Kent Poon's Audiophile Jazz Prologue III

Hi Chris,<br />

<br />

Due to your review, I downloaded some free files to share some of your experience.<br />

<br />

But I have noticed, that the audio content of the 96k and of the 192k files are going only slightly above 22kHz, so I assume, that the original recordings is “only” made with 44.1/24 or 48/24 and that the 96 and 192 Files are made “only” by up sampling.<br />

<br />

Having the 44.1K or 48K content, playing back in 96k or 192k, shifts the digital filter in the DAC into a higher region and so it could sound better in the case, that the external pre up sampling filter has better algorithm than the internal up sampling filter in regular DAC units.<br />

<br />

But when you compare these files with the Reference Recordings HDX Files, or with the 2L Files, you can clearly see, that the files from RR and from 2L where really recorded in 176.4/24 (RR) or higher (2L) and not only in 44.1 or 48k. With this both companies, you can see some musical content going up until 40 kHz and than the noise of the input stages / microphone combination decrease slowly.<br />

<br />

For the free Design w Sound files, there is a steep drop beyond 22 kHz and so no signal ever exceeds this point.<br />

<br />

Best, Juergen<br />

Hi Juergen - Thanks very much for the comments. I have emailed Kent Poon for clarification on this matter. Something doesn't seem right between your comments and his comments to me.<br />

<br />

I hope to have an answer shortly. Thanks again for raising this issue.

Hi Chris<br />

<br />

I already posted this issue on Kent’s Website and he wrote me back, that I was not the only one who recognized, that the audio bandwidth does only go up to 22k.<br />

<br />

He mentioned that he has done this for sonically reasons, to prevent that no signal above 22k will distort any following electronic, like pre or power amp.<br />

<br />

But in fact, when you look at the files from RR or 2L, you will see that the magnitude of the signal above 22k is not strong enough, to cause any distortion effect on the following electronic, but it is large enough, to improve the audio quality.<br />

<br />

One thing I want to add is that in the meantime Kent has removed my post from his site and left only the positive posts left.<br />

<br />

Juergen<br />

Juergen, I can't help but make a funny here. Do you have bats ears? <br />

<br />

Males over the age of 25 are pretty lucky if they can still hear out to 20kHz, much less 22kHz. I understand your point though, ESPECIALLY if the musical content was originally recorded at 16/48 or 24/48 and then upsampling was done. BUT---<br />

<br />

I will point out what a friend of mine told me long ago when I used to get hung up on such things:<br />

<br />

"If it sounds good, who cares?"

Please do not understand me wrong. My main purpose is not to claim, that it is important to have musical content above 22K. This would be a totally different story, a long story also.<br />

<br />

My intention came from the fact that these files are sold as high bandwidth files, but in fact, they are “only” up sampled with no information above 22K.<br />

<br />

So why to sell it as high sampling files? But in fact, the 24 Bit word length gives you more information than the standard 16 Bit for CD.<br />

<br />

And finally, I totally agree with your last statement: “If it sounds, who cares?”<br />

<br />

I hope I could a little bit clarify my initial intention.<br />

<br />

Juergen<br />

Good, better, best <br />

Never let it rest <br />

'Til your good is better <br />

And your better is best<br />

And that I believe is the audiophile quest! <br />

Hi there,<br />

<br />

I think Juergen's point is quite revealing (btw, I don't know how you measured this Juergen).<br />

<br />

Whether it is audible or not, the industry is going up to 24/192.<br />

At least, it should be done correctly.<br />

That's no good point for Kent <br />

<br />

Elp.

Nice mantra!

Juergen,<br />

I totally understand your intentions are fine. I was just having fun with my post. <br />

<br />

As I'm sure you know, many feel that even though you cannot "hear" above, say 20k, it is important for that information to be there. The inner ear is a complex device and even though technically we cannot hear above this point, you can still "hear" it if you know what I mean (auditory perception). <br />

<br />

What you state does make some sense though because the redbook cdr included in the Jazz Prologue packaging sounds DAMN good at 16/44.1 and I would say about 91-92% as good as the "hi-rez" 24/192 material!<br />

<br />

Hopefully Kent can post hear and let us know what his actual process was. Until then, I'll just enjoy it!!

Hi Guys - No matter how this one turns out I still encourage everyone to pick up a copy of the album. The music is fabulous and the sound is just as good. It would be nice to get more detail on the whole process as you guys have said. Until such time enjoy the music.

Hi to everyone<br />

<br />

The music is the most important point, not the audio bandwidth and I hope that my intention for writing this is clear.<br />

<br />

I have some very good sounding SACDs from the German Label Stockfisch and a lot of cuts are made from an original 24/44.1 Master, so “only” CD Bandwidth. The CD Layer itself sounded pretty good, and the SACD layer sounded even better (without any increase of the audio band).<br />

<br />

So the difference in the CD and the SACD Layer are basically two points. First, the use of the increased world length from 16 Bit to the original 24 Bit and second, when hearing the CD layer, the internal digital filter of the DAC of my playback system determines the 22.05 kHz low pass and with the SACD layer, an external digital pre filter of the SADIE CD to SACD over sampler determines this.<br />

<br />

But in all cases, I can read in the booklet of the SACD, that the SACD is made out of a 44K Master, as this was true.<br />

<br />

Juergen<br />

<br />

PS: Measurements: They can be easily done by a many DAWs or Audio Editors. I haven’t seen any graphs in the posts, so I do not know, whether it is possible or not to add some graphs. But if there is an interest in seeing this differences, I will have a look if it is possible, to add some pictures.<br />

Hello Chris,<br />

<br />

Today is Chinese New Year here! We usually close down before the new year and gather for dinners with family members. Kung Hei Fat Choi to Chris and everyone in Computer Audiopile.com! Hope you all will have a great year of OX. We can all enjoy more good quality hardwares and softwares. <br />

<br />

It is a big surprised that Chris really wrote a review for our release! And suddenly brought a lot of login to download our free samples. It is really my honor and thank you for all comments. I suddenly met many many more audio lovers online and being interact with everyone gain my sight in a large degree. The Audiophile Jazz Prologue I, II, III were recorded in 2 different sessions. One session was over 7 years ago and one over 4 years ago. The recording formats were mixed between 24/96, 24/192 and pure DSD in multitrack, and we put those data on the booklet. <br />

<br />

Everything in this albums are made with intentions. You will not believe I wanted to release this album (Part III) on year 2005-2006, after Part II was released on SACD. We tried many different algorithms that can help us to achieve the sound we want in our head. Everything is selected by lengthly comparisons, nothing is by guessing or preconceptions. <br />

<br />

Regarding the bandwidth, I don't think anything wrong that a recording without much signal above 20kHz. As an old school professional engineer, even any above 10kHz are not "working area". This is also one point that the audiophile community may different with pro audio world. From my experiences, high freq. content are not the reason why high sampling rate recordings can be better because we cannot hear those high freq. signals, but why still use high sampling rates?? The filters do affect the sound quality in great degree. <br />

<br />

What so interesting on this project, we provided all sampling rates so that the end users are able to compare. Everyone can listen to a hard copy - Premium Made CD-R, which needs to playback with a traditional CD transport. We had quite many local listening test presses, and big surprise to many presses that the 16bit/44.1kHz files can sound better than ultra high costs CD transports. They can also easily pick up differences between 96khz and 192kHz files. I will leave everyone to draw their own conclusion on sound quality, based on their listening setup. <br />

<br />

I greatly appreciate Chris introduced our recording to his readers, and I am sure he has readers all over the world because we got shipping address to almost everywhere in this planet! One thing I enjoy the most is Chris specific mentioned our recordings are not the type of recording that show off 10 second of "audio effects", but a live acoustic recording with good recording technique, equipment, and many listening tests behind it. I hope you all enjoy the sound and music and thank you so much for the support again. We are thrilled to have so many great comments from all around the world.<br />

<br />

In the future, we will produce some more experimental free audio examples to further target on this topic. <br />

<br />

Kung Hei Fat Choi! <br />

<br />

Bests,<br />

Kent <br />

<br />

Hi all together,<br />

interesting discussion, I´ve checked the downloaded demo file of Kent Poon´s “Freddie” by myself and I found a hard limit in frequency content at about 23 kHz, all frequency content above is at -90dB and lower. Therefore the original recording was not just done @44,1k. If the 192k version would be only an upsampled CD, this limit must be at 22kHz. In the meantime I saw his post where he explained it and I can confirm, Kent´s explanation is absolutely reliable.<br />

