What is your preferred acoustical perspective?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As a spring off of my audiophile thread, I had another point I wanted to ask about concerning the two channel and multi-channel preference.

Ralph and I had an exchange a while back, and he stated that he loved his two channel rig because it was able to float images precisely in space, and it made him feel like the performers where "in the room".(Ralph correct me if I am wrong) with well recorded music. My friend who is also a two channel guy says exactly the same thing. As a matter of fact, almost everyone I know with a high quality two channel system as said this.

My choice of multi-channel set ups is based on my love for the fact that you can also precisely float images but 360 degrees in space( not just 90-120 degrees for two channel), and it felt like "I was there" from a spatial perspective with well recorded music. Just about everyone I know with a quality multichannel setup has also said this.

I feel like this is becoming a common theme between the two camps.

The question is putting aside software amounts(more two channel music than multichannel music in most genre's of music) what is your favorite spatial acoustical perspective the "your are there perspective", or the "they are here" perspective.

Gather around the cooler and discuss........
__________________

[Feanor]

With the Magneplanars and a good stereo recording the music has depth and dimension -- I love it. I've said before that Maggies and, I'd say, most good dipolars bring the musicians into the room with you.

But wait! They are down the other end where the speakers are. Or it it's a big orchesteral work, it's like I'm standing at an entrance looking into the concert hall. By contrast, with good M/C (of which unfortunately I haven't many) I'm right in the middle of the hall, maybe 1st row, maybe a few rows back, depending on the recording; (I'm speaking of classical music particularly). But that's the difference between stereo and M/C.

So my position with good recordings and good equipment, there is really no contest: M/C wins.

[Woochifer]

I think that depends on the music. Something like the 5.1 SACDs of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon or Steely Dan's Two Against Nature are purposely situated with no particular "perspective" in mind, other than instruments and vocals and effects coming from multiple directions.

Some of those perspectives are more about heavily anchoring the depth of field and better solidifying the imaging cues. Others are about separating instruments that sound like mush in the stereo mix, and placing in more separate spaces to gain greater clarity. Some work well, others not. But, a well done 5.1 mix can render an listening experience that stereo isn't capable of.

On the flip side, there are live acoustical recordings like the SF Symphony's Mahler series. Classical 5.1 is always interesting because they try to convey a sense of space, but the individual recordings are done differently. With the SFS recordings, I've gone to many concerts at Davies Symphony Hall, so I know how it sounds from the audience perspective, having sat in many different locations (including 7th row for a recorded performance of Mahler's Symphony of a Thousand).

The 5.1 recordings capture how that hall actually sounds far better than any of the two-channel recordings. And from having sat near the front, I can tell that the recording is trying to mimic the conductor position, since it's more of a forward location. The 5.1 track and properly positioned speakers can convey this quite well, even with a relatively modest system.

And I think that point about the speaker positioning is uber crucial. As hypercritical as some two-channel setups can be, the positioning in a 5.1 setup requires even more attention. IMO, a lot of the negative comments about 5.1 arises from simply not having the speakers level matched, timed and positioned properly.

For me, it comes down to a good recording and a good performance, and I'll let the musicians come to me.

[Hyfi]

In general, I would say "They are here"

I have been to way too many Live events that that I surely would not want to re-create. I would rather feel like the band is right over there in the corner.

I do like the Chesky Recordings on the 10th Anniversary disk that demonstrate different venue types as well as thinking that Livingston Taylors breath and finger snaps in Grandma's Hands are happening right over there and not sound like all instruments were recorded in different rooms and mushed together for the final production.

Chesky has a way to record awesome 2ch with Omni mics.

[JoeE SP9]

They are here usually works better for me although there are some you are there recordings that are very good. My problem with many MC recordings is that you are there means the middle of the band. I have no desire to be on stage or be part of the band.

[E-Stat]

As a spring off of my audiophile thread, I had another point I wanted to ask about concerning the two channel and multi-channel preference.

Ralph and I had an exchange a while back, and he stated that he loved his two channel rig because it was able to float images precisely in space, and it made him feel like the performers where "in the room".(Ralph correct me if I am wrong) with well recorded music. My friend who is also a two channel guy says exactly the same thing. As a matter of fact, almost everyone I know with a high quality two channel system as said this.

That's essentially correct, but I would like to make two clarifications:

1. First of all, I'm a firm believer that multi-channel is always superior with recordings of unamplified music where the space of a venue is captured. So long as you are comparing systems of equivalent performance - not necessarily price, the issue is a no brainer for me. Consequently, MC clearly is far more expensive to do right since you need twice the componentry. (I acknowledge that we disagree on this point) Hearing HP's "Super Maggie" system is quite impressive with his hand picked Telarc SACD sampler. He wrote liner notes for each band to help the listener understand the nature of how that recording exploited the capabilities of multi-channel. Naturally, it's a whole lot nicer when you can get a real time personalized lesson. :) I am far less impressed, however, with "doctored" ambience of inherently multi-tracked recordings like the perennial favorite, Dark Side of the Moon. Remember the gimmicky quadraphonic recordings of the 70s? I find that captured ambience is far superior to that which is artificially created.

2. The "floating of images" effect to which I refer is not entirely determined by the channel count. Here I also refer to the level of resolution offered by the playback system. It is the ability of the system to allow you to hear deep into the mix and get layers of subtle cues missed by lesser gear - totally independent of the channel count. I hear more of Leona Lewis' vocal intonations (the underlying emotion) at home than I do at the IMAX even with their huge budget. She just doesn't sound as though she is standing there in the flesh singing in front of you as compared to my two channel system even if her voice is "enhanced" around the room with the MC mix.


My choice of multi-channel set ups is based on my love for the fact that you can also precisely float images but 360 degrees in space( not just 90-120 degrees for two channel), and it felt like "I was there" from a spatial perspective with well recorded music. Just about everyone I know with a quality multichannel setup has also said this.
No debate there. That is most understandable since you engineer MC recordings. The unfortunate reality is that the overwhelming majority (98%) of the first five decades of music to which I listen was never captured that way. I'm not one who optimizes my system for a limited number of impressive "audiophile" recordings. Yeah, I've got a bunch of those, too. :)



The question is putting aside software amounts(more two channel music than multichannel music in most genre's of music) what is your favorite spatial acoustical perspective the "your are there perspective", or the "they are here" perspective.

Such is really a good question since all recordings are one form of artifice or another. As for me, I would never want to replicate the live experience of hearing my favorite pop stars at the sports arena. Since you could never replicate the sense of space anyway and the resolution is truly dreadful, I tend towards the latter bias - they are here - given the limitations of the size of most rooms. Having said that, there are a number of exceptional recordings that make the walls of my listening room disappear. They are here in front of me, but in a larger space than the confines of my 26x15 room would suggest. Harry's phenomenal systems do that for quite a few merely stereo recordings. That's the level of resolution talking.

Isn't it a wonderful thing that the Blu Ray format has allowed us to view blockbuster high budget super quality films made fifty years ago in a way that challenges the original? Film has always offered wonderful resolution even if the home based playback format hasn't been able to replicate it. Wouldn't it really be cool if that were the case with music as well? To hear your favorite recordings from the 50s, 60s, 70s - all without all the noise, compression, bandwidth limitations, etc in captured multi-channel.?

Oh well. Back to the real world of most recorded music.

rw

[Worf101]

When I got my first true "multi-channel" receiver in 2000, an Onkyo 787 I believe, I spent a LOOONG time switching back and forth between 2 channel and multi-channel formats. I was very confused as I was in totally uncharted territory. Finally, once I got a bigger and more sophisticated set up (primarily better speakers and a top of the line receiver) I went totaally 2 channel for music and I was VERY happy... until recently. As I said in recent post I discovered Donald F A G ens' solo work trilogy online and bought it. I, for the first time, listened to a format other than redbook. Hearing "I.G.Y." and "Snowbound" in 5.1 was a revelation. Wowsers! So now I alternate between the two.

1. Two channel Modern recordings I use Onkyo "Pure Audio"

2. Older 2 channel I use tweaked stereo output to fill in the blanks.

3. Multi-channel I use the highest fidelity multi speaker format available, thus far that's 5.1 DTS.

Worf

[markw]

I can say that I'll generally default to whatever mode the recording was made in.

Up to recently, I had a universal player in my HT system feeding the MC analog inputs of my Denon 2802. As such, I was able to get a taste of true MC music and, on the whole, it was "OK. I had the ubiquitous DSOTM, a few SACD Living Stereo releases and borrowed a few others for a while.

Meh... DSOTM was fun but once the basic effect wore off, it was nothing special. I'd use it if it was there but wouldn't miss it if it were gone. I will say that the center channel of the 50 year-old Living Stereo CD' was nice and shows that the recording technology definitely led the playback process. They still sound good.

As for two channel, that's what I grew up with.

Now, with the advent of a new (non-universal) Blu-ray player, I've moved the Denon universal player to a two channel secondary system and reinstalled my Marantz DVD player in the HT system and still play those dual discs in plain two channel there. I miss the center fill on the LS discs but I don't lose sleep over it. Were it there, I'd still be using and loving it.,

As for artificially inducing multi-channel effects from a two channel source, I've never really liked that and feel it adds an artificial feeling to the music.

I'll take plain two channel for $400, Alex.

But, given a true MC source and a way to play it back, I'll go for that also. When in Rome....

[hifitommy]

reproducing the ambience of an actual recording space is quite enhancing in the reality realm. its truly amazing what you hear in dynaquad. of course it isnt as precise as 5.1 but satisfying just the same.

as for out of the box, that can be done with two channels as evidenced by what the new rogersound labs sub/sat system routinely does. my friend likes the nearfield arrangement with most speakers and this one caused him to sell his maggie 1.7s.

mostly i dont care what happens behind me but at times it can be fun. there is a moody blues stereo album that has a chirping sound that in dynaquad, circumscribes the room. tomita's recordings were more or less created for surround and do very nicely in dynaquad.

i now have enough amplification channels and speakers to effect true 5.1 (and a pre-pro). i dont expect to be blown away. as it stands, ALL formats in my system (LP, CD, DVD, FM, open reel, and dvda) benefit from the dyna setup with no jockeying around.

the rear channels are set to be barely audible on regular stereo but when info is in the rear, it goes there, especially on live recordings.

call me old fashioned.

[dwayne.aycock]

You marched in a drum and bugle corps. If yoy played in the horn line, you were used to the full resonance that can only be found in and around the line....in short, you cut your chops on full resonant sound that was live. Your understanding of sound has always been multi voice, multi channel. I hear music the same way. When I am listening to music, I usually run 5 or 7 channel audio and perfer to sit dead in the middle... like it was when I was in D&B too. Do you remember the old maxell tape guy "blown away". That is what Ilike my music to do for me.....blow mw away.

[Feanor]

reproducing the ambience of an actual recording space is quite enhancing in the reality realm. its truly amazing what you hear in dynaquad. of course it isnt as precise as 5.1 but satisfying just the same.

as for out of the box, that can be done with two channels as evidenced by what the new rogersound labs sub/sat system routinely does. my friend likes the nearfield arrangement with most speakers and this one caused him to sell his maggie 1.7s.

mostly i dont care what happens behind me but at times it can be fun. there is a moody blues stereo album that has a chirping sound that in dynaquad, circumscribes the room. tomita's recordings were more or less created for surround and do very nicely in dynaquad.

i now have enough amplification channels and speakers to effect true 5.1 (and a pre-pro). i dont expect to be blown away. as it stands, ALL formats in my system (LP, CD, DVD, FM, open reel, and dvda) benefit from the dyna setup with no jockeying around.

the rear channels are set to be barely audible on regular stereo but when info is in the rear, it goes there, especially on live recordings.

call me old fashioned.
Many years ago I had a Dynaquad unit and I basically agree with you comments. (I used mine with my Dynaco A25 fronts and A10 rears all driven by a Dynaco Stereo 80 amp.)

The "goodness" of the resulting effect always depended on the recording, sometimes negligible sometime very good. If my understanding is correct, the Dynaquad worked based on the phasing between the two stereo channels; (simplistically speaking maybe), the system sends out of phase info to the rear channels.

So if my understanding is correct, Dynaquad was eventually, (many years later), superceded by Dolby ProLogic that also extracts rear channel info using phase data. Of course ProLogic receivers use discrete, separate amplfiers for the rear channels, rather than just a stereo amp.

[hifitommy]

feanor:

my original dynaquad consisted of four a25s. the initial playback really got my attention not only in spatiality but how the sound firmed up including the bass locking into the room. this is with speakers that as you know dont go to the center of the earth in frequency. in retrospect, the a10s may have worked just fine.

my next approach was to stack the a25s (horizontally, tweeters inside) that worked fine and gave more impact due to the coupling of the woofers, with some EV 10" two ways in the rear and that setup remained in place for a long time.

dynaquad can be simplified and diagrammed by showing a single strand lead coming from the left stereo channel going to the left rear speaker going into the (+), a strand from the left (-) to the (+) of the right and another strand from the right (-) back to the (+) of the right stereo channel. CAUTION! this can only be done with amplifiers and receivers in which common ground connections are acceptable.

somewhere in the circuit a potentiometer should be connected to attenuate the rear level so as not to have the rear channel dominate the sound. that is to adjust the front to rear level by attenuating the rears.

the signal that is out of phase left to right is forced to the rear circuit. what is out of phase with the stereo signal? reflected and reverberated sound that BELONGS in the rear. THANK YOU david hafler!

dolby pro logic is exactly the same ambience extraction circuit at line levels (regular dynaquad is at amplifier speaker level) only with logic steering to enhance locations of rear images.

one speakler works wonderfully in the car centered in the rear deck. i used a 5x7 jensen in my opel rallye in those days and it could be startlingly real sounding in the car.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You marched in a drum and bugle corps. If yoy played in the horn line, you were used to the full resonance that can only be found in and around the line....in short, you cut your chops on full resonant sound that was live. Your understanding of sound has always been multi voice, multi channel. I hear music the same way. When I am listening to music, I usually run 5 or 7 channel audio and perfer to sit dead in the middle... like it was when I was in D&B too. Do you remember the old maxell tape guy "blown away". That is what Ilike my music to do for me.....blow mw away.

There is nothing like a good hornline blowing your face off in surround. Now that you mentioned this, I am going to listen to my ISOMike SACD called High Altitude Drums featuring the Blue Knights.

[Feanor]

feanor:

my original dynaquad consisted of four a25s. the initial playback really got my attention not only in spatiality but how the sound firmed up including the bass locking into the room. this is with speakers that as you know don't go to the center of the earth in frequency. in retrospect, the a10s may have worked just fine.
....

dynaquad can be simplified and diagrammed by showing a single strand lead coming from the left stereo channel going to the left rear speaker going into the (+), a strand from the left (-) to the (+) of the right and another strand from the right (-) back to the (+) of the right stereo channel. CAUTION! this can only be done with amplifiers and receivers in which common ground connections are acceptable.

somewhere in the circuit a potentiometer should be connected to attenuate the rear level so as not to have the rear channel dominate the sound. that is to adjust the front to rear level by attenuating the rears.

the signal that is out of phase left to right is forced to the rear circuit. what is out of phase with the stereo signal? reflected and reverberated sound that BELONGS in the rear. THANK YOU david hafler!

Dolby pro logic is exactly the same ambiance extraction circuit at line levels (regular dynaquad is at amplifier speaker level) only with logic steering to enhance locations of rear images.

one speaker works wonderfully in the car centered in the rear deck. i used a 5x7 jensen in my opel rallye in those days and it could be startlingly real sounding in the car.
HFT, as I recall (many years ago), the A10's worked fine at the rear.

I sold the Dynaquad for reasons I don't remember except it might have had to do with the difficulty of placing the rear speakers, (still a problem for HT setups), and also because I gave away the A10's to my mother.

I also recall that I tried some variation of the wiring you describe with a single rear speaker; the effect was efficacious though I don't recall that I used the setup for very long.

[Poultrygeist]

My flea powered SET's and full range single drivers only work well in two channel.

I do crave concert videos like Diana Krall's "Live In Rio" in 5.1. The blu-ray version with DTS-HD is amazing even on my Best Buy close-out Athenas.

I view the multi vs two channel as two dissimilar but not competitive ways to enjoy music. While I love driving my Mustang GT my wife's Mazda 3 is just as much fun but the sensory experience is far different.

[Poultrygeist]

I played in marching and concert orchestras in college and the trombone section is the worst seat in the house. You never get to hear the band as a whole.

[harley .guy07]

I can see where multichannel would be a benefit in some situations and I have used it a time or two but for me I grew up playing in bands and have been to multiple small scale music shows all over my area and the music always is set up to come at you from the front and because of the acoustics of the place you do get a little from the walls ETC. So I mostly listen to 2 channel audio for that main reason. Every music show I have went to was a 2 channel affair as far as their amplification and speaker arrangement goes so why should I change it. On the flip side of that I have heard a couple of SACD recordings that the mixers did an excellent job or replicating the concert hall and that is cool to but most music is two channel so that is what I concentrate on.

[michaelhigh]

I played french horn in grade school, junior high, highschool bands, drum and bugle corps (Belleville Black Knights, 12th place DCI 1973, 15th place 1974 IIRC) and in college as well, majoring in performance...it was only in the drum corps experience that I was positioned in the middle of a semi-circle, simulating the two-channel listening experience. Every other experience I was either off to one side or somewhere less than optimal. If I were to choose to be positioned in the middle or surrounded by musicians, I would prefer a surround sound set-up. I simulate this with double stereo in four corners, and I'm actually getting a QRX-5500A to see if I can simulate quad with the right gear if I can somehow locate it (I'm being realistic...I realize that quad carts and TT's aren't growing on trees, as aren't quad FM).

[texlle]

All variables aside, namely overall cost and prevalence of mutli channel format recordings vs. stereo, i still prefer 2 channel. I do love both formats. Hell Freezes Over, Two Against Nature persuade me heavily, but the purist in me always goes back to 2-channel.

[hifitommy]

michaelhigh-"to see if I can simulate quad"

you may be able to accomplish this with qs/sq and with more modern processors using dolby pro logic or DPLII which are derived from what i use-dynaquad.

see if you can find a used Quadaptor like:

DYNACO DYNAQUAD PASSIVE 4 CHANNEL ADAPTOR | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/DYNACO-DYNAQUAD-PASSIVE-4-CHANNEL-ADAPTOR-4-STEREO-AMP-AND-4-SPEAKERS-NICE-/160657759402)

VINTAGE DYNACO QD-1 QUADAPTOR DYNAQUAD SURROUND-SOUND | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-DYNACO-QD-1-QUADAPTOR-DYNAQUAD-SURROUND-SOUND-/270789857717)

Vintage Dynaco QD-1 Quadaptor Dynaquad System | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Dynaco-QD-1-Quadaptor-Dynaquad-System-/110755370734)

what dynaquad does is extract the reflected and reverberated sound from the stereo signal and put it in the rear, where it BELONGS. adjust it so you barely hear rear output in a conventional stereo recording. then put on a LIVE cut and you will understand why i use it on ALL of my formats even though i have enough of the proper equipment to do proper 5.1 surround.

[DedroCepue]

I have no desire to be on stage or be part of the band.

[Feanor]

I have no desire to be on stage or be part of the band.
Welcome to AR Forums, Dedro.

I agree with you; I really don't care for a perspective that puts me in the middle of the performers.

Dunno: maybe that's because I've never been a performer.

[JoeE SP9]

I've been a performer. IMO there's a big difference between performing and listening. When I listen I have no desire to be in the middle of the band or orchestra. When I'm at a concert, any concert I'm part of the audience. The audience is not on stage with the musicians.

[hifitommy]

ambience recovery such as dynaquad does NOT put you in the middle of the band like the DTS versoion of the eagles 'hell freezes over'. all the players are up front but the room sound surrounds you. quite satisfying.

if there is something recorded on stereo in such a way that a sound comes from the rear, it will put it there but it wont sound unnatural. recordings done outside such as some of the scenes in NYPD Blue are starling in their realism.

[haboglabotribbin]

I never heard a 5.1 system as of yet that convinced me to go absolutely surround. Still enjoy my movies 2.0 with lots of joy and don't miss a thing (I think)

[B&Waudio]

My front speakers provide me with the most realistic sound within my system. I dont expect my rears to do what I expect of the mains and vice versa. When I listen to music I listen in 2 channel (cd or dvd) because simply put thats what sounds the purest. Whether it be Chris Botti or Joe Bonamassa hearing music in 360 seems artifical and throws me off. I cant enjoy the music that way.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My front speakers provide me with the most realistic sound within my system. I dont expect my rears to do what I expect of the mains and vice versa. When I listen to music I listen in 2 channel (cd or dvd) because simply put thats what sounds the purest. Whether it be Chris Botti or Joe Bonamassa hearing music in 360 seems artifical and throws me off. I cant enjoy the music that way.

What if the sound was actually recorded in surround, and the two channel was just a fold down of the 5.1 mix. Would it be the purest at that point?

How can one say that what was recorded in 5.1 sounds "artificial" when played back in 5.1?

[hifitommy]

STT,

please stop being logical. ;^)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

STT,

please stop being logical. ;^)

oooookaaaay(puts his head down and kicks the dirt)

[B&Waudio]

"What if the sound was actually recorded in surround, and the two channel was just a fold down of the 5.1 mix. Would it be the purest at that point?"

Good point. Still the extra channels throw me off when Im listening. Not sure if I can explain this well but when I listen to music I see the sounds. Most concert DVD's have noise like audience chatter or applause that clutters up the musical experience so I tend to stay away from them sans a few favotites.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"What if the sound was actually recorded in surround, and the two channel was just a fold down of the 5.1 mix. Would it be the purest at that point?"

Good point. Still the extra channels throw me off when Im listening. Not sure if I can explain this well but when I listen to music I see the sounds. Most concert DVD's have noise like audience chatter or applause that clutters up the musical experience so I tend to stay away from them sans a few favotites.

So are you saying you don't like the sound of a live event as portrayed by the recording? Concerts need people or its not a concert, but a performance.

[Mygaffer]

After running a couple multi-channel setups I still prefer stereo.

[B&Waudio]

"So are you saying you don't like the sound of a live event as portrayed by the recording? Concerts need people or its not a concert, but a performance."

I like live concerts if Im there. If the people in the audience on DVD's would shut up we dont have a problem. Nothing is absolute. I do own some concert DVD's and I dont generally buy live cd's either. It distracts me. Im quirky...what can I tell ya.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"So are you saying you don't like the sound of a live event as portrayed by the recording? Concerts need people or its not a concert, but a performance."

I like live concerts if Im there. If the people in the audience on DVD's would shut up we dont have a problem. Nothing is absolute. I do own some concert DVD's and I dont generally buy live cd's either. It distracts me. Im quirky...what can I tell ya.

If the crowd shuts up, then you lose the energy of the performance and the concert itself, wouldn't you agree? There is a reason we actually do live recordings.

[E-Stat]

If the crowd shuts up, then you lose the energy of the performance and the concert itself, wouldn't you agree?
This is another preference issue where differences exist. I'll trade "energy" for performance quality any day. I rarely play the one concert video and the few live music albums I own. They are best appreciated by visually oriented folks where the sound quality is largely immaterial.

