Article: Analyzed: John Hiatt's Dirty Jeans and Mudslide Hymns at 24 bit / 96 kHz

[The Computer Audiophile]

agentsmith - <i>"Chris did I read right that you just changed every component in your system? what do you do with all your other expensive toys LoL"</i><br />

<br />

Hi AgentSmith - Please stop by and pick up the DAC of your choice. Only joking :~)<br />

<br />

 <br />

<br />

esldude - <i>"So Chris, if you ABX yourself and it becomes a mess, meaning you get it wrong 50% of the time, what do you think of this? There is in fact a difference in the 44khz vs 48khz versions. Yet you apparently cannot discern it. So do you conclude.....well what do you conclude?"</i><br />

<br />

I conclude I could not tell the difference between the 44.1 and 96k versions of the new John Hiatt album Dirty Jeans and Mudslide Hymns using the components specified below, in my room, on the days I listened to the album.<br />

<br />

 <br />

<br />

<i>"What would you gain by actual 96 khz files?"</i><br />

<br />

The only way to know is to have the files. <br />

<br />

 <br />

<br />

"<i>"I agree if marketed as such they should in fact be 96 khz, but what if that also wasn't discernible blind?"</i><br />

<br />

Then I would have to conclude I could not tell the difference between the 44.1 and 96k versions of the new John Hiatt album Dirty Jeans and Mudslide Hymns using the components specified below, in my room, on the days I listened to the album.<br />

<br />

 <br />

<br />

<i>"I just wonder if this pursuit of higher and higher sample rates isn't chasing a ghost if the lower rates of say 48 khz are well done. What would it take to convince you that well done 48khz/24 bit is truly enough? (I am not declaring I think it is enough)."</i><br />

<br />

If a recording is well done and the engineers doing the recording suggest a higher rate would not make the specific recording sound better then I'd be cool with whatever that rate is. Heck it could be 32k for all I care, as long as the aforementioned condition is met.<br />

<br />

 <br />

<br />

PeterSt - <i>"What I get from Chris his story, is that he not only couldn't differentiate between the two, but that he also couldn't select the proper versions (selected A while thinking he selected B). A decent means of ABX ?"</i><br />

<br />

Hi Peter - I conducted my listening tests as nearly every other listener would conduct such a test on his home system. No matter what testing methodology was used the only conclusion that may be logically reached is that I could not tell the difference between the 44.1 and 96k versions of the new John Hiatt album Dirty Jeans and Mudslide Hymns using the components specified below, in my room, on the days I listened to the album.<br />

<br />

<br />

[Leo Pard]

I too am a John Hiatt fan and ordered the plain old Redbook CD.<br />

<br />

This brings up a whole pet topic of mine. Audiophiles, especially on some of the other forums, are obsessed with sampling rates and "high resolution". <br />

<br />

They are utterly deluded as to the realities of the recording world.<br />

<br />

Sure, there are 176.4 and 192 recordings available all over the internet but I gotta tell you, esoteric chamber music and and obscure orchestral works do not make up the bulk of my listening. And HDTracks downsampled extractions of SACDs DVDs do not interest me.<br />

<br />

I don't listen to "sampling rates" and "bit depth" dammit, I listen to music. <br />

<br />

This absurd notion that 44.1/16 is somehow destroying the music has been floating around the audiophile community for years. I agree with statements here that it is ALL about recording quality and the care taken.<br />

<br />

Lastly, I am not surprised at your findings. One of the ultimate delusions of audiophiles who listen to pop and rock is that they don't seem to get the standard around most studios is 48/24 for a number of reasons. Incidentally, Hiatt recorded his previous album in DSD. <br />

<br />

Now I AM for analog tape transfers to at least 96/24. That pays big dividends.

[barrows]

I am a bit confused by your comments:<br />

<br />

"Now I AM for analog tape transfers to at least 96/24. That pays big dividends."<br />

<br />

If you are in favor of transferring analog tape to 24/96, surely you would also be in favor of recording analog music at 24/96?<br />

<br />

Chris' findings re this JH album certainly say nothing bad about high resolution recordings, all that his findings show is that this album appears to have been recorded at 24/48. <br />

Hopefully George Marino might weigh in with an explanation...<br />

I am surprised that Chris could not reliably hear the difference in bit depth though, perhaps with longer term listening he would.<br />

<br />

While I am happy to listen to Red Book recordings of my favorite music, I will always choose higher resolution versions if they are available, as real high resolution does sound substantially better than Red Book in my system.<br />

<br />

[Leo Pard]

Hi There:<br />

<br />

Yes, let me clarify.<br />

<br />

I am ALL for higher resolution recordings. But I really feel for most pop and rock, that it is not a make or break deal. You are talking about multi-track recordings mixed down with plug ins, effects, compression, limiting, panning, and EQ to create an artificial soundstage.<br />

<br />

(I'm not railing against it..I listen mostly to rock, jazz, pop etc.)<br />

<br />

My other main point is the promise of "hi-rez" has caused false expectations by audiophiles, and some of the vendors have royally screwed over their customers with the occasional upsampled slop...going back to the early days of SACD, and now through notable download sites.<br />

<br />

I too would opt for the best quality version of any given title. But when I compared true 96/24 downloads from HDtracks to the very same music on Redbook, I was incredibly underwhelmed. The diminishing returns when you go even higher than 96 are also apparent. <br />

<br />

Nothing against Chris. The thrust of my post was that I believe higher resolution archiving of analog recordings pays off big time, and is a better use of higher sampling rates than actually recording in it natively, specifically with music comprised of synthetic and amplified instruments. Acoustic music with minimal processing would see more benefits.<br />

<br />

[sauerball]

I would like to hear from the crew that did this about the questions that Chris raises, but I am happy that this is a good album - good material, well recorded. Not to excuse any irregularities around whether the high rez version is what it claims to be, but I am happiest that JH has put out another enjoyable album. This from the weird kid that was listening to him in high school 20+ years ago.

[Paul R]

After intense listening, it can very difficult to hear the differences in different recordings. Sometimes it seems that the harder you try, the more difficult it is to do. <br />

<br />

-Paul<br />

[Janomatic]

Hi Chris,<br />

I must have made a less than clear explanation. <br />

<br />

I am trying to say that it is quite likely that the people releasing this album as a DVD-Video did upsample from 24/48 to 24/96 and the main reason for this may have been that they did not even think to cater to audiophiles but simply wanted something playable with the bonus Video Disc. Thus a user can have both the music and the added bonus of the video documentary on one disc and does not have to exchange discs in his universal player. On some players it may even sound better than the Red-Book CD.<br />

<br />

Thus I am really trying to say that even though the press release calls this "audiophile" as this is an "audiophile format" it is unlikely that the producers thought about the audiophile community when doing this production.<br />

<br />

Jan

[christoph]

hi chris<br />

<br />

is it possible, that the direct link to the lossless download path on john hiatts homepage has been removed? when i clicked on the link you posted yesterday i saw the possibility to download the lossless flac.<br />

when i tried it today i didn't find any possibility to download the new album as flac...<br />

<br />

<br />

cheers, christoph

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Jan - I get what you're saying, but upsampling from 24/48 still makes no sense other than marketing to people who wouldn't figure out it's not real 24/96. 24/48 will work just fine in DVD or Blu-ray players. <br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Christoph - Wow, the download links have been removed. Strange.<br />

<br />

[christoph]

hi chris<br />

<br />

that's a major bummer. <br />

<br />

as a huge john hiatt fan i wanted to buy "directly from him" to ensure that he get's the majority of the price and not the ubiquitous fruit-sect with their lossy crap...<br />

