I feel bad, I feel a bit responsible for the tough time Bissie had here lately.

[AudioDoctor]

and I think I should apologize to him for that. When I posted this thread:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/eclassicalcom-solving-problems-I-had-no-idea-existed

 

I had no idea that it would cause what it did. My intent never was to bash eClassical or BIS/Bissie at all, rather I just found their pricing justification a wee bit odd is all. Perhaps I should have kept that to myself and instead just mentioned how happy I am with the music put out by BIS and eClassical. I own all the SACD/CDs of the MN Orchestra performing Beethovens symphonies as seen below. They sound great! All are BIS SACD/CDs. Thank you Bissie for recording my hometown orchestra so well.

 

 

Here are some plots of the first movement of Beethovens 9th Symphony, ripped from the CD layer of the SACD/CD from BIS shown above.

 

 

 

IMO, this is how a 16/44 rip should look, no clipping, plenty of headroom and not compressed into oblivion.

 

[Mark Powell]

He's probably having a laugh at your leg. It's his revenge.

 

[AudioDoctor]

everyone else is.

 

[wgscott]

Laughter is the best medicine.

 

[wgscott]

Why should he be offended? He gets your money. You get his product.

 

Someone (not me) suggested posting audacity spectra as an aid to future customers. It strikes me that two responses would have been totally appropriate:

 

1. "Thanks very much for the suggestion. That is a good idea. We will implement it."

 

2. "Thanks very much for the suggestion. Due to the prohibitive cost [or whatever], we aren't in a position to do this."

 

However, the response

 

"How can you possibly question my integrity like this?"

 

struck me as rather strange, to say the least.

 

 

 

[AudioDoctor]

is he was jumped on as the whipping dog for all our frustration with other Hi-Res providers who are providing music that is not what is claimed to be.

 

[wgscott]

Except that no one whipped him.

 

[4est]

I can sort of see Bissie's point, and frankly I would take him up on it. He has stated clearly that he stands by his product and the employees whom create it. Purchase what you want to buy and if it is not as indicated, you have every right and reason to pursue it strongly and expect results. In this I feel that HDTracks has set a low bar and people are gun shy. Their poor performance should not force another to perform extra work- especially as HDTracks does not due it either. As a rule, one expects that what they purchase is as they said it would be

 

That said, I see no reason for anyone to get in a bunch about it. IMO, HDTracks should be boycotted until they get their act together. They are the ones whom ought to show graphs.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I see where you're coming from Doc. On the other hand there's no such thing as bad press :~)

 

 

 

[AudioDoctor]

no not literally... but I think saying no one jumped on him is a bit disingenuous of you.

 

[AudioDoctor]

that HDtracks should, right away, and until they do, not a single purchase should be made from their website.

 

[losingmyreligion]

 

"IMO, HDTracks should be boycotted until they get their act together."

 

I've boycotted them totally since their credit card fiasco.

 

And will continue to.

 

clay

 

[Elk]

"Their [HDTracks] poor performance should not force another to perform extra work . . ."

 

Exactly. HDTracks has something to prove, eClassical does not. eClassical is legitimate and provides what it promises.

 

There is no reason to ask eClassical to process every file it sells merely because one purveyor - HDTracks - is trying to pass off upsampled files as high resolution.

 

[bissie]

Dear Doc,

 

 

in the beginning I was indeed frustrated, since I can mathematically prove that eClassical's charging system is more advantageous for the consumer than the usual, pop-derived system, with none of its drawbacks, but, lately, it would seem to me that my message is coming across, and BIS, eClassical and I are being accepted for what we are, honest players in this minefield, by the majority of posters. I felt bad about Chris C's sentence about using this Forum shamelessly, but have to, in all honesty, agree that he did have some foundation for it. I hope I am better now.

 

Don't feel bad. This is what Fora are all about. And anyone, who plays in this game, should be able to stand up to even close scrutiny and be able to answer questions truthfully.

 

Thanks very much for taking the trouble to write.

 

Bestest - Robert

 

 

[bissie]

How about a version 3:

 

3) Thanks very much for the suggestion. While it probably can be done, the implication is that we are dishonest and have to prove an assertion in order to be believed. While I assume that there might be a foundation for suspicions like this elsewhere, we have gone through nearly 4 decades of business practice without ever having lied, and we're not about to start lying now. Should we ever be found out, our and my credibilities would be shot to pieces. That alone should be a deterrent, and I prefer to be innocent until proven guilty of anything worse than an honest mistake (which hasn't happened so far in this connection, except that one case where an 88,2 (or 96, I forgot) recording was sold as 44,1).

 

I honestly don't think my attitude is unreasonable. Do you require proof via an analysis on the package that whole-milk contains more fat than skim-milk? I don't. And if they are crooks, who says that the analyses are correct? I trust anyone, until they have been proven liars. Then I absolutely never buy their products again. No strike 3 and out with me.

And, with this attitude, people will check us up. We have to be able to be checked up, by anyone, anywhere. We are.

 

Robert

 

 

 

[Mark Powell]

Glad to see you back. I thought you had got frustrated by some of the comments and given up.

 

You comments give us an insight into an area that we don't normally have any information on.

 

And you should not be put to extra expense with charts and stuff just because of the failings of others.

 

Best wishes.

 

[crisnee]

Nice post and thoughts @Audiodoc.

 

-Chris

 

[wgscott]

the implication is that we are dishonest and have to prove an assertion in order to be believed.

 

I think that is why you took this suggestion (which was meant, both by the guy who originally proposed it, as well as me, to be nothing more than a helpful suggestion) exactly 180° opposite from how it was intended.

 

The intent was to suggest another way to get a leg up on the competition.

 

Take the Kodama example:

 

Your recording looks fine (as far as I am able to tell). HDtracks version of the same thing looks up-sampled. They sound the same to me. They are priced similarly. However, there is a clear and compelling reason to buy yours rather than theirs. I could only see that from the fftw spectra plots.

 

You have a superior product (at least in this case -- my sample size of 1). Why not take advantage of that?

 

[bissie]

I am so sorry, but I don't get your post.

 

Kodama isn't my recording. It is from PentaTone, and is recorded in DSD.

 

Or did you mean eClassical vs HDtracks? I have no idea what they sell, but we do sell as 24/88,2, and it is - and we declare it.

 

Yes, I see your point now. Yes, that could be one reason. To do what you suggest might derive a marginal advantage - I need to compare that with the cost of actually doing it and reprogramme in order to show it.

 

Will come back on it.

 

Robert

 

[Elk]

"You have a superior product (at least in this case -- my sample size of 1). Why not take advantage of that?"

 

While you appear to be absolutely correct, how does eClassical take advantage of this without posting both HDtrack's and eClassical charts thereby expressing direct criticism of HDtracks?

 

This large can of worms is probably best left to enthusiast sites to play with.

 

[wgscott]

By "your" recording, I meant what I purchased off of eclassical.com.

 

I got burned by purchasing what appears to be an up-sampled version from HD tracks, so I purchased and downloaded the corresponding track 1 from your website, to see if it suffered from the same problem. It did not.

 

Although yours is only labelled "24 bit" as far as I could see, when I downloaded it, I got two pleasant surprises:

 

1. It was 24/96 (not 24/88.2, btw).

 

2. It was much cleaner than HDtracks' version, i.e., no-bizarre up sampling artifact.

 

 

Yours (what I purchased from eclassical.com):

 

 

Theirs (what I purchased from HDtracks.com, and they claim is perfectly fine):

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

Robert, have you considered providing more full details of how the downloads (eg. fLAC) has been converted from the original source...

 

For example where the original is SACD: "originally recorded in DSD then converted using SARCON to 24/88.2"

 

It's not the "we" don't trust you, it's that as OCD Audiophiles we like to know as much detail as possible.

 

Eloise

 

[bissie]

Dear Eloise,

 

I will look into this. We only have a very few native DSD recordings, for reasons that I have declared ad nauseam here and elsewhere. AFAIK they haven't yet been transferred to any high res downloading site, and that includes ours.