It is a shame, however, that MC recordings comprise the 1% world in the music industry.

rw

[hifitommy]

i have to agree with STT here. live performances many times crackle with the energy of the crowd and by that i mean the excitement that easily conveys in that situation.

of course we dont want to hear the unsolicited comments and conversations spilled by inconsiderate concert attendees.

still and all, a few words discerned during the listening to a live recording are not spoilingly intrusive.

one good example of that excitement is evident with the recording: 'on the night' by dire straits. played back through a system with ambience recovery, it can raise the hairs on your neck.

[texlle]

I suppose you must also consider which experience is more preferable to you....the live concert or the private performance. This may sound corny, but I like the exclusivity factor.... being able to hold a private performance just for me, on my call. Don't get me wrong, I still have a lot of fun and gain great enjoyment from concerts, if not more than most fun, social events.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

They are best appreciated by visually oriented folks where the sound quality is largely immaterial.

Oh really? For a person that has had such limited exposure to concert videos in general, and zero exposure on Bluray, this is a profoundly uneducated statement. On the more than 300 concert video titles I own on the Bluray format, equal attention was paid on both the audio and visuals. Watch Michael Jackson's this is it on Bluray, and tell me that was all about the visuals. Or Chris Botti in Boston, and Beethoven Symphonies 4 thorugh 9 by the Weiner Phillharmoniker. I could name a lot more.



It is a shame, however, that MC recordings comprise the 1% world in the music industry.

rw

Oh well, gotta start somewhere. There was a point when CD only represented 1% of the music media sold. There was a point when DVD and Bluray only represented 1% of home video sales.

[E-Stat]

Oh really? For a person that has had such limited exposure to concert videos in general, and zero exposure on Bluray, this is a profoundly uneducated statement.
Apparently, the word "preference" eludes you. A concert video can be no better than a live concert - to which I've been quite a few. Capturing it on video doesn't improve the limitations. The Madonna concert is on BR.

Edit: According to the RIAA, unit sales of music video for 2010 accounted for 1.5% of the total. Two thirds of that was digital downloads which rules out Blu Ray. I'm definitely NOT in the minority with my preference. Sheesh.

RIAA Data (http://76.74.24.142/548C3F4C-6B6D-F702-384C-D25E2AB93610.pdf)


There was a point when CD only represented 1% of the music media sold.
That is true and lasted for less than a year. In the decade between 1994-2004, it became the dominant media with about a two-third's share. SACD multi-channel was also introduced a decade ago. Notice any difference in the adoption rate?

Music sales (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021711disruption)

rw

[Hyfi]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible;371464 Watch Michael Jackson's this is it on Bluray, and tell me that was all about the visuals.[/QUOTE]

I don't own many concert DVDs or Blus but have many VHS tapes of PBS shows like In The Spotlight so there is no sound quality to speak of. I do have Robert Plant and the New Sensation Spotlight DVD and it is done pretty good.

For the most part, I do not want my stereo or sound system to reproduce the sound of most concerts I have been too. I am sure that the DVDs or Blus are not just direct to disc recordings, but altered and enhanced and filtered.

If you have ever been to a Buddy Guy concert, you would agree. He plays so loud that most venue systems just go into distortion mode. I would never want to reproduce that kind of live event.

All that said, I have to agree with one thing TT said and it is the power and sound of the MJ This is it. I only have it on a crappy pirated torrent download and the SQ is still killer. I may just buy a real one someday as the second half of that show is just frickin amazing. Oh, and the most awesomely gorgeous Orianthi is the real star of the show.

http://www.justweb.com.au/review/images/orianthi-michael-jackson2.jpg

[Woochifer]

This is another preference issue where differences exist. I'll trade "energy" for performance quality any day.

You're assuming that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Many of the best classical performances, for example, were recorded in a live concert setting. Michael Tilson Thomas of the San Francisco Symphony, who I assume knows something about performance quality and energy level, chose to record their Mahler series in live concerts specifically because he felt the orchestra plays best in front of a live audience. It actually would have been easier to gather the orchestra in a studio and do a closed performance. A studio recording could be done in single session while allowing for retakes/restarts and eliminating extraneous audience noise (coughing, talking, sneezing, etc.). Yet, MTT and the SF Symphony felt that live recording was the way to go, despite the greater risks and logistical complications.


I rarely play the one concert video and the few live music albums I own. They are best appreciated by visually oriented folks where the sound quality is largely immaterial.

No, they're just not appreciated by you. I can most definitely appreciate the audio quality of a well-done concert video. Examples abound, but if you're not interested in seeking them out and instead presuming to know what's "immaterial" to others, then that's on you.

[E-Stat]

You're assuming that the two concepts are mutually exclusive...Many of the best classical performances, for example, were recorded in a live concert setting.]
Actually, I'm applying experiential data across a forty year span of time. You can certainly cite any number of individual exceptions.


No, they're just not appreciated by you. I can most definitely appreciate the audio quality of a well-done concert video.
It's not that video can't have good sound. Why bother and limit your choices? I'm with the 98.5% of the music market who doesn't care about video.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't own many concert DVDs or Blus but have many VHS tapes of PBS shows like In The Spotlight so there is no sound quality to speak of. I do have Robert Plant and the New Sensation Spotlight DVD and it is done pretty good.

Anything done by PBS for broadcast will have the limitations of the broadcast standard to contend with. Remember, they are shooting for a television speaker, not a mid to high end hometheater.


For the most part, I do not want my stereo or sound system to reproduce the sound of most concerts I have been too. I am sure that the DVDs or Blus are not just direct to disc recordings, but altered and enhanced and filtered.

For the most part, they are not altered or enhanced, just mixed live, balanced and mastered in the studio.


If you have ever been to a Buddy Guy concert, you would agree. He plays so loud that most venue systems just go into distortion mode. I would never want to reproduce that kind of live event.

What you hear coming from the PA is very different than what you hear direct from the mixing board. We don't use the FOH feed, or record what comes from the PA speakers. We send the mix to the recording truck or in house recording facility where it is balanced and fed to the disc drive or digital recorder.


All that said, I have to agree with one thing TT said and it is the power and sound of the MJ This is it. I only have it on a crappy pirated torrent download and the SQ is still killer. I may just buy a real one someday as the second half of that show is just frickin amazing. Oh, and the most awesomely gorgeous Orianthi is the real star of the show.

http://www.justweb.com.au/review/images/orianthi-michael-jackson2.jpg

I have some Bluray concert disc that equal and exceed the quality of This is it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Apparently, the word "preference" eludes you. A concert video can be no better than a live concert - to which I've been quite a few. Capturing it on video doesn't improve the limitations. The Madonna concert is on BR.

Actually you are wrong here. Avery Fisher hall is one of the worst sounding venues I have ever recorded in. However, the three recordings I have done there sound very, very good. Why, because I understood how to capture the full sound of the orchestra, but severely controls how much of the hall ambiance that is included in the mix. When you know how to think out of the box, you avoid making such statements like the recording can be no better than the live experience.


Edit: According to the RIAA, unit sales of music video for 2010 accounted for 1.5% of the total. Two thirds of that was digital downloads which rules out Blu Ray. I'm definitely NOT in the minority with my preference. Sheesh.

RIAA Data (http://76.74.24.142/548C3F4C-6B6D-F702-384C-D25E2AB93610.pdf)

Excuse me, but this makes absolutely no reference to Bluray at all. DVD video is not Bluray video. Secondly this speaks of shipments, not actual sales figures like NDP reports. Thirdly, no reporting agency I know of lumps DVD and Bluray sales into one category, they are usually split into two categories.



That is true and lasted for less than a year. In the decade between 1994-2004, it became the dominant media with about a two-third's share. SACD multi-channel was also introduced a decade ago. Notice any difference in the adoption rate?

Music sales (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021711disruption)

Ralph, the CD was introduced 1982, so it took twelve years to become the dominate format. It was heavily marketed by the record companies, and neither SACD nor DVD-A was. It was much easier to integrate the CD player into an existing two channel system because EVERYTHING was stereo at that time. SACD and DVD-A required a complicated connection to a pre-amp(six interconnects) additional speakers and amplification. It was marketed to a crowd of folks that had no idea how to use it, and didn't even understand it(multichannel music is for video folks, how stupid is that?).

So you are going to compare the sales and adoption rate of a format released a decade ago, to one that has been around since 1982. Wow..........a monkey can figure out the format in existence for the longest time would have a far higher adoption rate than one that has been around a very short time. No stretch there.

[Mygaffer]

Apparently, the word "preference" eludes you. A concert video can be no better than a live concert - to which I've been quite a few. Capturing it on video doesn't improve the limitations. The Madonna concert is on BR.

Edit: According to the RIAA, unit sales of music video for 2010 accounted for 1.5% of the total. Two thirds of that was digital downloads which rules out Blu Ray. I'm definitely NOT in the minority with my preference. Sheesh.

RIAA Data (http://76.74.24.142/548C3F4C-6B6D-F702-384C-D25E2AB93610.pdf)


That is true and lasted for less than a year. In the decade between 1994-2004, it became the dominant media with about a two-third's share. SACD multi-channel was also introduced a decade ago. Notice any difference in the adoption rate?

Music sales (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021711disruption)

rw

Terrance likes to hang onto failed technologies I have noticed, at least those he has invested in.

[E-Stat]

Excuse me, but this makes absolutely no reference to Bluray at all. DVD video is not Bluray video.
Congratulations on your perspicacity!


Thirdly, no reporting agency I know of lumps DVD and Bluray sales into one category, they are usually split into two categories.
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the RIAA. You'll notice DVD sales are separated from the rest at 8.7 million vs all music video at 9.1 million.


So you are going to compare the sales and adoption rate of a format released a decade ago, to one that has been around since 1982.
I compare ten year periods of each, but incorrectly titled the sales from 1994 -2004, when it should have been 1984-1994. Look at the data! Move the CD sales back two years and CD reached a market share of just over fifty percent. Don't you get it?

rw

[Feanor]

You're assuming that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Many of the best classical performances, for example, were recorded in a live concert setting. Michael Tilson Thomas of the San Francisco Symphony, who I assume knows something about performance quality and energy level, chose to record their Mahler series in live concerts specifically because he felt the orchestra plays best in front of a live audience. It actually would have been easier to gather the orchestra in a studio and do a closed performance. A studio recording could be done in single session while allowing for retakes/restarts and eliminating extraneous audience noise (coughing, talking, sneezing, etc.). Yet, MTT and the SF Symphony felt that live recording was the way to go, despite the greater risks and logistical complications.
...
In case of classical music, at least, energy, i.e. the appropriate type & level of energy, is an aspect of performance and in no way separate. (At partial exception should be made for opera where the acting and directing can be considered separately to some extend.)

It's true that many fine classical performance are recored before a "live" audience. When I choose a recording, this isn't a consideration in itsefl, one way or the other. The only Blu-ray performance video I have, (apart from a couple of operas), is Michael Tilson Thomas with the San Franciso Orchestre recorded in the Albert Hall, London, Shostakovich' 10th Symphony: it's excellent and as a matter of fact, there is very little audience noise.

[E-Stat]

Terrance likes to hang onto failed technologies I have noticed, at least those he has invested in.
I wouldn't say failed. Blu Ray is most certainly a success with movies, but is clearly a niche player when it comes to music.

rw

[E-Stat]

It's true that many fine classical performance are recored before a "live" audience. When I choose a recording, this isn't a consideration in itsefl, one way or the other.
Live classical performances are inherently different from most pop/rock ones. The cited example of Michael Jackson is a great illustration. Fans want to see the show. The choreography. The effects. Perhaps such exists, but I've never seen a symphony performance where the players or conductor dance onstage with backup performers, use elaborate props or pyrotechnics!

My preference - a concept that continues to elude our resident expert - is that I don't care about the visuals. Purchasing video music also limits where I can play it. Which may be one of the reasons why music video is the 1.5% market - according to the RIAA.

rw

[Feanor]

Live classical performances are inherently different from most pop/rock ones. The cited example of Michael Jackson is a great illustration. Fans want to see the show. The choreography. The effects. Perhaps such exists, but I've never seen a symphony performance where the players or conductor dance onstage with backup performers, use elaborate props or pyrotechnics!

My preference - a concept that continues to elude our resident expert - is that I don't care about the visuals. Purchasing video music also limits where I can play it. Which may be one of the reasons why music video is the 1.5% market - according to the RIAA.

rw
I tend to agree.

Of course, opera is entirely another matter. Some purists insist that music is paramount but for me, opera must have both great sound and visuals.

[Woochifer]

Actually, I'm applying experiential data across a forty year span of time. You can certainly cite any number of individual exceptions.

But, again you're presuming that high performance quality and high energy level cannot exist within the same performance. My "experiential data" obviously differs from yours.


It's not that video can't have good sound. Why bother and limit your choices? I'm with the 98.5% of the music market who doesn't care about video.

How's it about limiting choices? Again, you're presenting a false dichotomy by presuming that it's an either/or proposition. By including video products in music purchases, the range of options actually expands. I don't know anyone who buys just videos for their music library, yet you're the one claiming that audio quality is "immaterial" to people who buy music videos.

With classical and jazz titles in particular, the two-channel audio tracks are typically encoded at a 48 kHz sampling rate and often uncompressed at 24-bit depth. Extracting the PCM audio tracks actually gives you a higher resolution than the CD release, as is the case with my Leonard Bernstein concert videos, for example. Why bother if sound quality is as "immaterial" to this audience as you say?

I'm listening to the 48/24 audio tracks that I extracted from a Pat Metheny Group concert video as I type this. I find the live performances preferable to the studio versions, with at least comparable audio quality.

[E-Stat]

My "experiential data" obviously differs from yours.
Why does that seem so unusual to you? We likely listen to different music as well. Much has been said about the MJ video in this thread. I couldn't care less about buying that. I hear that Pink Floyd will have the 546th re-release of DSOM on BR. I bought than in LP when I was a teenager. Similarly, I have zero interest with buying a video of that. For those who do, great!


How's it about limiting choices?
I cannot play disk based videos in my car, on my iPhone which I frequently use while I travel or work around the yard, on my Squeezebox based garage system, or the main music system upstairs. It limits my choices. If you haven't already guessed, I'm more into sound than video.


A I don't know anyone who buys just videos for their music library, yet you're the one claiming that audio quality is "immaterial" to people who buy music videos.
What I said was audio quality was "largely" immaterial. If that were not the case, I think that more than 1.5% of the music market would be video based. To each his own.


Why bother if sound quality is as "immaterial" to this audience as you say?
You would need to ask those who buy video releases. My thinking the obvious answer is: they like the visual part. I usually close my eyes while listening.


I'm listening to the 48/24 audio tracks that I extracted from a Pat Metheny Group concert video as I type this. I find the live performances preferable to the studio versions, with at least comparable audio quality.
We continually return to questions of preference.

rw

[Woochifer]

Why does that seem so unusual to you? We likely listen to different music as well. Much has been said about the MJ video in this thread. I couldn't care less about buying that. I hear that Pink Floyd will have the 546th re-release of DSOM on BR. I bought than in LP when I was a teenager. Similarly, I have zero interest with buying a video of that. For those who do, great!

And what does any of this have to do with your claim that performance quality and energy level are somehow mutually exclusive? I've seen plenty of performances in a multitude of genres where they were very much in sync.


I cannot play disk based videos in my car, on my iPhone which I frequently use while I travel or work around the yard, on my Squeezebox based garage system, or the main music system upstairs.

Try using a little bit of imagination. The enjoyment of music videos is not confined to disc players or while sitting around a video monitor. I extract the PCM audio files from my favorite music videos precisely so that I can listen to them in my car, on an iPod, on my computers at work and at home, etc. It's no different than ripping CDs, or transferring LPs to digital files. And the resulting files are often higher resolution than a CD or most digital downloads.


It limits my choices. If you haven't already guessed, I'm more into sound than video.

It does not limit anybody's choices, because the inclusion of music on video expands the range of music choices that one can listen to.

Whether you're more into sound than video is irrelevant. With many of my concert or music videos, I listen to them on audio-only devices more often than I watch them. Extracting the high res PCM tracks means that I can listen to those performances whenever and wherever I want, and I still have the option of watching them as well.


What I said was audio quality was "largely" immaterial. If that were not the case, I think that more than 1.5% of the music market would be video based. To each his own.

Your "1.5%" claim about the music market is irrelevant, because you were presuming to know the audio quality preferences for people who do purchase videos. As I pointed out, buying videos does not preclude someone from also buying CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, or high res music downloads.


You would need to ask those who buy video releases. My thinking the obvious answer is: they like the visual part. I usually close my eyes while listening.

And again, how does this prove that audio quality is "largely" "immaterial" to the people who do buy videos? Enjoying the visual part does not exclude enjoying the audio part.


We continually return to questions of preference.

And I've never denied that it's about preference. You're the one that seems bent on equating your preferences with objective fact.

[E-Stat]

And what does any of this have to do with your claim that performance quality and energy level are somehow mutually exclusive?
As we've already ascertained, your experience differs from mine. Does that bother you?


The enjoyment of music videos is not confined to disc players or while sitting around a video monitor.
How many times do I need to say that I don't care about the visuals?


I extract the PCM audio files from my favorite music videos...
I don't have any favorite music videos.


Extracting the high res PCM tracks means that I can listen to those performances whenever and wherever I want, and I still have the option of watching them as well.
Ok. I guess if I were to find content I really liked and it costs no more than the CD, then that would work fine. Once I ripped the content, converted and redistributed it, then I'd toss the video.



Your "1.5%" claim about the music market is irrelevant, because you were presuming to know the audio quality preferences for people who do purchase videos...And again, how does this prove that audio quality is "largely" "immaterial" to the people who do buy videos? Enjoying the visual part does not exclude enjoying the audio part.
What people choose to buy is relevant. Why do you think video purchases represent a miniscule piece of the music pie?


You're the one that seems bent on equating your preferences with objective fact.
The RIAA data I cite is objective fact. Perhaps you should start a thread soliciting feedback from others as to why they don't buy music videos either. You seem to take affront with the overwhelming market choice.

rw

[Hyfi]

For the most part, they are not altered or enhanced, just mixed live, balanced and mastered in the studio.

Um, that means ALTERED. Any change to how it sounds to the people at the show is an alteration. What do you think everyone is talking about when the topic of recreating the live show means? How many people at any concert get to listen thru a Mixing Board?



What you hear coming from the PA is very different than what you hear direct from the mixing board. We don't use the FOH feed, or record what comes from the PA speakers. We send the mix to the recording truck or in house recording facility where it is balanced and fed to the disc drive or digital recorder.


A true live recording is done from the mic directly to the recorder, not thru a mixing board. Chesky uses 2 stereo mics and records directly to the recorder so what you hear on the recording is about as close to what you would have heard if there.

[Woochifer]

As we've already ascertained, your experience differs from mine. Does that bother you?

Doesn't bother me at all. If you've never enjoyed a live performance where the quality of the performance and the energy were both at a high level, then it's your loss.


How many times do I need to say that I don't care about the visuals?

And as I keep pointing out, even if you don't care about the visuals, the video discs themselves very often contain higher resolution PCM audio files. If you don't care for the visuals, turn the TV off, or rip the high res tracks and listen to them on whatever device you want. Sounds like you'd rather let your distaste for the visual component deny yourself the potential for higher resolution audio.


I don't have any favorite music videos.

Of course not, because you've deliberately limited your music choices by categorically excluding anything on video.


Ok. I guess if I were to find content I really liked and it costs no more than the CD, then that would work fine.

So, the cost of a CD is the most you'd pay for any music? Are you saying that you have never paid more for a higher resolution version of anything?


Once I ripped the content, converted and redistributed it, then I'd toss the video.

Sounds rather wasteful. Do you do the same with your CDs? If I have media I no longer want, I either sell it or donate it.


What people choose to buy is relevant. Why do you think video purchases represent a miniscule piece of the music pie?

And what percentage of total RIAA-tracked releases do video titles represent? Probably about the same percentage. You're completely ignoring the supply component.


The RIAA data I cite is objective fact. Perhaps you should start a thread soliciting feedback from others as to why they don't buy music videos either. You seem to take affront with the overwhelming market choice.

But, your interpretation of that data is not objective fact. You're the one claiming that audio quality is "largely" "immaterial" to those who do purchase videos. I'm pointing out that this claim is completely disconnected from your "1.5%" data since purchasers of videos are not excluded from purchasing other forms of music, and their choice to include music videos in their library says absolutely nothing about how much they prioritize audio quality.

You're still making the baseless assertion that people who buy music on video are less likely to appreciate audio quality. If this is so, then why would any music videos bother to include higher resolution audio tracks than CDs?

And given that the majority of music purchase transactions now involve lossy music downloads, what does this say about the music market in general -- especially given that a far higher percentage of music on video purchases include higher resolution (48/16 or higher) uncompressed audio tracks?

[E-Stat]

If you don't care for the visuals, turn the TV off, or rip the high res tracks and listen to them on whatever device you want.
I listen to music on the two audio only systems. Never on the HT. Using HDMI forces the monitor to be on with my Emotiva processor in order to get sound.


Of course not, because you've deliberately limited your music choices by categorically excluding anything on video.
Or, choice "B" - I simply haven't found anything I really want that isn't available in an audio medium as well. It appears that your primary listening system also supports video. That is not the case with me. Wifey uses the HT far more often than do I. Most often, I'm listening to one of the music systems located elsewhere while she is watching her stuff.


So, the cost of a CD is the most you'd pay for any music? Are you saying that you have never paid more for a higher resolution version of anything?
It is a question of critical mass and level of improvement. I have about half a dozen dual layer SACD recordings (because of content, not format), but never purchased a SACD player that would also offer equivalent performance on CDs to the GamuT player. At one time, I thought I would buy an EMM Labs unit like I've heard extensively at a reviewer's home, but never pulled the trigger given the expense. My current thinking is that I will eventually replace the CDP with a very nice DAC (like Ed Meitner's new model) using a computer based front end.



Sounds rather wasteful. Do you do the same with your CDs?
I actually play CDs upstairs and in the cars. The only way I could listen to DVD/Blu Ray content would be to rip the audio and convert to a format usable in the places where I listen to music. That renders the disc irrelevant.


And what percentage of total RIAA-tracked releases do video titles represent? Probably about the same percentage. You're completely ignoring the supply component.
If I understand your question correctly, the mix is two-thirds "digital" (track and download based) vs. one third "physical" media where DVDs represent 95% of that portion. Here (http://76.74.24.142/548C3F4C-6B6D-F702-384C-D25E2AB93610.pdf) again are the RIAA statistics for last year. They include unit and dollar sales. The 1.5% is based upon unit sales. Perhaps you may be able to answer your own question.



But, your interpretation of that data is not objective fact.
When are you ever going to answer my question as to why so few folks buy videos? Just to be able to go to the trouble of ripping higher than Redbook resolution audio?


You're still making the baseless assertion that people who buy music on video are less likely to appreciate audio quality.
What I suggest is that the primary motivation for buying a video release is to WATCH IT! The audio quality - good or bad is clearly secondary.



If this is so, then why would any music videos bother to include higher resolution audio tracks than CDs?
If my sales were as miserable, I would try anything to convince folks of a reason to buy my product. It's not working very well. Probably because most folks use receiver based systems where the differences aren't likely to be of great value anyway.


