 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.174.246.225
Looks like HDtracks isn't the only one with fugazi 24/96 titles. Linn has pulled all of the Arts Music 24/96 titles after Mike in MD reported problems at CA. I have 4 of them.
Follow Ups:
Audiophile: I want 24/96 high-res music.
Vendor: Great here it is.
Audiophile: Right, but some of this is resampled.
Vendor: Yeah, they do that.
Audiophile: No, you're a crook.
Vendor: What? How so?
Audiophile: You're selling music as hi-res that was resampled.
Vendor: Right but the packaging says nothing about this.
Audiophile: It's your responsibility to know the signal chain of all discs. You are supplying hi-res material.
Vendor: Okay. Albums are $20. Certified high-def albums are $200
Audiophile: That's not fair. You should research each title for free.
Vendor: Look, it takes TIME to research the signal chain of each disc and find out the native resolutions. Even then, I am still relying on the information provided to me by the studio and authors of the disc. I am not a crook - the music industry is - passing off resampled 48khz video content and redbook 44.1 as hi-res. It's really not fair to ask me to "certify" all hi-res material.
Audiophile: Well I don't see it that way.
Vendor: Hows this - "All hi-res content is provided in 24/96 FORMAT only. No guarantee is made that the original material has not been resampled from another resolution. This is beyond our control, and very difficult to find out in many cases. It is the responsibility of the customer to determine BEFORE PURCHASING if the material has been resampled or not and choose to purchase accordingly. By checking this box, you agree to this and our policy that refunds will not be made on hi-res material even if the source turns out to be resampled from another resolution."
Audiophile: Well, that sucks. I'm not buying your stuff.
Vendor: Okay. Go somewhere else for downloadable hi-res material. I am sure there are *lots* of places to get it!
Guys, I went through this with DVD-A. You got your DTS with the 44.1 layer. You got 48khz video passed off as redbook. 192khz hi-res stuff that was a total remix of the original masters - not even close to the 44.1 material. (Natalie Merchant Tigerlilly DVD-A: sorry, not the same mix as 44.1) You even got 48khz DVD-V thrown in with the high-res stuff. Then you had (rare) actual 24/96 DVD-V from Chesky. It was a dog show and every breed was at the party. Then, as HD started to die off, brick and mortal stores put DVD-A, SACD, DVD-V and CD all in the same alphabetized bins. (This is when I gave up on giving a damn about the native resolution and just started buying CDs again).
Producers were not concerned about giving audiophiles "native hi-res" music - they just wanted to take what they had handy and get it onto the "new format du jour". Some stuff was taken right from 24/96 and 24/192 masters. Other stuff was resampled. Some stuff never EXISTED as 24/96 or 24/192 masters! What about analog masters? Well, that's easy. Digitizing analog is fine - it's not REsampling it's just sampling. (In fact, I think digitization from analog masters using very pristine playback gear in the studio is the least offensive digital out there...)
So how is it some guy trying to do a little ma-and-pop business to supply audiophiles with some HD content is supposed to HAVE THE TIME to research the "history" of every damned title in his inventory from the resolution of master tapes to the resolution of the material used to make the disc from? Even if the master was 24/96, how do you KNOW they used the master and didn't just resample the 16/48 video? Maybe they didn't WANT the customer to have the native 24/96 anyways! Maybe they didn't trust the copy protection - and rightly so. DVD-A was cracked, and eventually MLP was too.
C'mon guys. And you'll only pay $15 for the album?
Not a business I want any part of.
I think the vendors (middle man) is being asked to take too much responsibility here for just PROVIDING material that is already provided "AS IS" by the music industry. You're picking on the vendor because if you picked on the music industry they'd tell you to piss off.
Face it.
If you want this changed, lobby consumer and corporate affairs to make it law to report the native resolution of the master and indicate whether or not the material is indeed native or has been resampled. Until then, even the vendor can't be sure.
Cheers,
Presto
I believe that the retailer of these files should make the studios provide the original source, be it analog or digital, sampling rate / bit as well any other additional "treatment" of the files.
