Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 66 of 66
  1. #51
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.
    Last edited by Woochifer; 11-03-2011 at 01:14 PM.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  2. #52
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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

  3. #53
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  4. #54
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    I extract the PCM audio files from my favorite music videos...
    I don't have any favorite music videos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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

  5. #55
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post



    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    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.

  6. #56
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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?
    Last edited by Woochifer; 11-04-2011 at 11:53 AM.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  7. #57
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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 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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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
    Last edited by E-Stat; 11-04-2011 at 01:59 PM.

  8. #58
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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 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).

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.
    Last edited by Woochifer; 11-04-2011 at 05:04 PM.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  9. #59
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    , 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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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..



    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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!


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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!



    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    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
    Last edited by E-Stat; 11-04-2011 at 06:07 PM.

  10. #60
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post
    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.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  11. #61
    Audio File
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hillsboro, Oregon
    Posts
    11
    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 ) who really prefers 2.1 channel excellence for music and 7.1 audio for the video enjoyment.
    Seeking Audio Nirvana


  12. #62
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  13. #63
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442
    it seems simple to route the audio through the pre/pro, not the tv.
    ...regards...tr

  14. #64
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post
    And again...
    Yours is certainly the last...repetitive word. LOL!

    rw

  15. #65
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    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?
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  16. #66
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442
    word!
    ...regards...tr

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •