I did'nt care for the sound of a 24bit/192 Download of the Hans Schmitt Isserstedt/Beethoven 9th so I reduced the bit depth to 16bits

[Nocompression]

This is not the whole story, so I'll back up to the beginning as I'm curious to why the bit reduction sounds better.

 

After listening to this download intially , I was'nt that impressed with the sounstaging so I drug the file into my dBPa converter & selected the uncompressed level of Flac as the result file. I noticed that on the initial playback the files were reading in the 52 to 5700kbps range(don't hold me to this as I can't recall the actual numbers). After the conversion the files displayed as 9220kbps/192000hz. The resultant sound was somewhat "echoie" at that top of the frequencies. I did'nt retain the original files so I was stuck with the converted files. Hmm...what to do ? as this was worse sounding . So I decided to see what reducing the bit depth to 16bits would do.

 

After this pass the files were reading 6147kbps/192000khz. So my question is did I actually reduce the files to 16bits as I altered the original file ? (I know I should have left the download alone,but I hated the thought of just deleting it)

 

In this case I guess compressed Flac is preferable for Hi-Resolution files,whereas for Redbook files I don't think you have a choice if you want great sound. I'll repeat myself & claim that well recorded Redbook is'nt anywhere near as flawed as many believe it to be.

[Jud]

Fine, but a single solitary hi-res download that didn't sound good is hardly conclusive proof.

[sandyk]

IF you are using Windows, did you also delete it from the Recycle Bin ?

[Nocompression]

Fine, but a single solitary hi-res download that didn't sound good is hardly conclusive proof.

 

No, sorry if it seemed that I had come to any particular conclusion. I was actually more curious as to what might have happened to make the files sound as they did.

[Nocompression]

IF you are using Windows, did you also delete it from the Recycle Bin ?

 

Yeah, the Recycle Bin has been emptied quite a few times now. (Don't you hate it when you admit to doing something a bit dopey in print ! No, great loss though as it appears I was'nt particularly impressed with the recording as it turns out. I would'nt have rated it as being in my top 5 LvB 9ths. At least that's what I'm admitting to for now. Hehehe!)

[Nocompression]

So you are claiming that HDTT is lying about using the actual Analogue master tape recorded by Decca & they used the "dumbed down" copy( because it needed to fit the Redbook standards set for CD playback) & not the actual master which did'nt have the resolution restrictions that digital play of the day required. Or are you saying that it is impossible to get High Resolution music files from Analogue Master Tapes ?

 

I think you'll find a lot of people who'll disagree with you on that one!

[Jud]

How did they make a sow's ear out of a silk purse, so to speak? They rely on the (re)master they get from the label, so their product, though it has a higher sample rate and *potential* dynamic range, is subject to all the compression and other tweaking the labels are doing to sell the reissued/remastered CDs and mp3s produced from the same masters. This is very evident in the highly compressed reissued CDs and downloads from CSN and REM, for example.

[Paul R]

Tht's quite some claim there, especially as you are referring to a HDDT download. What system are you using for playback and how exactly did it sound different, at least to the best you can describe?

 

By the way, since you purchased this download from HDTT, you can simply redownload the original file.

 

-Paul

 

This is not the whole story, so I'll back up to the beginning as I'm curious to why the bit reduction sounds better.

 

After listening to this download intially , I was'nt that impressed with the sounstaging so I drug the file into my dBPa converter & selected the uncompressed level of Flac as the result file. I noticed that on the initial playback the files were reading in the 52 to 5700kbps range(don't hold me to this as I can't recall the actual numbers). After the conversion the files displayed as 9220kbps/192000hz. The resultant sound was somewhat "echoie" at that top of the frequencies. I did'nt retain the original files so I was stuck with the converted files. Hmm...what to do ? as this was worse sounding . So I decided to see what reducing the bit depth to 16bits would do.

 

After this pass the files were reading 6147kbps/192000khz. So my question is did I actually reduce the files to 16bits as I altered the original file ? (I know I should have left the download alone,but I hated the thought of just deleting it)

 

In this case I guess compressed Flac is preferable for Hi-Resolution files,whereas for Redbook files I don't think you have a choice if you want great sound. I'll repeat myself & claim that well recorded Redbook is'nt anywhere near as flawed as many believe it to be.

[Nocompression]

How did they make a sow's ear out of a silk purse, so to speak? They rely on the (re)master they get from the label, so their product, though it has a higher sample rate and *potential* dynamic range, is subject to all the compression and other tweaking the labels are doing to sell the reissued/remastered CDs and mp3s produced from the same masters. This is very evident in the highly compressed reissued CDs and downloads from CSN and REM, for example.

