Although I scoffed at yet another disc format this is great. According to Naxos 'Each HIGH-DEFINITION AUDIO DISC has both stereo and surround versions of the programme at 24-bit 88.2/96kHz high resolution.'
So, no need for an external DAC, or even an AV amp as is my situation to get the best stereo playback. And that's the big advantage over DVD-A (which wasn't too prevalent) or SACD (you need DSD decoding to get the best out of it - which not even top-end Oppos et al have).
It's great for those of us who haven't adopted streaming yet, or want to dabble in hi-res audio. And since I still do buy CDs I may as well buy these!
Arcam Solo Mini/Monitor Audio RX1/Cambridge Audio 751BD/Samsung 37” LCD
What all this about true 24bit mean?
How can that be when some of them were not even recorded in digital or were only in 16bit?
There are 2 distinct advantages of this format:
1) Minimum standards have been defined.
2) It will pave way for blu ray audio players.
SACD has remained a niche format due to poor adoption and penetration. Blu ray player sales are on the rise. Besides, 50GB capacity can be exploited for much higher resolutions in the future, if it survives.
My Home Cinema Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90
Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H
Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router
SACD never took off because it was too expensive and lack of releases, I'm glad I did not go down that route. BD audio does seem to be more affordable, lets hope most music will become available.
If the PCM is 24 bit - the format will stand a better chance of success than SACD if not too late to the party. The Naxos site does rather suggest 24 bit PCM as well as DTS so we shall see. If they prove to be, I'll certainly buy JANÁČEK Glagolitic Mass, Sinfonietta.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds - the pessimist fears this is true."
James Branch Cabell
MAIN: Apple TV2, Mac Mini & iTunes Match, CA Azur 751BD or Panasonic P42V20B into audiolab M-DAC, feeding a Primare A34.2 via XLRs, 2x 5m of Atlas Ascent 2 firing up Totem Arros.
ON THE HOOF: iPhone 5S/Sennheiser MM450.
I'm all for it, and for paying a premium, if it moves us into a state where we can buy authentic genuinely lossless (or as close as lossless as possible) versions of our music. Far better, IMHO, that such material be made available by legit record companies, however "evil" they are, rather than here-today-gone-tomorrow internet shysters trying to sell us upscaled rips and nothing more.
And I'll happily pay a premium for the recordings.
Back when CDs first hit the streets en masse, a vynil LP cost about five Pounds or five pints of beer at the pub. A CD cost twelve Pounds (or pints). A CD is still about 12 Pounds, now just three or four pints, so a lossless Blu-Ray or whatever would have to be, what? thirty to forty Pounds to equate to the same hangover-coefficient.
Oh yeah, the only drawback is that I'm really NOT looking buy DSOTM for the fourth or fifth time, so the music industry had better come up with something (or some people) worth listening to again instead of relying on their back-catalogues and teeny bopper boy bands for their ill-gotten gains.
I'd check the mastering first, or at least, who did it and then check what others have to say on the Hoffman forum first. Not the first time a hi-res release has tanked and lost out to an earlier CD version.
Onkyo TX-NR818 / Tannoy Revolution DC4 (bi-amped)
AVI Laboratory Series CD Player
CDs are lossless if not HD. So much previously recorded stuff is only 16 bit anyway. Upsampling reportedly works to some extent but some hate it, hence NOS DACs/players. LPs are pretty expensive these days - probably more than BR discs will be!
Not really sure what to say about this thread, just a huge exploitative exercise to sell a few more player and a few discs, cant imagine why anyone is taking this product seriously.
Just think of the best CD or standard downlad you have heard.
Just think if all your CDs or standard downloads sounded that good.
And remember, the mainstream music industry does not give a sh*t about the quality of their releases, it is simply not on their radar.
We do so many shows in a row,
And these towns all look the same,
We just pass the time in our hotel room
And wander 'round backstage,
Till the lights come up, and we hear that crowd,
And we remember why we came.
Personally I thought the Naxos disks I have excellent in Stereo, but, even if you can't accept that, the DTS is interesting. It's made me wonder about going down that route, which I never would have before.
Also, it isn't going to sell a lot more players, since it already works on any blu-Ray player. Mine's hardly new, but it works fine.
CDs are only "lossless" if the original source is 44/16. Otherwise the source has to be downsampled to 44/16. And ANY analogue to digital conversion will introduce some "loss" due to the stepwise-linear approximations to the nonlinear sources. The greater the sampling frequency and the smaller the resolution steps (i.e. more bits) the closer the digital signal is to the nonlinear source. QED in theory the higher the sampling rate (frequency) and smaller the step sie (more bits) the better. The jagged step profile is (or isnot) smoothed out on the downstream side of your DAC by the naturalresponse of analogue electronic components, e.g. capacitors taking time to charge and dischargein response to the applied volatages. My degree is in mechanical engineering, but we spent a shedload of time doing calculus and electronics.,,,
NOW, I'm not saying all DACs do a good job of this, and of course, if the master's rubbish to begin with, the digitized version can't really be expected to be an improvement. Also, I'm not sure DTS won't be the flash in the pan that quadrophonic was back in the 70s, or even 3DTV lookes like becoming in this decade. However, I am confident, sound unheard, that the higher resolution digital media will be more accurate representations of the master, however good or bad.
If anyone wants convincing about the benefits of a high resolution audio format then track down one of REM's albums released on DVD-Audio (eg New Adventures in Hi-Fi, or Up). Each one comes with two discs, the DVD-Audio and the CD; stick both in your player one after the other and the difference in quality should be immediately apparent. Am all for BluRay audio provided (as others have said) its genuine hi-res source content.
And no, I won't be buying DSOTM yet again either...
Lounge: Panasonic TX-P60ZT65B (calibrated), Pioneer SC-LX75, Denon DPB-2012, Sky-HD1TB, PS4, Xbox 360, Apple-TV, Atacama Equinox AV stand, Monitor Audio Silver RX8, RXC, RX-FX, RXW-12. Kitchen: Pioneer XC-HM81, Monitor Audio Bronze BX2. Bedroom: Samsung UE37D6510, Samsung BD-C5900, Sky-HD, Pioneer N-50, Rotel RC-03 (pre-amp), Rotel RB-9708X (power-amp), Mordaunt-Short MS914
There are plenty of decent recordings to be found but they are not really mainstream.
The mainstream industry is obsessed with loudness wars, gimmicks, repackaging and the rest, the sound quality of the end product, may be important to people like us, but we are not a consideration to the industry in general. Why worry about quality when you can make money selling ringtones.
There are some exceptions, some lables and a few individuals, but anyone who buys mainstream contempory music knows the isues.
For someone so technically adept, you show remarkably little knowedge about how sampling works, even trotting out the old stepped/jagged output nonsense.
Just so as we are clear, 16/44.1 khz sampling can perfectly reconstruct the original analogue waveform provided the original waveforn does not extend beyond 20 khz, no steps, no jagged edges. Read your Nyquist, Wikkipedia has a perfectly decent primer for his theorem, otherwise spend ten minutes on Google.
Just stop and think for a moment here, selling you both the hi-res and the CD version of the disc is an excellent maketing gimmick and you are falling for it.
You should be demanding that the industry produces the best CDs possible, not buying premium priced product that they are able to sell to you because they could not be bothered to get the CD rightin the first place
I can see several potential benefits. More capacity so you could have 8 albums on one BD. Not so compressed as recent cds. Better value for money, already the Stones GRRR is as cheap as mp3.
Downsides are having to buy albums over agian. Do you have both a cdp and a BDp or just use the BDp, will the likes of Linn, Cyrus and Naim be making BDp? Is it the end for cds?
+1. Recently purchased the excellent Marrantz ud7007 and dusted off my small colection of SACDs and DVD-As including DSOTM. Big difference from the hybrid CD layer. Most apparent on Brothers in Arms 20th aniversary which is night and day from the original CD. Very excited by BluRay music and waiting for GRRR to arrive from Amazon. Will report back.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing