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

[wgscott]

I trust you realize I was trying to poke gentle fun at what you said, not at you personally.

 

I very much appreciate Bob Stern's recommendations (as always, even the opera, which wouldn't be so bad were it not for all that singing), and plan to work through them, and in the process I hope I will make it up to you.

 

Then you can get the gold medals bronzed.

 

 

 

[bissie]

I am sorry it took a few hours, but I had to check first.

 

eClassical is getting readymade PCM 24/96 FLAC files from PentaTone.

 

We offer them exactly as we got them. We do not know how or with what PentaTone convert their DSD files to PCM, but we do know that PentaTone are extremely serious about what they are doing and have no problems in trusting that they deliver top-notch quality.

 

Best - Robert

 

 

[bissie]

Dear Blu,

 

I can see what you mean. Personally, though, I have no problem about clicking each 30 seconds. 30 secs is a limit here in Sweden. If you allow more than that, it is my understanding that the copyright fees will become prohibitive. If your concern is about a BIS recording, you can listen to the whole album without having to click by going to www.bis.se (yes, there is a difference in copyright, but I don't want to get into sordid technical details).

 

So, at least for the moment, I don't think we can help you, but, at least you can with us listen to the whole thing, albeit you need to get your 30-sec beat time pat...

 

Robert

 

 

[bissie]

Well, if I weren't sure then, I am now. Thanks for clarifying this. I freely confess to being oversensitive when it comes to questions about honesty. Being a part of my profession, even a very dry stone becomes wet, if constantly being spat upon.

 

But all clear now.

 

Robert

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

Robert...

 

While I understand your comment "[they] are extremely serious about what they are doing and have no problems in trusting that they deliver top-notch quality" I'm not sure if you understand but this is actually the problem many people are (I believe) trying to express.

 

HD Tracks and Linn have both had troubles with material they sold as High Defininition where they accept the files without question from the record label and only later have to admit that they were duped. If only THEY had run a spectrum analysis they would have discovered the brick wall rather than their customers having to discover it. It's not a case of deliberate fraud or (as you are sensitive to people suggesting) not trusting to your word, but it IS a case of due diligence.

 

Now I have no reason to suspect that these particular tracks are anything other than what is claimed, but surely as the retailer you should carry out due diligence before putting them for sale. I'm glad you are proud of your experience and awards you have received for your work: but why haven't you done the due dilligence required?

 

Eloise

 

[wgscott]

I deeply regret what was originally meant to be absolutely nothing more than a helpful, friendly suggestion somehow morphed into a perceived challenge. In addition, I apologize for trying to use humor to address this, thereby compounding the problem.

 

Eloise says it far better than I am able, within my limited set of social skills, so I defer to what she wrote below:

 

[bissie]

Dear Eloise,

 

ir is not quite as easy as that. You refer to HD Tracks having been duped by the record labels. Well, let me tell you the following, since I was accused - and in no uncertain terms at that - at sa-cd.net for passing off my wares to HD tracks as 24/88,2 when in fact they were 24/44,1. So I was the duper and they the dupee. I had to eat a lot of dirt, until I could discover what had happened. They certainly were not duped.

 

You see, BIS had - and has - neither at that time nor ever - a direct delivery contact with HD Tracks. They get all their BIS material from an aggregator. In the case of HD Tracks, they got physical SACD:s from the aggregator. These were then ripped - how I don't have the blueest yonder about - and our 24/44,1 recordings (the absolute majority at the time) were passed off as 24/88,2. Came scandal and I was tied to the post, which frustrated me, since I didn't even know that HD Tracks were selling BIS stuff, much less had anything whatsoever to do with how they procured it or tried to pass it off as. So there were crocodile tears galore, and I became the criminal of the year. Duped, indeed!!!

 

My point being this: considering the quantity of persons, for whom the sampling frequency is the almost only thing of importance when enjoying music (yes, I am being snide here), I am absolutely totally certain that no label would dare - ever - passing anything off for more than what it is. It would be a grisly suicide!! Therefore I would have to say that, following the same principle as in the megadiscussion earlier on this Forum, they would be nuts to do so, and, logically following that, we can trust what they say. I would dearly use my working hours to improve eClassical.com rather than having this endless discussion or spending time and much money (that you will not want to pay!!) to check up on what is guaranteed truth anyway.