 

No..., I was'nt asking anything about what "they" might have done as I not so sure from what "I" heard from the download it was ever a "silk purse" recording. As I seem to recall I did'nt particularly hold James Lock's engineered recordings in the same esteem of someone like Kenneth Wilkson's work. I suppose I should have passed on this download. I honestly don't hold HDTT responsible for a flawed transfer.

 

Beside being confusing here, I'm being lazy as I did'nt actually open up the file when the drive was still connected to my PC (drive gets disconnected when playing files, I use an Auraliti Pk100) so I did'nt look to see what the file size is now.

 

Sorry, for this debacle. Note to self:next time think more carefully, before posting (alright, you can move my status back to "newbie" after this one !)

[Jud]

No..., I was'nt asking anything about what "they" might have done as I not so sure from what "I" heard from the download it was ever a "silk purse" recording. As I seem to recall I did'nt particularly hold James Lock's engineered recordings in the same esteem of someone like Kenneth Wilkson's work. I suppose I should have passed on this download. I honestly don't hold HDTT responsible for a flawed transfer.

 

Beside being confusing here, I'm being lazy as I did'nt actually open up the file when the drive was still connected to my PC (drive gets disconnected when playing files, I use an Auraliti Pk100) so I did'nt look to see what the file size is now.

 

Sorry, for this debacle. Note to self:next time think more carefully, before posting (alright, you can move my status back to "newbie" after this one !)

 

No problem at all, it's actually a nice demonstration that just increasing the sample rate and available dynamic range (particularly when virtually no one is utilizing the full potential dynamic range of CD, let alone "24 bit" - the latter with present recording equipment in practicality being limited to 20-21 bits before it submerges into electrical/thermal noise) stands little chance of causing you to like the sorts of recordings/engineers/artists/producers you typically haven't in the past.

[Guidof]

No, sorry if it seemed that I had come to any particular conclusion. I was actually more curious as to what might have happened to make the files sound as they did.

 

Is it possible that the higher resolution files sounded "worse" because they allowed the original tape's tipped up sound to come through in its full gory glory? I have a few 24/96 files with this 'enhancement' that are only listenable with a 3db cut above 7KHz.

 

Guido F.

[Nocompression]

Tht's quite some claim there, especially as you are referring to a HDDT download. What system are you using for playback and how exactly did it sound different, at least to the best you can describe?

 

By the way, since you purchased this download from HDTT, you can simply redownload the original file.

 

-Paul

Paul,

 

As witnessed by what I wrote , I (quite obviously) did'nt think a few statements through before posting

 

First, any music file 1411kbps or greater can't be considered compressed. So how much more incorrect can I be talking about "using compressed Flac for High Res files". The Kbps of the HDTT files was already 4 to 5x greater than the minimum for uncompressed files. I do have a few other HDTT downloads that I feel are quite good (& some that I felt were so-so perhaps due to there origins, as I think was the case with this recording). I hope this puts to rest any question of whether I feel HDTT is up to the task of producing fine HD downloads, they are.

 

I will stand by my respect for the available quality of Redbook though. The reason I say "available" is because I'm not convinced a lot of people are "tapping" that potential . Unless you have best collection of CDs that has ever existed you probably are'nt aware of the errors you've been listening to & did'nt give a second thought to for years. Then to compound matters ,using indiscriminate ripping software, we rip the same errors to the music file medium we're going to use. There is nothing wrong with accepting CD sound for what you've "assumed" it's level of musicality to be, but I'm betting some people would be very surprised at how much more " musical" these recordings can actually sound. I think it comes down to if the end user is willing to exert just a slight bit more effort on their part. It turn out that vehicle & means by which the files were placed on the vehicle are what's at fault here. What surprises me is that you have control to reach this higher level.

[Paul R]

Paul,

 

As witnessed by what I wrote , I (quite obviously) did'nt think a few statements through before posting

 

Not to worry. I wasn't questioning that you heard a difference, I was curious as to what you heard.

 

 

First, any music file 1411kbps or greater can't be considered compressed. So how much more incorrect can I be talking about "using compressed Flac for High Res files". The Kbps of the HDTT files was already 4 to 5x greater than the minimum for uncompressed files. I do have a few other HDTT downloads that I feel are quite good (& some that I felt were so-so perhaps due to there origins, as I think was the case with this recording). I hope this puts to rest any question of whether I feel HDTT is up to the task of producing fine HD downloads, they are. [/Quote]

 

Actually, you were right the first time. Hi-Res music files can be compressed, and commonly are. If they are compressed with FLAC or ALAC, then all the original data is retrieved for playback. Every single bit.

