SeanMiddleton wrote:
> I have a massive collection of flacs derived from 44.1 Khz CD's. I also
> have quite a number of HD tracks ranging from 24/48 up to 24/384. In
> many case I have the same album in both HD and 44.1. Most of the time,
> when comparing a HD track that was distilled from a HD
I have a massive collection of flacs derived from 44.1 Khz CD's. I also
have quite a number of HD tracks ranging from 24/48 up to 24/384. In
many case I have the same album in both HD and 44.1. Most of the time,
when comparing a HD track that was distilled from a HD master against
the 44.1
ralphpnj wrote:
> CD quality but with a much larger file.
I actually have purchased some good 44.1k downloads from them but they
are far and few between. One of them is one of my favorite albums ever,
Replicas by Gary Numan and Tubeway Army, this predates the sonf Cars by
some months.
cliveb wrote:
> Well - yes, it does sound like a rant.
> And while most of your points are basically true, it seems a bit like a
> stream of consciousness diatribe.
> To a non-believer, it will sound like a bunch of opinions stated as
> fact, and that's not going to convince anyone.
>
> Fair
Davesworld wrote:
> I know this is long and sounding like a rant.
Well - yes, it does sound like a rant.
And while most of your points are basically true, it seems a bit like a
stream of consciousness diatribe.
To a non-believer, it will sound like a bunch of opinions stated as
fact, and that's
ralphpnj wrote:
> Well I for one enjoyed every bit of your wonderful post. You covered all
> of the points about digital audio that are most often misrepresented and
> backed up your statements with good solid scientific proof.
> Unfortunately science in the Age of Trump is down on one knee and
odw199 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A very interesting read, thank you to everyone who's clearly put time
> and thought into the research.
>
> A couple of questions from my rather naive (and very computer science
> orientated background). I ripped my CD collection to FLAC many years ago
> using Max on a
Hi,
A very interesting read, thank you to everyone who's clearly put time
and thought into the research.
A couple of questions from my rather naive (and very computer science
orientated background). I ripped my CD collection to FLAC many years ago
using Max on a Mac (http://sbooth.org/Max/). I
Davesworld wrote:
> I know this is long and sounding like a rant
Well I for one enjoyed every bit of your wonderful post. You covered all
of the points about digital audio that are most often misrepresented and
backed up your statements with good solid scientific proof.
Unfortunately
pablolie wrote:
> I remember the days when they would print -in the back of quite a few
> CDs- whether it was DDD, ADD or AAD. I don't think I ever saw vinyl
> stating whether it was "ADA" or something like that... :-D But I have to
> admit my vinyl days were over as soon as CDs came out, and
I can tell you from experience exactly what one gets, a convenient way
to buy digital material without buying and storing CDs. I actually use
SOX to downsample and downbit these recordings to 16/44 using the
default dithering setting which is triangulation dithering. Some of the
worst earbleeding
I remember the days when they would print -in the back of quite a few
CDs- whether it was DDD, ADD or AAD. I don't think I ever saw vinyl
stating whether it was "ADA" or something like that... :-D But I have to
admit my vinyl days were over as soon as CDs came out, and that I
digitized my vinyl
Archimago wrote:
> Interesting history there Arny... I assume the effect must have been
> transparent.
>
> Also I presume there's an AD/DA in the device. What kind of conversion
> quality are we looking at with the ADD-1 back in the day for these
> LP's!?
>
> I'm sure Michael Fremer would have
You could also add the fact that some analog tapes did not age well .
The digital copy from 1989 may be as good as it ever gets.
Also some early CDs was simply cut from the LP master tape . A good
engineer knows that an LP is not transparent and have some well known
issues to workaround so they
To drop more into the fire, a lot of new artists - those who self record
and produce at home, especially their first works - usually deliver 320k
MP3s to their labels for digital distribution. Certainly the common case
for electronic / dance music.
I agree hdtracks is a minefield, and their own sampler tracks are a
spectacular own-goal. DOYR.
I buy a lot of newer music. Often that's originally recorded at 24/44,
24/88, 24/96. Occasionally these original numbers are available for
download and I buy them (usually from Qobuz or 7digital). In
pablolie wrote:
> ...I had no idea that digital recording pollution had started as early!
>
> I present the following little experiment I have gone for over the years
> with one of my favorite recordings ever.
>
> 24411
>
> One version is a 320k CBR rip from the original CD, the second the
>
...I had no idea that digital recording pollution had started as early!
I present the following little experiment I have gone for over the years
with one of my favorite recordings ever.
24411
One version is a 320k CBR rip from the original CD, the second the
HDtracks download, supposedly from
ralphpnj wrote:
> CD quality but with a much larger file.
Awesome summary. :-)
...pablo
Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware Workstation 14 Pro) running Ubuntu
16.04 + LMS 7.9
System: SB Touch --optical->- Benchmark DAC2HGC --AnalysisPlus Oval
Copper XLR->- NAD M22 Power Amp --AnalysisPlus
My experience is it depends on the original master recording and the
competency of the remastering engineer.
I've suffered through some 'high-res' releases that sounded worse than
the 25 year old Redbook pressing of it.
This can be even more pronounced with older masters where no care is
taken.
arnyk wrote:
> Listening tests of this device were among our early adventures with ABX:
>
>
>
> http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm
>
> "The Ampex 16 Bit Digital Delay Line vs. wire comparison was made in a
> professional recording studio control room on time aligned UREI 813
> speakers
I wouldn't buy anything from HDTracks without researching it first. I
buy a lot more downloads from eClassical or Presto, at least 16/44 FLAC.
I do like to get the "studio master" versions if it's not too much more
expensive than 16/44, what the hell, but I don't bother with 44/24 or
48/24
Archimago wrote:
> Interesting history there Arny... I assume the effect must have been
> transparent.
>
Listening tests of this device were among our early adventures with ABX:
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm
>
> Also I presume there's an AD/DA in the device.
>
For sure. It
Interesting history there Arny... I assume the effect must have been
transparent.
Also I presume there's an AD/DA in the device. What kind of conversion
quality are we looking at with the ADD-1 back in the day for these
LP's!?
I'm sure Michael Fremer would have no trouble identifying these
Mnyb wrote:
> Yes this is a quite common case the existing master is 44,1kHz or
> sometimes 24/48 which seems to be the popular music standard some niche
> audiophile or some classical labels may use higher resolution but they
> are the exception .
>
An interesting instance of 20-ish kHz band
Jeff07971 wrote:
> No they just have bat ears ! ;)
24310
+---+
|Filename: Stereophile_high_resolution_secrets_cover.jpg|
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24310|
Archimago wrote:
> Happy New Year everyone!
>
> Yup. No surprise about the paicity of actual hi-res music. For years
> HDtracks has been releasing upsampled music. And few of the recordings
> of course achieve anything close to needing beyond 16-bits if even that.
> Years ago, I wrote the
Happy New Year everyone!
Yup. No surprise about the paicity of actual hi-res music. For years
HDtracks has been releasing upsampled music. And few of the recordings
of course achieve anything close to needing beyond 16-bits if even that.
Years ago, I wrote the article on "'Hi-Res Expectations'
Yes this is a quite common case the existing master is 44,1kHz or
sometimes 24/48 which seems to be the popular music standard some niche
audiophile or some classical labels may use higher resolution but they
are the exception .
But it does not really help with much of thier content which is
stereoptic wrote:
> Nice analysis, but I am confused as to the relationship between how the
> people at HDTracks look, and the quality of the downloads? Is there a
> particular high resolution facial structure? ;)
No they just have bat ears ! ;)
*Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3
Nice analysis, but I am confused as to the relationship between how the
people at HDTracks look, and the quality of the downloads? Is there a
particular high resolution facial structure? ;)
stereoptic's Profile:
arnyk wrote:
> What sort of quality do people get when they download so-called "Hi Rez"
>
CD quality but with a much larger file.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
Computer Rm:
24290
In order to evaluate this I downloaded what one might expect to be one
of the most reliable "Hi Rez" web sites: HDTRACKS.COM. I donwloaded
what should be one of their most exceptional collections: their
headlining sampler. This is he music that convinces audiophiles to buy
their products!
33 matches
Mail list logo
