44.1 is interesting. (if you are interested) Many top guys used to stay at a single sample rate because at the time the dithering algorithms were not good. Mastering guys felt dithering caused more problems than staying 44.1 all the way through the process.(44.1 due to CDs) But that was in the 1990s.
I ran this by my Jack and he tilted his head in an approving manner.



Um - who said sampling rate doesn't matter? I believe that what was actually said is that the recording quality and technique matters more - which is absolutely true in my experience. While higher resolution recordings do sound better in general, crappy recordings / masterings sound crappy no matter what the resolution. In fact they may sound even worse with better fidelity - like the latest Rush album - which sounds like absolute crap in 24/96 on my stereo but decent via MP3 through my iPod or car stereo.

So...what we are saying is that the resolution matters, but the recording and mastering quality matters more.

Petty...when having a conversation, it helps if you actually listen.
Chadeffect- Of course most Studio Kit is 24/192 compatible
and under only. My point is that YOU want to keep it that
way for a damn long time with "Soon all New Music will only
be available as Music Downloads". We are limited to 24/192
glass ceiling with Downloading. You don't want to explore
any other possibilities with DXD, Blue-Ray Audio, MLP, SACD, DVD-Audio, XRCD24, K2 HD CD, and Vinyl. The real crime is that you want to rob us of the opportunity of listening for ourselves to any possible improvement with these other Formats- DXD or not! A 24/192 Download is the
bottleneck that you want to force everyone into- a possible
32 Bit Mastered Disk, or Remaster be damned! You want to deny us the ability to compare any possible future Format
by imposing a 24/192 Single Downloading Format Filter. I
prefer being able to compare the Sound Quality of competing
Formats on my own. Am I supposed to dumb down to your level, and just take your word for it that "24/192 Music
File Downloads is as good as it gets- live with it"? There
is no longer any room for improvement, and you are going to make damn sure of that by saddling everyone with 24/192
Downloading. Sorry, too convenient- especially when both you, and I know that there is something out there that
sounds better. Maybe it is still in development; but, it
STILL Sounds better than 24/192 Downloads. You know it!
You just don't want anyone else to be able to listen for
themselves. We are supposed to surrender our ears to your dictum of "Soon all New Music will only be available as
Music Downloads. Only thing available for everyone to be forced to listen to. Any Future Formats be damned; because, you will not be allowed to listen to them for yourself". Talk about being treated as a head on a stick. This will not pass. People will eventually realize that they are being treated as Cattle- THAT IS INEVITABLE! Therefore (once again) a single Format solution does absolutely nothing to benefit the Consumer- in Sound Quality/ In Thrift/ In Convenience/ in Cost/ or in any other way. Are you even a Consumer? I have my doubts. You are certainly not Ralph Nader. Who are you? What are you?
Why are you trying to do this to us? What did we ever do to you besides leave you alone to listen to whatever Format
you wanted. Don't treat us any different- like Cattle!
Will you ever learn that you can't force anything you want
down everyones throat. It is an exercise in futility, much
like this Thread. You are not a Puppet Master, and we are not your Puppets. You are definitely NOT up to playing God!
Stick to your day job.
PO, Hfisher3380 has made it real clear for you if my English is confusing for you.
Earlier, it was the tyrant manufactures, then all of us at least now we know its Chad... and of course now instead of not being forced to listen to mp3 or being able able to get high res, it is now formats that don't exist to the consumer market and the consumer market will never see them because of Chad...
"And to think, all this time I thought it was George Bush's fault !!!!!"

Well, I do blame him (the younger) for a lot but I doubt he even knew what a bit is.

Maybe Petty could have educated him.

Sorry for that.

I truly enjoy your diatribes. You're like the cranky old grandfather that I never had.

Wow. Where do I start? Personally I am shocked that you don't get the idea that:-

1. No matter what sample rates become available they will be downloadable to you and all negating the need for alsorts of dead end mediums.

2. Nothing, not even I (the puppet master i believe you named me) can stop progression. If higher sample rates become available that is good. I cannot wait.

3. I don't wish to rob anyone of the chance of having better. In fact it was I that was trying to help you see what is available, and assure you that your computer is a key to any future format. As whatever that format is, it will be data files to be read by software. This is good. You won't need many different machines costing lots of money to play back music. You computer will be your "transport" for any format.

4. Cattle...the only thing I can associate with cattle is the smell that emanates in your confused mutterings.

5. luckily I'm interested in cars and their history so I know vaguely who Ralph Nader is. And here you are correct as I am not him. The question is who are you?
Good question.

Who exactly is my grumpy old grandfather figure PettyOfficer?

Not Ernst Stavro Blofeld

or Dr. Evil I hope!

A good guy I hope. Mr. Bond perhaps?

