Acousence recordings

[jcbrum]

I place this in the general forum to get a general response, although it's about music downloads.

 

I noticed an advert on this forum for Acousence downloads, and decide to try the site.

 

I saw they had a demo download facility and tried that.

 

I was disappointed with the results. The files seem to not be of the spec described. There might be a problem with the links pointing to the wrong files in some cases.

 

Also I thought the original recordings were not of a very high standard, being a bit 'muddy' in the middle, although I understand they might have been made some while ago.

 

Perhaps some other readers would try these trial downloads and comment on results, in case this is not typical.

 

Regards JCBrum.

 

[tfarney]

But my music server consists of a hard drive packed with lossless files of redbook cds, and my hardware reflects that reality. I live in a world of 16/44.1. It sounds good here, but as hi-rez grows, I may have to push past those limits.

 

Tim

 

[jcbrum]

I remain unconvinced, Tim, that anything more complicated than 16/44.1 is necessary for truly excellent 'audiophile' quality replay.

 

When making recordings 24 bits are extremely useful, and 48 khz goes with that as a standard, tending towards 96khz these days. Personally I don't subscribe to the view that a very extended audio frequency response is helpful, and some people talk an awful lot of rubbish about 'brick wall filters' to remove the sampling frequency, because frankly they just don't understand the science.

 

I do make my own recordings, and transcriptions, and I believe quite firmly that the biggest factor in the sound quality of the replay situation, is how good the recording was in the first place. This outweighs all other factors by a HUGE margin, and often makes it very difficult indeed to tell whether the file is 16/44.1 or 24/172 for example.

 

It is with those points in mind that I wished to audition The Acousence files.

 

I might comment that the recording engineers skills have been developed and honed over the last 100 years and I feel the replay equipment has been very inferior indeed for the last 50 or 60 years or so.

 

Certainly, we can now replay recordings made in the last 75 years to a standard never possible even 10 years ago. Many of the 1950's recordings are better than 1980's ones.

 

None of this means that we can't make better recordings than ever before - we certainly can - but few seem to bother.

 

Just my 2c (whatever that's worth ?)

 

JCBrum.

 

[TomS]

Hi JC,

I´m of different opinion. I own some of this recordings and I have much pleasure with it. Okay, not such a typical ultra clean, analytic 'audiophile' stuff, but great music recordings. Especially the mids have a wonderful natural sound structure. Perhaps depending on your playback

environment and your listening habbits you feel it does sound a bit

'muddy'. For me this shows the real 'analogue' quality of this HD files.

 

Best,

Tom

 

 

[jcbrum]

Thanks for the feedback Tom, and I'm pleased to hear your comments.

 

I am however specifically interested in your opinion of their six 'demo' files, when they downloaded, some did not seem to be the resolution described.

 

Have you downloaded and tested them ?

 

JCBrum.

 

[Suteetat]

I agree that the most important aspect of recording quality is the recording engineer. There are many wonderful 16/44.1 recordings out there, Some of my favourite recordings that I use when auditioning stereo gears for their fidelity ( being some of my favourite music as well does not hurt) are Kissin's Chopin 4 Ballades (RCA), Bernstein Mahler Symphony No.2 (Sony, Bernstein Century reissue) and Sylvia McNair's Sure Thing. As much as I like these recordings, in comparison to other high resolution formats, I found that sonically, they could be better.

Listen to Mari Kodama Beehtoven piano sonatas on Pentatone SACD, I never heard a more realistic grand piano sound captured on disc before (I am not as excitng about Linn Artur Pizzaro's piano recording on SACD and 24/8 download though). I have Acousence 24/176 download version of Mahler' Symphony No. 6. While the sound is not as exciting as Sony/Bernstein Mahler. 2, it has the most realistic ambience on a recording I ever heard. I could really believe that I am sitting between mid to 3/4 hall distance away from the stage. Placement of each instrument, left the right, front to back, on the stage is incredible. 24/176 download version of 2L Divertimenti is also incredible. The amount of detail, clarity, rich overtone of the string instruments were uncanny. Reference Recording HRx discs sounded a little sterile for my taste but again, its sound quality is really unmatched by 16/44.1 discs that I have. I am sure not all of the quality is due to recording medium/high resolution files themselves and not all high rez files sound great to my ears but the few high rez files that I have, on average, sounds better than the 2000+ CDs that I have. Great sound engineer can narrow the gap for 16/44 but can also increase the gap with 24/176 done right, I think.

 

But back to the original question, I have not heard the demo file so I don't really know how that particular track sounds like.

 

[ralph]

Thank you JC for this advice!

 

There actually is a crazy bug with the text links. If you click in the middle of the line, funnily enough just on the word "quality", the link always goes to the 44,1kHz version. The text links of the other words work right.

I think this is the explanation for the different feedback.

 

Best regards

Ralf Koschnicke

ACOUSENCE records

 

[jcbrum]

Ok Ralf, thanks for the post. I'm glad my ears are still working.

 

I hope you get the problem fixed. I'll have another go with the demo files.

 

Regards JCBrum.

 

[RBFC]

While I'm not sure that I could hear the effects of 24/192 recording (with all other factors identical), I believe that the care taken in the recording and mastering of these new high-res files and discs is certainly a factor in their sonic excellence. Just as with lossless audio soundtracks on Blu-Ray movie discs, I see no reason for studios to place lower (technical) quality recordings on their products when the higher resolution formats are available. One may not be able to discern the differences, but we certainly cannot complain about the studios "holding back" on the best technical possibilities! I think that knowing they're making a "high-res" recording pushes the engineers, etc. toward taking extra care with every step in the process.

 

Truthfully, as long as these recordings end up sounding as good as they do, I'm not sure I care WHY they're this good. Academic interest, sure. End result = satisfaction.

 

Lee

 

[jcbrum]

Lee,

 

quote RBFC, ..... "Truthfully, as long as these recordings end up sounding as good as they do, I'm not sure I care WHY they're this good. " endquote.

 

I care Lee, 'cause I have to make some of 'em !

 

And I'm always very interested in other peoples work.

 

Regards JCBrum .... ;-)

 

 

 

 

[RBFC]

I apologize if my tongue-in-cheek comment was taken too seriously. Of course, I care what factors will contribute to the final listening quality of a recording, since I spend my money on them! The high-res material is commanding a premium price too, so knowing which offerings are going to be excellent is obviously a good thing.

 

I will actually be one of the first consumers to receive the new Chesky 24/192 discs, which were slated to be released in May. I should have mine this week. I'll be happy to comment on their sound quality as played through my Krell EVO amplifier and B&W 801D speakers. Chesky has typically produced some of the finest natural-sounding recordings available, so this prospect is exciting!

 

Regards,

 

Lee

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Lee - You don't have your Chesky 24/192 yet? :~)

 

[RBFC]

Re: Chesky 24/192s

 

Nope. I was supposed to get them in Jan, but the distributor (or something) caused a delay. Your comment sounds like you've already got them! What do you think?

 

By the way, nice site with excellent information. I'm a computer dinosaur, so I'll certainly be reading more than posting until I have the slightest idea of how to put together a computer-based music server that'll do all this high-res material at native rates.

 

Thanks,

 

Lee

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Lee - You read my comment perfectly :~) I've had some material since September! It's wonderful on all fronts.

 

Thanks for the comments on the site. Let me and the rest of the readers know how we can help. It's really much easier than you think. There are some servers that are easy to use and others that you'll fight with forever. Feel free to ask around here and you should get all the answers you need.

 

[RBFC]

Thank you for the kind welcome.

 

I took a look at the Acousence site and the Linn site where the downloads, etc. are available. These look like very interesting repertoire, captured in extreme fidelity. As soon as I get this computer thing together, I'll likely pick up several of those.

 

Thanks to all,

 

Lee

 

[DSD_mastering]

We do all the SACD/DSD/DVD-A file transfers for HDtracks site. The best part of my job is listening to all of this great music. When you hear a pure DSD stream, you get goosebumps all over..

 

Regards,

 

[Mike19]

This weekend I downloaded (in FLAC) DELUX EDITION album by Johnny Winter from HDTracks. Songs and recording quality just awesome.