XXHighEnd

Hi Peter,

I am trying to find articles that explain in not so technical words what is the difference we should hear between a regular CD format song and its high resolution equivalent.

I am aware that in the seventies, 20khz was quite the maximum at which the microphones and magnetic media could go. Maybe there were exceptions to this, but the music I was listening to (and I am still listening to nowadays) was not hi-fi music.

It is my belief that some high resolution music has been remastered with better equipment, better electronics, better attention to the small details and with little to no compression nor artificial adding from generation tapes very close to the first generation tape.

Yes, I know... It sounds naive doesn't it...

I have an example of this with an album on HDtracks, called "Waltz for Debby" by the Bill Evans Trio (Jazz). The interesting thing about it (apart from the incredible sound) is that there is a written explanation on what was done (partially) to revive the master and allow it to be put in 24/192. This recording is from 1961 and is fabulous !

This is to explain how I feel about hi-res... I am not necessarily thinking that buying a hi-res file will automatically mean "better sound", but I hope each time that the music was treated with care from the master tapes... I guess that this is done to appeal audiophiles that are hesitating about buying SACDs... And possibly DVD-As ?

What bugs me is that most of the times, the "pre-digital" albums that are selling in hi-res do not carry any explanation as how things were done to justify the higher cost and the supposed better sound.

I know of the malpractice with "upsampling" (for me it is the same as if someone was taking an MP3 song and converting it to WAV, in a effort to make fast money). HDtracks is supposed to have taken care of this now. Supposed...

Now, when I see an album that I listened to in my younger days, I can't determine if the care I mentioned before is applied to it.

In your last post, you mention that the filtering applied to the music destroys any advantage that could apply to most of hi-res music. I guess that you are talking about the "shortcuts" many music companies are taking to profit from our naivety ?

I would love to eventually get your DAC here in my home... I have to wait a while. My actual DAC was just bought a year ago and I spent a lot of money on changing my audio components.

I also followed the "used gears" tracks... Listed here is my components today. I am really happy with the results, but I won't pretend that I have the best (that would be stupid):
- Audiophilleo 2 USB -> SPDIF reclocker (new)
- Bryston BDA-1 DAC (new)
- Meitner PA-6 preamp (used, from 1990, all caps and some circuitry changed to the latest version of that component) (used)
- Meitner (Museatex) CAS-10 power amplifier (100w/c), same maintenance and upfrades as for the preamp (used)
- Tannoy System 15 DMT Studio Monitors, with the coaxial 15'' Dual Concentric speaker (almost not used)
- Tannoy subwoofers (1 for each channel) TS-1001 (new)
- Tannoy supertweeters ST-100 (almost new)

I remember that at first, I had problems with the System 15. They are a little picky on the source and they will tell me when a recording is compressed or harsh... Apart from the fact that the LF are not as big as I am used to, they really are wonderful to listen to.

I also bought "audiophile" cables (power cables and interconnects). I have put an "audiophile" AC outlet (Wattgate that is). I am using bi-wiring for the Tannoy.

Up to now I haven't taken care of the acoustics of my room. There is no absorbent material, my rack is directly on the floor with no dampening, so are the Tannoy... I have to make myself a rack that I should fill with sand to dampen the vibrations and eventually take care of my audio components rack to isolate it.

I also think about changing my actual laptop for a desktop specifically oriented towards silence and good components. I am not wishing to pay for a "music server" - it is too expensive in my beliefs...

Well, that tells a little more about me I guess - hope :-)

Thanks for your patience.

Alain

P.S.: You should have received a song that triggers the error message "Wrong header..." with XXHIGEND...

[sorry about the typo in the title of this topic I moved to here, it is *my* typo]

Ok Alain, let's see;


Already here it goes wrong, because it is a most tough project within itself to find properly HiRes. We can well say that any old stuff is not suitable, just because it wasn't made for it. This summarized, only if you can proove that there's no 5.1 recording of the same, the HiRes will be original, and no anomalies have to be expected.
Looking at what HDTracks offers, it says nothing, because they will be offering the 2ch version of what went along with the original 5.1 DVD-A, and you need to find the DVD-A first to find whether there's 5.1 on it. Since I tried this the other way around (like digging out Amazon and others) - proove that there's only 2ch on it - and since this failed, you will be having the same problem. You just can't see what was on the original DVD-A until you have it in your hands. Being able to look at the back cover helps though.

Only modern HiRes recordings from "rare" labels will do the job well. Forget about old recordings.


In my view this is not important. Digitizing that as 24/192 is, because it will eliminate the "stepping distortion" from the too low sample rate (44.1) otherwise.
So, I really don't see the problem at remastering from tape at 24/192. Small problem here : where are those remasters. I don't know them.
Don't confuse this with the old HiRes ones, like the Machine Head example.


I think we can agree about this. As long as we know that this is about 16/44.1 again ...

In between the lines :


Maybe you can recognize that I at exactly no single place anywhere advertise the NOS1 for HiRes material. With this I only want to say that I have no bias anywhere at claiming that HiRes is rubbish. Of course the NOS1 can do HiRes as no other DAC, but there is no material, while Redbook is all over. And thus is is made explicitly for *that*. No matter is will be as good for HiRes (because electrically it will play 100% the same in either case).


Sadly I don't have the Bill Evans album, so I must assume that you will be right on it being properly done.
The point is (also) that it really doesn't take all that much to let sound an old recording good. The contrary; they most often just are good, but are treated wrongly by our filtering DACs when presented in 16/444.1;
When Hires is done well, there is no filtering, and all it takes now is the DAC leaving it completely alone. As said, this is not about high frequency content, but about no stepping distortion being in there, plus no filtering being applied.


First of all HDTracks will *never* have taken care of this, because they can't. They don't produce themselves and won't reject what has been officially made earlier (DVD-A etc.). Point is and remains : it always has been wrong, and it only is now that we (can) see it.
Btw, I see this for a few years already.


No, not really. I go further : Those digital mastering (recording) engineers just don't know what they are doing. I don't feel like explaining or justify my words about this, but just think of loudness wars and see that there's really nothing much to debate about, as long as this is happening.

It would be my advise to not be obsessed about HiRes too much. I see nothing to gain as long as we can get the Redbook playback right. This is what I am trying, and this is what has quite succeeded (ok, it needs some DAC, too bad).
You play Bill evans, but I played Ella Fitzgerald last night. If you can point out what's wrong with that while being here ...


All summarized, I'm sure I sound a bit harsh. But maybe I'm fedup with all these "hoaxes". I too thought HiRes would bring a huge leap for better SQ. It never did no matter how I tried, and it's audible within one second really. Since half a year or so I started measuring it (which since 3 months or so everybody is doing), so now it has become a disappointing thing. But, it is since maybe four weeks that I know that already the DVD-A's are/were wrong, and *this* I didn't expect at all. So now I'm extra disappointed because there is no way out. Unless ... unless the large labels (if they still exist) are going to remaster in 24/192 *if* the tapes are not destroyed or can be found anyway.
If only guys like Neil Young would have produced properly sounding Hires. Technically all this 24/176.4 is ok (just remastered from tape as far as I can see), but the worst sounding ever. Unlistenable. This, while the "original" 16/44.1's sound gorgeous.
What to do ?

Peter

Hi Peter,

Thanks for those many answers. You do not have to excuse yourself for being disgusted about the ploy from the majors... I have always asked myself why they simply don't do things right in the first place. I am not really interested in multi-channel music, but it could be all we will get in an uncertain future... And I really feel sad about this.

As for the "Machine Head" from Deep Purple, I listened to it again. Yes, this is definitely taken from the 5.1 surround remastered version and downmixed to 2 channels. This was done in 2001 and at the time they were still in learning mode as for using this new technology. On "Highway Star" it is quite obvious, as the Hammond from Jon Lord almost disappears at certain passages (as if it was going "somewhere else"). But I have to say at least that the sound (apart from the awful mix) is a lot better than what I was accustomed to, be it from the vinyl and the regular CD. But it does not excuse the total lack of care about the mix...

I found a few sites where there seemed to be some indication about what was on this DVD-A, but there are contradictions...

I fell on an article giving information about the DVD-A white papers. I took that from http://www.dvd-a.net/faq.html. I am sending it as an attachment with this reply.

At page 8 of this document it becomes quite interesting and it confirms that in some situations the 5.1 can be downmixed in 2 channels with a protocol called "SMART" and it comes from... Warner Brothers... I do not automatically conclude that this is what happened, but it could be. But whatever was applied, the result speakd for itself.

And yes I agree with you. The song I sent to you yesterday about the "Wrong header" is a good example of the Loudness War...

Thanks and regards,

Alain

Hey Alain,

All I can say at this moment is : when I browse through that Somic "White Paper", it gives me the creaps.

Biased me.

PS: Great fan of Deep Purple here. Played the 44.1 Machine Head tonight because of your hinting.
Do you have the In Rock 2000 whatever anniversary edition ? I didn't play it for a while now, but I recall it as really nice with those additional tracks.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

To say the truth, I was in "hibernation" for many years when I started computer programming in 1987, until 2002. I was so into it that a lot of things went down the drain and the music was part of that...

I just woke up a couple of years ago and that awakening made me spent a few k$. Now I am just looking around and find what I missed. I only discovered a few "oldies" up to now...

So no, there are lots of albums I am not aware of... Is that "In Rock" version that good ? I have always found it quite distorted and doubted it would sound ok one day... ?

I have a few others of them: Fireball, Who Do We Think We Are... I used to have more of them, like Stormbringer, Burn, even Rainbow...

About the document... Yes, it's creepy ! I don't know what to think about this, but it does not smell good... So each time I will see a hi-res, I will ask myself if it worths the buy... I am already slowing down. I would prefer to go for new stuff or at least just get what I still want from my vinyls...

The good new is that I am now an unconditional of you !

Thanks and regards,

Alain