 

This will result in some odd bit rates being reported for the file, but compresse d they are.

 

CD quality sound is, without argument, very very good indeed. Hi res music can sound better yet, but not always.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

I will stand by my respect for the available quality of Redbook though. The reason I say "available" is because I'm not convinced a lot of people are "tapping" that potential . Unless you have best collection of CDs that has ever existed you probably are'nt aware of the errors you've been listening to & did'nt give a second thought to for years. Then to compound matters ,using indiscriminate ripping software, we rip the same errors to the music file medium we're going to use. There is nothing wrong with accepting CD sound for what you've "assumed" it's level of musicality to be, but I'm betting some people would be very surprised at how much more " musical" these recordings can actually sound. I think it comes down to if the end user is willing to exert just a slight bit more effort on their part. It turn out that vehicle & means by which the files were placed on the vehicle are what's at fault here. What surprises me is that you have control to reach this higher level.

[babybear]

I will stand by my respect for the available quality of Redbook though. The reason I say "available" is because I'm not convinced a lot of people are "tapping" that potential . Unless you have best collection of CDs that has ever existed you probably are'nt aware of the errors you've been listening to & did'nt give a second thought to for years. Then to compound matters ,using indiscriminate ripping software, we rip the same errors to the music file medium we're going to use. There is nothing wrong with accepting CD sound for what you've "assumed" it's level of musicality to be, but I'm betting some people would be very surprised at how much more " musical" these recordings can actually sound. I think it comes down to if the end user is willing to exert just a slight bit more effort on their part. It turn out that vehicle & means by which the files were placed on the vehicle are what's at fault here. What surprises me is that you have control to reach this higher level.

 

Nocompression,

 

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't really understand your quoted statement. What exactly are you saying and what is it - in detail that you do that "taps that potential" for redbook and that "a lot of people" are not doing?

 

Arnie

[barrows]

wow... A lot of potential chaf in this thread. To the OP, if you are a classical music fan, and really want to hear what high resolution audio is capable of (vs Redbook), I would suggest sampling some of Reference Recordings HRx releases, or 2Ls, or Channel Classics. 2L and Channel Classics are available direct from them by download. Once you hear any of these examples, as long as your system/room is up to it, you will not doubt the advantages of high resolution recording. Personally, I also prefer that older analog recordings get transferred direct to 24/192, to avoid most of the filter artifacts present in 16/44.1 recordings, but I must admit, that many of these older recordings (while often masterfully done for their day) do not equal what is possible today with high rate digital, whether PCM or DSD.

BTW: greater ultimate dynamic range is not the real benefit of 24 bits, in room, few of us have a system which can actually resolve much more than 16/17 bits of ultimate range, I mean, who is going to tolerate 144 dB peaks? But, the gradations in micro dynamics are smaller with 24 bit recordings, so one get a finer "grain" via the smaller steps of levels.

[Jud]

BTW: greater ultimate dynamic range is not the real benefit of 24 bits, in room, few of us have a system which can actually resolve much more than 16/17 bits of ultimate range, I mean, who is going to tolerate 144 dB peaks?

 

You shoulda been here for the '60s, man. ;-) Stacks of Marshall amps at live concerts, only one way to duplicate that.

 

But, the gradations in micro dynamics are smaller with 24 bit recordings, so one get a finer "grain" via the smaller steps of levels.

 

But seriously - this is a very good point. Microdynamics make a real difference to the emotional experience if the overall dynamics aren't so squashed toward the loud end of the spectrum that they're effectively lost.

[barrows]

Hahahaha... Jud, just a coincidence, but on Tuesday night I was at a concert: The Smashing Pumpkins. Right in front of the soundboard, perhaps 20 yards from the stage. It was really, really, really loud... I have heard a lot of loud rock bands in my day (and The Smashing Pumpkins on three other occasions), but this was up there... No way to possibly reproduce that in my room...

Awesome concert, despite being a little too loud.

[Nocompression]

Nocompression,

 

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't really understand your quoted statement. What exactly are you saying and what is it - in detail that you do that "taps that potential" for redbook and that "a lot of people" are not doing?

 

Arnie

 

Well, I don't think "ignorance" has much to do with what any of us does or does'nt do to find more satisfaction in our "Audio" hobby. When it comes to Computer processing issues I can only go by a "trial & error" process that me closer to the sound of dimensional music being played in a dimensional venue (a long winded way of saying "Live Perspective" sounding music

 

If you are not using a ripping program that does'nt take into account that CDs are not "bit perfect" & just rips whatever bit errors as they exist on the disc it is unlikely you're hearing what Redbook can sound like. You're hearing the "CD version" of what Redbook sounds like. Expensive CD players have the processing ability to account for those errors most ripping programs do not. You know the (probably) most widely used program, it's very convienent,easy to use, works hand in hand with your iDevices or other media sources,but it does'nt give you the ability to listen to high level Redbook playback. To be fair it is no more guilty of being mediocre than any of the other ripping software options from the PC factions. Let's be honest here, the Computer Industry will only ever care so much about the level of audio playback end users can attain (I make no apologies for my opinions about the CI, I'm an "Audio Guy")

 

The good news is that with a little effort you can find "audio quality" oriented software that performs at a much higher level to "correct" some of the disc errors during the rip process. There is a freeware program called EAC (Exactaudiocopy) that will work in a pinch , but the program I use is called dBPoweramp (not free however) due to the fact that it has a much more comprehensive Accurate Rip database. Upon the initial run of dBPa(or EAC) you will go through a set-up process whereby you are asked to input your rip drive information & other system parameter questions particular to your system. At one point ,after you loaded three CD that are recognized as being in the Accurate Rip database & ripped these disc you will receive an "offset setting" for your particular rip drive that will be used for that drive for all subsequent rips that you will make using this drive. Rips using these software programs are a whole "different animal" as far as I'm concerned. Another reason I like dBPa is that I can encode my rip to a Flac level (uncompressed lossless) I did'nt know existed. I like having metadata & album art on 99.5% of my rips on my Hard Drives. I probably have'nt described the set-ups of this software are clearly as I could , but you can find this information on-line

 

Everything I've talked about assumes that you are somewhat particular about the recorded level of the music you listen to & care somewhat about the equipment you use to listen to it. I hope this explains my appreciation of Redbook a little better. High Resolution is better, but "Red is not Dead" or it's not as far from HR as you might think. ("Post Quick Reply" is pretty funny ! I have to think about what I want for breakfast two days ago if I'm having breakfast tomorrow.)

[Jud]

 

If you are not using a ripping program that does'nt take into account that CDs are not "bit perfect" & just rips whatever bit errors as they exist on the disc it is unlikely you're hearing what Redbook can sound like. You're hearing the "CD version" of what Redbook sounds like. Expensive CD players have the processing ability to account for those errors most ripping programs do not. You know the (probably) most widely used program, it's very convienent,easy to use, works hand in hand with your iDevices or other media sources,but it does'nt give you the ability to listen to high level Redbook playback. To be fair it is no more guilty of being mediocre than any of the other ripping software options from the PC factions. Let's be honest here, the Computer Industry will only ever care so much about the level of audio playback end users can attain (I make no apologies for my opinions about the CI, I'm an "Audio Guy")

 

The good news is that with a little effort you can find "audio quality" oriented software that performs at a much higher level to "correct" some of the disc errors during the rip process. There is a freeware program called EAC (Exactaudiocopy) that will work in a pinch , but the program I use is called dBPoweramp (not free however) due to the fact that it has a much more comprehensive Accurate Rip database. Upon the initial run of dBPa(or EAC) you will go through a set-up process whereby you are asked to input your rip drive information & other system parameter questions particular to your system. At one point ,after you loaded three CD that are recognized as being in the Accurate Rip database & ripped these disc you will receive an "offset setting" for your particular rip drive that will be used for that drive for all subsequent rips that you will make using this drive. Rips using these software programs are a whole "different animal" as far as I'm concerned. Another reason I like dBPa is that I can encode my rip to a Flac level (uncompressed lossless) I did'nt know existed. I like having metadata & album art on 99.5% of my rips on my Hard Drives. I probably have'nt described the set-ups of this software are clearly as I could , but you can find this information on-line

 

 

Sorry, but I believe you're laboring under a misconception. Yes, there are various programs that can make sure in a couple of different ways that a rip is bit for bit accurate. In the vast majority of cases these are bit-identical to iTunes rips. A rip that drops bits will result in gross errors, sounding like "ticks," not playback of lower sonic quality. The sorts of errors that result in lower sound quality - e.g., timing errors (jitter) - are not something any ripping software I'm aware of claims to affect.

 

Sound quality differences may well occur with playback software, but rips will either get the bits or not, and if they don't, what results will not be music.

[jhwalker]

Sorry, but I believe you're laboring under a misconception. Yes, there are various programs that can make sure in a couple of different ways that a rip is bit for bit accurate. In the vast majority of cases these are bit-identical to iTunes rips. A rip that drops bits will result in gross errors, sounding like "ticks," not playback of lower sonic quality. The sorts of errors that result in lower sound quality - e.g., timing errors (jitter) - are not something any ripping software I'm aware of claims to affect.