On the other side a limit to 23kHz due to a high cut filter with such a large slew rate and attenuation has nearly the same effect like a resampling to 44,1kHz. That´s theory, but you can also hear it if you compare the files by listening. So I have problems with understanding Kent. I absolutely agree that the filters you need for conversion at lower sampling rates cause big problems. But you get exact the same problems if you manually apply such filters. It remains only the benefit due to better filters in the DA converter. In my mind this is not enough reason for recording and especially selling 2fs or 4fs audio.<br />

<br />

But this discussion gives me a reason for writing “a little bit” more. My experiences are absolutely different. It is not easy for me to repeat a discussion here in English, I had in Germany many times before within the last years. But please let me try to explain some things, because here comes again the old but wrong argument with the ability of human hearing. And also the old discussion that CDs can sound good is not very helpful if we talk about the benefit of recordings with higher sampling rates. <br />

Fact is, CD is a standard and many people are very happy with this. Many people are happy with MP3, too. Also a fact is, that the CD is not able to capture all details in music and sound which are present in the natural performance and e.g. a good analog recording can capture or a good old vinyl record can. <br />

As an audio professional I have to produce CDs for many years and sure it is possible to have much fun with CDs. But as a private music enthusiast I know the great realism and the fantastic musical intensity of good vinyl LPs. Everyone who knows LIVING STEREO or the old VERVE and IMPULSE recordings does understand what I mean. And since we´ve started recording @96k or 192k we are able to capture some of the characteristics I like so much when listening to this records. Sure, it is still not easy to handle 2fs or 4fs really good, however it is very easy to do high sampling recordings that sound not better than a CD. I think this is the reason why so much professionals do argue against high sampling rates. E.g. some professional DAWs have massive timing problems when handling 2fs multitrack. <br />

<br />

Yes Joel, if you observe only one ear, you are right, we can not hear frequencies above 20kHz. But normally we have two ears, and it is proven by science that both ears together have a much better time resolution than it would be possible within the 20kHz bandwidth of one ear. The existence of two transmission channels can not compensate this. Please try a simple experiment: Go with one ear in front of one loudspeaker. Perfect would be a little but very good system or a dual concentric type like Tannoy. Then listen to music, at best a piece with some percussion. Now compare the resolution of your “hear system” when you hear with both ears or when you put your finger into the ear which is on the opposite site of your head (not the ear in front of the speaker). You´ll find that your hearing improves the time resolution of the perceived signal with the sound that reaches the second ear, even due to reflections of the room. E.g. you hear a better structure in percussion or other very complex sounds like piano, strings etc. This is very impressive, our human hearing is such a fantastic apparatus. You can do the same experiment with a clock that ticks very loud. Always the reproduction you perceive with both ears is much more sharp than with only one ear. This fact alone shows very clear that the simplification, done during the development of the CD, is wrong. <br />

But perhaps this is not the most important point. If you want to do a digital recording @44,1kHz, you have to cut off all frequency content above 22,05kHz. This does not only cut down the time resolution of the music recording due to the reduced bandwidth, therefore you need a filter with a large slew rate, too. And this filter does cause a huge amount of time smearing. (Please have a look at image 2 on ths site: http://www.acousence.de/Seiten/digital_cd_en.html) <br />

The very important keyword is the time resolution. Both effects - limited bandwidth and time smearing - cut down the time resolution, and this is not good for the sound and especially the music. <br />

<br />

We at ACOUSENCE offer HD recordings for a few months, as FLAC downloads in 16/44, 24/96 and 24/192 (http://www.linnrecords.com/label-acousence-classics.aspx) and as DVD discs. We also offer some “Comparison Kits”, including the normal Audio-CD. All our productions during the last ten/twelve years are done @96kHz. And all this time I was very sad when I mastered a new CD from the HD master, because the CD format is absolutely not able to capture all the music the master contains. Now finally our customers are able to hear all our recordings in real HD master quality. And many customers wrote us and confirmed the fantastic realism and intensity especially of the 192kHz files. The true benefit of recordings at high sampling rates is the considerably improved realism of sounds and the capture of finest musical details as well as the atmosphere of an artistic performance. For me the last two topics are much more important than the sound. Sure, it is absolutely fascinating what realism now is possible, but I think for recognizing the real profit you need a very good playback system. Contrary to the intensity of the musical performance remains noticeable all the time. And we are talking about music, not about a technical system for transmitting sound pressure waves. Now the musicality of digital recordings becomes comparable with a very good analog recording and – most important – the real artistic performance. (Perhaps you could find more interesting information at this site respectively the two links there: http://www.acousence.de/Seiten/analog_lp_en.html)<br />

