Oh, brother -- yet another
high resolution audio format to worry over. Just when you thought you could pick up Denon's forthcoming
universal Blu-ray player and be done with it comes HRx. The format, which is hyped up by Reference Recordings and is literally high-res WAV files toasted onto DVD media, cannot be played back in traditional DVD / DVD-Audio decks. Instead, you'll need PS Audio's PerfectWave Transport Memory Player. Until now, folks (all three of them) have simply been ripping the files onto PCs or music servers for playback, but the item you see above will indeed handle CDs and HRx DVDs, the latter of which delivers 24-bit, 176kHz sound. There's no mention of a price or eventual release date, but something this specialized just can't be cheap. We mean, it just
can't be.
posted Dec 31st 2008 5:01AM
Can someone explain how high-def audio is better than 320kbit w/ over protection?
You have to believe, son.
Higher dynamics, plus it's 24bit not 16bit too, but the dynamics are noticeable.
In many Systems that have 24bit decoder especially in case of upsampling I 've seen many systems not being able to response as well or "as melodic" as the 16 bit !!
Of course that make not sense because as we know 24 bit should sound better than 16 bit...
but in many cases that's proven false.
I believe that a 24bit system is potentially better than a 16bit one BUT NOT ALWAYS.
High-def audio is better in the same way the Monster HDMI cable is better than any other HDMI cable - in your imagination.
IMO, some companies find idiots willing to pay extra for the difference they'll never hear but have the money to give it a try.
Actually a well credited musician is the one spearheading the fight to get better sound to people, he's very frustrated that he and his colleagues do an effort to get a nice master out and then the blasted record companies compress the dynamics and alter and compress the dynamics even more, then release a flat product.
And yeah if even the CD is flat then perhaps an MP3 sounds just as good.
Not sure how this company fits in though, but there are serious creators of music frustrated by what people end up with is my point and it's not a 'monster cables' thing, especially since that's as insulting as you can get of course, comparing it to monster cables, this DOES have 24bit and higher dynamics, monster cables has NOTHING, see the diff?
Buy an expensive hi-fi and then you will tell the difference.
Is it worth the difference in price between your PC playing 320kbit audio files through a $100 set of speakers? - that'll depend on you. It's not all in your head but it's also probably not worth the money unless you REALLY love music.
I dunno, but give me a $100,000 home theater system and owl ears and I'll let you know.
I'm not real sure where that owl thing came from, but those fuckers can probably hear better than I can so I'll still take em.
On my setup, I can hear a difference in 192k, 320k, CD, and SACD; Especially in the last two, the difference is quite noticeable. If you can't hear the difference then you need to go out and get better Audio Equipment, ditch your sh*tty bose and anything else you bought at a Mass Market Electronics Retailer and head to your local small independently owned Hi-Fi shop and get down to buying the good stuff.
If your dealer sells any of these brands, then you know he means business:
Paradigm Refrence S8 Signature combined with the Signature Servo Sub
Krell
McIntosh
Adcom
High Def Audio, making us forget about hearing loss since April 10, 2003.
Eh? You'll have to speak into my good ear!
Great. All we need now is Ear v2.0.
I only listen to the songs while sitting in the recording studio with all my favourite bands. After this point the soundwaves are distorted with imperfections and I simply cannot stand it.
I know what you mean.
I also hate when people listen to music in very lousy systems for any reason except in the case that they can't afford a better one.
I believe that some people can't understand the sound fidelity as some people can't see some colors, no kidding.
Sorry, couldn't find [/sarcasm] in the second post, can anyone add it?
@Blastar
I don't think that's necessarily the case. While many people may not tell apart certain bitrate settings and other extremely fine nuances that audio-philes can, I believe that many who haven't impeded their hearing with years of extremely loud music listening are capable of telling the difference between a quality high fidelity system and a cheap stereo if you contrast them. The reason why they still keep on using the latter one? I guess it's because they don't actively memorize the difference. I, for one, have heard music samples on very impressive systems and have fairly decent speakers at home that do sound quite a bit different than Joes average $120 tootling box. Nonetheless, I'm walking around with $10 earbuds and am perfectly happy with it. I guess this is because I'm much more focused on the actual music and it's dynamics than the way it sounds like from a technical perspective. Highs, mids, bass and panning is what I do actively hear, not much else.
A new challenger appears!
But seriously, can someone tell me how this differs from such formats as SACD?
