[William Sommerwerck]

The following observations are interesting...

http://www.audiostream.com/content/g...high-res-music

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/3/2014 5:17 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
The following observations are interesting...
http://www.audiostream.com/content/g...high-res-music

It's nice to get the impressions from natural folks rather than
audiophiles, engineers, and artists-with-a-cause (though I'm not sure
what that cause is). After all, they're the ones who make up the
majority of the listeners.

Here's another try at defining what "high resolution audio" isn't:
http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news...dio-is-u-not-u

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

Here's another try at defining what "high resolution audio" isn't:
http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news...dio-is-u-not-u

Unfortunately, he neglects to mention what it is (especially the possibilities
of surround sound). And he (I believe intentionally) fails to mention that you
need really good speakers to appreciate high-resolution sound.

[[email protected]]

Michael Lavorgna(author) said it best: "..Perhaps what this article also inadvertently highlights is the fact that the quality of the recording trumps resolution."

I've been saying the same thing on GearSlutz & Hoffman Forums, to mostly deaf ears!

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

Michael Lavorgna (author) said it best: "...Perhaps what this
article also inadvertently highlights is the fact that the quality
of the recording trumps resolution."

Well, it can't /trump/ it, or it wouldn't matter whether we recorded to LP or
SACD.

Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best SACDs or BD-Audio
recordings?

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck wrote: "Well, it can't /trump/ it, or it wouldn't matter whether we recorded to LP or
SACD.

Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best SACDs or BD-Audio recordings? "

The mastering matters more than Redbook vs High Res. But looks like I have another wall to convince of that. smh...

http://www.cnet.com/news/best-sound-...really-matter/

Guttenberg in the article: "other words, a great recording on MP3 will definitely sound better than an overly compressed and processed one as a 192 kHz sample rate, 24 bit FLAC. If the original recording quality was crap, it's always going to sound like crap."

[Sean Conolly]

wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote: "Well, it can't /trump/ it, or it wouldn't matter
whether we recorded to LP or
SACD.

Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best SACDs or BD-Audio
recordings? "

The mastering matters more than Redbook vs High Res. But looks like I have
another wall to convince of that. smh...

http://www.cnet.com/news/best-sound-...really-matter/

Guttenberg in the article: "other words, a great recording on MP3 will
definitely sound better than an overly compressed and processed one as a 192
kHz sample rate, 24 bit FLAC. If the original recording quality was crap,
it's always going to sound like crap."

Well, back in the day we had a technique for make bad recordings sound
better: distance - the more between you and the speaker the better it
sounded. Like the go to the next room, or outside...

Sean

[Trevor]

On 4/09/2014 9:24 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
wrote in message
...

Michael Lavorgna (author) said it best: "...Perhaps what this
article also inadvertently highlights is the fact that the quality
of the recording trumps resolution."

Well, it can't /trump/ it, or it wouldn't matter whether we recorded to
LP or SACD.

Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best SACDs or BD-Audio
recordings?

Sure, any CD produced from the *EXACT SAME* masters only properly
resampled to 16/44. You won't find any commercial examples that I know
of since they *WANT* them to sound different for obvious reasons.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...
On 4/09/2014 9:24 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best
SACDs or BD-Audio recordings?

Sure, any CD produced from the *EXACT SAME* masters only properly
resampled to 16/44. You won't find any commercial examples that
I know of since they *WANT* them to sound different for obvious reasons.

Well, the Red Book layer of a hybrid SACD comes can come close to the sound of
the SACD layer. But I was talking in general terms.

The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things being
equal, surround will trounce stereo.

* Nimbus produced many Ambisonic recordings.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things
being equal, surround will trounce stereo.

Things very rarely are equal, though. Far more chances of cocking things
up with surround.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/4/2014 5:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things
being equal, surround will trounce stereo.

But all things aren't equal. A surround playback setup is very different
from a stereo playback setup. For one, you can't do it on headphones,
which may just be what the majority of listeners.

All things being equal, live performance in a good space without a sound
system to mess it up trumps all. Next comes a good band playing in a bar
with all their heart and soul.

Can't we just make our own choices of what we listen to and how, and
leave the industry alone as they try to sell us something else?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck wrote: "
The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things being
equal, surround will trounce stereo. "

How is it unfair? This thread concerns sound quality differences between digital formats, not number of channels.