Maybe the Bond girls are fewer and far between these days accounting for the grumpiness.
Fair enough! I do get grumpy when I sense someone desiring to minimize my options in Audio Formats. Still trying to
figure out how one can Download a Blue-Ray Audio release that is not available yet as 24/192 High Rez. Download.
There within resides the dilema of limited selection in
High Rez. material- in a single Download Format Universe.
Even if the same release was available in both Formats,
would one always be of better sound quality in one Format
as opposed to the other? Would it be a mixed result with
different releases in each Format? I will buy one release
in Blue-Ray, because I discover it sounds better than it's
24/192 Downloaded counterpart. I will buy another release in 24/192 Downloaded File, because I discover it sounds better than it's Blue-Ray Audio counterpart. Ditto the same
comparisons via SACD, MLP, DVD-Audio, XRCD, XRCD24, K2 HD
Of course it is the Music that matters; but, it is
usually the Mastering (Or Remastering) process that sometimes gets screwed up. This cuts across all Formats,
including High Rez. Downloads. You will end up with some
CD versions of a release that will sound better than their
High Rez. counterpart- simply because someone screwed up the Remastering process. These anomalies can apply to all
Formats. It might not happen often; but, it happens often
enough that someone will lose any High Rez. Potential of
their favorite release- their favorite Music. High Rez.
can sound better (In all Formats including Downloading);
but, no guarantee.
My issue is the loss to the consumer to descriminate
what sounds good to him in a single Format Market. You are
going to end up with some 24/192 Download Releases sounding wonderful, others not so much. Why is it so
rediculous to have a back-up Format of your favorite Music
when the Downloaded version doesn't come out as expected?
Reasonable people can reasonably disagree. When it
comes to "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads", where is the room for reasonable
disagreement as to how this may negatively affect the
sound quality of SOME Music Releases? What alternatives will exist for THOSE instances? Are we being forced to buy
"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" of High Rez. Downloads,
because that is the only High Rez. Format that is left?
What if it becomes the only source of the favorite Releases of our particular Music? How does limited selection in High Rez. Downloads affect our access to our
favorite releases. Can you always say that the 16/44.1
Downloaded version will always sound better than the Blue-
Ray Audio Version? The Multi-Channel MLP Version? The SACD
Version? The XRCD, XRCD24, K2 HD CD, versions? If 16/44.1
Download Version of my favorite Music Release is the only
one available, you will be cutting me out of any High Res.
access to these Music Releases on Disk. This will happen in the elimination of other High Res. Formats. Music may Matter most; but, I have heard some of these other High Rez. Formats on Disk. The Sound Quality on these Disks- DOES MATTER to me! Yes, sometimes they do sound better than the 16/44.1 Downloaded version when High Rez. Download selection remains very limited. This is not always true. Please allow me the ability to fill in the blanks. Allow me the ability to discriminately listen, and select best sounding across many Formats. This is no different than when you discriminately listen, and select when you Download. My hope is that a larger selection would give me more access to the best sounding versions of my favorite Music. I haven't found many in High Rez. Downloads yet. Let me listen to my favorite Music till they do become available. If that makes no sense, I don't know what to tell you.
As far as I am concerned: I am only a 50 year old Man.
I have been Retired from the U.S. Navy for about 10 years.
Had 20 years of Naval Service, served as a "Pettyofficer".
Pick a number to get your free pop shot!
Is it heartless on my part that I enjoy watching Petty's outbursts get more and more ludicrous as his feeble arguments go up in flames? Kinda like watching people self-destruct on those old reality shows.

So let me get this straight...first it's "lower-than-CD MP3" that is the problem...and now it's Chad imposing a 24/192 bottleneck on downloads?

You got to be kidding!!!

Thanks Petty - I needed a chuckle!

Well, for older guys like us that recall 78s, then the advent of lps and stereo, then progress these days in terms of real sound quality improvements might not seem such a big deal.

I will say that my digital in my rig today is as much better than the digital sound off my first CD player I purchased back in 85 or so (a Magnavox) as MErcury Living Presence was compared to an Okeh 78 from years prior. I do not know how much better it will or can get, but I do not see a decline overall to date.
Well Pettyofficer, just don't understand you, now you turn around and speak reasonable again... what it comes down to with downloads is this... what ever the file type, MPEG4, Flac, DSD, WAV...whatever it is, it can be converted.. You can burn a file to disc... if the file integrity is good, you'll have a great CD. I suppose that you could burn it to BD-R, then use your Blu Ray player also... Computer Audio offers more flexibility than ANYTHING else, its here to stay and you will see it grow in many ways, including selection of music....
Appreciate your tenacity, man you do stay with it.

Timlub has made the point beautifully. This is why I don't understand your problem.

Today you still don't know which recording is the best. You still have all sorts of remasters etc on various disk types. Do you buy them all to see which one you prefer?

You are downloading the same material. You have to do the same research you would do with SACD etc. Obviously we are assuming you are using legitimate downloads from reputable vendors.
Timlub. My Downloading whatever Music File then burning onto whatever Disk. How can this compare to a Mastering
Studio Remastering in DXD, then burning to Blue-Ray Audio,
Multi-Channel High Rez. MLP, SACD,....etc? It would be like
comparing your own home made Cassette Recording to a Master Analog Recording. Can you Remaster these Computer
Downloaded Files prior to burning? Again it is garbage in,
burning in Blue-Ray Audio doesn't nullify garbage out.
Professional Recording Studios have access to DXD, Remastering Software, and lets not forget the Master Analog Recording. Even with this the Pro's still occasionally screw up a Remastering. You are suggesting
that Joe the Plummer can do better Remastering in his
garage, on his laptop? All that he needs is the Downloaded
File, no matter what File Type that may be? Low Res. MP3
Downloaded Music File, Joe can convert/Remaster into a
High Res. 24/192 Music File of perfection? Garbage in-
The Mona Lisa out? Everyone should be capable of producing
a Remaster (From a Downloaded File) that sounds as good,
if not better, than that produced by Professional Studios? We elevate ourselves to Studio Quality Master
Recording Professionals, without any College Education,
or decades of experience in this profession? I am sure that if I study hard enough, I could learn how to perform
brain surgery on myself. Just let me practice on you first
to get the hang of it- deal? At some point here, where do
I actually get back to enjoying Music instead of supplanting it with learning how it is made. I pay someone
else to make Music so that I can spend sometime actually
listening, and enjoying it. You are turning an obssession
over a Hobby into a Lifetime Career Study. I would like to
get back to listening instead of 100% Studying as to how
Music is made. By your standard I should be able to build/ design my own Turntable, SACD-MLP-CD Player, Music Server,
Media Player. Spend all of my time doing that, who needs
to listen to stinking Music? Who would have the time? This
all sounds like a self-defeating process that peels you away from spending more time actually enjoying listening to
Music. Imagine your first CD player requiring self assembly
from the lowest basic set of parts. You have never seen a
CD Player before, it could take you years to learn how to assemble. Instructions are sketchy, ambiguous, and incomplete. I would buy this, why? Why would I buy the Computer Audio Version of this? It is not that I couldn't
learn- I could. It just becomes extremely inefficient in
accomplishing my task of listening to my Music Y-E-S-T-E-R-D-A-Y! I think that there is a shorter route between point
A and B. Rumor has it that a straight line is that shorter
route. Anyone mind if I try that to see if it is indeed
shorter instead of having to pass through Wasapi, Kernel
Streaming, and all manner of Software Processing? Sorry,
I don't know what got into me. Sacriledge! Inserting things
definitely makes for a shorter route. Light bulb definitely
makes that clear.
O-kay, I will muddle through it. I like to have options including Computer Audio/ Downloading- sure! I still demand Music while I muddle. That can only mean an
Optical Disk since I am still muddling. THIS is asking too
much in a proposed single Downloading Format Market? This
sounds like Darth Vader closing all of the exits again.
Not a very comforting thought. Do you mind keeping atleast
one exit slightly open for me O' Dark Lord of the Sith?
Well, you can't blame me for asking! No more pre-designed
Music Servers whose Software is obsolete two days ago. Much
prefer J.R. River Media Center Version 14 through 10,000,000. Just wake me up in ten years! Imagine the money
that I could save just jumping on J.R. Version 10,000,000.
Chadeffect. Do you deny me the option of buying them all
to see which one I prefer? Do you severely limit my choices
to a single Format Source? You are going in the exact extreme opposite direction limiting me to a single choice.
Let me ask you this: Do you buy the 24/192, 24/96,
16/44.1, 24/48, 24/88.2...etc- of the same release off
of HDTracks? Do you buy them all to see which one you prefer? The difference here is that I would not presume to
limit you to be able to select only one of these. Neither
would I presume to limit anyone else to the same single
selection. Limiting anyone to a single choice of the above
Downloads, isn't necessary. By the same token it isn't
necessary to limit anyone to the single choice of Downloading Format. What you fail to explain to me is the
Market necessity of eliminating all other Formats other than Downloading. Not if it's desirable, not if it
is inevitable; but, why is it necessary? It would be
about as necessary as limiting you to a single Sampling Rate for each HDTrack Downloaded Music File. After all,
"The Sampling Rate makes no difference"- right? It is the
presumption that it makes no difference to you. It is also
the presumption that it would make no difference to anyone else. I would not presume to tell you what to buy- Now give
me some of that back! You won't budge no matter what!
Henceforth the Hypocracy of your double Standard.
Petty, I don't think any reasonable person wants to deny you anything. Who here has any interest in killing off any format? Most of us pick our format(s) and get on with it. Personally, I've given up on SACD. I currently use vinyl, CD (ripped to my hard drive) and high resolution downloads. I am of the opinion that optical discs of all types will likely be replaced by downloads because the files are the same. This holds for audio and video. When you really get down to it, computer audio and CD are basically the SAME format (ie using the same files). Computer audio is COMPLETELY backwards compatible but has way more flexibility and the potential for higher resolution.

