Which serves to define AQ - acceptable quality, not high.
What makes you pick a particular Music format?
- Thread starter Condorsat
- Start date
Spinning45s
Active Member
Whatever media on which the music is available, that is what I buy. I have music on vinyl that never made it to digital, and some CD's with music that artists never released or which is either impossible to find or too costly on vinyl. Though, my preference is for vinyl.
I do not care for MP3. IMHO, It sounds like a cheap transistor radio from the 60's.
As for tape, being that it stretches and the oxide wears off, I never considered it a permanent storage medium.
I do not care for MP3. IMHO, It sounds like a cheap transistor radio from the 60's.
As for tape, being that it stretches and the oxide wears off, I never considered it a permanent storage medium.
+48V
hi-fi or die
I did. Sans your quote scissors....
But I would indeed suffer sacrifice by becoming a lossless stickler. To do so would mean forfeiting a massive HQ lossy on-demand streaming library of music.
Thanks to some industry affiliations I'm very fortunate to have a Comp account to Tidal Hi-Fi. But they don't have access to all the titles/artists/features I want. So I also use Play, Spotify, and soon Pandora on-demand--Big picture, sensible balance.
Tag me more of a happy musicphile than an audiophile perfectionist--I'll wear the badge proudly.
+48V
hi-fi or die
Context semantics…would it make you feel better Joe if I called it "high-bitrate" lossy.
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
Context semantics…would it make you feel better Joe if I called it "high-bitrate" lossy.
That works for me, as there is nothing HQ about any lossy compressed file. HQ lossy? Compared to what?
I posted earlier I use 320kbps MP3 files on my portable player. For home use I don't understand why anyone would "throw out the baby with the bath water". I'll listen to just about anything. However, when it comes to "serious" listening I prefer non lossy compression.
+48V
hi-fi or die
Compared to...
LQ lossy. Let's say that's 8-64 kbps.
HQ lossy would be 256-320 kbps.
You feel there's no need for a distinction in sound quality here. I do.
Last edited:
Very well. I wouldn't have ripped my albums three different times - it took me weeks to do it once!
Once again, my comments were limited to content you already had on CD.
Apparently against swishy sounding 64k bitrates.
As for streaming, I like the Quobuz perspective:
"Streaming in True CD Quality. Over 30 million tracks. Complete repertoires. And, as a world first, streaming in 24-Bit Hi-Res"
Last edited:
+48V
hi-fi or die
You were late to the ripping party. No fault found there. Back to my original comment--it would've been ridiculously expensive and impractical to rip lossless from the get go.
Mine weren't. Sorry you missed that.
Back to that quality thing. Why listen to a lower quality format than you already own?
Seems you need a better streaming provider.
restorer-john
Addicted Member
The format was not fenced from the outset. Consider prototypes using 14 bits and 11cm discs appeared in 1977 and 1979.
Resolution was not lowered to fit into 640MB- that is simply not true. The 16 bit resolution of the Compact Disc is exactly the same as the 16 bit resolution of the Soundstream recorders. What is different is the 50KHZ vs 44.1KHz sampling rate.
Resolution was increased from 14 to 16 bits and the disc size increased from 110/115mm to 120mm by the time CD was released.
640MB (at the time) was just the practical limit, not the actual real capacity of a 120mm disc, due to the tracking servos and focus servos being at the absolute limit of what could be achieved on the outer part of a disc (where any tracking, spiral eccentricity and warp variations are multiplied) and the ability to press a reliable pit spiral. As time went on we were able to accurately press and track out to almost 80mins and 700MB+ on the same size disc.
Remember, the Soundstream recordings pressed to vinyl went through a digital mixing process on Hard Disk and into 1970s D/A converters before making their way to the cutting heads. The 'digital' CD releases of the same recordings didn't have the ancient D/As in the chain, they just went through a sample rate converter in the digital domain and were CD mastered. No wonder they sounded better than the records.
Of course it was. The media offered 640 MB of storage. Period. It was insufficient to store the technology that already existed. Engineers never had the choice to select what was required. Fortunately, we've come a long way in storage technology in the past thirty five years. What were the processor clocks running then? 2 mHz?
Well, you can dumb down sound quality any number of ways.