Well wikipedia says this about the encoding used by SACD:
"one cannot make a direct comparison between DSD and PCM. An approximation is possible, though, and would place DSD in some aspects comparable to a PCM format that has a bit depth of 20 bits and a sampling frequency of 192 kHz. PCM sampled at 24 bits provides a (theoretical) additional 24 dB of dynamic range. Due to the effects of quantization noise, the usable bandwidth of the SACD format is approximately 100 kHz, which is similar to 192 kHz PCM."
So less dynamic range, plus SACD means paying sony and phillips license fees, which is well worth avoiding I'd say.
You know with the current state of technology this should be dirt cheap to fabricate actually, of course they won't sell it for anything less than 3 grand, but in reality you could achieve it with no more than say $60 worth of parts, and I'm talking some quality, good opamps and 1% or even 0.1% resistors and good precise capacitors.
But self-declared audiophiles are such idiots it would be almost silly to not have them pay a few grand really I guess.
Amen.
A Million ++++++++++++++++ to Wwhat !!
And thats how much theyll be paying to make it........
You're right. Those con artist fuckers don't deserve a dime for their developmental efforts. As a matter of fact, if they make more than 2-3% margin over cost (cost of parts only, of course), they deserve to be sued for something.
Wow! You guys never cease to amaze me. Instead of adding something constructive, all you care to do is bash a product that you have no knowledge of, because you can't find the value *read: probably can't afford* in said product.
Do you guys think that these companies just go to Radio Shack, buy a bunch of parts that just came to them in a dream, and pile them on a table, only to wake the next morning and find a stack of functioning, packaged products? Lots of manpower goes into developing, building, testing, packaging, distributing, advertising, and selling products. All of those things have to be paid for before the manufacturer can make a profit, which they deserve.
But I digress... For those still interested, PS audio makes high quality products that look and sound great. Whether or not this will be worth the money is up to you, not anyone else.
I guess I touched a nerve with Mr. Ford ;)
176kHz? So that's for frequencies up to 88kHz? And we can hear up to 20kHz.
Yeah, great idea.
The truth is that we might not hear actively these sounds but in some cases like the sound of an acoustic guitar this extra frequencies mixed with the "hearable" ones cause some acoustic harmonics in the sound and the final result is more melodic listener.
In Simple worlds that makes the Music to sound more like melodic Music that just rhythmic sound.
Nono, you don't get it. This is not about getting rid of the upper limit, but about giving more definition to the waveform.
Yes, you can do 22kHz at 44kHz, but guess what.
It will be a nice square wave. You can't do sawtooth, can't do sine (wich sounds much nicer than square). :-)
With 176kHz, you can. (Sorta). And not just that, but all the frequencies down to 1Hz should get more definition. Maybe on a level where you can't _hear_ the difference, but it still feels different. (Just like 240Hz LCDs feel different, PWMd lighting feels different, despite you being unable to spot the difference)
What I don't get is why they bothered to do 176kHz, but not 32bit. It's just not right. Overkill in one side, boring stuff in the other one.
DarkLight
No idea why I didn't realise that, thanks.
I disagree with the 'not hearing, but feeling' thing. If a subtlety is too small for you to define, but you can still tell the difference, then you can still hear it.
Why don't they just bring out CDs in 5.1?
That is literally the final fronties, we need nothing more!!
Because music SUCKS in surround. Really. Try it.
Why 5.1 not 7.1 or 11.2?
They tried it...it was called DualDisc, and it flopped like mad.
Plus, CD has very little capacity. Even fitting 74 minutes of 2 channel 16 bit audio onto CD is a chore, much less 5.1.
Not more speakers, better speakers. you can get better sound out of a pair of powered studio monitors (and you can get some cheap M-Audio ones for around $280/pair) than you can from most home entertainment 5.1 or 7.1 setups.
24-bit is great, as most studios record at this rate (maybe higher by now) but I think 176kHz is overkill unless the original source is big fat clean reels.
And while I'm not the boss of PS Audio, I'd have steered them more towards improving the sound quality of digital downloadable music, rather than raising the upper limit on a new hardware format.
Isn't DVD-Audio or what's it called 5.1? I guess it would add a certain 'presence' to some music, symphonies and such for instance.
Of course you'd need a expensive quality amplifier and 5.1 expensive speakers then to make it worthwhile, whereas for stereo you can do with much less dough, especially if you go for headphones.
@ Joe
Check out their DAC here: http://www.psaudio.com/ps/products/detail/digital-link-3-dac?cat=audio. Although it can't make 128k downloads sound perfect, it does get the most out of those downloads.
Partner that with the QSonix music server that can connect directly to Music Giants for high rez music downloads, and you will hear how good downloaded music can sound.
