For the audiophiles ... — Community

#1 Apr 9, 2007 at 11:41 am

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

In case you haven't heard, Apple had a fairly big news item last week in
which they announced a partnership with EMI, one of the big record
labels. With this partnership, they will be releasing (in May) DRM-free,
higher quality versions of songs and albums currently carried on iTunes.
These songs/albums will be available at 256kbps bit-rate vs. the current
128kbps offered on iTunes.

Now my questions (finally):

1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're NOT
listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
subscriber home theater system.

2. Also, the pricing for these new DRM-free, high-quality songs is at
$1.29 instead of $.99. The price of the albums remains the same as the
lower-quality, DRM-ridden format ($9.99 for most). Is it worth it?

3. What if they applied this to video? Is it conceivable that
"Hollywood" would allow DRM-free, high-quality movies and TV shows for
purchase via iTunes?

Shane Sturgeon

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#2 Apr 9, 2007 at 12:41 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Now my questions (finally):
>
>1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
>that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
>also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're NOT
>listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>subscriber home theater system.

Hi Shane!

In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm breaking
my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod is for
casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well when you
try to listen to it with anything more than the included headphones
(or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also "acceptable" for
use in a car or other environment when ambient noise will compete for
your listening attention.

However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding the
"Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the shortcomings
become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes, "You can't make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage in, garbage out"
comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious listening for music - no!

And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did for
audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the public is
willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks to iPods)
let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't become the norm
as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et. al., these devices
are claiming to be able to let you show all those videos from your
iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going in the wrong direction on
this one. The dumbing down of America has started the move from audio
to video and I, for one, don't like the trend. (And don't get me
started on the many reasons I don't see the need or the sense for
portable video. At least with audio you can make a bit of a case.)
Ironically the XBox 360 and several other devices out there already
offer the "media center" features that the Apple TV is claiming - but
do a far better job than this latest Steve Job product. Not the same
as true HD media - but much better than what the Apple ads are claiming.

As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper"
<g>) There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over DTS
SD counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS to 384
or 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this). The real
estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in sound
quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to mention
the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see (hear) what
I'm talking about.

The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it becomes
a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates as equating
with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a "bit" (pun
intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that and not
ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The general
consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this is just a
snack and not a full meal.

Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#3 Apr 9, 2007 at 1:33 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 10:13 AM 4/9/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>I agree with Dr. Fowkes 100%. "CD Quality" itself is viewed by many
>audiophiles as highly compromised. On an accurate, high-performance
>rig, the differences between compressed sources (like iTunes), CD,
>SACD and finally vinyl (highest quality) is readily apparent. Most
>audiophiles would only consider iPod use at lossless or uncompressed
>levels only.

Thank you, Peter! I like your audio hierarchy (iTunes et. al., CD,
SACD, vinyl) and it reminds me of a similar hierarchy present in the
video spectrum (VCR, DVD, HD video, Film). It's all about trying to
reach the nirvana of analog (continuous) source material with digital
(non-continuous) reproductions. In the digital (fragmented) realm,
the smaller the fragments (the higher the resolution) the closer you
get to the original (analog) source. Both vinyl and film offer us
the potential of a better presentation of the real (analog) world and
it mostly becomes a question of finding out when digital resolution
approaches our ability to be indistinguishable (due to our
limitations, not the source material) from being there in
person. And, to be fair, both vinyl and film have some physical
limitations that cause the analog reproduction to not be completely
accurate in comparison with the source so as digital gets better
(higher resolution) the perceived gap between good digital and analog
becomes harder, if not almost impossible, to distinguish.

But one thing for sure - lower bit rates in digital audio or video is
diametrically opposed to higher quality output.

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#4 Apr 9, 2007 at 5:13 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I agree with Dr. Fowkes 100%. "CD Quality" itself is viewed by many audiophiles as highly compromised. On an accurate, high-performance rig, the differences between compressed sources (like iTunes), CD, SACD and finally vinyl (highest quality) is readily apparent. Most audiophiles would only consider iPod use at lossless or uncompressed levels only.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Dr Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 5:42 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Now my questions (finally):
>
>1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
>that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
>also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're NOT
>listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>subscriber home theater system.

Hi Shane!

In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm breaking
my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod is for
casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well when you
try to listen to it with anything more than the included headphones
(or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also "acceptable" for
use in a car or other environment when ambient noise will compete for
your listening attention.

However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding the
"Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the shortcomings
become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes, "You can't make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage in, garbage out"
comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious listening for music - no!

And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did for
audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the public is
willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks to iPods)
let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't become the norm
as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et. al., these devices
are claiming to be able to let you show all those videos from your
iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going in the wrong direction on
this one. The dumbing down of America has started the move from audio
to video and I, for one, don't like the trend. (And don't get me
started on the many reasons I don't see the need or the sense for
portable video. At least with audio you can make a bit of a case.)
Ironically the XBox 360 and several other devices out there already
offer the "media center" features that the Apple TV is claiming - but
do a far better job than this latest Steve Job product. Not the same
as true HD media - but much better than what the Apple ads are claiming.

As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper"
<g>) There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over DTS
SD counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS to 384
or 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this). The real
estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in sound
quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to mention
the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see (hear) what
I'm talking about.

The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it becomes
a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates as equating
with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a "bit" (pun
intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that and not
ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The general
consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this is just a
snack and not a full meal.

Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#5 Apr 9, 2007 at 5:52 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 02:00 PM 4/9/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>Peter,
>
>I have always loved to watch folks slug it out over vinyl vs digital,
>but this is the first time I've heard it said that vinyl is superior
>even to SACD. Do you find vinyl to be superior to DTS 5.1 and DVD Audio
>as well?
>
>Skip

I'm not going to presume to answer for Peter since vinyl vs digital
is a battle that becomes highly personalized and emotional with lots
of good arguments on both sides of the issue. It is my feeling that
the analog media is capable (at least theoretically) of producing a
sound with many more nuances than a digital recording because by its
very nature digital is discontinuous and, at some level, will have
gaps in the reproduction. The analog recording, once again
theoretically, doesn't suffer from this same segmented recording so
it can capture those things (overtones, ambiance, etc.) that
sometimes elude a digital capture and reproduction. That said, I
fully understand that the gap has been narrowed significantly (my
puns are in rampant "intended" mode today <g>) as digital recording
have become more sophisticated (higher sampling rates, higher bit
streams, etc.) In fact, at some point we reach the limit of human
hearing to discern the differences, for the most part, between good
analog and good digital. If the resolution of the digital recording
surpasses the resolution of the human ear then how would one
tell? I'm also aware that there are probably some psycho-acoustic
(if that's the right term) effects that play a role in all of this
and I'm not discounting the subtle importance of overtones and other
sub and supersonic frequencies that provide some of the realism that
people perceive. And once again, the better that digital recordings
become the harder it is to tell from the original source
material. Then there are the real limitations of the analog
recording methods (from record clicks to tape hiss) that counteract
some of the playback benefits. Yes, with a lot a care and good
equipment the effect can be minimized but it is a factor in many
cases. (I still have an SAE5000 from the 70's around here somewhere
- The "Click and Pop" remover - and I remember marvelling at how it
cleaned up some of my prized recordings!) Finally, the nature of
analog vinyl recording medium is such that the signal to noise ratio
and the headroom will never match modern digital recordings.

In my own personal experience I must say that I enjoy the high rez
digital recordings (SACD/DVD-A and now uncompressed or lossless HD
audio on HD DVDs - both formats) as much or more so than analog. For
the first time I actually prefer the newer digital codecs over
vinyl. However, I'm one of those people who thought that while CDs
had more headroom (and less background noise) than vinyl - they were
lacking in some aspect of the sound that was hard to put one's finger
on. I especially liked the more realistic sound of many vocals on
vinyl rather than on CD. But when SACD was first introduced I became
a digital convert. Finally, the vocals sounded as good as they do on
vinyl - at least to these ears. Just listen to any JACINTHA track on
SACD on good equipment to hear what I'm talking about.

Yes, analog implies infinite resolution on paper - but in practice
(and within the limits of human hearing) a point is reached where
there is no discernible difference between the two for most
people. I would argue that analog belongs at the top of the scale on
any theoretical "resolution" chart but that many would actually
prefer the modern digital codecs now that we are in the MEGA rather
than KILO bps range. To me it's what you can hear rather than what a
scope shows you the audio looks like.

And, of course, to bring this back on topic, reverting to lower
digital resolutions (ala iPods and MP3 players) goes against the
grain of quality audio. Both analog and digital heads will agree on that one!

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#6 Apr 9, 2007 at 5:56 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> 1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
> that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD?

Possibly. I wouldn't and anybody with a decent system and audiophile
experience will find it unacceptable. CD is error ridden as it is. Only
SACD, DVD Audio and the new HD audio codecs avialbe through either HD
disc format can provide studio quality.

