On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 06:28:45 -0700, Jeff Findley wrote
(in article <2a975$4700f60e$927a2cda$10011@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
> "Cato Major" <Catone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:7phsf3hn55c30pc2tme317qm2u7d8k4lve@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Il Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:23:30 -0700, Sonnova
>> <sonnova@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto:
>>> MiniDisc was killed (or at least eclipsed) by the iPod
>>
>> But the iPod quality is too poor for Classical Muisc
>> .
>
> Even with the newest models that sup****t Apple Lossless format? Even if
> they aren't considered good enough for classical music, that's a pretty
> small market.
Apple lossless is just that - lossless. That means that the decompressed
file
is EXACTLY, bit-for-bit identical to the original. In fact, Apple Lossless
Compression (ALC) files are usually better than the results from even the
best CD players because the ALC algorithm requires that each digital word
be
re-tried upon compression until the transfer is error-free. No CD player,
playing the disc "on the fly" as it were can stop and play a digital word
that resulted in a check-sum error over and over again until it's error
free.
The result is that most CDs are played back with the player doing
continuous
error correction and often doing a full interpolation (guessing) of the
error. An ALC file has no errors in it that were not on the CD itself. So,
if
anything, an ALC file playback is even better than playback of the CD it
came
from.
If one is experiencing poor quality from one's iPod, its the
digital-to-analog converter or the analog circuitry in the iPod player
itself
that's at fault, not the compression scheme. Of course, if Cato Major (the
above poster) is using MP3 to encode his classical music, then yes, that
method is too poor for classical music. The compression artifacts that
accompany MP3, even at the highest bit-rates, make it unsuitable for music
that has wide and fast changing dynamic range requirements such as
classical.
People who listen to rock music don't notice these artifacts because the
music has no dynamic range, its just played (for the most part) at a
constant
high volume level to maintain a high level of excitement in the
performance.
These conditions mask most MP3 artifacts. In fact, one might go far enough
to
say that had rock-n-roll not been invented, neither would lossy
compression
schemes.
Classical music might be a small market but it is the most im****tant
segment
of the musical world. For one thing, it has driven the entire
high-fidelity/stereo revolution of the late forties through the sixties.
Every advance in the technology of recording and playback of music has
been
made because of, and in service to, classical music. Classical music is
art,
like a Renior or a daVinci while popular music is commerce. Sure,
everybody
likes some form of popular music, but most of it has little meaning beyond
the confines of the life span of the generation that spawned it. Anyone
who
thinks that ANY rock-n-roll or post rock era music will survive the kids
that
embraced it are whistling in the dark. It largely won't. But people will
be
listening to Bach, Beethoven, and Bach, et al, forever.
>>> and the amateur recording market is simply too small of a niche to
sup****t
>>> the format
>>
>> That's the main reason, maybe...
>
> I agree with this. Not many people record live music anymore.
I think that just the opposite is true, actually. When I was a recording
engineer many years ago, even entry level recording equipment was very
expensive. A small semi-pro mixer was many hundreds of 1975 dollars and
pro-quality, big capsule condenser microphones were in the stratosphere.
Today, due to the popularity of recording, good quality big capsule
condenser
mikes can be had for less than $100 each and good sounding, flexible
mixers
s****ting XLR microphone inputs and 48 volt phantom powering for the
condenser
mikes can be likewise had for under $100. This wouldn't be possible if
live
music recording weren't fairly popular these days.
|
