Julf Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Clearly material that was originally 48 kHz, got upsampled to DSD/SACD, and then resampled to 96/24. Pretty ugly. The review in the March 2012 issue of UK magazine "Hi-Fi News & Record Review" seems to agree. Link to comment
esldude Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Thanks for posting this. Seems HD tracks just doesn't get it or does not want to get it. Sure looks like they will just keep selling what they have rather than start policing their line up. It takes a trivial amount of time and effort to do what you did. Dump it in Audacity or similar and look at it. If they wanted to avoid this embarrassment they could. They apparently are going to let customers gamble and figure the dissatisfaction will be outweighed by money they make. I have only purchased a couple from them that were confirmed good by other people posting them. I also have not purchased a good dozen I otherwise would have because it was confirmed they were from low-rez masters. So unless I know otherwise, I won't purchase from HD tracks. Maybe HD stands for Highly Doubtful tracks? And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
wgscott Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Be sure to write them to tell them how delighted you are with the fine quality of their product, lest you be labeled cynical. Link to comment
Julf Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 You can be sure I will! Will let you guys know what they respond... Link to comment
Julf Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Got the standard form response: "We absolutely do not allow any upsampled content on our site. All of our high res albums are produced either directly from the original masters, or from SACDs, in either case transferred through high quality DACs set at the proper resolution. In addition, we have every album tested at an offsite facility to insure that it has not been upsampled prior to offering it for sale on our site." To their credit, they did offer a free replacement download. Link to comment
esldude Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I wonder, have you submitted your spectrum graph and asked them to explain it. Or was this their canned explanation? They can claim they either know them to be remastered, and tested. In which case there should be no room for upsampling unless they are simply lying. Or if they are using SACD source files they can always say upsampling occurred before they got possession of the files. If that is where the bulk of these type files are coming from then it would of course be nice to have such places list the provenance of the recording. Then one can avoid SACD sourced material. Or lacking that, which they seem unwilling to do, let someone post the spectrum analysis. Hey, I would probably do it for them for getting the recording for free. Actually I would probably do it for getting one free recording for every three I analyze for them. Seems like it would be worth it to them. The more of this I see, the more it seems they are just greedy business people trying to milk it for what it is worth. Nothing wrong with being in business and making a profit, you have to in order to stay in business. But some care about serving the customer more than others. Their actions speak more like someone who doesn't feel they need to do better so they aren't. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
wgscott Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 They've clearly made a business decision not to acknowledge the problem. I for one would much rather they fix the problem than get my money back. Link to comment
Julf Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 "I wonder, have you submitted your spectrum graph and asked them to explain it." In my first message I referred to the review and analysis in "Hi-Fi news", and got the standard form answer. In my reply, I included a frequency plot and asked for an explanation. No reply so far. Link to comment
Julf Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 "I have forwarded that album to our audio engineer for review." Link to comment
Russell_L Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 This album is also available as a 96/24 file directly from Chandos (The Classical Shop), where I'm sure the original master was used to produce the file instead of the (presumed) SACD used by HDtracks. I wonder if the spectrum files would look any different? Russell MacBook Pro 2021 16” (M1 Pro, 16MB RAM, macOS Ventura) > Audirvana Origin > Pangea Audio USB-AG > Sony TA-ZH1ES > Nordost Heimdall 2 > Audeze LCD-3 Link to comment
jhwalker Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 The 24/96 FLAC of "The Planets" (purchased directly from The Classical Shop) looks exactly the same Rather disappointing - why would you sell it at 24/96 if it is clearly a xx/48 recording? John Walker - IT Executive Headphone - SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable Ethernet > mRendu Roon endpoint > Topping D90 > Topping A90d > Dan Clark Expanse / HiFiMan H6SE v2 / HiFiman Arya Stealth Home Theater / Music -SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable HDMI > Denon X3700h > Anthem Amp for front channels > Revel F208-based 5.2.4 Atmos speaker system Link to comment
Russell_L Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Uh-oh....better check my copy (of Vol. 2).... ;-( Russell MacBook Pro 2021 16” (M1 Pro, 16MB RAM, macOS Ventura) > Audirvana Origin > Pangea Audio USB-AG > Sony TA-ZH1ES > Nordost Heimdall 2 > Audeze LCD-3 Link to comment
wgscott Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Because it is only clear if you look, and we've already heard from some of these guys who are so convinced that they are right that they see no need to bother. Link to comment
jhwalker Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Stuff like this is why I liked the proposal floated the other day that labels should make available a spectrograph of all purported hi-res tracks. Had I known the true nature of the recording, I'd have been happy to buy it at 24/48 but would not have wasted money on a 24/96 version. Alternatively, if the record companies would just choose the appropriate bit-depth / resolution for the recordings offered, spectrographs would not be necessary John Walker - IT Executive Headphone - SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable Ethernet > mRendu Roon endpoint > Topping D90 > Topping A90d > Dan Clark Expanse / HiFiMan H6SE v2 / HiFiman Arya Stealth Home Theater / Music -SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable HDMI > Denon X3700h > Anthem Amp for front channels > Revel F208-based 5.2.4 Atmos speaker system Link to comment
Kevin_O Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I don't know what you have but the HDtracks download is 24/88.2 since it came from the SACD. https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD095115506929 Link to comment
Julf Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 "This album is also available as a 96/24 file directly from Chandos (The Classical Shop)" Would be interesting to compare, but I don't see why HDtracks wouldn't have used the material from Chandros unchanged. Link to comment
Julf Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 Indeed, the download I analyzed is 24/88. Link to comment
Russell_L Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 The 24/88 material at HDtracks is generally sourced from the DSD layer of SACDs. The ripping/conversion is done for HDtracks by Puget Sound Studios in Seattle. I'm assuming that the 24/96 files on Chandos at The Classical Shop are sourced directly from the master files in-house. I haven't had a chance yet to do an Audacity spectrum analysis on my "24/96" files of the Holst Vol. 2 album, but several months ago I discovered that a hi-res Steve Reich album I purchased from The Classical Shop wasn't really 96kHz, and I wrote to them about it. I received a nice reply from Ralph Couzens (producer/engineer/owner of Chandos) who acknowledged the error and promptly refunded me the difference between the hi-res and standard-res versions (in addition to removing the album from the hi-res section of the site). (I posted about this experience in another thread here on CA.) Anyway, I'll try to test my Holst Vol.2 file ASAP and post my results here. I suspect I might be writing another letter to Mr. Couzens...... Oh, and by the way, it's "Chandos", not "Chandros"... ;-) Russell MacBook Pro 2021 16” (M1 Pro, 16MB RAM, macOS Ventura) > Audirvana Origin > Pangea Audio USB-AG > Sony TA-ZH1ES > Nordost Heimdall 2 > Audeze LCD-3 Link to comment
Julf Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 "Anyway, I'll try to test my Holst Vol.2 file ASAP and post my results here. Looking forward to the results! "Oh, and by the way, it's "Chandos", not "Chandros"... " Ah, yes! Thanks! Link to comment
Russell_L Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 It's "Mars" from The Planets. (Downloaded from The Classical Shop.) Looks like another letter to Mr. Couzens is in order.... ;-( Russell MacBook Pro 2021 16” (M1 Pro, 16MB RAM, macOS Ventura) > Audirvana Origin > Pangea Audio USB-AG > Sony TA-ZH1ES > Nordost Heimdall 2 > Audeze LCD-3 Link to comment
Julf Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think that one should be used as an illustration for what an upsample-to-DSD looks like. Notice not only how the original material has been brickwalled at 24 kHz, but also how the DSD/SACD noise has *not* been brickwalled/filtered for the subsequent resampling to PCM. Uncle Nyqvist would not be happy. On the other hand, I am sure it sounded great until you measured it Link to comment
wgscott Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 "I am sure it sounded great until you measured it " Next time, don't collapse the wave-function. Listen with your ears, not with graphs. Link to comment
Russell_L Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 And it still continues to sound great! Bill, I'm not exactly sure what you mean in your first sentence. (Or am I being dense this morning?) Russell MacBook Pro 2021 16” (M1 Pro, 16MB RAM, macOS Ventura) > Audirvana Origin > Pangea Audio USB-AG > Sony TA-ZH1ES > Nordost Heimdall 2 > Audeze LCD-3 Link to comment
wgscott Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 There is this kind of goofy interpretation of quantum theory that claims nothing exists until you measure it. Link to comment
Teresa Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I created a 24/96 music file of the 'The Perfect Fool' from the SACD, which claims to be "DSD recorded" my plot spectrum and spectrogram also has the brick-wall filter which indicates to me at some point in recording, editing or mixing a PCM tool with only 48kHz resolution was used or the original master was not really a DSD recording and it was just mixed to DSD. See my new article at Positive Feedback "Are Your High Resolution Recordings Really High Resolution?" http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue60/hirez.htm I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums. I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past. I still love music. Teresa Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now