And given that the majority of music purchase transactions now involve lossy music downloads, what does this say about the music market in general -- especially given that a far higher percentage of music on video purchases include higher resolution (48/16 or higher) uncompressed audio tracks?
That the overwhelming number of folks couldn't care less about music video (even with the ability for the techies of that number to rip higher rez audio) - and audio quality beyond a certain point doesn't matter either.

rw

[Woochifer]

I listen to music on the two audio only systems. Never on the HT. Using HDMI forces the monitor to be on with my Emotiva processor in order to get sound.

What does this have to do with HT or HDMI? The digital audio files that I use are directly ripped from the uncompressed PCM tracks. This is no different than any other downloaded or ripped file source that you might use.


Or, choice "B" - I simply haven't found anything I really want that isn't available in an audio medium as well.

Yet, in many cases, where a particular performance is available in both video and audio formats, 1) the video format has more songs than the CD/digital download album; and 2) the video format uses higher resolution on the audio tracks than both the CD and digital download versions. So, if you choose the audio-only option here, you're settling for fewer songs and lower resolution audio.


It appears that your primary listening system also supports video. That is not the case with me. Wifey uses the HT far more often than do I. Most often, I'm listening to one of the music systems located elsewhere while she is watching her stuff.

Once again, an irrelevant tangent. You don't play music on a video-based system, and yet it does not require a video-based setup to listen to high resolution PCM tracks.


It is a question of critical mass and level of improvement. I have about half a dozen dual layer SACD recordings (because of content, not format), but never purchased a SACD player that would also offer equivalent performance on CDs to the GamuT player. At one time, I thought I would buy an EMM Labs unit like I've heard extensively at a reviewer's home, but never pulled the trigger given the expense. My current thinking is that I will eventually replace the CDP with a very nice DAC (like Ed Meitner's new model) using a computer based front end.

And your equipment name dropping does nothing to forward your arguments about the separation of performance and energy level, or about your presumptions about the audio quality expectations of people who purchase videos.


I actually play CDs upstairs and in the cars. The only way I could listen to DVD/Blu Ray content would be to rip the audio and convert to a format usable in the places where I listen to music. That renders the disc irrelevant.

If you must have a disc, the PCM files can be downsampled and burned onto CDs. Any other devices that can accept a digital file would play off of that. It's really not that hard.


If I understand your question correctly, the mix is two-thirds "digital" (track and download based) vs. one third "physical" media where DVDs represent 95% of that portion. Here (http://76.74.24.142/548C3F4C-6B6D-F702-384C-D25E2AB93610.pdf) again are the RIAA statistics for last year. They include unit and dollar sales. The 1.5% is based upon unit sales. Perhaps you may be able to answer your own question.

No, what I'm saying is that the number of video music releases is far less than the number of audio music releases. Your data says nothing about the total number of titles in circulation. Do video music releases account for 1.5% of the total music titles in circulation? If so, then the unit sales are simply proportion to the supply (i.e., the total number of combined music titles -- audio and video).


When are you ever going to answer my question as to why so few folks buy videos?

Once again, your interpretation of the data is lacking. Your "1.5%" stat says nothing about the number of consumers who buy both music and video. Music on video makes up about 6% of my total music library (~900 albums and ~50 music videos), so this is not exactly a revelation.

Your question presumes that the groups are mutually exclusive. And it says nothing to support your assertion that video purchasers care less about audio quality than other music consumers. When are you ever going to answer that question?


Just to be able to go to the trouble of ripping higher than Redbook resolution audio?

AND have the option of watching the video at the same time. Higher resolution and multichannel audio, plus video -- the best of all worlds. If I need to play it on a CD player, I simply downconvert the PCM file and burn it to a CD. If I want to play it through a media server, I dial up the 48/16, 48/24, or 96/24 PCM file and it's good to go. If I want to watch it with multichannel audio, I play the disc.


What I suggest is that the primary motivation for buying a video release is to WATCH IT! The audio quality - good or bad is clearly secondary.

Again, where's your proof that to people who purchase videos, audio quality is "largely" "immaterial"? You still haven't answered that question.


If my sales were as miserable, I would try anything to convince folks of a reason to buy my product. It's not working very well. Probably because most folks use receiver based systems where the differences aren't likely to be of great value anyway.

And once again, you're ignoring the supply component. The RIAA data says nothing about the number of titles in circulation, nor the average sales for each title. If you're going to say something about "miserable" sales, then you need to look at how many releases there actually are.

A whole lotta guesses on your part, but it doesn't change the fact that videos are very often providing higher resolution than CDs and audio downloads.


That the overwhelming number of folks couldn't care less about music video (even with the ability for the techies of that number to rip higher rez audio) - and audio quality beyond a certain point doesn't matter either.

No, it says that the overwhelming majority of the market that purchases audio could care less about even CD caliber quality. Which BTW undermines your whole hypothesis about video purchasers being less audio quality conscious than audio-only purchasers. The majority of audio purchases are now less-than-CD quality, yet a substantial percentage of video purchases use higher-than-CD audio resolution.

Like I asked before, if audio quality is "largely" "immaterial" to video purchasers, why bother with providing higher resolution audio in the first place? I guess it never occurred to you that a lot of people who buy music on video actually care about the audio quality, and the inclusion of higher res PCM tracks reflects consumer preferences/demand.

[E-Stat]

What does this have to do with HT or HDMI?
There's no "turning off the TV" as you said with audio only systems. While it is not the reason I don't listen to music on the HT system (the one that can play BR/DVD), turning off the TV also turns off the audio.


The digital audio files that I use are directly ripped from the uncompressed PCM tracks. This is no different than any other downloaded or ripped file source that you might use.
Naturally.



Yet, in many cases, where a particular performance is available in both video and audio formats, 1) the video format has more songs than the CD/digital download album; and 2) the video format uses higher resolution on the audio tracks than both the CD and digital download versions. So, if you choose the audio-only option here, you're settling for fewer songs and lower resolution audio.
Interesting. Please cite say two examples where that is the case.




Once again, an irrelevant tangent. You don't play music on a video-based system, and yet it does not require a video-based setup to listen to high resolution PCM tracks.
The reason has nothing to do with the format. The quality of the electronics and speakers of the HT isn't in the same league as that of the upstairs music system.




And your equipment name dropping does nothing to forward your arguments about the separation of performance and energy level
You're still stuck on that topic? :)


, or about your presumptions about the audio quality expectations of people who purchase videos.
Why not ask others here why they purchase video music? My guess is that audio quality is not the primary factor. Let's see, shall we?



If you must have a disc, the PCM files can be downsampled and burned onto CDs.
Kudos for your ability to deliver understatement. It certainly is more convenient, however, to put the disk you bought into your player.



Any other devices that can accept a digital file would play off of that. It's really not that hard.
Which continues to render the DVD/BR disk useless once you've ripped, converted and distributed the usable format..




No, what I'm saying is that the number of video music releases is far less than the number of audio music releases.
No $hit. We crossed that border long ago. Of the total releases, video releases make up 1.5% of the total.



Your data says nothing about the total number of titles in circulation. Do video music releases account for 1.5% of the total music titles in circulation?
Obviously, you would need more data to answer that question.



Once again, your interpretation of the data is lacking. Your "1.5%" stat says nothing about the number of consumers who buy both music and video. Music on video makes up about 6% of my total music library (~900 albums and ~50 music videos), so this is not exactly a revelation.
Obviously - again - that suggests that of the 9.1 million folks who bought physical media, your behavior is different. Congratulations!



Your question presumes that the groups are mutually exclusive. And it says nothing to support your assertion that video purchasers care less about audio quality than other music consumers.
You remain quite confused as to what I think. I will be happy to respond to anything I've actually posted.



AND have the option of watching the video at the same time.
If you give a $hit. Most folks don't. You're continuing to mention the obvious has no effect on the data.


Higher resolution and multichannel audio, plus video -- the best of all worlds.
Great sales pitch, but most folks couldn't care less. Obviously. Sorry your commission has been adversely affected by market choice.




If I need to play it on a CD player, I simply downconvert the PCM file and burn it to a CD. If I want to play it through a media server, I dial up the 48/16, 48/24, or 96/24 PCM file and it's good to go. If I want to watch it with multichannel audio, I play the disc.
And for that, I award you a gold star!

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/M/Z/m/P/R/O/gold-star-md.png


Again, where's your proof that to people who purchase videos, audio quality is "largely" "immaterial"?
Of course I have. THEY WANT TO WATCH A VIDEO.



And once again, you're ignoring the supply component. The RIAA data says nothing about the number of titles in circulation, nor the average sales for each title.
A whole lotta guesses on your part, but it doesn't change the fact that videos are very often providing higher resolution than CDs and audio downloads.
So your assertion is that there really isn't much good video purchased last year. That was all done in previous years. Only audio based music continues to increase sales.




No, it says that the overwhelming majority of the market that purchases audio could care less about even CD caliber quality.
That's what I said. They could care less. It's not important.


Which BTW undermines your whole hypothesis about video purchasers being less audio quality conscious than audio-only purchasers.
You remain quite confused. What I've continued to observe is the obvious - the primary reason folks buy video is to watch video.

I'm signing out of this ludicrous exchange. Have a nice day - even if the world isn't behaving like it should from your perspective!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Um, that means ALTERED. Any change to how it sounds to the people at the show is an alteration. What do you think everyone is talking about when the topic of recreating the live show means? How many people at any concert get to listen thru a Mixing Board?

Hyfi, this is a ridiculous comment. A recording is a snapshot of the live event. As such it must be "altered" to sound acceptable on the media that it is transferred to. There is no recording system or media that can capture(or play it back) a live event like it is heard in the hall. It would require hundreds of microphones(to capture every discrete reflection) to record, and hundreds of speakers to play it back.




A true live recording is done from the mic directly to the recorder, not thru a mixing board. Chesky uses 2 stereo mics and records directly to the recorder so what you hear on the recording is about as close to what you would have heard if there.

Sorry, you are trying to reinvent what a live recording is. A live recording is simply a capture of a live event, no matter how it is done. When it comes to recording, there is no one way fits all circumstances, and that is something you learn when you actually have to record rather than just sit back and listen. Telarc and Naxos both produced "audiophile" grade recordings, and they both use mixing boards to assist in balancing what they capture. There is no way a single stereo microphone can capture a 110 piece orchestra in a concert hall with all the proper balance needed for playback. The musicians would have to have perfect control of their sound in respect to other musicians, and that is difficult to do when you are outer edges of the orchestra in placement. Add a large chorus into the mix, and you lose all control of balance.

Secondly you are making the assumption that the mixing board somehow blocks a recording from sounding live. That is simply not true. Their are mixing boards out there that are as neutral to the sound as the microphones used to capture it.

[MADCSRT8]

I don't know if I am an audiophile or not...not really clear what defines one...but I do know I have been a music junkie (I'll define that as someone who lives and breathes with music always with them, whether it's a playback, using an instrument or that annoying tune in the head that will never go away :D) who really prefers 2.1 channel excellence for music and 7.1 audio for the video enjoyment.

[Woochifer]

There's no "turning off the TV" as you said with audio only systems. While it is not the reason I don't listen to music on the HT system (the one that can play BR/DVD), turning off the TV also turns off the audio.

And again, try to think outside of the little boxes that you've separated everything into. As I've stated repeatedly, it's not that hard to listen to the audio tracks from a video release on a music-only device. Rip the tracks, and then either burn it to CD or load up the uncompressed high res PCM tracks via media server. You use a Squeezebox, so it's not like you're unfamiliar with this process.


Interesting. Please cite say two examples where that is the case.

Just from own collection: Bruce Springsteen Live in New York City, and Rush Grace Under Pressure Tour.


The reason has nothing to do with the format. The quality of the electronics and speakers of the HT isn't in the same league as that of the upstairs music system.

And again, my reasoning is that it's irrelevant, since the tracks can be ripped and transferred to a format that will play on a music-only system, regardless of whatever namedropping you wish to do.


You're still stuck on that topic? :)

Nope, just pointing out that naming a bunch of components doesn't support any of the assertions that you've made about those topics.


Why not ask others here why they purchase video music? My guess is that audio quality is not the primary factor. Let's see, shall we?

You're the one making that point, or as you are now more accurately stating, that "guess." And your original point was not about "the primary factor" it was that audio quality is "largely" "immaterial" to those who do purchase videos. Even if video is "the primary factor" for purchasers, it still does not support your "immaterial" point. Once again, you seem bent of trying to paint people into mutually exclusive categories that don't exist.


Kudos for your ability to deliver understatement. It certainly is more convenient, however, to put the disk you bought into your player.

So, it's now just about convenience! What about audio quality? Are you now saying that higher resolution doesn't matter?

Buying just the CD denies all of the other benefits that video release provides. Ripping the high res audio tracks from a DVD is certainly less time consuming than transferring a LP.


Which continues to render the DVD/BR disk useless once you've ripped, converted and distributed the usable format.

How's the video disc "useless" after ripping the audio tracks? It still does the same thing as it did before. Extracting the audio simply extends the utility of the purchase.


No $hit. We crossed that border long ago. Of the total releases, video releases make up 1.5% of the total.

Didn't cross anything. There's a big difference between the number of unit sales and the number of titles. Your point ignores the supply component.


Obviously - again - that suggests that of the 9.1 million folks who bought physical media, your behavior is different. Congratulations!

You remain quite confused as to what I think. I will be happy to respond to anything I've actually posted.

Oh, I think it's quite clear -- you made an unsupportable presumption about the audio quality preferences of people, and you're now throwing up a bunch of tangential, unrelated information when asked for evidence.


If you give a $hit. Most folks don't. You're continuing to mention the obvious has no effect on the data.

But, unless you have data that covers the format split between releases simultaneously release both audio and video versions, you don't have proof here either. As I keep saying, you're ignoring the supply component.


Great sales pitch, but most folks couldn't care less. Obviously. Sorry your commission has been adversely affected by market choice.

Ah, the ole shill accusation. Got nothing better to add, eh?


Of course I have. THEY WANT TO WATCH A VIDEO.

And again, this is "immaterial" to your assertion that audio quality is "largely" "immaterial" to those who do purchase videos. It certainly doesn't constitute proof of anything you've claimed.


So your assertion is that there really isn't much good video purchased last year. That was all done in previous years. Only audio based music continues to increase sales.

Once again trying to obfuscate the issue. The unit sales trends only point to a shift in the music market towards individual track sales. CD sales actually declined faster than music videos.


You remain quite confused. What I've continued to observe is the obvious - the primary reason folks buy video is to watch video.

Ah, but that's not what you said and you know it. You were trying to make an argument about audio quality, and none of your purported data says anything to support that contention. My counterpoint has been that audio quality is not "largely" "immaterial" given that many if not most releases come with higher-than-CD resolution audio tracks. The content of the video releases versus the content of audio releases does not support your contention. If anything, your backtracking is aimed at confusing the issue.


I'm signing out of this ludicrous exchange. Have a nice day - even if the world isn't behaving like it should from your perspective!

Ludicrous only because that description befits your original assertions. From my vantage point, "the world" is what it is. I'm not the one presuming to know what's "largely" "immaterial" to one group of consumers from another. You seem to be the one claiming to have all the answers. :cool:

[hifitommy]

it seems simple to route the audio through the pre/pro, not the tv.

[E-Stat]

And again...
Yours is certainly the last...repetitive word. LOL!

rw

[Woochifer]

Yours is certainly the last...repetitive word. LOL!

rw

I thought you were done with that "ludicrous" exchange, but still have to get the last word, eh? :4:

[hifitommy]

word!