Well there is a great live scene but people need to find it or even know it exists at all. People also need to know that better music than that pumped out on pop radio stations exists and can be enjoyed far more cheaply than the ‘Big Acts’ and can be so much better also.
I can remember a friend who hosts live music in Norwich Suffolk UK talking about Ed Shearen and people complaining about ticket prices.
He said “They could have seen him play here for a fiver, he turned up to one gig and almost no body showed but he played the gig anyway just for us”. Amy Wadge who wrote with Ed played for us twice with Pete Riley before she won her BAFTA and the world opened up for her. She is great and always was when she was unknown.
As for schools, they drop music at their peril as it teaches so much more than just music. You don’t have to be good at it to benefit from the learning to play an instrument.
Considering the volume level of the last Judas Priest concert, the CD certainly had the better dynamic range.
Genre of music affects your assumptions. If you go to an electronic concert where they are pushing buttons to play the music, is it really any different than just listening to the CD, other than atmosphere and social interactions?
You do have to pick your gigs Uriah Heep are great live but I won’t go again as I value my hearing and would need assurance that the building won’t collapse …
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
111
Amen to that. I once had a great chat with Jim Hall during the break at a Bach Dancing & Dynamite performance (on a dreary rainy day). Coffee with Madeline Eastman between sets one night at Garden City (a venue now unfortunately gone). Lucky to be close to the Stanford Jazz Workshop.
This circles us back to hi res. To the extant there was ever any real support for high fidelity by significant numbers of music lovers, it was was back in the 1970’s when a majority still had the relevant experience with acoustic live performance - what real instruments and voice sounds like in real space. The modern effort to sell hi res and sound quality is always going to be swimming upstream against those who only have experienced recorded playback, usually only in automobile and/or at cheap ear bud levels. One of the happy accidents around MQA has been its failure in the wider consumer market, because why would anybody need >256kb mp3/ACC with current expectations/experience, let alone something like MQA that claims to be an advance in SQ over ubiquitous CD.
Yes and no. A well recorded/mastered piece of music sounds better in 256Kb mp3 than a poorly recorded/mastered music in DXD.
Still, all else being equal, hi res (let’s use the RIAA standard of = to or > than 20/48) is an advantage in both the recording/mastering stage and for the end user (if the end user knows how to take advantage of it).
In other words, there is a reasonable argument/expectation for hi res. That said, its a niche market as far as deliverables to paying customers…
True but there is no basis for the high resolution numbers war going on - 16bit to 24bit to 32bit and 44.1kHz to 96kHz to 192kHz to 384kHz. So where does it end, the bats want to know since it’s starting to interfere with their own radar. And the dogs have given up long ago.
For me it ends with around 24/96, but that is because I use HQPlayer’s custom filters so that I can take advantage of the “headroom” from a filtering and upsampling perspective. Still, others want even more, but yea what’s the point of recording in anything higher really - don’t know but since there is no harm to each his own.
I read an argument once that all the world needs from a hearing and technology (filtering, bit depth headroom, etc.) is 18/96 that was convincing…
That sounds (no pun intended) reasonable, although I still think that 96kHz is overkill (and that could get me killed around these parts) and that 48kHz is more than enough - unless of course one can clearly point out and prove just where the Nyquist Theorem is incorrect. Yes I do understand that using 96kHz leads to much more manageable filters so maybe there is some merit to that sampling rate.
Yep, sample rates are not about the limits of hearing, but rather about the technical limits of digital filtering, DSP, and the like and the headroom thereby needed to ensure minimum impact on the audio band (i.e. 20hz-20khz)
For the end user to “take advantage” it requires resampling… and hence it is not an apples to apples comparison (ie. it’s different audio, as you may have improved the audio by resampling it)
If the producers to “take advantage” of it … that’s possible… however the label on the outside of the tin (eg. 24/192) again, tell us nothing reliable about the quality they achieved.
I don’t agree. There is potential for great hear. People are being “asked” to repurchase their music collections in a new format… and the promise of increased quality is unreliable at best. That’s a bad situation for consumers.
Maybe… the problem is that what it says on the box “eg. 96khz” tells you nothing about what is inside. I could get a 128kbps MP3, and convert it to a 24/192khz lossless audio format… and it would be exactly that 128khz MP3 audio inside.
Actually Spotify showed interest when they were testing lossless under 24 months ago… you never know, lossless Spotify may (of not) be around the corner…
Closer to 100 mill, but noted. They’re numbers continue to climb with 320kbps ogg vorbis, so I can’t see them being in any rush. I was just replying to the comment that Spotify aren’t interested. They were interested enough to test lossless, just in case people didn’t know that testing actually happened not long ago…
Uriah Heep are great live but I won’t go again as I value my hearing and would need assurance that the building won’t collapse …