Does this mean that I (or anyone here) wants optical discs to disappear? Absolutely not! We're not trying to rob you of anything. Go ahead, enjoy music in whatever format you choose!
Petty, just tell us what formats that you'd like to buy. I don't want to limit you any longer, please tell us, all the formats that you would like to buy, please list them individually, also, if they aren't available to the consumer market, please lend your bank account to bring all the formats that you want to market, after all, you are the engineer. After all, its our fault that you are limited to 1 format, YOU CANNOT have any other format... wait, its Chads fault isn't? So after all its Chads fault that you are limited to 1 format...
My gosh man you talk in circles. It is obvious, you argue for the sake of arguing, please take the last word and relieve us of the pain... Wait a few were enjoying this, gluttens for punishment. Give us your favorite spaghetti recipe, it might be something productive that all of us could get from you.
PO I think you spent too much time on the quarterdeck with rum rations!

No one is denying you any format. But what I am saying is each format has a master which is a computer file (probably a WAV file)which they make disk format from. I.e CD/SACD/Blue Ray/DVDA etc. So why bother with the disk medium? why not just take the master file instead?

Don't you see? It's not a case of limiting your choice. You have the same music at the same sample rates available on all your preferred formats. It's the same thing. Understand? This IS the point! The file makes your preferred format.

This is why at some point the physical disk becomes unnessassary. You have the file that made it any way!

Again I repeat myself. I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. Sample rates do make a difference. But(!) once you get to 192k and above other issues step in. And the difference at really high sample rates (way above CD quality) is a bonus, not the reason to buy it. The recording quality is far more important.

If you don't believe me regarding really high sample rates we can do an experiment. I could send you a short recording of the same thing recorded at different very high sample rates and see how much different they sound between lets say 24/96 and upwards to 24/192. Something real simple like an acoustic guitar miked up with a very nice mic and mic preamp straight into a AD DA interface.

Unfortunately I cannot record easily above 192k and I doubt you will be able to playback a file higher without technical problems yourself. Hopefully then you will understand.
I think timlub hit the nail on the head - Petty give the impression of arguing for the sake of arguing. What's that that someone said on an earlier page about reminding him of an ex-wife...?
You are suggesting that Joe the Plummer [sic] can do better Remastering in his garage, on his laptop?
Is PO confusing file conversion with mastering? That could be part of the problem.
I can't believe I am about to give PO some ammunition, but I have to tell it as it is. Deep breath...

PO, your post to Timlub 07-20-12 raises a few points (sorry everyone else!)

If you downloaded the identical file the mastering guy used. I.e the raw recorded file, then yes you could remaster on your laptop yourself. Now whether you have the ears, talent, skill, decent monitoring, and the right software to do a good job is another question. Some of the software is very intuitive and extremely powerful.

Only if you had a dithered down or bad low res copy would you immediately struggle with the quality. Crap in crap out for sure. You could not do it with a low res mp3 to a high standard. But if you were good you could make it sound better than the mp3! There is some amazing software out there to repair and manipulate sound.

As you go on in that post to Timlub though you do start to lose the plot. Or at least I lost the will to live. You are struggling with some dull windows issues which with a small amount of effort will go away. About a million posts ago I tried to help with that. So don't let that color your judgement. You not being able to set up your own computer is no reason to put down all technology. If my tracking was out on my TT would I blame vinyl for being crap?
Chadeffect- here is the reason for the Disk. Say you have
a Surround Sound Mix of Dianna Krall-"The Look Of Love".
Say you have one copy processed in Advanced Resolution
Surround Sound 24/96 Multi-channel Meridian Loss-less
Say you have another copy available as a two Channel WAV Download Music File (16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192). Wait!
The 24/96, 24/192 Versions are not available yet due to
limited selection of High Resolution Downloads. You say
it doesn't matter, toss the MLP Disk production, Download the 16/44.1, and wait until 24/96-24/192 versions become
available as Downloads. This maybe a hypothetical proposition, but it cuts across many High Resolution Disks
vs "not available for prime time yet" High Res. Download
of the same Release. How is a Two Channel 16/44.1 WAV
Download File a step up in sound quality from a High Res.
Multi-Channel MLP Disk? This is your "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads". I say "Hold
on just a cotton picking minute here". Not until you have
adequate High Res. Download Release content to match the
quality of existing MLP, SACD, DVD-Audio, XRCD, XRCD24,
K2 HD CD, Blue-Ray Audio Disks. 16/44.1 WAV Music Downloads only thing available to replace specific Releases on these Disk Formats? Atleast until we have to
wait for 24/96-24/192 Download Releases of our favorite Music to become available in High Res. again- for the
second time around? How long are we supposed to wait for our Music- 2 years, 10 years, 20 years? You can't say the
Recording Quality is separate from the Sampling
Rate, when the Sampling Rate of all New Music Digitally
Recorded has a direct corellation with sound quality.
You want us to go back to the "16/44.1" Digitally Recorded
Music of the 1980's, and how it was Digitally Recorded? This is your "Sampling Rate makes no difference", as you try to sell Higher Sampling Rate High Res. Downloads on the
Internet? Kind of absurd, don't you think? I am going to need a whole Barrel of Rum to swallow this "Whale of a Fish
Story! If you are Digitally Recording at a higher Sampling
Rate- this captures more of the acoustical event. Higher
Sampling Rate IS the Recording Quality, they are not separate entities. Again, no guarantees of High Sound
Quality; but, a little harder to do without.
I don't preach to you to not buy the 24/96-24/192
Music File Downloads off of HDTracks. I don't try to limit
selection with 16/44.1 Download Market with High Res. Selection waiting in the wings. Don't try to preach the elimination of my High Resolution, and I will listen to it. I will also listen to yours, but not stepping down to 16/44.1. Been there, done that for thirty years- don't tell me it doesn't make any difference! Naaahhh- what else have you got?
Strange example, Petty. You complain of listening to the MLP, SACD etc...and there being no high res download? As if the availability of MLP, SACD, Blu-Ray audio are any better?

Yes, we'd all like a wider selection of high res recordings - but at least to my eyes, high res downloads, while still limited in selection, is the only current digital high res format with any momentum and showing any sign of picking up. There are new high res downloads in all musical categories coming out every week. So much so that I have abandoned SACD altogether (lack of selection, especially for anything other than classical). Nobody is trying to kill any format here...just choosing whichever works best for us.

Fine to complain about the lack of selection in high res downloads...but when you compare to SACD, MLP 24/192 surround or Blu-Ray audio your complaints become a bit laughable.

And...once again (in case you didn't hear me asking the first time)...who the heck is saying the sampling rate makes no difference? You lose credibility when you continually misquote us.
PO you keep bring up this disk. As has been mentioned, whatever you already own you could back up and play at native sample rates. but no one is forcing you to do anything. Your disks will be around for a while.

As for your multitrack surround sound disks I would have to check. I know some software (maybe QuickTime pro?) can read this. If not there will be something. Admittedly a slight pain in the ass. But could be dealt with. Let's face it you can't have many more than 10 of these disks. And you could always keep what you use to play it now!

Now nearly all your problems are solved.

Now I think you (PO) keep focusing on the fact that I said once you get to a point with high res sample rates it's starts to become less important due to other factors. i.e above 192 there become issues. Reread above posts. I can't keep repeating myself. Im nit talking about returning to 44.1k! I feel like I'm trying to explain to my mother how to use her new TV.
Strange response-Hfisher3380. I complain of losing ability
to purchase High Res. on Disk (MLP, SACD, Blue-Ray Audio,
DVD-Audio, XRCD, XRCD24, K2 HDCD, possible DXD, 32 Bit
Remastered on CD) while the High Res. Download Versions of my favorite Releases aren't available yet. This is the
result of your suggestion that "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads". Any New Releases
on these High Res. Disks goes right out the window. This
leaves me with only 16/44.1 Downloaded Version of my
favorite Music. This is a step down from any High Res.
The point is that I have found more than a few of my
favorite Artists on these High Res. Disks. Take another
look at that long list of High Res. Disk Formats above.
This includes many Disks that are just beginning to be
released in Remastered 32 Bit on CD by Elusive Disks.
High Res. Download Selection is getting better, I have
been checking it out. I don't see the same Artists, nor
do I see anything in 32 Bit. Nor do I see anything even referencing DXD.
My point is that I wish to combine the High Res.
Selection between High Res. Disks, AND High Res. Downloads.
This will give me a larger High Res. Music Selection to choose from. You wish to exclusively replace High Res. Disks with High Res. Downloads i.e. "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads". Your exclusionary Theory severely limits the High Res. Music
Selection available to me. It will do the same for all other Consumers as well. A Higher Res. Selection (Disks+
Downloads) helps me in choosing those that sound better.
A single source severely limits that ability.
That will remain a problem-Chadeffect. My severely limited ability to gain access to many sources of High
Res. when exclusively limited to Download Format only.
I anticipate that most releases on High Res. Disks (MLP,
SACD, DVD-Audio, Blue-Ray Audio, XRCD, XRCD24, K2 HDCD,
possible DXD, 32 Bit Remastered on CD) will never see the
light of day as 24/96-24/192 Downloads. I don't own
"Everything" on all of these High Res. Disk Formats. Everything will disappear according to your single Format
Theory. So will my Music Selection. That remains a serious problem for me!
I have the same problem of having to repeat myself
so many times (Have you seen how long this Threads is).
I can't draw you a picture across a Thread. You guys are
smarter than this, I know that you can add. I certainly know that you can subtract. Your proposal is to subtract High Res. Disks from the High Res. mix. You subtract anything you have less left over, YES-NO? Less left over
means less High Res. left over for me to select from. It
is not complicated, it is not rocket science. You just need to be willing to look beyond the boundaries of your
Computer Screen. YOU CAN DO THIS! I am not arguing for
arguments sake. I happen to be interested in protecting
the Music Selections/Releases that I like to listen to.
Most others feel the same way. When replacing Formats most
take 5-10 years, for the very reason as to protect everyones Music Selection. Nobody gets left out in the cold. I don't see any concern, nor attempt to do the same
with Download Format replacement. Why do I sense panick
here in the rush to implement Downloading Format? What is it that you are not telling us? Again -should I be just as
nervous over Downloading as you? Other Formats shouldn't even be a concern- so why are they such a concern? I can
be just as concerned about exclusionary Downloading Format.
If you are nervous about it, you are certainly making me
nervous about it as well- WHY???
"You wish to exclusively replace High Res. Disks with High Res. Downloads i.e. "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads". Your exclusionary Theory severely limits the High Res. Music
Selection available to me."

