Venkat, this is one area where I'm skeptical. I believe mass consumption is happening not on 'audiophile' systems, but on portable devices (iDevices, MP3 Players, Phones, Tablets). Until they figure out some way to make multi-channel portable and easy to consume like iPods, the majority of the consumers would remain 2 channel.
Direct Stream Digital - The New Addiction
- Thread starter venkatcr
- Start date
Venkat, this is one area where I'm skeptical. I believe mass consumption is happening not on 'audiophile' systems, but on portable devices (iDevices, MP3 Players, Phones, Tablets). Until they figure out some way to make multi-channel portable and easy to consume like iPods, the majority of the consumers would remain 2 channel.
^ +1. Makes sense...
Besides how many music lovers are really audiophiles?
Everyday my wife listens to music (strictly FM) when she is cooking -- from a Sony clock Radio
hyeah:
Besides how many music lovers are really audiophiles?
Everyday my wife listens to music (strictly FM) when she is cooking -- from a Sony clock Radio
hyeah:Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Oh what blessed freedom: Better to be a music lover :lol:
I think we all understand that we are looking at roughly 30% of the market which is not eaten by MP3. But that is where multi-channel has an advantage. When not listening on a pair of headphones, the portable player lover will be ready to listen to a reasonably priced multi channel system that also doubles up as a movie system. He will never listen to a 'audiophile' 2 channel system.
Secondly it will be easy to down mix a multi channel system into 2 channels. The reverse is not possible. So even if you play a multi channel sound through your headphones, you can listen to it easily in 2 channels.
Cheers
square_wave
Well-Known Member
I think we need to see all this in the right perspective.
We say only 30 percent listens to audiophile systems or are particular about resolution of their music. What do this demographic represent?
---------- It represents the hobbyist section of the population who is passionate about this. How is this different from any other hobby ? Which hobby commands more percentage? It is the same as any other hobby. I do not find this surprising at all.
---------- 70 percentage is already eaten by Mp3 !! This 70 percentage already existed as the demographic that had casual attitude towards high quality audio reproduction. A decade back, this group did not have Mp3 or portable players or home theatre systems to listen to. They were FORCED to listen to cd walkmans or high resolution two channel systems because the alternatives did not EXIST! Now that such alternative exist, they have migrated to them. It just a natural progression. Nothing surprising about it.
Music:
I have not seen any trend by any of the big labels who produce real music going in the direction of multi-channel. They are all going digital and high resolution in 2 channel. Please remember that the 95 percentage of the demographic that pays large money for high resolution music only downloads are folks who represent the 30 percent who we talked about earlier. They are currently firmly entrenched in the two channel camp holding onto the best two channel system their money can buy. It is foolhardy to believe that they will all sell their system to buy a multi-channel system with watered down quality and will start to listen to the multi channel version through an AVR. These are hard core hobbyists ! The music type hobbyist is a very different animal than the hybrid variety (music visual).
Trends:
The Main stream group who are part of this hobby ( the 70 percent) will go according to the most popular trends. This is where the money is. If you want to make money in this business, this is where you should be.
The hobbyist (30 percent) will stay where they are. There will always be a market for this group and it will thrive in its own right.
All this will represent a different meaning for you. It depends where you belong to. Mainstream or hobbyist (the music type).
We say only 30 percent listens to audiophile systems or are particular about resolution of their music. What do this demographic represent?
---------- It represents the hobbyist section of the population who is passionate about this. How is this different from any other hobby ? Which hobby commands more percentage? It is the same as any other hobby. I do not find this surprising at all.
---------- 70 percentage is already eaten by Mp3 !! This 70 percentage already existed as the demographic that had casual attitude towards high quality audio reproduction. A decade back, this group did not have Mp3 or portable players or home theatre systems to listen to. They were FORCED to listen to cd walkmans or high resolution two channel systems because the alternatives did not EXIST! Now that such alternative exist, they have migrated to them. It just a natural progression. Nothing surprising about it.
Music:
I have not seen any trend by any of the big labels who produce real music going in the direction of multi-channel. They are all going digital and high resolution in 2 channel. Please remember that the 95 percentage of the demographic that pays large money for high resolution music only downloads are folks who represent the 30 percent who we talked about earlier. They are currently firmly entrenched in the two channel camp holding onto the best two channel system their money can buy. It is foolhardy to believe that they will all sell their system to buy a multi-channel system with watered down quality and will start to listen to the multi channel version through an AVR. These are hard core hobbyists ! The music type hobbyist is a very different animal than the hybrid variety (music visual).
Trends:
The Main stream group who are part of this hobby ( the 70 percent) will go according to the most popular trends. This is where the money is. If you want to make money in this business, this is where you should be.
The hobbyist (30 percent) will stay where they are. There will always be a market for this group and it will thrive in its own right.
All this will represent a different meaning for you. It depends where you belong to. Mainstream or hobbyist (the music type).
Have you noticed the most important thing about multichannel music which has not been mentioned in these discussions, or did I miss it?
Even supporters of multichannel music unanimously agree that multichannel music sounds great only "when the music is also recorded in the original as well as in the disc or album in multichannel format". Otherwise, as long as it is a "converted" format from a mono or stereo recording, it sounds worse than even a mono.
I wonder how much music is being originally recorded in multichannel even today to enable us enjoy that format.
cheers.
murali
You certainly missed it. I have mentioned it all the time.
If you recall some old discussions, muti-channel recording was done as early as Beatles. Actually almost all of Beatles numbers were recorded in four channels. It is the delivery that has always been a issue. Many modern Classical numbers are recorded in multi channel now. Though the numbers are small, as soon as the availability and prices become meaningful, they will show up in large numbers.
Cheers
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
When was Quadrophonic?
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE download music in different forms / formats from sites like the one listed below, compare and post your VALUABLE / INFORMATIVE / EDUCATING comments and opinions. TIRED of __________ . THANK YOU.
High Resolution Music DOWNLOAD services .:. FLAC in free TEST BENCH
High Resolution Music DOWNLOAD services .:. FLAC in free TEST BENCH
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
But, just now ... we are talking about the future.
For today, yes, I hope people will make those comparisons, and do so fairly using blind-test methods, apparently easily available in Foobar.
Many of us are limited to 2-channel, and some of us are restricted to 96khz ...but, as I have said, I already did my own 44/48/96 testing, and posted my comments.
For today, yes, I hope people will make those comparisons, and do so fairly using blind-test methods, apparently easily available in Foobar.
Many of us are limited to 2-channel, and some of us are restricted to 96khz ...but, as I have said, I already did my own 44/48/96 testing, and posted my comments.
Last edited:
THAD,
FYI: Vinyl rips are not lossless and they are not equal to master tapes.
hughjorgenn: "Prior the the introduction of the Compact Disc, recorded music quality varied considerably throughout the world. For example, a UK band's LP made and purchased in Australia was made from a copy of the analogue master tape. If the album was a compilation, chances were that it was a copy of a copy of a copy of the master. Understandably, the creators of an album would not contemplate sending the original master tapes overseas to make vinyl albums. However, most countries wanted to manufacture their own vinyl so many copies of the master tape are made and sent all over the world. Unfortunately every time an analogue tape is copied there is a loss in fidelity and an increase in background noise. When it comes to the actual LP mastering, vinyl has severe limitations due to the fact that the LP must be playable on both grandma's $10 record player and your $1000 turntable, hence compression is applied to the audio fed to the cutting lathe to limit the stylus excursions during playback. If this were not done, the recording will be unplayable on cheaper equipment due to the stylus leaving the recorded groove and damage to the LP would result.
So it is obvious that an LP cannot be considered an accurate reproduction of a recording. I realise that there were limited edition recordings made "direct to disc" or from the "original masters" using thicker vinyl to limit audio feedback etc. These were a considerable improvement but if you want to hear what the band recorded in the studio, then a compact disc offers much better quality than any vinyl equivalent. A CD made from a digital master sounds just like it did in the recording studio. A CD made from a digital copy of an analogue master is second best, but still far better than any LP.
