XXHighEnd

Ultimate Audio Playback => Interesting Music / Testmaterial => Topic started by: boleary on December 30, 2010, 12:50:20 pm



Title: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: boleary on December 30, 2010, 12:50:20 pm
I purchased the 24/96 Dallas Wind Symphony: Crown Imperial from HD Traks and its among the best sounding recording i've ever heard. On the other hand I've also purchased from HD Traks Sam Cooke: Portrait of a Legend 24/96 and Oscar Petersons: Night Train 24/96 and they sound terrible. At this point I'm really hesitant to purchase more High Rez material. Just wondering if anyone can explain this?


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 01:13:11 pm
I think I can ...

This one has already passed this forum somewhere ... (but I can't find it)

The Night Train is a hoax. Sorry ...
I'd even say we both dealt with this one per email ? If not, it was someone else.


Besides all, you may know my opinion on hi-res; far out the most sound worse than red book (ok, how I use it of course -> 24/384).

Peter


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: boleary on December 30, 2010, 01:28:39 pm
Pedal has recently written about how great the HD Traks 24/96 Getz/ Gilberto recording is and I don't doubt his impressions ( see:http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1508.0). However, anyone have the redbook of this recording and done a comparison with the 24/96 version? Just wondering.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 01:35:56 pm
Uhm ... maybe you don't want to see it (or forgot if I had to say it), but with "hoax" I mean it is upsampled material.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: boleary on December 30, 2010, 01:45:06 pm
Thanks Peter. I guess then that the Getz would be "hoax" material too? So, is it a fair assumption that unless a company specifically states that the high rez was digitally recorded as 24/96 or 192 from the master analogue tapes that its just an upsampled 16/44?


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 01:55:22 pm
And then the other thing (a bit pretentious) :

Quote
Pedal has recently written about how great the HD Traks 24/96 Getz/ Gilberto recording is and I don't doubt his impressions

This may not be all that much related to anyone's imporessions, but merely the "inexperience". I mean, once at last have a DAC which doesn't touch the sound (or at least the least possible), it is logical to play all the hires you have or can get and next think it sounds good. And I don't say it doesn't, but I do say that chance is under 5% that it sounds better than the red book version of the same. Let's not forget that I'm "doing" this for two years now and with the over 300 hires albums I have here - can make some comparisons. And, of utmost importance (I'm sure you will believe that) is that the NOS1 allows to compare with all electrically 100% the same (no other DAC will do that). So, a 24/176.4 album will be electrically played 100% the same as the 16/44.1 version upsampled to 24/176.4. This incluses the driver setting and further buffers. Now, for some answer :

The difference is the way the 176.4 / 192 is realized. Most often it is low passed (hence again stupidly filtered) and it is there where it goes wrong as far as I can see (through). With 44.1 nothing is low passed, and as far as my theories go, the Arc Prediction Upsampling reconstructs better than the low pass filtering could do for so called "native" stuff. And not by a bit.

And for some kind of counterweight : take the RR Recordings. Now THOSE are good (you will know !). All of them.
All of them are 16/44.1 and they superceed whatever other hires so much that you just don't *want* to listen to hires anymore.
But use proper filtering (which in the end means ... well, you know that too - from theory).

Call me crazy for now, but Ill bet that it doesn't take long that the Pedals also will come to the same conclusion.
And none of these things let judge themselves in even a week. It's just the global merits - and in the end not according the recordings. Just watch it ...

Peter


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 02:02:18 pm
Quote
Thanks Peter. I guess then that the Getz would be "hoax" material too? So, is it a fair assumption that unless a company specifically states that the high rez was digitally recorded as 24/96 or 192 from the master analogue tapes that its just an upsampled 16/44?

No, I won't say that because I don't know it and didn't examine it. Important is though, the (by now) knowledge that companies like HD Tracks buy the albums from other companies, and don't know what they are buying. Or, do VERY strange things which are unbelieveable to me in the first place. Linn is the example here. Here too, people received "hoaxes" and their answer was that they (indeed) bought from other companies, but did something wrong themselves (Linn) with the upload. Puh, what then ? no matter what, they sold "hoaxes", and so it just does happen.

For HD Tracks it's always the same. When you look after the suspicious album it has been withdrawn from sales. Happened to Night Train too (I'm still alomost sure we both dealt with that one some 3 months back).


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on December 30, 2010, 02:18:36 pm
Hi-rez is of course much better sounding than 16/44 Red Book, theoretically speaking. Both because of the higher resolution, and because you skip the downsampling from (usually) 96kHz mastetape to 44.1 CD sampling rate.

Unfortunately the music industry is quite sloopy. Their cost control exceeds their quality control. Which sometimes means that "somebody" at the recording company just ship the Red Book master to HD Tracks. Shame on HD Tracks for not controling EVERY title they get. The frequency spectrum and compression rate of the mastertape can easily be analyzed with software such as Audacity, which even is for free.

