Discussion:
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
arnyk
2018-01-03 12:41:42 UTC
Permalink
24290

In order to evaluate this I downloaded what one might expect to be one
of the most reliable "Hi Rez" web sites: HDTRACKS.COM. I donwloaded
what should be one of their most exceptional collections: their
headlining sampler. This is he music that convinces audiophiles to buy
their products!

Remember this is the web site that posts proudly on their home page:

"HDtracks is the only music store founded, funded, and operated by
musicians, artists, and audiophiles. Started in 2008 by Norman and David
Chesky, pioneers of revolutionary recording techniques and founders of
the groundbreaking audiophile label Chesky Records, HDtracks takes their
obssession with quality to the most important part of any recording:
you, the listener. With industry-leading and painstaking quality
controls, everything sold on HDtracks is of the highest possible
quality, and available in a diverse range of formats so technology
doesn't interfere with the listening experience."

"We're looking to ensure all files sold on the site are true to the
format they are listed as on the site. All 24bit is tested to have true
24 ACTIVE bits so 16 bit upsamples can be identified. We also test to
make sure the freq extends to 1/2 the sampling frequency nyquist in
order to identify they are not coming from lower resolution recordings
(96khz will extend to 48khz nyquist)."

Please review the attached graphic.

The first picture is of the description of the tracks in the 2017
sampler. I downloaded it on the *last* day of the year 2017, so it has
probably been downloaded thousands of times and its sound quality as
perceived by its clients has convinced those thousands of audiophiles
that it is as described above.

Or, why else did they sign up and pay good money download tracks from
it?

The second picture is a FFT of the first track (Track 1) in the
sampler. It is rather obviously slavishly upsampled from a 44 KHz file.

The second file in the sampler is not pictured because despite being
identified as a 24/96 FLAC, it is in fact a 44 KHz FLAC.

The last FFT is a typical expanded view of that second file. Please note
the rather obvious clipping.

Now, just for grins look at this page and view the faces of the people
who have brought this collection of files to you:
https://www.hdtracks.com/about-us

BTW this is by no means the extent of exceptional findings about this
file collection. Check it out


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: HDTracks Sampler 2017.jpg |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24290|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
ralphpnj
2018-01-04 15:58:11 UTC
Permalink
What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
CD quality but with a much larger file.



Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1
& Energy sub
Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0
Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar
Garage: SB3-JVC compact system
Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso
Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
stereoptic
2018-01-04 16:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Nice analysis, but I am confused as to the relationship between how the
people at HDTracks look, and the quality of the downloads? Is there a
particular high resolution facial structure? ;)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
stereoptic's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=53162
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Jeff07971
2018-01-05 17:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by stereoptic
Nice analysis, but I am confused as to the relationship between how the
people at HDTracks look, and the quality of the downloads? Is there a
particular high resolution facial structure? ;)
No they just have bat ears ! ;)



*Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezeLiteX,PiCorePlayer
x3,Wandboard
*Server:* LMS Version: Latest Nightly on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6.5.0U1 on
Dell T320
*Plugins:*
AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud/Spotty/Player
Groups
*Remotes:* iPeng9/Orangesqueeze/PC/Jivelite/SqueezeLiteX
*Music:* 522GB,1660 albums with 23087 songs by 5204 artists mostly
FLACs

*Want a webapp ?* See
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104305-Webapp-for-LMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff07971's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=49290
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Mnyb
2018-01-05 22:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Yes this is a quite common case the existing master is 44,1kHz or
sometimes 24/48 which seems to be the popular music standard some niche
audiophile or some classical labels may use higher resolution but they
are the exception .

But it does not really help with much of thier content which is much
baby boomers rock from the 70’s even captured in glorious 384kHz or DSD
that analog tape still has less resolution than reedbook 16/44.1 kHz .

Now I make my piont :) the actual technical spec is completely
uninteresting as soon as it is 16/44.1 or better .
What would matter is which master they source .

If you truly wanted to sell HD or “Hi Fi” versions of anything you would
select the masters with great care ,curated by humans .
Not just making sure the dowloadfiles have big impressive numbers. That
would include asking labels to actually not send their latest remaster
effort in some cases , these are sometimes plagued low dynamic range and
accompanying “ loudness war “ problems .
But something else that the aficionados of a certain work/artist
preferrers . It could in some cases actually be the latest carefully
made remaster so I don’t dismiss all remasters.


( some goes for so called hifi streaming services, who just lets the
labels upload whatever they fancy without any QC ) .

I would truly be an imidiate custommer if some service or shop provided
definitive versions of the music or choices if they are several well
liked versions



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
Misc use: Radio (with battery)
iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
(spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Archimago
2018-01-06 02:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Happy New Year everyone!

Yup. No surprise about the paicity of actual hi-res music. For years
HDtracks has been releasing upsampled music. And few of the recordings
of course achieve anything close to needing beyond 16-bits if even that.
Years ago, I wrote the article on "'Hi-Res Expectations'
(http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/03/musings-high-resolution-audio.html)"
and I see absolutely nothing has changed over the years.

I wondered back then and still today just how much of this stuff they're
actually selling... Hard to imagine a big market.



Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Mnyb
2018-01-06 04:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Archimago
Happy New Year everyone!
Yup. No surprise about the paicity of actual hi-res music. For years
HDtracks has been releasing upsampled music. And few of the recordings
of course achieve anything close to needing beyond 16-bits if even that.
Years ago, I wrote the article on "'Hi-Res Expectations'
(http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/03/musings-high-resolution-audio.html)"
and I see absolutely nothing has changed over the years.
I wondered back then and still today just how much of this stuff they're
actually selling... Hard to imagine a big market.
A bit bigger than imagined . It’s them and some other similar outfit or
lossy ?

You buy so called hirez or MP3 wonderful :D so I sometimes get 24/96
from them well aware what i get . When I fail to find any other lossles
source or does not want to import a CD ( why send polycarbonate discs
around the world ). Or wants something rigth now .



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
Misc use: Radio (with battery)
iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
(spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
arnyk
2018-01-06 14:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mnyb
Yes this is a quite common case the existing master is 44,1kHz or
sometimes 24/48 which seems to be the popular music standard some niche
audiophile or some classical labels may use higher resolution but they
are the exception .
An interesting instance of 20-ish kHz band limiting can be found in LP
needle drops. For example take a look at this one which shows clear
evidnce of digital processing:24311

How might this come to be? Starting in the late 1960s digital delay
devices such as the Ampex ADD-1 were used to provide a look-ahead
facility for automating disk cutting by increasing groove pitch for loud
passages: 24312

This device was placed in line with the electronics that drove the
cutter:24312


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: ampex add-1 figure 1 dB magazine 1979-11.jpg |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24312|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Archimago
2018-01-07 04:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Interesting history there Arny... I assume the effect must have been
transparent.

Also I presume there's an AD/DA in the device. What kind of conversion
quality are we looking at with the ADD-1 back in the day for these
LP's!?

I'm sure Michael Fremer would have no trouble identifying these
digitally compromised LPs :rolleyes:.



Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
arnyk
2018-01-07 12:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Archimago
Interesting history there Arny... I assume the effect must have been
transparent.
Listening tests of this device were among our early adventures with ABX:



http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm
Post by Archimago
Also I presume there's an AD/DA in the device.
For sure. It was said to be a proper 16 bit device. Its clock rate may
have been adjustable in the 40-50 KHz range. The dB article that I
referenced seems to be the sole surviving piece of doc that is stored in
public.

It was tested quite exhanstively, and found to be sonically transparent.
Those tests is the origin of my interest in testing gear with a set of
keys, jangling. This is quite demanding, and just about everything in a
good studio in those days would fail to be transparent enough to pass
ABX tests.
Post by Archimago
What kind of conversion quality are we looking at with the ADD-1 back
in the day for these LP's!?
I don't have a sample to test, but from analysis of LPs that appear to
be cut using it, I would speculate somewhat informedly that it used
analog filters, R2R conversion, and the analog filters were very gentle
by modern standards. The transistion band appears to be huge by modern
standards.
Post by Archimago
I'm sure Michael Fremer would have no trouble identifying these
I'd guess that a very high proportion of LPs that were cut from 1979 to
bits, and were brick wall filtered at 24 Khz or thereabout. I don't
beieve that he has complained about even one instance of this.
For example, every legacy copy of the DSOTM LP probably received this
treatment. During loud passages, the brick wall and rejection band is
covered up by the nonlinear distortion that is inherent in the LP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Daverz
2018-01-09 21:41:21 UTC
Permalink
I wouldn't buy anything from HDTracks without researching it first. I
buy a lot more downloads from eClassical or Presto, at least 16/44 FLAC.
I do like to get the "studio master" versions if it's not too much more
expensive than 16/44, what the hell, but I don't bother with 44/24 or
48/24 versions.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daverz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32335
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Archimago
2018-01-14 21:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by arnyk
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm
"The Ampex 16 Bit Digital Delay Line vs. wire comparison was made in a
professional recording studio control room on time aligned UREI 813
speakers with McIntosh MC-2100 amplifiers. The audio source was local
country artist P. J. Coombes who had been recorded on a 24-track Ampex
MM-1000. That tape had been mixed to a 2-track tape at 15 IPS on a
Scully 280. The mixdown and playback was through an API console. Thus
the master tape played for these ABX trials was of quality not available
to the record buyer of the era.
The listeners included professional recording engineers with years of
experience on major label projects, professional maintenance engineers,
and recording engineering students.
For those not familiar with studio equipment, these are some of the most
revered pieces of equipment of that day. API consoles are still prized
today for their high quality. The studio microphone locker included
Neumann U-67,Neumann, U-87, and Neumann KM-86 along with various
microphones that might be selected for specific applications such as
inside the drums.
"
For sure. It was said to be a proper 16 bit device. Its clock rate may
have been adjustable in the 40-50 KHz range. The dB article that I
referenced seems to be the sole surviving piece of doc that is stored in
public.
It was tested quite exhaustively, and found to be sonically transparent.
Those tests is the origin of my interest in testing gear with a set of
keys, jangling. This is quite demanding, and just about everything in a
good studio in those days would fail to be transparent enough to pass
ABX tests.
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_tapg.htm
I don't have a sample to test, but from analysis of LPs that appear to
be cut using it, I would speculate somewhat informedly that it used
analog filters, and R2R conversion. The analog filters were relatively
gentle by modern standards. The transistion band appears to be huge. A
fair amount of loss in the 17-22 KHz range.
:-)
I'd guess that a very high proportion of LPs that were cut from 1979 to
bits, and were brick wall filtered at 24 Khz or thereabout. I don't
beieve that he has complained about even one instance of this.
For example, every legacy copy of the DSOTM LP probably received this
treatment.
During loud passages, the brick wall and rejection band is covered up by
24324
This is an interesting finding to me, because it turns all of those LPs
into potential test records for evaluating the nonlinear distortion
inherent in the LP. If analysis of a quiet passage or leadin groove
shows the indicated digial artifacts or something like them, then
anything above the observed transistion band has to be generated by the
LP format itself, as no such signal was ever sent to the cutter head.
LPs cut in Y2K and later seem to be free of this issue - the delay may
not have been used, or it was running at a higher sample rate such as
24/96.
To clairfy, the needle drop shown is of a contemporateous Supertramp LP.
Wow Arny! Appreciate your comments and demonstration. Great stuff and a
wonderful reminder of the transparency from digital even from the old
days before all the iterations and focus on home digital audio after the
release of CD.

