'High Definition Vinyl' Is Coming As Early As Next Year (pitchfork.com) 330
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Pitchfork: In 2016, a European patent filing described a way of manufacturing records that the inventors claimed would have higher audio fidelity, louder volume, and longer playing times than conventional LPs. Now, the Austrian-based startup Rebeat Innovation has received $4.8 million in funding for the initiative, founder and CEO Gunter Loibl told Pitchfork. Thanks to the investment, the first "HD vinyl" albums could hit stores as early as 2019, Loibl said. The HD vinyl process involves converting audio digitally to a 3D topographic map. Lasers are then used to inscribe the map onto the "stamper," the part that stamps the grooves into the vinyl. According to Loibl, these methods allow for records to be made more precisely and with less loss of audio information. The results, he said, are vinyl LPs that can have up to 30 percent more playing time, 30 percent more amplitude, and overall more faithful sound reproduction. The technique would also avoid the chemicals that play a role in traditional vinyl manufacturing. Plus, the new-school HD vinyl LPs would still play on ordinary record players.
30%, more or less (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I smell bull%^& (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole vinyl fad is just another way for the unscrupulous to take money off the stupid.
Re:I smell bull%^& (Score:4, Interesting)
Its a fad to be sure, and its kind of BS at best.. but basically the vinyl lovers (I hate to call them audiophiles..) are mostly looking for the non-musical effects. Things like the attenuation caused by the disk being slightly warped, the needle not being perfect, etc. Essentially, the music changes slightly and unpredictably as you play the record more often which I guess some people like.
Meaning this "HD" vinyl, if it lives up to its claims, is pretty much the worst of both worlds -- all the inconvenience of an LP but without all of the "interesting" quirks that vinyl gave you. If those people wanted digital music, they'd go to iTunes like everybody else. But they specifically don't want that.
I mean I'm sure some people will buy it thinking it will be like an LP but with better sound quality, and some who don't know wtf they're talking about and just want to be "cool" with their record player will probably enjoy it.. but for most vinyl lovers, they'll likely be disappointed and these new disks won't last long.
Re: (Score:2)
I admit I haven't seen a whole lot of vinyl up close, but I think the gap between the groves it's usually wider than the grooves themselves. If you can tighten manufacturing tolerances without making the record too fragile to play, I could imagine it still being possible.
And then there's this, from the patent:
the mastering process further includes applying a so-called Rheinsche Füllschrift process to ensure that, in quieter parts of the audio, the groove spacing is reduced whereas in louder parts of the audio, the groove spacing is increased
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the loud albums which were unplayable without adjusting up the weight of the needle beyond the manufacture spec to prevent it jumping the track when some rocker hit the drums.
Re: (Score:2)
The post you replied to had an argument why vinyl could sound better than CD even though it is more (quality) limited. Maybe you should respond to that?
This post just makes you look like a jerk not understanding the original argument.
Vinyl zealots will hate them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is already a digital step in all vinyl cut after the mid-70s.
Not even nostalgia is what it used to be... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
no, the funny part here is that they're cutting analog records from a digital sound processing system.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Exactly what I was going to write. I mean, really? We are going to take pristine digital audio, convert to analog and THEN stamp it on lossy, low-capacity, hugely space inefficient, inconvenient, wearable, easily damaged, non-portable material? Yeesh.
Re: (Score:3)
No, most of them are cut digitally these days.
To increase the amount of playing time, you can vary the width of the grooves depending on the volume and frequency content (louder and more bassy parts need wider grooves), kind of like RLE coding in a way. To do this while cutting the master, you need to know what's going to happen in the next rotation of the disk.
This means you need two signals going into the cutting amplifier, one with the future signal, and one with the signal you're actually cutting to di
Re:Not even nostalgia is what it used to be... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not even nostalgia is what it used to be... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, to nitpick, Nyquist's theorem applies only to signals of infinite length, and in fact a 20kHz signal can't be perfectly reproduced with a 40kHz sampling frequency because you lose phase information on any finite signal.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that this actually adds up to a perceptible loss of information in the signal, or that 'transients' are in any way different to high frequency signal components, or that Vinyl is superior. I'm just nitpicking, because it's Friday afternoon, and I've nothing better to do.
