Lp’s, 8-Tracks, Cassettes, CD’s, Music DVD’s…
Have we had enough yet with the whole new audio format thing yet? Is this just a way to get us to buy the same title over and over?
If you are satisfied with the sound from your LPs and cassettes, stick with them. No one is forcing you to buy “Abbey Road” or anything else in the new format.
Moderator? GD, please?
My personal prediction is that the lifespan of the compact disk as a viable music playback device will match the length of time of the 33 1/3 LP (about 35 years I would say, 1950 to 1985). So if you’re not constantly chasing the latest technological innovation, and if you have a lifespan of 100 years, I would guess you need to buy Abbey Road three times in your lifetime.
I’ve bought it three times, LP, mobile fidelity LP and CD. I am waiting for DVD Audio. Abbey Road, Layla and Achtung Baby are my three favorite pop albums of all time (I’ve bought Layla four times) and I will gladly upgrade until at least DVD Audio. I can hear quite a difference between DVD-A and CDs. LPs have quite good sound, but since I quit being an audiophile, I’ve liked the convenience of CDs over the trouble of maintaining LPs, so DVD-A is the best of both for me.
(And no, I have not tested DVD-A and LP against each other, like I said, I am a recovering audiophile. The difference over CDs is obvious.)
What is DVD audio going to get you that CD does not?
Very good question Gazpacho. For people who do not listen closely, nothing. If you sit and listen to the music, you just hear a lot more. I’ve got Natalie Merchant’s Tigerlilly on both CD and DVD-A. On DVD-A it is a heck of a lot easier to hear background instruments. The sound is fuller. More like being at a studio session. There is definitely a law of diminishing returns here. If you don’t sit and listen to music, but rather have it as background, then don’t waste the money on the more expensive discs and such, there is no point. Some people really like MP3 sound. To me, it is hopelessly tinny. I know a lot of people who hate the sound of CDs for similar reasons. I’ve certainly heard really bad CDs where no care was taken on the transfer to digital. I’ve also heard CDs with blow me away sound, like Stevie Ray Vaughn’s The Sky is Crying and Muddy Waters Folk Singer (both on Mobile Fidelity, now out of business).
I alluded above to psycho audiophiles, people who will spend tens of thousands on a sound system and thousands more to improve it an infinitismal amount. The quickest way to hear stunning sound is to have a great disc on a $300 set of great headphones. Any decent CD player and receiver will transmit the sound through reasonably well.
The clear answer to the OP is ‘You don’t have to buy it at all. Never. Not once.’
However, responding to the spirit of the question, many would accept the view put forth by the record companies i.e. as technology advances, better formats come along and they make their ‘software’ (music such as Abbey Road) available in these new formats for anyone who wants them. Sometimes they pour a lot of investment into supporting new formats which fail, and they lose a lot of cash. The consumer is king and they are just trying to please the consumer to make an honest profit in a free market.
All of which can be subject to criticisms and fine anaylsis which might show all is not what it seems, and the record companies aren’t exactly the innocent fluttering angels they profess to be when it comes to pricing.
I won’t re-heat those arguments here, but some people do take the view that having bought an album (e.g. Abbey Road) once they have paid for the software and handsomely rewarded the artist for his genius and the record company for backing the right horse. These same people feel that if a new format comes out, offering some pros and cons (as they all do), there is no new content as such and they should be able to acquire this newly-formatted version of e.g. Abbey Road at a lower cost than they paid first time round. Of course the record companies disagree. Which is one reason why some people explore alternatives, such as getting it all of the web in .mp3 and convertng it to CD or DVD or whatever else as and when the available home technology makes this possible.
DP I have to say I think you are fooling yourself on the benefits of dvd-a. I looked at this site to find the dvd a spec. The sampling frequency is increased I don’t buy that this is something that you will be able to hear. The dynamic range is increased. This might be audible in quiet parts of music. The standard is somewhat complex in that they trade off number of channels, sampling frequency and sample bit width resulting in 6 different possibilities ranging from basically CD sound with 8 channels instead of 2 to 2 channels with 24 bits per sample and 96 KHz sampling frequency.