DVD-Audio uses 5.1 channels but it uses (Meridian Lossless - MLP) which are higher resolution. It is different from Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1 movie soundtracks which are of lower quality.
I'm just gonna say no. The human ear can only hear so much. Regular old CDs are fine for me. Some snothead is going to tell me I am missing the subtle nuances of the music... I just want to be able to rock out and enjoy! Good luck with this PS Audio!
ah but see that is purely your opinion.
and that's whats sad about people today. they are akin to settling for good enough! mp3s are good enough for most listeners because they don't care to actually listen to the acoustics of music. my gripe with mp3s are that the developers created this great technology with the ability to carry a high bitrate and frequency but they marketed the small, compressed versions. i don't think too many people would mind an extra megabyte or two if they were shown the difference in quality. but no a days there isn't a demand for vinyl, let alone cds, because of the "good enough" factor of mp3. i can hear it and it's not distorted, that's the mantra. this also goes along the lines of sound output and output devices, give more than two shits about it! iPod headphones suck. period. you could buy a pair of skullcandy smokin buds for about 15 bucks and you'd be amazed at how excellent the sound quality is, you don't have to spend a fortune to get good output but a small investment goes a long way.
sure i listen to mp3s, they're a hell of a lot more portable than vinyls but i don't listen to music that hasn't been ripped from a cd or vinyl unless it's a demo or unreleased (and if someone makes me) but if you were to sit me down and tell me there was no difference i'd have a fit...have you ever listened to an original pressing on a tube amplifier? its night and day. i challenge you not to hear it...
I have a couple thoughts about this development.
1- Listening to music and hearing subtle nuances isn't a static, generic human ability but is something that is learned and develops over time. The sound quality generated by DAPs and PMPs has been gradually improving on all fronts: Apple, Sony, Cowon (which has always tended to be better than average), etc. It used to be that people exclusively wanted to talk about the user interface. Now occasionally people actually talk about sound quality, which, you know, is great.
2- However, given the rate at which the apparent ability of the average consumer to appreciate differences in sound quality, the average person won't be able to appreciate something like the HRx format until sometime around the year 3100. It could be free and no one would care.
3. I'm sure the sound generated from something like this can be quite striking, if you happen to have an acoustically perfect soundproof room in your house.
4. Music studios have probably only recently started recording in 24/192. And considering that most mainstream recorded music is absolute crap that is playtested by corporate executrons looking to sell the latest music-like product to tens of millions of consumers, a process which relies on payola and teams of dozens of people surrounding each "artist" who compress the hell out of everything, squashing any possibility of musical dynamics that one is supposed to be able to appreciate with the HRx format, this is not going to sell. Is this product supposed to storm the incredibly lucrative classical music and jazz recording industry?
Just go out and see a show in a nice concert hall.
"Just go out and see a show in a nice concert hall."
Amen, brother! In the end, most recorded music is a paltry simulation of live performance. With the huge $$ some thrown at high-end audio, you could hire some musicians to come a play in your rumpus room.
I'm sure it's understood to be a fringe product, and the profit will come from overpricing, unless it's designed in china where they realise small profits on many many sales is most effective.
As mentioned above, the problem is that most music these days is compressed to all hell.
I can tell you first hand as an audio engineer that it's really frustrating to be dealing with a gorgeous-sounding song with lots of nuances, padding instruments, and auxiliary percussion mixed nice and low in a studio mix, but then if you want people to hear it on anything less than a decent monitor system, you basically have to destroy it in the mastering process.
If you ever listen to older CDs, like late 80s/early 90s, that kind of compression/normalizing/peak limiting wasn't as popular.
If you watch your graphic EQ on your media player you've probably noticed, and if you use iTunes you may have normalized any of your older songs.
Anyhow, all of a sudden the trend went to "make the waveform look like a laser beam". It's really sad.
What's convenient about it is that you don't have to crank your stereo to hear something loud, but what sucks is that pushing everything to the 0db limit crowds the dynamic range and overbears all the frequencies... if you try to turn up your stereo to hear any of those nuances, the music or your speakers distort, because everything is so damn loud in the first place.
CDs at first were very "elitist", sound quality was way ahead of FM radio and cassette tapes, players were so expensive, so most users back in the 80s had huge speakers that sounded great. Then the technology became cheaper.
The advent of car CD players (in which many folks have horrible speaker systems in their cars) and portable CD players and now MP3 players (in which most people have horrible sounding headphones/earbuds) pretty much made the recording industry cater to the masses. Everything had to be loud and noticeable.