 

Me, personally, I am so longing for a discussion about the subject-matter, namely MUSIC and how lovely (or bad) it is and not how many true bats there are in the world today - the only ones that can really distinguish between high-res and super-high-res. It ain't important for the listening experience, especially not in comparison with all the other factors that a recording make: hall, acoustics, microphones, placement of same, affinity between Artists and Producer, time allotted for the recording, quality of the Artists and Producer/Engineer, quality of instruments used. Now in THOSE fields any deficiency would scream out at you, whereas the numbers really make no audible difference whatsoever, once you have passed the 24-bit border. But numbers can be measured, other qualities not, which is probably why people have this almost supersticious belief in numbers.

 

If this had been science, where results really are dependent upon totally perfect measuring, like a computer tomography, OK, but we're speding all the time discussing something that may (and I mean may) contribute ½% to the listening experience, at the expense of everything else. My due diligence ought to be to listen to every recording, scrapping those that are sorely lacking, regardless of bitrate and sampling frequencies, before putting them out for sale, but I neither can nor will. That is the job of the label. The customer must learn which labels are reliable and which not.

 

So, as long as there are so many persons out there who will check up on us, even if you should think that we labels are all crooks, please reconsider if you think we would be as crazy as to lie.

 

Robert

 

 

 

 

[bissie]

Thank you. All's well that ends well.

 

Robert

 

 

[wgscott]

"I didn't even know that HD Tracks were selling BIS stuff"

 

So they can sell your stuff without permission, or royalties? Isn't that piracy?

 

[Audio_ELF]

First off Robert, I hope I in no way accused your record label of being a crook. I'm sorry but taking what was meant as constructive criticism and extracting the extreme view from it, does more to make you sound like you have something to hide (IMO) than anything else you can say in defence.

 

Having said that I think you have missed the point. In this case you (eClassical) is the retailer. Surely it is not unreasonable for the retailer to have done due diligence when selling something you have no control over.

 

You say you would love to spend your time improving eClassical and talking about music; so do that. Don't debate the whys and the wherefores, but spend half an hour checking out new releases so you can say "the source file is converted by the record label but a quick analysis indicates sound beyond 22kHz and I am confident from listening they have been converted well". No one is forcing you into debating this with us: you came here voluntarily and (in my cynical view of all commercial posts) use the forum to passively promote your sales.

 

The debate is not about the listening experience; it is about if the High Resolution file is actually worthwhile buying... If its just upsampled 44.1 then quite rightly people are cheesed off as they can create those themselves from the £7.99 CD rather than spending £20 on supposed High Resolution files.

 

Yes people check up on you, but it would be better if the retailer (eClassical) checked first so we don't have to!

 

Eloise

 

[bissie]

Yes, they can sell our stuff without my knowing about it. I give my rights to an aggregator, now Naxos of America, and they have my confidence to sell my products to different DSP:s. They create the files, they send them to the DSP:s (as indeed they do to eClassical.com!) and they take a percentage from the income they make sure that the DSP:s pay (incl. HD Tracks). No piracy. If I want to forbid any DSP, I can.

 

Robert

 

[bissie]

Well, if you quote that HD Tracks were duped by record labels, and I was one of the labels that was accused of that, I think I have to say what actually happened - my recordings were passed off as being more high frequencized than they were, and HD Tracks managed to blame us, when in fact they had ripped SACD:s themselves and assumed that they were what they weren't.

 

No, I didn't miss your point. But I am saying that it is quite impossible timewise for us to wade through every recording to check up on what the labels say it is. Also, nothing is conclusive. We have a piano recording, just recently released, which is 24/96 for absolutely sure, but does not contain much material over 22 kHz (hall, instrument, acoustics). One person became so irate when having "discovered" our trickery that he threatened to paste this all over the Internet. Well, the recording is 24/96, but whoever buys the 24/96 in preference of 24/44,1 is getting basically nothing for the extra cost. Now what if we had been the controller? Wrongful accusations against label XYZ? Things aren't always so clearcut.

 

We're supposed to get several hundred high-res files withing short. Half-an-hour? "the source file is converted by the record label but a quick analysis indicates sound beyond 22kHz and I am confident from listening they have been converted well". For me to say that would absolutely mean that I had listened to the whole thing. Albums may be recorded on separate occasions by different people, using different equipment in different sampling frequencies. One cannot listen in and guarantee anything. If I did indeed state that, without having listened to the whole album, it WOULD make me a crook.

 

But I agree with you on upon penultimate sentence - people would indeed be cheesed off, and rightly so! So, because the gain is so small, and the cost of lying is so big, I cannot see anyone taking that risk - see what bad PR HD Tracks have got from their mistakes. This is a profession where reputation forms a very big part of being able to sell.

 

Basically I think we do agree, but what you suggest is very impractical, to say the least. Would you really be willing to pay a premium for us to have every file, every track on every product checked?? Or would you not really say: OK, benefit of the doubt. If they are ever found out, that was the end of my custom. AND I would demand my money back through their guarantee (OK, that was an ad).

 

Robert

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

Again you are suggesting that to sell the file as 24/96 when it's really upsamples 16/44.1 is lying. Assuming the response of the retailer is appropriate; I think the majority of people will accept it as an error.

 

However as the retailer I feel you should be able to say "we do everything we reasonably can to ensure the music we sell are genuine high resolution and not upsampled files": if you can say that then great and you should stand by that stance and (IMO) stay out of arguments unless they directly concern accusations made about one of your companies; if not, I feel we are right to ask why you feel you cannot make that statement.

 

Eloise

 

PS I think I agree with your point about HD tracks. In this case I would consider that the aggregator was the "Record Label" though this is perhaps technically incorrect. Perhaps "distributor" is more correct? However whatever the situation it is HD Tracks who are responsible to the customer and so should be sure of what they are selling.

 

[goldsdad]

"[...] the recording is 24/96, but whoever buys the 24/96 in preference of 24/44,1 is getting basically nothing for the extra cost."

 

Getting nothing? What about getting greater fidelity?

 

I'm not talking about the human-inaudible frequencies above 20 kHz.

 

I mean greater fidelity by not having the distortion (such as ringing and/or phase shifts) which results from filtering required when down sampling 96 to 44.1.

 

 

[bissie]

I said "getting basically nothing", not "getting nothing". There's a difference. I don't think there's a lot to choose from in this specific case, but I also want to say that we don't serve up the possibility of a 24/44,1. Either you buy the 16/44,1 or the 24/96. I took this as an example that by looking alone - or listening alone - it is not always clearcut what is what.

 

Robert

 

 

[bissie]

If someone knowingly sells an upsampled 16/44,1 or even 24/44,1 as a higher resolution at a higher price, that one is lying. The same thing could happen as a mistake, and in THAT case one should be forgiven, given the appropriate response. But not any number of mistakes.

 

So far agreed. Where we don't agree is to what extent the retailer should spend time and money to ascertain what we already "know", and, if one anyway went ahead and listened in their entireties to every new album, who would pay the costs (and who would prolong our lives to get that time)? This testing has been done at least once by the label, and we're not going to double the work done by them.

 

So we'll have to agree to disagree, until someone has found a system to automatize the procedure (but then I couldn't write what you suggest, since I wouldn't have listened).

 

Regarding HD Tracks, since they did the ripping themselves, it is for me blatantly clear that they are responsible for any misrepresentations. Had they got the files from us, they should be able to advertise whatever we told them, as long as they didn't touch the files.

 

Robert

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

Would you really be willing to pay a premium for us to have every file, every track on every product checked??

 

I'm not Eloise, but if you were to ask me that question, the answer would not only YES, but HELL YES.

 

There are only two non-music related drivers to this, trust and price. You would have to drop the price by an order of magnitude to get me to buy from you if I thought I could not trust you.

 

On the other hand, I can justify paying a bit of a premium if I *do* trust you.

 

That is as plain as the nose on your face, or in modern parlance - a "no brainer."

 

-Paul

 

 

[bissie]

Yes, fine.

 

The instrumental phrase is: "if I thought I could not trust you". If you think that, you wouldn't buy from us anyway. Conversely, there's no reason not to trust anyone, until that someone misuses that trust.

 

What you also seem to disregard is this little piece of logic:

 

IF I am a crook, what would stop me from making the statement that I have checked everything, without actually having done so? IF you trusted me, you wouldn't check me up, and would be none the wiser. If you don't trust me, and checked me up anyway, then why should I go through the trouble to perform something that you will check up anyway???

 

If I am NOT a crook - and by extension, my colleague labels, then what's the use with the whole thing of checking and checking? In the "best" of worlds, someone will occasionally catch an honest mistake. You want to pay lots to catch a once-in-a-thousand mistake? I don't.

 

Robert

 

 

[Jud]

This testing has been done at least once by the label, and we're not going to double the work done by them.

 

So we should trust that the label has told the retailer the right thing, which the retailer would be "crazy" to lie about.

 

Regarding HD Tracks, since they did the ripping themselves, it is for me blatantly clear that they are responsible for any misrepresentations.

 

So the system of trusting the label and retailer doesn't work.

 

It's quite paradoxical that it's you discussing these points with us, since (1) I know from long experience the quality of recordings your label puts out is excellent, and (2) I was very pleased with what I saw at the eClassical web site, and thought it could serve as an example to other sellers of downloads.

 

But...

 

Returning to the first thing above: It really isn't unfair for the consumer to ask that the item *reliably* be as described, is it? So far we have been given reasons why we ought to trust the current system (but then you show us an example of why we shouldn't); and also given reasons why it would be quite impractical and expensive (thus affecting the competitiveness of your prices) for you to take on the task of ensuring the bona fides of the music sold on eClassical. I understand what you are saying, and I cannot tell you categorically that you are wrong. Just one thing I will say is that until and unless there is a reasonable way to assure consumers of exactly what they are getting, instances where people do *not* get what they pay for will result, as you know well from bitter experience, in the entire industry being tarred unfairly with the same brush.

 

[Paul R]

If I am concerned with presenting my customers with the best product

Because they trust me

 

THEN

I should engage enough quality control on my product to reasonably ensure it meets the published standards.

 

I don't buy that line of "I don't need to check my suppliers because I trust them."

 

That's just pushing the responsibility one step back down the chain. If I am buying from you - I expect *you* to have reasonable certainty. Mistakes happen, even with the most honest and careful people. That's why we have QA processes.

 

What you propose would be like me telling you that I didn't need to check the software on that navigation system because I trust my programmers. Just hop on that plane and TRUST ME that it will not fly you into a mountain.

 

There really is no issues with personal honor involved in that, other than a job well and truly done.

 

But you are going to be a lot more comfortable flying in that plane if I tell you we checked the software six ways from Sunday and test flew it as well.

 

-Paul

 

 

[Jud]

until and unless there is a reasonable way to assure consumers of exactly what they are getting

 

Apologies for replying to my own post, but here's a preliminary thought regarding a system for assuring consumers of music files' bona fides:

 

Either as a part of a header for each file, or as a separate file per "album," have a sort of "chain of custody" field whose elements would consist of the format and resolution of the file at each point in the chain. It would be a sort of more informative modern-day equivalent of the three-letter code you used to see on LPs and CDs representing whether recording, mastering, and the final product were digital or analog - "ADA," "ADD," "DDD," etc. So one might see in this field elements indicating that the recording was originally an analog tape, then converted to SACD, then to 24/192 PCM. And it would also show *where* those conversions took place - from whom the analog master tape came, who converted it to SACD, and who then converted it to 24/192 PCM. Now people could, of course, lie about this; but instead of just angry anecdotes, you'd begin to build up a database of just where the chain had broken down, i.e., who was reliable and who was not. No sitting around and listening necessary; no "He told me it was 24/96," "No I didn't tell you that." Just the recorded, public representations of all the participants in the chain, out there for everyone to see.

 

It would take industry agreement, of course. Perhaps the industry feels ultimate consumer trust is important enough to do this, or something along the same lines. I hope so. As a consumer, I can say it would be nice to have the assurance.

 

[goldsdad]

"I said "getting basically nothing", not "getting nothing"."

 

Accessing the version of a recording with greatest fidelity to the studio master is not "basically nothing" to me, but I appreciate that that will not be of importance to everyone.

 

 

"[...] we don't serve up the possibility of a 24/44,1. Either you buy the 16/44,1 or the 24/96."

 

Well, you previously said, "[...] whoever buys the 24/96 in preference of 24/44,1 is getting basically nothing for the extra cost." Notice the two 24s. That's what led to my earlier comment.

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

@Paul; the way I see it it's even simpler analogy...

 

When I go into my local Farm Shop; I know the proprietory doesn't just trust that the bread he sells tastes good; he actually checks regularly the supplier is keeping to the quality.

 

I don't see why a specialist music retailer.

 

Eloise

 

[jhwalker]

I must say, I've never heard so much "trust me" and "why would I lie?" and "don't need to check", etc.

 

Robert, you may be offended that people don't just trust your word, but now you're starting to sound like a politician with something to hide. You said earlier you'd check into how much it would cost to put up measurements for each of your albums (answer should be "not much" - doesn't take much more than a few seconds to produce a graph for a sample track / album, and it is a non-technical job that can be done cheaply) - is that still a possibility?

 

If I were a retailer, I'd be *looking* for ways to distinguish myself from the crowd - this is certainly a way many of us would appreciate and reward.

 

[Paul R]

I like that analogy - much simpler and far more to the point.

 

-Paul