mortslim;549653 Wrote: > This thread is about the desire of the original poster to have the Touch > play back 24 bit / 192 sample rate music. > > The comments that have followed have discussed the issues implicit in > the original post: > > 1. Is the Touch capable of playing 24/192 or any other high > resolution audio? > > 2. If the Touch is capable of high resolution audio, can the human > ear even discern it? > > 3. Even if the Touch is capable of playing high resolution audio, and > further, even if the human ear can discern this level of fidelity, is > there music available at this spec? > > 4. If music is available at this spec, and indeed at any spec higher > than that of a traditional red book CD (16 bit / 44.1 kHz), is the > consumer and squeezebox owner who purchases music at any purportedly > higher spec receiving what he thinks he is paying for? > > It is this last issue which has most fascinated me. The reason it has > is because of my background in recording music and my impression that a > lot of other consumers and squeezebox owners without this background may > have a misunderstanding about this issue #4. My purely altruistic > motive is to help others understand issue # 4 so that they hopefully > spend their hard earned money wisely. > > And parallel with this motive is my desire to see online retailers who > claim to sell this type of music make a full disclosure of exactly what > they are selling to prevent misunderstandings. > > The real world illustration of issue #4 has focused on certain > offerings of online retailer HDTracks which are represented to be 24 > bit / 88.2 kHz. The uninitiated most likely will assume that this > music has been originally recorded at 24/88.2 (which is a PCM digital > format). > > However through investigation it turns out that indeed at least in the > case of the San Francisco and Chicago orchestras, the music was not > originally recorded at 24/88.2. I state at least because those are > the only two record labels that I have investigated so far and indeed > may be only the tip of the iceberg. > > Puget Sound Studios has represented that we do all the SACD/DSD/DVD-A > transfers for HDtracks and other sites. This implies to me that there > are many other labels that also are offering downloads that originated > at some different spec and some different format than 24/88.2. > > What is the significance of the original recording being at a different > spec and different format than 24/88.2? There would then have to be > some conversion to 24/88.2 and that conversion process might result in > loss, thus there is the risk that the fidelity is not as good as > music that was originally recorded at 24/88.2. Just because the spec > of the downloaded music may say 24/88.2 and indeed even if its > inspected file properties confirm this spec, that doesnt mean the > music actually has the fidelity of music originally recorded at 24/88.2 > (this is an important point that those without a background in recording > may not understand). No one is saying that the resulting download is > bad, just that it may not have the full fidelity of originally > recorded 24/88.2. This goes to the issue of full disclosure so that > each consumer can understand what they are buying. > > > We now know that at least with the San Francisco and Chicago > orchestras, the music was recorded not to the PCM format, but to a > different format known as DSD. Then this DSD digital file was pressed > onto an SACD. And then Puget Sound Studios on behalf of HDTracks > converted the music on the SACD to the downloadable files at issue in > this illustration. So not only has there not been in this instance an > original recording at 24/88.2, but the second misunderstanding of the > consumer might be to assume that there has been a perfect bit for bit > rip of the SACD to derive the downloadable file offered by HDTracks. > But that is not the case either. Since an SACD is a medium for content > recorded in the DSD format, not the downloadable PCM format, a perfect > rip is not possible. The bits are different on the SACD when > compared to the bits in the downloadable file. There has been a > conversion, not a copy. And this conversion may result in some loss > of fidelity. Again, we come back to the bottom line issue of full > disclosure. None of this information is mentioned by HDTracks. > > > And this information has raised a new issue. HOW does Puget Sound > Studios do the conversion? SACD is supposed to be in an encrypted > format that can only be unencrypted by an SACD player or transport that > has an SACD chipset that decodes the encryption. Per the Sony license > (who owns the intellectual property rights in SACD), the DSD digital > data on the SACD is not supposed to be available from a digital out of > the player or transport in an unencrypted form. The only digital audio > that can be output is from the red book CD layer of a hybrid disk that > outputs at no better than PCM 24/44.1. Why? Generally to protect > copyright holders of the music on the SACD from illegal copies being > made, but also to protect Sonys rights in the SACD technology. If > copies of the DSD data could be obtained from an SACD and then playable > on a computer or server, less SACD players and transports would be sold > and less pressings of SACDs would occur at Sonys SACD pressing plant, > resulting in a loss of revenue to Sony. > > > In spite of the restrictive SACD license, Puget Sound Studios is now > representing that it indeed is obtaining unencrypted DSD data from the > SACD through the digital outs of a Playback Designs SACD transport. A > review of the published specs of this machine does not indicate this > can be done. However the owner of Puget Sound Studios has represented > that this is a feature that is not published but does exist on the > machine. > > > If that is the case, the following issues arise: > Does Playback Designs have permission from Sony to build a feature into > its machine for an unencrypted DSD audio stream to be outputted from its > SACD transport? This feature is not published (to presumably keep it > low profile) and no other company currently manufactures an SACD player > or transport with this same feature (except for maybe EMM Labs, a > company that previously employed an employee who now is a co-owner of > Playback Designs). On the other hand, Oppo, a boutique audiophile > manufacturer, explicitly makes clear that this is not allowed by the > Sony license of the SACD technology. > > > If Playback Designs is manufacturing an SACD player or transport not in > compliance with Sonys SACD license, has Playback Designs breached its > license agreement with Sony? Has Playback Designs violated any of > Sonys patent rights or other intellectual property rights of Sony if > it has made a player or transport that may circumvent a restriction of > the Sony SACD license? Has Playback Designs run afoul of the Digital > Millennium Copyright Act, Section 1201, if it has built a circumvention > of an access control into its machine? All we can do is ask the > questions. It is up to Playback Designs and Sony to give us definitive > answers. > > > From the point of view of the consumer and squeezebox owner, all of > these issues are a concern because they go to the issue of what is > being purchased when the intent is to purchase high definition audio > for playback on a squeezebox. Are these consumers getting what they > think they are getting? > > When a squeezebox owner purchases downloadable music from HDTracks that > is represented to be 24/88.2, does this consumer know and understand > what he is purchasing? > > Do you think HDTracks has made a full disclosure of what it is > selling? > > If Playback Designs is violating its license with Sony, or if it is > violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 1201, is it OK > for Puget Sound Studios to use a Playback Designs machine to prepare > downloads for sale by HDTracks? > > If Playback Designs is violating its license with Sony, or if it is > violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 1201, is it OK > for HDTracks to sell music derived from a Playback Designs machine? > > If Playback Designs is violating its license with Sony, or if it is > violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 1201, is it OK > for a consumer to purchase music derived from a Playback Designs > machine?
Who gives a damn? The ONLY issue should be what does the music sound like. If it sounds great, none of your points have any validity. If it sounds like crap - that's different. This crusade of yours is frankly embarassing. You still fail to grasp that the Sony chipset is STILL being used and so no licence agreement is violated and no encryption is being circumvented. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74688
_______________________________________________ Touch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