The reason so many people still love vinyl is that many of the recordings are mixed more dynamically for vinyl. No one has a portable vinyl player. It's also why some people only listen to classical music. I wouldn't necessarily call it being snobby, just... um... well, I dunno what you call it... I listen to everything, lol.
Nowadays, people listen to their music on their computers, and many don't even care that it's through 2-inch speakers picked up for 10 bucks on clearance at some closeout store.
Honestly, if you want something that sounds great and will keep you company for years to come, like Joe said, just spend a couple hundred bucks on a nice pair of studio monitors and enjoy your CDs and highest-bitrate mp3s through them. You'll be thrilled.
Nice speakers will always work with anything you throw at them, new technology can fail and fall short.
If you can, take a walk into a music store that sells pro-audio recording gear (like Sam Ash or whatever you have nearby), and ask for a demo of any monitor speakers (do a little research online on active vs. passive, brands/price/etc.). Bring a few "reference discs", or CDs that you KNOW sound good/you are familiar with. They may have some as well. Try a few songs out.
If you've never heard studio monitors before, you may be blown away.
I remember the first time I heard Pink Floyd's "Dark Side Of the Moon" on my cheapo KRK monitors... amazing!
I have two modest 7.1 surround setups in my house, but I HATE listening to music on them, I'd much rather prefer my pair of $250 KRKs. Awesome investment.
Nice wall of text.
Amen on pro audio monitors -- IF you are listening to music on your PC and have the speakers properly placed close to you -- that's why they are called "near field monitors." If you put them in a typical living room/den stereo type layout, you lose most of what you paid for, which is why in that setting you should spend as much as you can on high quality "speakers" instead of near field monitors. The good news is that really high quality pro audio near field monitors cost a LOT less than really high quality "golden ear" audiophile speakers. BTW don't forget to add as good an audiophile subwoofer (or two) as you can afford -- with adequate amplification. Loud and low frequencies really soak up the power -- I am a pipe organ fanatic so my $4K subwoofer has its own 1000W RMS amp. Fortunately my PC (the only way I listen) is in a two story high room with the same floor space as the whole house so there is some room for reasonably long wavelengths, but I wish I lived in a European cathedral :) My annual audiology tests show my aging ears are holding up well at the low end compared to the high end; a pro audio equalizer helps compensate for my ears' high end roll-off.
First I'll say "Aint nobody gonna buy this shit" as i always do and second...
...i wonder how wow it sounds, i love audio, so i dont know. but im not changing formats unless flacc or something becomes main stream in audio players, but for now im still sticking with mp3 tryin to get the best kb
DVD-audio already does 24bit/192kHz.
If the music industry couldn't popularize DVD-audio, which can be played using a standard DVD player, how exactly do they expect to push a format that requires people to buy yet another new device?
The main problem with DVD-A is that it is marketed to everybody with a DVD player. Not everyone with a DVD player should be the target audience. A product for everybody is a product for nobody.
The secondary problem with DVD-A is the misunderstanding that just because you can play it in your DVD player means that you are getting the benefit. In order to take advantage of the higher rez, you need a compatible player.
The third problem with DVD-A is that there weren't many options for high end players during the most critical time of the products development (high quality combo players came along late in the game). Let's face it, the people who are most concerned with the format are the ones who want a stand alone player. Without a high end system, most of the benefits of the format are lost. You really can't do it justice on a $200 htib.
The fourth problem with DVD-A is that most audiophiles don't have a display device in their 2 channel system. Most DVD-A discs require you to interact with a setup menu. Since the product is marketed to every DVD player owner, it defaults to the lower quality, standard audio track, not the high rez one.
I think has been too much time stopped evolution of mass audio ditribution, we seen Beta->VHS->DVD->HDDVD/BLURAY in video/audio quality, but in solo audio the evolution of record companies distribution has been stopped from 90´s to date: Vinyl->Compact Cassette->CD->DVD-A/SACD, maybe was mp3 a factor to stop audio evolution in terms of quality. After hear Depeche Mode "Violator" on 5.1 DTS 24 BIT its awesome and is reference for a record masterized in surround, maybe the problem it´s you have too invest much money on audio decoder (onkyo,yamaha, etc), a good player and most important a nice set of speakers and sub woofer to enjoy hi def audio.
Or maybe people on this days prefer a portable format over hi def quality on audio (mp3,mp4,aac), or is the same on video because the slow adoption of blu ray (divx,xvid,wmv,avi)?
Happy New Year!