Besides, I don't exactly want a Surround SACD layer or high-res file that's been brickwalled dynamically compared to the Red Book, which has sometimes been the case.

Surround for music is a gimmick compared to how well the original audio is showcased. Let's undo the damage inflicted in 2.1 before moving on to 5-6.1 etc.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "Can't we just make our own choices of what we listen to and how, and
leave the industry alone as they try to sell us something else? "
- show quoted text -


Hell no!! Consumers can control what the industry sells, by becoming informed, and with their voices and wallets.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
wrote in message
...

Michael Lavorgna (author) said it best: "...Perhaps what this
article also inadvertently highlights is the fact that the quality
of the recording trumps resolution."

Well, it can't /trump/ it, or it wouldn't matter whether we recorded to
LP or SACD.

Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best SACDs or BD-Audio
recordings?


How would we know? Is this falsifiable, IOW?

"Sound" is ultimately a neurological phenomenon.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
wrote in message ...

Michael Lavorgna (author) said it best: "...Perhaps what this
article also inadvertently highlights is the fact that the quality
of the recording trumps resolution."

Well, it can't /trump/ it, or it wouldn't matter whether we recorded to LP or
SACD.

Can you name a CD whose sound matches that of the best SACDs or BD-Audio
recordings?

I can, the problem is that they are all from audiophile labels that often have
less than stellar performers. Still, some of the later stuff from M-A is
excellent, and the JVC XRCD issues are accurate enough copies of the masters
that you can hear tape artifacts that are completely hidden on typical CD
issues.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things
being equal, surround will trounce stereo.

Things very rarely are equal, though. Far more chances of cocking things
up with surround.

This is perfectly true, but it is equally true when talking of stereo versus
mono. And, nevertheless, people have come to accept and expect the benefits
of stereo.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/4/2014 8:55 AM, wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "Can't we just make our own choices of what we
listen to and how, and leave the industry alone as they try to sell
us something else? "

Hell no!! Consumers can control what the industry sells, by becoming
informed, and with their voices and wallets.

It isn't that simple. If you stop buying music, then you won't have
music. If you and your ten friends tell them that you'll buy their high
resolution products, they'll look at current sales and say . . . . nyah,
we're doing just fine with MP3 downloads.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things
being equal, surround will trounce stereo.

Things very rarely are equal, though. Far more chances of cocking things
up with surround.

I've listened to I-don't-know-how-many SACD surround recordings. I've yet to
hear one I'd consider cocked-up.

As for mono versus stereo... It's probably hrder to make a really good mono
recording than a decent stereo one.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/4/2014 5:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things
being equal, surround will trounce stereo.

All things being equal, live performance in a good space without a sound
system to mess it up trumps all.

And surround lets you more-closely approximate that.


Can't we just make our own choices of what we listen to and how,
and leave the industry alone as they try to sell us something else?

Most surround recordings include a stereo program.

I don't know how old you are, Mike, but I waited more than 80% of my adult
life for a commercially viable surround-sound system for music to appear.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"The question is somewhat unfair, because no matter how good a CD is,
high-resolution recordings offer surround sound, * and all other things being
equal, surround will trounce stereo."

How is it unfair? This thread concerns sound quality differences between
digital formats, not number of channels.

Because the additional channels have a direct effect on the potential sound
quality.


Besides, I don't exactly want a Surround SACD layer or high-res file that's
been
brickwalled dynamically [?] compared to the Red Book, which has sometimes
been the case.

I don't know what you mean.


Surround for music is a gimmick compared to how well the original audio
is showcased. Let's undo the damage inflicted in 2.1 before moving on
to 5-6.1 etc.

You obviously don't listen to classical music, or you would never say that.

One of the advantages of surround is that it reduces the need to compromise
the "two-channel" part of the recording.

"Let's not rush to stereo before we've perfected mono."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/4/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I don't know how old you are, Mike, but I waited more than 80% of my
adult life for a commercially viable surround-sound system for music to
appear.

I'm 72. I finally got a stereo system in about 1970, and still don't
have surround. I don't have a good room to set it up in, and honestly, I
doubt that I'd appreciate it enough to do the work it would take to get
the room ready, get more gear, and find sources.

I've listened to surround at trade shows and most of the time, just
didn't "get" it. I don't want to be up there with the band, I want to be
listening in the hall, bad PA and all. Surround orchestral recordings
may make more sense.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Things very rarely are equal, though. Far more chances of cocking things
up with surround.

This is perfectly true, but it is equally true when talking of stereo
versus mono. And, nevertheless, people have come to accept and expect
the benefits of stereo.

I'm not actually sure that is true. It can be easier to get a nice noise
in stereo than mono.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/4/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I don't know how old you are, Mike, but I waited more than 80% of my
adult life for a commercially viable surround-sound system for music to
appear.

I'm 72. I finally got a stereo system in about 1970, and still don't
have surround. I don't have a good room to set it up in, and honestly, I
doubt that I'd appreciate it enough to do the work it would take to get
the room ready, get more gear, and find sources.

I'd rather have a decent listening room and good stereo, than an average
room and surround. And very very few have what I'd call a decent listening
room.

I've listened to surround at trade shows and most of the time, just
didn't "get" it. I don't want to be up there with the band, I want to be
listening in the hall, bad PA and all. Surround orchestral recordings
may make more sense.

I have been impressed by some classical music and Ambisonics. But the
costs of a decent Ambisonic rig is beyond me. Ordinary surround leaves me
cold. It's for those who only watch movies with 'FX'. I prefer a good
story.

--
*There's no place like www.home.com *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/4/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I don't know how old you are, Mike, but I waited more than
80% of my adult life for a commercially viable surround-sound
system for music to appear.

I'm 72.

Gee, I'm a youn'un -- only 67.


I've listened to surround at trade shows and most of the time, just didn't
"get" it. I don't want to be up there with the band, I want to be listening
in the hall, bad PA and all. Surround orchestral recordings may make more
sense.

There are two types of surround, which I call "ambient" -- in which the extra
channels supply hall ambience -- and "immersive", in which the performers and
instruments surround you. Both "work", if they're done properly.

I used to demonstrate good surround to friends & acquaintances, and the usual
reaction was "I never want to go back to stereo."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/4/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'd rather have a decent listening room and good stereo,
than an average room and surround. And very very few have
what I'd call a decent listening room.

Ambient surround, using a hall synthesizer, doesn't have to be expensive.


I have been impressed by some classical music and Ambisonics.
But the costs of a decent Ambisonic rig is beyond me. Ordinary
surround leaves me cold. It's for those who only watch movies
with 'FX'. I prefer a good story.

I have a very nice 6.1 system, and can easily play movies in surround. But I
rarely do. It doesn't add much to the film. For me, surround is mostly for
music.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:26:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/4/2014 11:05 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'd rather have a decent listening room and good stereo,
than an average room and surround. And very very few have
what I'd call a decent listening room.

Ambient surround, using a hall synthesizer, doesn't have to be expensive.


I have been impressed by some classical music and Ambisonics.
But the costs of a decent Ambisonic rig is beyond me. Ordinary
surround leaves me cold. It's for those who only watch movies
with 'FX'. I prefer a good story.

I have a very nice 6.1 system, and can easily play movies in surround. But I
rarely do. It doesn't add much to the film. For me, surround is mostly for
music.

The whole proms season from the Albert Hall is being broadcast in
surround on one of our TV channels. The BBC engineers really seem to
understand how to make it sound real, rather than like an effect. Very
impressed

d

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck:

You don't know what I mean? Read this: http://www.cnet.com/news/best-sound-...really-matter/

Guess you haven't heard of the loudness war.


Compression or eq will make more of a difference between 16/44 and 24/96 than the formats themselves

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/4/2014 2:26 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have a very nice 6.1 system, and can easily play movies in surround.
But I rarely do. It doesn't add much to the film. For me, surround is
mostly for music.

Next time I'm in the neighborhood, I'll drop by and you can play me some
great music.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

The whole proms season from the Albert Hall is being broadcast
in surround on one of our TV channels. The BBC engineers really
seem to understand how to make it sound real, rather than like an
effect. Very impressed.

Most commercial recordings sound like that. You don't "hear" the ambience
channels until they're shut off.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/4/2014 2:26 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have a very nice 6.1 system, and can easily play movies in surround.
But I rarely do. It doesn't add much to the film. For me, surround is
mostly for music.

Next time I'm in the neighborhood, I'll drop by and you can play me
some great music.

By all means. Just give a few days' warning so I throw out the garbage.

[geoff]

On 5/09/2014 7:13 a.m., wrote:
William Sommerwerck:

You don't know what I mean? Read this: http://www.cnet.com/news/best-sound-...really-matter/

Guess you haven't heard of the loudness war.