Huh? This has been the crux of your argument all along (at least I think it has - it's been awful difficult to follow at times) but not once have I, or anyone else, said that we "wish to exclusively replace all high res. disks with hit res. downloads". Not once. Again, nonsense like this makes you lose your credibility. Most of us don't like being misquoted and having words put in our mouth. The only one here taking pop-shots at anyone or any format is you - and most of your beefs continue to be hypocritical since your beloved high res optical discs in even shorter supply.

If you're looking for someone to blame for the failures of past formats you are looking in the completely wrong place. Many people here (including myself) were adopters of these formats. Many of us have made a conscious decision to adopt computer audio and high res downloads. You can choose whatever format you want, buddy.
Petty, regarding your fine example of MLP - I'm referring to you saying you have a high res surround disk of this and you can't find a high res download "due to limited selection of high res downloads". As if MLP is easier to find and has a better selection?

Furthermore, it's also a poor example because anything in DVDa format can be ripped to your hard drive using easily-installed freeware (DVD Audio Extractor). I have burned all 25 or so of my DVDa to my hard drive and continue to enjoy them on my computer / DAC system. If I had a surround system I could even do that. Again, computer audio is not really a "new format" just a different way of handling the files without an optical disk and transport. It is highly backwards-compatible and doesn't require that adopters burn all their CDs - and even DVDa's.
Hfisher3380- why do you keep on proving my point? You want
to COMPARE limited Selection between High Res. Disks, and High Res. Downloads. I want to COMBINE limited Selection of both for the interest of the Consumer in High Res.! You
COMPARE as part of an "Either-or" proposition. Then you
argue that "...not once have I, nor anyone else said that we wish to exclusively replace all High Res. Disks with High Res. Downloads". Then you argue "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads". Did I miss the
High Res. Optical Disks in that last Statement? What is your expectation for High Res. Disks with a statement like
Again, look beyond the boundaries of your Computer
Screen. You mention "ONE" High Res. Disk Format- MLP! As if
that addresses "ALL" of them. I haven't even had the opportunity yet to listen to a 32 Bit Remastered on CD!
There is atleast half a dozen of these releases with more in the wings. You would deny me that opportunity to listen
to future New Releases in 32 Bit, by saddling me with
"Exclusive Download limited selection 24/96, 24/192".
Possible releases in DXD? FORGET ABOUT IT in a limited
24/96,24/192 Download Format Universe! There are future
possibilities on High Res. Disks that Computer Software can't even keep up with. I want to use Downloading as a
comparison to other possible future High Res. Formats. I
can live with multiple copies of the same release from
different High Res. Formats. EVOLUTION in Sound Quality
demands variety. You want to paint us into the corner of
extinction by limiting variety in Formats. You want us to
go the way of the Dinosaurs? NOT FOLLOWING YOU!
I don't see the 32 Bit Downloads. High Res. Disks- 1,
High Res. Downloads- 0! Any High Res. Downloads Remastered
in DXD? Computer Audio Downloads had better pick up the pace if it is a "COMPARISON" you want! I would be happy with both Disks and Downloads. You- NOT SO MUCH! Is this a
matter of profitable convenience? At whose expense? It is
not going to be born in a vacuum! Who pays then? Variety=
Strength. Your limited Format variety= What? Weakness?
24/96,24/192 Audio Extractor compared to 32 Bit Disks- is
that the best that you can do? Keep working on it (I sense
a pattern here).

hfisher3380 is only saying disks, whatever the sample rate, would be unnessassary once the download is available. The download is the same file used to make the disk. You just run it from your HD rather than an optical drive.

