[Neil Rutman]

T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.

--
Neil R

[Nick Brown]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:05:55 -0700, "Neil Rutman"
wrote:

T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.

Haven't read it yet, but it's online at:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,1061316.story

-Nick

[jwvm]

On Aug 30, 12:05*pm, "Neil Rutman" wrote:
T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.

--
Neil R

Gee, this sounds like yet another audiophile standard to replace those
horrible-sounding CDs and achieve analog sound using digital. Here is
one take on the new standard:

http://bitstream.soundandvisionmag.c...e-dv.html#more

It seems unlikely that audiophiles would actually believe that high-
quality sound is possible from lowly DVD players.

[Les Cargill]

Nick Brown wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:05:55 -0700, "Neil Rutman"
wrote:

T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.

Haven't read it yet, but it's online at:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,1061316.story

-Nick

Quoth T. Bone:
"We were sending records out to the pressing plants and the record
companies, and they were coming back sounding nothing like what we had
sent them," Burnett said.

Why, I would think a certain amount of violence would then
be in order. At very least structure payment such that
payment is contingent on acceptable product.

I would like to direct anybody who cares to "At Last!" by Bugs Henderson
for a really nice example of just how good CD can sound.

--
Les Cargill

[John Williamson]

Neil Rutman wrote:
T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.

After reading the article, bearing in mind where the major quality loss
occurs between studio & listener, is it going to be compulsory to use an
acoustically treated listening room, with the listening chair fastened
rigidly in place using a headbrace (Acoustically invisible, of course)
to ensure the listener's head remains in the sweet spot?

Oh, & will it be compatible with my current portable CD player?

No, I thought not.

The Betamax museum's over there.

Incidentally, when using a digital master, how does it matter *which*
generation is used, as they're all identical if the machinery's working
right?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

Nick Brown wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:05:55 -0700, "Neil Rutman"
wrote:

T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.

Haven't read it yet, but it's online at:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...8aug30,0,10611
6.story

-Nick

Quoth T. Bone:
"We were sending records out to the pressing plants and the record
companies, and they were coming back sounding nothing like what we had
sent them," Burnett said.

Why, I would think a certain amount of violence would then
be in order. At very least structure payment such that
payment is contingent on acceptable product.

I would like to direct anybody who cares to "At Last!" by Bugs Henderson
for a really nice example of just how good CD can sound.

Why, thank you, Les.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Mike Rivers]

Neil Rutman wrote:
T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.

So how does it sound? Any Mellencamp fans here have the DVD version?

I couldn't tell from the article just what's on the DVD - not the
content, I assume that's the same as the CD, but the audio format. It
has to be something that any DVD player can play. Or is the point that
it's mastered separately from the commercial CD release, sort of like
the Mobile Fidelity versions of phonograph records that we used to be
able to get (maybe still can?)?

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Les Cargill]

hank alrich wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

Nick Brown wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:05:55 -0700, "Neil Rutman"
wrote:

T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.
Haven't read it yet, but it's online at:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...8aug30,0,10611
6.story
-Nick
Quoth T. Bone:
"We were sending records out to the pressing plants and the record
companies, and they were coming back sounding nothing like what we had
sent them," Burnett said.

Why, I would think a certain amount of violence would then
be in order. At very least structure payment such that
payment is contingent on acceptable product.

I would like to direct anybody who cares to "At Last!" by Bugs Henderson
for a really nice example of just how good CD can sound.

Why, thank you, Les.


That's an opinion formed when it was first released. It's
just a good example - I knew it was one of y'alls, but that's
not why it's brought up as an example.

It sounded good on vinyl, too. Funny how that works.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

Nick Brown wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:05:55 -0700, "Neil Rutman"
wrote:

T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.
Haven't read it yet, but it's online at:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...8aug30,0,10611
6.story
-Nick
Quoth T. Bone:
"We were sending records out to the pressing plants and the record
companies, and they were coming back sounding nothing like what we had
sent them," Burnett said.

Why, I would think a certain amount of violence would then
be in order. At very least structure payment such that
payment is contingent on acceptable product.

I would like to direct anybody who cares to "At Last!" by Bugs Henderson
for a really nice example of just how good CD can sound.

Why, thank you, Les.


That's an opinion formed when it was first released. It's
just a good example - I knew it was one of y'alls, but that's
not why it's brought up as an example.

It sounded good on vinyl, too. Funny how that works.

When Taxin licensed it the master tapes were at the Wakefield Mfg. plant
in Phoenix. They duped to a DAT that got checked for errors, and then
they sent to DAT tape to Germany. Nothing done in the contemporary
manner of "mastering".


--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Eeyore]

Nick Brown wrote:

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:05:55 -0700, "Neil Rutman"
wrote:

T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.

Haven't read it yet, but it's online at:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,1061316.story

I can see some valid points there.

Not least that it was obvious when TB hard drives are here, the need for quality
crushing mp3 etc compression will simply die.

Graham

[Eeyore]

jwvm wrote:

"Neil Rutman" wrote:
T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.

Gee, this sounds like yet another audiophile standard to replace those
horrible-sounding CDs and achieve analog sound using digital. Here is
one take on the new standard:

http://bitstream.soundandvisionmag.c...e-dv.html#more

It seems unlikely that audiophiles would actually believe that high-
quality sound is possible from lowly DVD players.