Beyond all the angst these days about using digital to cut vinyl, this
is a reminder of just how far back digital has impacted vinyl
production... Something the analogue purists need to keep in mind
especially if they cite albums like Supertramp and DSOTM :-).

I'll have to remember to point to this post in the blog sometime!



Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
sgmlaw
2018-01-18 15:18:22 UTC
Permalink
My experience is it depends on the original master recording and the
competency of the remastering engineer.

I've suffered through some 'high-res' releases that sounded worse than
the 25 year old Redbook pressing of it.

This can be even more pronounced with older masters where no care is
taken. I think there is a rush to fleece sometimes with the 24-bit
lure.

I still favor a top vinyl copy over even a fair 24-bit transfer.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
sgmlaw's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13995
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
arnyk
2018-01-27 10:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Archimago
Interesting history there Arny... I assume the effect must have been
transparent.
Also I presume there's an AD/DA in the device. What kind of conversion
quality are we looking at with the ADD-1 back in the day for these
LP's!?
I'm sure Michael Fremer would have no trouble identifying these
digitally compromised LPs :rolleyes:.
I can only talk about what I read from the dB article, what was SOTA at
that time, and analysis of the measured evidence that I observe. Back in
the day we had very little analog test gear that was accurate enough to
make judegments about gear this good.

It was indeed composed of a pair of discrete ADCs, probably
sucessive-approximation, the digital delay line was probably based on
shift registers implemented in TTL, and a pair of discrete (probably
R2R) DACs. The brick wall filters were no doubt analog, probably made up
of lots of little coils and capacitors. They were unlikely to have been
minimum-phase or very accurate. The notch in the recording of low level
signals suggests what were called Eliptical Filters. But it performed
so much better than analog. For example it passed the keys-jangling
test, and it took 30 ips half-track to do that in days when 15 ips
hafl-track was the usual practice.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
pablolie
2018-01-27 16:26:37 UTC
Permalink
I remember the days when they would print -in the back of quite a few
CDs- whether it was DDD, ADD or AAD. I don't think I ever saw vinyl
stating whether it was "ADA" or something like that... :-D But I have to
admit my vinyl days were over as soon as CDs came out, and that I
digitized my vinyl collection as soon as some home digitization became
possible.

...p



...pablo
Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 14 Pro) running Ubuntu
16.04 + LMS 7.9
System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval
Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem
Element Fire
Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem
DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub
Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado
PS500e/Shure 1540
------------------------------------------------------------------------
pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Davesworld
2018-02-06 04:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by pablolie
I remember the days when they would print -in the back of quite a few
CDs- whether it was DDD, ADD or AAD. I don't think I ever saw vinyl
stating whether it was "ADA" or something like that... :-D But I have to
admit my vinyl days were over as soon as CDs came out, and that I
digitized my vinyl collection as soon as some home digitization became
possible.
...p
Some of the best sounding vinyl I had was digitally mastered. Most new
vinyl is made from CDs but nobody ever talks about what amplifier runs
the cutting heads. In the old days the best vinyl was cut using McIntosh
250 watt tube amps. Still, like you if there is no digital version I
would at least digitize the vinyl which is better than nothing. I
preferred the carefully mastered high quality DDD cds. At first they
simply threw the analog masters that were mastered for vinyl onto CD and
they sounded bright and harsh. Few people can appreciate just how well
pure digital can sound if done properly. Some still think digital is not
continuous and analog is. There are no gaps. There was an episode of
Ghost whisperer where they propped up this myth by giving the boy a
turntable and he said, "wow, it does sound better". The mom of the
character said, "that's because it's continuous". I almost screamed and
wrote an angry letter to the writer. I'm amazed at how misunderstood
digital audio is by even people who should know better by their
background. By the same token I would never return to analog TV or
video. The codecs are just getting too good and efficient.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Davesworld
2018-02-06 03:48:00 UTC
Permalink
I can tell you from experience exactly what one gets, a convenient way
to buy digital material without buying and storing CDs. I actually use
SOX to downsample and downbit these recordings to 16/44 using the
default dithering setting which is triangulation dithering. Some of the
worst earbleeding recordings I own are remastered hi res albums and some
of the best sounding I have are redbook 16/44. I bought Nirvana's
remastered high res Nevermind, I also own the 1990s CD. For compulsory
reasons I listened at high res first as I always do since I paid for it
and was not prepared for the nails on the chalkboard overly compressed
with occasional clipping sound that was produced. The 1991 CD version
sounds superior in every way.

When I wanted a copy of Peter Frampton's Frampton Comes Alive, I bought
the so called High res version. While it sounded as good as I have ever
heard of this album and saved me from buying yet another CD, it was
merely an upsampled 44.1k version. There was a brick wall at 22khz.
everything above that is merely padded with zeros creating a huge file.
I'm amazed at people swearing that upsampling something that was
originally sampled at 44.1k can somehow add information that was never
there to their bigger file. Sampling is done in the pre-digitization
process and can never be raised above what it was originally sampled at,
only lowered. See attached image and notice the brick wall at 22khz,
this is a 96k file!

I will tell you that many recordings DO sound better due to more careful
remastering by someone who actually can hear but when I convert them to
Redbook, they retain every bit of the improvement. I keep the original
hi res downloads in an archive folder and all my music files are on a
fault tolerant raid server using one of the few filesystems that protect
against bit rot, a COW (copy on write) filesystem that does self
checksumming and can restore itself due to the copy on write data. To
give a visual example of what bit rot can do, think of when you visit a
website and only part of an image shows up and the rest is grayed out,
that my friends is bit rot of an image file. You do not want it EVER on
any file.

Trying to reproduce non musical noise above 22khz if your speakers and
amp etc could even reproduce it if anything might be cruel to certain
pets you may have, there may be some musical information there but it's
effects within our hearing range have already been captured once. No
human in the last 100 years has ever heard very far beyond 20k just as
none of us can see infrared and ultraviolet. Do certain lower harmonics
of certain instruments exist in the audible range, sure they do but
those lower harmonics we can hear in our audible range were already
captured by the recording equipment as I touched on above, trying to
reproduce it twice, once before the recording and once again on playback
is not what I would consider proper reproduction. In many cases, your
tweeter as well as amplifier, preamp and such have a good chance of
creating problems above 20khz since they are designed to behave in the
audible range and are not designed to double as an RF amp or transducer
in the case of the tweeter. Throughout my life, the poor harsh quality
of some recordings has always been in the upper midrange and in my late
teens as well as now, it is the same and can drive me up a wall while
cursing the deaf engineer who subjected us to that. Some of the best
tweeters on the market that I would unhesitatingly use in my speaker
designs, have a breakup node well above 20khz to the point that I would
use a notch filter outside our hearing range just to kill it unless it
somehow keeps pests away without bothering me or pets. There are
benefits to rolling off sharply above 20khz. Many are fooled by the
engineering representation of a sampled sine wave that shows a stair
step effect, this effect does not exist in reproduction. It has never
been seen on a scope or otherwise. The assumption is that the higher
sampling will make this non existent stair step effect more fine grained
and thus closer to an analog sine wave, nope, one only needs the
sampling to be twice that of the desired top frequency to reproduce a
perfect waveform. Digital audio was worked on for nearly a century
before we got it.

As far as 24bit depth, well it harms nothing but a dithered 16 bit
recording can easily produce a clean -105db signal. 96db is not the
limit on these recordings, even at that, the worst sounding digital
recordings are usually compressed to have about 20db dynamic range at
the top of the scale and are are overdriven above 0db producing
clipping. You don't need even four bits of depth to produce some of
these awful recordings. With digital, distortion is extremely low below
0db but increases horribly above 0db. It is not like the analog days
when it was common and preferred to have an occasional signal hit +3 or
+6db on peaks only since good tape had headroom and not much signal to
noise so you had to fully utilize what you had. the heavy compressed and
marginal overdriving effect used on far too many modern recordings are a
relic of the perceived loudness effect some think still sells even
though it has not worked since AM radio. In the late 70s FM Stations
began trying this, it just sounded awful, not louder as it was with AM
and now people are trying this with digital, enough already! High
sampling and larger bit depth will solve none of the ills created by
this technique, just bigger file size.

I know this is long and sounding like a rant. I will say that I did find
some places to download redbook quality FLAC files for certain artists
such as dead Can Dance. I finished out my collection of their music only
to see that whoever converted them to FLAC created files that have tons
of clipping. My three CDs from the 1990s of their material when ripped
by me to never go above -1db in peaks have none of these problems. There
just is no need for something that can produce over 100db of dynamic
range to have clipping in it nor is there an excuse. The attached
analysis shows The Fatal Impact from the eponymous Dead Can Dance album
that I purchased as a download. The red sections are where the clipping
occurred. Dead Can Dance recordings usually are recordings worthy of
judging equipment by, not these downloads who were converted by someone
who does not know or does not care what they are doing, possibly both.