What's complicated? The very same people who offered you the disk will offer you the download.
Pettyofficer, You seem very passionate about this. Since you've been beating down 30 or so audiophiles, You must have been driving manufactures crazy to do something about your complaints that we have nothing to do with... You continually state "YOU THINK"
To be clear, what I THINK is that you've done nothing, you've contacted no one, you've only complained to a bunch of guys doing best they can to listen to tunes.
Please give us the info of the rants where you have taken it to the manufacturers to update audio formats in the manor that you have laid out in this 230+ count thread... So very directly again... HAVE YOU CONTACTED MANUFACTURERS? WHOM DID YOU TALK WITH? WHAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE?
TO QOUTE Pettyofficer: "COMPARISON" you want! I would be happy with both Disks and Downloads. You- NOT SO MUCH! Is this a matter of profitable convenience? At whose expense? It is not going to be born in a vacuum! Who pays then? Variety= strength. Your limited Format variety= What? Weakness?24/96,24/192 Audio Extractor compared to 32 Bit Disks- is that the best that you can do? Keep working on it. So other than beat on a bunch of guy acting like WE NEED TO FIX YOUR PROBLEM, Tell us what you've done about it. Tim
Petty - there is no such thing as 32-bit CD. It is 16/44 - period. It may be mastered in 32-bit but you are NOT hearing 32-bit resolution.

With computer audio, the possibility exists for 32-bit resolution but not with CD. My current DAC is 32-bit so all I need is the download resolution and voila - I'll have true 32-bit resolution in my system. Just a matter of time before that becomes a reality. I would be very surprised if there is ever a commercially available 32-bit optical disc and player.

If resolution is what you want, a CD player is most definitely NOT the answer.

If availability and selection is what you want, MLP, SACD and DVDa are most definitely NOT the answer.

Why are YOU continually proving MY point?

Nobody trying to deprive you of anything here - just trying to set the record straight and address your confusion, misunderstanding and paranoia.
Excellent question Timlub. I believe it was asked on page 2 of this thread and surprisingly - Petty had NO ANSWER!! I would think that he certainly must have done something by now?
Well guys, I'll be gone tuesday - friday. Going on a buying trip... Computers ...I have appointments with Acer, Asus & HP. Too bad, Pettyofficer didn't answer my questions back on page 2 about taking this to manufacturers and I as I stated a couple post ago, I don't think that petty has done anything but complain to us.
Keep at it, I'll check in on my phone.
Oh I wouldn't hold my breath Timlub! I think by post 235 or so and page 5 it is quite obvious that Petty is not the least bit interested in anything but posting a litany of complaints, blaming us for his problems and pushing his own misguided agenda. Same thing over and over..."soon all new music will only be available as downloads", "impending doom" etc. Doesn't matter what anyone says because our words just get twisted around and other words put back in our mouths.

Brace it comes again...
Hfisher, Are you a church boy, for some reason when I read your last post, I have an uncontrollable desire to say
"amen brother"
My current DAC is 32-bit so all I need is the download resolution and voila - I'll have true 32-bit resolution in my system.
Sorry mate, all your 32 bit Sabre DAC is capable of is reading a 32 bit word. What comes out the other end is not 32 bit even if you could download 32 bit music.
The current 32 bit "DACS", as in chips, are really computer/video chips that have been touted for use in audio - mid-fi at best.
Dover...I might stand to be corrected regarding 32-bit, not sure, haven't really looked into it because 32-bit recordings aren't yet available - regardless, my point stands that computer audio and my digital front end is capable of far higher resolution than any redbook CD player. There is no such thing as the 32-bit CD that Petty keeps talking about. Likely never will be.

If you want to call my DAC mid-fi - well that is a matter of opinion and we're all entitled to our own opinion. The sound I get from my current digital front end certainly does not sound like "mid-fi" to me. I have had a number of high end CDP in my system, including the >$6K Ayre universal, and this sounds better to my ears.

I notice that you don't have your system listed, so it's hard for me to have a frame of reference for your opinion. But thanks for your comments on mine.