 

For the rest of the repertoire this type of info isn't relevant, since there has been no conversion at all made - what we sell are the unadultered Original Studio Master Files, nothing else.

 

Best - Robert

 

 

[midfiguy]

Greetings, Robert.

First of all, I appreciate your willingness to participate in this forum, especially after how things started for you.

Your comment about questioning milk labels got me thinking. I have never had a bad experience with HD Tracks and, at times, I've found myself mildly exasperated at some of the things I've read at this site regarding HDT. It doesn't take much, it seems, to encourage an audiophile to climb on his high horse. That said, many people have clearly had unfortunate experiences with this company and have the spectrographs to prove it. To my point about milk labels, your analogy doesn't fit. You don't question a milk label because you don't have to. The dairy industry is one of the most regulated industries in the world. (Take a look at the sanitary standards a producer of raw milk cheese has to meet, for example.) Companies selling high resolution music downloads are only held accountable by their customers and the marketplace. At present, we're talking about a pretty small marketplace. A handful of companies offer a limited amount of product to a small number of customers. While I don't blame you at all for taking umbrage at having your integrity questioned, the market in which you're doing business is immature and it is also entirely self-policed.

In the dairy business, regulation benefits both the consumer and the producer. It's a lot easier to buy and to sell a quart of milk if there are assurances that it isn't going to kill anyone. Thankfully, a lousy, upsampled music file isn't going to kill anyone (so maybe the federal government doesn't need to get involved!). Still, I can envision a market for music downloads in which sellers offer a similar assurance. I have to think a ripped-off audiophile on his high horse who has access to public media is bad for your business, whether eClassical is a guilty party or not. There is a notable lack of trust in the market just now and that's too bad. In a small market, a little mistrust can go a long way! While I am not as prone to mistrust as some, I am more inclined to do business with a company that takes the extra step to guarantee its product.

Anyway, time for me to climb off my high horse and go fix myself some lunch.

Best wishes,

Larry

 

[bissie]

Dear Larry,

 

you have a very valid point and you make it very succintly. But not entirely logically.

 

I wasn't questioning the fact that a dairy producer might have a choice between offering sanitary dairy products or contaminated, dangerous ones. My point was merely that, assuming that it is absolutely OK according to prevalent health regulations, one doesn't question the declaration, if it is skim milk or half-half, BOTH entirely safe, sound and milky, but not with the same specifications, when it comes to the fat contents.

 

Exchange "fat" for "resolution" and you have a valid simile, even though I do take your point about the consequences of a fraud, which in the milk's case would be much more dangerous. Actually, more to my benefit. Whereas noone can fail to distinguish between skim milk and cream, I still have to meet the person who can, with any degree of certainty, distinguish between 24/44,1 and 24/higher, using the outer appedices to his body (called ears) ONLY. But that's another discussion entirely. So, I would say that even an upsampled 24/44,1 => 24/higher is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from the real thing, using ears alone (and that's how I listen to music (sorry, couldn't help myself)), and therefore less of a sculduggery than passing off skim milk for cream, but, before anyone from this concludes that I engage in or condone such things - I/WE DO NOT, repeat NOT!!!

 

Be that as it may, we will be taking up the question of declaration after having ascertained exactly how much re-programming the system this would involve and what the costs would be (assuming it is practically possible). Of course I would assume that the customer would be happy to foot the bill for this (only joking...).

 

Having put my credibility on the line so "foolhardedly", I would have thought that I am going to be checked up by a lot of those who are interested in these things, if for no other reason than their hope to prove this sanctimonious bastard wrong. That alone should be a deterrent for us to do anything underhanded, and, unless you folks think that I am a total nincompoop in spite of my Mensa membership (or maybe therefore), THAT fact alone should guarantee that we don't do this, barring an honest mistake, of course.

 

Innocent until proven guilty, we call it. In this connection one doesn't even to have been formally disproved. Suspicions are enough to destroy a reputation, so I have to make doubly sure that there is no ground for even that.

 

I think this subject is now rather exhausted, but I thank you again for your sensible and courteous post.

 

Bestest - Robert [email protected]