Of note is that the 1999 remaster of Roxy Music's Avalon is agreed on by
many as the best sounding version of this beautiful album, may have to
buy as CD and rip yourself. All the High Res downloads mentioned here by
me are from HD Tracks and is likely the only practical way to get a
remastered lossless download even though most are High Res. Many do
sound great because of the remastering itself. Another side note is that
analog LPs converted to CD sound exactly like the LP complete with the
pre post groove echo that gives the false impression of more depth and
air as well as the audible effects of wow, flutter, rumble, tangential
tracking errors, skating, surface noise, tonearm microphonics and hum if
audible not to mention the higher distortion of the inner tracks of the
LP due to less molecules of vinyl per second passing the needle and
least of all, don't forget the only 45db of stereo separation and 8 bit
equivalent dynamic range at best. I lived that for 25 years of my life
and miss none of that and certainly do not miss playing one side of one
record at a time. Heck, I don't even miss digging CDs out of their jewel
cases. I started moving to server storage around 1999 when Flac was well
on it's way, then the iPod completely derailed the progress being made
on the server/streamer method that we thankfully and sanely resumed.
Seriously, did we need a 3000 dollar docking station for the lossy
mediocre sound from these devices? What were people thinking? I DO miss
the huge 12" album covers in my hand while dreaming of being a rock
star, the latter really added to the experience. Apple ruined that too
with the iPod, bastards! they really have the marketing savvy to dumb
down the public and convince them that the sows ear they bought really
is silk. Who else could make a fashion statement from polycarbonate
which is all the iPod really was?

Top Image: Spectrum of 96k download Frampton Comes Alive obviously
originally sampled at 44k. Waste of file space.
Bottom Image: Dead Can Dance DB showing clipping.
2448524486


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: Screenshot_20180205_161958.png |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24486|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
ralphpnj
2018-02-06 12:45:41 UTC
Permalink
....I know this is long and sounding like a rant....
Well I for one enjoyed every bit of your wonderful post. You covered all
of the points about digital audio that are most often misrepresented and
backed up your statements with good solid scientific proof.
Unfortunately science in the Age of Trump is down on one knee and
hanging onto the ropes for dear life.

One little thing that you missed is the inability of humans to hear nano
and pico second distortions, e.g. digital jitter.



Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1
& Energy sub
Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0
Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar
Garage: SB3-JVC compact system
Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso
Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
odw199
2018-02-06 13:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

A very interesting read, thank you to everyone who's clearly put time
and thought into the research.

A couple of questions from my rather naive (and very computer science
orientated background). I ripped my CD collection to FLAC many years ago
using Max on a Mac (http://sbooth.org/Max/). I can't remember the exact
settings, but would have probably been very close to the defaults as
shipped with the application. My understanding being the software
digitally extracted the 1s and 0s from the CD and then converted these
to a FLAC file. In such a setup, how can you produce a bad FLAC version
with clipping not present on the original as mentioned by Davesworld?

Secondly, where do people recomend downloading lossless files from if
not HDTracks? Is 7digital regarded as a better source (I'm mainly
thinking about new releases as opposed to old recordings re-issued for
the digital age).

Cheers



LMS Server: Mac Mini with music library on Drobo 5D
Living Room: Raspberry Pi + AlloBoss -> Onkyo A 9010 -> KEF LS50
Study: Raspberry Pi -> Audio Engine D1 -> Audio Addon Pro T3
Kitchen: Squeezebox Radio
Bedroom: SB3 -> B&W Zeppelin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
odw199's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15387
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Davesworld
2018-02-07 03:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by odw199
Hi,
A very interesting read, thank you to everyone who's clearly put time
and thought into the research.
A couple of questions from my rather naive (and very computer science
orientated background). I ripped my CD collection to FLAC many years ago
using Max on a Mac (http://sbooth.org/Max/). I can't remember the exact
settings, but would have probably been very close to the defaults as
shipped with the application. My understanding being the software
digitally extracted the 1s and 0s from the CD and then converted these
to a FLAC file. In such a setup, how can you produce a bad FLAC version
with clipping not present on the original as mentioned by Davesworld?
Secondly, where do people recomend downloading lossless files from if
not HDTracks? Is 7digital regarded as a better source (I'm mainly
thinking about new releases as opposed to old recordings re-issued for
the digital age).
Cheers
I've not purchased from 7digital yet but they do have some material I am
interested in. I am reminded that I need to occasionally seek out which
lossless downloads are available from where.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Davesworld
2018-02-07 06:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ralphpnj
Well I for one enjoyed every bit of your wonderful post. You covered all
of the points about digital audio that are most often misrepresented and
backed up your statements with good solid scientific proof.
Unfortunately science in the Age of Trump is down on one knee and
hanging onto the ropes for dear life.
One little thing that you missed is the inability of humans to hear nano
and pico second distortions, e.g. digital jitter.
I hadn't considered that but I will say that a networked transport is
likely to fare very good compared to a disc transport in this regard.
Any good DAC should be responsible for clocking accuracy in it's end
these days making it a moot point. I do prefer jitter to be under 10ms
though given a choice. I'm sure someone has done tests where they induce
varying degrees of jitter while test subjects listen. It would be neat
to test DACs buffering and re-clocking ability by throwing a heavily
jittered stream into it. Some say only re-clocking on the DAC end is
necessary without buffering first. If DACs aren't doing this they should
be to put the notion to rest. It takes hours if not days of listening to
something to know if fatigue sets in. This is especially true with
speakers, at first comparison the one with more harmonic distortion will
give the impression of more detail but this new found detail is not
supposed to be there. Third harmonics are the most annoying. Some like
the coloration of even harmonic distortion and you would have to wait
for them to die before pulling the single ended triode amp for their
hands.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
cliveb
2018-02-07 09:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davesworld
I know this is long and sounding like a rant.
Well - yes, it does sound like a rant.
And while most of your points are basically true, it seems a bit like a
stream of consciousness diatribe.
To a non-believer, it will sound like a bunch of opinions stated as
fact, and that's not going to convince anyone.

I'd like to address a few points.
Post by Davesworld
Many are fooled by the engineering representation of a sampled sine wave
that shows a stair step effect, this effect does not exist in
reproduction. It has never been seen on a scope or otherwise.
For an in-depth explanation of the reasons why (and lots of other
digital audio fundamental truths), see Monty's excellent video:
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml - this is the sort of hard evidence
you need to present to people who believe otherwise.
Post by Davesworld
The Fatal Impact from the eponymous Dead Can Dance album that I
purchased as a download. The red sections are where the clipping
occurred.
Your screen shot showing the clipping is from Audacity, which is known
to have a flawed clipping detection algorithm. PCM samples of N bits
range in value from -(2^(n-1)) to +(2^(n-1)-1). A solitary sample at
-(2^(n-1)) is NOT necessarily a clip, but Audacity will tell you it is.
I'm not saying that the Dead Can Dance file doesn't have clipping, but
the Audacity screen shot is not proof that it does.
Post by Davesworld
I do prefer jitter to be under 10ms though given a choice.
I sincerely hope that is a typo and you meant to say 10ns!
Post by Davesworld
I'm sure someone has done tests where they induce varying degrees of
jitter while test subjects listen.
Indeed they have:

Benjamin & Gannon.
Theoretical and audible effects of jitter on digital audio quality.
105th AES Convention, 1998
Jitter added to digital signal between transport and DAC with a
hardware device.
Conclusions: uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 10nS rms on pure
tones; uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 20nS rms on music signal

Ashihara, Kiryu et al.
Detection threshold for distortions due to jitter on digital audio.
Acoust. Sci. & Tech. 26, 1 (2005)
Jitter simulated in the digital domain.
Conclusions: uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 250nS on music
signal.



Transporter -> ATC SCM100A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Davesworld
2018-02-08 00:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by cliveb
Well - yes, it does sound like a rant.
And while most of your points are basically true, it seems a bit like a
stream of consciousness diatribe.
To a non-believer, it will sound like a bunch of opinions stated as
fact, and that's not going to convince anyone.
Fair enough.
I'd like to address a few points.
Post by cliveb
For an in-depth explanation of the reasons why (and lots of other
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml - this is the sort of hard evidence
you need to present to people who believe otherwise.
I've seen this but should have linked it since it clears up many
misunderstandings and myths.
Post by cliveb
Your screen shot showing the clipping is from Audacity, which is known
to have a flawed clipping detection algorithm. PCM samples of N bits
range in value from -(2^(n-1)) to +(2^(n-1)-1). A solitary sample at
-(2^(n-1)) is NOT necessarily a clip, but Audacity will tell you it is.
I'm not saying that the Dead Can Dance file doesn't have clipping, but
the Audacity screen shot is not proof that it does.
Yes, I just tried that same file using Ocenaudio and while it does not
give a visual it did list dozens of clipped areas, over 40 on the right
channel but I am open to more tools as I find them.
Post by cliveb
I sincerely hope that is a typo and you meant to say 10ns!
Maybe should have but in the last ten years I have spent a good deal of
time with VOIP and what affects MOS (Mean Opinion Score) and it's not
critiqued in the ns, most equipment has an adaptive jitter buffer which
will add delay if it becomes large since you are buffering 20ms or more
in extreme cases, only the best trained listeners can notice a delay
under 200ms though but this is for another topic in another forum.
Post by cliveb
Benjamin & Gannon.
Theoretical and audible effects of jitter on digital audio quality.
105th AES Convention, 1998
Jitter added to digital signal between transport and DAC with a
hardware device.
Conclusions: uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 10nS rms on pure
tones; uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 20nS rms on music signal
Ashihara, Kiryu et al.
Detection threshold for distortions due to jitter on digital audio.
Acoust. Sci. & Tech. 26, 1 (2005)
Jitter simulated in the digital domain.
Conclusions: uncorrelated jitter inaudible below 250nS on music
signal.
Ok now I see why you thought nanoseconds should have been mentioned by
me, this is very interesting indeed! Thanks!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
arnyk
2018-01-06 14:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff07971
No they just have bat ears ! ;)
24310


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: Stereophile_high_resolution_secrets_cover.jpg |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24310|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
pablolie
2018-01-20 15:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by ralphpnj
CD quality but with a much larger file.
Awesome summary. :-)



...pablo
Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 14 Pro) running Ubuntu
16.04 + LMS 7.9
System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval
Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem
Element Fire
Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem
DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub
Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado
PS500e/Shure 1540
------------------------------------------------------------------------
pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
pablolie
2018-01-20 16:04:15 UTC
Permalink
...I had no idea that digital recording pollution had started as early!