<br />

thanks anyway to confirm the drama<br />

<br />

<br />

cheers, christoph<br />

<br />

ps: have you already tried your new TADs with your tube amp? i can imagine that this could be a match in heaven...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Christoph - I sure did try the TADs with my McIntosh MC275. I'm not sure the MC275 has enough power for the CR1s. I'm going to put it back in the mix soon to give it another shot.<br />

<br />

[eatapc]

Go to the John Hiatt store: http://johnhiatt.spinshop.com/<br />

<br />

Choose the full album download. Once you click to buy it, you'll be given a choice:<br />

<br />

Audio Format Options: <br />

-High Quality MP3 (320 kbs)<br />

-Apple Lossless<br />

-FLAC<br />

<br />

Take care -- Mark B

[christoph]

hi mark<br />

<br />

thank you very much.<br />

<br />

do you happen to know if this content is DRM polluted?<br />

<br />

can i download it in the office (with the much faster feeder) copy it on a USB stick and transfer it onto my NAS at home without hickups?<br />

<br />

<br />

cheers, christoph

[eatapc]

I can confirm that the Apple Lossless files I downloaded are not DRM-protected. (Who does that anymore, anyway?)<br />

<br />

Take care -- Mark

[elcorso]

Jan I have a lot 24/48 DL' from B & W Society of Sound, inexpensive since you pay a suscription for the time you want, and you can DL what you want during your suscription. You can choose the format also, not all the DL's are on that sample rate.<br />

<br />

Now going to the point, they are good recordings, I don't know if they qualify for Hi-Rez or "audiophile", that could depend on you, and <b>not</b> by Audacity graphs, and/or the nyquist-shannon theory (and old theory, by the way). They are two threads in this holy CA forum, with heavy discussion on this theory, and since it is a theory they need to proof it.<br />

<br />

I never understood Albert Einstein "theory of relativity", since I have no knowledge (or very little) on quantum physics and I'm not a all, a genius, as he was. But that I can understand is that in this life, everything es relative, then, Hi-Rez, Low-Res, audiophile music, et al, is very 'relative' of each one.<br />

<br />

If they upsampled to 24/96 from a 24/48 master, some additional benefit you can get from your DAC, wit less loss in high frequencies with this higher filter. If they stated on the DVD 24/96, it was 24/96 (even upsampled) the DAC will tell you that.<br />

<br />

I didn't bought the DL nor the physical media, since this is not my kind of music.<br />

<br />

If John Hiatt removed the links to the DL, I had done the same, after reading the CA thread on his recording.<br />

<br />

Regards,<br />

<br />

Roch

[The Computer Audiophile]

Maybe someone wants to leave a link to the article on John Hiatt's Facebook page. It appears that he actually reads it and posts. I would but I'm one of the only people without a Facebook account :~)<br />

<br />

http://www.facebook.com/JohnHiatt<br />

<br />

[jerico]

I couldn't find the link either! Downloading now!<br />

<br />

I saw John a few months back on the tour with Lyle Lovett - both are favorites of mine, and that was a GREAT show.

[Geodesic1]

Thanks for the review Chris, I enjoyed it and it opened up a host of discussions that I found interesting. Elcorso commented on the 'Society of Sound' recordings sponsored by B&W (and ostensibly by Peter Gabriel). <br />

<br />

I was a member for most of the last 12 months, and it gave me a lot to think about. Much is made on the B&W site about sound quality, and the quality of the recordings that they offer (there's nothing like front-loading your experience by being in an 'exclusive' club that markets how great the sound is all the time). And I would agree that <i> Some </i> of the recordings are very high quality. But many are average or worse. This is particularly true with the LSO recordings that they give out each month. Initially, in my excitement, I only downloaded the 24 bit music. For some albums, it was worthwhile: Alyn Cosker's "Lyn's Une" for instance. However, the I can't think of one LSO album that has been offered that I would even begin to suggest is recorded well enough to care. <br />

<br />

The nice thing about the SoS is that it is very inexpensive, and you get access to some (generally well recorded) new and interesting music (I love the Afro-Celt Sound System!). But if you are paying <i> extra </i> for your 24 bit music, then consider:<br />

