Dirty New Shirt VS Clean but Slightly Bleached Shirt

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Now that's what I'm talking about! Why can't we get that kind of resolution on iTunes and Amazon??? I can't wait for the day when that level of quality is easily accessible...

The problem with getting that from either retail downloading site is bandwidth and storage. You need the bandwidth so you can quickly download the huge file before the entire system times out. Storage would be a huge problem, as you would have to cut 3/4 of your low rez stuff just to store a quarter of this high resolution stuff. The economical feasibility of that does not work out for either the consumer, or the retailer.

[GMichael]

The problem with getting that from either retail downloading site is bandwidth and storage. You need the bandwidth so you can quickly download the huge file before the entire system times out. Storage would be a huge problem, as you would have to cut 3/4 of your low rez stuff just to store a quarter of this high resolution stuff. The economical feasibility of that does not work out for either the consumer, or the retailer.

Yet...

Someday it will get here. With affordable drives already topping 3 TB and memory prices dropping, it's all just a matter of time. Come on progress!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yet...

Someday it will get here. With affordable drives already topping 3 TB and memory prices dropping, it's all just a matter of time. Come on progress!

Its got a long way to go though. You have talked about advances on one side of the wall, but bandwidth and storage on the other side of the wall has light years to go. First, DXD files are huge, even when downcoverted to 24/192khz. That means less songs per server, which makes storing them FAR more expensive than the typical itunes song. Hence higher prices, of which the public has shown little tolerance for with digital files.

In order for high resolution audio to be downloaded as quickly as a typical Itunes song, you are going to need internet speeds far in excess to what we currently have. The internet speeds in our country are going down, not up, and that does not point to a pipeline big enough to make these files sizes economically feasible to support. If you start to see dust ups like the Comcast versus Level 3 happening, then it will take much longer for us to get there.

On the consumer side, yes drive sizes have increased and prices have dropped in terms of storage, and processing power has increased. But we have huge hurdles before we even get to this point.

[GMichael]

Its got a long way to go though. You have talked about advances on one side of the wall, but bandwidth and storage on the other side of the wall has light years to go. First, DXD files are huge, even when downcoverted to 24/192khz. That means less songs per server, which makes storing them FAR more expensive than the typical itunes song. Hence higher prices, of which the public has shown little tolerance for with digital files.

In order for high resolution audio to be downloaded as quickly as a typical Itunes song, you are going to need internet speeds far in excess to what we currently have. The internet speeds in our country are going down, not up, and that does not point to a pipeline big enough to make these files sizes economically feasible to support. If you start to see dust ups like the Comcast versus Level 3 happening, then it will take much longer for us to get there.

On the consumer side, yes drive sizes have increased and prices have dropped in terms of storage, and processing power has increased. But we have huge hurdles before we even get to this point.

I agree about the bandwidth. It will be awhile before downloads can hit that quality. How about disk formats? Can a BR support those numbers? If not, how close can it get us? Then download from the disk onto a home based server.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I agree about the bandwidth. It will be awhile before downloads can hit that quality. How about disk formats? Can a BR support those numbers? If not, how close can it get us? Then download from the disk onto a home based server.

BR discs get you the 24/192khz over 5 channels. I cannot remember where I read it, but one reviewer compared a download of a concert, to the Bluray disc of the same concert. Same bit rate(24bit), and same sample rate(192khz). He clearly stated the BR disc sounded better than the download. I suspect that his DAC's(Wolfson coming out of his Pioneer) and the Sharc(from his streaming media player) are not of the same quality.

You can rip a Bluray disc to a server, but that server would have to be BD+, BD watermark, and HDCP compliant, are you are not going to have much success at playing it back.

[GMichael]

BR discs get you the 24/192khz over 5 channels. I cannot remember where I read it, but one reviewer compared a download of a concert, to the Bluray disc of the same concert. Same bit rate(24bit), and same sample rate(192khz). He clearly stated the BR disc sounded better than the download. I suspect that his DAC's(Wolfson coming out of his Pioneer) and the Sharc(from his streaming media player) are not of the same quality.

You can rip a Bluray disc to a server, but that server would have to be BD+, BD watermark, and HDCP compliant, are you are not going to have much success at playing it back.

Although it’s not 32bit 352.8khz sample rate, BR sure seems like it’s pretty good at 24/192khz over 5 channels. Could that be increased for people only interested in 2 channel, or is 24/192 the speed limit?

Are there BR servers available yet? In the works? At least though of? The masses like convenient. Me2.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Although it’s not 32bit 352.8khz sample rate, BR sure seems like it’s pretty good at 24/192khz over 5 channels. Could that be increased for people only interested in 2 channel, or is 24/192 the speed limit?

24/192khz is the speed limit, and for a good reason. Beyond that, the ear hears no improvement. Let's face it, the sonic difference between 24/96khz and 24/192khz is identifiable upon very close scrutiny, but very slight at best. At 24bit depth, you already have far more dynamic range than any analog recording and playback device. At 192 thousand samples a second you are already mimicking analog's continuous capture capabilities, supposedly analog's trump card on digital.

DXD is really a recording format, not a playback format(even though I can play it back in its native form on my system). 32/352.8khz is really beyond what is needed on any consumer format. It was designed to give plenty of bit overhead for post production purposes, so we could record the audio at 24/176 or 24/192khz, and still have enough bits for equalization, level changes, and editing in post production. So if you record at 32/352.8, edit, equalize and level at the same bit and sample rate, when you downconvert the results to 24/192khz, it is perceptively lossless to the ears. Everything is done beyond the capabilities of the human ear, unlike anything in audio we have heard before it. Everything from microphones, mixing desks and DAW's, and editing software operates at resolutions beyond what we can hear, and that is the beauty of DXD, and 24/192khz audio. Any damage done to the recording from downconverting from 32 to 24bits, would still be beyond the resolving capabilities of our ears(and equipment). We have never had that auditory advantage in audio production(and reproduction) in its history.

Are there BR servers available yet? In the works? At least though of? The masses like convenient. Me2.

Yes there are. But they are all priced in the stratosphere, which is why they are not really being talked about anywhere. The masses cannot afford this kind of convenience unfortunately.