"...to sum up, it's snake oil."
In all seriousness, it's an interesting concept but what's the point if CD's somehow still king of physical media when it comes to music?
[QUOTE=SassPD22;51538153]In all seriousness, it's an interesting concept but what's the point if CD's somehow still king of physical media when it comes to music?[/QUOTE]
I'd love for Blueray music disks to be main-stream, since you could fit so much on each one, whole discographies in nice 48k/24bit FLAC.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51538247]I'd love for Blueray music disks to be main-stream, since you could fit so much on each one, whole discographies in nice 48k/24bit FLAC.[/QUOTE]
To be fair there's no difference in quality between WAV (CDs have this) and FLAC.
[QUOTE=Ott;51539121]To be fair there's no difference in quality between WAV (CDs have this) and FLAC.[/QUOTE]
Yes but FLAC is much MUCH smaller. You could fit way more onto a disc if the contents were compressed
If I bought media on a card, I wouldn't want it to be so small that you can inhale it or have trouble reading the print on it. I'd rather have regular SD-card sized cards.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51538247]I'd love for Blueray music disks to be main-stream, since you could fit so much on each one, whole discographies in nice 48k/24bit FLAC.[/QUOTE]
Goodbye to easily ripping your own music.
[QUOTE=DasMatze;51539943]If I bought media on a card, I wouldn't want it to be so small that you can inhale it or have trouble reading the print on it. I'd rather have regular SD-card sized cards.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but then you can't play it on any phones.
[QUOTE=Ott;51539121]To be fair there's no difference in quality between WAV (CDs have this) and FLAC.[/QUOTE]
This is more of a blanket statement and doesn't cover certain things. It's a actually "yes and no" thing.
CD audio is 16bit 44.1khz, but there are plenty of physical music playback devices that can handle a recording with much more bit depth. This is really advantageous for things where you want high dynamic range, like classical music. Honestly it could really be useful in all music, but people often master music with little to no dynamic range whatsoever, so nobody even uses the full 16 bit depth, much less 24. This is really the reason why you don't need 24bit/96khz flac, not because it isn't possible to hear a difference (it would be obvious if it were actually used), but because you absolutely won't ever hear a difference when listening to music that was mastered with little to no dynamic range. It's really all about the master. There are extremely high resolution, high bit depth versions of "Graceland" by Paul Simon, but it's the newly remastered version, and it sounds like crap. The entire album is normalized to the same volume. They're selling (for a lot of money) a 24 bit file, and it has the audio just slammed all to the same level, it's really a damn shame. But if you compare to that the waveforms from the original 1986 CD release, you see an extreme difference in dynamic range, it actually utilizes a good majority of the dynamic range offered by CD which was why it was used as an in-store example of what a well-mastered CD should sound like on a well-adjusted hi-fi set at the time. If you somehow got a hold of the original master tapes, technically you could probably make a master like that, that utilizes the full 24 bit depth. It won't happen, though.
There's also DVD audio and it works pretty well for what it is and it has some releases. It also makes more sense to have it in a DVD or Blu Ray because then that would imply you're only going to be using it at home in your home entertainment system which is the only place such a high quality recording would be useful.
[QUOTE=Dantz Bolrew;51540010]Goodbye to easily ripping your own music.[/QUOTE]
It's not hard to rip Blu-ray just the software is expensive
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