I simply don't accept your position to accept things "AS IS".
for years and years this was okay for brick and mortar stores to do: just shelve HD audio material by it's jacket info - or in some cases by the general type of packaging: DVD-V, DVD-A, SACD...but now that music is being sold ONLINE, it's the vendors responsibility to not only report the sample rate CLAIMED by the title's author, but VERIFY and CERTIFY this information is accurate?
Because he puts it in a 24/96 section?
Simple answer. Don't sort music by sample rate. Just sell music by format.
CD, HD-DVD, DVD-A, SACD, Blue-ray etc. No claim about sample rate being "native" or "non-resmapled master" and the consumer, once again, takes responsbility for what he's buying. To not do this is to put poor behaviour on the part of the labels (putting out BS HD material) onto the middle man - the online vendor. And I stand by my assertion this is not right. If he is guaranteeing that all his 24/96 material was always 24/96 then he's putting himself on the hook for that.
[I am assuming sampling of old analog masters (including the lovely tape hiss) is a non-issue since analog does not have a sample rate and any digital take-off is simply sampling. So, ANY sample rate used to capture an analog master is valid. Now, if they captured at 16/44.1 and just resampled to 48khz for video and 96khz for DVD-A or blue ray, well that's the same as the original argument.]
I think the record industry should be lobbied to be more accountable about their packaging. Then again, most consumer-bots only care if the software "will play" and that there are big fancy numbers on the software and his home theatre receiver and DVD player that give the 'feel good' sensation of having the "latest greatest" technology. Yes the guy can't tell when his speakers are wired out of phase.
These are the people the music industry is catering to. Not us. We're 1/10th of a percent of sales.
Cheers,
Presto
Have you read the exchange between Tony and me? To reiterate, the online sellers want to charge more for these higher rate files. That's where the problem is. If they lump them all at the same regular price then that's a different matter. And why should they not/can they not require accurate description from the studios under contractual penalty for falsehoods? You're surely right that the full responsibility and cost should not rest with them alone.
In brick and mortal stores, DVD-A and SACD cost more as well.
But customers were still getting God knows what. The increase in cost was the smaller market the HD material was catering to. CD's were cheaper due to their considerably larger market share. The argument that paying more online for "HD material" should guarantee it's original sample rate is no different than demanding this from the brick and mortar vendors, who were also charging more.
Unless the guy is CERTIFYING that 24/96 material came off 24/96 master tapes or analog was digitized at 24/96, then the higher cost has to do with the format costing him more - not some certification of "genuine 24/96".
There seems to be an assumption being made here about why the material costs more...
Cheers,
Presto
"There seems to be an assumption being made here about why the material costs more..."
Virtually all of the costs in production of a master for duplication are labor related and are not going to be increased a significant amount by changing the data rate used for digitization. Costs will definitely go up if material has to be remastered or if cheap equipment is replaced by more expensive equipment, but there really is not extra cost for higher bit rates, apart for a tiny increase in storage costs and a little extra time in some file saving operations.
Even when you get to duplication, i.e. per copy costs, the differences between rates as minuscule. The costs for Internet bandwidth may triple, but they start at at a few pennies at most. The cost on the server end even for 192/24 material are still dwarfed by bank credit card processing fees.
This is not a cost based situation. It's a (real or imagined) value driven situation. (Imagined in the case of fraudulent material and imagined in case Meyer and Moran really were right. :-) )
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
No assumption about costs. Just that if you're to pay more you should be getting more/better. And the very point of downloading 24/96 files is to get something better than CD and from Linn or HDTracks you expect you're dealing with people especially concerned with sound quality. They trade on not just being an online Tower Records or some such. But I repeat that I am not expecting them to take all the weight. Some sort of certification and standards for hi-res is needed for the industry.
"I believe that the retailer of these files should make the studios provide the original source, be it analog or digital, sampling rate / bit as well any other additional "treatment" of the files."
There may be no original files that correspond to the original album. There may be magnetic tapes that were subsequently processed. A direct 1 for 1 transfer of these tapes may well sound distinctly inferior to a 44/16 version, not to mention if digital editing had been used to produce the CD then a straight hi-res relese would have different musical content. In other words, there might be substantial work to re edit, re mix and remaster these recordings. Given a small audiophile market for this material, this might be uneconomic.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"In other words, there might be substantial work to re edit, re mix and remaster these recordings. Given a small audiophile market for this material, this might be uneconomic."
If I understand you correctly, this would be a reason to not offer a 'Hi Res' or 24/96 version or to not buy it if offered, but not a reason the studio can't describe its nature and preparation accurately as Mercman and I have suggested if it does offer it. I realize this is all just too far beyond us mere non-engineer mortals to accurately grasp. Nonetheless, if HDTracks or the like are to offer 24/96 and above downloads, it is reasonable to expect that they have determined that what is offered at a higher price is better in some describable and reliable way.
I agree with you about descriptions. They can be anything the store wants them to be, provided that they are truthful. It's then up to the buyer to buy or not to buy.
While non-engineer audiophiles are certainly mortal, there is little reason to believe that those with some audio engineering experience (be it vocational or avocational) are less mortal. :-) I suggest getting some relatively inexpensive or free DAW software and playing around. You may find it entertaining, if not enlightening. If you are fortunate to have access to good musicians then you can try making some recordings. Here too, not much of an investment is needed to get started, e.g. you could use something as simple as a Zoom H4 field recorder.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Are you also agreeing with this part of what I wrote:
it is reasonable to expect that they have determined that what is offered at a higher price is better in some describable and reliable way.
that is, not just passing along a description but vouching for its greater value compared to the same at lower res by asking a higher price for it?
"Are you also agreeing with this part of what I wrote: it is reasonable to expect that they have determined that what is offered at a higher price is better in some describable and reliable way.
that is, not just passing along a description but vouching for its greater value compared to the same at lower res by asking a higher price for it?"
No, I would not necessarily draw that conclusion. Not for music downloads, not for audio equipment, indeed, not for any goods.
Setting a higher price by itself has little to do with making a statement that goods are somehow better. It is quite common to use superficial differences between goods to allow a merchant to set different prices and different profit margins for what are essentially the same goods. In other cases, identical goods are sold under different brands, in different stores, or to different people at different prices. This technique has a name in economics, it's called "price discrimination." It servers two purposes: to enable a seller to extract more revenue and (perhaps paradoxically) to allow certain goods to be made and sold that would otherwise be uneconomic. (I can supply an example of the latter if you are interested.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I don't believe these generalities, with which we are all already familiar, apply to this sort of case where the same recording is presented at two levels of samplerate and price from the same source. Here there is clearly an implied claim that the higher rate-price one is better. If this is not being claimed, one needs to explicitly disavow it to not be, at least passively, deceptive IMO.
I get the impression that you have not had much experience running a business or setting product prices. If you had, perhaps you would have a broader perspective.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
All that means to me is what I said before: that you cannot be objective in this area because you are too identified with those things. I am looking at it from the perspective of being an audiophile and consumer of many sorts of things and services in life--in business, profession, art, home, sports, etc.,etc. Ain't that broad enough for you?I understand why from the seller's point of view this is difficult and imposes greater costs (and why one might have to pay a premium to get a better version if it is better). That doesn't make it dispensable or too much to ask. It's what it takes to operate with integrity. If you can't do it right... Or are you saying one can't make it in business unless one gets people to pay more to get nothing more or unless you've managed to fool them about what they are getting?
Edits: 11/11/10
Is there a place on this forum for posting listening impressions and/or analysis of individual hi-res recordings? (At the moment I'm looking for users experiences with Tom Petty: Damn The Torpedoes 24-96 at HDTRacks).
Thanks!
Great idea. I think we should all post hi res titles that have exceptional sonics.
"Great idea. I think we should all post hi res titles that have exceptional sonics."
Or bad sonics. :-(
Some of the Everest transfers that HDtracks is selling have horrible flutter, presumably associated with sprocket problems with the 35mm magnetic film.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Another good point Tony!
Perhaps they can include a pair of dice with each sale.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Buying a recording has always been a crap shoot"
You are absolutely right Tony. But this hi res thing has added a new variable to the purchase. Are the studios being honest with us? Both Linn and HDtracks are doing their best to insure that customers are getting what they pay for.
That's the industries' point of view all right, but it has flaws the biggest of which is: There is no way to comply with: "It is the responsibility of the customer to determine BEFORE PURCHASING if the material has been resampled or not" Just how does one do that without having the material already--even if one happens to have the equipment and expertise to do it?Another: The cost to the middle man is miniscule compared to the price. Given that some number of dollars is netted per album times 100's or more of sales, there is money there to fund the time to check each one without it reasonably affecting the price, or...
The most appropriate way to get reliably described quality of recording such as source, original sample rate, etc., is to have the producers be required to provide it. They need to spend no additional time since they already know it. They should be required by contract to provide accurate information or pay a stiff penalty for providing incorrect information.
Edits: 11/10/10
"There is no way to comply with: "It is the responsibility of the customer to determine BEFORE PURCHASING if the material has been resampled or not" Just how does one do that without having the material already--even if one happens to have the equipment and expertise to do it?"
It's really not much of a responsibility to lay on a customer for an inexpensive purchase. One buys the product. If one likes it then one comes back for more, and one tells all one's friends with similar tastes about the great stuff. If one doesn't like it then one doesn't come back and one warns all one's friends. This is how I used to buy LPs, no trial listens.
It is more important what a recording sounds like than how the recording was made. Of course, any statements made by vendors or customers should be truthful. "I didn't like the sound of that download. I have deleted all the files and would like my money back." Ha Ha. Do you think the vendors are going to believe this? What about the musicians who are owed royalties?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
You show here you are not objective on this subject. This is not a matter of not liking a purchase but of its not being what was advertised. You seem to be saying one should not even get a refund in this case. And it would be excessive and unfortunate for all to have to stop buying altogether from this source of many other labels' products or even others from the same label to deal with one offering not being what it should be.
Even if one can't hear the difference, still it is unacceptable to pay more for higher quality and not get it.
One idea I had was that the supplier could offer a modest reward along with a refund for a user catching a fake. That way they would get an additional layer of quality control for a small cost, and it would be much better pr.
All this about how hard it is to determine is interesting but not an excuse for false claims. Repeatedly making such false claims is not nearly made up for by merely taking items back when caught at it again and again. Either do whatever it takes to make sure or make explicit that 24/96 or whatever is an allegation or pass thru from the recording studio which hasn't made sure of it either or, remember integrity?, don't make the claim.
What is 96/24 material? Absent any specific claims, which will vary site by site (and possibly within a site according to the record label or even individual title), the only consistent meaning is that to be found in the file header, i.e. the encoded sample rate and bit depth. You would have to look carefully at the exact claims made by a vendor. It is not always obvious what should be labeled "hi-res". In the absence of trade commission regulations of advertising it's a matter of caveat emptor , particularly in such a corrupt industry as the music business.
Let me give a graded series of examples. You tell us which you think are legitimate and which are bogus.
1. 96/24 material that is a bit perfect copy of the original 96/24 output of the ADCs.
2. 96/24 material that was recorded on multiple tracks and then mixed down in digital form to two channel 96/24
3. 96/24 material that was recorded on multiple tracks and then played back through 96/24 DACs, mixed down in analog form to two channels and then converted to digital with a 96/24 ADC
4. 44/16 material that was recorded on multiple tracks, played back through multiple 44/16 DACs, mixed in analog, and then processed through various non-linear devices such as aural exiters that add back in (missing) harmonics of the original, equalize, compress or otherwise change the original input analog signal, then capturing the final result of mastering in a 96/24 analog to digital converter.
5. 44/16 material that was recorded on multiple tracks, played back on 44/16 DACs and mixed in analog form with no processing other than gain adjustements, then recorded by a 96/24 analog to digital converter.
6. 44/16 material that was recorded on multiple tracks, individually upsampled track by track to 96/24 and then mixed digitally and saved as 96/24 stereo.
7. 44/16 material that was mixed in some fashion to 44/16 stereo and then upsampled to 96/24 using a digital sample rate converter.
These are just some of the possible combinations. What if there is no extant documentation for how a particular recording was made?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I would add downsampled from higher rate to the list, instead of these.
I don't understand your meaning.
Would you consider down sampled material "fake", e.g. if 176.4/24 material is down sampled to 88.2/24 would you consider this to be fake?