I present the following little experiment I have gone for over the years
with one of my favorite recordings ever.

24411

One version is a 320k CBR rip from the original CD, the second the
HDtracks download, supposedly from the "previously undiscovered,
cryogentically-frozen and kept-in-a-vacuum master tape". F__k me if I
can ever hear a difference. And I've listened to it on $4k headphones
(not mine), spending an utterly unenjoyable hour trying to convince
myself I *had* to hear a difference. I've done the same experiment, only
comparing a 16/44 and a 24/192 of very well recorded, 2000-ish albums,
much to the same result. Maybe *there* I'd be able to detect a
difference between the 320 and 16/44 version, but it's not one I'd
particularly care for other than for archiving purposes. And I
supposedly can still hear up to 17kHz, so it's not like I have deafened
myself over the years.

And now that it's easy to score $2 CDs in the used market, I've
rediscovered the joy of roaming around in a music store on a weekend.
Vintage CD stores, who would've thought! :-D


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: bevans.jpg |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24411|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+


...pablo
Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 14 Pro) running Ubuntu
16.04 + LMS 7.9
System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval
Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval->- Totem
Element Fire
Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem
DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub
Computer audio: workstation --USB->- audioengine D1 -> Grado
PS500e/Shure 1540
------------------------------------------------------------------------
pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Archimago
2018-01-20 17:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by pablolie
...I had no idea that digital recording pollution had started as early!
I present the following little experiment I have gone for over the years
with one of my favorite recordings ever.
24411
One version is a 320k CBR rip from the original CD, the second the
HDtracks download, supposedly from the "previously undiscovered,
cryogentically-frozen and kept-in-a-vacuum master tape". F__k me if I
can ever hear a difference. And I've listened to it on $4k headphones
(not mine), spending an utterly unenjoyable hour trying to convince
myself I *had* to hear a difference. I've done the same experiment, only
comparing a 16/44 and a 24/192 of very well recorded, 2000-ish albums,
much to the same result. Maybe *there* I'd be able to detect a
difference between the 320 and 16/44 version, but it's not one I'd
particularly care for other than for archiving purposes. And I
supposedly can still hear up to 17kHz, so it's not like I have deafened
myself over the years.
And now that it's easy to score $2 CDs in the used market, I've
rediscovered the joy of roaming around in a music store on a weekend.
Vintage CD stores, who would've thought! :-D
Oh no... -Say it ain't so!!!- Yet another "audiophile" who can't hear
the difference between MP3 and lossless! Even though your audiophile
membership has been revoked, it's good to hear your honesty :rolleyes:.

I guess as long as the public still pays money for the so-called "hi-res
version", it'll be made available no matter the provenance; including
all those ancient recordings with no real hope of achieving any benefit
from a high-res transfer. Despite the brave face and ongoing showing at
CES 2018 from the "High Resolution Audio" supporters, clearly the
mainstream isn't biting this year with essentially no coverage except
for the special interest groups (those places that still think MQA is
somehow a good idea!).

The Industry seriously needs to wake up. Even if ultimately 99.7564% of
listeners would not be able to tell a difference, at least if they're
going to sell hi-res recordings, let it be genuine product...



Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
darrenyeats
2018-01-21 10:47:10 UTC
Permalink
I agree hdtracks is a minefield, and their own sampler tracks are a
spectacular own-goal. DOYR.

I buy a lot of newer music. Often that's originally recorded at 24/44,
24/88, 24/96. Occasionally these original numbers are available for
download and I buy them (usually from Qobuz or 7digital). In these cases
I see down-sampling to 16/44 as an additional step that I don't need. It
might not be audibly better but hey, it's measurably better. (On a
similar note, why should I insert an extra line stage when I don't need
it, no matter how transparent it is? That would be bloody-minded IMO. If
I need it, fine, but if I don't?)

IMV it depends.
- Some DACs have sub-par up-sampling (can be fixed with source
up-sampling). But some DACs have good digital filtering and can
up-sample well themselves. So 16/44 could sound worse than hi-rez when
the playback system is not up-sampling well.
- Some 16/44 had dodgy anti-aliasing filter applied, in these cases the
equivalent hi-rez could sound better.

All that said, I believe if you have access to good up-sampling and a
well-made 16/44 recording then there's probably nothing audible. So, I'm
relaxed generally about 16/44 which, please note, is the majority of
what I have.



Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

SB Touch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Peter Galbavy
2018-01-25 11:27:55 UTC
Permalink
To drop more into the fire, a lot of new artists - those who self record
and produce at home, especially their first works - usually deliver 320k
MP3s to their labels for digital distribution. Certainly the common case
for electronic / dance music.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Galbavy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32718
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Mnyb
2018-01-25 18:31:33 UTC
Permalink
You could also add the fact that some analog tapes did not age well .
The digital copy from 1989 may be as good as it ever gets.

Also some early CD’s was simply cut from the LP master tape . A good
engineer knows that an LP is not transparent and have some well known
issues to workaround so they tweaked it to get a good LP experience.
The tonal balance etc may sound a bit wrong directly on a transparent
media as a CD how about a tad flat and thin :)

These two can ofcourse be combined so that the only viable source for
the remaster is the CD then you may fix some stuff but your limited .

Best case they went back to well preserved multitrack sources and redid
the whole mixing process from scratch , thats better if we get that
treat on in a while.
But even then the intrinsic sq off every track is still limited but you
can use a modern DAW software and have no further detoriation from there
.



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
Misc use: Radio (with battery)
iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
(spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Davesworld
2018-02-08 00:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by ralphpnj
CD quality but with a much larger file.
I actually have purchased some good 44.1k downloads from them but they
are far and few between. One of them is one of my favorite albums ever,
Replicas by Gary Numan and Tubeway Army, this predates the sonf Cars by
some months.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
SeanMiddleton
2018-02-08 04:25:19 UTC
Permalink
I have a massive collection of flacs derived from 44.1 Khz CD's. I also
have quite a number of HD tracks ranging from 24/48 up to 24/384. In
many case I have the same album in both HD and 44.1. Most of the time,
when comparing a HD track that was distilled from a HD master against
the 44.1 version of the same track, the HD variant is better. Sometimes
very much so. For HD tracks distilled from 44.1 or old analogue masters
there is sometimes and improvement and sometimes very little perceivable
difference. For tracks with wide dynamic range (typically orchestral
stuff) distilled from HD masters there is a very considerable difference
between the HD and 44.1. Anyone that doesn't hear that improvement
should probably not spend too much on their audio systems.

Assuming the HD track is distilled form a HD master the most significant
factor affecting the HD quality improvement is the dynamic range of the
material. The physics behind the dynamic range improvement of HD
recordings are widely published. If you have the gear and the
inclination try comparing a standard 44.1 version of Cassandra Wilson's
'New Moon Daughter' album with the 24/192 recording from HD tracks. The
improvement is astonishing. A number of other albums are similarly
improved. For orchestral/wide dynamic range HD is almost always better
when a HD master has been used


------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeanMiddleton's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=65522
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Mnyb
2018-02-08 09:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by SeanMiddleton
I have a massive collection of flacs derived from 44.1 Khz CD's. I also
have quite a number of HD tracks ranging from 24/48 up to 24/384. In
many case I have the same album in both HD and 44.1. Most of the time,
when comparing a HD track that was distilled from a HD master against
the 44.1 version of the same track, the HD variant is better. Sometimes
very much so. For HD tracks distilled from 44.1 or old analogue masters
there is sometimes and improvement and sometimes very little perceivable
difference. For tracks with wide dynamic range (typically orchestral
stuff) distilled from HD masters there is a very considerable difference
between the HD and 44.1. Anyone that doesn't hear that improvement
should probably not spend too much on their audio systems.
Assuming the HD track is distilled form a HD master the most significant
factor affecting the HD quality improvement is the dynamic range of the
material. The physics behind the dynamic range improvement of HD
recordings are widely published. If you have the gear and the
inclination try comparing a standard 44.1 version of Cassandra Wilson's
'New Moon Daughter' album with the 24/192 recording from HD tracks. The
improvement is astonishing. A number of other albums are similarly
improved. For orchestral/wide dynamic range HD is almost always better
when a HD master has been used
Define "same album" ? or better try this .

Take the HD tracks 24/192 version downsample it yourself to 16/44.1
don't compare with a CD rip or other download source even if they claim
to be the same .
I've done this myself .
yes HD versions vs bougth on CD can differ .
But when you downsample yourself to CD rez the diffrence is not there .
So in my opinion the diffrence is in the master the container is
unimportant as long it is 16/44.1 or better .

If had HD cabality for a decade and 100's of DVD-A and really did
believe that bigger bit container did something , it does not. There
really is no case at all for better 16/44.1 rez on consumer distrubeted
formats (your studio should ofcourse operate on another level ).
The real diffrence was discrete multichannel , an unbetable feature of
SACD and DVDA that everyone forgets

So thats marketting issue if have a better version and try to sell that
they blown "remastered" as a moniker , it's usually interpretted uber
compressed and worse .
So selling it as "HD" in an impressive bit container of 24/192 or DSD or
MQA does the trick .
How to convince byers that our new CD or 16/44.1 has much better
provence and more carefull mastering from better sources ?
If you can slap an DSD or MQA sticker on it sells better.



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
Misc use: Radio (with battery)
iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
(spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499
Loading...