New Audio Format

Sony has come up with new audio format i.e Blue Spec CD.
According to Sony,Blue Spec cd will be compatible with normal cd players.
It takes advantage of Sony’s Blu-ray Disc technology to press new high-quality discs while somehow maintaining compatibility with regular old red-laser CD players.

Here's the Japanese press release with google translate....

Attached Image (Click thumbnail to expand)

That format is here today and gone tomorrow.

Just like all the other attempts to make digitized music survive.

They should make a standardized format with 24 bit or higher and 96 kHz sampling frequency or higher.
First then digital music, at least, could compete in sound quality with some cassette decks.

"dolph"

When I read a statement like this I wonder just how badly affected one's hearing has to be to be serious. C'mon already! Cassettes sounding better than CD's? Gimme a break awready!

Actually, Sony did come up with precisely that which the above poster wants, and it's the SACD. On a good system, and on a good player (the Marantz SA-8001, or its successor, the 8003), the sound of an SACD can be quite impressive and involving, without any of the glare or harshness one often associates with CD's. How does it compare to a cassette? Well, how does a Porterhouse steak compare to chuck?

When I read a statement like this I wonder just how badly affected one's hearing has to be to be serious. C'mon already! Cassettes sounding better than CD's? Gimme a break awready!

Actually, Sony did come up with precisely that which the above poster wants, and it's the SACD. On a good system, and on a good player (the Marantz SA-8001, or its successor, the 8003), the sound of an SACD can be quite impressive and involving, without any of the glare or harshness one often associates with CD's. How does it compare to a cassette? Well, how does a Porterhouse steak compare to chuck?

Yeah..............well................I know about SACD.

You just disagree with me because you havn't heard what I have.

I have been working with master recordings and chose the highest ever digital resolution..............................as the back-up.....................

And the choise was the analog tape as the main system because it is SUPERIOR to digital recording.

Mind you, I have been doing master recordings as a tape operator and sound engineer since my days as Radio Broadcasting Tech in the late 70's.

You directly blame it on my hearing and I directly blame it on your inexperience when it comes to what you have heard of high quality gear and very well mastered releases.

"dolph"

I dont know, I think its just about money, kinda like a car manufacturer fazes out a car design after 5 years and introduces a new model. the new model may not be any better but have a shinier color of paint.

but the consumer loves the idea of having the newest greatest thing. which most likely isnt any better.

elroy

Digitized music has a future based on convenience. And it can survive- and prosper- with advances in recording technique and better digital to audio gear.



In your defense, there's something sensual and nearly magical to analogue that much digital attempts really got to stretch and reach for to come close (in most aspects).

A standardized format with 24 bit or higher and 96 kHz sampling frequency or higher is indeed a great idea. And I personally would vote for "higher".

However, I'd re-phrase that some cassette decks could at least compete in sound quality with (quality) digital music.

Dolph- have you spent time with quality recordings, properly mastered and put on disc, and heard through a really nice transport and DAC?


I've heard cassette sound jaw-dropping good- but that's the exception to the rule. Tons of mediocre mastered cassettes and players that fall far short from the capabilities of a well designed 3-head player, products from Tascam, Nakamichi, etc....

You're making an awful lot of assumptions that just aren't so. I have heard cassettes that blew me away, but I've never heard one compare to a well engineered SACD. More importantly, that's not just my opinion, but that of several recording engineers I know - some who have been in the business of recording classical music in all formats for at least as long as you have, and others who are newer to the business and who have Grammy awards for their work.

I know I'll never convince an analog addict that digital is better. In many cases it isn't, but in others I believe it is. That's my opinion for sure, but also that of "professional" ears as well, so get off your pedestal and accept that there are opinions of others that differ from yours, and shouldn't be so callously disregarded.

You know, I'd rather see some form of quality flash drive format.

they were somewhat on the right direction with minidisc and ATRAC, though far from 100%

Digitized music has a future based on convenience. And it can survive- and prosper- with advances in recording technique and better digital to audio gear.



In your defense, there's something sensual and nearly magical to analogue that much digital attempts really got to stretch and reach for to come close (in most aspects).

A standardized format with 24 bit or higher and 96 kHz sampling frequency or higher is indeed a great idea. And I personally would vote for "higher".