Example: Steely Dan Gaucho just released on HDTracks has severe cut-of at 21kHz. Don't buy it. (But the 5.1 version on DVD-A which I have, has plenty of high frequency content. I just made a downmix of it, from 5.1 to stereo, and the result is quite interesting. Although the downmix need some more tweaking, reducing the bass and increasing the vocal somewhat).

HDtracks is run by David Chesky, the owner of Chesky Records. He certainly knows the meaning of high SQ. He has got some angry e-mails lately from people like us, and I am quite sure he will improve the quality control inside HD Tracks for future releases.

From Verve, I was rather disapointed about the SQ of the Ella & Louis album on HDTracks. The Getz/Gilberto sounds very good in comparison. I didn't spectrum analyze any of them, though. Anyway there is a limit of what you can expect from those old primitive recordings. Also, I think that small jazz combo recordings from the 60s certainly benefit from vinyl playback.

Although there are exceptions: Miles Davis/Relaxin (2 track mono recording by Rudy Van Gelder from late 50s) sounds stunning in the 24/96 HD Track download. The same recording on a 180gram audiophile LP reissue sounded muted and dead on Leif's €50.000 vinyl rigg. Afterwards he pulled out an old original pressing of the same, which sounded more or less equal to the 24/96 (apart from severe surface noise and scratches).

So the rule is: THERE IS NO RULE. Too many exceptions. If you are hunting for the best version, you have to zig-zag between the formats and test each version individually.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: boleary on December 30, 2010, 02:27:14 pm
We did talk about Night Train a while back but I didn't really get what the issues were then. Really appreciate both your and Pedal's replies. Anyone know where these recordings are honestly reviewed so that one can make an informed purchase? (Other than what is shared here  :) )


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 02:48:19 pm
Quote
I purchased the 24/96 Dallas Wind Symphony: Crown Imperial from HD Traks and its among the best sounding recording i've ever heard.

We tested this at Peters place, as i recall, this is a hoax too .....! (we couldnt stand it for more than 2 minutes)

Pedal, try the 16/44 vs 24/96 version of Joao Gilberto and Stan Getz, just curious about your findings

Roy



Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 03:04:28 pm
Quote
Example: Steely Dan Gaucho just released on HDTracks has severe cut-of at 21kHz. Don't buy it. (But the 5.1 version on DVD-A which I have, has plenty of high frequency content. I just made a downmix of it, from 5.1 to stereo, and the result is quite interesting. Although the downmix need some more tweaking, reducing the bass and increasing the vocal somewhat).


5.1 CAN NOT be downmixed properly !!!!!!!! (its called lossy)

If there is a 2ch  24/96, use that, STAY AWAY FROM DOWNMIXING, no good, never will be good sounding, period.

 :)
Roy


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 03:08:50 pm
Just checked,

Steely Dan - Gaucho, has a 2ch/24/96 MLP on there.

WHY DOWNMIX 5.1 to 2.0 ??


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 03:18:20 pm
Quote
I purchased the 24/96 Dallas Wind Symphony: Crown Imperial from HD Traks and its among the best sounding recording i've ever heard.

We tested this at Peters place, as i recall, this is a hoax too .....! (we couldnt stand it for more than 2 minutes)

Djeez, you're right. With this "Night Train" I was all the time thinking that this was related to a set of six or so, but now I know again, this was the Dallas Wind ...

Btw, a brief "investigation" learned that it was hard to believe this is a hires album, because the rest of the set just is not ...
A dangerous conclusion maybe ...


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 03:22:09 pm
... additionally ... this is a RR, right ? (hence no hi-res <- careful, maybe now they have)


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on December 30, 2010, 03:27:47 pm
Call me crazy for now, but Ill bet that it doesn't take long that the Pedals also will come to the same conclusion.
And none of these things let judge themselves in even a week.

Of course my impressions of hi-rez is based 99% from listening on my previous DAC/interface. The NOS1 has just arrived and are still on break-in. Certainly it has transformed the SQ of 16/44 replay. But also, it should improve (relatively speaking) as much with hi-rez material.

I have about 100 hi-rez titles, and indeed there are some confusing stuff in between. Some nuggets and some stinkers. But when everything is done right, the hi-rez is clearly better.

-----------

Something else: The present "confusion" and "stinkers" are mainly related to old recordings. (including most of my favorite music, unfortunately...)
-Recordings which are managed by a music industry close to bankrupcy.
-Recordings with confusing owners rights, blocking remixing and WW distribution.
-Recordings done on corupted analoge tapes.
-Masterings ment for vinyl, not digital.
-Masterings ment for digital, but heavily compessed.
-Etc, etc.

On the other side we have "new" music, from companies like 2L:
-Smal scale companies run by enthusiasts and "perfection people".
-Modern license/ownership terms allowing digital distribution.
-Recordings done on SOTA hi-rez digital equipment.
-Quality mastering for digital.
-Etc, etc.

My point is that time is on our side. Hi-rez will come more and more. The industry will improve. So in the long run "we" will win!


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 03:34:54 pm
https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD030911111229 (https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD030911111229)

hdtracks says it a 24/96 (HDCD) ???????????????????

Personally I think this a hdcd upsampled to 24/96 !


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 03:46:20 pm
I can't see that there, but may overlook it. But here it sure says that : http://www.referencerecordings.com/DallasWind.asp

Edit : But it's on the cover too.

Now, the version I received here for testing, is not an HDCD but 24/96 indeed.

So what do we have ... RR itself selling it as HDCD while HD Tracks sells it as 24/96.
"My nose" we say in Holland.

Edit 2: But the cover also says "24 bit" (HDCD recording) ... :scratching:



Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on December 30, 2010, 03:49:57 pm
Pedal, try the 16/44 vs 24/96 version of Joao Gilberto and Stan Getz, just curious about your findings

I will check it + Gaucho.

-----

Gaucho: While the 5.1 mix was done in the optimum way for DVD-A release from the mastertapes, it is rumoured that the stereo version is taken from a Red Book master. The 24/96 layer has a different EQ than my digital remaster CD, that is for sure, but I never performed any measurements/analyzes of it.

Downmixing: With the right software, you can perfectly well downmix 5.1 to 2.0. That is what the multiformat players do if the disc doesnt have separate stereo/m-ch layers.
I have done it myself. Sometimes with very good result (Dire Straits/Brothers In Arms DualDisc), sometimes with poor result (Doors/LA Woman DVD-A).
-The 5.1 layer is tempting because sometimes the tracks are remixed from better sources/closer to the mastertapes.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 03:59:42 pm
Offcourse equalization in 5.1 is different, you have to half the volume in a 5.1 mix, because.. wel you have more channels.

Quote
Downmixing: With the right software

What software ???

To make a multichannel recording ALL channels are equalized/touched to fit in that 5.1 profile

So if you take only Front Left and Front rightout of a 5.1 mix it can NEVER be good, because its equalized (even if they used a better master)
Its called LOSSY, not lossless

Ask yourself then: why would they put mostly a seperate 2.0 in there ???

Its all filtered, filtered, filtered.........................

We know why NOS1 is great right !?


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 04:06:37 pm
I hope the last time about the Dallas Wind album ...

I think it says nothing that "24 bit" is mentioned together with HDCD. That happens all the time.

What I also recall -and I just looked again- that the Liner Notes contain exactly nothing about 24/96 - and btw also nothing about HDCD. This by itself would be nothing special for Keith Johnson who was behind the wheels here (doing HDCD all the time).

Maybe the fact that "2007" is the production year says something. I mean, without it being a DVD-A (or SACD) I can't imagine that we were up to HD downloads back then. I know, it's one 3.5 years back, but still.



Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on December 30, 2010, 04:07:41 pm
https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD030911111229 (https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD030911111229)

hdtracks says it a 24/96 (HDCD) ???????????????????

Personally I think this a hdcd upsampled to 24/96 !

I think you are a little pesimistic, Roy!

It is a 2007 recording from Reference Recordings, made with some of the best equipment there is. It is recorded in 24/176.4 with the very same Pacific Microsonics Model 2 AD/DA as Mani has. For sale as:
-CD with HDCD decoding.
-24/96 download.
-It is even available as HRx, which is a pure 1:1 copy of the digital master, in 24/176.4.

LINK: http://www.russandrews.com/product-HRx:-Crown-Imperial--Dallas-Wind-Symphony-7624.htm


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 04:10:58 pm
I must concur with Roy;

He spend a week without sleep on downmixing from left to right, bottom to up, back to forth, inside to out, and it just never works (I tested it all myself).
Unless ..
Unless he didn't find the right software. But I guess we can trust Roy a little on this.

One small remark : I think that all ended with me saying that some meta data may exist on *how* to downmix (or that I read about the existance of it). This may mean that a DVD player can do it, while "we" never found / created software for that.

But without this information it is IMPOSSIBLE. Just like Roy said (and include the remark that 5.1 recordings are mixed specially in the first place, like Pedal said I think).


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 04:13:31 pm
I'am just talking about the "Geniune" 24/96 from HD-Tracks !
The same as Boleary has......

I'am familiair with the wind series from reference recordings, hell, almost bought them all (Peter?)


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 04:14:04 pm
Hahaha Pedal, good one !!

To me this tells nothing more than that someone gave himself the opportunity to downres it from there thinking it will be better.

About Keith ... I just said it, so nothing wrong there.

Don't forget ... it sounds like sh*t.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: manisandher on December 30, 2010, 04:14:30 pm
hdtracks says it a 24/96 (HDCD) ???????????????????

Personally I think this a hdcd upsampled to 24/96 !

Now, the version I received here for testing, is not an HDCD but 24/96 indeed.

So what do we have ... RR itself selling it as HDCD while HD Tracks sells it as 24/96.
"My nose" we say in Holland.

Edit 2: But the cover also says "24 bit" (HDCD recording) ... :scratching:

Careful here guys.

You can have a 24/96 or a 24/176.4 that has the HDCD flag in it. Of course, such files will not use any of the HDCD processes like 'Peak Extend', but the HDCD flag can still be there.

Is it then legitimate to call it a '24/96 HDCD' or '24/176.4 HDCD'? I don't know and I really don't have a strong view on this. But one thing I do know is that if the HDCD flag is there on the HDTracks 24/96, then it has definitely been created using an HDCD encoder - there is absolutely no other way of imbedding the HDCD flag. Of course, the file could have been created by downsampling from 24/176.4, digitizing directly from analogue at 24/96... or upsampling from 16/44.1. If I had to guess, I'd say that it's probably been downsampled from 24/176.4. If it has the HDCD flag, then this would have been done 'properly' with an HDCD encoder.

Mani.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on December 30, 2010, 04:15:28 pm
What software ???

To make a multichannel recording ALL channels are equalized/touched to fit in that 5.1 profile

So if you take only Front Left and Front rightout of a 5.1 mix it can NEVER be good, because its equalized (even if they used a better master)
Its called LOSSY, not lossless

Ask yourself then: why would they put mostly a seperate 2.0 in there ???

Its all filtered, filtered, filtered.........................

Roy, hold your horses! It seems you are not updated on these matters...
You can get an idea about it in this thread: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t44593.html (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t44593.html)

My initial attempts have been with DVD Audio Extractor. Recently I purchased the Adobe Audition 3.0 where I can tailor the mix myself.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on December 30, 2010, 04:22:43 pm
General observation about HD Tracks: Since they only sell you the file, there is obviously no "physical" product. No plastic case, no book, no leaflet.

Consequently, the pdf cover art they give you together with the flac files is sometimes taken from the CD issue or from the SACD issue. So you shouldn't read it like the devil reads the bible...


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 04:25:38 pm
Quote
Recently I purchased the Adobe Audition 3.0 where I can tailor the mix myself.

Its still called lossy.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on December 30, 2010, 04:54:08 pm
Steely Dan - Gaucho

Measurements from the DVD-A:
The 2.0 mix: http://www.hifisentralen.no/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=46667.0;attach=198648;image (http://www.hifisentralen.no/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=46667.0;attach=198648;image)
The 5.1 mix (left/front): http://www.hifisentralen.no/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=46667.0;attach=199453;image (http://www.hifisentralen.no/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=46667.0;attach=199453;image)

Measurements from HD Tracks in "24/96":
http://www.hifisentralen.no/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=46667.0;attach=198729;image (http://www.hifisentralen.no/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=46667.0;attach=198729;image)

As can be seen: The HD Tracks version has severe lowpass filtering above 20kHz. The DVD-A stereo layer carries the same defect.

The 5.1 layer of the DVD-A seems to be the real thing, for those who have a good suround system. Eventually you have to wait for me to break the code how to downmix succesfully with the use of Adobe Audition 3.0. (Don't hold you breath. Eventually I will be fed up of the whole album after listening to Babylon Sisters 100 times to get the right balance...). Boy, I am glad this is a hobby, not a profession.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 05:02:23 pm
Steely Dan - Gaucho

But Pedal did you compared those to the normal 16/44 version or the mfsl version. (with ARC)

I can send them to you, for testing purpose


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on December 30, 2010, 05:14:50 pm
Steely Dan - Gaucho

But Pedal did you compared those to the normal 16/44 version or the mfsl version. (with ARC)

Frankly I didn't spend too much time going backwards listening/re-listening on everything. Too little time, too much music and too many plans in order to cover everything!


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 05:36:01 pm
This topic is not over,

For now there are only a handfull of great quality Hi-Rez recordings.
Against thousends of 16/44 albums, which do sound great with ARC.

The future will bring us indeed better recordings.

I would love to hear my ambient stuff directly from 24/96 master, think about it.



Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: Gerard on December 30, 2010, 06:26:00 pm
Steely Dan - Gaucho

But Pedal did you compared those to the normal 16/44 version or the mfsl version. (with ARC)

Frankly I didn't spend too much time going backwards listening/re-listening on everything. Too little time, too much music and too many plans in order to cover everything!

Sorry guy's to interrupt.

I really read this with much intrest and Pedal came up with some nice figures! which i do not undersand but Peter and Roy may.

Pedal not to offend you but Roy offered you something and now i have the feeling you retreat a bit. You can atleast accept them and make such figures when you have a bit of time.


Please do not get me wrong but i really dont want his topic to be over! It is very interesting!


