Are we letting the recording companies off to lightly?

[Brokenflame]

Technology has moved on, we are entering the phase of Dolby-Atmos, DTS-X and Auro-3D which all extend surround sound to include height information, and support Hi-Resolution audio streams.

The average home now uses equipment that can decode 5.1 and play it though between 2 and 9 channels. Most of us are using smart phones and computer to play music, which can also decode hi-res multi-channel audio.

Should we not be pushing recording companies to start publishing more Hi-Res Multi-Channel Albums? The movie and television industry are pushing 4K, and HDR to improving visual quality. But they seem to be doing more to improve audio quality than the music industry. When the background music to a movie sounds better than the album by the artist, don't you think we have a problem?

What’s your thoughts, and do you think the music industry should be pushing Hi-Res Audio more?

 

[Paul.]

I think the average home has a £50 iPod dock in it, best case scenario is a the soundbar that came free with the telly. Members of forums like this are pretty niche.

 

[rothlee]

Can't see labels pushing for this until there's sufficient demand. Unless the likes of Apple interact with their core market and inform them of a need to get hi res audio, I can't see it happening.

Sadly for me, that means continuing to pay a premium for mine, but until there's more of a market for it, niche isn't cheap.

 

[muljao]

HD is visually better than SD, and 4k is better than HD. Nobody argues that, but many will argue that once you go above even 320 kbps mp3 that audio does not improve. This of course is opinion (not necessarily mine) so the demand for higher quality music is probably not as pressing as picture

 

[ellisdj]

I think it would be nice to have the option to buy the master quality file for all albums - even if the price was very high £35 or so.

It would be nice to have that option - I am sure they would make enough money to pay for a site to advertise them and allow dowloads. This could be direct from the label.

Or they could sell USB Cards with them on.

There would be piracy but there is anyway so it doesnt make any difference

 

[davedotco]

I think it would be nice to have the option to buy the master quality file for all albums - even if the price was very high £35 or so.

It would be nice to have that option - I am sure they would make enough money to pay for a site to advertise them and allow dowloads. This could be direct from the label.

Or they could sell USB Cards with them on.

There would be piracy but there is anyway so it doesnt make any difference

Out of interest, what do you mean by "master quality file"?

 

[Brokenflame]

I understand that until the consumer or big vendor pushes for Hi-Res content then there is no incentive for Record companies to produce it. But shouldn’t we start pushing?

As for most people not being able to play Hi-Res music. Apologies, I made a bit of an assumption there. Apple has brain washed me into think that most people were listing to music on smart phone, and laptops these day.

As for music resolution, all I seem to be able to get my hands on is CD quality 44.1K@16bit , when I’ve been promised 192khz@24bit since 2002.

In 2002 I bought some relatively low end and now defunct computer equipment (Creative Sound Blaster Audgity ZX sound card, and Cambridge Soundworks 5.1), that supported Hi-Res Audio, they even provided a sample Audio DVD of Bach. It sounded great, and I’ve been waiting for the main stream to catch-up ever since. But I do appreciate that not everyone can hear the difference, and ironically audiophile ears are often damaged though the aging process, and everyday life. So there is a limited time before I too won’t be able to hear the difference.

I guess I was hoping that by now, I would be able to go into the local supermarket can pickup Hi-Res Audio discs or CDs, in the same way I can pop into the local supermarket and choose between DVD or Blu-Ray movies.

 

[abacus]

HI Res music discs were attempted (SACD, DVD Audio) but they never caught on with the public, who were happy to listen to 128K mp3 on their portable players, so the idea was dropped.

Recently Hi-Res downloads have arrived, but they are expensive, and thus a niche market, so demand from the general public is minimal.

Going above CD quality for playback is pointless, as it is already way beyond what the ear/brain can interpret. (The only reason studios use 24/96 is that it allows for more flexible mixing/mastering)

It may be depressing for some, but I can’t see anything changing in the future without support from the masses.

Bill

 

[ellisdj]

I think it would be nice to have the option to buy the master quality file for all albums - even if the price was very high £35 or so.

It would be nice to have that option - I am sure they would make enough money to pay for a site to advertise them and allow dowloads.  This could be direct from the label.

Or they could sell USB Cards with them on.

There would be piracy but there is anyway so it doesnt make any difference 

Out of interest, what do you mean by "master quality file"?

Whatever the original digital file is before compression for cd

 

[nopiano]

Actually, a decently recorded and mastered CD, though rarer than they should be, is pretty hires to me.

Sure, I've downloaded a few tracks from BIS and Linn and they sound very nice. But so does a decent cd, many of which you can buy for a few pounds now - a tiny fraction of their 1980s price in real terms.

As for all this multi channel stuff, I bought a modest 5.1 system a decade ago and can no longer be bothered with it. I've heard since higher end cinema systems, but after 5 minutes I'm bored. Does anyone really listen to them any more? Give me good stereo any day!

 

[Gaz37]

I agree with the comments about demand.
90%+ of the population watch TV and appreciate improvements in picture quality.
I would guess that the same 90%+ also listen to music on equipment that won't pick up any improvement in recording or broadcast quality.

 

[Barbapapa]

Personally I have no interest in multi-channel music.

I would support a system whereby it would be easier to spot good quality recordings. For my taste (classical music) I find that there are several companies which do offer excellent recordings, in hi-res as well as CD quality. I've good experiences with Linn, Pentatone, Channel Classics. So I try to buy more from those companies and avoid others.

 

[davedotco]

I do not like the idea that you can let record companies 'off the hook' because the great unwashed are not interested in better quality reproduction.

To me the issue is simple, some CDs (and equivilent) are suberb, the medium is perfectly adequate for very high quality music reproduction.

The fact that record companies allow much of their output to fall well short of this standard is, to me, quite disgraceful. It is one (of a fair number) of the reasons I am happy not to buy their product. At least on Spotify if something really is crap, you haven't (specifically) paid for it, so can move on without guilt.

 

[lindsayt]

Whatever the original digital file is before compression for cd

I agree 100% ellisdj. I would love to have the option to buy versions of modern mainstream music that has not been passed through the big compression machine.

 

[lindsayt]

I agree with the comments about demand. 90%+ of the population watch TV and appreciate improvements in picture quality. I would guess that the same 90%+ also listen to music on equipment that won't pick up any improvement in recording or broadcast quality.

If I listen to two CD's on my car audio system where one has a dark green DR rating and the other a red, it's obvious to me which has been compressed and therefore sounds worse from a dynamics point of view.

I think it's quite a valid point of view to state that recording and mastering quality is more important than the quality of the audio system it is played upon.

 

[manicm]

Technology has moved on, we are entering the phase of Dolby-Atmos, DTS-X and Auro-3D which all extend surround sound to include height information, and support Hi-Resolution audio streams.

The average home now uses equipment that can decode 5.1 and play it though between 2 and 9 channels. Most of us are using smart phones and computer to play music, which can also decode hi-res multi-channel audio.

Should we not be pushing recording companies to start publishing more Hi-Res Multi-Channel Albums? The movie and television industry are pushing 4K, and HDR to improving visual quality. But they seem to be doing more to improve audio quality than the music industry. When the background music to a movie sounds better than the album by the artist, don't you think we have a problem?

What’s your thoughts, and do you think the music industry should be pushing Hi-Res Audio more?

What, your teenagers want to listen to Britney Spears in Dolby Atmos? Seriousy the only viable market for it is classical music, which is frankly too small.

 

[manix]

Technology has moved on, we are entering the phase of Dolby-Atmos, DTS-X and Auro-3D which all extend surround sound to include height information, and support Hi-Resolution audio streams.

The average home now uses equipment that can decode 5.1 and play it though between 2 and 9 channels. Most of us are using smart phones and computer to play music, which can also decode hi-res multi-channel audio.

Should we not be pushing recording companies to start publishing more Hi-Res Multi-Channel Albums? The movie and television industry are pushing 4K, and HDR to improving visual quality. But they seem to be doing more to improve audio quality than the music industry. When the background music to a movie sounds better than the album by the artist, don't you think we have a problem?

What’s your thoughts, and do you think the music industry should be pushing Hi-Res Audio more?

What, your teenagers want to listen to Britney Spears in Dolby Atmos? Seriousy the only viable market for it is classical music, which is frankly too small.

Agreed.

And then on top of that really to be getting decent sound from dolby atmos you will be spending a fortune on speakers and amplification which moves onto the other problem most people don't want big speakers in there house or don't have the room. So the potential market that is being talking about is tiny.

 

[ellisdj]

Whatever the original digital file is before compression for cd

I agree 100% ellisdj. I would love to have the option to buy versions of modern mainstream music that has not been passed through the big compression machine.

The means are here now usb stick or card costs p nuts. Easy to distribute to people at a premium via post.

Then storage of large files no problem I would rather have a 100 hundred ace sounding albums I listen to than 1000 average ones.

Cds do still sound ace but full fat studio masters at full res in my experience are better and it's only going to be as good as it starts so it needs to start as good as poss.

 

[Gaz37]

Would you really be bothered by complaints ( has anybody actually complained BTW?) from 1 or 2% of your customers?

I hate to break the news but the record companies are there to make money not good quality music and they're very good at the former without worrying about the latter.

 

[TrevC]

I think it would be nice to have the option to buy the master quality file for all albums - even if the price was very high £35 or so.

It would be nice to have that option - I am sure they would make enough money to pay for a site to advertise them and allow dowloads. This could be direct from the label.

Or they could sell USB Cards with them on.

There would be piracy but there is anyway so it doesnt make any difference

Out of interest, what do you mean by "master quality file"?

Whatever the original digital file is before compression for cd

You need to get with the program. With the resurgence of vinyl sound quality is going backwards and CD is better than your ears anyway.

 

[ellisdj]

There is a shock some positivity from TrevC slash praise for another

oops no just normal TrevC - Victor Meldew

 

[Andrewjvt]

I do not like the idea that you can let record companies 'off the hook' because the great unwashed are not interested in better quality reproduction.

To me the issue is simple, some CDs (and equivilent) are suberb, the medium is perfectly adequate for very high quality music reproduction.

The fact that record companies allow much of their output to fall well short of this standard is, to me, quite disgraceful. It is one (of a fair number) of the reasons I am happy not to buy their product. At least on Spotify if something really is crap, you haven't (specifically) paid for it, so can move on without guilt.

Ja i agree

 

[Leeps]

It is about demand then supply. A shame really.

I do own some high-res multi-channel music, and it's spectacularly good. I have a few Bluray Audios mastered in DTS MA 7.1. They are the best recordings I own by some margin. They carry more attack and detail, a much more engulfing soundstage than stereo (as you'd expect really) but retain a smooth mercury-like quality at the same time. They really are a lovely experience, but they are in small supply.

If you go on Amazon and filter the search in music to Bluray Audio, there's a fair bit of classical, but a lot of very weird and curious content that can't appeal to too many people. I think at times it's been driven by certain artists who have appreciated the format themselves (Neil Young and Beck come to mind).

Having said that I have a Bluray Audio that's only mastered in stereo and I can't tell the difference between that and CD quality. To me the advantage of hi-res is only worth the purchase price when it's mastered in 7.1.

 

[Brokenflame]

I can see that the business man in some of you, cut straight to the chase. No demand no upgrade.

While others have looked at the actual benifits of Hi-area music, and why there is a lack of demand.

The consensus is there is simply not enough public demand yet to push the record companies into publishing Hi-Res music, never mind muti-channel audio. To which I agree, and it is this that disappoints me considering how demanding comsumers are in other areas of life.

Bin liners are 50p for 50 for the cheap ones but most of us will buy premium bin liners. Costing £2.50 for 20, and this is something we are going to use to throw out our rubbish in. I know this because I have access to one of the UK's biggest supermarket data warehouses.

This thread is not suggesting to go back to LPs, or use massive Dolby Atmos setups to listen to music. It is simply questioning why the music industry has not been pushing forward as hard as other markets.

Although large multi-channel Hi-Res files would actually help slow down music piracy. The music industry can make more money selling products on a medimum quality format and then resell the same product on a better format in 10 years time.

I for one would love some more main stream music to be released in Hi-Res. I think it would push up the quality of Low end audio system and have a possative effect on the hardware manufacturers and the music industry as a whole.

 

[manix]

Bin liners can't see the comparison. Only reason I buy better bin liners is because they are stronger - in other words the cheap ones simply wouldn't work for the kind of stuff I might require them for. If cheaper bin liners will do the job I require I will buy them.