Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: According to the booklet, the recording was made in as many as 7 (!) different halls.... posted by Russell on March 10, 2017 at 14:18:23
I think that they record all of their performancces. I would therefore guess that the list of locations in the booklet is of all of the halls that they performed it at. I would expect that one was chosen as the "master" perhaps with patches inserted from others.
The photo is of them at the Royal Festival Hall last year and if you look to the rear centre of the orchestra you will see a Decca tree arrangement. An odd place to put it although convenient. None of their recordings ( all live) that I have heard so far would win prizes for SQ although all are perfectly adequate.
The album is not released over here until next Friday so I won't hear it until then.
What makes you suspicious that the 96Ks/s download is upsampled? I would imagine it unlikely that they were recording in 44.1 in 2016 so is the vendor upsampling from a CD? I won't fully know what formats are being offered here until next week and it comes out.
It's pretty obvious. I wrote to eClassical about this and included the screenshot. They responded by saying that they would take the matter up with Harmonia Mundi directly. We'll see what, if anything, transpires!
The sound quality is rather good regardless, and I didn't notice any obvious shifts in quality/image over the duration of the work. Oh, and the orchestra didn't sound overtly HIP at all, save for a very odd-sounding wind machine (!). (And thanks for the photo, BTW.) Quite pleased with it overall, actually.
I don't know the software you are using but it certainly looks like a 44.1 KS/s file. Did you definitely download 96KS/s or press the wrong button in error (I've done it in the past)?
Anyway please post the result of your query as I may well buy the download.
The software is called Audacity, and it's free. (It's really good!) You can see in the fine print to the left that the file is a 96kHz file. This type of problem used to be more common in the past; it's pretty rare nowadays.
How did you set up Audacity to display this information? Here is an Audacity screenshot of a 96 Hz FLAC track from Perahia's Bach French Suites that I downloaded from prestoclassical.uk. It doesn't show what your Audacity screenshot does.
I'm not sure why your screenshot shows a gray background while mine shows a blue one. Here's another screenshot of the Perahia French Suites (track 1) with my preference settings in case there's anything different on yours. Apart from the background difference, my screenshot looks similar to yours, but at least with mine, you can tell that there's info up to 48 kHz (blue background all the way up), even if there's not much musical content above 10 kHz. Compare this to the abrupt cut-off in my previous 'Daphnis' screenshot, where the gray indicates the absence of info.
BTW, I'm running the OS X version of Audacity (v. 2.2.2) if that makes any difference.
. . . the placing of CD-rez recordings into higher-rez containers does happen from time to time:
Oops! A download from the German highresaudio.com site.
Zubin Mehta conducts Schoenberg's First Chamber Symphony on the Farao label
search "Ravel: Daphnis et Chloé" with a release date of Mar. 16 and...
But it plays only 45 second samples per track at mp3. :-(
They will sell you a 24/96 download for 16 Euros.
Yes, that restriction is typically Harmonia Mundi.
I am going to have to query with them their download offer. Until now their offer for hi-rez only applied to subscribers to the "Sublime" option. For this disc, however they show three prices, CD at 9.19 gbp, 24/96 at 13.90 and 24/96 also at 9.19 but for Sublime subscribers.
Thinks: I may upgrade my subscription for the purchase price advantage plus the two free months. I think I will be staying with them so I am not over concerned at the pay all at once annual fee. However I hope that their downloads are better for metadata than their free Dudamel/Beethoven recording is as I had to spend time correcting it.
Talking of staying with Qobuz I see that Spotify have announced that they are going lossless (date yet to be announced). Subscriptions will be 19.99 (whatever currency). The lossy option remains. That will be some competition.
IIRC, early QOBUZ download deals only played using the QOBUZ player (which claims to be configurable to play up to 24/196).
If that's a real 24/96 FLAC download available at what they call mp3 prices, let us know.
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: