MP3 Pro, AMAZING!!!

[SuperCyrix]

Anybody here care to make a format that topples MP3pro in less than 128bits?

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

audiophiles are weenies.

 

[luv2chill]

Harvey,

HDCD and SACD are two very different things.

http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/sacd/flash/

l2c

Edit: a comparison of DVD-Audio and SACD.

 

[Aihyah]

i don't get why they don't roll out dvda faster.. it gives atleast some people an even better reason to buy albums instead of mp3ing em.

n/m according to whats on that page sacd looks damn good. too bad no sacd on dvd discs

 

[Netopia]

Crap...Harvey beat me to it and did a WAY better job than I ever could have!

I guess the only thing I would add is this: If you in any way doubt what Harvey said, find yourself a nice Hi-Fi store (NOT Mid-Fi) and see if they will let you demo some old vinyl. Chances are that their albums have been kept in pretty good "demoing" shape by a Nitty-Gritty or a similar record cleaning device. Now for the experiment... sit in the "sweet spot" for about 15 minutes. With eyes closed, "see" where each instrument and/or singer is standing... both left to right and front to back (sound stage). Then, take a CD of the same stuff you've been listening to and try to reproduce the experience. What you will most likely find is a MUCH narrower and shallower sound stage and a much colder/harder/sterile sound all around.

If you've got a chioce, try to find a place with some nice Accustats or some high-end (at least $3500) Infinity's and decent amplification. If they sell Japanese speakers, it ain't the right place!

BTW.. CD's sound MUCH better than LP's on mid-fi and low-fi systems, IMHO. It's not that the CD's have better sound, but that the electronics hide so much of the real sound that you can't hear the benefit that the vinyl is bringing you. In that case, most people just notice that there are no scratches/ticks/pops and figure that the sound is higher quality..

<< Seeing a picture is just an approximation, it never has a shred of hope of capturing the actual event. >>

But you are mixing apples and oranges. To get at what we are talking about and transfering it to your industy, compare 4x5, ISO 32 film of said sunset blown up to 32x40 inches to the VERY HIGHEST END digital shot of the same sunset. Pixilation, distortion, mis-matched colors... there you have the digital to analogue fight.


As for MP3-Pro. I'm happy about it. I've got a couple of MP3 players with 64Megs and the extra room is a blessing. I've got 4 young kids at home and don't even have any real equipment out of their boxes anymore. I have a six minute commute to work, so I don't have a top of the line stereo in the car either. MP3's for me are about convenience (just like AM/FM radio). I'd never bother listening to them on a nice stereo, but as background from my 'puter or on headphone while exercizing and such they are great! They are also very good for listening to books on tape where hi fidelity doesn't matter!

Joe

 

[bigd480]

wow, lots of info here, glad i read it...

one question: can I get sound quality better than a CD on my computer (with all the same crappy components: SB64 hooked up to $100 Pioneer receiver and a $50 pair of 8&quot; 2-way speakers)

I can hardly tell the diff between my mp3s and CD's now that i use EAC and LAME...

And would a better sound card REALLY make a diff? mp3s are mp3s right, just depends how well they are recorded?

 

[TripleJ]

Sweet, it still is the end of PCM!

SACD is looking very impressive.

The SACD format offers frequency response to 100 kHz and a theoretical dynamic range of 120 dB. But specifications alone cannot express the DSD(Direct Stream Digital encoding) advantage. DSD one-bit encoding strips away entire classes of distortion that have always characterized PCM.

Sweet.

 

[TheKidd]

I have never heard any of the high-quality audio devices mentioned in this post. However, the vast majority of people cannot afford a top of the line stereo system like the ones mentioned, and cd-audio is a good, low-cost medium. I think most people would be able to appreciate the difference between vinyl and cds, but it also wouldn't be worth the money for most people. The average listener doesn't mind listening to crumby pop music on a tin-can car stereo with the windows down on the freeway. Cds and mp3s are just fine for these people. If I was going to build a high end stereo system in my house, I would be concerned about the sound degradation of the cds. But, on the mid-range stereo systems that I can afford, the difference between formats is going to be extremely minor.

 

[Fandu]

<< It was not mentioned that DVD-A Discs, in the consumer form, will contain watermarking(copyright protection) encoded into the musical data. That could effect sound quality, whereas SACD's copyright protection is kept separate from the musical data. Further, SACD discs can contain both a stereo version and a multi-channel mix, but DVD-A discs may only contain a singular multi-channel mix that would have to be &quot;folded down&quot; to stereo, thus stereo sound quality could be compromised. And if a DVD-A Disc is multi-channel, those 3-6 channels could only be decoded at 96hz/24bits as opposed to 192/24 in stereo, while a SACD multi-channel disc would always be sampled at the same rate, regardless of the number of channels. Older stereo recordings tranferred to DVD-A, in particular, could be sacrificed if those titles only come out in a multi-channel form. >>



Well, the debate is finished for me. Down with DVD-A and copyright protection!!!!! SACD has better audio quality and no watermarking, looks good to me

 

[TripleJ]

I think SACD does have water marking.

Pirated copies of discs threaten music companies, producers and musicians alike. In addition, consumers need protection from fraudulent, unauthorized copies. That's why authorized SACDs are identified by both visible and invisible watermarks. The visible watermark is a faint image on the signal side of the disc, made possible by Pit Signal Processing (PSP) technology. Missing or corrupted watermarks warn consumers of unauthorized discs. Invisible watermarks authenticate the discs prior to playback. If the SACD player cannot read the watermark, the SACD will not play.

 

[Fandu]

<< Invisible watermarks authenticate the discs prior to playback. If the SACD player cannot read the watermark, the SACD will not play. >>



damn damn damn damn damn damn!! Although the watermark is not in the actual music data, it is kept seperate. But what's to stop people from buying a legit copy and then ripping it to a computer? Sure the files will be bigger, but people wouldn't mind downloading a 20MB music file if it was noticably better quality.