HDTT Titles in 24/384 coming soon to a browser near you... (And a 15% off sale.)

[Paul R]

Reproduced below without comment. I have no affiliation with HDTT except as a relatively happy customer. -Paul

 

[TABLE=width: 580]

[TR]

[TD=width: 100%, colspan: 3][TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=align: left][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 185, bgcolor: #FFFFFF][/TD]

[TD=width: 15][/TD]

[TD=width: 380][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 100%, colspan: 3][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 100%, colspan: 3][TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=width: 100%, bgcolor: #003399]Storewide Autumn Sale[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 100%]

AUTUMN STOREWIDE SALE

15% Discount

on all our music downloads and physical music discs

No Coupon Code Necessary

Discount will be calculated at checkout

Sale ends October 30, 2012

(*Sale does not include EarMax Silver Headphone Amp and Symposium Acoustic Products)

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=width: 100%, bgcolor: #003399]24/384 Resolution Coming Soon and Survey[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 100%]

24bit 384khz titles will be available soon!

We will be offering 24/384 transfers of our most popular titles. A limited number of our newer releases will also be available in 24/384 as they are released.

 

Some of the advantages of 24/384 files are:

• Many claim that a sampling rate of 24 bits / 192 kHz should be high enough for sound reproduction (192 kHz sampling can reproduce frequencies up to 96 kHz); however, with a 192 kHz sampling rate, an Anti Aliasing Filter is still needed, and the severe phase shift, distortion, and other byproducts of the filter are wide enough that they may still impact audible frequencies. With 24 bit / 384 kHz sampling, an anti aliasing filter is not needed, since frequencies higher than 176.4 kHz are very weak and much less likely to incur audible artifacts. This enables the use of anti-aliasing filters with far less steep filter "walls" and cutoff. Very sharp filters (also called "brick wall" filters" incur pronounced ringing and other distortions).
  
• Impulse response is of primary importance, since the brain uses small differences in time between one ear and the other ear as spatial clues in order to reproduce three- dimensional aspects of the original signal. Thus, a digital recording at 384 kHz sounds closer to "real analog," which needs no anti-aliasing filters at all, and the listener is better able to capture full ambient information of sonic events with a 384 kHz sampling rate. Even though higher resolution, higher sampling rates sound better than lower resolution, lower sampling rates, 192 kHz, 96 kHz and 44.1 kHz/24 bit all sound more "digital" than 384 kHz sampling because of the more pronounced effects of anti-aliasing filters in the lower sampling rate systems.
  
• At this high resolution customers who own DSD dacs can convert the 24/384 files to 128 times (5.6448 MHz) DSD without virtually any signal loss. You can find Audio Gate, a converter for PCM/DSD, at Korg's site
  

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[firedog]

convert the 24/384 files to 128 times (5.6448 MHz) DSD without virtually any signal loss. You can find Audio Gate, a converter for PCM/DSD, at Korg's site

 

I believe this is incorrect, as the manual for the software says the max supported PCM rate is 24/192.

 

Anyone ever converted 24/384 to DSD? Hear a difference?

[One and a half]

Mixed reaction to this. DXD files versus DSD for the same piece of music are way larger, making the already clumsy download system at hdtracks a step backward rather than forward.

[firedog]

Mixed reaction to this. DXD files versus DSD for the same piece of music are way larger, making the already clumsy download system at hdtracks a step backward rather than forward.

 

So far HDTRACKS (Chesky) has said they have no plans to offer anything over 24/192; this includes NOT offering DSD. BTW, the new HDT downloader from JRiver (in beta) seems to superior to the present one.

[paul30d]

So far HDTRACKS (Chesky) has said they have no plans to offer anything over 24/192; this includes NOT offering DSD.

 

Nor should they. Better to concentrate on finding and delivering music that is mastered well and is not compressed. Even 24/96 is debatable when the material is poor quality.

 

PS: I believe my DAC (m2tech young) plays 24/384. But I don't think I would download such files if they were available. Incremental gains would probably be very small (if any) and would be offset by the huge HDTracks download times and my own storage/backup requirements.

[Fokus]

"an Anti Aliasing Filter is still needed, and the severe phase shift, distortion, and other byproducts of the filter are wide enough that they may still impact audible "

 

What severe phase shift? What distortion? What other byproducts? This is a list of inexistent things.

[Jay192]

This video http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/home-theater-geeks-126-high-def-audio-13160/ that Chris posted a couple of months ago has lurked in the back of my mind.

 

The guts of the message in wrt tape starts at 20.10min and continues until 26.00min.

 

The short story is as per the heading. He works through an example (which I think is 1/4 inch tape, saying that it only produces 10-12 bits (pcm) - actually he say's it the other way around - but I guess the message is the same).

 

Assuming this is an apples/apples comparison to the type of tapes HDTT is talking about, what would be the max bit depth possible?

 

Is it a function of the tape type? I thought tape recording was still common practice today? and was on par with digital recording in terms of could be produced (resolution wise)? or is it the case that tapes can't be as possibly hi-res as digital recordings? (no flames, no war please!)

 

Surely this is something quite factual / mathematical.

 

Here's a direct link to the video too:

 

[video=youtube_share;7uASNWFCxn8]

 

and let's call high def'n / hush-res 24 bit with decent frequency.

[Boris75]

What severe phase shift? What distortion? What other byproducts? This is a list of inexistent things.

