|
|
|
Jay-dub said:
Daland, my SACD library may not be as large as yours, but I defy you to look through the titles and tell me that the person who bought them is not really interested in high-quality recordings.
Anyone reading the last line of your post (#367) might be forgiven for thinking otherwise:
"The future of compact music storage is in hard-drive servers. From that point of view, I'd rather have the Mendelssohn CD boxes than the SACD's. That way, if I ever decide to rip my music collection, I'll be able to."
But that aside - what do you envision as a capture and playback mechanism for these multi-channel downloads you are referring to? Is my Dell good enough? Do I need to purchase 2 more CardDeluxe stereo sound cards and concatenate them for mch? Removable hard drive to take downstairs to my listening room and another computer for playback - how does one control that quality?
|
|
|
Post by Daland August 20, 2008 (372 of 453)
|
|
raffells said:
THE FUTURE of Hirez IS DOWNLOADS whether you like it or not.Also whether you meet them or not.
You can live in denial but the decision on how music will be purchased has already been decided by the masses.
Industry will have little choice but to follow.
The masses are not interested in hi-rez whether you like it or not. If they don't care for hi-rez recordings in a physical format, why should they clamour for hi-rez downloads?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daland said:
The masses are not interested in hi-rez whether you like it or not. If they don't care for hi-rez recordings in a physical format, why should they clamour for hi-rez downloads?
Yes, that is something to wonder about, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Jay-dub August 20, 2008 (374 of 453)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
What do you envision as a capture and playback mechanism for these multi-channel downloads you are referring to? Is my Dell good enough? Do I need to purchase 2 more CardDeluxe stereo sound cards and concatenate them for mch? Removable hard drive to take downstairs to my listening room and another computer for playback - how does one control that quality?
Yes, it's a problem -- many computers are set up for high-quality stereo, but practically none for surround. Your 3-CardDeluxe solution sounds fantastic, but is probably unrealistic. That's why I am recommending DTS WAV as the practical format for establishing MCH downloads. It isn't quite equal to SACD quality, but it's quite a bit better than MP3, and most computers can stream it over SPDIF to a pre/pro or receiver.
People who want maximum quality and flexibility should be allowed to download a lossless 24/96 5.1 file, author a DVD-A and burn it, encode a DTS version to play everywhere, and save the original file to play on future generations of hard-drive servers. I am not ready to do that. My only experience with multichannel downloads is of DTS WAV's and a DVD-A ISO, which I burned onto discs and took over to a friend's house.
|
|
|
Post by raffells August 21, 2008 (375 of 453)
|
|
Daland said:
The masses are not interested in hi-rez whether you like it or not. If they don't care for hi-rez recordings in a physical format, why should they clamour for hi-rez downloads?
We are not talking about the masses for hirez.
We are talking about the masses deciding (decided) HOW music is aquired.
This "majority rules" disctates How the sellers must react.(cost only a part of it)
Therefore most of the facilities for hirez,ie servers, are in place,indirectly
paid for by the masses.
No way could the very few hirezers and even fewer surround hirezers afford their own set up.
This leaves us hi rezers in the even more remote situation.So the physical cost of sacds can be obviated by record labels.
It probably also gets around the protectionist laws of some countries who seem to see themselves out of the "world" market...ie loyalties and copyright.
Wot next "is the Chinese download of a 96/24 recording as good as as ours?
Its not really what I like,its looking at reality. Dave
|
|
|
Post by andrewb August 21, 2008 (376 of 453)
|
|
Jay-dub said:
Since BIS multichannel recordings are currently SACD-exclusive, I consider this forum an ideal place to engage in public discourse with their general manager on the subject of how to market multichannel (and hi-rez) assets.
It is perfectly ok to talk of downloads on this forum but this is the wrong thread! This is cluttering up a very important thread with general talk about downloads, talk which could just as easily appear in many other threads.
The last five or so posts have nothing to do with Bis.
Please open a separate thread for this talk. Label it "Bis-Linn downloads" or what ever.
|
|
|
Post by raffells August 21, 2008 (377 of 453)
|
|
andrewb said:
.
The last five or so posts have nothing to do with Bis.
Please open a separate thread for this talk. Label it "Bis-Linn downloads" or what ever.
Bis are going to Do HiRez downloads.So why has it nothing to do with Bis Thread..?
|
|
|
Post by zeus August 21, 2008 (378 of 453)
|
|
andrewb said:
It is perfectly ok to talk of downloads on this forum ...
Not really ... but don't let this stop anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Chris August 22, 2008 (379 of 453)
|
|
Since I am one of those who obviously strayed from the accepted norms here, let me bring this thread back to SACD, by adding my two cents to the "long play" low res SACDs that BIS has released.
For me personally they hold no interest whatsoever, unless they have been recorded either higher than 16/44, or are sourced from analogue originals.
I know BIS has some excellent analogue ones in their archives.
I might buy some of those if released as "long play" SACDs.
But low res pcm SACDs ?
I just don´t see the point.
For me and I´m sure most others SACD is about higher sound quality and MCH.
No wonder sales of are low.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by Claude August 22, 2008 (380 of 453)
|
|
Chris said:
I know BIS has some excellent analogue ones in their archives.
I might buy some of those if released as "long play" SACDs.
But low res pcm SACDs ?
I just don´t see the point.
For me and I´m sure most others SACD is about higher sound quality and MCH.
No wonder sales of are low.
These CD-quality SACDs only take advantage of SACD as a higher capacity storage medium.
I understand the idea, but I am sceptical as well. I think these budget reissues would sell better as CD box sets, like Brilliant Classics is doing, simply because many potential buyers do not own SACD players. If there was a large SACD hardware base, then these inexpensive reissues of old PCM material would make sense.
Reissuing analogue material in hi-rez in that format (long duration stereo single layer SACDs) would need more costly preparation (new transfers from analogue tape to DSD), so these could probably not be sold as budget releases.
|
|