 

Sound quality differences may well occur with playback software, but rips will either get the bits or not, and if they don't, what results will not be music.

 

Exactly. Digital music is not like analog - it cannot sound "different" without *virtually every single* bit in the file being changed, which would never happen regardless of what ripping software you use. It would be on the same order of magnitude as Microsoft Word spontaneously changing your thesis from English to French as you save it; i.e., not possible.

[sandyk]

Digital music is not like analog - it cannot sound "different" without *virtually every single* bit in the file being changed, which would never happen regardless of what ripping software you use.

That is completely false, as people like Cookie Marenco will attest.

"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD, you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist."-Cookie Marenco. cookiemarenco.com

 

 

 

As recently as at a "get together" yesterday at a friend's place, we demonstrated marked sound differences between 2 rips of the 16/44.1 track "Yello-Bostich (Reflected) saved on the same Corsair Voyager GT USB 2.0 memory stick, and played from system memory using cPlay.One of those present was a qualified E.E. from Sydney who is a DIYAudio member, and he had no problem whatsoever hearing marked difference. We swapped backwards and forwards several times at his request, because what he heard went against all his training.The ridiculous part though, is that he isn't game to post about what he heard in DIYAudio, because he knows that his life would be made miserable by hard line Objectivists .

In fact, he also brought along a clasical CD which ws played through a highly revealing DAC, and $14K (retail) of Marantz Pre and Power amplifiers into Infinity speakers with Raal tweeters.It sounded VERY mediocre indeed. The host then brought out his external Plextor BluRay writer with a linear PSU and ripped the track to the same Corsair Voyager for playback. The look on his face when he heard the rip, said it all. (Riccardo Chailly\Igor Stravinsky; L'Oiseau de feu; Apollon musagète; Scherzo Fantastique)

 

SandyK

[jhwalker]

That is completely false, as people like Cookie Marenco will attest.

 

 

As recently as at a "get together" yesterday at a friend's place, we demonstrated marked sound differences between 2 rips of the 16/44.1 track "Yello-Bostich (Reflected) saved on the same Corsair Voyager GT USB 2.0 memory stick, and played from system memory using cPlay.One of those present was a qualified E.E. from Sydney who is a DIYAudio member, and he had no problem whatsoever hearing marked difference. We swapped backwards and forwards several times at his request, because what he heard went against all his training.The ridiculous part though, is that he isn't game to post about what he heard in DIYAudio, because he knows that his life would be made miserable by hard line Objectivists .

In fact, he also brought along a clasical CD which ws played through a highly revealing DAC, and $14K (retail) of Marantz Pre and Power amplifiers into Infinity speakers with Raal tweeters.It sounded VERY mediocre indeed. The host then brought out his external Plextor BluRay writer with a linear PSU and ripped the track to the same Corsair Voyager for playback. The look on his face when he heard the rip, said it all. (Riccardo Chailly\Igor Stravinsky; L'Oiseau de feu; Apollon musagète; Scherzo Fantastique)

 

SandyK

 

We'll just have to (continue to) disagree on this one.

[sandyk]

Hi John

I didn't post that to start another war between us. I simply refuse to let such black and white , take it or leave it statements , remain unchallenged. Neither am I disputing your undoubted qualifications in the normal digital software and hardware areas, as distinct from digital audio.

 

As I have previously posted, I am more than prepared to demonstrate these things directly to any Sydney members, either at a scheduled GTG at my friend's place, or directly through my own system. One of the points I am trying to make here, is that these things are NOT system dependent,as some have previously suggested. .

Kind Regards

Alex

[jhwalker]

Hi John

I didn't post that to start another war between us. I simply refuse to let such black and white , take it or leave it statements , remain unchallenged. Neither am I disputing your undoubted qualifications in the normal digital software and hardware areas, as distinct from digital audio.

 

As I have previously posted, I am more than prepared to demonstrate these things directly to any Sydney members, either at a scheduled GTG at my friend's place, or directly through my own system. One of the points I am trying to make here, is that these things are NOT system dependent,as some have previously suggested. .

Kind Regards

Alex

 

No war intended But like you, I also refuse to let certain statements remain unchallenged - so whenever I see someone posting information I know to be incorrect (e.g., that, aside from error correction capabilities, one ripping software is of better "audio quality" than another, or that identical files are not, indeed, identical), I try to correct the misinformation.

[sandyk]

so whenever I see someone posting information I know to be incorrect

Hi John

If you had said "I believe to be incorrect" I wouldn't have posted this reply.(grin)

Kind Regards

Alex