 

I share your scepticism. Phase shift, yes there can be some when using a (so-called apodizing) filter that eliminates pre-ringing, but filtering a 192kHz signal requires only a gentle filter, not a steep one, so correspondingly the extent of phase shift is bound to be very limited. I do not understand their claim about distortion either. I am also doubtful of the benefits of using 32 bits when the dynamic range offered by 24 bits is probably more than enough already for playback.

[Paul R]

These tracks, in specific, are from High Def Tpe Transfers, not HDTracks. They download quickly, but are very clumsy to work with. Just to be clear on that.

 

-Paul

 

Nor should they. Better to concentrate on finding and delivering music that is mastered well and is not compressed. Even 24/96 is debatable when the material is poor quality.

 

PS: I believe my DAC (m2tech young) plays 24/384. But I don't think I would download such files if they were available. Incremental gains would probably be very small (if any) and would be offset by the huge HDTracks download times and my own storage/backup requirements.

[firedog]

"an Anti Aliasing Filter is still needed, and the severe phase shift, distortion, and other byproducts of the filter are wide enough that they may still impact audible "

 

What severe phase shift? What distortion? What other byproducts? This is a list of inexistent things.

 

jay

Is it a function of the tape type? I thought tape recording was still common practice today? and was on par with digital recording in terms of could be produced (resolution wise)? or is it the case that tapes can't be as possibly hi-res as digital recordings? (no flames, no war please!)

 

See: Q&A with Charles Hansen of Ayre Acoustics Page 2 | AudioStream

where charles hansen of ayre discusses why hi-res is better and what filtering is/does

 

he seems to think 192 is enough, but extrapolating from what he says, it seems he would agree that at 384 you would need no filter at all; ergo no ringing

 

I'm not an engineer, and not taking sides here. Just seems like there are some knowledgeable people who do think there are SQ reasons for these things.

 

BTW, Jay, most recordings aren't on tape nowadays, even LP masters are generally made from digital sources.

[One and a half]

So far HDTRACKS (Chesky) has said they have no plans to offer anything over 24/192; this includes NOT offering DSD. BTW, the new HDT downloader from JRiver (in beta) seems to superior to the present one.

 

Sorry to all, brain goes into fast forward, HDTT is different mob to HDtracks.

 

OK, the size of the file for DXD is a lot more than the equivalent DSD. Example :

 

W.A.Mozart: Violin concerto in D major (KV 218) - Allegro Marianne Thorsen / TrondheimSolistene / Øyvind Gimse 9:24 from 2L, the sample in DXD is 1.0GB, the DSD64 is 274MB. I rather take the shorter download, also, to manage an album for this extrapolation is 6GB DXD, a mouthful of data to move around. How would a 4GB RAM PC or MAC load this file into memory, would it be possible?

Here is a good test then for Audirvana, Amarra to load the DXD. Sonically, would there be a difference, since the source files is DXD? I'm due to arrive at home in the next few days, so will download both and report. I'm familiar with the piece already mentioned, as well as L. v. Beethoven: Sonate 32 - Maestoso Tor Espen Aspaas, piano, so will give them a good run and report.

 

I will also try to convert the DXD to DSD128, since DSD128 is a native format for Korg recorders, and play this back. It seems kinda moot, since the MPD-3 decodes PCM to DSD anyway. This would also be a good test to compare software and hardware based conversions.

[One and a half]

So far HDTRACKS (Chesky) has said they have no plans to offer anything over 24/192; this includes NOT offering DSD..

 

Bruce Brown from Puget Sound has delivered a 'few' DSD to HDtracks. They would have paid for them and are sitting on their servers?

 

Post #20

[firedog]

Bruce Brown from Puget Sound has delivered a 'few' DSD to HDtracks. They would have paid for them and are sitting on their servers?

 

Post #20

 

My guess is that Bruce is talking about DSD files HDT licensed to sell as 88 and 176k downloads. I think that is the license they pay for.

 

My understanding is that HDT buy a license that allows them to sell a certain number of specific types of hi-res downloads produced from whatever master they are given. Not at all clear to me that the license would include DSD downloads (probably doesn't), as the record companies are still paranoid about users making perfect copies of their original master quality files. That is the whole reason for the existence of SACD (DSD encoded so you "can't" copy it and need specialized HW to play it back).

 

Till now HDT has sold only 88 and 176K from material sourced from SACD/DSD. Again, Chesky was specifically asked in the interview I read about DSD downloads, and specifically said it isn't going to happen at HDT. And don't forget: not everyone in the world of audio even thinks DSD is a preferred sound (Barry Diament, I think, expressed this view). Chesky may also be one of these. Of course, this doesn't mean he won't change his mind, especially if he thinks profits are involved.

[One and a half]

@Firedog

The current version of Audiogate 2.2.1 cannot:

- accept DXD wav files to the add song list, therefore cannot be exported as a DSD/DSF or anything else.

- maxes out more than 192kHz sampling rate, even when connected to a DAC that's capable of more than

 

Unless I have an old version of Audiogate, the DXD conversion is not going to happen any time soon. So maybe HDTT are promised by others that it will work..?

 

FWIW the DXD doesn't capture the nuances that DSD can, even though the source material is DXD with the MPD-3. I compared L. v. Beethoven: Sonate 32 - Maestoso Tor Espen Aspaas native DXD to the DSD from 2L test bench and found the DSD a noticeable difference in capturing detail than the DXD.

Now that may be due to the algorithms in the DAC going through a conversion process, which shows a limitation, or is it the player (A+ 1.3.9.9). A+ is now upgraded to version.10 so will try this again.