Finally! Amused to Death...

[miguelito]

…already downloading from HDTracks -24/96 PCM. Let ya know.

 

Hm, what to think?! At least from the graph. Of course cut off is wrong, but the rest is rather suspicious.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19924[/ATTACH]

 

BTW, no liner notes, just cover art in pdf :-/

That looks prtee strange... as if some of the raw sound tracks were sampled at a lower rate and some at a higher rate... Or more precisely, some samples are digital, then converted to analog for the mix (obviously they will not increase in bandwidth) whereas some of the tracks (presumably voices, and some other takes) were analog, hence the tapering.

[mkrzych]

That looks prtee strange...

 

Exactly! So I don't know what to think about it. Maybe I will drop the line to HDTracks, not expecting a miracle from them though.

[miguelito]

Exactly! So I don't know what to think about it. Maybe I will drop the line to HDTracks, not expecting a miracle from them though.

HDTracks will tell you they don't touch the supplied files, just serve them.

 

But on a second thought, I think my hypothesis is not without merit... I imagine they probably used, say, a digital drum kit or similar, producing sound through a DAC into an analog tape to record that take. If the drum was converted to analog with a DAC using, say 16/48 or similar, you'd get what you see: a lot of energy below 24, less so above. I don't think this is necessarily a problem.

[mkrzych]

HDTracks will tell you they don't touch the supplied files, just serve them.

 

But on a second thought, I think my hypothesis is not without merit... I imagine they probably used, say, a digital drum kit or similar, producing sound through a DAC into an analog tape to record that take. If the drum was converted to analog with a DAC using, say 16/48 or similar, you'd get what you see: a lot of energy below 24, less so above. I don't think this is necessarily a problem.

 

It sounds pretty well, but I wouldn't consider it as true high resolution file/transfer!

[miguelito]

It sounds pretty well, but I wouldn't consider it as true high resolution file/transfer!

Recordings are what they are. It is great to get the most out of a recording - which in my opinion is a lot in this case. If what you're looking for is a level of sound quality like some Blue Coast recordings or 2L, then you'll likely be disappointed. But then again, neither of those have Roger Waters in their catalogs...

[Priaptor]

just listened to the DSD on my system in my second home and I have to say, it sounds a little "strident" compared to my original CD. Yes the voices, sound effects, etc are much more "detailed", etc, but the overall appeal to me, at least, is less than the original. Sometimes the evil of good is better and IMHO that is the case with this.

[mkrzych]

Recordings are what they are. It is great to get the most out of a recording - which in my opinion is a lot in this case. If what you're looking for is a level of sound quality like some Blue Coast recordings or 2L, then you'll likely be disappointed. But then again, neither of those have Roger Waters in their catalogs...

 

Ditto sir!

[Jacken]

Just bought and downloaded the DSD64 version from Acoustic Sounds. Here's a graph from one of the songs.

Haven't had time to listen on my stereo equipment yes (QSound and all), but it sounds great with my Oppo headphones.

 

 

Here's a comparison to the CD version. More dynamic range on this track at least.

 

[mkrzych]

Just bought and downloaded the DSD64 version from Acoustic Sounds. Here's a graph from one of the songs.

Haven't had time to listen on my stereo equipment yes (QSound and all), but it sounds great with my Oppo headphones.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19978[/ATTACH]

 

Similar scope as for PCM, different scale IMHO and lots of ultrasonic noise. It seems that it is like it is.

[miguelito]

Just bought and downloaded the DSD64 version from Acoustic Sounds. Here's a graph from one of the songs.

Haven't had time to listen on my stereo equipment yes (QSound and all), but it sounds great with my Oppo headphones.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19978[/ATTACH]

 

Here's a comparison to the CD version. More dynamic range on this track at least.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19979[/ATTACH]

From a bandwidth perspective it is hard to get a lot better than that in DSD64 I think... I wonder what the actual bandwidth of an analog tape deck at 15ips is... I recall seeing this somewhere.

[Synfreak]

I think the use of the (very early) Q-Sound processor is what limits the frequency extension in this case.

 

It might be interesting to get a analysis of the 5.1 tracks ...

 

P.S.:

the DR database is updated with the new editions, and it seems that the dynamic range hasn't suffered from the new mix / mastering:

Album list - Dynamic Range Database

[tailspn]

From a bandwidth perspective it is hard to get a lot better than that in DSD64 I think... I wonder what the actual bandwidth of an analog tape deck at 15ips is... I recall seeing this somewhere.

 

Real world about 65dB without Dolby DNR.

[mkrzych]

Real world about 65dB without Dolby DNR.

 

That's explaining a lot ;-)

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just heard from someone at Acoustic Sounds about this release. Here is what he said:"All of the downloads were created from the 192/24 digital master. We've posted that provenance on the DSD product page."

[miguelito]

Just heard from someone at Acoustic Sounds about this release. Here is what he said:"All of the downloads were created from the 192/24 digital master. We've posted that provenance on the DSD product page."

This contradicts the previous comment that all encoded versions were done from the same analog master - at least that was my interpretation... But I see the note now (it wasn't there before I don't think).

 

I suppose in my case it is the same as I have an EmmLabs DAC.

[new_media]

Well, I have to say I feel a bit bait and switched. I would have bought the 192/24 FLAC had I known that was the digital master.

 

I wonder if they will let me download the FLAC version if I email them?

[The Computer Audiophile]

This contradicts the previous comment that all encoded versions were done from the same analog master - at least that was my interpretation... But I see the note now (it wasn't there before I don't think).

 

I suppose in my case it is the same as I have an EmmLabs DAC.

It actually doesn't contradict the previous statement. The mix master was digital, converted to analog and into DSD.

[mkrzych]

It actually doesn't contradict the previous statement. The mix master was digital, converted to analog and into DSD.

 

As I understood that's 15ips, so what we are expecting more? Never true high resolution, but could be improved over the original one a bit.

[miguelito]

It actually doesn't contradict the previous statement. The mix master was digital, converted to analog and into DSD.

Ok... That's not included in the AS explanation:

 

DSD file created from the 192/24 digital master using Meitner DSD converters.

 

I too would've preferred to know this and would've bought the 192/24 version instead. But whatever...

[miguelito]

As I understood that's 15ips, so what we are expecting more? Never true high resolution, but could be improved over the original one a bit.

Yes, I doubt that the sound would be any different honestly, but I would have preferred to go through the least number of steps possible. Nevermind...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ok... That's not included in the AS explanation:DSD file created from the 192/24 digital master using Meitner DSD converters.I too would've preferred to know this and would've bought the 192/24 version instead. But whatever...

Since Meitner makes D to A and A to D converters and Gus said the DSD was derived from analog without file format conversion, I'm making an assumption.

[miguelito]

Since Meitner makes D to A and A to D converters and Gus said the DSD was derived from analog without file format conversion, I'm making an assumption.

On the other hand, my EmmLabs XDS1v2 (Meitner's) transcodes 192/24 to DSD without going through an analog step. According to your post:

 

"The DSD was mastered in the analog domain from the new mix master. There were no digital format conversions."

 

This is, in my interpretation, contradictory. Unless 192/24=>analog=>DSD can be considered as "no digital format conversion", but that's pushing it a bit...

[The Computer Audiophile]

On the other hand, my EmmLabs XDS1v2 (Meitner's) transcodes 192/24 to DSD without going through an analog step. According to your post:

 

"The DSD was mastered in the analog domain from the new mix master. There were no digital format conversions."

 

This is, in my interpretation, contradictory. Unless 192/24=>analog=>DSD can be considered as "no digital format conversion", but that's pushing it a bit...

I agree it's pushing it and I wouldn't have said it that way, but when providing all the details hurts one's narrative you can't know what to expect :~)

[miguelito]

I agree it's pushing it and I wouldn't have said it that way, but when providing all the details hurts one's narrative you can't know what to expect :~)

Understood. Nevermind. Fun banter. Frankly I'm pretty darn sure I would not be able to tell the diff b/w 192/24 and DSD in this case. Just for fun I emailed AS and asked them if they would kindly provide me access to the 192/24 download... Either way it's all good.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Understood. Nevermind. Fun banter. Frankly I'm pretty darn sure I would not be able to tell the diff b/w 192/24 and DSD in this case. Just for fun I emailed AS and asked them if they would kindly provide me access to the 192/24 download... Either way it's all good.

Agreed :~)

 

#firstworldproblems