> 2. Also, the pricing for these new DRM-free, high-quality songs is at
> $1.29 instead of $.99. The price of the albums remains the same as the
> lower-quality, DRM-ridden format ($9.99 for most). Is it worth it?

DRM free for the mass market? likely...

> 3. What if they applied this to video? Is it conceivable that
> "Hollywood" would allow DRM-free, high-quality movies and TV shows for
> purchase via iTunes?

High quality and iTunes does not equate does it? I would imagine they
would compress the video just like they do the audio. It's effectivness
will depend on the end user. As screens get bigger, which at least one
display is for the average home, that will be more difficult to sell. I
can see this on the typical small PC screen but on 40" and greater
displays?

I think we are definitely going into a new phase where the mid end is
dead or dying and the product battle will be against the best quality
products versus bottom feeder mass market quantity versus quality products.

Apple appears to be headed down the latter road and with great success.

Richard Fisher
ISF and HAA certified
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Shane Sturgeon wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> In case you haven't heard, Apple had a fairly big news item last week in
> which they announced a partnership with EMI, one of the big record
> labels. With this partnership, they will be releasing (in May) DRM-free,
> higher quality versions of songs and albums currently carried on iTunes.
> These songs/albums will be available at 256kbps bit-rate vs. the current
> 128kbps offered on iTunes.
>
> Now my questions (finally):
>
> 1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
> that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
> also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're NOT
> listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
> subscriber home theater system.
>
> 2. Also, the pricing for these new DRM-free, high-quality songs is at
> $1.29 instead of $.99. The price of the albums remains the same as the
> lower-quality, DRM-ridden format ($9.99 for most). Is it worth it?
>
> 3. What if they applied this to video? Is it conceivable that
> "Hollywood" would allow DRM-free, high-quality movies and TV shows for
> purchase via iTunes?
>
>
>
>
> Shane Sturgeon
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#7 Apr 9, 2007 at 6:22 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 02:40 PM 4/9/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>Which reproduction looks more "live" to you: film or hd videotape? To
>my eyes, today's hi res digital images (both still and motion)
>substantially surpass the film medium in every criterion, e.g., color,
>sharpness and rendering of detail. But that's my subjective opinion.

Interesting question. We all know that film and videotape have
distinct looks to them and I'm sure that many of us can tell with a
fair amount of consistency whether something is "filmed" or
"taped." The LARRY SAUNDERS SHOW (and other shows) took advantage of
this perception by going to film when showing the off-stage antics
and reverting to video for the part of the show that represented the
"live" broadcast. I thought it was clever and very effective.

>Also, motion picture film is not a "continuous" analog reproduction of
>an event. It is an illusion of continuity produced by a minimum number
>of image frames per second passing through your field of vision. Does
>the brain register these gaps but fill them in before we consciously
>notice? I don't know. However, it s does not seem logical to me that
>digital sound reproduction produces perceptible gaps in audio content,
>but that the space between frames in motion picture films do not produce
>gaps in visual content.

Another good point and, I think, germane to the current
discussion. Yes, film is not "continuous" because of the way that a
series of still images are flashed on a screen in rapid
succession. The rate is chosen so that the vast majority of humans
cannot perceive of the images as individual pictures but the brain
processes them in a continuous fashion. (If this wasn't the case
there would be no film industry! <g>) The "continuous" nature of
film is related more to the film emulsion having almost infinite
variety rather than the "dots" or other discrete pixels of a digital
image. But yes, this "continuous" emulsion is flashed at the
audience in a discontinuous way to produce motion. Come to think of
it, that would make digital films doubly discontinuous! (Each image
and then the collective presentation.) Food for thought.

All of that said, I've often wondered why we "see" video differently
than film. I suppose it is somehow related to the varying frame
rates (24 fps film vs. 30 fps of progressive video - or 60 half fps
of interlaced.) The human brain is a remarkable processor of images
hitting the eyes and I would suspect that this is at the core of the
distinction. Which brings up another point - and is intimately
related to HDTV, etc. Most of us here on the list are fully ware of
the 3:2 "pulldown" (or probably the 2:3 "pull up?" required to change
film to video for our displays. The work of the TELECINE operator is
crucial to most of what we watch today at home. The reason that a
lot of people think that video looks better than film on TVs is
because of the conversion that has been used to synch the frame
rates. There is a lot of potential for artifacts, etc. and the
competency of the processing (both in the Telecine rooms and in the
home electronics) leads to a wide range of results from o.k. to
great. But with the advent of 1080p/24 sources like some of the new
HD formats, it is now possible to keep the film frame rate intact (or
at some multiple of 24) to avoid 2:3 conversions and to take
advantage of the characteristics of various displays.

There's a lot more going on here - some of it a bit subtle - than
meets the eye (or ears.)

And to answer your original question, I've always agreed with your
opinion that HD-Video from HD video sources does show more detail,
color and sharpness than filmed material - but up until now I've been
looking at both film and video on a 30fps 1080p device. When my new
projector arrives (JVC DLA-RS1) I fully intend to take advantage of
the fact that it offers the capability to process 1080p/24 film
sources natively to avoid the 3:2 or 2:3 conversion. I can't help
but think that this will improve the viewing experience - at least
subtly. Someone like Rodolfo or Richard might be able to talk more
about the nuts and bolts of modern displays and the ability to handle
the frame rates of all source materials (or multiples thereof).

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#8 Apr 9, 2007 at 6:38 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 02:40 PM 4/9/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>However, it s does not seem logical to me that
>digital sound reproduction produces perceptible gaps in audio content,
>but that the space between frames in motion picture films do not produce
>gaps in visual content.

Skip,

I forgot to address the very interesting point you made in the except
above. I agree that it is probably true that the brain tries to
compensate for all "gaps" in our perception - either visual or
aural. It's just that with film, the 24 fps rate seems to do the
trick without much argument, although I understand some are
advocating 48 fps standards for even better film presentations. In
fact, although I can't quote the exact details I believe that some
form of this is already used in modern projection equipment - sort of
a "frame doubling". But with audio I imagine that the early bit
rates were a little easier to discern and that some people were able
to hear that something wasn't quite right (the "CD" sound that some
people refer to?). But as bit rates increase, I think the playing
field levels quite a bit so that the brain is satisfied - in most
instances - that what it is seeing and hearing is a very close
approximation of the original.

More reason to keep low audio bit rate material out of sentences with
"audiophile" in it. And as Richard mentioned, Apple will probably be
highly successful with the Apple TV but that doesn't mean it's good
for videophiles.

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#9 Apr 9, 2007 at 8:16 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Yes, 256kpbs will be a "bit" (pun
intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that and not
ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The general
consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this is just a
snack and not a full meal.

My thoughts exactly . Digitally compressed music such as ipods , media servers or whole house distribution systems are strictly convience items. Unless the files were recorded at 500 k to 1Mbps, there nothing say in terms of quality. Now if supposed audiophile / videophile magazines realized this and quite enhancing the myths created by the lure of advertising dollars . The countless wasted pages of reviews of ipod accessories , mp3 players , mobile tv , etc would be better served in readers digest or consumers reports. They could get back to unbiased , scientific reviews that would end the advertiser driven dribble that purports that a 900 receiver , is suitable for a high performance system.

The reality is that it takes MONEY to provide audiophile quality systems. If you are happy with your system , great , yet realize what is and you got what
you paid for. Inexpensive do not provide the silk.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#10 Apr 9, 2007 at 8:21 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

There is nothing more to add to your comments Digitally compressed music/video is bottom feeder material in any shape or form Unless it at 500 k to ! Mbps , there no comment as to quality

----- Original Message ----
From: Richard Fisher <[email protected]>
To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 12:56:35 PM
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> 1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
> that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD?

Possibly. I wouldn't and anybody with a decent system and audiophile
experience will find it unacceptable. CD is error ridden as it is. Only
SACD, DVD Audio and the new HD audio codecs avialbe through either HD
disc format can provide studio quality.

> 2. Also, the pricing for these new DRM-free, high-quality songs is at
> $1.29 instead of $.99. The price of the albums remains the same as the
> lower-quality, DRM-ridden format ($9.99 for most). Is it worth it?

DRM free for the mass market? likely...

> 3. What if they applied this to video? Is it conceivable that
> "Hollywood" would allow DRM-free, high-quality movies and TV shows for
> purchase via iTunes?

High quality and iTunes does not equate does it? I would imagine they
would compress the video just like they do the audio. It's effectivness
will depend on the end user. As screens get bigger, which at least one
display is for the average home, that will be more difficult to sell. I
can see this on the typical small PC screen but on 40" and greater
displays?

I think we are definitely going into a new phase where the mid end is
dead or dying and the product battle will be against the best quality
products versus bottom feeder mass market quantity versus quality products.