<br />

On this site http://www.acousence.de/Seiten/technology.html we describe very clear our production process. Our offered HD recordings are no fakes. All is multitrack recorded at 96k, mixed analog (very important!) and then recorded at 192k (Even a 96k master is not able to capture all details of the complex analog stereo mix of those many 96k tracks). The offered 192k files contain an exact copy of the output of our mixing desk with 24/192 AD conversion. Then all lower quality files are the result of a conversion process outgoing from this 24Bit/192kHz master file.<br />

<br />

I think it is very important to say this, because our music industry has done so much mistakes during the last decades. With the upcoming “listening from file formats” we get a so wonderful chance for a real evolution in music recording. And therefore I hope that not too many companies do destroy this chance due to hoaxing their customers. Many companies feel that they are able to sell with the attribute “HD”, “HR” or “192kHz”, but they nearly all have the problem that they have no existing recordings done at higher sampling rates. Perhaps they have problems with understanding why they should do this, too.<br />

<br />

Kent Poon has his own reason for doing it like he did, and I respect this, that´s absolutely okay. But I´ve checked other very well known 4fs HD recordings and I found similar things without any declaration. After reading this story by Juergen, now I fear bit by bit that 192k becomes more and more a virtual argument for selling recordings, but without the real benefit which is possible. Unfortunately this delivers a very good argument for all people which have ever known that high sampling rates are nonsense. And in the past we had a similar situation with DVD-A and SACD and we all know the result. I don´t want to live in a future with MP3 as THE standard audio format.<br />

<br />

Best wishes,<br />

Ralf Koschnicke<br />

ACOUSENCE records<br />

He,<br />

<br />

nice explanations.<br />

Unfortunately, I fear the same.<br />

<br />

If I look back at the cd industry, this is quite clear that even the cd format has not been pushed too hard by most recordings companies. In many cases, the cd is unlistenable on a good system because of the poorly managed mixing and mastering stages (dedicated to what system ??).<br />

<br />

If you are to consider the recording quality, you are stuck with selected companies, that do their job honestly, but then you can't always choose the music you like. Or you do buy the music you like, but this is hardly listenable, so it ends up in the car.<br />

<br />

Worst, most of the 'bad' recordings are not selling at very affordable prices.<br />

Both dvd-a and sacd failed because of their dual-existence, and their selling price too.<br />

<br />

It's high time people asked for more quality (I think most do, but the price often deters them).<br />

Hopefully, Computer Audiophile will guide people in this field.<br />

<br />

Elp.

Dear Ralf<br />

<br />

Thank you for you input.<br />

<br />

I have listened into your free samples, very fine, and they are indeed done with a 192K recording.<br />

<br />

I also totally agree, that the timing issue is the most advantage, when using higher sampling rate. I have occupied several listening session at the AES (Audio Engineering Society) where I couldn’t here any thing, when they played signals above 20 kHz. But when they played back audio material, which was recorded in true high sampling rate, and reducing the bandwidth with digital filters with integer division numbers, I was clearly hearing the difference. And my thinking was that this was not primarily due to the missing of the higher frequencies, my thought was, that this was due to the smearing of the signal in the time domain. So I totally agree with you, that the timing resolution of our ears are much finer, that the inverse of our maximum audible upper frequency (Shannon theory).<br />

<br />

With my writing I also want to put an attention to the point that I do not want, that record companies will try to sell the same old 44.1K CD content one more time in an HD format with just up sampling the original data, and cheating the customers. OK, if they are doing this with the 24 Bit master, than the customer will have a benefit.<br />

<br />

I really like your idea, selling the music also on 24/96 Audio Disc, which will play back on nearly every DVD Video player. I have no idea, why this format has had no success on the market. Only a limited numbers of small record companies have tried this. In my opinion, this format would have been a very good successor of the CD but the majors were lost in struggling between SACD and DVD-Audio.<br />

<br />

As you are also located here in Germany, will you also attend the Munich High End Show in May?<br />

<br />

All the best,<br />

Juergen<br />

<br />

PS: You have some small idle frequencies of the phantom power oscillator in your signals.<br />

Hi guys,<br />

Lots of good discussion here! Thanks for taking all the time to write that out Ralf and Juergen!! I will need to check out Ralf's offerings next....<br />

<br />

Regards, Joel

I have thoroughly enjoyed the music on the Audiophile Jazz Prologue III Limited Edition discs. The excellent performances and great recordings should place this disc among the top on anyone’s list for good music.<br />

<br />

My favorite track is “My One And Only Love”. The vocals are amazing and the instruments complete the magic. Thanks for providing the opportunity to compare digital resolutions, but I love the track on this disc regardless of the format which brings me to an interesting small dilemma.<br />

<br />

I think I may rate the 24/96 track as the best overall since I usually value vocals above instruments. I found that the vocals on the 16/44.1 and 24/96 tracks to be superior to the 24/192 track. On the other hand I found the instruments on the 24/192 track to sound superior to the lower resolutions. Perhaps it’s just the balance that bringing up the instruments lessens the advantage of the vocals. The differences are small but I wonder if I would find a similar preference for 24/96 for other recordings with singers and instruments or a preference for 24/192 recordings that are instruments only.<br />

<br />

I look forward to adding the Jazz Prologue I and II to my collection. It doesn’t matter if they are on LP, SACD, DVD or CD-R and I don’t need any fancy packaging. I’ll be happy just to get the music.<br />

I agree and lo and behold I was listening to this release again last night. My favorite track is ALSO “My One And Only Love”! I think thats also the best sounding cut overall as well, the vocals are PERFECT on that one.<br />

<br />

I have ONLY listened to the cd and the 24/192. I will have to play with the 24/96 now based on your comments.<br />

<br />

Can't wait for more from Kent!!!<br />

<br />

Joel

Thanks for your kind words audiozorro! Actually "My One and Only Love" is also my favorite song. I keep many version of this songs, and always listen to Sting's version from movie "Leaving Las Vegas" soundtrack CD. <br />

<br />

That's why I wanted to produce this song in audiophile setting. (especially the sax solo after the 1st chorus). Maybe I should consider putting that song for the next free sample, as we planned to have 3 free samples in Hi-Res from all 13 songs. <br />

<br />

Thank you for your support. I'm glad your enjoy the music and sound. <br />

<br />

Bests,<br />

Kent<br />

<br />

I re-read this discussion, and I did not understand why the cut is above 22Khz...<br />

<br />

Is it because it is upsampled, or due to using a filter after 22Khz on original recordings? if so, why?<br />

<br />

Looking at the Quiet Nights 24/96 version, I see the spectrum goes up to 30Khz..<br />

<br />

It would be nice <a href="http://www.designerevaluation.com/">website design</a> to get more detail on the whole process as you guys have said. Until such time <a href="http://www.designerevaluation.com/logo-design/">logo design</a> enjoy the music.<br />

I am really missing something here. I bought this album a few months ago and managed to get a spectrum plot with Audacity as explained somewhere else on this site. The attached file is the spectrum plot of the "04-Freddie-24bit192kHz.flac" file.<br />

To my surprise, the plot shows no frequency content above 22 kHz no better than a vulgar CD, pretty unacceptable for a 24bit-192kHz resolution audio file, no?<br />

So, what I am missing here, or should I ask for a refund?<br />

Best regards to all.<br />

JN

Your findings are correct, those recordings do not carry any information above 22 kHz, so 96K or 192K files are just a joke. I noticed this also and comment this on Kent Poon`s site, but was banned with my comments. Sad, but true.<br />

<br />

But beside this, the sound is great, but indicating this as higher sample rate files, is wrong.<br />

<br />

Juergen<br />

<br />

PS: This is not an “error” of Audacity, because Audition or SpectraFoo does indicate the same.

Continuing with frequency analysis, I made a spectrum plot of a few seconds of "Lush Life" in its 24bit/192kHz incarnation :<br />

<br />

<img src="http://www.computeraudiophile.com/files/window-Frequency Analysis-001.png" /><br />

<br />

The "staircase" shape of the spectrum above 22kHz is rather unnatural, and it repeats consistently in all sections of the audio file. Two explanations come to mind :<br />

1- the original master recording is 44.1 kHz therefore potentially explaining the observed shape. However in this case, why trying to makeup up-sampled versions to 24/96, 24/192, DSD or even DXD if the original master is 44.1 kHz ? Why trying to fool buyers into believing there is a high resolution master upfront ?<br />