I forgot the link to dvd a info.
Gaz, I will be the very first to say that it is possible for someone like me (a recovering audiophile) to fool himself about the benefits of CD to DVD-A. It took me a long time to come to hate MP3. If other people repeat my experience (also done with Fleetwood Mac’s Rumors, but not as noticeable a result and Armstrong and Ellington the complete sessions, which I haven’t A-B’d as we say) and hear the difference or not, they should post here. Also, I only listen stereo, not surround. On the other hand, Gaz, I used to have pretty good ears. Twenty years ago if you put on any major LP label, I’d be able to tell you accurately (80%) which label it was by the way they engineered the sound. (I can’t do this with CDs with any claim to accuracy.)
I’m listening to the DVD-A of Beethoven’s 9th (Barenboim)right now on my headphones. It’s not as good as Solti or Von Karajan (didn’t know he was a Nazi when I bought it) from a musician’s point of view, but the sound is spectacular.
I’ve read reviews a couple of years back from professional equipment reviewers before they decided whether to go 20 bit or 24 bit. (They went 24) Both the reviewers could hear the difference between the CD 16 bit and the 20 bit. Only one claimed to hear a difference between 20 and 24, but admitted it was slight. So people are going to differ on this point. I definitely think that people who hear no difference should not invest in the medium, but some people like MP3 sound, go figure.
Incidentally Gaz, the link you provided is the most informative one I have found about the specifications of the format.
I’ve read reviews a couple of years back from professional equipment reviewers before they decided whether to go 20 bit or 24 bit. (They went 24) Both the reviewers could hear the difference between the CD 16 bit and the 20 bit. Only one claimed to hear a difference between 20 and 24, but admitted it was slight. So people are going to differ on this point. I definitely think that people who hear no difference should not invest in the medium, but some people like MP3 sound, go figure.
Were these double blind listening tests or did people know which there were hearing? Most reviews in audiophile magazine are not. They have too much of a vested interest in selling ads for expensive equipment.
Lets talk about 20 to 24 bit difference. Lets assume music with a large dynamic range. Say the 1812 overture. There are loud bits which you cannot distort the cannons at the end. So that means for most of the music you cannot use all 24 bits because if you did the cannon at the end would have to be distorted which is not acceptable. Assuming that the cannons are 16 signal is 16 times the quiet signal. (This might be a big assumption does anyone know?) You loose 4 bits during the quiet times. So quantization signal to noise ration for the 20 bit system is 96db. This is much less noise than the recording system microphones general noise in the studio etc. So there is no way somebody is hearing any noise that comes from the encoding. Other noise sources are swamping the encoding noise. Going to 24 bits lowers the encoding noise but that was in audible before anyway so there will be no improvement heard.
A 16 bit system with the same assumptions has a encoding signal to noise ratio of 72db which is still really high so I don’t really think that people if double blind tested will be able to tell the difference.
I have a real disdain for audiophiles unwillingness to do real double blind tests.
DP you probably do not have a real opportunity to do a good double blind test. You would need a DVD a that has been recorded every step of the way assuming that it was going to the improved sample bit width. Then get a CD made that throws out the lower bits. Then you have some body play one the CD and the DVD so you can say which one was better without knowing which one you were hearing.
DP do your DVDs tell you how they are encoded? 24/96 etc?
DPWhite - is there a significant improvement in sound quality between CD and DVD-A on recordings made 30+ years ago?
Guys, Gazpacho has a point. These are not double blind tests I am conducting, and I don’t think the reviewers I was referring to were either, I certainly don’t think they were. In fact, I am not conducting tests. These are IMHOs.
Most of them are 24/96 when I can find out. They are damn scant on information on the jackets.
Now, the Grateful Dead have just re-released American Beauty in both CD and DVD-A, and I just got the DVD-A today. Mickey Hart (one of the two drummers) remastered both. Sometime in the next few days I can and will put both of them into my DVD-A changer, mix them up and report back to you all. I do not intend to pass this off as a double blind test, which needs to be a lot more rigorous. Nor do I claim to be an audiophile since I went to CDs in 1986, I am now just a music lover.