Gerard  :)



Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: manisandher on December 30, 2010, 06:28:12 pm
This may not be all that much related to anyone's imporessions, but merely the "inexperience". I mean, once at last have a DAC which doesn't touch the sound (or at least the least possible), it is logical to play all the hires you have or can get and next think it sounds good. And I don't say it doesn't, but I do say that chance is under 5% that it sounds better than the red book version of the same. Let's not forget that I'm "doing" this for two years now and with the over 300 hires albums I have here - can make some comparisons. And, of utmost importance (I'm sure you will believe that) is that the NOS1 allows to compare with all electrically 100% the same (no other DAC will do that). So, a 24/176.4 album will be electrically played 100% the same as the 16/44.1 version upsampled to 24/176.4. This incluses the driver setting and further buffers. But use proper filtering (which in the end means ... well, you know that too - from theory).

I respectfully disagree. My 24/176.4 recordings played back on the Model Two sound much closer to the vinyl source than my 16/44.1 recordings upsampled by XX and played back either on the Model Two (with QAP) or the NOS1 (with OAP).

Mani.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 06:36:36 pm
Quote
BTW: I loved the CD of Frank Sinatra At The Sands. I bought the DVD-A €80/eBay with big expectations after reading glowing reviews. The problem is that DVD-A reviews are mostly based on the multichannel content, which often is freshly remixed and very good. The stereo mix might be old (as with Gaucho) OR some studio idiot just pushed a button to convert the 5.1 into 2.0. Which normally is manifested by a typical weak vocal. The vocal is too low in the mix. I hear it on Frank Sinatra/At The Sands, Yes/Fragile (some tracks, some tracks not) and some others I can remember right now.

My plan (dream) is to make my own downmix with +a few dB of the front channel, boosting the vocal part a bit on those albums. The center channel is normally occupied by the lead vocal.

Pedal I hope you dont mind putting this on forum (from a PM)

Ofcourse you can make your own mix.

But in the 5.1 mixing, indeed vocals are mixed in the center speaker.
So if you just take the fr L and fr R, you will loose LOTS of the vocal.
And if you filter those again, it will never become any better. (well maybe if you know the mastering details, but still)

Because I am on all torrent trackers, I get more info than most have when buying original.
Its stupid but just the case.

If they sell so-claimed hirez recordings for sometimes HI prices, you should expect somewhat more info
on the particular recording.

Roy


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 06:48:08 pm
Steely Dan - Gaucho

But Pedal did you compared those to the normal 16/44 version or the mfsl version. (with ARC)

Frankly I didn't spend too much time going backwards listening/re-listening on everything. Too little time, too much music and too many plans in order to cover everything!

Sorry guy's to interrupt.

I really read this with much intrest and Pedal came up with some nice figures! which i do not undersand but Peter and Roy may.

Pedal not to offend you but Roy offered you something and now i have the feeling you retreat. You can atleast accept them and make such figures when you have a bit of time.


Please do not get me wrong but i really dont want his topic to be over! It is very intereseting!


Gerard  :)



No worry Gerard he (we) will, (PM)

I completly trust his experience on this, but i need to upload the albums first, haha

Low-pass filtering means: It will let thru the lower frequencies up till 20Khz, above that all is filtered.
While the 16/44 should run to 100Khz theoraticly (well short story)

Roy


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: Gerard on December 30, 2010, 06:52:11 pm
Ok i will be reading this with much interest! And really Pedal i can not look into your agenda or have something to say about that but it was  a bit.... Well you now.  ;) Me shutting up now!  ;)

 :)



Steely Dan - Gaucho

But Pedal did you compared those to the normal 16/44 version or the mfsl version. (with ARC)

Frankly I didn't spend too much time going backwards listening/re-listening on everything. Too little time, too much music and too many plans in order to cover everything!

Sorry guy's to interrupt.

I really read this with much intrest and Pedal came up with some nice figures! which i do not undersand but Peter and Roy may.

Pedal not to offend you but Roy offered you something and now i have the feeling you retreat. You can atleast accept them and make such figures when you have a bit of time.


Please do not get me wrong but i really dont want his topic to be over! It is very intereseting!


Gerard  :)



No worry Gerard he (we) will, (PM)

I completly trust his experience on this, but i need to upload the albums first, haha

Low-pass filtering means: It will let thru the lower frequencies up till 20Khz, above that all is filtered.
While the 16/44 should run to 100Khz theoraticly (well short story)

Roy


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 06:55:54 pm
Talking about mastering issues,

Take Pink Floyd for example..........haha

I think i have of every album, 3-8 mastering versions (not talking about hirez (or de-emph), just red book)

What a hobby we have......... ;)

http://www.pinkfloydarchives.com/discTOC.htm (http://www.pinkfloydarchives.com/discTOC.htm)


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on December 30, 2010, 07:35:25 pm
Ok i will be reading this with much interest! And really Pedal i can not look into your agenda or have something to say about that but it was  a bit.... Well you now.  ;) Me shutting up now!  ;)

Hi Gerard,
I didn't understand your writing 100% but I believe it was all in the best meaning! (The price we pay when both writes in a non-native language).