How about DSD, i.e. 2822.4/1 that has been converted to 88.2/24? This is a bit of a conundrum, in that one number goes down while the other number goes up.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
... instead of profoundly fake options 4-7 involving 44.1/16.
As far as I can tell just 1. and 2. adding perhaps the same first done at a higher level than 24/96.You seem to be saying that because many happen to be crooks we should demand or expect no better, that Linn and HDtracks acknowledge that they too are crooks or passively deal with crooks so can't be expected to mean what they claim. Even on this dismal basis they could state that they can't vouch for what their suppliers send them or for what they claim when they label items 24/88.s and 24/96 actually means.
Or they could state in each case which of your alternatives (or others?)is the case. Anything but in effect being misleading by checking too little or saying too little, as they do now.
Edits: 11/09/10
What is wrong with option 3.?
Many engineers and particularly ones obsessed with SQ use analog summing boxes when mixing digital multi tracks to digital stereo as many perceived (rightly or wrongly) audible issues with digital summing. So much so that there is a thriving market for analog summing boxes (essentially mixers without eq functions but many studios nowadays use their legacy analog consoles just for summing).
I'd guess that of all hi rez recording procedures 3. is the most common by far.
Personally I have not got a problem with that. On the other hand if a sound file ever was 44/16 at any time during the production process it cannot ever be called hi-rez without being fraudulent IMO.
Maybe you are right. I am no audio engineer. The number of a> d and d> a conversions involved concerns me, however. I count two of each between performance and playback. Doesn't this inevitably degrade the quality/accuracy of the result?
Theoretically yes but I don't think it is audible.
I've seen files tested after 30 or more conversions at 24/96 and the difference was hardly measurable, never mind audible.
On the other hand I've heard otherwise identical recordings of cymbals where one was recorded 16/44, the other 24/96 and then converted to 16/44 (at the time of listening I did not know which one was which). I could still identify the one that started life 24/96 although the difference was very subtle indeed.
Then I have to sit and play CSI detective with 100's of DSD recorded files. DSD noise is a lot of times higher than musical content > 20k. I have to use filters, gain changes and whatever to hash out these files.
Like Tony said, there are filters in these workstations that filter out DSD noise if you want... but can look like redbook files.
Then you have mastering engineers remastering 16/44.1 files and using tape bias and other "tricks" to appear as though it's hi-rez.
It's not an exact science people. I've worked with HDtracks for almost 2 years now and all the files that pass through our studio get looked at very closely. David doesn't send us all the hi-rez files he gets from third party labels because they assure him they are hi-rez. These labels are well established audiophile labels. In other words, most of them are "suits" that are more interested in the bottom line.
Software like Audacity is not the best, of course. Sometimes I need to go all the way down to -150dB to see if there is still music above 22k. It takes years to learn fully audio forensics. We're trying, but unfortunately one might slip past. Sorry...
Linn e-mailed this to me today after I inquired if the Arts Music titles in question would be replaced with true 24/96 files:Hello Steven,
I very much hope so but it will depend if ARTs can provide these files.
We are in discussions with them at the moment and will post news as soon
as we can verify if the files they can provide are true Studio Masters,
as we want to ensure that customers receive the quality of music they
have paid for.
Please bear with us while we investigate.
All the best,
Cathy
Linn Records Team
In the end, I guess what mattters most, is if you think hi-res titles are worth the extra money. I do.
Edits: 11/09/10
My take on Linn is that they are very much a class operation and will do their best to make good. I hope they continue to expand their selection of material, but hopefully not so rapidly that Q/C suffers.
I do wish their pricing was lower, but this may have more to do with the currency exchange rates than anything else.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I agree with you Tony. The prices are a bit high, but the general quality is very good. The Chandos site (the Classical Shop) has many Arts Music high res titles. I wonder how these are?
Did Chris pull the thread on CA? I can't post there anymore since I've been banned.
See below
The Well Tempered Computer
Because it takes longer than 5 minutes most of the time. Many times I've checked albums and 3 or 4 tracks are upsampled and the rest are hi-rez. Makes no sense.
Second, if you have a quiet album, you have to raise the gain of each track above the digital dither and noise to determine if it's hi-rez. It's not as simple as most people think... especially if you have 100's to check at a time!
Third.. then you have to check bit depth. I've run across 2 albums lately that were 16/96! Tell me THAT makes sense.
Edits: 11/08/10 11/08/10
dear forum,
we all know there is an awful lot of belief/religion/rip-off in this matter and an industry ready to cash in on that.
nobody needs a redbook 16bit/44.1kHz format (CD format) upsampled to 24/96 and sold as high-resolution !!
we all want to know we´re buying the right stuff
there must be some sort of software that can reveal which samples are just "doubled", or/and where the bit resolution is just not up to the true 24/96 standard.
clearly there is divergence between the interests :
the neglible amount of hi-rez fans versus the powerful music industry that want to protect their "original mastering material", and thus try to prevent this new hi-rez advancement.
-especially from the piracy that comes from asia and eastern europe.
fair enough !
what a depressing statement !
"there must be some sort of software that can reveal which samples are just "doubled", or/and where the bit resolution is just not up to the true 24/96 standard."
There are tools that enable a trained audio engineer to ascertain whether material has been upsampled. Their use requires a certain amount of knowledge and patience and is not foolproof. It can be a spy vs. spy battle between forger and analyst. This matter has been discussed often. Do a search.
There can be no magic software that will answer your question any more than there can be magic "get rich quick" software that will tell you how to invest your money.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony/Bruce, et al
I posted, over on CA, that it seems we are coming to this fourier transform graph conclusion rather simply, and that some have said that Audacity (free software) may not be up to the task of correclty ID'ing faux high rez. If so, we may end up crying wolf. (I'm in no way against the principle; sleuthing faux hirez is a very noble effort and the sooner we uncover where the bad stuff is being sourced from the quicker the industry wil lclean up).
The responses over there (CA) seem to indicate that if one would simply do a spectrum graph via fast fourier transform (simple pull down in Audacity), and see the brickwall at 22k it can't be anything but a redbook upsample! But it seems the inferences over here (from learned folks who are in the industry) implies "it ain't that simple". What is the disconnect; where might they be getting their data/information wrong? Thanks
Ted
There must be a precise definition before any forensic determination is even meaningful. Here are some more examples to think about:
1. A purest recording made at 192/24 with no processing or editing. The live microphone feed goes from a preamp directly into the A/D converter. Here's the catch: the musicians are playing a sampled electronic piano and a sampled drum machine. Both of these devices work at 44.1 kHz sample rates. Is this hi-res? Will a spectrum analysis show an abrupt cut off?
2. A (misguided) recording engineer takes the analog output of his microphone preamplifiers and puts each channel though an analog brick wall filter set a bit below 22,050 Hz. He then takes the resulting analog signal and records it at 192/24. (Or in one case, 384/24. I believe this has actually been done!)
3. A recording engineer takes the analog output of his microphone preamps and records it at 192/24. Later, during the mastering process he decides that the high frequencies have excessive glare and performs digital filtering, placing a brick wall filter at 21 kHz. The recording is released at 192/24. At no time was it either upsampled or downsampled.
4. A recording engineer hates high frequencies. He records at 44.1 Khz and uses an anti-aliasing filter that slowly rolls off the entire upper octave from 11 khz to 22 kHz. If this file is upsampled properly to a higher sample rate the spectrum will show no brick wall.
There are many more examples. I don't intend to list all of the various clever ways one could cheat, or the various counter measures that could be devised in response. I am certainly not clever or knowledgeable enough to devise all of them and I also don't want to provide unnecessary help to bad guys.
One thing to keep in mind: many of the better recording engineers follow the subjectivist approach, i.e. if they can change the signal to improve the sound then they do so. IMO it might be ill advised to meddle too much with their prerogative. Some of them may also want to keep their process proprietary, especially if they have some unique "tricks".
I have been using Soundforge 9 for spectrum plots and IZotope RX for spectrum plots and for spectral prints (frequency on the vertical axis, time on the horizontal access, and signal amplitude represented in color). These tools have many different parameter settings that can be chosen, and they all have their uses depending on what is being investigated. Take care with some software, it has bugs. So, for example, some of the spectrum plots in Soundforge Pro 10 are bogus and plot the first half of the frequency range only, reflecting it on the right hand side of the graph, e.g. the bass showing up as 48 kHz on a 96 kHz file.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
There are tools that enable a trained audio engineer to ascertain whether material has been upsampled.
Such as, well, how to put this, sorry to mention it and all that but, er, aw shucks . . . ears?
Their use requires a certain amount of knowledge and patience and is not foolproof.
Us ignorant, impatient troglos down here in the 16-bit netherworld have been told so often by so many that if we can't hear the difference between RBCD and 192/24 (not to mention 96/24) then our equipment and/or our ears are so pitifully deficient that we are barely worth talking to.
Next thing, we're being told that if the big boy hasn't labelled the two formats clearly only an elite band of audio connoisseurs can reliably tell the difference.
I struggle a bit when I spot that it's the same elite that only yesterday could tell the difference from twenty paces that is now telling us that it's ever so hard and beyond our reach.
Two weeks ago, TL wrote on a thread I'd started about Pristine Classical reissues:I wonder if Andrew Rose is simply unable to hear the difference with higher sample rates or figures that 44.1 kHz is good enough. If so, it calls into question his ability or willingness to do his restorations at the highest quality level.Hmmmm. Maybe he's one of those heretics who uses some of those ". . . tools that enable a trained audio engineer to ascertain whether material has been upsampled." and doesn't feel they're as vital as others claim.
Going by this farrago, he could have a point. But what do I know?
You seem to be confusing two very different listening scenarios:
1) comparing two versions of the same recording in different formats to see if there are significant audible differences, and
2) listening to one version of a recording and ascertaining by sound quality whether or not it has been upsampled.
The second task is significantly more difficult, particularly if there are serious consequences that will follow from an incorrect judgment (e.g. a lawsuit). In any event, identifying upsampled material using objective measurements is quicker than using listening tests. The tools involved are not expensive or unusual and can even be obtained on free trial. If you search this forum you will find many posts on this subject.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
You seem to be confusing two very different listening scenarios
I'm not confusing anything with anything. I merely suggested that claims that enhancements in sound quality obtained from "hi-res" recordings are so marked that they invariably justify buying the requisite kit and paying a premium for the data are starting to look a bit weak.
The second task is significantly more difficult, particularly if there are serious consequences that will follow from an incorrect judgment (e.g. a lawsuit).
Ignoring bluster about "incorrect judgements" - no one is proposing to sue anybody for anything - I readily accept that proving a recording is not what it claims to be may not be easy. I never suggested it was.
Also, though I have as yet no way to test the proposition, I accept that hi-res recordings may well sound better than RBCD. (The maths is robust and the psychology convincing. I've explained here more than once how one much-cited "experiment" intended to disprove the point was, in the event, inept.)
Of course, the argument isn't whether RBCD matches "hi-res", it's about spotting when supposedly premium data isn't in fact what it purports to be. When the likes of Linn and HDTracks publish sub-standard data, one must either suspect bad faith (I don't) or ask if it isn't reasonable to wonder if the quality margins are so small that even competent professionals are struggling. (As I pointed out, others in the field argue that hi-res formats are more trouble than they're worth.)
I suppose my point is that there's clearly a way to go on the "hi-res" thing: a bit less hype and a bit more circumspection on the part of advocates of what will never be more than a niche market might not go amiss.
If you search this forum you will find many posts on this subject.
I'm sure you're right. I'm not so sure that they're relevant to this discussion.
** BTW, the last of four parts of an introduction to digitising vinyl by fellow-inmate Werner has just been published by TNT Audio. For any who might have missed it, I thoroughly recommend it.
There is no need to spend lots of money to hear the benefits of hi-res. All you need is a well set up computer system and a good quality sound card that is capable of running at high sampling rates. You will want to have a decent amp and speakers, but there is nothing special needed, i.e. you don't need to spend big bucks to produce 120 dB spl's or bass that is flat to 16 Hz.
As to hearing differences. If you believe that the only differences that one can "hear" are those that can be rapidly distinguished by a quick 16 trial ABX test, then forget hires. For that matter, forget any aspirations of a high-end system. If one has spent all one's life listening to CDs and little else then perhaps these sound perfectly natural. If so, then think of the younger generation who have spent all of their time listening to mp3s and consider how their appreciation of what music sounds like differs from flesh and blood reality.