2- the original master recording is 24/196, or DSD or DXD - or may be analog magnetic tape, there is an icon in one corner saying "30ips". In that case the staircase shape of the spectrum would come from a brickwall filter with a cutoff frequency around 22 kHz. But here why massacring a wonderful recording in such a brutal way ? What would have been the music - which already sounds fabulous - without this amputation ?<br />

I am sure there might be other explanations, but I would really like to understand what's going on here.<br />

<br />

On the subject of why high frequency content matters in high fidely audio reproduction, I have two references. The first one is an article by Caltech professor James Boyk entitled <a href="http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm">There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz! A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz</a> and the second one is the research work of <a href="http://www.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm">Milind Kunchur, physics professor at the University of South Carolina</a>, who measured human ear temporal resolution to be ~5 microseconds.<br />

Both are worth reading IMO.<br />

Happy computer listening to all,<br />

JN<br />

Hello,<br />

<br />

I just this week received my copy of Kent's <a href="http://www.designwsound.com/Design_w_Sound/Design_w_Sound_-_Audiophile_Jazz_Prologue_III.html"><em>Audiophile Jazz Prologue III</em></a>--the two disk set. It's one of the most expensive albums that I have purchased, but I still feel like it was a bargain considering everything that I received in that little brown padded envelope from Hong Kong. While it probably has no affect on sonics, the packaging is amazing. As Chris said, incredible attention to detail was obvious before I even got the discs loaded into my playback system.<br />

<br />

Like any album, the best way to appreciate this one is to listen to it from start to finish. In a word, it's marvelous. Really. Think about that word. It's obvious that a lot of work went into these recordings. I encourage folks to listen to all thirteen tracks from start to finish before offering any more criticism of this album or the way in which it was produced.<br />

<br />

I too looked at a few of the tracks in Audacity and saw the same thing that others have. Before I had a chance to listen to the album, I even sent Kent this screen capture of one of his tracks vs. Barry Diament's <em>Equinox</em>, both loaded in Audacity at the same time to get his opinion (I thought something might have gone wrong with my copy):<br />

<br />

<img src="http://www.dsnyder.ws-e.com/photos/potn/dvs.png" alt="Audacity Spectrum"><br />

<br />

I think that most of us will agree that the sound engineering and sonics on both albums are superb...certainly among the very best available anywhere. Kent and Barry have just gone about the process differently.<br />

<br />

I know that we tend to use the Audacity spectrum test to verify that our high resolution files are authentic and that this album does not pass this particular test. Based on Kent's comments earlier in this thread and quoted below and my own listening experience with these recordings, I now have no reason to believe that this is not an authentic high resolution recording in spite of the fact that the spectrum looks like what we typically see from an upsampled CD. Again, step away from the computer and listen. Please. :-)<br />

<br />

<cite>We tried many different algorithms that can help us to achieve the sound we want in our head. Everything is selected by lengthly comparisons, nothing is by guessing or preconceptions.</cite><br />

<br />

<cite>Regarding the bandwidth, I don't think anything wrong that a recording without much signal above 20kHz. As an old school professional engineer, even any above 10kHz are not "working area". This is also one point that the audiophile community may different with pro audio world. From my experiences, high freq. content are not the reason why high sampling rate recordings can be better because we cannot hear those high freq. signals, but why still use high sampling rates?? [because] the filters do affect the sound quality in great degree.</cite><br />

<br />

<cite>What so interesting on this project, we provided all sampling rates so that the end users are able to compare. Everyone can listen to a hard copy - Premium Made CD-R, which needs to playback with a traditional CD transport. We had quite many local listening test presses, and big surprise to many presses that <strong>the 16bit/44.1kHz files can sound better than ultra high costs CD transports. They can also easily pick up differences between 96khz and 192kHz files.</strong> I will leave everyone to draw their own conclusion on sound quality, based on their listening setup.</cite><br />

<br />

That statement that I emphasized above regarding how Kent's redbook files can sound better than his specially prepared "DWSQC" CD-Audio disc in ultra high-end CD transports is foundational to our computer audio hobby. I for one am grateful to Kent for his work in helping to show the world that the computer has well deserved place in every serious music playback system. I'm also delighted that I now have in my possession a handy tool (Kent's album) for demonstrating to others what I have discovered about the potential for music playback through computer transports vs. traditional disc transports.<br />

<br />

Ok, now back to the music... :-)<br />

<br />

-- David<br />