Apple appears to be headed down the latter road and with great success.

Richard Fisher
ISF and HAA certified
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Shane Sturgeon wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> In case you haven't heard, Apple had a fairly big news item last week in
> which they announced a partnership with EMI, one of the big record
> labels. With this partnership, they will be releasing (in May) DRM-free,
> higher quality versions of songs and albums currently carried on iTunes.
> These songs/albums will be available at 256kbps bit-rate vs. the current
> 128kbps offered on iTunes.
>
> Now my questions (finally):
>
> 1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
> that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
> also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're NOT
> listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
> subscriber home theater system.
>
> 2. Also, the pricing for these new DRM-free, high-quality songs is at
> $1.29 instead of $.99. The price of the albums remains the same as the
> lower-quality, DRM-ridden format ($9.99 for most). Is it worth it?
>
> 3. What if they applied this to video? Is it conceivable that
> "Hollywood" would allow DRM-free, high-quality movies and TV shows for
> purchase via iTunes?
>
>
>
>
> Shane Sturgeon
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#11 Apr 9, 2007 at 8:25 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Still crap and would it play on anything other than Apple For me this news is a big WHO CARES - it is still compressed garbage in /out

----- Original Message ----
From: Shane Sturgeon <[email protected]>
To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 6:41:25 AM
Subject: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

In case you haven't heard, Apple had a fairly big news item last week in
which they announced a partnership with EMI, one of the big record
labels. With this partnership, they will be releasing (in May) DRM-free,
higher quality versions of songs and albums currently carried on iTunes.
These songs/albums will be available at 256kbps bit-rate vs. the current
128kbps offered on iTunes.

Now my questions (finally):

1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're NOT
listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
subscriber home theater system.

2. Also, the pricing for these new DRM-free, high-quality songs is at
$1.29 instead of $.99. The price of the albums remains the same as the
lower-quality, DRM-ridden format ($9.99 for most). Is it worth it?

3. What if they applied this to video? Is it conceivable that
"Hollywood" would allow DRM-free, high-quality movies and TV shows for
purchase via iTunes?

Shane Sturgeon

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#12 Apr 9, 2007 at 9:00 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Peter,

I have always loved to watch folks slug it out over vinyl vs digital,
but this is the first time I've heard it said that vinyl is superior
even to SACD. Do you find vinyl to be superior to DTS 5.1 and DVD Audio
as well?

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Roth, Peter
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:14 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I agree with Dr. Fowkes 100%. "CD Quality" itself is viewed by many
audiophiles as highly compromised. On an accurate, high-performance rig,
the differences between compressed sources (like iTunes), CD, SACD and
finally vinyl (highest quality) is readily apparent. Most audiophiles
would only consider iPod use at lossless or uncompressed levels only.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Dr Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 5:42 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Now my questions (finally):
>
>1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
>that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
>also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're
NOT
>listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>subscriber home theater system.

Hi Shane!

In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm breaking
my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod is for
casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well when you
try to listen to it with anything more than the included headphones
(or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also "acceptable" for
use in a car or other environment when ambient noise will compete for
your listening attention.

However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding the
"Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the shortcomings
become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes, "You can't make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage in, garbage out"
comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious listening for music -
no!

And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did for
audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the public is
willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks to iPods)
let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't become the norm
as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et. al., these devices
are claiming to be able to let you show all those videos from your
iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going in the wrong direction on
this one. The dumbing down of America has started the move from audio
to video and I, for one, don't like the trend. (And don't get me
started on the many reasons I don't see the need or the sense for
portable video. At least with audio you can make a bit of a case.)
Ironically the XBox 360 and several other devices out there already
offer the "media center" features that the Apple TV is claiming - but
do a far better job than this latest Steve Job product. Not the same
as true HD media - but much better than what the Apple ads are claiming.

As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper"
<g>) There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over DTS
SD counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS to 384
or 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this). The real
estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in sound
quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to mention
the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see (hear) what
I'm talking about.

The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it becomes
a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates as equating
with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a "bit" (pun
intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that and not
ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The general
consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this is just a
snack and not a full meal.

Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or
relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic
e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use
of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If
any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,
unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may
be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original
message and all copies from your system. Thank you.

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#13 Apr 9, 2007 at 9:28 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Along the lines of what Dr. Fowkes said, we live in a continuous (i.e., analog) world, not a sample rate (i.e., digital) world. That being said, the continuousness offered by vinyl and or film comes with its own set of compromises. The vinyl record not capturing everything that is on the 15 i.p.s. master tapes, and the theatre film not capturing everything on the original masters. While SACD can (at its best) approach the master tape reference from one perspective, vinyl records do it from another. While vinyl has its downsides (cleaning, storage, turntable/arm/cartrige/phonostage set-up complexity/maintenance, changing sides, some click and pops, etc.), from a continuousness perspective, I believe it beats SACD consistently. Also, in my experience, a good $2500 vinly playback system (e.g., VPI Supersoutmaster)will easily beat any $5,000 SACD playback system, and any $25,000 CD playback system currently available (IMHO). Additionally, while currently available titles on CD far outstrip anything else, the library of vinyl is clearly superior to that of SACD (by orders of magnitude).

DVD-Audio had far too limited software offerings to be legitimately considered, and is severely compromised from an audiophile format due to its need for a video monitor for access/playback. DTS5.1 may be fine for movies, but its quality approaches CD, it does not surpass it.

I think most audiophiles would want any downloads intended for primarly listening (as opposed to portable, convenience or background listening) to significantly exceed the CD "redbook" standard, which would make uncompressed (or lossless) 24/96 PCM the starting point for serious discussion. - Pete -

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Skip Acuff
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 2:00 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Peter,

I have always loved to watch folks slug it out over vinyl vs digital,
but this is the first time I've heard it said that vinyl is superior
even to SACD. Do you find vinyl to be superior to DTS 5.1 and DVD Audio
as well?

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Roth, Peter
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:14 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I agree with Dr. Fowkes 100%. "CD Quality" itself is viewed by many
audiophiles as highly compromised. On an accurate, high-performance rig,
the differences between compressed sources (like iTunes), CD, SACD and
finally vinyl (highest quality) is readily apparent. Most audiophiles
would only consider iPod use at lossless or uncompressed levels only.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Dr Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 5:42 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Now my questions (finally):
>
>1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
>that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
>also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're
NOT
>listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>subscriber home theater system.

Hi Shane!

In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm breaking
my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod is for
casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well when you
try to listen to it with anything more than the included headphones
(or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also "acceptable" for
use in a car or other environment when ambient noise will compete for
your listening attention.

However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding the
"Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the shortcomings
become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes, "You can't make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage in, garbage out"
comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious listening for music -
no!

And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did for
audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the public is
willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks to iPods)
let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't become the norm
as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et. al., these devices
are claiming to be able to let you show all those videos from your
iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going in the wrong direction on
this one. The dumbing down of America has started the move from audio
to video and I, for one, don't like the trend. (And don't get me
started on the many reasons I don't see the need or the sense for
portable video. At least with audio you can make a bit of a case.)
Ironically the XBox 360 and several other devices out there already
offer the "media center" features that the Apple TV is claiming - but
do a far better job than this latest Steve Job product. Not the same
as true HD media - but much better than what the Apple ads are claiming.

As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper"
<g>) There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over DTS
SD counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS to 384
or 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this). The real
estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in sound
quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to mention
the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see (hear) what
I'm talking about.

The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it becomes
a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates as equating
with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a "bit" (pun
intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that and not
ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The general
consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this is just a
snack and not a full meal.

Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or
relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic
e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use
of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If
any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,
unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may
be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original
message and all copies from your system. Thank you.

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#14 Apr 9, 2007 at 9:39 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

On a high performance system with selective vinyl . i have enjoyed the vinyl better

----- Original Message ----
From: Skip Acuff <[email protected]>
To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 4:00:02 PM
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Peter,

I have always loved to watch folks slug it out over vinyl vs digital,
but this is the first time I've heard it said that vinyl is superior
even to SACD. Do you find vinyl to be superior to DTS 5.1 and DVD Audio
as well?

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Roth, Peter
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:14 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I agree with Dr. Fowkes 100%. "CD Quality" itself is viewed by many
audiophiles as highly compromised. On an accurate, high-performance rig,
the differences between compressed sources (like iTunes), CD, SACD and
finally vinyl (highest quality) is readily apparent. Most audiophiles
would only consider iPod use at lossless or uncompressed levels only.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Dr Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 5:42 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Now my questions (finally):
>
>1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
>that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
>also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're
NOT
>listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>subscriber home theater system.

Hi Shane!

In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm breaking
my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod is for
casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well when you
try to listen to it with anything more than the included headphones
(or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also "acceptable" for
use in a car or other environment when ambient noise will compete for
your listening attention.

However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding the
"Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the shortcomings
become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes, "You can't make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage in, garbage out"
comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious listening for music -
no!

And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did for
audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the public is
willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks to iPods)
let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't become the norm
as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et. al., these devices
are claiming to be able to let you show all those videos from your
iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going in the wrong direction on
this one. The dumbing down of America has started the move from audio
to video and I, for one, don't like the trend. (And don't get me
started on the many reasons I don't see the need or the sense for
portable video. At least with audio you can make a bit of a case.)
Ironically the XBox 360 and several other devices out there already
offer the "media center" features that the Apple TV is claiming - but
do a far better job than this latest Steve Job product. Not the same
as true HD media - but much better than what the Apple ads are claiming.

As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper"
<g>) There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over DTS
SD counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS to 384
or 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this). The real
estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in sound
quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to mention
the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see (hear) what
I'm talking about.

The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it becomes
a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates as equating
with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a "bit" (pun
intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that and not
ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The general
consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this is just a
snack and not a full meal.

Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or
relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic
e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use
of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If
any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,
unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may
be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original
message and all copies from your system. Thank you.

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#15 Apr 9, 2007 at 9:40 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Dr. Fowkes,

Which reproduction looks more "live" to you: film or hd videotape? To
my eyes, today's hi res digital images (both still and motion)
substantially surpass the film medium in every criterion, e.g., color,
sharpness and rendering of detail. But that's my subjective opinion.

Also, motion picture film is not a "continuous" analog reproduction of
an event. It is an illusion of continuity produced by a minimum number
of image frames per second passing through your field of vision. Does
the brain register these gaps but fill them in before we consciously
notice? I don't know. However, it s does not seem logical to me that
digital sound reproduction produces perceptible gaps in audio content,
but that the space between frames in motion picture films do not produce
gaps in visual content.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Dr Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 6:34 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 10:13 AM 4/9/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>I agree with Dr. Fowkes 100%. "CD Quality" itself is viewed by many
>audiophiles as highly compromised. On an accurate, high-performance
>rig, the differences between compressed sources (like iTunes), CD,
>SACD and finally vinyl (highest quality) is readily apparent. Most
>audiophiles would only consider iPod use at lossless or uncompressed
>levels only.

Thank you, Peter! I like your audio hierarchy (iTunes et. al., CD,
SACD, vinyl) and it reminds me of a similar hierarchy present in the
video spectrum (VCR, DVD, HD video, Film). It's all about trying to
reach the nirvana of analog (continuous) source material with digital
(non-continuous) reproductions. In the digital (fragmented) realm,
the smaller the fragments (the higher the resolution) the closer you
get to the original (analog) source. Both vinyl and film offer us
the potential of a better presentation of the real (analog) world and
it mostly becomes a question of finding out when digital resolution
approaches our ability to be indistinguishable (due to our
limitations, not the source material) from being there in
person. And, to be fair, both vinyl and film have some physical
limitations that cause the analog reproduction to not be completely
accurate in comparison with the source so as digital gets better
(higher resolution) the perceived gap between good digital and analog
becomes harder, if not almost impossible, to distinguish.

But one thing for sure - lower bit rates in digital audio or video is
diametrically opposed to higher quality output.

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#16 Apr 9, 2007 at 10:12 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Yes i would agree on 24/96 as a start for serious discussion.

----- Original Message ----
From: "Roth, Peter" <[email protected]>
To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 4:28:50 PM
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Along the lines of what Dr. Fowkes said, we live in a continuous (i.e., analog) world, not a sample rate (i.e., digital) world. That being said, the continuousness offered by vinyl and or film comes with its own set of compromises. The vinyl record not capturing everything that is on the 15 i.p.s. master tapes, and the theatre film not capturing everything on the original masters. While SACD can (at its best) approach the master tape reference from one perspective, vinyl records do it from another. While vinyl has its downsides (cleaning, storage, turntable/arm/cartrige/phonostage set-up complexity/maintenance, changing sides, some click and pops, etc.), from a continuousness perspective, I believe it beats SACD consistently. Also, in my experience, a good $2500 vinly playback system (e.g., VPI Supersoutmaster)will easily beat any $5,000 SACD playback system, and any $25,000 CD playback system currently available (IMHO). Additionally, while currently available titles
on CD far outstrip anything else, the library of vinyl is clearly superior to that of SACD (by orders of magnitude).

DVD-Audio had far too limited software offerings to be legitimately considered, and is severely compromised from an audiophile format due to its need for a video monitor for access/playback. DTS5.1 may be fine for movies, but its quality approaches CD, it does not surpass it.

I think most audiophiles would want any downloads intended for primarly listening (as opposed to portable, convenience or background listening) to significantly exceed the CD "redbook" standard, which would make uncompressed (or lossless) 24/96 PCM the starting point for serious discussion. - Pete -

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Skip Acuff
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 2:00 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Peter,

I have always loved to watch folks slug it out over vinyl vs digital,
but this is the first time I've heard it said that vinyl is superior
even to SACD. Do you find vinyl to be superior to DTS 5.1 and DVD Audio
as well?

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Roth, Peter
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:14 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I agree with Dr. Fowkes 100%. "CD Quality" itself is viewed by many
audiophiles as highly compromised. On an accurate, high-performance rig,
the differences between compressed sources (like iTunes), CD, SACD and
finally vinyl (highest quality) is readily apparent. Most audiophiles
would only consider iPod use at lossless or uncompressed levels only.

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Dr Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 5:42 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Now my questions (finally):
>
>1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
>that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
>also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're
NOT
>listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>subscriber home theater system.

Hi Shane!

In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm breaking
my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod is for
casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well when you
try to listen to it with anything more than the included headphones
(or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also "acceptable" for
use in a car or other environment when ambient noise will compete for
your listening attention.

However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding the
"Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the shortcomings
become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes, "You can't make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage in, garbage out"
comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious listening for music -
no!

And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did for
audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the public is
willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks to iPods)
let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't become the norm
as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et. al., these devices
are claiming to be able to let you show all those videos from your
iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going in the wrong direction on
this one. The dumbing down of America has started the move from audio
to video and I, for one, don't like the trend. (And don't get me
started on the many reasons I don't see the need or the sense for
portable video. At least with audio you can make a bit of a case.)
Ironically the XBox 360 and several other devices out there already
offer the "media center" features that the Apple TV is claiming - but
do a far better job than this latest Steve Job product. Not the same
as true HD media - but much better than what the Apple ads are claiming.

As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper"
<g>) There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over DTS
SD counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS to 384
or 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this). The real
estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in sound
quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to mention
the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see (hear) what
I'm talking about.

The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it becomes
a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates as equating
with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a "bit" (pun
intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that and not
ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The general
consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this is just a
snack and not a full meal.

Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or
relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic
e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use
of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If
any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,
unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may
be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original
message and all copies from your system. Thank you.

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#17 Apr 9, 2007 at 10:44 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Dr. Fowkes,

Many thanks for this thoughtful response. The effect on the Larry
Sanders show is an excellent example of how the differences in the "look
and feel" of film and video can be exploited. Another example is the
huge difference (in my mind at least) between the appreciation of filmed
versus taped dramatic television shows. Can you imagine a video taped
Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, CSI, or for that matter, Friends,
Cheers, Mash or Seinfeld or Frazier? These shows would lose something
in my mind due to the raw live effect of the tape format, destroying the
illusion of the moment. On the other hand, the video tape aesthetic has
worked perfectly in All in the Family, Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, Bill
Cosby and numerous other sitcoms.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Dr Robert A Fowkes
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 11:22 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 02:40 PM 4/9/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>Which reproduction looks more "live" to you: film or hd videotape? To
>my eyes, today's hi res digital images (both still and motion)
>substantially surpass the film medium in every criterion, e.g., color,
>sharpness and rendering of detail. But that's my subjective opinion.

Interesting question. We all know that film and videotape have
distinct looks to them and I'm sure that many of us can tell with a
fair amount of consistency whether something is "filmed" or
"taped." The LARRY SAUNDERS SHOW (and other shows) took advantage of
this perception by going to film when showing the off-stage antics
and reverting to video for the part of the show that represented the
"live" broadcast. I thought it was clever and very effective.

>Also, motion picture film is not a "continuous" analog reproduction of
>an event. It is an illusion of continuity produced by a minimum number
>of image frames per second passing through your field of vision. Does
>the brain register these gaps but fill them in before we consciously
>notice? I don't know. However, it s does not seem logical to me that
>digital sound reproduction produces perceptible gaps in audio content,
>but that the space between frames in motion picture films do not
produce
>gaps in visual content.