Re: (Score:2)
the digital sample is a perfect representation of the original analog waveform
Not really, but it is "good enough".
Excellent article here on the details of digital audio; Digital Dharma of Audio A/D Converters [rane.com]
Everything you ever wanted to know about quantization, dither, and more.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably good enough given the typical noise floor, but I wouldn't say it's a perfect representation. Definitely overkill for audio, but I'm sure scientists need lots of bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank the industry. What people ultimately care about is the end product. When that sounds better on a crappy medium due to the pressure the record industry places on the mastering process that ultimately ruins it then fine, we'll gravitate towards the niche medium that gets ignored by the fuckerupers.
The best example of this can probably be seen in the pirated copy of the Metalica Death Magnetic, the highest quality of which is that ripped from the Guitar Hero video game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An engineer should strive for the simplest system possible IMO. This complicates one step (done once) but keeps compatibility with old technology while improving the result. Sounds good to me!
"Gonna Have To Buy The White Album Again" (Score:3)
Or maybe we could cut out the middle man here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or.. now hear me out on this one... or ... we could just, you know, send the digitally converted audio, you know, without converting it back into a bumpy piece of plastic.
I know this might sound radical, but it seems to me that converting analog sound to digital format then to a digital 3d map then to a laser-cut stamper then to a piece of bumpy vinyl then to a vibrating stylus and into a varying electrical current to drive an amplification system to run the speakers that you listen to might just be a little more complicated than just taking the digital format for storage and transport and converting that back into analog sound at playback.
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me this will go over as well as HD-CD and SACD did. Include MiniDisc too for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
HD-CD was a stillbirth. MiniDisc was HUGE and incredibly popular killed by a completely different and vastly superior medium. SACD is still active, you can still buy equipment, there are new releases in the format etc.
The only one here worth comparing to is HD-CD.
Re: (Score:3)
No it is not.
Oh, right. You believe in fairy dust.
It is just mainstream steampunk (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to think like that, but it occurred to me to just look at it differently.
Steampunk aesthetic is producing modern outcomes with archaic (generally 19th century) means and/or styling. Generally it involves overly complicated mechanisms (as complex as needed to achieve the outcome mechanically, only 'overly complicated' when compared to a solution using electronics.)
Using rotating turntables, vinyl and needles to reproduce sound fits this description neatly. So all those people who like vinyl are just a variety of steampunks (whether or not they realize it.) And I'm cool with steampunks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Overly complicated? You obviously don't know the meaning of the word! Vinyl is very simple and modern audio is very complicated.
Vinyl: position changes in a stylus/needle induces proportional voltages that is amplified and then replayed with a speaker.
Digital: compressed audio is decompressed to a digital sound representation that is converted to an analog value which is then amplified and replayed with a speaker.
Decompression of the audio isn't exactly a simple operation and the workings of a modern audio
Re: (Score:3)
Or.. now hear me out on this one... or ... we could just, you know, send the digitally converted audio, you know, without converting it back into a bumpy piece of plastic.
What you're saying boils down to "You shouldn't make records." That's not the point, and TBH it seems to be needlessly pissing on other people's hobbies, both people who collect vinyl and bands who want a physical copy of their album for posterity.
What a lot of people seem to be missing is that there is already a market for producing vinyl. So much so that new cutting shops and pressing plants are coming online. If these people can skip most of the expensive steps of getting a stamper cut, that will make
Re: (Score:2)
It will certainly be lossy.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the source material.
If the source is the CD and it is converted to vinyl then it's a horrible idea. ... unlike the CD.
If the source is the original tracks and it is converted to vinyl though this convoluted niche process then it is a great idea as some bumbling studio exec may ignore it and we may end up with a decent result
Re: (Score:2)
Or.. now hear me out on this one... or ... we could just, you know, send the digitally converted audio, you know, without converting it back into a bumpy piece of plastic.
I know this might sound radical, but it seems to me that converting analog sound to digital format then to a digital 3d map then to a laser-cut stamper then to a piece of bumpy vinyl then to a vibrating stylus and into a varying electrical current to drive an amplification system to run the speakers that you listen to might just be a little more complicated than just taking the digital format for storage and transport and converting that back into analog sound at playback.
Next you'll be telling me that gold cables won't help.
Turntables aren't the only factor (Score:2)
Being able to use my Technics 1200s isn't the only factor. I have a pair of Shure M44-7 needles, as well as a pair of Ortofon Clubs, which have a tip of a particular size. If HD vinyl is fitting louder tracks at higher fidelity, and more of them, onto a 12" vinyl record, then the grooves *have* to be more narrow. Will I need new needles for these? If not, won't my wider needles just wear them out faster? If neither of these are true, is it because of a tougher material that is more resistant to wear at the
Re: Turntables aren't the only factor (Score:2)
I imagine fans of classical aren't going to be willing to deal with digitalal to analog quality drop.
what's wrong with digital (Score:2)
Cheap conversion rate?
I can't wait for... (Score:5, Funny)
the rush of high definition 8 track players that are sure to follow....
Re: (Score:3)
I remember having an 8-track deck (reco
(KA-CHUNK)
r, too). the worst part is that you got used to the cha
(KA-CHUNK)
l changes. sucks when you learned the song that way.
Yeah, and they'll still wear out (Score:2)
a little every time you play them. Someday people are going to start collecting CDs again, when this vinyl nonsense has run its course.
if only the CD. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
If only record companies would put a fraction as much effort and resources into mastering their CDs properly and making them sound good, all this would be unnecessary.
stupid people galore (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? See the thing about vinyl's sound is that it goes through its own mastering process. Part of the reason vinyl sounds good is that its a niche product so the men in suits don't force the sound engineer to completely fuck up the sound during the final master because they are aren't all that interested in this small market segment.
All recording is done digitally now, that doesn't mean the vinyl doesn't often sound very different (and often not in a bad way). Same with SACD. They sound the same whether
everything old is new again (Score:2)
A Sure Winner (Score:3)
This scheme is a shoe-in for the 2018 "polished turd of the year" award.
Oh, you mean like 40 years ago? (Score:2)
Really? No one remembers this?
https://youtu.be/1qtxPSR8q98 [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the encoding was a limiting factor? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amateurs (Score:2)
Everyone knows that if you want real high quality sound you skip the CD, Vinyl, SACD, and HD-DVD, copies and go straight into playing guitarhero: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
In case people don't understand this comment I mean that any positive attributes of sound attributed to vinyl has nothing at all to do with vinyl. Studio mastering is a dead art killed by people in suits.
Conjugate the verb "to be shit" (Score:2)
Vinyl was a shit format
Vinyl is a shit format
Vinyl will always be a shit format
Your vinyl is shit
My vinyl is shit
His or her vinyl is shit
Their vinyl is shit
Vinyl is made of shite.
That year of Latin in school has finally paid off.
stop this nonsense (Score:2)
what is next; HD laserdisc?
Why is there a needle? (Score:3)
I assumed that a modern record player would have no needed and use a laser for reading.
A better fitting needle, wow ?
Re:Why is there a needle? RIAA curve (Score:2)
Haha (Score:2)
First thing I thought of was Monster and their digital HD audio cables at a bazillion percent markup.
Have you looked at music waveforms lately ? There really isn't any dynamic range. Everything is cranked just shy of the clipping limits across the entire song.
They need to fix that first.
It sounds like microchips. 1's and 0's. (Score:2)
Mechincal sound resproduction is the least accurat (Score:2)
I understand the people that are nostalgic about LP's. I love the album art. But let's stop pretending that mechanical sound reproduction is anywhere close to a faithful reproduction of the real thing. It's not. I will always introduce sounds that were not apart of the original performance. It's impossible not to do this. It's also extremely expensive to get the best possible reproduction.
A true audiophile knows that the first rule of accurate sound reproduction is to not add to the original performan
uh, why? (Score:2)
Hooray! (Score:2)
The High Definition Compatible Digital [wikipedia.org] and Super Audio CD [wikipedia.org] formats were lonely and needed a new companion on the pile of failed formats.
Well that's all completely pointless (Score:2)
It flopped then even when vinyl was the predominant format. Not least because you needed special noise reduction / amplifying circuitry to extract the audio from the format it was stored in.
It will flop now for the same reason. That and because vinyl is just a stupid hipster format that offers not a single advantage over digital audio except for audiophile wankage.
Re:"Louder volume"?! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it goes to 11
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Louder volume"?! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, vinyl records were not affec-
Yes, vinyl records were not affe (bump)
-tches in any way.
Re:"Louder volume"?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Larger dynamic range, I'm sure. Stupid dumbed down writing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's more likely the patent involves a more "higher resolution" print, eg the grooves have a deeper print into them.
That said, "HD Vinyl" records, you have got to be shitting me. You're basically inverting causality, you can't create anything higher resolution than what you can do with 192khz 48bit 8.2 channels digitally. Analog recordings at best are equal to 32khz 24 bit recordings, and that's assuming you can get no hiss or feedback.
The only thing that has improved in the last 40 years in sound systems a
Re:"Louder volume"?! (Score:5, Informative)
I Analog recordings at best are equal to 32khz 24 bit recordings, and that's assuming you can get no hiss or feedback.
Ehm no. That is a misconception. 24 bit is overkill, even for digital (most `24` bit is actually no more than 18 bit, at most, and more likely 15-16). But as far sampling rate goes, (studio) tape reels happily go over 20kHz, and so does vinyl. You may be confused by FM broadcast, which has a 15kHz bandwidth. More fair would be to compare vinyl to '48kHz/16 bit'.
So people who think Vinyl sounds better, are full of shit, or deaf.
Define better. It sounds different, i think we easily agree on that. Mechanical issues, harmonics and more all play a role. If people say that it sounds better to them, you will have to accept that as a truth, since perception is subjective by definition. It's like saying 'you cannot find yellow prettier than blue, because blue is a nicer color because it has a shorter wavelength'. For similar or other reasons, some people do prefer tube amplifiers.
It's probably said a dozen times elsewhere in this topic, but personally i think the big difference between the vinyl vs digital `experience` is in the mastering. That's most likely why this 1970's old vinyl album of [fill in favorite band] sounds better than the 2005 cd release. Disclaimer: i am one of such people.
Re: (Score:2)
The HD vinyl process involves converting audio digitally to a 3D topographic map.
So this new vinyl process ends up being digital anyway. So what advantage is possible? There's some DAC involved in producing the sound either way.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is by making this better than vinyl surely it makes it worse than vinyl for the hipsters wanting vinyl distortion?
It a problem. Just add fake surface noise to the music you play on this new fake format.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should learn that a receiver is just an amplifier with a radio built-in and that they haven't been separate pieces of equipment in decades.
I can go buy them separately right now. Brand new, even.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people buy old cars when they make perfectly good new ones?
Re:They all start with digital audio (Score:4, Insightful)
'cause they're cheaper?...
Re: (Score:2)
Because new cars are full of unrepairable electronics, and mechanical parts precision engineered to die just after the warranty expires. This destroys their second hand value.
If older cars have survived 30 years, with a small amount of maintenance, they can be made to survive another 30.
The "convenience features" of modern cars are mostly plastic bits that break off once the plastic has aged a bit. And the metal panels are so thin you can dent them with one finger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They all start with digital audio (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would love a replica of a D-type Jaguar. They look fantastic, but the brakes and steering of the original are not up to modern standards by a very long way.
Re: (Score:2)
Because for "thinking" games at least, they find that amazing graphics are no substitute for an interesting challenge.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Vinyl isn't a good format in general. It was the best that could be done for a number of decades, but it will always suffer from the problems related to having physical contact between the vinyl and the needle. This new technique may improve the possible dynamic range, but that's largely a moot point as modern CDA gets compressed to the point where it's not any better than vinyl. And the sound quality sucks as a result. I heard Harvey Danger's Flagpole Sitta over a restaurant speaker a while back and it had
Re: converted "digitally".. (Score:2)
...but it will always suffer from the problems related to having physical contact between the vinyl and the needle.
"Always," huh. Replace the needle with a laser.
Laser Vinyl Pick-up (Score:2)
I was hoping they developed a laser based virtual needle (LIDAR in micro-miniature) ...
Here you are [wikipedia.org]. Spoiler alert: the devices are sold in the 15k USD range.
oh well - now that I brought it up, I'm sure it will be a failed Kickstarter soon enough.
Sorry, you're making too much engineering sense with lasers.
Crowdfunding is more for the kind of hipster that will scoff lasers off as not being authentic enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would vinyl want to degrade to CD quality?
Surely you jest!
Re: (Score:2)
"Surely you jest!"
Only partly. Vinyl is truly high fidelity. Various notable musicians have expressed that they believe that CD's "lose something" that is captured better on vinyl. Have seen these from time to time from some big rockers, don't remember who.
I was surprised when I fired up my 50 year old turntable and put on a record after having not done so for a long time. The sound was only less quality due to the clicks and pops which, since I've always taken care of my records, were few. I've alwa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When I listen carefully, I find there are things I like about each format better than the other, and that anyone who says that either is superior are more focused on the things that format does better and ignores the things it doesn't do as well.
The advantages of digital are obvious. Much lower noise floor, greater dynamic range, and a complete lack of ticks, pops, etc. It's also much easier to use
Re:converted "digitally".. (Score:4, Interesting)
So what you're saying is you prefer the way the vinyl was mastered.
Take the output of your record player, pump it into a moderately okay sound card, write the files to a standard CD and then tell us if you can still tell the sound apart. I bet you can't.
By the way this has also fuelled an online piracy campaign that records vinyl in HighDef and then gets shared via FLAC. The medium itself had nothing to do with it.
Similar SACD. The SACD versions of old classics owe their sound to the remastering and sound identical whether you play the DSD bitstream perfectly though a quality DAC or you downsample to 44.1khz
Re: (Score:2)
Take the output of your record player, pump it into a moderately okay sound card, write the files to a standard CD and then tell us if you can still tell the sound apart. I bet you can't.
This is what I do, and why. Vinyl is, as you mention, mastered differently and it does sound better to me for that reason; and I want to keep it that way, so much of my vinyl has only been "listened to" once, when it was dubbed to 192/24 digital, which gets archived and FLAC, AAC, and MP3 versions are created for use with my current devices. If a better compressed format comes along and I eventually get something that can play it, I have the 192/24 archive copy as a source.
Re: (Score:2)
Vinyl obviously can only be used in stationary systems.
I beg to differ! [blogspot.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Or, we can say that, empirically, digital recordings provide for a better, more accurate format.
We can run around in circles saying that this sounds better than that - we have different hearing profiles, different sensitivities, so some things can sound better to one person and worse than another.
Whatever people like listening to, great. Nobody should be forced into listening to something the "correct" way.
But when they are digitally mapping the audio in order to create the vinyl, it should be pretty eviden
Re: (Score:2)
CD vs. Vinyl (Score:5, Insightful)
No, still not true.
CD, as a medium, has every audio advantage over vinyl other than myth.
What is different — and does matter — is the recording technique. Vinyl with good recording technique can sound better than a CD with poor recording technique.
Part of what takes people legitimately back to vinyl is that many older recordings sound better, primarily because the dynamic range wasn't horribly crushed, as is often the approach taken today with CD recordings.
But best recording technique on vinyl, against best recording technique on CD... CD wins on every possible audible metric. Signal to noise, dynamic range, accuracy of reproduction, consistent audible frequency response, ancillary distortion, immunity to surface defects that damage the recording, repeatability, THD, etc.
Vinyl offers some non-audio features, such as large jackets, with larger artwork. Those same large jackets can, and often do, carry great liner notes you won't get with a CD due to the packaging area; such as interesting colors and artwork on the center of the platter. And of course, for those of us who are older, just plain old nostalgia.
Personally, speaking as an older fellow, I don't find the trade of the art and liner notes worth the candle when I can have better audio from a CD. I buy from high-end CD makers such as Telarc [wikipedia.org], and those productions are well worth the money spent. But when I can't find a good modern recording of something I treasure, then sometimes, it's vinyl FTW.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the modern recording studio is not even trying to produce music to listen to anymore. Music is made to be put in the background while driving, working, exercising, to just trying to STOP THE VOICES! sorry, I mean drown out distractions. A lot of these were not things you could really do with vinyl so engineers and producers simply didn't consider them as economic goals. With phones and streaming, hardly anyone pays for music to sit down and listen to anymore. So the market force is to compress the hel
Re: (Score:2)
Same as if you saved a JPEG as a PNG, or vice versa
PNG is actually a lossless format, so...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now we get HD vinyl... another format in an attempt to spur sales of the requisite players.
No. TFS says they can still be played on old turntables. It seems that what they are doing is taking the digital audio, computing the shape of the groove and passing that on to a numerically controlled laser cutter. The end result is a record track much the same as (and compatible with) older LPs. But they have removed the limitations of the analog master cutting techniques.
Re:Wait... you skipped 3D as a new format??? (Score:4, Informative)
PPH theorized:
TFS says they can still be played on old turntables. It seems that what they are doing is taking the digital audio, computing the shape of the groove and passing that on to a numerically controlled laser cutter. The end result is a record track much the same as (and compatible with) older LPs. But they have removed the limitations of the analog master cutting techniques.
It's important to keep in mind that professional digital audio recording is done at frequency sampling rates as high as 320kbps sampling rates at 32-bit resolution (although 192 kbps at 24-bit resolution is more common). In the process of mastering for CD, the final mix is down-sampled to 44.1 kbps at 16-bit resolution (the CDA standard). So the source material is of FAR higher audio quality than the end product that consumers hear.
Rhino Records has issued a stream of premium-quality LPs for the audiophile market that are pressed using 180-gram, very high-grade vinyl discs. These extra-thick records, made of nearly bubble-free vinyl, sound very different than the old-school LPs I bought in my youth. At first play, they are nearly as noiseless as CDs, they're highly warp-resistant, and they're mastered at higher SPLs than the original vinyl releases. On an audiophile-grade sound system, they make the CD versions sound as sonically-impoverished as they actually are.
It's not just the much-vaunted analog "warmth" of the vinyl sound (in reality, that's a product of the distortion characteristics of the vinyl/needle/cartridge/preamp signal chain), either. They offer measurably-better resolution than CDA, and the product of that higher resolution is a richness and detail to the sound they produce of which CD audio simply is incapable.
If you play them on a laser turntable [wikipedia.org], and keep them properly stored to minimize their exposure to dust, they'll retain that pristine, first-play sound indefinitely. This new vinyl format, then, holds the potential to make future such premium LP releases sound even better than the current audiophile versions.
I'm interested in hearing whether the real-world improvement matches the hype. And I'm willing to withhold judgement on it until I get a chance to do so ...
Re: (Score:3)
the final mix is down-sampled to 44.1 kbps at 16-bit resolution (the CDA standard)
If you don't think that's enough, you don't understand signal theory. Higher rates earlier in the chain are useful for digital filtering and mixing, but 44 ksps is plenty for hearing.
They offer measurably-better resolution than CDA
Apart from being able to reproduce frequencies which we can't hear, please show the measurements where vinyl is better.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a dog, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3)
So the source material is of FAR higher audio quality than the end product that consumers hear.
Resolution != quality. The main reason to use high resolution for the recording and mastering process is to have excess headroom, allowing for capture of unexpected lulls or transients and being able to adjust those to the final dynamic range.
No album release in the history of commercial music has had a dynamic range in excess of 40 dB, which means that there is no extra quality at all to gain by going from 16 bits to anything else in final reproduction.
Human ears can not hear about 20 kHz (give or take a f
Re: (Score:2)
The answer to quadrophnic remains unchanged:
I will buy Quadrophonic as soon as I have four ears!
Laser vinyl : source (Score:2)
About a decade ago I read about a record player which uses laser beams instead of physical cartridges that can wear down the vinyl and decrease the sound quality.
Ob. wikipedia link [wikipedia.org].
Combine this with laser record player
Spoiler alert : these record player still cost in the 15k USD range (source from above).
So not gonna happen except in a very small and limited market of ultra-rich audiophiles.
Your standard hipster can't afford them.
On the other hand, patents have expired, so you can bet some chinese no-name company will be trying to jump into the bandwagon. (But probably without the advanced signal post-processing, so tons of hiss and pops and distortion)