There is a premium being charged for hi-res material on some sites that is out of all proportion to the extra costs involved in making this material available. Perhaps this is justified in the case of older analog material that has to be redigitized and remastered. However, in the case of material that was originally made in high resolution digital there is little excuse for this pricing. The costs of copying digital material are miniscule, a few cents for storing high res material on a server and a few cents per download to account for processing costs and bandwidth, yet the premiums can come to more than $10.00. However, it's not entirely bad that these sites are charging high premiums, as these premiums motivate and fund the efforts to make more hires material available.
I don't believe you appreciate the legal situation. There can be big money involved and hence the possibility of big lawsuits. And even if these don't happen, it is just poor form to accuse someone of fraud without having a solid basis for the accusation.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
There is no need to spend lots of money to hear the benefits of hi-res.
I don't doubt you're right though that's not really my point. For now, I'll take a raincheck on trying "hi-res" material until I can have a measure of confidence that what I pay for is what I'll get and, more important, until I find material worth buying.
BTW, though my speakers don't do 16Hz, reviewers report that they comfortably go down to the mid 20s.
If you believe that the only differences that one can "hear" are those that can be rapidly distinguished by a quick 16 trial ABX test, then forget hires. For that matter, forget any aspirations of a high-end system.
As you well know, I've argued here at length and many a time against such a position. It is a very cheap shot on your part to ascribe it to me simply because I question the apparent supremacy of "hi-res" material in a scenario where folk are having to scurry to their DAWs just to find out what it is they've bought.
Besides, it was you who wrote of "comparing two versions of the same recording in different formats to see if there are significant audible differences". Not me.
Take another look at the thread that Roseval linked to - it's reporting a mess. Don't blame me for it.
If one has spent all one's life listening to CDs and little else then perhaps these sound perfectly natural.
I'm sorry if you've spent too long listening to CDs.
I haven't though I have to confess to wasting much of my youth and far too much of my money listening to live performances by great artists in a variety of music genres in an array of venues. I further admit that I've shown little sign since of changing my ways. I'm something of a musical recidivist.
(BTW, if your jibe about CDs is a Straw Man argument, the one about mp3s is a red herring.)
I don't believe you appreciate the legal situation. There can be big money involved and hence the possibility of big lawsuits.
I fully appreciate the legal situation. There isn't one. No one has so much as suggested suing anyone.
Linn has acknowledged the problem with the hi-res data it has been selling and is presumably addressing it. The company is ethically and legally entitled to reasonable time to do so.
In short, you're over-reacting. Calm down, phone Perry Mason and tell him from me he can take the weekend off.
And even if these don't happen, it is just poor form to accuse someone of fraud without having a solid basis for the accusation.
I haven't accused anyone of fraud in any shape or form and have no intention of doing so. It verges on insulting to imply that I have - it's certainly very poor form.
Neither BTW has anyone else. A few disgruntled punters are understandably aggrieved that much of what they thought was going to be the dog's bollocks (and paid accordingly) is turning out to be sub-standard. They've sounded off - but it's all been pretty polite.
"I'm not confusing anything with anything. I merely suggested that claims that enhancements in sound quality obtained from "hi-res" recordings are so marked that they invariably justify buying the requisite kit and paying a premium for the data are starting to look a bit weak."
From my vantage point, it seems as if you're using the difficulties in ascertaining whether a specific recording is actually hi-res as evidence that the actual differences between hi-res and RBCD are small.
Those are two entirely different scenarios, as Tony pointed out.
That's how long people have been telling me about how'hi-rez is going to take over the market'.
And what do we have? A handful of mediocre classical performances, some 'lounge-lizard' music from Linn and 'Band on the Run'.
I think I'll be dead before 24/96 downloads become a new standard.
"Lock up when you're done and don't touch the piano."
-Greg House
I don't get it why these hirez merchants couldn't take 5 minutes for a quick spectrum check on a random track from material they receive from an external publisher. Sell it then pull it, good way to damage their own reputation.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