Another good point and, I think, germane to the current
discussion. Yes, film is not "continuous" because of the way that a
series of still images are flashed on a screen in rapid
succession. The rate is chosen so that the vast majority of humans
cannot perceive of the images as individual pictures but the brain
processes them in a continuous fashion. (If this wasn't the case
there would be no film industry! <g>) The "continuous" nature of
film is related more to the film emulsion having almost infinite
variety rather than the "dots" or other discrete pixels of a digital
image. But yes, this "continuous" emulsion is flashed at the
audience in a discontinuous way to produce motion. Come to think of
it, that would make digital films doubly discontinuous! (Each image
and then the collective presentation.) Food for thought.

All of that said, I've often wondered why we "see" video differently
than film. I suppose it is somehow related to the varying frame
rates (24 fps film vs. 30 fps of progressive video - or 60 half fps
of interlaced.) The human brain is a remarkable processor of images
hitting the eyes and I would suspect that this is at the core of the
distinction. Which brings up another point - and is intimately
related to HDTV, etc. Most of us here on the list are fully ware of
the 3:2 "pulldown" (or probably the 2:3 "pull up?" required to change
film to video for our displays. The work of the TELECINE operator is
crucial to most of what we watch today at home. The reason that a
lot of people think that video looks better than film on TVs is
because of the conversion that has been used to synch the frame
rates. There is a lot of potential for artifacts, etc. and the
competency of the processing (both in the Telecine rooms and in the
home electronics) leads to a wide range of results from o.k. to
great. But with the advent of 1080p/24 sources like some of the new
HD formats, it is now possible to keep the film frame rate intact (or
at some multiple of 24) to avoid 2:3 conversions and to take
advantage of the characteristics of various displays.

There's a lot more going on here - some of it a bit subtle - than
meets the eye (or ears.)

And to answer your original question, I've always agreed with your
opinion that HD-Video from HD video sources does show more detail,
color and sharpness than filmed material - but up until now I've been
looking at both film and video on a 30fps 1080p device. When my new
projector arrives (JVC DLA-RS1) I fully intend to take advantage of
the fact that it offers the capability to process 1080p/24 film
sources natively to avoid the 3:2 or 2:3 conversion. I can't help
but think that this will improve the viewing experience - at least
subtly. Someone like Rodolfo or Richard might be able to talk more
about the nuts and bolts of modern displays and the ability to handle
the frame rates of all source materials (or multiples thereof).

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#18 Apr 9, 2007 at 10:45 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> Yes i would agree on 24/96 as a start for serious discussion.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

24/192

ANYTHING less is clearly and audibly less!!!

Just say no to 24/96! Is it better? Yes. Does it match?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

If you love the sound of analog 24/96 is UNACCEPTABLE

The only reason 24/96 is out there and promoted is due to storage
space!!! Because it is better DVD audio could try and pull the wool over
the publics eyes since they could not pack a 5.1 24/192 mix on the disc
but it ain't, it isn't, it couldn't be regarded as an HD audio sampling
rate.

If you love the sound of analog 24/96 is just not quite there. 24/192 is!!!

No matter what Mr. Monster says either!!! That was so depressing...

Richard Fisher
ISF and HAA certified
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Nicetry wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Yes i would agree on 24/96 as a start for serious discussion.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Roth, Peter" <[email protected]>
> To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 4:28:50 PM
> Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Along the lines of what Dr. Fowkes said, we live in a continuous (i.e., analog) world, not a sample rate (i.e., digital) world. That being said, the continuousness offered by vinyl and or film comes with its own set of compromises. The vinyl record not capturing everything that is on the 15 i.p.s. master tapes, and the theatre film not capturing everything on the original masters. While SACD can (at its best) approach the master tape reference from one perspective, vinyl records do it from another. While vinyl has its downsides (cleaning, storage, turntable/arm/cartrige/phonostage set-up complexity/maintenance, changing sides, some click and pops, etc.), from a continuousness perspective, I believe it beats SACD consistently. Also, in my experience, a good $2500 vinly playback system (e.g., VPI Supersoutmaster)will easily beat any $5,000 SACD playback system, and any $25,000 CD playback system currently available (IMHO). Additionally, while currently available titles

> on CD far outstrip anything else, the library of vinyl is clearly superior to that of SACD (by orders of magnitude).
>
> DVD-Audio had far too limited software offerings to be legitimately considered, and is severely compromised from an audiophile format due to its need for a video monitor for access/playback. DTS5.1 may be fine for movies, but its quality approaches CD, it does not surpass it.
>
> I think most audiophiles would want any downloads intended for primarly listening (as opposed to portable, convenience or background listening) to significantly exceed the CD "redbook" standard, which would make uncompressed (or lossless) 24/96 PCM the starting point for serious discussion. - Pete -
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Skip Acuff
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 2:00 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Peter,
>
> I have always loved to watch folks slug it out over vinyl vs digital,
> but this is the first time I've heard it said that vinyl is superior
> even to SACD. Do you find vinyl to be superior to DTS 5.1 and DVD Audio
> as well?
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
> Of Roth, Peter
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:14 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I agree with Dr. Fowkes 100%. "CD Quality" itself is viewed by many
> audiophiles as highly compromised. On an accurate, high-performance rig,
> the differences between compressed sources (like iTunes), CD, SACD and
> finally vinyl (highest quality) is readily apparent. Most audiophiles
> would only consider iPod use at lossless or uncompressed levels only.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Dr Robert A Fowkes
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 5:42 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Now my questions (finally):
>>
>>1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
>>that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
>>also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're
>
> NOT
>
>>listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>>subscriber home theater system.
>
>
> Hi Shane!
>
> In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
> mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm breaking
> my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod is for
> casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well when you
> try to listen to it with anything more than the included headphones
> (or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also "acceptable" for
> use in a car or other environment when ambient noise will compete for
> your listening attention.
>
> However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding the
> "Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the shortcomings
> become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes, "You can't make a
> silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage in, garbage out"
> comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious listening for music -
> no!
>
> And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
> else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
> that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did for
> audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the public is
> willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks to iPods)
> let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't become the norm
> as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et. al., these devices
> are claiming to be able to let you show all those videos from your
> iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going in the wrong direction on
> this one. The dumbing down of America has started the move from audio
> to video and I, for one, don't like the trend. (And don't get me
> started on the many reasons I don't see the need or the sense for
> portable video. At least with audio you can make a bit of a case.)
> Ironically the XBox 360 and several other devices out there already
> offer the "media center" features that the Apple TV is claiming - but
> do a far better job than this latest Steve Job product. Not the same
> as true HD media - but much better than what the Apple ads are claiming.
>
> As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
> disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
> performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
> video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
> well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
> anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
> 384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
> when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
> Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
> the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper"
> <g>) There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over DTS
> SD counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS to 384
> or 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this). The real
> estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in sound
> quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to mention
> the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see (hear) what
> I'm talking about.
>
> The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it becomes
> a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates as equating
> with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a "bit" (pun
> intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that and not
> ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The general
> consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this is just a
> snack and not a full meal.
>
> Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...
>
>
> -- RAF
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or
> relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
> Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic
> e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use
> of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If
> any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,
> unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may
> be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
> immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original
> message and all copies from your system. Thank you.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
> Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#19 Apr 9, 2007 at 11:07 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I think all audiophiles would agree that it should be 24/192 (or perhaps something even better)!

However, I think what I said, and what I believe Nicetry restated, is that something would have to be at least 24/96 as the "starting point" for what audiophiles "might" consider as acceptable. As the bandwidth and storage differences should not be a differentiating factor between 24/96 and 24/192, the enhanced performance of 24/192 should make it the high-rez standard for downloads. From there, it can be burned onto a dvd and played back in a high-performance audio system (as the noisy, switching-power-supply environment in the computer its downloaded on should be kept separate from a true high-performance audio system).

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Richard Fisher
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:46 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> Yes i would agree on 24/96 as a start for serious discussion.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

24/192

ANYTHING less is clearly and audibly less!!!

Just say no to 24/96! Is it better? Yes. Does it match?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

If you love the sound of analog 24/96 is UNACCEPTABLE

The only reason 24/96 is out there and promoted is due to storage
space!!! Because it is better DVD audio could try and pull the wool over
the publics eyes since they could not pack a 5.1 24/192 mix on the disc
but it ain't, it isn't, it couldn't be regarded as an HD audio sampling
rate.

If you love the sound of analog 24/96 is just not quite there. 24/192 is!!!

No matter what Mr. Monster says either!!! That was so depressing...

Richard Fisher
ISF and HAA certified
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#20 Apr 10, 2007 at 12:11 am

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Just to play devil's advocate a bit..... I don't think it is fair to
compare stereo (2-channel) audio bitrates to surround (6-channel-
plus) bitrates.

I agree that Apple is not aiming for audiophiles with this latest
product. In contrast to Richard's comment about companies ignoring
the middle of the market, this IMHO, is aimed solidly at the midrange
of the market. The low end is 128 Kbps and the high end is not
currently addresses by Apple with downloads.

-Cory

On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>> Now my questions (finally):
>>
>> 1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high
>> enough
>> that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know
>> this
>> also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume
>> we're NOT
>> listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>> subscriber home theater system.
>
> Hi Shane!
>
> In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
> mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm
> breaking my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod
> is for casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well
> when you try to listen to it with anything more than the included
> headphones (or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also
> "acceptable" for use in a car or other environment when ambient
> noise will compete for your listening attention.
>
> However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding
> the "Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the
> shortcomings become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes,
> "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage
> in, garbage out" comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious
> listening for music - no!
>
> And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
> else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
> that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did
> for audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the
> public is willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks
> to iPods) let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't
> become the norm as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et.
> al., these devices are claiming to be able to let you show all
> those videos from your iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going
> in the wrong direction on this one. The dumbing down of America has
> started the move from audio to video and I, for one, don't like the
> trend. (And don't get me started on the many reasons I don't see
> the need or the sense for portable video. At least with audio you
> can make a bit of a case.) Ironically the XBox 360 and several
> other devices out there already offer the "media center" features
> that the Apple TV is claiming - but do a far better job than this
> latest Steve Job product. Not the same as true HD media - but much
> better than what the Apple ads are claiming.
>
> As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
> disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
> performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
> video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
> well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
> anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
> 384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
> when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
> Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
> the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper"
> <g>) There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over
> DTS SD counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS
> to 384 or 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this).
> The real estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in
> sound quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to
> mention the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see
> (hear) what I'm talking about.
>
> The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it
> becomes a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates
> as equating with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a
> "bit" (pun intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that
> and not ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The
> general consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this
> is just a snack and not a full meal.
>
> Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...
>
>
> -- RAF
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
> that same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#21 Apr 10, 2007 at 2:49 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> However, I think what I said, and what I believe Nicetry restated, is
that something would have to be at least 24/96 as the "starting point"
for what audiophiles "might" consider as acceptable.

I fully understand why this position is taken but...

To consider 24/96 as HD audio would be like including 480P as an HD scan
rate. Back in the early days of this site that was a heavy debate due to
FOX sations having gone DTV yet delivering 480P content which like 24/96
was clearly better than 480I and for many not that far off from HD 720P
or 1080I.

My point is to allow 24/96 in an audiophile discussion takes us down the
exact same slippery slope.

Richard Fisher
ISF and HAA certified
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Roth, Peter wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I think all audiophiles would agree that it should be 24/192 (or perhaps something even better)!
>
> However, I think what I said, and what I believe Nicetry restated, is that something would have to be at least 24/96 as the "starting point" for what audiophiles "might" consider as acceptable. As the bandwidth and storage differences should not be a differentiating factor between 24/96 and 24/192, the enhanced performance of 24/192 should make it the high-rez standard for downloads. From there, it can be burned onto a dvd and played back in a high-performance audio system (as the noisy, switching-power-supply environment in the computer its downloaded on should be kept separate from a true high-performance audio system).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Richard Fisher
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:46 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > Yes i would agree on 24/96 as a start for serious discussion.
>
> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
> 24/192
>
> ANYTHING less is clearly and audibly less!!!
>
> Just say no to 24/96! Is it better? Yes. Does it match?
>
> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
> If you love the sound of analog 24/96 is UNACCEPTABLE
>
>

>
> The only reason 24/96 is out there and promoted is due to storage
> space!!! Because it is better DVD audio could try and pull the wool over
> the publics eyes since they could not pack a 5.1 24/192 mix on the disc
> but it ain't, it isn't, it couldn't be regarded as an HD audio sampling
> rate.
>
> If you love the sound of analog 24/96 is just not quite there. 24/192 is!!!
>
> No matter what Mr. Monster says either!!! That was so depressing...
>
>

>
> Richard Fisher
> ISF and HAA certified
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
> Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#22 Apr 10, 2007 at 3:32 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 10:49 AM 4/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>My point is to allow 24/96 in an audiophile discussion takes us down the
>exact same slippery slope.

Point taken, Richard.

From a purist point of view any discrete resolution of a continuous
source will never reach the ideal. But from a practical point of
view, somewhere a line has to be drawn in the sand to establish a
spot where even evangelical audiophiles will have to admit that
digital is beginning to come "close" to analog. That location, of
course, will differ from one person to another and some people will
always point out that the source is always going to be "better" in
the literal sense. Add to the equation the fact that there are
limits of human perception that reach a point where I would imagine
that most people won't be able to discern the difference between a
high quality digital reproduction and a high quality analog
reproduction of the original. At that point the discussion becomes
mostly an academic one rather than a practical one.

But I fully understand why some people would accept a 24/192 (or even
24/96) baseline as a starting point. There is no absolute answer to
this subjective topic.

Different strokes for different folks.

I'm constantly amazed by the rapid evolution of audio and video
technology whereby yesterday's cutting edge products are now
considered baseline (or less) thanks to progress.

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#23 Apr 10, 2007 at 7:04 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Would never consider 24/96 as Hd audio. Dts master audio is where that's at for me. Yet very rare while Dolby true hd is pretty good and more available
24/96 and preferably 24/192 is the bare minimum for equating digital audio with expections of decent sound Do like your reply just as your review of the LG dual disc player has been the only one worth reading

----- Original Message ----
From: Richard Fisher <[email protected]>
To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:49:40 AM
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> However, I think what I said, and what I believe Nicetry restated, is
that something would have to be at least 24/96 as the "starting point"
for what audiophiles "might" consider as acceptable.

I fully understand why this position is taken but...

To consider 24/96 as HD audio would be like including 480P as an HD scan
rate. Back in the early days of this site that was a heavy debate due to
FOX sations having gone DTV yet delivering 480P content which like 24/96
was clearly better than 480I and for many not that far off from HD 720P
or 1080I.

My point is to allow 24/96 in an audiophile discussion takes us down the
exact same slippery slope.

Richard Fisher
ISF and HAA certified
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Roth, Peter wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> I think all audiophiles would agree that it should be 24/192 (or perhaps something even better)!
>
> However, I think what I said, and what I believe Nicetry restated, is that something would have to be at least 24/96 as the "starting point" for what audiophiles "might" consider as acceptable. As the bandwidth and storage differences should not be a differentiating factor between 24/96 and 24/192, the enhanced performance of 24/192 should make it the high-rez standard for downloads. From there, it can be burned onto a dvd and played back in a high-performance audio system (as the noisy, switching-power-supply environment in the computer its downloaded on should be kept separate from a true high-performance audio system).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Richard Fisher
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:46 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > Yes i would agree on 24/96 as a start for serious discussion.
>
> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
> 24/192
>
> ANYTHING less is clearly and audibly less!!!
>
> Just say no to 24/96! Is it better? Yes. Does it match?
>
> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
> If you love the sound of analog 24/96 is UNACCEPTABLE
>
>

>
> The only reason 24/96 is out there and promoted is due to storage
> space!!! Because it is better DVD audio could try and pull the wool over
> the publics eyes since they could not pack a 5.1 24/192 mix on the disc
> but it ain't, it isn't, it couldn't be regarded as an HD audio sampling
> rate.
>
> If you love the sound of analog 24/96 is just not quite there. 24/192 is!!!
>
> No matter what Mr. Monster says either!!! That was so depressing...
>
>

>
> Richard Fisher
> ISF and HAA certified
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
> Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#24 Apr 10, 2007 at 7:08 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Yes it would unfair to compare 2 ch to 6 ch . Personally Apple is squarely at the low end which the highest turnover and profit

----- Original Message ----
From: Cory Spitz <[email protected]>
To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 7:11:54 PM
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Just to play devil's advocate a bit..... I don't think it is fair to
compare stereo (2-channel) audio bitrates to surround (6-channel-
plus) bitrates.

I agree that Apple is not aiming for audiophiles with this latest
product. In contrast to Richard's comment about companies ignoring
the middle of the market, this IMHO, is aimed solidly at the midrange
of the market. The low end is 128 Kbps and the high end is not
currently addresses by Apple with downloads.