Compression or eq will make more of a difference between 16/44 and 24/96 than the formats themselves


You've heard of The Loudness War, but unfortunately appear to repeatedly
confuse it with totally unrelated factors and topics.

geoff

[geoff]

On 5/09/2014 12:55 a.m., wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "Can't we just make our own choices of what we listen to and how, and
leave the industry alone as they try to sell us something else? "
- show quoted text -


Hell no!! Consumers can control what the industry sells, by becoming informed, and with their voices and wallets.



That's why McDonalds, KFC, (etc) are such business failures.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
You've heard of The Loudness War, but unfortunately appear to repeatedly
confuse it with totally unrelated factors and topics.

geoff "

No I haven't.

These are facts: Both so-called remasters and high-res reissues have had loudness-style dynamics processing and makeup gain applied to them. Not in very instance, but on a lot of them. You don't have to believe it, but I have the DAW screen shots to prove it. The 20th anniversary high-res reissue of Nevermind: http://www.audiostream.com/content/h...oads-nevermind was a good example of "making it sound different enough" for fans to rebuy the thing.

So when someone on this thread brings up an off-topic issue(surround sound), I'm damn well going to suggest fixing bad mastering practices - client-driven or not - before moving on to surround versions of releases in any resolution.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I'd rather have a decent listening room and good stereo,
than an average room and surround. And very very few have
what I'd call a decent listening room.

Ambient surround, using a hall synthesizer, doesn't have to be expensive.

Shudder. ;-)

--
*If all is not lost, where the hell is it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[None]

wrote in message
...
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
You've heard of The Loudness War, but unfortunately appear to
repeatedly
confuse it with totally unrelated factors and topics.

geoff "

No I haven't.

Yes you have. You're just riding your hobby horse, without any
understanding of the technical, artistic, and business issues. You're
just beating the **** out of that hobby horse, though. It's probably
the best you can do. Good job, Krissy. Maybe you could do your middle
school science fair project on the loudness wars.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, September 4, 2014 7:33:16 PM UTC-4, None wrote:
wrote in message

...

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -

You've heard of The Loudness War, but unfortunately appear to

repeatedly

confuse it with totally unrelated factors and topics.



geoff "



No I haven't.



Yes you have. You're just riding your hobby horse, without any

understanding of the technical, artistic, and business issues. You're

just beating the **** out of that hobby horse, though. It's probably

the best you can do. Good job, Krissy. Maybe you could do your middle

school science fair project on the loudness wars.


Give it up, Alrich.

[None]

k baby whines @gmail.com wrote in message
...

Yes you have. You're just riding your hobby horse, without any

understanding of the technical, artistic, and business issues.
You're

just beating the **** out of that hobby horse, though. It's
probably

the best you can do. Good job, Krissy. Maybe you could do your
middle

school science fair project on the loudness wars.


Give it up, Alrich.

Remember not to respond to me. And try not to fantasize that you know
who I am. Now get on that hobby horse, and ride, little moron ride!

It's the loudness wars, and the idiot rodent-boy is here to do battle
with ... well something unrelated, probably. But it will have kooky
kaps-lock eventually, and he won't have the foggiest notion what he's
drooling about.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
The whole proms season from the Albert Hall is being broadcast in
surround on one of our TV channels. The BBC engineers really seem to
understand how to make it sound real, rather than like an effect. Very
impressed

Sadly that's more than I can say for the sound in the hall.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Jeff Henig wrote:

wrote:
William Sommerwerck:

You don't know what I mean? Read this:
http://www.cnet.com/news/best-sound-...really-matter/

Guess you haven't heard of the loudness war.


-_-

Stop. Just stop.

He can't becasue he doesn't know what he's doing. If he knew, he could
possibly stop it.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 4 Sep 2014 22:30:46 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
The whole proms season from the Albert Hall is being broadcast in
surround on one of our TV channels. The BBC engineers really seem to
understand how to make it sound real, rather than like an effect. Very
impressed

Sadly that's more than I can say for the sound in the hall.
--scott

Have you been? The RAH is a bit of a curate's egg when it comes to
sound, but there are some great seats where the sound is as good as
most halls I've visited. Then there are others - I remember one where
a trumpet player on stage blew a long steady note solo, and I could
have sworn it was coming from behind me.

d