So I come to my real point. There are losses in going from analogue tape to tape, from tape to cutting lathe and from stylus/cartridge to amplifier. If cheap analogue to digital converters are used in digitizing the audio (99% of sound cards or on-board audio) off the vinyl the results are suspect at best."
FYI: Vinyl rips are not lossless and they are not equal to master tapes.
hughjorgenn: "Prior the the introduction of the Compact Disc, recorded music quality varied considerably throughout the world. For example, a UK band's LP made and purchased in Australia was made from a copy of the analogue master tape. If the album was a compilation, chances were that it was a copy of a copy of a copy of the master. Understandably, the creators of an album would not contemplate sending the original master tapes overseas to make vinyl albums. However, most countries wanted to manufacture their own vinyl so many copies of the master tape are made and sent all over the world. Unfortunately every time an analogue tape is copied there is a loss in fidelity and an increase in background noise. When it comes to the actual LP mastering, vinyl has severe limitations due to the fact that the LP must be playable on both grandma's $10 record player and your $1000 turntable, hence compression is applied to the audio fed to the cutting lathe to limit the stylus excursions during playback. If this were not done, the recording will be unplayable on cheaper equipment due to the stylus leaving the recorded groove and damage to the LP would result.
So it is obvious that an LP cannot be considered an accurate reproduction of a recording. I realise that there were limited edition recordings made "direct to disc" or from the "original masters" using thicker vinyl to limit audio feedback etc. These were a considerable improvement but if you want to hear what the band recorded in the studio, then a compact disc offers much better quality than any vinyl equivalent. A CD made from a digital master sounds just like it did in the recording studio. A CD made from a digital copy of an analogue master is second best, but still far better than any LP.
So I come to my real point. There are losses in going from analogue tape to tape, from tape to cutting lathe and from stylus/cartridge to amplifier. If cheap analogue to digital converters are used in digitizing the audio (99% of sound cards or on-board audio) off the vinyl the results are suspect at best."
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Take a source. Make recordings of the source in different formats. Compare.
Now, what is relevant to that in your quote?
Given the age of most of the stuff I am likely to digitise, digital master tapes don't even come into it.
Frankly, although it is heresy in the eyes of the real vinyl fans on this forum, given a free choice, I probably would go out and buy the CD, but that is another story altogether. I have the albums on the shelf: where they are in reasonable condition, I'd rather not pay the record companies yet again for the same stuff and, although I have limited digitalising stamina, it is an interesting technical exercise, which involves a certain amount of getting to grips with the music in a different way. My deck didn't cost lakhs (and is about 20 years old), nor did my phone preamp, and my sound card was only about 14,000, not 1,40,000 --- but still, the results are comparing like with like.
I guess I'm stuck with stereo for the rest of my days. I mentioned elsewhere that I hope to be able to afford to replace equipment as it dies, but upgrading or moving to something like a new multichanel set up is most unlikely. The possibilities, though, are always interesting to discuss.
Now, what is relevant to that in your quote?
Given the age of most of the stuff I am likely to digitise, digital master tapes don't even come into it.
Frankly, although it is heresy in the eyes of the real vinyl fans on this forum, given a free choice, I probably would go out and buy the CD, but that is another story altogether. I have the albums on the shelf: where they are in reasonable condition, I'd rather not pay the record companies yet again for the same stuff and, although I have limited digitalising stamina, it is an interesting technical exercise, which involves a certain amount of getting to grips with the music in a different way. My deck didn't cost lakhs (and is about 20 years old), nor did my phone preamp, and my sound card was only about 14,000, not 1,40,000 --- but still, the results are comparing like with like.
I guess I'm stuck with stereo for the rest of my days. I mentioned elsewhere that I hope to be able to afford to replace equipment as it dies, but upgrading or moving to something like a new multichanel set up is most unlikely. The possibilities, though, are always interesting to discuss.
Last edited:
Join WhatsApp Channel to get HiFiMART.com Offers & Deals delivered to your smartphone!
Similar threads
