HFN "now measuring the true sample rate and bit-depth of the HD music downloads we review."

[徐中銳]

These unique reviews will be a regular source of information for those seeking new and re-mastered recordings offered at high sample rates and with the promise of delivering the very best sound quality.

HI-RES DOWNLOADS

An example, Comments, Lab graph & Album cover from 96kHz/24-bit FLAC, BIS-2124 :

Recorded at 96kHz/24-bit in 2014 this file’s metadata may erroneously state ‘1970’ but at least the media itself is the ‘real deal’ and not a downsample from BIS’s SACD. Good dynamic range and full use of the ~45kHz bandwidth. P. Miller

 

The symphony is weighty, entirely naturally paced and full of colourful detail. The ‘slow motion’ and acceleration... C. Breunig

[Nikhil]

徐中銳 how do we pronounce your name in English? Xuzhong Rui?

Back on topic - this is a pretty big area of concern for us. Establishing the provenance of the music we listen to is getting more and more critical with larger databases of HRA out there for sale and purchase.

 

If you haven't seen it yet, you may want to look up the other thread on here http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f14-music-analysis-objective-and-subjective/musicscope-oscilloscope-and-reporting-tool-22810/

[Musicophile]

I was just about to say the same thing, somebody should tell Hifi News about Musiscope. In any case, it's a good thing if formal revies start to incorporate this information.

[Musicophile]

Just skimming through some of the reports and there are some with true issues:

 

Artist: Paul Lewis - Album: Schubert: The Late Piano Sonatas (D784, D958, D959, D960) - Hi-Res Downloads

 

Artist: Holly Cole Trio - Album: Girl Talk - Hi-Res Downloads

 

Certainly worth checking out their reports.

[Nikhil]

Just skimming through some of the reports and there are some with true issues:

 

Artist: Paul Lewis - Album: Schubert: The Late Piano Sonatas (D784, D958, D959, D960) - Hi-Res Downloads

 

Artist: Holly Cole Trio - Album: Girl Talk - Hi-Res Downloads

 

Certainly worth checking out their reports.

 

 

Interesting! Did not think that Harmonia Mundi would be caught on this.

[徐中銳]

Pardon, I've not enough leisure time to write in great details with all the many references I know of.

 

In short, we who buy need to target the accountability of the vendor rather than assuming the recording label...

 

Both of the above examples are « supplied by www.highresaudio.com »

 

Looking those albums up over there :

$16 FLAC 96 for the Paul Lewis

$16 FLAC 88.2 (or DSD64) for the Holy Cole Trio

 

So, highresaudio.com sells at that base price (I've no time to search around their site) ?

 

But other providers' alibi for their price to quality structure might be that they've added the service of upsampling...

 

For example, from a playback player's perspective, I recall the following insight from an interview by Andrew Everard :

Ishiwata is also an advocate of upconverting existing CD-quality files to the DSD format in the computer, and then playing them back through a DSD DAC such as the NA-11S1.

 

Why so? Ishiwata says his enthusiasm for DSD ‘has nothing to do with the original recording format or quality – it’s simply due to the fact that the majority of today’s D-to-A converter chips are utilising Delta/Sigma technology.

 

‘DSD can by-pass certain processing within those D-to-A converter chips, so you …. get a less processed signal with DSD compared to PCM, which of course will influence the sound quality.’

 

 

Playing such files through the NA-11S1 isn’t just a matter of firing up iTunes: dedicated software is needed on the computer to play the tracks. On PCs, Ishiwata recommends JRiver, while for Macs he’d go for Audirvarna, and he also suggests trying Korg’s AudioGate for playing DSD files.

 

Simply, we need to be informed consumers who help each other with knowledge and support, holding sellers accountable to...

[Musicophile]

Pardon' date=' I've not enough leisure time to write in great details with all the many references I know of.[/font']

 

In short, we who buy need to target the accountability of the vendor rather than assuming the recording label...

 

Both of the above examples are « supplied by www.highresaudio.com »

 

Looking those albums up over there :

$16 FLAC 96 for the Paul Lewis

$16 FLAC 88.2 (or DSD64) for the Holy Cole Trio

 

So, highresaudio.com sells at that base price (I've no time to search around their site) ?

 

But other providers' alibi for their price to quality structure might be that they've added the service of upsampling...

 

For example, from a playback player's perspective, I recall the following insight from an interview by Andrew Everard :

Simply, we need to be informed consumers who help each other with knowledge and support, holding sellers accountable to...

Highresaudio clearly needs to act and reimburse customers on fake highres, whether they know about it or not.

 

However, it becomes more tricky to actually demonstrate where the up sampling happened in the first place. I'd still keep the label accountable for what they deliver as well.

[徐中銳]

Highresaudio clearly needs to act and reimburse customers on fake highres, whether they know about it or not.

 

However, it becomes more tricky to actually demonstrate where the up sampling happened in the first place. I'd still keep the label accountable for what they deliver as well.

 

Incidentally, you might've not noticed (or forgotten) :

I was pointed to this thread from sa-cd.net. As I said, I have written to Qobuz with my real name and position in order to demand an explanation, as these things could be rather damaging to us, and certainly tricks the buyer into paying for something it isn't, and never was, namely a 24/96 recording.

With the risk of being accused of touting my own goods, I have to say that you should buy BIS stuff from eClassical.com High Resolution FLAC & MP3 Classical Music Download Store. Here you will, at a rather better price, get the real thing, and advertised as such. End advertisement.

 

I am outraged by situations like this: several years ago, I was drawn and quartered on sa-cd.net, because HDTracks wrongly sold our first SACD:s in 24/88,2, when in fact they were 24/44,1. At the time I had no idea that HDTracks even existed. They had got hold of my physical SACD:s and ripped the DSD layer, then advertised them to be 24/88,2. I didn't know anything about this, but I was named a liar and a cheat etc. Very uncomfortable. So what did HDTracks do? They blamed BIS!!!! This is why, since that day, they are under an absolute boycot from BIS - they get nothing to sell.

I hope that this will not get that far with Qobuz, but the fact that they haven't even deigned to answer me in a week speaks badly for them.

I have no problems whatsoever in cutting off anyone from selling our stuff, who doesn't live up to the very basic rules of transparency and honesty. Basta!!

 

BTW, we now exclusively record in 24/96 or 24/192.

 

Robert (von Bahr, CEO, BIS Records and eClassical)

[Musicophile]

No I'm aware of Robert von Bahr's earlier comment.

 

I think we still should separate two things:

 

1) the unknowingly sale of a faulty or mislabeled file, which can be corrected by reimbursing the customer or offering other goodies (e.g. a free download). I've had this kind of experience with several resellers, including Eclassical by the way (a file was mislabeled), and with one exception discussed in this thread (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-music-downloads-and-streaming/womanchild-cecile-mclorin-salvant-high-definition-tracks-download-excellent-16513/index2.html), I've had only very positive experiences with resellers (my main source being Qobuz). I expect this from every reseller I deal with. And here I still presume that these cases are honest mistakes, not trying to mislead the customer

 

2) the actual resampling of a file to a non-native higher resolution format. I'm not a lawyer, but this pretty much hits my personal definition of fraud. So here we're getting into the presumtion of innosence which is applicable in many legal systems. Before we claim that reseller XY has actually done this fraudulent act and not purchased the fraudulent file from some other intermediary I think we should be very careful in putting out blame, without any form of proof.

 

I'd appreciate if some of our local lawyers on this site could chime in.

[audiventory]

" Ishiwata is also an advocate of upconverting existing CD-quality files to the DSD format in the computer, and then playing them back through a DSD DAC such as the NA-11S1.

 

Why so? Ishiwata says his enthusiasm for DSD ‘has nothing to do with the original recording format or quality – it’s simply due to the fact that the majority of today’s D-to-A converter chips are utilising Delta/Sigma technology.

 

‘DSD can by-pass certain processing within those D-to-A converter chips, so you …. get a less processed signal with DSD compared to PCM, which of course will influence the sound quality.’"

 

Exactly. DSD very good as end user format as source format (original recorded stiil non-processed stuff).

 

 

What about source sample rate before conversion: impossibly do it due spectrum can be cutted, as example, for pass by technical troubles.

[徐中銳]

I'm aware of Robert von Bahr's earlier comment.

 

What about the following exchange from April last year :

Post by bissie:

What alternative did I have to disseminate my 24/44,1 surround recordings, GIVEN THAT I RIGHTLY CONSIDERED DVD-A STILLBORN, professionally and commercially in the present marketplace, except SACD?

 

None.

 

And so I did. That forced me to use DSD for PCM originals and thus to convert, upsampling or not.

 

That doesn't give anybody any right to advertise the original sampling rate as anything else than what it was. You didn't ask me or react, you just did what HDTracks demanded. Surely, being the professional you are, you must have noted that the files were not 24/88,2. If so, why didn't you react or at least tell HDTracks? And, if you did, why did they misstate it anyway?

Something doesn't smell well here. How many other labels/other recordings are falsely passed off for (and charged for) what they're not with HDTracks?

 

Robert

 

 

Post by DSD_mastering (Bruce Brown, Owner/Engineer Puget Sound Studios):

That's just it Robert. We didn't check to see what the native sample rate was. We were just told to get the DSD information off the disc and down sample to 176.4/88.2 We were never asked to check the file provenance.

 

The first we heard about it was probably the same as you... from the forums. Then we had to go back and check our 2 year catalog, track by track. No, you were not the only one that recorded in 24/44.1 and released on SACD

 

80% of the content on HDtracks are the DSD files that was taken from SACD's.

 

And besides, the labels, the owners of the content, commissioned me to get this information from the disc because it was the only master files they had.

[Musicophile]

What about the following exchange from April last year :

 

I know there were some rather fishy cases from HDtracks in the past.

[徐中銳]

Caveat emptor, have you read Andrew Everard's So, as if We Weren't Confused Enough by DSD, FLAC, PCM and HRA... (The Americans are having another crack at defining what makes a high-resolution recording – and the goalposts are on the move again) ?

 

Opening excerpt :

You may remember that, at the beginning of [2014], I expressed some dismay about the coining of the term Hi-Res Audio, or HRA, by America’s Consumer Electronics Association, and the rather lacklustre showing for all things high-resolution at the CES 2014 show.

 

Now, it seems, the CEA is having another crack at defining what is – and isn’t – high resolution, just in time for outlets such as HDtracks to reach Europe...