|
Apple has killed audio quality, says Neil Young
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 24 July, 2008
Rock star Neil Young made some interesting comments at the Fortune Brainstorm Tech Conference yesterday including his suggestion that music sound quality has been "dumbed down to Fisher-Price toy levels" since the inception of the iPod.
?Apple has taken a detour down the convenience highway,? Young said. ?Quality has taken a complete backseat - if it even gets in the car at all.?
Young ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
|
24. July 2008 @ 15:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
As long as I can get a decent quality of sound and tune out all of my worries then I'm fine. I'm no audiophile.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
SProdigy
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
24. July 2008 @ 15:17 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by dragnandy:
ipods have crap sound quality. so whether you have 320knps or 120kbps bit rate for an mp3, your not going hear the difference on a crap-pod.
Not necessarily true. Try different bitrates between MP3 and AAC files on an iPod and you will notice a difference, especially when you use the iPod's dock connector with a car stereo or external speaker setup that is made specifically for it.
I know there is a difference with lossy, etc. but like posted by others, I'm no major audiophile, I just hate getting crappy MP3 files and adjusting the volume on my stereo all of the time. All of my AAC files are the same bitrate and work out just fine for me.
|
Senior Member
|
24. July 2008 @ 15:23 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by xtago:
Can't diss a guy whos been making music for the last 40 years.
and ..................... YES YOU CAN!
Ever heard the saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks"?
Kinda like teaching my mother how to use her computer more efficiently. Just because she's been around a lot longer and maybe used a word processor or typewriter back in the day doesn't mean she's going to pick up on new technologies. Those making music for 40 years do have a tendency to stick with what they know and are comfortable with and often just don't want to change.
Maybe after 40 years...........it's time to retire. ESPECIALLY that crap from Neil Young. His music just sucks! Always has always will, except for the hippies of course. Damn tree huggers!
|
Senior Member
|
24. July 2008 @ 15:30 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by xtago:
Can't diss a guy whos been making music for the last 40 years.
and ..................... YES YOU CAN!
Ever heard the saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks"?
Kinda like teaching my mother how to use her computer more efficiently. Just because she's been around a lot longer and maybe used a word processor or typewriter back in the day doesn't mean she's going to pick up on new technologies. Those making music for 40 years do have a tendency to stick with what they know and are comfortable with and often just don't want to change.
Maybe after 40 years...........it's time to retire. ESPECIALLY that crap from Neil Young. His music just sucks! Always has always will, except for the hippies of course. Damn tree huggers!
funny,but i would think most people with any sense at all would disagree with that statement.for forty years neil young has been evolving with time and technology.he has always been on the cutting edge and not afraid of change.he is right,the quality sucks,and if you can a-hear it,and b-appreciate it then it would follow that quality is of utmost importance.sure,not everybody likes neils music,but this is not just about his music.its about all the music we listen to.by the way,i have listened to neil young for over 30 years and liked it.i am not a hippy either.by the way,to use that term i think you at least have to know what it means.lol
|
|
G_Hubcap
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. July 2008 @ 15:48 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by rlessmue:
... now keep in mind regarding ipod users:
a) What percentage of the people who listen to ipod music can:
1) hear any sounds outside the range of 20Hz to 20kHz
2) rip music to 320kbps to listen to on their ipods
3) use "studio quality" speakers to listen to their music
(when they are not listening to their ipods)
4) think that the ipod is the best audio gear that has come along
b) Of these people (above):
1) have they ever heard the difference between a live studio
recording and the finished product (cd)
2) able to understand the technical difference
(aside from hearing it, and being able to distinguish the difference)...
Awesome take, at least your's is on topic...
60GB PS3-PSN ID: OpiateSteam
|
|
lynchGOP
Suspended permanently
|
24. July 2008 @ 16:11 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??
Even 2 channel LPCM @ 192Khz/24bit will annihilate a regular CD (44.1Khz/16bit).
I'm sorry guys but I have to agree with Neil Young... Quality is always of the highest importance.
Ok..........now I'm getting tired of people saying, implying, doing stupid things. In this case............THE COMMENT IS JUST STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The title of this article is "Apple has killed audio quality"
Of course 192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is 'good enough' but that is irrelevant of this article. SO PAY ATTENTION!
Apple doensn't offer that. It's 128Khz, 16-bit, 2 channel and you pay extra for the higher quality only RECENTLY offered, without DRM, and few in number I'm sure.
The only part of your hair-brained comment I agree with, and I'm sure every one else does too is the "quality is always of the highest importance."
Listen up newbie!
The article clearly mentioned Blu-ray as a suggested platform for the high quality alternative to the ever increasing low quality media available for download on the net.
Oh and by the way Apple does not offer 128Khz like you say, it's 128Kbs... Also, mp3 and mp4/aac (also compatible with the iPod) aren't restricted to 128Kbs as the only bitrate of choice.
The "Khz" refers to the sample rate. In my example of 192Khz, that would mean 192,000 wave form samples are taken every second. With regular CD audio (and mp3) there are 44,100 samples taken per second.
Now who looks stupid?
If you would like to continue this conversation, please feel free to do so but I would like to request that you bring some intelligence to the table next time.
Out of context so PIPE DOWN! I was right and will continue to be so. BD was simply MENTIONED and was not targeted as being a problem for audio.............and maybe a concern. You're still a goof. Can you say "read between the lines?" Guess not because you'd ASSUME that BD is going to have unparalleled UNCOMPRESSED and lossless quality. I'm sure he knows that too. Young was referring to the formats NOW. So..........again...........PIPE DOWN. And before you use "newbie" and a method of attack, recognize that some aren't. I've been on this for years and years. Should be a senior member but had to come back over and over for being harsh................DON'T MAKE ME GET HARSH WITH YOU!!!! I'll make you cry to mama.
|
Moderator
1 product review
|
24. July 2008 @ 16:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lynchGOP:
Should be a senior member but had to come back over and over for being harsh
Keep it up and you'll be starting over again.
@Ryu
Regardless of status we still have to be nice to one another...that goes for everyone.
*group hug*
now back to the topic please.
|
Member
|
24. July 2008 @ 16:49 |
Link to this message
|
something everyone seems to be forgetting here... apple does lower the music standards greatly, but not my mp3, by using 128 kbps aac... with DRM! actually, mp3 encoded properly at V0 setting using EAC and lame is quite good, and meets my standards. That does not mean that FLAC and 24 bit losless rips of music arent better, but one thigns for sure, apple has killed the quality of music...
|
|
Drunkken
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. July 2008 @ 16:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
Meh, Some good amp + UE-11's = WIn.
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
24. July 2008 @ 17:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
ALL compressed formats suck, if you have the ears and equipment to tell the difference.
Neil has a small point, but since when have his recordings ever been really high quality? (production values not content... he hasn't released anything worth a toss in years)
I have quite a few of his old LP's.. and they are compressed to hell.. decidedly lo-fi, compared to say.. a good Harvest release from the same era (edgar broughton band.. wasa wasa anybody?)
Lets face it.. just carrying on releasing whiney drivel for 40 years doesn't necessarily denote quality, just persistence.. so while I understand his wish to release his music in the best possible format for quality he is somewhat missing the point he has so often spouted.. that music is for everybody regardless of wealth... Big business is bad.. eh Neil?
|
|
embo22000
Junior Member
|
24. July 2008 @ 17:34 |
Link to this message
|
People once you hear true high quililty music you'll never go back. Just like riding a bycicle then a car or old tv's to hdtv's with high dev players or upscalers.
I want my eyes and ears to hear and see the best the technology we can provide now can offer..............die apple.
|
Junior Member
|
24. July 2008 @ 20:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
...yep...
funny thing about quality and standards...
everyone:
1)has their own level of quality
and
2)they also have their own standards
so the results are:
people + more people = a lot of people
people with low quality + more of the same = crap
people with high quality + more of the same =
few people in which only a small percentage can affort it!
========================
Basicly... enjoy the crap you can afford!
Cheers!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. July 2008 @ 21:16 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??