I will say that I can without question tell the difference between a crummy analog to CD job vs. a good one.
If I may be of a dissenting opinion here, I say buy it as many times as it takes. Abbey Road is just an album that always needs to be there. Christians have the bible, I have the Beatles. (not that the 2 are mutually exclusive).
Alrighty then. I opened the player, exposing slots 3 and 4, I got both discs, mixed them up behind my back for two commercials while watching TV. I then closed my eyes and put one of them in each slot without looking and closed the drawer. I am listening to Box of Rain (the first track on disc 3. I will then go to track 6 and listen to Ripple. I will switch to disc 4 and listen to those.
I have listened to others in the GD remastering project, and all the CDs are very nicely done. I believe that the GD use HDCD whenever possible. I have not set anything based on surround sound or high definition stereo.
This, of course, does not qualify as a double blind, which would require someone else to verify that I am not making it all up.
The first disc 3 is very sweet in sound. Nice full bass, good detail on the acoustic guitars. Almost too much dynamic range though. The mandolin on Ripple is incredible. I’m next going to listen to the Brokedown Palace on each (track 7). Listening to Brokedown on both, it is apparent to me that disc 3 is the DVD-A. No noise, wide open sound-stange, harmonics. Just a lot more to hear. I can tell who the back up vocalists are and separate out their voices. Lastly, I am listening to track 2, Friend of the Devil. On disc 3, Phil (bassist) is way down low and stretched, what we heads call Phil Bombs.
Now, on to disc 4. I’m listening to track 6, Ripple first here, as I am anxious to hear the mandoling. There is more background noise, and the vocals are more intimate and less unfocused across the “soundstage”. Mandolins are nice, but not as incredible. The mandolins are certainly bunched more closely together here. This is going to be very nice for an automobile mix. Lot of noise on Brokedown on disc 4. Friend of the Devil on this disc Phil sounds like any other bassist, good mind you.
For those curious, the DVD-A says on the back of the booklet that it plays three ways: Advanced resolution stereo, advanced resolution 6 channel surround sound, DVD Video compatible Dolby Digital. Now I had more difficulty manuerving around on disc 3, so that is a give away that it is the DVD-A.
Now, to find out whether I am right or full of you know what. 3 is DVD-A and 4 is the CD. I am right.
Now, I am not going to like listening to a DVD in a car as the CD is definitely better for what we called compressed audio. Of course, maybe Mickey re-mastered it this way.
I do like them both, but for listening intently at home I will definitely prefer the DVD-A
While we are on the subject of Abbey Road (unhijack), it is, of course, not available on DVD-A. The Beatles, when they released on CD, did all their albums at once, and the quality was high. But Abbey Road is the Sistine Chapel of popular music and there is a lot to hear on it. I can’t wait for a DVD-A of it. Probably a long time though.
Fine. And it always will “be there”, until and unless your media and/or equipment gets lost and/or damaged. Can’t you keep the classics on an older media, and get only new stuff in the new format? Don’t blame the engineers just because you want to have cool toys.
As far as lust for the latest toys goes, my Dad has an antique Edison phonograph that plays at 78 rpm. It is entirely mechanical. The sound is just fantastic, but it is unamplified, a bit scratchy, etc. It is like listening to a live band through a drainpipe.
Well, I know I’m quoting a day-old post, but what the hell…
I would argue thie point being made above:
-
I’d think that the life of the LP is more like 40 years, since the percentage of CD owners was very low until the early 90s (I bought my first player in 1986, and nobody else I knew had one).
-
The reason for each format’s fall in popularity is due to the arrival of a new format that is superior to the majority of buyers. I suspect that at least 95% of music listeners would not be able to tell the difference between CD, DVD-A, or SACD (and probably a large percentage of those can’t even tell the difference between MP3 and CD - hell, I like good sound, and have what would be considered a high-end headphone listening system, and I think that MP3s sound good, although I haven’t done a comparison). And there is no convenience advantage of DVD-A over CD, so I suspect that CDs will be with us for a long time.