Exactly. And the resulting choice today of having either rolled off response to 20 kHz or suffer with either pre or post ringing.
Unfortunately, it had no effect on correcting the audible problems with the Redbook standard. Just allowed for greater playing time. Big whoop.
Sorry, but you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
There were no hard disks involved with the Soundstream process. Why? The cost was prohibitive then! I'm an IT guy and 75 MB capacity (14" multi-platter drives using removable packs) ran about $25k in those days. I participated in the 1978 recording of the ASO recording of The Firebird and met Dr. Stockham and watched the recording process.
Last edited:
+48V
hi-fi or die
Because my music collection was not restricted exclusively to a CDP for playback?
Why so?
restorer-john
Addicted Member
E-Stat. You are wrong. I will await your apology.
Soundstream used hard disk based digital editing in 1978, two years before you sat in on a recording process of the ASO (that must have been exciting seriously).
Let's take the most famous of all Telarc/Soundstream the original 1812 recorded in 1978 as an example (CD80041):
The bells, the musical score and the cannons were all recorded separately and mixed together using their HDD based system as described below. The liner notes confirm this and describe it as a "revolutionary first" Incidentally, a Studer SFC-16 was the sample rate converter for the CD master and the entire process was handled in the digital domain, unlike the vinyl which went through their nasty D/As.
"Soundstream’s digital editing system was the first instance of a computer used to edit commercial recordings. It consisted of a Digital Equipment PDP 11/60 computer running the DAP (Digital Audio Processor) editing software (written by Soundstream employee Robert Ingebretsen), Soundstream’s interface (the Digital Audio Interface) to transfer data between its recorder and the computer’s disks (a pair of Braegen 14" disk drives), digital-to-analog playback hardware, a text-based video display terminal for entering commands to operate and control the DAP software, and a storage oscilloscope to display the waveforms of the audio being edited or processed. For all intents and purposes, this system was the very first digital audio workstation. In addition to its own facility, Soundstream installed editing systems at Paramount Pictures (Hollywood), RCA (New York), and Bertelsmann (Germany). A system was delivered to the U.S. Department of Justice to aid the analysis of bootleg recordings."
"The first commercial digital recording to be released for sale was by Telarc of Frederick Fennell and the Cleveland Symphonic Winds, recorded in spring, 1978. Jack Renner of Telarc released the first CD of a digital recording in the U.S. in 1982. Soundstream merged with Digital Recording Corporation in 1980 and became DRC/Soundstream, but from 1975-80 Stockham with the help of scientists such as Jules Bloomenthal made over 500 digital masters with a completely computerized editing system, and pioneered tapeless hard disk editing. Thomas A. Britton at Chalfont Records produced in 1979 the King's Row soundtrack album with the first digital audio cross-fades. Soundstream sold about 16 of its editing systems at $160,000 each that were used by companies such as Bertelsmann. These machines used a Honeywell 16-track transport and sampled at 50 KHz."
Here's a bit more which confirms the 1978 date of the HDD based Soundstream Digital Editing System:
I have some early Soundstream mastered Jazz CDs where the liner notes speak of where they recorded and mixed, due to the fact they had to fly to somewhere with the Hard Disk based editing on the Soundstream recorder and mixing units.
Your first three rebuttals of what I said are simply complete rubbish. The CD format will easily store 80 minutes or slightly over 700MB. I have plenty of commercially released classical CDs hovering around 80mins and 700MB.
The resolution was not lowered to fit into 640MB as you say. You are wrong. The resolution, sampling frequency and required recording time determined the disc size and that had a specific capacity which happens to be 650-700MB. Do you get it? Throwing in pre or post ringing as some red-herring has nothing to do with it and you know it.
Soundstream used hard disk based digital editing in 1978, two years before you sat in on a recording process of the ASO (that must have been exciting seriously).
Let's take the most famous of all Telarc/Soundstream the original 1812 recorded in 1978 as an example (CD80041):
The bells, the musical score and the cannons were all recorded separately and mixed together using their HDD based system as described below. The liner notes confirm this and describe it as a "revolutionary first" Incidentally, a Studer SFC-16 was the sample rate converter for the CD master and the entire process was handled in the digital domain, unlike the vinyl which went through their nasty D/As.