However, I'd re-phrase that some cassette decks could at least compete in sound quality with (quality) digital music.

Dolph- have you spent time with quality recordings, properly mastered and put on disc, and heard through a really nice transport and DAC?


I've heard cassette sound jaw-dropping good- but that's the exception to the rule. Tons of mediocre mastered cassettes and players that fall far short from the capabilities of a well designed 3-head player, products from Tascam, Nakamichi, etc....

Most cassette decks are not made with sound quality in mind.

I have been making high quality master recordings myself as tape operator and sound engineer. Many times.
I have been using 24796 digital back ups because the analog R2R was giving better results.

I have been experimenting with 32/192 but t5hat didn't help me to choose digital recording as main system.


And I have lots and lots of the very best sounding published LP's and CD's among my +5000 LP's and +1000 CD's.

I would still say that the best cassette decks has potential of delivering better sound quality than any digital source.

If FM is broadcasted from a well set up live acoustic jazz event and passed through to the end user as purely analog signals and if you have one of the best tuners to recieve it with and you have the best antenna conditions, this will be so amazingly beautiful to listen to.

I remember how it used to be on the FM band.

I'm not in doubt that digital music is here to stay.
It's convinient, user friendly, easy-edited and it's giving more money outcome for the companies.

When it comes to the quality of sound, digital will never get to the level of the best analog.
It's all about making it sound as true to the original Analog Reference.
How can something chopped in pieces and put together again ever be better than the recording that stays analog?

However, most people wouldn't be able to hear the difference between the best of both worlds.

"dolph"

You're making an awful lot of assumptions that just aren't so. I have heard cassettes that blew me away, but I've never heard one compare to a well engineered SACD. More importantly, that's not just my opinion, but that of several recording engineers I know - some who have been in the business of recording classical music in all formats for at least as long as you have, and others who are newer to the business and who have Grammy awards for their work.

I know I'll never convince an analog addict that digital is better. In many cases it isn't, but in others I believe it is. That's my opinion for sure, but also that of "professional" ears as well, so get off your pedestal and accept that there are opinions of others that differ from yours, and shouldn't be so callously disregarded.

Digital equipment is only better sounding than analog equipment when it's mediocre or low-end gear of both natures.
When comparing TOTL digital to TOTL analog, the analog comes out as the best sounding.

Forget the pro thing you claim to know about.
The best ever sounding distributed music came or is coming out on R2R no matter what your so called grammy winning friends say or what your opinion is.

For a present example you better buy some tapes from The Tape Project and listen to it when played on a proper R2R machine alligned to the tape.

And if you have ever heard a cassette tape recorded on the Tandberg TCD 910 (400 made) and played back on the Tandberg TCD 911 (40 made), then you have some reason to state your opinion about comparing SACD to Cassette.

Otherwise, let us, who has, talk about how realities are.

"dolph"

i thought cassette lacked the bandwidth to perform at anything better than a second best option.

that is entirely a matter of preference. i've heard enough good and bad in both formats to believe that there isnt enough difference to sway those who prefer one format to adopt the other.

i thought cassette lacked the bandwidth to perform at anything better than a second best option.

that is entirely a matter of preference. i've heard enough good and bad in both formats to believe that there isnt enough difference to sway those who prefer one format to adopt the other.

Cassette has better frequency response than CD.

But Frequency Response is only one of hundreds or thousands of parametres influencing on the sound in whole.

"dolph"

The "pro thing" you're telling me to forget is both Jack Renner (founder, and former president and chief recording engineer at Telarc) as well as several key individuals still working there.

You have some nerve referring to my "so-called" Grammy-Award Winning friend. This fellow won a Grammy for his engineering for the St. Mattew Passion on Teldec. What Grammys have you won?

I've read some of your other posts, and it seems the only reason you're here is to make trouble and insult the rest of who enjoy discussions (not lectures) about that which we prefer. You've been told before to climb back under the rock you came out from, and I'm happy to join in on that chorus. There's no need to insult me, or others, simply to state an opinion that none of the rest of us here agree with. Do you actually have the temerity to say we're all wrong, and only you are right?

That says it all. You're just plain nuts.

To be honest, I'd prefer a hamburger. Don't really care for steak.

Now what?