Adam Thierer

Did a lack of standardization kill high-def audio?

In response to my post two days ago about my new paper on interoperability standards in the cable marketplace, one of our savvy TLF commenters (Eric) made the following argument about how he believed the lack of standardization killed high-def audio:

“In the world of high definition audio, the lack of standardization did not lead to innovation and exciting new services. It led to the languishing of two competing formats, SACD and DVD-Audio. The current fight between two high definition video formats may delay the mass market penetration of any hi-def video disc. Virtually everyone loses. … Freedom is great, but when you need a mass market application, standardization becomes a crucial consideration.”

But another reader (Mike Sullivan) makes an excellent counter-point when he notes:

“Isn’t it also possible that the two HD audio formats have “languished” not because of the fact that there are two competing formats, but because there is limited demand for HD audio recordings at a premium price?”

This is something I happen to know quite a bit about, so I wanted to respond in a separate, detailed post.


As a lover of high-definition audio and the owner of a great many SACDs and DVD-audio discs, I understand where Eric is coming from. But the lack of standardization is really not the biggest culprit here, although I certainly agree it does not help things.

Mike Sullivan identifies the first culprit: lack of demand. Most people aren’t audio purists these days. Hell, anyone who thinks the audio nirvana is found in a iPod, compressed music, and a set of crappy earbuds, really doesn’t know what they are missing in terms of true audio perfection. Until you have heard Pink Floyd or The Flaming Lips on a high-end audio system in all their uncompressed 5.1 surround sound glory… well, you just really haven’t heard Pink Floyd or The Flaming Lips as they were meant to be heard!

Regardless, most people these days have sacrificed quality for convenience. Music portability is now the highest value; not music perfection. And so these new high-def audio formats were probably doomed from the start for the reason Mike suggests: limited demand + higher price = low sales / lower household penetration.

But these audio formats were also doomed for another reason: You need special players to listen to them! This is a big deal, of course, because most average music listeners do not want to go out and buy yet another disc player (especially as the world is moving to digital downloads) just to play a limited catalog of high-definition discs.

Finally, even if you have the right player–and they can be expensive, I might add–you need to have the proper components to decode and play the high-def music. Namely, you need a good multi-channel capable A/V receiver with the proper multi-channel inputs and then you also need a surround sound speaker setup to take full advantage of the signal coming out of the receiver. Again, many people don’t have that luxury.

So, in sum, while the lack of standardization did not help matters any, what really has killed the market for high-definition music is the lack of demand and the need for compatible hardware and high-components. And the move to widespread digital downloads is the final nail in the coffin of the formats. Even if the market moved to adopt a single standard immediately, therefore, high-definition audio is likely doomed for these other reasons.

Here’s hoping that it is reinvented in some fashion in the future.

[P.S. For those who are interested, I listen to my extensive SACD & DVD-Audio collection on a Denon 2910 player connected to a Yamaha 2700 receiver. My 7.1 surround sound system is an array of Definitive Technology CLR 2500s up-front and other DT speakers in the satellite positions. Awesome, big stage sound. I was just listening to Steely Dan (Gaucho) and Metallic (Black Album) last night on it. Yes, my musical tastes are that wacky!]

October 25, 2007 | Comments |

Viewing 10 Comments

    • ^
    • v

    Good post, Adam. But you forgot to mention the "true" audio purists - the vinyl addicts (like me)!


    My system pushes out pure and sometimes scratchy analog sound through a Sonic Frontiers tube amplifier, a Rega P3 turntable, a Creek Audio phono pre-amp, and Anthony Gallo Reference 3 loudspeakers. Jazz and acoustic guitar sound especially great with this setup.

    Oh, I also have a CD player hooked up--a Sony Car Discman from 1995!!!...anyone want to sell me a good used CD or SACD player?

    • ^
    • v
    The interesting thing about vinyl is that there were also multiple formats in the form of various "speeds." Old timers like us will recall the various album sizes we had to make sure our decks could play: 16, 33, 45, and 78. While 16s and 78s were rare after the 1960s--and could not be played on many newer record players--I had plenty of 33s and 45s in my collection and most companies offers machines that could play both those formats. So the solution to that "standards battle," if you could call is such, was a universal player. That's what's happening today for high-def video and audio. Interesting parallels.

    P.S. Remember the failed, but wonderful, LP format called Quadraphonic ("Quad") sound? It was awesome, but the format died out pretty quickly.
    • ^
    • v
    By the way, high-def music junkies will want to check out the "Quadraphonic Quad" website...

    http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/QQHiRezPoll2004...

    ... which has a running poll of the very best high-definition surround sound music.

    Some of my other favorite surround sound discs include: "Hotel California" by the Eagles, "With Teeth" by Nine Inch Nails, "Nothing Like the Sun" by Sting, "Fly Like and Eagle" by The Steve Miller Band, and "The Nightfly" by Donald Fagan. But nothing beats "Dark Side" by Floyd. "With Teeth" by NIN or Metallic's black album tie for my second favorite.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm happy to have inspired a column. I don't really disagree with anything you wrote, Adam. Standardization of formats is only one of many factors. You also did not mention DRM.