"Soundstream’s digital editing system was the first instance of a computer used to edit commercial recordings. It consisted of a Digital Equipment PDP 11/60 computer running the DAP (Digital Audio Processor) editing software (written by Soundstream employee Robert Ingebretsen), Soundstream’s interface (the Digital Audio Interface) to transfer data between its recorder and the computer’s disks (a pair of Braegen 14" disk drives), digital-to-analog playback hardware, a text-based video display terminal for entering commands to operate and control the DAP software, and a storage oscilloscope to display the waveforms of the audio being edited or processed. For all intents and purposes, this system was the very first digital audio workstation. In addition to its own facility, Soundstream installed editing systems at Paramount Pictures (Hollywood), RCA (New York), and Bertelsmann (Germany). A system was delivered to the U.S. Department of Justice to aid the analysis of bootleg recordings."
"The first commercial digital recording to be released for sale was by Telarc of Frederick Fennell and the Cleveland Symphonic Winds, recorded in spring, 1978. Jack Renner of Telarc released the first CD of a digital recording in the U.S. in 1982. Soundstream merged with Digital Recording Corporation in 1980 and became DRC/Soundstream, but from 1975-80 Stockham with the help of scientists such as Jules Bloomenthal made over 500 digital masters with a completely computerized editing system, and pioneered tapeless hard disk editing. Thomas A. Britton at Chalfont Records produced in 1979 the King's Row soundtrack album with the first digital audio cross-fades. Soundstream sold about 16 of its editing systems at $160,000 each that were used by companies such as Bertelsmann. These machines used a Honeywell 16-track transport and sampled at 50 KHz."
Here's a bit more which confirms the 1978 date of the HDD based Soundstream Digital Editing System:
I have some early Soundstream mastered Jazz CDs where the liner notes speak of where they recorded and mixed, due to the fact they had to fly to somewhere with the Hard Disk based editing on the Soundstream recorder and mixing units.
Your first three rebuttals of what I said are simply complete rubbish. The CD format will easily store 80 minutes or slightly over 700MB. I have plenty of commercially released classical CDs hovering around 80mins and 700MB.
The resolution was not lowered to fit into 640MB as you say. You are wrong. The resolution, sampling frequency and required recording time determined the disc size and that had a specific capacity which happens to be 650-700MB. Do you get it? Throwing in pre or post ringing as some red-herring has nothing to do with it and you know it.
restorer-john
Addicted Member
Here's a nice little pic of the DEC PDP11-60, complete with HARD DISKS.
Sweet! A mini!
Where do I start?E-Stat. You are wrong. I will await your apology.
First of all, The ASO Firebird was recorded in 1978 as I indicated, and you really need to return to your liner notes for the 1812 which was in 1979.
Secondly, the entire piece was never captured on a hard disk. Let me repeat that if you didn't get it the first time
The entire piece was never captured on a hard disk. It was selectively edited with excerpts that were put back together on tape. Return to your quoted text:
"These machines used a Honeywell 16-track transport and sampled at 50 KHz."
"Editing of the digital tapes is done by transferring the needed streams of information into a computer where all edits are made electronically. The newly arranged information is then transformed back onto a tape master, ready to be used."
At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, 50<>44.1. Got that?
What I get is:
1. Dr. Stockham didn't buy such a low sample rate. Back to that 50<>44.1 thing. Do you understand simple math?
2. Engineers today don't accept such a low sample rate. Back to the 88,96, 192 and 354<>44.1 thing. Do you understand simple math?
Only to those who are incapable of hearing it. Perhaps that is the case with you. Others find different results. Redbook has always been a flawed format. It dumbed down Dr. Stockham's 50 kHz sample rate significantly and the ringing is evident.
Last edited:
You don't have to return to 2004.
+48V
hi-fi or die
You don't have to return to 2004.
Admirable cryptic dodge mate. The steadfast shtick is adorable.
Time travel? Here's me waving at you in 2020 for all the great "AQ" content you missed and dismissed altogether for the last 10 years. Your loss..y
If you return to post 78, you'll find I don't miss out on anything of interest to me.
I just prefer better when it is available.