This is a very interesting thread for me. As a contributing writer to the Scandinavian magazine FIDELITY, I have done quite a lot of research while working on a lengthy Hi-rez feature article. For that reason I have something to bring to the table, while also picking up new things and ideas from fellow enthusiasts here at the forum.

Roy and I have a parallell dialog in private, since sharing files is not a public topic, even if it is only for the purpose of "research and testing", he-he.

All the best!


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 07:48:01 pm
Hi Pedal,

This could become very interresting, indeed.
Give me time to put some albums next to each other.

I'am now listening to Steely Dan - Gaucho normal vs mfsl.

So far the normal version sounds better.

But I suggest we take some time for this before jump to conclusions
 :)


PS: after Microsoft listened to "us" maybe the music industry will too (eventually)............hahahaha


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: Gerard on December 30, 2010, 07:50:30 pm
Pedal,

Then really sorry i misread what you have written. Please take my post for not written.

 :)  :friends:

Ok i will be reading this with much interest! And really Pedal i can not look into your agenda or have something to say about that but it was  a bit.... Well you now.  ;) Me shutting up now!  ;)

Hi Gerard,
I didn't understand your writing 100% but I believe it was all in the best meaning! (The price we pay when both writes in a non-native language).

This is a very interesting thread for me. As a contributing writer to the Scandinavian magazine FIDELITY, I have done quite a lot of research while working on a lengthy Hi-rez feature article. For that reason I have something to bring to the table, while also picking up new things and ideas from fellow enthusiasts here at the forum.

Roy and I have a parallell dialog in private, since sharing files is not a public topic, even if it is only for the purpose of "research and testing", he-he.

All the best!


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 07:57:05 pm
The problem with remasters is that the sound is compressed, that could be received as better.
But you loose the higher dynamics, while it maybe sound a bit colder, I still go for dynamics.

So its still personal preference

But I swear you, some filtering that is used in remasters is not good, at all.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 08:22:44 pm
Quote
I respectfully disagree.

Mani, I as respectfully agree with you. But the problem is (I think) that you know what to use / play for these comparisons, while my 300+ hires albums will (still) contain that as 5% of it. I hope I can make myself clear. I mean, the three of us (me, Roy, Telstar) spend quite some afternoon on finding albums of which I have both red book and hires, and we found exactly ONE which sounded better. But as said, you are way more deep into what to choose (PM related !), which I (we) can't.

But let me confuse you all;
Because the Crown Imperial was still in the playlist from this afternoon, I am now sonically testing a still brit(-ish haha) DAC with just that, and besides the first track by chance tore the house down (organ), it sounds great. Now what ? Well, I think I know. It is W7 related, and I guess I will write about it somewhere else.
Found out some things yesterday ...

And for Roy : remember how surprised I was it did not sound at all ?
There just seems to be more to everything.

Let the Pedals be right !
... for now ...  :)


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: AUDIODIDAKT on December 30, 2010, 08:33:49 pm
And for Roy : remember how surprised I was it did not sound at all ?
There just seems to be more to everything.

Let the Pedals be right !
... for now ...  :)
Yes, I was surprised too,.... could this be somethings else
Good things come from this, i hope

Its still an open discussion for a long time now


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on December 30, 2010, 09:13:12 pm
Just listened the albym throughout ... Plainly superb.
Hoax or not.

This is what I meant : A strange thing I changed my mind upon (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1513.0).

Life is full of uncertainties.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: Flecko on December 30, 2010, 11:42:10 pm
Quote
The problem with remasters is that the sound is compressed, that could be received as better.
And there are a lot people which like the compressed sound or simply don't care or hear it. Music is not meant to be  played on real hifi systems anymore. It is meant to be played on electret speakers of a mobile, while driving in the bus or in the train. It is great for those guys if it is just loud. I met somebody who asked me, if it would sound better, if he would buy a cd instead of listening to download mp3 with his earphones and his mobile. What should I say??? :dntknw: That is how the mainstreem listens to music... :arrogant:


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on January 02, 2011, 10:32:28 am
Pedal, try the 16/44 vs 24/96 version of Joao Gilberto and Stan Getz, just curious about your findings
Finally I had the chance to play around a little with my software.  :)

I bought the original CD when it was issued middle of 80s. (In fact it was Verve who woke up the jazz lover in me. I bought practically all the classic Verve reissues on CD at that time, falling in love with many of the jazz giants like Oscar Peterson, Stan Getz, Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong, etc). I know these albums quite well.

The 2 frequency plots show that the CD has the mandatory lowpass filtering at 21kHz.
The 24/94 download from HD Tracks has twice the bandwidth, extending to about 44kHz, indicating this is the same master as developed for the SACD issue.

Also, I performed a TT DR analyze of both. I have the licensed software for Mac, usable also for 24/96 material.
-There was a slight difference between the 2 versions, but both got DR=11, which is a fairly good result for this kind of material. Looking at the spectrum, there are no signs of compression.

Conclusion: The 24/96 download of Getz/Gilberto is the real deal. And it sounds very good (for what it is; a 1963 recording of a small jazz ensemble).


(PS: The frequency analyzes are not direct comparable because they are just printscreens with different scaleing/timewindow).


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on January 02, 2011, 11:19:39 am
Hey Pedal. Great.

Please allow me to come up with a few very general remarks, so you may be able to interpret all better a next time (and note I may be saying things you knew all along).

I was not behind the knobs here, but looking at two of these "static" pictures I would wonder why (e.g.) the 13KHz mark from the first picture is at around -45dB while in the second this is at -62dB or so.

The second picture has it's lowest output around at around 20KHz, and then rises ?? No ... This means that it is noise already. This by itself would tell me that no real frequency output is there above 20KHz, and since it is not 22050Hz but under 20000Hz, it would be my suggestion that this hires has been low passed very nicely ...

Quote
The 2 frequency plots show that the CD has the mandatory lowpass filtering at 21kHz.

Haha, yes, that is what one would say. But no, a CD just has NOT any low pass filtering, because there is nothing to low pass. It's just not there above 22050Hz. That is, when Anti Imaging has been applied by the "analyser". However, looking at the left halve of the CD plot, there's harmonic distortion visible, which tells me that no AI filtering has been applied (again, by the analyser). *This* now tells that indeed low pass filtering must have been there (analyser !!) because otherwise the shown frequencies would have continued after 22050.
All 'n all a bit tricky to use this ...
(disclaimer : the HD visible - very theoretically can be the overtones of the instrument concerned when this was a too small snapshot. This is why it needs to be behind the knobs really)


So ... without being behind the knobs, it would be my conclusion that this is exactly not the real deal. And worse, where the leftmost part of the plots have the same output level, the more going to the right, the less output the hires has. You know what this means ... filtering (and not even steep).

Maybe I am wrong all over, but I don't think so. Maybe it is better to use a Waterfall plot.



Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: achri-d on January 02, 2011, 12:37:57 pm
So ... without being behind the knobs, it would be my conclusion that this is exactly not the real deal. And worse, where the leftmost part of the plots have the same output level, the more going to the right, the less output the hires has. You know what this means ... filtering (and not even steep).

Maybe I am wrong all over, but I don't think so. Maybe it is better to use a Waterfall plot.

Yes filtering - reconstruction and noiseshaping.

The two following pictures show a spectral content likely to be as it should (24/96):



Rgds.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on January 02, 2011, 12:52:26 pm
That SURE looks more like it !
(and nice you used the same program)

Thanks.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on January 02, 2011, 01:15:03 pm
Maybe I am wrong all over...

Yes, you are wrong all over. 8)

Like I said in the PS: The 2 plots are not comparable, because:
-The Spectrum Analyzer feature of (my version at least) Audacity has a limited capacity. It can spectrum analyze only 24 seconds of a CD (16/44) and about 10 seconds of a 24/96 file. What you see in my previous post is the beginning of track #1 The Girl From Ipanema.
So, you have an average of the 20 first seconds of the CD, and an average of the first 10 seconds of the Hirez. So it becomes apples vs oranges.

Further more, if you listen to the start of this song, there is only a softly male voice and a low key acoustic guitar. In other words, no high frequency content anyway. On top of it, its recorded in 1963 with limited bandwidth microphones, probably rolling off at 15kHz. The recorder/mastertape in use probably didnt capture much content above 18kHz eighter.

The spike above 14kHz is interesting. Analyzing samples from different places throughout the song, it seems it is present only with vocal (not during sax playing), indicating that the voice microphones they used had a severe high frequency resonance.

On an old recoridng like this there is very little high frequency content. What you see above 15-20kHz is mainly noise. The particular noise pattern you see on the 24/96 is probably the noise shaping of DSD mastering. I have seen it on others too. The bandwidth limit of 44 (half of 88.2 - often seens in SACDs) confirms this indication.

---------

Repeated A/B* listening now to The Girl From Ipanema in CD (ARCx8) vs 24/96 (ARCx4) I find the differences quite small. But the 24/96 is slightly better. You can hear Gilberto's voice a little clearer, you get a better sense she is standing in a separate vocal boot than the rst of the band. Also the cymbal in the right channel, when the sax starts soloing, is more distinct.

*I hate A/B comparisons. After a few times repeated listen to the same short track they all start sounding the same.  :wacko:

------------

Summary, there is nothing "wrong" with this 24/96. It is ucompressed. No added EQ. It sounds marginally better than the CD, although the age and recording doesnt offer much high frequency anyway. Finally the price is very symphatic, costing $18 which is less than the CD in the shop.



Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on January 02, 2011, 01:35:43 pm
Hey, we got company from my friend achri-d, a very experienced and technically educated hi-fi enthusiast. That's nice! I hope you can contribute more to this forum, Christian, since you have jumped on the high-rez band wagon too!

--------

GENERALLY SPEAKING: Although 50 years old recordings doesn't contain much high frequencies, I still find the 24/96 rewarding because (when done right) you avoid the bogus downsamling done to CD.

Normally the old mastertape is transfered to 24/96 (or 24/192). Then they do some (more or less) editing in the 24/96 domain using programs like ProTools etc). Then it is noiseshaped and downconverted to 16/44. This process is rather harming to the SQ. Releasing it straight as a 24/96 file is better, even if the recording is old.

I had an interesting correspondance with British Producer Tony Faulkner, and he explained me these things quite detailed. He was very clear about most downsamplings to 16/44 was badly done, using "bogus" software. He was also sceptical to noise shapping. He also said that if recorded in 44kHz, a CD could sound very good. I think Faulkner is one of the most experienced producers in this field. You have probably read interviews with him in Hi-Fi News and Stereophile.


@achri-d: The last graph you posted, did you do it with the Adobe Audition program?


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: GerardA on January 02, 2011, 01:55:21 pm
Very interesting, Pedal!

But does this mean that old recordings which have no output above 20 kHz don't need any higher samplingrate than 44 kHz?
This is not my experience/idea. If so, how to explain that?
I'm sure the 384 kHz of the NOS1 is doing more than only counteracting bad quality software of the recorders...


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: achri-d on January 02, 2011, 01:56:49 pm
I had an interesting correspondance with British Producer Tony Faulkner, and he explained me these things quite detailed. He was very clear about most downsamplings to 16/44 was badly done, using "bogus" software. He was also sceptical to noise shapping. He also said that if recorded in 44kHz, a CD could sound very good. I think Faulkner is one of the most experienced producers in this field. You have probably read interviews with him in Hi-Fi News and Stereophile.

@achri-d: The last graph you posted, did you do it with the Adobe Audition program?

Hello Petter.

I have some CDs engineered by Faulkner and some of them on the Hyperion label are very good indeed - for instance: Bantock: Hebridean Symphony, Celtic Symphony, The Witch of Atlas, The Sea Reivers - Vernon Handley, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Hyperion CDA66450. 1 CD. 1991.

I use the latest version of audacity to create the second graph. I have developed a small C#/Matlab application in order to verify the Audacity -and  it works as expected.

Rgds.


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on January 02, 2011, 01:59:43 pm
Quote
I have developed a small C#/Matlab application in order to verify the Audacity -and  it works as expected.

But don't give it FLACs for input !!


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: achri-d on January 02, 2011, 02:03:03 pm
But don't give it FLACs for input !!

Hello, I always do analysis on wavs- these are simple to handle (known by Matlab for instance) and audacity treats them with ease. Rgds


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on January 02, 2011, 02:05:43 pm
But Pedal, if it is all like you described in your last post, all is moot ! I mean, how does this proove that this particuar album is OK ?
I don't see it, and instead see the contrary. So, your explanation may be ok, but now it says nothing.

Don't you agree ?


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on January 02, 2011, 02:07:31 pm
Quote
Hello, I always do analysis on wavs- these are simple to handle (known by Matlab for instance) and audacity treats them with ease.

Ok. I only said it because with FLACs AudaCity fails, and won't show content above 22050 ...


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: pedal on January 02, 2011, 02:21:45 pm
But Pedal, if it is all like you described in your last post, all is moot ! I mean, how does this proove that this particuar album is OK ?
I don't see it, and instead see the contrary. So, your explanation may be ok, but now it says nothing.

Don't you agree ?

Of course, when the source it self doesnt contain (almost) any music signal above 20kHz it's hard/impossible to meassure any difference. I have also the Adobe Auditon program. There I can zoom down to the very 1/96000th sample of the sound file. I did it to study square waves on (some modern!) titles I have.

If I find a passage on the Getz/Gilberto album with a clean hit on the cymbals or something, then I might can zoom in on that very spot, precisely the same place both on the CD and 24/96 file to check for differences in the high frequency response. ...But when going back/forward to Vista OS last week I lost all my installation, so it has to be redone some day I have time to find the program disc. Right now I rather give priority listening to my NOS1...


Title: Re: Why Does Some High Rez Sound So Bad?
Post by: PeterSt on January 02, 2011, 02:55:21 pm
Quote
*I hate A/B comparisons. After a few times repeated listen to the same short track they all start sounding the same. :wacko:

See ? we agree all the time !