May I ask what DACs you have heard that have allowed you to come to the conclusion that they all represent "mid-fi"?
Emm Labs XSD1, Eximus, Mytek, Naim, Moon 750/650, AMR-77, Wadia 861SE with GNSC mods, Meridian 800 are some of the digital front ends I have heard extensively. Emm Labs was probably the most musical, but had the advantage of full AIR Tight amplification, ATC2/ATM3 monos. Eximus I think is pretty good value/performance.
Main point is you will probably get more resolution out of a 24/192 DAC than the 32bits SABRE based units.
The best digital I've heard extensively is a non red book standard custom built DAC that dispenses with the clock info from the transport and uses clock info extracted from the data itself, ( the only commercial DAC I'm aware of that does this is the Orpheus Heretage ), proprietory A/D & D/A algorithms that eliminate sine x/x errors inherent in all red book material and a few other bits.
Much more going on than the actual chip itself. The implementation is at least as important. My understanding is that Wavelength's proprietary asynchronous USB technology also dispenses with the clock information from the transport / computer. I'm no techno guru, but the sound I'm getting definitely does NOT sound like mid-fi to my ears. Indeed, it's the first digital front end I've had that can rival the natural, organic sound I get from the best analogue.
Chadeffect- not the same releases available on 24/96
24/192 Downloads, as available on High Res. Disks- no
matter what the Format. The issue is the severe lack of
S-E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N in either High Res. Downloads, AND High
Res. Disks. Your solution would be to cut this selection in half by getting rid of all of the High Res. Disks. This
helps me HOW in selecting High Res.? Limited selection helps me HOW in selecting those that sound the best, Disk
or Download? "The Download is the same File used to make the Disk". How do you know this? Is it the same File used
as a two channel 24/192 Download that is the same as the
Blue-ray Audio Release, same as the Advanced Resolution
MULTI-CHANNEL 24/96 Surround Sound MLP Processed Disk?
Two Channel 24/192 Download, Multi-Channel 24/96 MLP Disk,
Blue-Ray Audio Disk, XRCD Disk, XRCD 24 Disk, K2 HD CD Disk, 32 Bit Remastered onto CD- ALL COME FROM A DIFFERENT
REMASTERING PROCESS!!! They are all going to sound different. Some will sound better than the Download Release, and visa-versa.
Hfisher3380- 32 Bit Remastered on CD DOES EXIST! I have
listened to Remastered High Res. on CD, and it DOES give
High Res. Downloads a run for their money- in some
instances. Allow me to pick what I want to listen to on
High Res. Downloads, AND on High Res. Disks. Same Releases on both DO NOT Sound the same! Neither can claim superiority with a mixed bag of results for BOTH!
Timlub- take this to the Manufacturer for what? To have my
ears corrected. To have them adjust my hearing for
Download Format only- P-O-I-N-T-L-E-S-S!
All of you want to can half of the High Res. Market by
getting rid of the High Res. Disks- in order to MAKE ROOM
for High Res. Downloads! This does "WHAT" to my selection of High Res. anything? If you canned half of the High Res.
Market Selection you run the risk of dragging the rest of it down as well. Limited Selection, Limited Market, the end of anything High Res. period! Selection won't be there to support it, and that selection won't happen in a vacuum
of High Res. Download Selection. You don't have 24/192
Download Selection available to make up the difference, to immediately step in to fill the void. You have selection
available FIRST before you pull the Disks- otherwise alot of people are going to lose their Music. I know that no-
one here really cares about that! I mean R-E-A-L-L-Y cares
about Music. I am waisting my time here. Music Selection be
damned for everyone. You win! I am thru here. You guys have
always put the Computer above the Music, not in service of it. Sad day for Music indeed! Can we now let this Thread rest in peace??? Do not respond to this- and we will be
thru with it! Yes- post 235, and NOTHING learned by anyone!
I think the sound quality of everything should be improved especially the computer. So put me down as a positori. If my computor is going to tell me who is calling, where to go, how much weight I have lost, how much money I have in my bank account, what I forgot, how ugly I am and other necessary things I think it should be the most pleasant experience we can have because I don't want to be going postal all the time.
Petty - 5 pages in, same baseless, preposterous accusations...yet still providing no evidence. Here is your challenge: re-read the posts and find me one...O-N-E example of Chad, Timlub, myself or anyone stating that they would like to annihilate ANY format.


Put up or shut up already!
PO, you sir are plain wrong. Unfortunately on top of this not ready to listen. Continue the way you are.

Do you really believe a site that prides itself on amazing quality and attention to detail, like let's say like Pristine Classical (32 bit mastered) that they would rather offer you the mp3 to download or a dithered down crap version?

What makes me laugh, is you go on about these recordings that have massive sample rates, but forget every single one of them was mastered on a computer! How did they manage if computer audio is so bad?

As I told you the file is the file. Anyone one selling it legitimately will explain what the file is and how it originated. Natural sound, DXD etc etc.