That's merely a reflection of how dumb they are.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Les Cargill wrote:

Quoth T. Bone:
"We were sending records out to the pressing plants and the record
companies, and they were coming back sounding nothing like what we had
sent them," Burnett said.

Sounds like the modern digital equivalent of the cutting engineer needs taking out to
the nearest wall and shooting.

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Williamson wrote:

Incidentally, when using a digital master, how does it matter *which*
generation is used, as they're all identical if the machinery's working
right?

Remember when DATs had error correction and concealment LEDs ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Les Cargill wrote:

It sounded good on vinyl, too. Funny how that works.

VERY good vinyl can indeed sound quite OK. Usually doesn't last that way for
long sadly.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

Quoth T. Bone:
"We were sending records out to the pressing plants and the record
companies, and they were coming back sounding nothing like what we had
sent them," Burnett said.

Sounds like the modern digital equivalent of the cutting engineer needs taking out to
the nearest wall and shooting.

It's usually not their fault. They are usually so used to the label guys
and the musicians screaming at them to make things louder that crushing the
hell out of everything has become the norm in many places.

You wouldn't believe the sigh of relief I hear when I take recordings into
the mastering room and tell the engineer I don't want them loud at all.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:34:32 -0700, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article Yoguk.118$1a2.114@trnddc04):

I couldn't tell from the article just what's on the DVD - not the
content, I assume that's the same as the CD, but the audio format.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Elsewhere on the net, reviewers are saying that the music is 96kHz (sampling
frequency, not bitrate), 24-bit. Apparently they are not copy-protected and
uncompressed, and claim to be compatible with iTunes, iPods, and other
players. (I assume they have to be down-rezzed to WAV, AIFF, or ALAC to play
on an iPod.)

Can't find a website anywhere devoted to explaining "Code," which seems a
major omission on their part.

--MFW

[jwvm]

On Aug 30, 8:48*pm, Marc Wielage wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:34:32 -0700, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article Yoguk.118$1a2.114@trnddc04):

I couldn't tell from the article just what's on the DVD - not the
content, I assume that's the same as the CD, but the audio format.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Elsewhere on the net, reviewers are saying that the music is 96kHz (sampling
frequency, not bitrate), 24-bit. *Apparently they are not copy-protected and
uncompressed, and claim to be compatible with iTunes, iPods, and other
players. (I assume they have to be down-rezzed to WAV, AIFF, or ALAC to play
on an iPod.)

Apparently, they have four differently encoded versions on the DVD.

Wow, what a revolutionary and original encoding concept. Nothing like
this has ever been done before! I'll bet that the RIAA loves the lack
of copy protection too. :-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:34:32 -0700, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article Yoguk.118$1a2.114@trnddc04):

I couldn't tell from the article just what's on the DVD - not the
content, I assume that's the same as the CD, but the audio format.

Elsewhere on the net, reviewers are saying that the music is 96kHz (sampling
frequency, not bitrate), 24-bit. Apparently they are not copy-protected and
uncompressed, and claim to be compatible with iTunes, iPods, and other
players. (I assume they have to be down-rezzed to WAV, AIFF, or ALAC to play
on an iPod.)

Why is this better than a DVD-A, then? DVD-A will give you the same
word length and sample rate, and is playable on existing DVD players
(well, a lot of them) as well as on your computer.

DVD-A was kind of late in coming, but it's here, and you might as
well use it if that's what you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill]

Eeyore wrote:

Nick Brown wrote:

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:05:55 -0700, "Neil Rutman"
wrote:

T Bone Burnett's new hi fi audio standard is written about in todays LA
Times calendar section.
Haven't read it yet, but it's online at:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,1061316.story

I can see some valid points there.

Not least that it was obvious when TB hard drives are here, the need for quality
crushing mp3 etc compression will simply die.

Graham


No, because the principal emergent delivery system is iPod/iPhone. The
least common denominator never goes away.

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers]

Marc Wielage wrote:

Elsewhere on the net, reviewers are saying that the music is 96kHz (sampling
frequency, not bitrate), 24-bit. Apparently they are not copy-protected and
uncompressed, and claim to be compatible with iTunes, iPods, and other
players.

Well, DVD-A, which is already defined, is 96 kHz, 24-bit. DVD players
will play a lot of stuff, but I've never tried putting a disk with just
96 kHz WAV files in mine to see it it'll be recognized. Maybe it's as
simple as that. I assume it has to be readable by computer in order to
transfer the data to an iPod.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

On Aug 30, 8:19*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Marc Wielage wrote:
Elsewhere on the net, reviewers are saying that the music is 96kHz (sampling
frequency, not bitrate), 24-bit. *Apparently they are not copy-protected and
uncompressed, and claim to be compatible with iTunes, iPods, and other
players.

Well, DVD-A, which is already defined, is 96 kHz, 24-bit. DVD players
will play a lot of stuff, but I've never tried putting a disk with just
96 kHz WAV files in mine to see it it'll be recognized. Maybe it's as
simple as that. I assume it has to be readable by computer in order to
transfer the data to an iPod.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

I actually did take a 96K 24 bit file a burned it as a DVD-Audio disk.
The DVD player did recognize it and play it. It sounds better than a
CD. I was curious too.

[John Phillips]

Scott Dorsey wrote:


Why is this better than a DVD-A, then? DVD-A will give you the same
word length and sample rate, and is playable on existing DVD players
(well, a lot of them) as well as on your computer.

...
--scott


I think that the DVD-A has drm and the Code DVD does not.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **