Feedback request: Haken in hi-rez
- Thread starter lasercd
- Start date
I don't understand your question. My mastering engineer would supply me with a true 24 bit file. Compact disc is a 16 bit medium. I would need to present this on some format other than CD. My thought was a USB stick.
AngraRULES
Member
Color me ignorant if you would, but I don't think I have ever listened to a release in "hi-res" or "higher quality". I've often seen FLAC, etc being mentioned but never actually listened to that type of file. Is the quality really that much better? Can you tell the difference using regular headphones/listening to it on your iPod?
Kaosaur
Member
Most FLAC files that you encounter in the wild are rips from the CD anyway. You're not really gaining anything (substantial) by listening to a CD-rip in FLAC versus some other high quality formats...you're just not losing any additional information (past what was lost going from the master to CD). There are some exceptions to this, mainly ripped SACDs, ripped DVD-As, leaked masters, and digital releases in FLAC.
Yes, properly produced music in the proper format does indeed sound "better".
SkiBumMSP
Member
Well, I guess it is time to for me to chime in on this one as I got quite a bit of experience in this sort of thing.
First, FLAC which means Free Lossless Audio Codec is a totally lossless audio codec. That means even though the music is compressed, it is still completely lossless in that no quality was sacrificed in the name of saving space. In reference, a typical .WAV file at standard redbook audio CD format of 16bit/44.1 kHz sample rate takes about 10 megabytes per minute of music. That same file compressed using FLAC runs about 5 or so megabytes per minute. By comparison standard MP3 format is a "lossy" compression scheme. In other words, it sacrifices quality in an effort to save space. This is typically done by attempting to "throw away" the high or low frequencies that may be beyond typical listening range or what most typical playback equipment is capable of reproducing. Higher bitrate means less quality is sacrificed, thus resulting a larger file, but better quality sound. It is claimed that on most typical playback equipment 320 kbps (kilo bits per second) MP3, people typically could not distinguish it from regular CD playback. However, once you start getting into some pretty high-end gear such as what I have, it is possible to tell the difference, but you have to know what to listen for. In terms of storage, typical 320kbps MP3 file runs about 2 megabytes per minute, with 192kbps at about 1.5 megabytes/minute and 128kbps (which is regarded as the bare minimum to get decent quality for music) at 1 meg/minute. I personally will not go less than 192 kbps on my own equipment. I can definitely tell a 128kbps file and it can sound pretty grungy on my own rig. Of course, the real snooty audiophile types will not even touch MP3 or AAC or any of the other so-called "lossy" codecs with a ten-foot pole.
EDIT: I forgot to mention. Apple's iPod (the 'classic' nor any of the 'iOS' devices) does not support FLAC. However, they do support Apples Lossless (and I would imagine there are tools you can get to convert between the two). However, I don't know if any of the iPods can actually play 24/96 files or if the Apple lossless codec even supports that (I don't see any indication the codec cannot not, as I believe the more recent Macs can play such high-res files as well).
With that said, what Ken is proposing to do here is provide audio files at much higher sampling rate of 24bits/96 mhz sampling rate. That is what is being used on DVD audio and SACD as well as much of the soundtracks on these new Blu-Ray HD disks. My rig is capable of playing back such and it really does sound much better than even most typical CD recordings (provided the recording itself is of good quality - after all if the recording itself is shit, regardless how well you sample it, it will still sound like shit). The reason why Ken wants to do it on USB stick instead of CD is that 24 bit/96 khz sampling will take something like 3 or 4 times the space of what a typical 16/44.1 file will take. It will just not fit on a typical CD. He would have to go to DVD or USB sticks.
I personally would love to see (and hear) this, but hey, this is a pretty niche market. On of the biggest gripes of audiophiles is how everything is going compressed and sound quality is being lost in the name of convience, but it is cool to see something like this being considered.
Also, I've downloaded several albums off of Mindawn (they even have the new Borealis album!) and they offer files in full lossless FLAC format.
And about DRM that was brought up in another post. FLAC, being a completely free and open format, does not support DRM, so there will be no DRM involved, plus Ken just seems the type that does not want to hassle with all that DRM non-sense anyway (many labels have already realized that DRM is more of a pain than it is worth - that whole Sony rootkit fiasco was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for DRM on music).
If Ken makes this available at ProgPower, I'd buy one of those USB sticks with the new Haken album on it off of him. Would love to hear it on my rig!
Kaosaur
Member
Yes, I am aware that FLAC on its own is a non-DRM format, however, it IS entirely possible to make a USB stick operate in such a way that you cannot copy the files from it and even force the files to play in software on the USB stick. Pretty much all that's needed is an encrypted, proprietary filesystem. Anyone familiar with U3 smart drives has been exposed to this concept already. This can be done easily and there are "off-the-shelf" products to accomplish this and this is why I mentioned it. It's trivial, really.
As for the labels ditching DRM, that's proven to not really be true. Nobody wants the bad press of a rootkit but the entertainment industry has not abandoned copy-protection...quite the opposite, in fact. They are pushing towards new, non-CD distribution methods where they get to choose what formats you get your music in, on what devices and how you play them. Pretty much any new gear you buy now, whether it's a stereo receiver, video & audio cards...even your processor, has DRM enforcement schemes built into the hardware at the lowest possible level ("on the metal").
esa
Member
Kaosaur
Member
Edit: I'm kind of interested in what those kinds of costs are like. I've heard that it got lowered to $0.11 per disc, but realizing what these discs cost and what the margins are like, that seems like a lot multiplied out against what a production run would be. At least that fee is what I see quoted in the press... The licensing webpage actually tells a different, scarier story:
"Fee: The fee for RE2, RE3, RE4, R1, R2, R3, and AVCREC FLLA is $15,000 for one business category and $30,000 for the multiple business categories per Format Licenses. The fee for ROM2.0 and ROM3.0 FLLA is $30,000 one business category and $60,000 for the multiple business categories. There is also a Format Maintenance & Development Fee of $50,000 for BD-ROM3. This is a onetime fee that is due when the very first 3D BD product Test Verification is completed at the BD Testing Center. The fee for ROM2.0 and ROM3.0 FLLA Commercial Audiovisual Content is $4,000."
I gather there's the one time fee to pay just for them to talk to you...a fee you pay every time you wanna release something...and a per disc replication cost.
This isn't even factoring in the AACS license fees, which are mandatory on the BD format. And then there's that nasty DRM issue again.
$$$
I'm not surprised that Sony, Philips and Pioneer are cashing in hard on this...reminds me of the early 80s.