-Cory

On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>> Now my questions (finally):
>>
>> 1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high
>> enough
>> that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know
>> this
>> also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume
>> we're NOT
>> listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>> subscriber home theater system.
>
> Hi Shane!
>
> In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
> mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm
> breaking my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod
> is for casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well
> when you try to listen to it with anything more than the included
> headphones (or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also
> "acceptable" for use in a car or other environment when ambient
> noise will compete for your listening attention.
>
> However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding
> the "Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the
> shortcomings become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes,
> "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage
> in, garbage out" comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious
> listening for music - no!
>
> And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
> else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
> that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did
> for audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the
> public is willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks
> to iPods) let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't
> become the norm as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et.
> al., these devices are claiming to be able to let you show all
> those videos from your iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going
> in the wrong direction on this one. The dumbing down of America has
> started the move from audio to video and I, for one, don't like the
> trend. (And don't get me started on the many reasons I don't see
> the need or the sense for portable video. At least with audio you
> can make a bit of a case.) Ironically the XBox 360 and several
> other devices out there already offer the "media center" features
> that the Apple TV is claiming - but do a far better job than this
> latest Steve Job product. Not the same as true HD media - but much
> better than what the Apple ads are claiming.
>
> As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
> disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
> performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
> video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
> well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
> anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
> 384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
> when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
> Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
> the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper"
> <g>) There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over
> DTS SD counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS
> to 384 or 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this).
> The real estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in
> sound quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to
> mention the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see
> (hear) what I'm talking about.
>
> The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it
> becomes a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates
> as equating with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a
> "bit" (pun intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that
> and not ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The
> general consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this
> is just a snack and not a full meal.
>
> Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...
>
>
> -- RAF
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
> that same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#25 Apr 10, 2007 at 7:34 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> Just to play devil's advocate a bit..... I don't think it is fair to
> compare stereo (2-channel) audio bitrates to surround (6-channel- plus)
> bitrates.

Not sure what you are advocating...

Are you saying it is logical for them to have different bit rates?

My response to that would be no way... I want each and every channel to
be full 24/192 or DSD...

Richard Fisher
ISF and HAA certified
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Cory Spitz wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Just to play devil's advocate a bit..... I don't think it is fair to
> compare stereo (2-channel) audio bitrates to surround (6-channel- plus)
> bitrates.
>
> I agree that Apple is not aiming for audiophiles with this latest
> product. In contrast to Richard's comment about companies ignoring the
> middle of the market, this IMHO, is aimed solidly at the midrange of
> the market. The low end is 128 Kbps and the high end is not currently
> addresses by Apple with downloads.
>
> -Cory
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>> Now my questions (finally):
>>>
>>> 1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
>>> that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
>>> also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're
>>> NOT
>>> listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>>> subscriber home theater system.
>>
>>
>> Hi Shane!
>>
>> In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
>> mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm breaking
>> my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod is for
>> casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well when you
>> try to listen to it with anything more than the included headphones
>> (or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also "acceptable" for
>> use in a car or other environment when ambient noise will compete for
>> your listening attention.
>>
>> However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding the
>> "Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the shortcomings
>> become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes, "You can't make a
>> silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage in, garbage out"
>> comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious listening for music -
>> no!
>>
>> And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
>> else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
>> that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did for
>> audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the public is
>> willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks to iPods)
>> let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't become the norm
>> as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et. al., these devices
>> are claiming to be able to let you show all those videos from your
>> iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going in the wrong direction on
>> this one. The dumbing down of America has started the move from audio
>> to video and I, for one, don't like the trend. (And don't get me
>> started on the many reasons I don't see the need or the sense for
>> portable video. At least with audio you can make a bit of a case.)
>> Ironically the XBox 360 and several other devices out there already
>> offer the "media center" features that the Apple TV is claiming - but
>> do a far better job than this latest Steve Job product. Not the same
>> as true HD media - but much better than what the Apple ads are claiming.
>>
>> As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
>> disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
>> performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
>> video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
>> well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
>> anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
>> 384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
>> when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
>> Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
>> the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper" <g>)
>> There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over DTS SD
>> counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS to 384 or
>> 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this). The real
>> estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in sound
>> quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to mention
>> the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see (hear) what
>> I'm talking about.
>>
>> The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it becomes
>> a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates as equating
>> with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a "bit" (pun
>> intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that and not
>> ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The general
>> consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this is just a
>> snack and not a full meal.
>>
>> Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...
>>
>>
>> -- RAF
>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>> same day) send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#26 Apr 10, 2007 at 7:36 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> But I fully understand why some people would accept a 24/192 (or even
> 24/96) baseline as a starting point. There is no absolute answer to
> this subjective topic.

Sure there is! Buy a disc that has both versions and hear the difference
for yourself. 24/192 is more, it sounds more better so it must be more
accurate.

http://www.classicrecords.com/search.cf ... itemnumber

Richard Fisher
ISF and HAA certified
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 10:49 AM 4/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> My point is to allow 24/96 in an audiophile discussion takes us down the
>> exact same slippery slope.
>
>
> Point taken, Richard.
>
> From a purist point of view any discrete resolution of a continuous
> source will never reach the ideal. But from a practical point of view,
> somewhere a line has to be drawn in the sand to establish a spot where
> even evangelical audiophiles will have to admit that digital is
> beginning to come "close" to analog. That location, of course, will
> differ from one person to another and some people will always point out
> that the source is always going to be "better" in the literal sense.
> Add to the equation the fact that there are limits of human perception
> that reach a point where I would imagine that most people won't be able
> to discern the difference between a high quality digital reproduction
> and a high quality analog reproduction of the original. At that point
> the discussion becomes mostly an academic one rather than a practical one.
>
> But I fully understand why some people would accept a 24/192 (or even
> 24/96) baseline as a starting point. There is no absolute answer to
> this subjective topic.
>
> Different strokes for different folks.
>
> I'm constantly amazed by the rapid evolution of audio and video
> technology whereby yesterday's cutting edge products are now considered
> baseline (or less) thanks to progress.
>
>
> -- RAF
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#27 Apr 10, 2007 at 8:07 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

My 2 cents on analog versus digital...

So we have this here master tape from a studio. Which format has the
least amount of artifacts from mastering for distribution to replication
and playback?

Vinyl. Who knows. There is little if any control on the output signal
and that will be a combined recipe of turntable, platter, base, drive
system, arm , cartridge, needle, cables, preamp. Have not even touched
on all the things that go into cutting that vinyl and mass producing it.

Digital. Everything is pretty much controlled and standard up to the
output of the D/A. With a bit of knowledge you can make sure that PCM
sources stay PCM or DSD stays DSD in the decoding. While you can create
a sonic signature on that final analog circuit that feeds the RCA jacks
you have far less directions to go compared to vinyl and let us not
forget vinyl also has that nasty RIAA curve that has to be dealt with
and in doing so you have no choice but to create artifacts; there is no
other way except to do the RIAA curve in the digital domain but then you
have A/D and D/A conversions; choose your artifact/poison.

Does vinyl have a characteristic sonic signature? You bet and it is a
bear to make one neutral and even harder to define what neutral is. Talk
to someone who replicates vinyl and if they are truthful they will also
tell you that each metal master has a slightly different sound. You
can't even compare the vinyl record in your hand to the master tape due
that!

Can vinyl be great? You bet but consistency is not its forte, in all
reality that always has been the achilles heal of the format and that is
why CD smoked it for the mass market. Yet we also all know that CD
simply does not capture enough of the information for it to ever sound
like the original.

As an artist with DSD and PCM 24/192 at my disposal I can provide a near
perfect level of consistecy and if the studio master is in that format
you will be listening to the studio master in your home. Its a beautiful
thing!!!

BTW, those two have been tested by numerous pros against analog masters
and they all have one experience in common, we are at the point of
shaving hairs to hear and describe the difference. In this context I am
focused on being faithful to the original!

Richard Fisher
ISF and HAA certified
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#28 Apr 11, 2007 at 1:41 am

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Of course anyone concerned with quality of sound and video would want that. Yet it still the money for royalities , control of formats , marketing and politics to offset that desire. Joe six pack is still a big elephant in the room . There way too much money to be made in garbage Their influence is considerable as many actually consider portable digital to be music and sales of cellphone music and video is depressing hot.

We must stand up for ourselves and demand discs at minimum of 24/196 High definition material is full dts master audio or dolby with the 32 bit colour of hdmi 1.3

Then the discussion of portable music would be where it belongs in Readers Digest and it's convience features discussed

----- Original Message ----
From: Richard Fisher <[email protected]>
To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:34:02 PM
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> Just to play devil's advocate a bit..... I don't think it is fair to
> compare stereo (2-channel) audio bitrates to surround (6-channel- plus)
> bitrates.

Not sure what you are advocating...

Are you saying it is logical for them to have different bit rates?

My response to that would be no way... I want each and every channel to
be full 24/192 or DSD...

Richard Fisher
ISF and HAA certified
HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php

Cory Spitz wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Just to play devil's advocate a bit..... I don't think it is fair to
> compare stereo (2-channel) audio bitrates to surround (6-channel- plus)
> bitrates.
>
> I agree that Apple is not aiming for audiophiles with this latest
> product. In contrast to Richard's comment about companies ignoring the
> middle of the market, this IMHO, is aimed solidly at the midrange of
> the market. The low end is 128 Kbps and the high end is not currently
> addresses by Apple with downloads.
>
> -Cory
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>> Now my questions (finally):
>>>
>>> 1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
>>> that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
>>> also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're
>>> NOT
>>> listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>>> subscriber home theater system.
>>
>>
>> Hi Shane!
>>
>> In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
>> mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm breaking
>> my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod is for
>> casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well when you
>> try to listen to it with anything more than the included headphones
>> (or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also "acceptable" for
>> use in a car or other environment when ambient noise will compete for
>> your listening attention.
>>
>> However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding the
>> "Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the shortcomings
>> become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes, "You can't make a
>> silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage in, garbage out"
>> comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious listening for music -
>> no!
>>
>> And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
>> else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
>> that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did for
>> audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the public is
>> willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks to iPods)
>> let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't become the norm
>> as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et. al., these devices
>> are claiming to be able to let you show all those videos from your
>> iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going in the wrong direction on
>> this one. The dumbing down of America has started the move from audio
>> to video and I, for one, don't like the trend. (And don't get me
>> started on the many reasons I don't see the need or the sense for
>> portable video. At least with audio you can make a bit of a case.)
>> Ironically the XBox 360 and several other devices out there already
>> offer the "media center" features that the Apple TV is claiming - but
>> do a far better job than this latest Steve Job product. Not the same
>> as true HD media - but much better than what the Apple ads are claiming.
>>
>> As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
>> disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
>> performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
>> video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
>> well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
>> anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
>> 384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
>> when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
>> Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
>> the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper" <g>)
>> There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over DTS SD
>> counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS to 384 or
>> 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this). The real
>> estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in sound
>> quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to mention
>> the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see (hear) what
>> I'm talking about.
>>
>> The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it becomes
>> a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates as equating
>> with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a "bit" (pun
>> intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that and not
>> ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The general
>> consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this is just a
>> snack and not a full meal.
>>
>> Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...
>>
>>
>> -- RAF
>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>> same day) send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#29 Apr 11, 2007 at 2:12 am

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

This is no different than when we had "8 track" back in the '70s. there
will always be a medium for those who only wish to hear the noise. And
with all the money being made off MP3 this will never change. There will
always be a minority of real music lovers who will pay to hear the best.
Nothing has really changed, only the way people listen to music. MP3 or
something similar will not go away.

Hugh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicetry" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Of course anyone concerned with quality of sound and video would want
> that. Yet it still the money for royalities , control of formats ,
> marketing and politics to offset that desire. Joe six pack is still a big
> elephant in the room . There way too much money to be made in garbage
> Their influence is considerable as many actually consider portable
> digital to be music and sales of cellphone music and video is depressing
> hot.
>
> We must stand up for ourselves and demand discs at minimum of 24/196
> High definition material is full dts master audio or dolby with the 32
> bit colour of hdmi 1.3
>
> Then the discussion of portable music would be where it belongs in
> Readers Digest and it's convience features discussed
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Richard Fisher <[email protected]>
> To: HDTV Magazine <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:34:02 PM
> Subject: Re: For the audiophiles ...
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> > Just to play devil's advocate a bit..... I don't think it is fair to
> > compare stereo (2-channel) audio bitrates to surround (6-channel- plus)
> > bitrates.
>
> Not sure what you are advocating...
>
>

>
> Are you saying it is logical for them to have different bit rates?
>
> My response to that would be no way... I want each and every channel to
> be full 24/192 or DSD...
>
> Richard Fisher
> ISF and HAA certified
> HD Library is provided by Techservicesusa.com
> Publisher http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/index.php
>
> Cory Spitz wrote:
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Just to play devil's advocate a bit..... I don't think it is fair to
>> compare stereo (2-channel) audio bitrates to surround (6-channel- plus)
>> bitrates.
>>
>> I agree that Apple is not aiming for audiophiles with this latest
>> product. In contrast to Richard's comment about companies ignoring the
>> middle of the market, this IMHO, is aimed solidly at the midrange of
>> the market. The low end is 128 Kbps and the high end is not currently
>> addresses by Apple with downloads.
>>
>> -Cory
>>
>>
>> On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>>
>>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>> At 07:41 AM 4/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now my questions (finally):
>>>>
>>>> 1. I know this is highly subjective ... but ... is 256kbps high enough
>>>> that "most" people will find it indistinguishable from CD? I know this
>>>> also depends highly on the system in question, so let's assume we're
>>>> NOT
>>>> listening to it on an iPod, but instead on a typical Tips List
>>>> subscriber home theater system.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Shane!
>>>
>>> In my "subjective" opinion, 256kbps is not something that should be
>>> mentioned in the same sentence as "audiophile" (although I'm breaking
>>> my own rule here in this one! <g>) As great as the iPod is for
>>> casual listening (I own two of them) it doesn't fare well when you
>>> try to listen to it with anything more than the included headphones
>>> (or some of the upgraded ones out there.) It's also "acceptable" for
>>> use in a car or other environment when ambient noise will compete for
>>> your listening attention.
>>>
>>> However - and this is an important point - once you start feeding the
>>> "Apple Audio" to even a reasonable audio system the shortcomings
>>> become readily apparent. Like the old saying goes, "You can't make a
>>> silk purse out of a sow's ear." Also, "Garbage in, garbage out"
>>> comes to mind. Casual listening, yes - serious listening for music -
>>> no!
>>>
>>> And to get on the proverbial soapbox for a moment (I think someone
>>> else here brought up this related topic): I have a great concern
>>> that Apple is trying to do the same thing for video that they did for
>>> audio with the introduction of the Apple TV unit. If the public is
>>> willing to accept low grade music as a standard (thanks to iPods)
>>> let's cross our fingers that down-rezed video doesn't become the norm
>>> as well. At a time that we are promoting HDTV et. al., these devices
>>> are claiming to be able to let you show all those videos from your
>>> iPods on your TVs. Ouch! Talk about going in the wrong direction on
>>> this one. The dumbing down of America has started the move from audio
>>> to video and I, for one, don't like the trend. (And don't get me
>>> started on the many reasons I don't see the need or the sense for
>>> portable video. At least with audio you can make a bit of a case.)
>>> Ironically the XBox 360 and several other devices out there already
>>> offer the "media center" features that the Apple TV is claiming - but
>>> do a far better job than this latest Steve Job product. Not the same
>>> as true HD media - but much better than what the Apple ads are
>>> claiming.
>>>
>>> As a postscript - let me say that to me the great advantage of HD
>>> disc media (both formats) is not just in the increased video
>>> performance (which can be mimicked to some extent with expensive
>>> video processors) but just as significant HD audio performance as
>>> well. With lossless and uncompressed codecs we are talking about
>>> anything from 1.5Mbps to 7Mbps and above - today - rather than the
>>> 384kpbs or so audio found on most SD discs. Remember back in 1997
>>> when there was a big discussion about the better quality of DTS on
>>> Laserdiscs over SD DVD? I still remember the frenzy to try to find
>>> the "good stuff" on DTS LDs (even marginal titles like "Casper" <g>)
>>> There was a noticeable (hearable) advantage of DTS LDs over DTS SD
>>> counterparts and that was just comparing 640Kbps of LD DTS to 384 or
>>> 448kbps DVD DTS (if I have my numbers correct on this). The real
>>> estate limitations of the media caused the disparity in sound
>>> quality. Listen to DTS 1.5Mbps on today's HD media (not to mention
>>> the higher bit rate transfer audio codecs) and you'll see (hear) what
>>> I'm talking about.
>>>
>>> The bottom line: In an era of MEGAbps audio transfer rate it becomes
>>> a bit ludicrous to think of KILO bps audio transfer rates as equating
>>> with great contemporary sound. Yes, 256kpbs will be a "bit" (pun
>>> intended) better than 192kbps but let's leave it at that and not
>>> ascribe some sonic attributes that it doesn't deserve. The general
>>> consumer may "byte" but the audiophiles realize that this is just a
>>> snack and not a full meal.
>>>
>>> Stepping down from the old guy's soapbox...
>>>
>>>
>>> -- RAF
>>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>> same day) send an email to:
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>> same day) send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

#30 Apr 11, 2007 at 3:19 pm

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 03:36 PM 4/10/2007 -0400, you wrote:
> > But I fully understand why some people would accept a 24/192 (or even
> > 24/96) baseline as a starting point. There is no absolute answer to
> > this subjective topic.
>
>Sure there is! Buy a disc that has both versions and hear the difference
>for yourself. 24/192 is more, it sounds more better so it must be more
>accurate.

Richard,

Of course I realize that 24/192 sounds better than 24/96! Give me a
little more credit than that. The "no absolute answer" was a
reference to at what point in the digital sampling spectrum people
would be willing to accept the specs as a baseline. Some people are
more demanding than others and that's what I meant when stating that
there is no absolute answer. The question was, "At what point would
a person begin to consider digital sound audiophile quality?"

Understand?

-- RAF

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]