BluRay Audio

[basati]

What do you think about it?

192 khz from the first AD, over Dyn./EQ/mixing/analog mixing until finaly listening on a bluray player ...
which could be the player for all (video and audio) in the living rooms.

it could be an alternative format with common players.
is dsd much better than blurayaudio?
somebody listen to superaudio cd?

somebody produce wth 192 khz?

of course its more computing power needed for producing in 192 khz.
but imho i think its time for a better resolution for our ears. also leave that mp3...
(thats good for internetstreaming- of course). but why not a 192 khz mp3... And normal cd-players actually doesnt have tracknames yet ...

http://www.pureaudio-bluray.com/


of course its an new thing for the industrie to sell there ugly-sounding !!192 Khz!!! blurayplayer an adda converters to the massess,
no question a better 44k da converter IS better than a bad 192 khz signal full of jitter ...


what do you think?
what think the musicians?

have a nice day

[ChrisWerner]

My view on that.
Super Audio CD is a great medium for very high quality.
It can store, if I remeber right, the quality of 64x44.1kHz AudioCDs.
But what happened ? Most of the studios moved to a digital recording thing, no tape recordings anymore, so they can't serve the full quality of an Super Audio CD only an analog studio can do that.

And as time passed, only few customers maybe have and want Super Audio CDs, but that hapless only a few.
I except similar the same thing for Blue Ray Audio or whatever medium will come next, as most of the music customers, lets say the target of the big labels, listen their music on an I-product or with a mp3player or cell phone. But I see a small chance for the BlueRay, as it is heavily featured. But as always the majority of customers will decide.

From my musican view, yes I would like to hear music on a Blue Ray or Super Audio CD, with a video footage in surround sound.

[garyb]

it is great!
it is stupid, what a waste of resources.

both are true. doing a production at 192k takes FOUR TIMES the processor resources, memory and harddrive space/bandwidth for a slight improvement in sound over 44.1k or 48k. if you have nothing but money, it's for you. some people just aren't happy unless they can brag and lord over others. also, if you really do masturbate through the ears and that is your only pleasure, then again, it's for you.

actually, i'd rather spend the money on a better sound system itself, and improve the listening environment with the proper diffusion and bass traps, first. then, if i still needed to "go to 11" i'd definitely do work and listen to everything at 192k, as much as possible.

[basati]

thanks for the reply.


interesting what you said.

yeah right gary the needed power is massive.
the computers getting faster and faster.

1. who need THIS power for real
2. which machine/programm/os can fully exploit a quad @ 3,...Ghz

I look forward for common better resolution.
Cd format is good but i think a little bit obsolete and outdated...

[garyb]

actaully, 44.1k puts any artifacts above 20k, the linit of human hearing and well past the limit of most speakers. the only real advantage of higher samplerates is:

1. bad programming of bad filters is nullified from very high samplerates and
2. people are suckers for "more is better" and "here's something even more awesome to buy".

it definitely won't make crappy music into good music or vice versa, either way.

[Sounddesigner]

But even if you work at 44khz, if you use the 'good' plugins they generally will oversample so large computer tax will happen anyways. higher samplerate is no doubt a part of better soundquality no matter wich samplerate you run at. At 44khz one is more at the mercy of the oversampling plugins SRC wich probably ain't that good and i'm sure takes more power. If you wish your music to go to a Mastering Engineer who most likely will use tools that oversample then surely it's best to give them a higher-samplerate file to reduce or avoide conversions. There are several scope synths that Sonic Core has verified sounds better at 96khz and the best synths that don't sound better at higher samplerates tend to oversample internally anyways. No matter wich samplerate you run at there's going to be a big tax for better soundquality wich increases (even at 44khz) as plugins are upgraded. 96khz helps avoide unnecessary conversions while giving soundquality improvements.

The cd formatt is a very limited formatt in terms of storage-space, file types, channels, etc if one wishes to take advantage of what the better formates such as dvd and blu-ray offers then higher samplerate is the logical choice and what those formatts where designed for. Especially when considering video, mastering and archiving for future formatts. Also the better formatts remove the need for bit reduction and dithering (wich is measurable distortion). Dvd and blu-ray are niche but who cares, SCOPE is niche but still the best solution for many of us.

Then there is latency wich is greatly reduced at higher-samplerates. The more complex you get in music production the more latency is produced (routing, synthesis, effects chaining, etc), working at higher samplerates allow for more complexity. It is a heavier cpu cost but is'nt the purpose of more cpu/dsp power to get better performace, soundquality, etc? Many Musicians/Engineers do believe in improving their instruments/tools and do care about them, higher samplerates is part of that improvement to some. I assure you part of what's selling XITE-1, i7's, etc is the desire for higher samplerate operation to achieve better sound and low-latency performance, that's largely the purpose of those processors for some of us or we might not have the need to buy them and settle for much smaller processors. Such is part of the life blood of the Niche Audio- Market.

As for financial cost; 1 terrabyte harddrives are under $100 in this modern era, powerful cpu's are cheap now, i don't believe the average person would have any problem financially running at 96khz (maybe a problem after upgrading many of their plugins to the latest and greatest but that takes a long time). 192khz i do believe is too great of a tax for the average person cpu wise but not necessarily harddrive wise since they are so cheap now.

I run at 96khz and for me it is the right Rate to work at without being too extreme but still getting many of the benifits. Aswell as the dvd/blu-ray formatt being a necessity for me. I do believe higher then 96khz is too extreme and unnecessary, atleast for the average person.

[Tau]

Chris's statement above ("only analogue studios can serve that quality") got me thinking about "1-bit recording", as seen, for example, in Korg's line of portable recorders here. It seems to be a sensible choice for mastering, but would it be a practical format for multitracking?