It is if you can download a file of this quality (192Khz, 24bi) from itunes which is not possible. Neil Young is totally right about this. A lossy format such as MP3 or WMA even at its highest bitrate is at best acceptable mediocre sound quality. There was a time when people spent thousands of dollars on high end discreet circuitry electronics played back on beautifully designed concert quality reproducing speakers. Now every one listens to music through small integrated IC chip circuitry systems that fail to recapture the sound of the original content, or small portable music players with headphones. Don't get me wrong I love my MP3 player, but I also know that it's no where near the quality of sound that people listened to in the 1970's.
Today we have superior quality recording capability but it is wasted on playback systems both in music format and hardware.
|
Junior Member
|
24. July 2008 @ 21:41 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??
It is if you can download a file of this quality (192Khz, 24bi) from itunes which is not possible. Neil Young is totally right about this. A lossy format such as MP3 or WMA even at its highest bitrate is at best acceptable mediocre sound quality. There was a time when people spent thousands of dollars on high end discreet circuitry electronics played back on beautifully designed concert quality reproducing speakers. Now every one listens to music through small integrated IC chip circuitry systems that fail to recapture the sound of the original content, or small portable music players with headphones. Don't get me wrong I love my MP3 player, but I also know that it's no where near the quality of sound that people listened to in the 1970's.
Today we have superior quality recording capability but it is wasted on playback systems both in music format and hardware.
===============================
I agree 100%...but things sounded better back in the 1970's where you could wear-out a LP...
so if you were able to "wear-out" a LP, your music would get worse after each play...until it was so bad you couldn't play it.
Today people can hear the same -exact- track over and over with-out any loss...so the quality (good or bad) doen't change.
When this happens - one can become more "critical" regarding "quality" of the recording that they have.
...I think this is what happen to Neil...TOOO much editing!
Cheers!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. July 2008 @ 22:29 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I agree 100%...but things sounded better back in the 1970's where you could wear-out a LP...
so if you were able to "wear-out" a LP, your music would get worse after each play...until it was so bad you couldn't play it.
That is somewhat true if one played an LP over and over again thousands of times and in a small collection. There were also special recorded albums that were cut from the original master lacquers, and the king of them all was rare direct to disc recordings. A common solution for storing and organizing music in those days was to purchase a reel to reel recorder that recorded at 15 IPS which preserved the sound quite close to the original, in fact the difference was inaudible, and with DBX introduced no extra noise to the system was added, but what made it really work was the quality of the playback systems.
Quote:
Today people can hear the same -exact- track over and over with-out any loss...so the quality (good or bad) doen't change.
The problem is that the degree of loss before they even get the track is so great to start with that only about 20% of the original sound is left. Remember that each time there is a transfer from one format to another a degree of loss occurs.
I have no issue with the use of MP3's except that superior methods of storage are ignored in favor of expedient lower quality formats Neil Young was and is right.
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
24. July 2008 @ 23:09 |
Link to this message
|
I think it's somewhat unfair to blame Apple (or ANY place that sells compressed music formats) for "kill[ing] audio quality." It's unfortunate that they all likely HAD to (at least to begin with) to get enough customers...but it IS kinda bad that still 128Kbps-192Kbps is still the standard bitrate for downloadable music. I'm sure the record companies are also partially to blame, not wanting PRISTINE copies of music out there.
I, for one, still buy actual CDs of music I REALLY want to appreciate and rip my own for more casual use, though usually at 256Kbps (in iTunes, since I find their encoder quite acceptable). I can see blaming them somewhat for the dumbing down of many consumers on what quality should be, but most consumers were quite dumb to begin with and deserve a lot of the blame too for apparently not caring.
MP3s were just a natural extension of what was going on...I don't recall Neil Young complaining that Sony Walkmans or even minicassette players in general were ruining music because it wasn't anywhere near the quality of reel-to-reel! :-)
|
Junior Member
|
24. July 2008 @ 23:32 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Today people can hear the same -exact- track over and over with-out any loss...so the quality (good or bad) doen't change.
The problem is that the degree of loss before they even get the track is so great to start with that only about 20% of the original sound is left. Remember that each time there is a transfer from one format to another a degree of loss occurs.
I have no issue with the use of MP3's except that superior methods of storage are ignored in favor of expedient lower quality formats Neil Young was and is right.
...the "REAL" problem is we never get the "original track"...it is always lost in the studio, and the copy begins at the first recording!
...everything "else" I agree with except for:
Quote:
Remember that every time there is a transfer from one format to another a degree of loss occurs.
...so my hard drive image copy goes though a "degree of loss"??
Microsoft should hear about this! Pleeese! That's like saying every CD that is mass produced at the factory by Columbia is different -even if it has the same ISBN number?
...I agree that some "traditional" transfers (conversions from FLAC to MP3) will have losses. But hard drive to hard drive? Depends on how you do it...
Cheers!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. July 2008 @ 23:36 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I don't recall Neil Young complaining that Sony Walkmans or even minicassette players in general were ruining music because it wasn't anywhere near the quality of reel-to-reel! :-)
Mini cassettes were never used for music, just voice, and most cassettes were like what you do when you rip a CD for use on your portable player. I too prefer to buy CD's and make my own content for my portable player. I know every back system known for both CD and DVD but I still prefer to have originals.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. July 2008 @ 23:37
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
24. July 2008 @ 23:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lynchGOP:
Out of context so PIPE DOWN! I was right and will continue to be so. BD was simply MENTIONED and was not targeted as being a problem for audio.............and maybe a concern. You're still a goof.
I never said there was any problem with Blu-ray audio. In fact I was attempting to post very much on topic but for some reason you still can't understand.
Originally posted by the article:
Young spoke out about the poor audio quality of the most popular audio codec, MP3, and also talked about his "long-term, multimedia archiving project of his entire career" which will be available as a series of Blu-ray discs. Young hopes his project will become the basis for an alternative digital platform with higher quality sound.
He clearly references his plans to archive his entire career onto Blu-ray discs.
Originally posted by lynchGOP:
Guess not because you'd ASSUME that BD is going to have unparalleled UNCOMPRESSED and lossless quality.
I don't need to assume that Blu-ray will have "unparalleled UNCOMPRESSED and lossless quality" as you call it. I already know it does. As I mentioned in my very first post, which you somehow completely misunderstood...
Originally posted by Ryu77:
192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??
Even 2 channel LPCM @ 192Khz/24bit will annihilate a regular CD (44.1Khz/16bit).
I'm sorry guys but I have to agree with Neil Young... Quality is always of the highest importance.
Originally posted by lynchGOP:
Young was referring to the formats NOW. So..........again...........PIPE DOWN.
Blu-ray does offer uncompressed 192Khz/24bit audio now.
Originally posted by lynchGOP:
Should be a senior member but had to come back over and over for being harsh................DON'T MAKE ME GET HARSH WITH YOU!!!! I'll make you cry to mama.
LOL!
Originally posted by Sophocles:
Originally posted by Ryu77:
192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??
It is if you can download a file of this quality (192Khz, 24bi) from itunes which is not possible. Neil Young is totally right about this. A lossy format such as MP3 or WMA even at its highest bitrate is at best acceptable mediocre sound quality. There was a time when people spent thousands of dollars on high end discreet circuitry electronics played back on beautifully designed concert quality reproducing speakers. Now every one listens to music through small integrated IC chip circuitry systems that fail to recapture the sound of the original content, or small portable music players with headphones. Don't get me wrong I love my MP3 player, but I also know that it's no where near the quality of sound that people listened to in the 1970's.
Today we have superior quality recording capability but it is wasted on playback systems both in music format and hardware.
Where am I losing people here?
I never mentioned downloading audio of that quality. I don't know how much clearer I need to be... 192Khz/24bit audio is available on Blu-ray discs.
My post attempted to highlight that Blu-ray offers extremely high quality audio at sample rates and bit depths previously unavailable on media that can be used readily at home.
I also agree that mp3, aac and the like don't sound the greatest, especially when you listen to audio through quality equipment.
Compressed audio certainly has it's use, but I believe it is best served as a portable medium rather than an alternative to quality digital mastering.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. July 2008 @ 23:57
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. July 2008 @ 23:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
the "REAL" problem is we never get the "original track"...it is always lost in the studio, and the copy begins at the first recording!
...everything "else"
With modern recording formats it doesn't have to result in any loss since most music is now recorded digitally and most digital formats can be transferred like to like. It's only when it is transcoded to another format that loss begins.
Quote:
Remember that every time there is a transfer from one format to another a degree of loss occurs.
...so my hard drive image copy goes though a "degree of loss"??
The key word in my statement was transfer from one format to another, IE, wave to MP3. When you transcode from one format to another something will be lost. If you're just ripping to your hard drive while maintaining the original content in its original format then nothing will be lost.
I have my own homemade digital recording studio and the idea situation is to capture music in as true a form as possible, but even doing that incurs loss. When one sings into a microphone they are in effect converting acoustical energy into electrical using a vibrating diaphragm that converts wave forms analogous to the original, but only analogous and not original. Once it is recorded it can theoretically be copied and preserved in its original recorded state, but once a change in formats occur then there is significant loss.
|
|
dragnandy
Senior Member
|
25. July 2008 @ 00:25 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
you will notice a difference, especially when you use the iPod's dock connector with a car stereo or external speaker setup that is made specifically for it.
probably because those stock headphones are very poor. i wouldnt consider myself an audiophile but i can tell the difference from apple stock headphones and some 30USD IEM headphones. i agree that when you hook an ipod to some speakers, itll sound better than the stock headphones, but if you get a different music player, like the sansa clip (great sound quality player), and hook it to the same speakers, you will notice the difference.
|
|
ripxrush
Junior Member
|
25. July 2008 @ 01:48 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by SProdigy:
I've ripped a CD into various formats and bitrates, and I must say that the AAC offered by Apple probably is the most bang for your buck versus MP3 or WMA, just based on quality and file size (so you can fit more songs on your iPod or MP3 CD.) The convenience of having several thousand songs at my fingertips, especially while driving (the time I listen to music exclusively) is negligible to any benefits of vinyl or for that matter, changing CDs. Sorry fellas.
I 100% agree! i think this debate is split of those who want quality at what ever cost & those who want quantity! So Apple is killing music? so my Static FM radio isn't? My XM?Sirius (i have had both) isn't? WTF??? Oh & what about streaming? I think if this was titled right it should be compression is killing audio< but it has always been done! Tapes where compressed too! So unless you have a minimum of a cd which is oh so not convenient you are loosing something! I highly doubt i miss much in my squeaky, rattely work truck!
|
|
13thHouR
Suspended permanently
|
25. July 2008 @ 04:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Ryu77:
Does mp3 offer 192Khz/24bit???
I was of course referring to the audio that Blu-ray can offer. This is an untapped potential that could satisfy any audiophile.
omg how to twists a apple attack into a pro sony "purchase this format" topic in one foul swoop.
instead of wasting money on a blu-ray player to play compressed glorified mp3's, why not just stick with the relatively cheap CD player that has a 24bit true multi-bit DAC & is already uncompressed sound instead of being forced all over again to replace your entire music collection just so the record companies can squeeze every dollar out of everyone because they have 150 year copy writes on all works and they feel they need to sell you the same media time and again on the "new" buzz word "better" format.
There are already two competing "better" audio formats
DVD-A & SACD neither took off because they were a complete waste of money and the last attempt to squeeze cash out of your pockets by the RIAA.
The Forgotten Format War: Toshiba?s "DVD-Audio" vs Sony?s "Super Audio CD"
Why DVD-A is better than SACD. AVReview.co.uk
and unless you have quality separates that are £4000+ a piece with £100+ per metre interconnects and speaker cable coupled to either bi or tri wired £6000+ B&W or equivalent speakers you will not hear the difference other than the pathetic attempt at out of phase using the rear channels.
lets not forget that sony are the RIAA and we all know their business ethics.
compression = bad and blu-ray playing compressed = lmfao.......... some ppl.
all compression is poor and pointless.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. July 2008 @ 05:24
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
25. July 2008 @ 05:42 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by 13thHouR:
omg how to twists a apple attack into a pro sony "purchase this format" topic in one foul swoop.
Once again, I will point out that the article had already mentioned Neil Youngs plan to use Blu-ray...
Originally posted by the article:
Young spoke out about the poor audio quality of the most popular audio codec, MP3, and also talked about his "long-term, multimedia archiving project of his entire career" which will be available as a series of Blu-ray discs. Young hopes his project will become the basis for an alternative digital platform with higher quality sound.
Originally posted by 13thHouR:
instead of wasting money on a blu-ray player to play compressed glorified mp3's, why not just stick with the CD player that has a 24bit true multi-bit DAC & is already uncompressed sound instead of being forced all over again to replace your entire music collection just so the record companies can squeeze every dollar out of everyone because they have 150 year copy writes on all works and they feel they need to sell you the same media time and again on the "new" buzz word "better" format.
Well, that sounds great but what CD format in use today is mastered in 24bit?
Also, when did I say to use Blu-ray to play compressed audio? I honestly can not understand why a few people here are finding it so hard to understand me.
Everything I am saying is exactly in line with the article.
mp3/aac = compressed, convenient & portable low quality audio.
Blu-ray = uncompressed (or lossless compression, otherwise known as MLP), 192Khz/24bit, 8 channel audio.
Originally posted by 13thHouR:
There are already two competing "better" audio formats
DVD-A & SACD neither took off because they were a complete waste of money and the last attempt to squeeze cash out of your pockets by the RIAA.
The Forgotten Format War: Toshiba?s "DVD-Audio" vs Sony?s "Super Audio CD"
Why DVD-A is better than SACD. AVReview.co.uk
Yes, the quality there is of course the same as I have been comparing here. I feel that these formats may have failed because to get the full benefit you would have needed a SACD/DVD-A compatible DVD player.
Originally posted by 13thHouR:
unless you have quality separates that are £4000+ a piece with £100 per metre interconnects and speaker cable with £6000 B&W speakers you will not hear the difference other than the pathetic attempt at out of phase using the rear channels.
Hmmmm, I don't think that's entirely true. I can hear the difference between regular CD audio and mp3 audio on almost any decent speakers.
Originally posted by 13thHouR:
compression = bad and blu-ray playing compressed = lmfao.......... some ppl.
all compression is poor and pointless.
Agreed... Isn't that what I have been trying to say the whole time?
Blu-ray is already starting to become an established format. If an artist released a anthology on say 1 or 2 Blu-ray discs and had a RRP of say $50, do you think that would be worth it for an entire careers worth of work and mastered at higher quality than ever heard before?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. July 2008 @ 05:49
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
13thHouR
Suspended permanently
|
25. July 2008 @ 06:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Ryu77:
once again, I will point out that the article had already mentioned Neil Youngs plan to use Blu-ray...
ok, an artist that is old and obsolete jumps on the "new buzz word format" for some free advertising just as he used the 9/11 attack to get free press before.
Originally posted by Ryu77:
Yes, the quality there is of course the same as I have been comparing here. I feel that these formats may have failed because to get the full benefit you would have needed a SACD/DVD-A compatible DVD player.
and this format you still need to purchase new equipment in a blu-ray player.
Originally posted by Ryu77:
Hmmmm, I don't think that's entirely true. I can hear the difference between regular CD audio and mp3 audio on almost any decent speakers.
the comparison i was making was between CD audio and SACD, DVD-A and now what is basically SACD on the blu-ray hardware. telling the difference between compressed and uncompressed is easy just turn on BBC radio1 on DAB then switch to classic FM. But by using extra speakers to fill the sound fields as the supposed "better formats" do, instead of quality gear that can replicate music utilising in and out of phase sounds just as poor as compressed music. this is why the true enthusiast still use British Made valve amplifiers and phono stages not imported asian crap that has to use graphic equalisers and microchips to try to recreate a flat sound.
who is this aimed at, the city yuppie who wants something to go "look what i've got, don't you love me, you know this kit must mean i have a really big penis"
there is absolutely no reason for the average consumer to buy into this fad as they will not get any benefit from it other than the moronic feeling of worth, by "buying into a lifestyle".
Originally posted by Ryu77:
Blu-ray is already starting to become an established format. If an artist released a anthology on say 1 or 2 Blu-ray discs and had a RRP of say $50, do you think that would be worth it for an entire careers worth of work and mastered at higher quality than ever heard before?
established, you really have got to be kidding, are you sony public relations by any chance?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. July 2008 @ 06:41
|
