Preferred Form for Video Game Music

[Jazz Paladin]

So when you listen to your favorite VGM tunes, which media do you prefer?

A) Digital Download
B) Physical Media (CD)

Just getting a feel for what people enjoy. Myself personally, I prefer CD for a few reasons. The most obvious is probably the fact that physical media is generally a higher sound quality, but I do also like looking at cover art, etc.

[Raizen1984]

While I prefer to have a CD of my music, I have to admit that once I buy a CD, it immediately goes into iTunes as AAC files for playback on my iPhone. I never really listen to the CD itself. So while I like having the CD, I prefer the convenience of digital files.

Not really sure how to answer this poll, haha.

[GoldfishX]

Physical media. This goes for EVERYTHING! I can rip/listen/resell as I please.

Second choice would be a FLAC download.

Fourth choice would be a lossy download.

Edit: By physical media, I mean an audio CD, not a CD with music files on it or Blu Ray method that newer Square albums come on (those things are a wreck).

[eduhunter]

Physical CD, mostly because of package and liner notes and of course the rarity of these products over time

[smartalex2014]

CD releases, 'nuff said.

[Blitz Lunar]

Rarely buy CDs any more, since I have over 200 (only two or three VGM related.) Even when I do buy them, they're instantly ripped, thrown into my media library and then shelved indefinitely.

[_if]

I feel I must abstain because I have at times gotten just as much pleasure that something is released on Bandcamp or iTunes as I have with a CD release. It depends on the circumstances. I love it when Japanese people or companies I like make their music easily available in the West, even if it is only as a download and I like to support that when it happens so it can happen more, as long as it's priced reasonably. I prefer lossless because I manipulate music all the time and am allergic to working with lossy sources, but, like I said, I ain't gonna complain if Sakimoto releases his next soundtrack on iTunes as he's done before.

By the way, since SACD is named in the poll. I think it's very unfortunate that format even exists and definitely would not prefer to get anything that way. DSD is inferior to PCM by every measure and it's very regrettable that the companies (Sony and Philips) that invented the CD would go on to make something so ridiculous.

[GoldfishX]

I don't think you have anything to worry about...DSD is killing itself by not having anything available that anyone wants to listen to and the format is even seen as a passing fad in the audiophile community. I don't think it sounds BAD, mind you, but I don't exactly have a DSD copy of Ys Perfect Collection either to compare to the regular CD version...

[Jazz Paladin]

I wouldn't say DSD is totally without merits, the high end is indeed very natural with DSD, but most even major recording facilities have difficulty with it. The format operates at such a high sample rate that there is virtually no way to apply modern digital effects such as EQ, Reverb, etc, and in the end most DSD recordings undergo a PCM conversion in the mixing or mastering stage to deal with this, which defeats the whole purpose of recording in DSD in the first place. The only scenario in which one is likely to encounter unadulterated DSD is with classical or jazz scenarios where the ambience provides the "natural" effects and musicians have a high degree of control. PCM can be just as good as high end DSD if done right.

As for it being inferior to PCM, again the idea of continuously variable (DSD) VS discrete steps (PCM) does have merits, as it would be much more akin to an analog waveform because of this.

The only thing that killed the format was Sony itself, way too proprietary when it was conceived.

[_if]

I want to note first that I don't intend this to be hostile or belittling or anything. It's easier for that to unintentionally come across on the Internet, especially in conversation about audio related things. I like to think I'm a friendly guy, if I say so myself, which is how I read your posts as well.

The idea that digital recordings' waveforms look like stair-steps is a myth that unfortunately even Sony themselves have pushed to sell SACD while their engineers know better. That's really the wrong way of thinking about digital recording because all the frequencies below half the sampling rate are captured perfectly (pedantically, it's a little less than half) and downsampling doesn't affect the quality at all of any that are below half of the new sampling rate despite there supposedly being fewer sample points to draw a "smooth" wave. Debunking video, which is also quite entertaining to watch, in my opinion: https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

DSD's waveforms are less like the original analog wave than PCM because of the inherent high levels of spurious high frequency noise contained in them (although this would make it more similar to analog recording methods, but not for the reason commonly said, i.e. that higher sampling rate = more accurate reproduction of the wave. I'm referring to the fact that both systems contain inherent noise, but even DSD beats tape or any other analog medium in performance since its noise is not in the same frequency range and it doesn't have all the other issues like crosstalk and flutter and wow). Of course this noise is inaudible and gets filtered out before playback, but there are legitimate purposes for recording ultrasonic frequencies, such as environmental or animal sounds or even the bias tone on a tape to use as a stable reference point for pitch correction as Plangent Processes does. DSD's upper frequencies are necessarily full of noise that would interfere with these applications, unless you increase the sampling rate even further to get it out of the desired range which just gets less and less efficient. And as you said, DSD recordings are often converted to PCM for editing because of its limitations. The problem, however, is not its sampling rate (although that would make applying processing take much longer), it's because its most common form uses only one bit per sample which is unsuitable for doing anything but making edits like cutting or trimming. No fading, no volume changes of any kind, definitely no convolution reverb, etc. Of course, there are implementations that address this using two or more bits, but again, might as well just use PCM and that's the choice that is frequently made.

I don't agree that "PCM can be just as good as high end DSD if done right." Rather, DSD can be as good as PCM at capturing sound, but it takes so much more storage space and is so much harder to work with that there's no point. The whole thing has not a single advantage and several major drawbacks, not least of which is the perpetuation of the myth that PCM is inadequate in some way as a recording method, as that is verifiably untrue, as I hope you'll see Monty demonstrate in the video I linked to.

[Jazz Paladin]

Nyquist theory isn't what I had planned on going into when I started this thread.



I do think PCM had some very big limitations to overcome, the most notable of which was an upper frequency band that can be very brittle. As digital clocks, jitter, filtering etc, have made improvements, it is much less discernible than it was 10 years ago.

As for any perceived differences, well...I do think they are there. Since the limits of hearing are indeed capped at 44.2 KHz for stereo, but people can still claim to hear differences (pretty easy for me to tell), something has to be causing them, especially if one can tell in a blind A/B. It's all about filters in the end and the effect that they have on the audible band. And then, it's just a matter of what secret sauce one user prefers over the other at that stage.

As long as it's not an MP3, it'll all be fine in the long run...
Carry on!

[GoldfishX]

How about we just petition Sugiyama for a DSD version of the DQ Symphonic Suites so everyone can judge for themselves?

To drag this topic even further offcourse, is there ANY VGM that has been released in DSD format?

[smartalex2014]

What about the Minidisc back in the late 90's?

[Datschge]

Minidisc is lossy, it's the platform for which Sony developed the lossy ATRAC format (which is used for audio compression on their gaming systems nowadays).

[_if]

Originally Posted by Jazz Paladin

I do think PCM had some very big limitations to overcome, the most notable of which was an upper frequency band that can be very brittle. As digital clocks, jitter, filtering etc, have made improvements, it is much less discernible than it was 10 years ago.

I see no indication this is true. There's no reason for it to be. Digital clocks would have no effect on that. Something like jitter is practically never audible and even when it is, like if you purposely create enough to be audible, it doesn't manifest as high frequency brittleness. Filtering, sure, but I'm dubious that there have been real audible improvements there and anyway brittleness still likely wouldn't be a term to apply to any deficiency of a filter since it would be more likely to simply cut out the high frequencies rather than exaggerate them, as I would read that word to mean.

Originally Posted by Jazz Paladin

As for any perceived differences, well...I do think they are there. Since the limits of hearing are indeed capped at 44.2 KHz for stereo, but people can still claim to hear differences (pretty easy for me to tell), something has to be causing them, especially if one can tell in a blind A/B. It's all about filters in the end and the effect that they have on the audible band. And then, it's just a matter of what secret sauce one user prefers over the other at that stage.

I'd be interested to see the results of such a test and the files that were used.


Psst, hey GoldfishX... http://vgmdb.net/album/13315

[Jazz Paladin]

Clock stability plays a major role in the sonics. An unstable clock leads to upper band distortion because of timing errors, both in the A/D or D/A phase. Hence the "Brittleness" of early recordings. A more stable clock is less prone to such distortion, and I can easily tell differences between good and bad clocks when switching a playback master. Sometimes these differences are quite big, but overall things are at worst "good" when compared to the past.

I've done enough blind D/A/D loops of identical performances that I've created from scratch during a mastering phase to hear a difference between 44.2 and above, and my methodology conducting the tests was sound. I am not here to do any convincing otherwise, because not everyone has a set of golden ears, nor is everyone out there capable of hearing the difference, and some just don't have the proper equipment or listening environment, or some people just don't care enough to discern.

And in all honesty, I don't feel this forum is the best place to debate this matter extensively. Let it suffice that everyone has their opinions. Mine are as stands. You've done your research as well and come to a different conclusion. Many roads lead to the same destination sometimes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that one is better than the other.

I wouldn't be using PCM right now if I felt that it was inadequate for rendering things. In all honesty, after recording for well more than a decade, I can say that it has made great leaps and strides in quality, and not just because of high sample rates or dithering down a 24 bit master. In the past I had plenty of reason to be unhappy with it. Not quite the case these days. Quite the opposite.

Just my two cents and sentiment. My original question simply pertained to physical media as an option, regardless of format.

No offense taken at all, and none intended. If this were another avenue, I love discussing this sort of thing, but I don't think I want others getting tired of my tech talk. I am primarily here to talk about gaming music and what turns people on about it.

So thank you for making yourself clear, believe it or not, I value your insights and willingness to expound your thoughts and even challenge my own line of thinking. My experience has just taken me to different conclusion, that is all.

Back to writing music, carry on!