PDA

View Full Version : new Stones in high def- paradigm shift, blip on the screen?


gonzo-x
March 3rd, 2011, 06:15 PM
whaddayathink?

Fulcrum
March 3rd, 2011, 11:32 PM
I think I need a bit more information as I don't really follow the Stones that closely. How about a link to the article from which you culled this news, or a brief summing up?

gonzo-x
March 3rd, 2011, 11:34 PM
it's super easy to google if you're really interested..

but for the lazy folk:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118033204?refCatId=16

bobzilla77
March 4th, 2011, 01:00 AM
There have been multiple repressings of the ABCKO catalog, this doesn't seem to be anything that special especially if you already shelled out for SACDs ten years ago. (Is it possible these are just the SACD files? I dunno much about that format.)

The Stones will always adopt early to new technology because they know they have enough of a collector market to sell units in ANY old kind of format. And the people in charge of licensing the new formats want them, so they can show "the most famous band in the world is going this route!"

Sure is pricey though - $30 for a high-def download?

Titles are being made available as album-only downloads, priced at $29.98 for 176kHz/24 bit mastering and $19.98 for 88kHz/24 bit mastering

That said I do appreciate the idea of high-resolution audio becoming desirable by the public, maybe eventually you won't have to pay such a premium for it.

But how would you listen to something like that in the car without bumping down the quality? Do Ipods play those kind of files? I assume you'd need a program like Wavelab to lsiten to them uncompressed. It seems to take the "convenience" aspect out of downloadable files, in which case, why bother?

Bob Olhsson
March 4th, 2011, 07:44 AM
Most computer players play them.

gonzo-x
March 4th, 2011, 06:30 PM
so so most modern-day audiophiles now have a computer and appropriate sound card/output device that can do justice to the higher bitrate/samplerate sound files?


i mean, i remember when a set of klipsch, mcintosh and a Thorens turntable got you entry to the 'real listeners' club'

heheh

mykllynyrd
March 4th, 2011, 06:44 PM
so so most modern-day audiophiles now have a computer and appropriate sound card/output device that can do justice to the higher bitrate/samplerate sound files?


i mean, i remember when a set of klipsch, mcintosh and a Thorens turntable got you entry to the 'real listeners' club'

heheh

Totally! Those guys are just as geeky about DACs as we are. Sooloos systems are like $10k, I've seen DIY builds using Lynx cards, all sorts of stuff.

Bob Olhsson
March 5th, 2011, 12:17 AM
The home media server plays your video and music. There are now ultra-high-end USB D to As.

gonzo-x
March 5th, 2011, 12:31 AM
well, i guess my point is more to this:

there have been high def flac available for some time now...

and a lot of classic rock artists have gone there, the Tbone burnett thing, neil young.....


but once you get some group like the stones, actually going back to archives and putting out the high def stuff...

i guess it means there actually IS a market....


so, if everybody in the world ( and their brother, and cousin ) have a good ole fashioned CD player that only plays 16 bit audio, where does the switch over occur?

other than other musicians and the very ODD audiophile, almost no one that i know, connects their computer to their 'home' listening environment, which is typically either a surround sound system geared towards movie watching, or a standard Cd player/amplifier-reciever/speaker setup......


is there enough of a market, for dvd players to be able to play flac files burned to dvd, for high def playback at home (that's not in the studio in yer monitors!) and enough sales to happen to make a shift towards better audio overall?

Bob Olhsson
March 5th, 2011, 02:08 AM
Forget the disk. These are played on computers and some portable file players.

nobby
March 5th, 2011, 08:26 AM
well, i guess my point is more to this:

there have been high def flac available for some time now...

and a lot of classic rock artists have gone there, the Tbone burnett thing, neil young.....


but once you get some group like the stones, actually going back to archives and putting out the high def stuff...

i guess it means there actually IS a market....


The relatively low overhead needed to dust off the old 2 track masters and run them through ADC and then have the files replicated digitally as opposed to the cost of recording and producing a record from scratch, then pressing and shipping the physical product, makes small niche or 'boutique' runs feasible.

But $30, I dunno...

I think you could get a pristine High Tides and Green Grass LP for less than that and you'd have the album cover, which opens up to a photo album.

Then again, you may have the 45 year old album and want to hear it like you've never heard it before.

Relatively few people would pay $30 to download an album regardless of sound quality, but @ $30 per download, how many do you have to sell?

MKZ
March 5th, 2011, 10:12 AM
...this doesn't seem to be anything that special especially if you already shelled out for SACDs ten years ago. (Is it possible these are just the SACD files? I dunno much about that format.)


I think SACD uses a totally different format. Like, 1 bit sampled at gazillion times a second.

(edit) DSD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital

Brendo
March 5th, 2011, 03:34 PM
why not 192khz?

johnnywellas
March 5th, 2011, 04:55 PM
I think it has to do with inaccurate clocking issues and file sizes, however the blu-ray standard apparently covers it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu_ray#Audio).

How viable/hard is it to implement high quality DACs in portable music players? Is it possible to cut corners in size and power supply design due to the nature of the transducers employed (usually tiny headphones)?

Bob Olhsson
March 5th, 2011, 05:13 PM
There are DSD downloads too. From a business standpoint albums really need to sell for $30 to cover the costs of production and marketing.

Our challenge is making them WORTH the $30.00.

MKZ
March 5th, 2011, 05:32 PM
Which computer players play the DSD format?

Do people have preference over DSD and high sample rate PCM?

Although I don't really care at this point, it would be interesting to see what their arguments are.

imagin
March 5th, 2011, 08:26 PM
There are DSD downloads too. From a business standpoint albums really need to sell for $30 to cover the costs of production and marketing.

Our challenge is making them WORTH the $30.00.

Bob, how can the industry justify doubling/tripling the cost of an album?


This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Am I missing something here where are the extra costs in not reducing the recorded quality and not producing hard copy's?

Here's a thought.

How about we stop making those silly videos that detract from the music and instead sell high quality audio albums for 10. It is after all the videos that cost the most money to produce, they also take up the most resources to reproduce and distribute.



That said, it is true that if the music and the experience are truly inspirational it would be a whole other matter.


Iain

Bob Olhsson
March 5th, 2011, 08:37 PM
Exactly what constitutes an album needs to be redefined. The quality of every aspect needs to go up enough to support pricing that can break even. The only profitable "business model" is fewer sales of a much higher quality product. Folks have really got to let go of the '80s.

Music is not a commodity where reducing prices will increase the quantity of sales enough to overcome the loss.

imagin
March 5th, 2011, 08:50 PM
Exactly what constitutes an album needs to be redefined. The quality of every aspect needs to go up enough to support pricing that can break even. The only profitable "business model" is fewer sales of a much higher quality product. Folks have really got to let go of the '80s.

Music is not a commodity where reducing prices will increase the quantity of sales enough to overcome the loss.

Well I for one will not be sad to see the back of the old model and wait to be suitably impressed to part with 30€ per album.

Its true that I have in mind the music spawned by our blatant consumer culture when I say that 30€/dollars is too much.
There are some albums for which I would pay more.

So a little more investment in artists and less instant money "products" would definitely be the go.

It should be our culture that defines us and not our economy.


Iain

nobby
March 5th, 2011, 10:02 PM
There is more than one way to look at it.

First of all, in the case of the Stones, it's what the market will bear.

When I saw the Police in '07, ticket prices for that show ranged from $60 - $11,000

Back in the day an LP cost about $20 adjusted for inflation.

These high def files have no DRM, right?

So people will burning CDs for their friends, uploading to P2Ps, emailing zip files, etc. Shoplifting raises the cost of products to legitimate customers.

The albums the Stones are selling as high def downloads are available as CDs and LPs.

When I was a kid I listened to the "Through the Past, Darkly" LP on a shitty stereo. Never got the CD.

Can't swear I won't shell out $30 for the 176kHz/24 bit version just to see what it actually sounds like.

Again, the seller estimates what the market will bear and sets a price point.

Back when I was a teenager I couldn't afford a lot of records. We used to visit our friends and listen to their albums or bring our records to a house party. So it was almost like a community record collection.

John Eppstein
March 9th, 2011, 05:43 AM
Music is not a commodity where reducing prices will increase the quantity of sales enough to overcome the loss.

I've been saying this for awhile now, too.

Music is seriously undervalued in today's market.