Producer: CD quality isn't good enough

It all depends on your recording quality and your playback device. I don't think I own any audio gear that could do better than what CDs provide.
 
Nearly all people don't have the gear to hear a source that's better than a CD, so I'm not sure what his belly aching is about. He could release to SACD or DVD-A if he wanted.
 
And the other question is, do most people only have stereos that can output CD-quality sound because that is the quality of CDs?

If the quality of the most common medium was much higher, would the average person have a better stereo? (Excluding Tannin, of course)
 
ddrueding said:
I thought that both of those were only significantly better if you were outputting in more than 2 channels?
Click to expand...
They do have significantly more resolution than CD audio in a 2 channel application. Most released SACD's and DVD-A's have been in 5.1 sound though. They always include a stereo version on the disc though.
 
Stereodude said:
Nearly all people don't have the gear to hear a source that's better than a CD, so I'm not sure what his belly aching is about. He could release to SACD or DVD-A if he wanted.
Click to expand...

Or *you* could click on the link in the OP and read the article...*if* you wanted, lol

To fix the problem Burnett wants his future projects, like the new John Mellencamp album he produced that's due in July, to come out on DVD-Audio, with a bevy of formats including 24 bit/96 kHz WAV files, uncompressed 16bit/44.1kHz files, AAC, and MP3, so you can pick the level of fidelity that works for you. Burnett claims you'll finally get to hear the music as he intended when he made the record in the first place. "It's all part of what makes music feel good."
You can listen to the complete T-Bone Burnett interview here.
Click to expand...
 
udaman said:
Or *you* could click on the link in the OP and read the article...*if* you wanted, lol
Click to expand...
I did read the article, but thanks...

The fact is he's whining about the quality of the CD when there have been better alternatives out there for years that he hasn't been using, but don't worry, he'll start using them soon. :confused:
 
He's being unrealistic about the kind of quality he wants everyone to have. But I sure can relate to where he's coming from. I was in a recording studio a couple of times, with the engineer that does the actual mixing of the live performance. The "presence" and fidelity of the sound was simply astounding. Of course that was in an accoustically controlled environment. But after hearing that, everything else just pales in comparison. I suspect he's gotten used to that kind of sound and finds everything else flat and dull.
 
I suspect that T Bone at 60 is just a grumpy old man that remembers what it used to sound like. How many musicians that old have hearing worth a damn?

Comment from original link
"What is the current human evolved frequency range now-a-days and will that need to be updated."
 
udaman said:
Quote:
To fix the problem Burnett wants his future projects, like the new John Mellencamp album he produced that's due in July, to come out on DVD-Audio, with a bevy of formats including 24 bit/96 kHz WAV files, uncompressed 16bit/44.1kHz files, AAC, and MP3, so you can pick the level of fidelity that works for you. Burnett claims you'll finally get to hear the music as he intended when he made the record in the first place. "It's all part of what makes music feel good."
You can listen to the complete T-Bone Burnett interview here.
Click to expand...

This is what Trent has done with the last 2 NINs releases, available as DVD-A, CD, MP3, WAV. Works well at no additionally cost, other than spending the time downsampling to the lower resolutions from 32bit/128kHz...
 
Lets not forget that SACD came out 9 year ago. Where was T-bone over the last 9 years. So now he's going to release albums on a format that died several years ago (DVD-A).
 
Chewy509 said:
This is what Trent has done with the last 2 NINs releases, available as DVD-A, CD, MP3, WAV. Works well at no additionally cost, other than spending the time downsampling to the lower resolutions from 32bit/128kHz...
Click to expand...
You can download "The Slip" in 24bit/96kHz. I did. :D
 
Very few people will pay for the slightly better sound quality.

BTW, there is a cure for the recorded sound complaints.
Get off your ass and go to the symphony or opera! Listen to the real thing, music and vocals by human beings.
 
I don't see what the big deal is about. Conversion from analog to any digital format degrades the sound. And, I would guess over 80% of the music is being played on some sort of portable device through 'ear buds'. You don't need quality, it just has to be loud.

Bozo :joker:
 
T-Bone Burnett and Brian Lanois are my favorite producers.

Burnett started out as a musician but has worked as a producer for the last ten years.
 
CD quality is OK, but it's almost impossible to extract the full potential of the CD. You'll probably need a $5000+ CD player to even come close. The best solution today is probably to rip the CD's and get one of these. Even a Squeezebox would probably give a big improvement for most of us.

Linn declares that even their second cheapest DS-player "outperforms any CD player and provides the convenience of browsing your entire music collection at the touch of a button, to transform the way you experience music".

Now, if only more record companies could start selling high quality downloads...
 
Blu-ray allows for multiple channels of 24-bit/96kHz via uncompressed PCM, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio.
 
Stereodude said:
What??? :confused:
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that too. But, I don't really like arguing with people about that stuff. Every time I walk into a high-end audio store some salesman tries to tell me some bullshit that I know is garbage, I usually just smile and nod.

Last year a salesman insisted that a coax cable will provide a better digital reproduction of sound than an optical cable would. I tried to explain that it would be exactly the same, but he just didn't get it. Which might explain why anyone would ever buy this.
 
Stereodude said:
What??? :confused:
Click to expand...

I mean, I've listened to a Linn Sondek CD12 that used to cost $20000 around 2004 and it sounded pretty good. It actually made Linn's own $10000 Unidisk 1.1 sound like utter crap in comparison. And there's a few more steps down to the sound quality of the $200-$2000 CD players that most of us have at home. That's what I meant by saying that it's a bit (or rather extremely) difficult to extract the maximum sound quality from a CD.

I don't disagree with the statement that a SACD or DVD-A recording will sound better than a CD on the same equipment. But the SACD or DVD-A source would probably get spanked senseless by a DS player for around half it's price (or less) when playing material with the same quality.
 
timwhit said:
I would disagree with that too. But, I don't really like arguing with people about that stuff. Every time I walk into a high-end audio store some salesman tries to tell me some bullshit that I know is garbage, I usually just smile and nod.

Last year a salesman insisted that a coax cable will provide a better digital reproduction of sound than an optical cable would. I tried to explain that it would be exactly the same, but he just didn't get it. Which might explain why anyone would ever buy this.
Click to expand...
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080618&mode=classic
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080619&mode=classic
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080619&mode=classic
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080621&mode=classic

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top