<br />

Well produced music sounds fantastic at both 16 bit and 24 bit (to my ears). <br />

<br />

An upsampling DAC narrows the gap enormously! I have the stunning "Jazz at the Pawnshop" in 16 bit (from the CD) and in 24 bit (from HD Tracks). Without my DAC in the mix, there's a difference. Afterwards? In my "blind A/B" test I can't distinguish a single difference (The 24 bit was still a good buy as it came as a 3 CD set instead of the usual single session). <br />

<br />

No amount of upsampling, stereo gear or similar will apparently make Meatloaf's "Bat out of Hell" (a brilliantly conceived album in my opinion) sound like it well produced. In fact this album may have been the greatest victim of my pursuit of better sound (it sounded great on a ghetto-blaster when I was a kid).<br />

<br />

And the latest Maroon 5 CD sounds <i>over-produced</i> and <i>compressed</i> no matter the system. Great for a single song on the radio, but tough to listen to for enjoyment.<br />

<br />

I have an album of Heifetz Double Concertos that elicits excitement every time I hear it. Every time. None of the SoS classical pieces do anything special to me. They are crowded muddy recordings with no distinguishing features in my opinion (this sounds harsh, but I really got tired of all the tripe about how great they were, then I would listen to them and sort of go...meh).<br />

<br />

What is particularly interesting here (prepare for the blasphemy) is that a really well recorded/produced song, and I'm specifically thinking of Melody Garot's "Who will comfort me" even sounds great on .mp3 (I know!). In all likelihood, it sounds even better in 16 bit or 24 bit, but when ever I hear her voice on my stereo (I think I only have it because it was an iTunes free download one time), I have to stop what I'm doing and come into the room and listen. With a big smile on my face. So much imagery! So much air and space, and at the same time clarity of expression! Now some part of me says that I should pick up a higher res version of the song...but the truth is that I simply don't need to. To my ears, it sounds amazing! <br />

<br />

My thesis then is this: The pursuit of <i>pure</i> sound (24/96 vs. some lower bit rate) should not be at the expense of <i>good</i> sound (well recorded, well produced). <br />

<br />

I fully appreciate the advantage of 24 bit music, but I still prefer to listen for <i>great</i> recordings!<br />

<br />

My two cents!<br />

<br />

R.<br />

<br />

[KDinsmore]

Sorry about the sidestep. I have Let it Bleed on 24/176 from HDTracks and I can barely tell the difference between it and the remaster. Same with Gaucho. Allman Brothers Live at Fillmore a little bit from my MFSL but not by much.

[bottlerocket]

"My thesis then is this: The pursuit of pure sound (24/96 vs. some lower bit rate) should not be at the expense of good sound (well recorded, well produced)."<br />

<br />

AND, I think the point of Chris's article is that with a new release on DVD or hi-res download, there is absolutely no reason why BOTH can't be accomplished.<br />

<br />

[christoph]

sorry to bother again...<br />

<br />

does anyone know if this direct download is only available to american residents or with american credit cards?<br />

<br />

i tried with two different credit cards (master card and visa) and both ways i wasn't able to buy the download :-(<br />

<br />

<br />

cheers, christoph

[Akasakadude]

Chris,<br />

<br />

Thanks very much for writing this article. I've read other articles in other forums in the past about dishonesty in advertising when it comes to high res music but this is the most succinct and easy to follow (and replicate).<br />

<br />

Which brings me to a question -- has anyone put Radiohead's King of Limbs 24/96 wav file version sold on 7digital through the frequency spectrum lie detector? I'd love to know before I buy it.<br />

<br />

Cheers<br />

<br />

Jens<br />

[ssgp2]

WOW!!!!<br />

<br />

Thanks for this discovery, simply WOW!!!!

[Eisenmac]

I enjoy all of her albums. Also check out Jane Monheit.