    Let's say that you could find a truly audiophile-quality portable audio player that had the capacity to deal with higher bitrate/higher bandwidth digital data, paired with truly world-class headphones. Because of DRM, you could not get the music cleanly off your SACD and DVD-A discs and onto your audiophile iPod.

    People want portability and flexibility (convenience). MP3 gives them that. CDs ripped to WAV, FLAC, or MP3 give them that. With the rapidly increasing data storage capacity of portable music/video players, we have the technical capability to give the masses both portability, flexibility, and ultra high quality. Except that DRM stands in the way.

    There is the other problem of converting 5.1 to stereo, but most if not all of the hybrid SACD/CD discs I own -- not many -- have a high definition stereo track that matches the original stereo master. I love Steely Dan but I have no desire to hear them in multi-channel anyway, but maybe that's just me.

    The best hope for a new format is to get the hardware and decoding software in a lot of consumers hands ASAP. For example, Sony is trying to accomplish this for Blu-Ray by building this capability into its game boxes as an incidental feature. A friend of mine bought a game machine just for its Blu-Ray video capability. But those who bought it for gaming will also be tempted to get a new movie in Blu-Ray since they are already capable of playing it.

    The original SD DVD did not have this problem because there were no competing standards. It could and did build market penetraton slowly. That is the model. I think clearly the HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray confusion will stifle market acceptance. Also, in harmony with your point about audio formats, maybe people will decide they are just as happy with downloadable lo-fi TV shows they can play on their little video iPods as they are with an HD-DVD set of Heroes Season One. Consumers thus far have not impressed me with their discernment of true quality in the video or audio spheres. Perhaps high definition anything is doomed and we just don't know it yet.
    • ^
    • v
    Until you have heard Pink Floyd or The Flaming Lips on a high-end audio system in all their uncompressed 5.1 surround sound glory… well, you just really haven’t heard Pink Floyd or The Flaming Lips as they were meant to be heard...

    Um, no. The way these bands were meant to be heard was in the middle aisle, row C, of a concert hall. Everything else is mere duplicity and advertisement.
    • ^
    • v
    Mr. Sternberg... I've heard them that way too, and agree that that is sheer heaven. But it's not always possible, of course. My life is spent searching for second-best solutions!
    • ^
    • v
    The reason Hi Def audio failed was that there was no compelling reason to buy it. Redbook CD audio has more dynamic range and frequency response than most people can hear. Hi Def audio was DRM'd, cost more, limited in releases, incompatible with rivals, and only slightly audibly different--and only then if you had the right sound system.

    In other words, Hi Def audio was a solution for a non-existent problem--not that necessarily stops marketers from trying to convince us there is a problem. (Scented deodorant comes to mind, "If only my pits smelled like flowers! Then I'd be popular!".)
    • ^
    • v
    "Redbook CD audio has more dynamic range and frequency response than most people can hear."

    Maybe, maybe not. Consider this:

    http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/

    "In his keynote address, for example, Peter Craven demonstrated the improvement in sound quality of a digital transfer a 78rpm disc of a live electrical recording of an aria from Puccini's La Bohème when the sample rate was increased from 44.1 to 192kHz. Even 16-bit PCM is overkill for the 1926 recording's limited dynamic range, and though the original's bandwidth was surprisingly wide, given its vintage, 44.1kHz sampling would be more than enough to capture everything in the music, according to conventional information theory. Those same skeptical pundits would therefore claim that any perceived improvements must be delusional."
    • ^
    • v
    "Maybe, maybe not. Consider this:"


    I qualified my statement "most people." Second, I specifically acknowledged that there is some difference but noted that Hi Def "only slightly audibly different."



    The report you cite comes from that bastion of audiophool nonsense, Stereophile, which has waxed poetic about such nonsense as demagnetizers for **vinyl LPs**.



    http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-11/111706rampa.htm...



    and who famously lost a blind test of Carver amps. Stereophile used to bash Carver amps and drone on and on about the purity and response of their favorite super amps that were so much better. Carver said they weren't "better" only sonically **colored** and proceeded to duplicate the sound of their fav uber expensive amp on his "cheap" amp without even being given access to the guts of the one he was duplicating. Stereophile couldn't tell the difference in a blind test.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver#Amplifi...



    I won't dismiss the citation entirely just because those idiots at stereophile reported it but stereophile is a bastion of credulous nonsense so neither will I assign it any automatic credibility.

    • ^
    • v
    Eric and I seem to have stirred up a firestorm. I actually considered mentioning DRM and the need for a sophisticated sound system as additional factors, but ultimately decided that they can be considered as part of the "premium price" in the demand/price analysis.

    DRM certainly is a price factor: I will buy 99 cent tracks from iTunes that is DRMed because iTunes uses a "weak" form of DRM that allows me to move music to other devices through the minor inconvenience of burning an audio CD. Thus, I am paying for music that can be moved to another device or application when iTunes and the iPod become unavailable or no longer meet my needs. I don't buy music at the same nominal 99 cent price that comes with "strong" DRM that would force me to buy the music all over again, because my actual price for the music will be much higher if I ever wish to migrate it.

    For obvious reasons, the elaborate audio system needed to make hi-def music worthwhile should ultimately be considered as part of the price of listening to hi-def music.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus