Look at what Linn sold as 24/96 !!

[barrows]

it is great that people here, and over at Audio Asylum are checking these files and calling out companies that may be distributing upsampled "hi res". But let's be careful here!

1. Always contact the distributor about questionable download file quality, and give them a chance to respond before going on line with your accusations.

2. Remember, in most cases, companies like Linn and HDtracks are distributong files sourced from a third party. It is clear to me that there is no attempt on the part of HDtracks or Linn to rip us off or deceive us, these are enthusiast run companies, which care about quality as much as we do. We should consider them as partners with us, trying to improve the quality of music we can get.

3. High resolution music downloads are a new paradigm, and it will take some time for the details to get sorted out. It is clear there are some problems right now, but we need to be a little patient (while remaining vigilent). We should call for a clear "provenance" statement to be issued for every high resolution download, which describes exactly how the high res files were generated.

4. Please, try to consider high resolution providers as partners, and be willing to work with them to improve their product. If we all complain all over the internet at slightest sign of problems, we hurt their business, and they may be hurt enough to drop out of distributing high resolution music all together.

 

[wgscott]

What if they reply, acknowledge a potential problem, but do nothing about it other than yank the title? The difference between the normal res and higher-res downloads is about $6. I honestly don't care about the money that much, but if I were in business, I'd offer a credit for the difference or something (assuming the complaint is valid), just for purposes of customer relations. The recording I have sounds perfectly fine, and I am not worried about $6, but I do think one should get what one pays for. GM used to put chevy engines in their oldsmobiles to deliberately defraud their customers. Probably many customers never noticed the difference. That didn't make what they did any less criminal. I am not for a moment suggesting that in the case of HD Downloads, it was anything other than a genuine mistake; they were probably fooled the same way I was. Still, the burden of proof shouldn't be placed on the customer.

 

"try to consider high resolution providers as partners"

 

That's fine, but it is also important to remember this is a customer-vendor partnership. But whomever provided them with the wrongly labelled material is hurting their business, and their inability or unwillingness to do simple quality control checks is hurting their business, not a couple of posts that publicize this on the bulletin boards.

 

The fact is it would never have occurred to me to look at the Fourier transforms of my music if this hadn't been mentioned as an ongoing problem on these forums. I wrongly assumed the problems existed briefly and were dealt with. I'm not particularly bothered that one or more wrongly labelled ones slipped through. I am just puzzled that there isn't a willingness to deal with this in a more pro-active fashion.

 

If our "partners" aren't providing the high res music that they claim to be providing, we have to re-examine how valuable a partnership it is that we have with our fellow enthusiasts.

 

 

 

[barrows]

Of course, HDtracks should make this right for you. either they should offer you a refund/credit, or they should (if possible) provide a true high res version of Lush Life.

My point was to suggest, that first the customer should give the vendor the opportunity to respond to the issue, rather than: immediately running an Audacity analysis, and then posting the (sometimes, perhaps questionable) results on the internet; please understand that I am speaking generally, not specifically to you. As mentioned above, sometimes music files could be real high resolution, but may not have content above a certain frequency because of band limiting at some point early in the recording chain: although I would rather have more high frequency content intact, this high frequency content is not the only advantage to higher resolution music. I am just pointing out that one should be a little patient before jumping to conclusions, and pointing fingers.

I suspect that HDtracks is a little understaffed, as they appear to have some problems properly responding to customer issues. As I have said before, I have met David Chesky, and I know for a fact that HDtracks is not purposefully trying to deceive consumers. This does not excuse their inability to properly respond to customer problems, I just acknowledge that they are trying to keep up with the issues, and are not succeeding currently.

I never suggested that these problems should never be reported in public forums, just that the company should be given a reasonable chance to respond to the problem first.

My worry is that (not necessarily in your case) a handful of negative internet posts can have a profound effect (some might consider this effect out of proportion with reality) on a business, and as audiophiles and music lovers, I think we have a vested interest in the success rather than failure of high resolution music providers, while at the same time pointing out problems when and as appropriate.

 

[Mike in MD]

I think that it is important that people using this forum be informed of the problems that appear in the music downloads. It is the responsibility of the vendor that is charging a premium for the extended-frequency files to ensure the quality of the product. I intend to post about problems that I see at the same time that I notify the vendor. And WG, I am impressed that there are still people who know how to do Fourier transforms.

 

Mike

 

 

[Tipper]

Absolutely fascinating.

 

I’m having some problems digesting some of what I’ve read above.

For example:

“I suspect that HDtracks is a little understaffed, as they appear to have some problems properly responding to customer issues.”

 

Is that so barrows?

 

“As I have said before, I have met David Chesky, and I know for a fact that HDtracks is not purposefully trying to deceive consumers.”

 

Honestly, you make me laugh. How would you know such as “fact”?

 

Lets just say that these suspect downloads are not deliberately fraudulent.

Lets also say there is a lot of debate about exactly what comprises “hi res” material.

Even given the above, it doesn’t say much for these distributors interest in their audiophile customers or the ailing Hi Fi industry in general if they don’t check their merchandise does at least conform to their definition of Hi Res material and better still, state quite clearly what they do define as Hi Res material while they’re at it.

If some wish to give these companies the benefit of the doubt concerning whether or not such issues are fraudulent that’s fine, but that still leaves incompetence and perhaps it would be best for the future of Hi Res (whatever that may be) if the incompetent were known to be so.

Seriously, we are talking about specialist audio companies here.

 

 

[Miska]

but may not have content above a certain frequency because of band limiting at some point early in the recording chain

 

In my opinion, razor-sharp cut of high frequency content far below Nyquist frequency is in any case alarming enough to trigger investigation of the case, since it indicates that there's something wrong in hires production chain. Regardless where it is...

 

Especially if the cut is around 22 or 24 kHz, possibly indicating 44.1 or 48 kHz source material.

 

Another question is whether 48 kHz 24-bit material (found on many DVDs and BDs) should be considered hires. I think it should be regarded as "midres" while 16-bit is "lores". But in many cases, bitdepth aspect of the original source material is much harder to determine afterwards.

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Mike,

 

"I think that it is important that people using this forum be informed of the problems that appear in the music downloads. It is the responsibility of the vendor that is charging a premium for the extended-frequency files to ensure the quality of the product. I intend to post about problems that I see at the same time that I notify the vendor...."

 

Agreed.

It is important to notify the vendor and, in my view, to do so in a constructive manner (unfortunately, not always the case with Internet posters).

 

I have not seen any evidence of deliberate attempts to defraud the consumer but I have seen a number of instances (all too many in my view), like those described in this thread, where the so-called "hi res" file is not truly hi res.

 

The consumer should rightly expect a file called 24/96 to be made from a true 24/96 source, not an upsampled Redbook source (as all too many I seen are).

 

The only part I find confusing is the software to check files from third parties is widely available and not at all very expensive. (I'm partial to SpectraFoo myself but there are many apps that will do the job.) It takes only a couple of minutes to open third party files and verify them as being truly what they are believed to be... or not.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

P.S. Soundkeeper Recordings are all made at high res (our first release was recorded at 24/96, now, all are made at 24/192). We use iZotope's 64-bit SRC and MBIT+ dither to create lower res versions.

 

 

[Bob Stern]

I can confirm good customer service from Linn.

 

2 years ago I purchased Mozart's symphonies 38-41 from Linn in 24/88.2 FLAC format. 3 of the 16 tracks were reported as corrupted by XLD. When I reported this, Linn promptly emailed me a link to good copies of the 3 tracks.

 

[bottlerocket]

I personally don't think Linn or HDtracks is purposely trying to defraud anyone, not for a second.

 

That being said, I do think they have a responsibility to exercise quality control on what they sell. If they don't they get a bunch of customers (and many of us are good customers) ranting on the very same boards they advertise on. It goes with the territory. Maybe Linn and HDTracks should add a customer review feature to their individual albums. Maybe we need a download rating folder/feature on this site where we can all post DVDs and downloads we've purchased and do our own reviews complete with Audacity screen shots.

 

Quality control is something this site excels at. CA has exposed, and in most cases, gone to great lengths to resolve a lot of software and music download problems. If ever there were a bunch of problem solvers, they are here on this site. Now about my $6.

 

[barrows]

there seems to be an awful lot of negativity on this topic, it is disheartening to say the least.

Anyone who has the opportunity to meet and chat with David Chesky would come to the same conclusions as I have.

To be clear, I never said we should not report on files we find to have problems, I only advised that we we contact the distributor with our concerns, and give them a chance to respond, before trashing them all over the internet with (sometimes inconclusive) allegations.

Personally, I am very greatful that companies like HDtracks and Linn are providing high res music. I would like them to continue to expand their catalogs, and would hate to see them fail, and dissappear. I do think that they should do a better job testing their files, but there are going to be problems sometimes, and hopefully they will learn and make corrections as time goes on.

Ultimately, I would suggest that all media distribution adopt a system that clearly states the provenance/real resolution of the music.

 

[Soundproof]

So here's what this situation has led to for me.

 

Today I've received an e-mail from HD-Tracks, with links to music from DGG which I would immediately download, if I felt certain about the provenance of the material. Boulez conducting Mahler's 3rd, in 24/88.2 would be on my harddisk in a minute.

 

But I'm holding back for several reasons.

 

1. The numerous reports about files not being what they purport to be.

2. The fact that HD-tracks doesn't state clearly how these files came to be. That shouldn't be so hard. Just write a couple of sentences about how the 24/88.2 was pulled, and by whom, and that HD-Tracks have checked the files - and I'm a happy buyer snapping up this material faster than you can punch the digits for the total sale.

 

Until that happens - until providers such as HD-Tracks and others provide this assurance, I'm holding back.

 

In the recentLinn example, we are dealing with material which has not been produced by Linn, but which has been provided by an outside company, for sale through Linn's webstore. In those instances, I feel that Linn should check the files, as a matter of routine, before making them available.

 

HD-Tracks does little production of its own, and there the files are provided by outside companies. HD-Tracks needs to keep us buyers informed - it's quite silly to have to check your purchases after download -- and basically I just don't want the hastle of having to complain and wait for resolutions.

 

So - strong recommendation to providers: State the provenance, as if you were selling a work of art (which you are).

 

1. Original source.

2. Method of transfer to digital file.

3. Whether any subsequent manipulations have been carried out.

 

Cheers!

 

[Mike in MD]

(or maybe: Hear, hear !)

Cheers. (we don't really say this in Maryland.)

 

Mike

 

[ted_b]

Bruce Brown does ALL the 24/88.2k for HDtracks (88.2k are transfers from SACD; if it's 96K it's another source). That Boulez/Mahler DG transfer is one of those; Bruce and others have reported that a few DG's were upsampled (and either pulled or never listed on HDTracks), but I know from talking with him that the aforementioned Boulez/Mahler is real...and hence it's still on their site.

 

[Mike in MD]

Note that Linn has had Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to comment on the spectral analysis of the Brandenburg Concertos recording. As in the dog that did not bark in the night, this is strong evidence that the file was not true 24/96. Including this recording, there have been three reports of up-(over-)sampled files using results from Audacity. In all three, it appears that the FFT spectra from Audacity have been shown to be accurate. (The suspect recordings were removed from sale.) I think that this is a counter-example to the claims that the Audacity FFT does not work.

 

Mike

 

[barrows]

"Note that Linn has had Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to comment on the spectral analysis of the Brandenburg Concertos recording. As in the dog that did not bark in the night, this is strong evidence that the file was not true 24/96. "

 

This is not evidence in any way. Please refrain from making absurd statements like this.

In no way I am suggesting that your assertions are wrong, I am only pointing out that a lack of response is evidence of only a lack of response and nothing else.

This type of logic could lead to any of these alternate conclusions with equal validity:

1. This is strong evidence that Linn did not receive your communication

2. This is strong evidence that Linn has not yet had a chance to investigate this matter fully

3. This is strong evidence that Linn has missplaced your communication, before being able to respond to it directly

Have you ever lost, or not received, an e-mail?

I would advise that you re-send your communication.

In any case, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of Audacity in this case. And surely it looks like this recording is bandlimited at ~22 K; one could draw the conclusion that this file is from a 44.1 K source, and I believe that this is likely-but the evidence is not entirely conclusive either. The music could have been band limited at 22K, but still be true 24/96 (although unlikely, this is still possible).

I do hope that you receive a response from Linn soon in this matter, and that they make appropriate reparations to you.

 

[barrows]

I understand your reluctance, and I believe that you make some excellent recommendations for high res providers. Please be sure to send a copy of your post above directly to the music distributors in question, I am sure that feedback like this would be valuable to them.

 

[PeterSt]

(The suspect recordings were removed from sale.) I think that this is a counter-example to the claims that the Audacity FFT does not work.

 

Why ? because those recordings were removed from sale ?

That's just nicely cautious I would say ...

 

Also, if I would have been a supplier of those bogus recordings, I don't think it would have been done with in a couple of days. These things involve law suits, damage of good reputation and a lot of money. I, the supplier, would do everything to withold from that, need "2 months to counter proove" etc., and in the very end it won't even be easy to proove counterfit at all. Well, that's what I think. I mean, this all should start with a master (could be DSD) and what I had done with it. Did I have the master at all, would be a first question, and if not I'm plainly copying (author rights etc.). But if so, I "oops - apparently made a mistake".

 

All kind of scenario's can be thought of (beyond my knowledge by the way), such as "if I have the master and obtained it to create e.g. 24/96 from, how many times can - or did I do that, how to proove I did it that many times, or how to avoid paying rights by just doing it not at all but creating myself something (which again is just copying)" ... "and who will notice anyway"

eh, yesterday.

 

I say it again for those who don't know : I don't trust much of "any" hires if you only know how much is around - then talking about older recordings (mainly from DVD-A). As long as my upsampling sounds better than those originals, things will be wrong. Also don't underestimate the stuff which is presented to me by users because something is wrong with it (won't play, whatever) where I would be the first to determine that something fishey is going on with it, while in the mean time the album concerned spread as a virus.

Look at takes from SACD, them usually being hires. How was it done ? Yes, it can be done digitally, but was it ? or was it an analogue take (which everybody can do) sampled in 24/96 ?

 

To me it looks sad that companies like Linn -who make hires recordings themselves which sure will be ok- can't be trusted because they sell stuff from ... who knows ?

 

Peter

 

 

[Mike in MD]

For those of you who have not been following this thread in detail, please note that Linn has posted a reply on this thread on Sunday afternoon. (You can see it above.) They responded to my email on Monday. They later responded to a separate email from Lars, of which a copy is posted above. They are fully aware of this situation. They have had three full days to make their internal review.

 

[JimC]

Hi Folks,

 

Just writing to keep you up to speed on where we are at.

 

We take issues of quality very seriously, hence the reason we have taken the step to remove all ARTS content from sale, while we examine what has been reported here and are able to give our own full report on the music in question.

 

We can of course see the spectral analysis that has been posted here and also make our own in-depth analysis of the music files. In order to give the fullest response possible, with the detail that you rightly request, we also require input from the label and engineers involved in the original recording; so we thank you for your patience while we wait for their response and gather all the information.

 

Incidentally, here is the recording spec for the Brandenburg Concertos:

 

- Microphones: Sennheiser MKH20 (2), Schoeps MK2s (3), Neumann KM140 (4), DPA 4011 (2)

- Analog-mixer: Studer 861A/D conversion 24 bit / 96 kHz: Prism Sound Dream AD2

- Monitoring: Focal proline MC-210 using Studer-power-amplifiers

- Headphones: Sennheiser HD-600

- Digital editing + mastering: Sadie5-PCM-8 digital workstation using Waves-directX mastering processing

 

It is one of our core principles to do the right thing by our customers - the most valuable part of our business - and we intend to do just that as soon as we know all the facts.

 

We really do appreciate the feedback of enthusiast communities like this, as we are enthusiasts too.

 

Jim - Linn Records

 

 

[firedog]

Soundproof - I agree with your comment:

 

"The fact that HD-tracks doesn't state clearly how these files came to be. That shouldn't be so hard. Just write a couple of sentences about how the 24/88.2 was pulled, and by whom, and that HD-Tracks have checked the files - and I'm a happy buyer snapping up this material faster than you can punch the digits for the total sale."

 

On other sites and other Threads, Bruce at Puget Sound has responded that he does the conversion from SACD to hi-res files for HDTracks.

 

From various postings by him, employees of HD Tracks, and emails sent to me by HDTracks, it appears that the following is true:

 

When an SACD is the Hi-res source of the files, it is converted to 24/88 as this is the "natural" integer multiple for SACD.

 

When HDTracks makes a digital transcription of an analogue file, they transcribe at 24/192 and then downsample to 24/96 for sale purposes. (Some other material is supplied to them in hi-res master format, 24/96 or above.)

 

Almost all the "non hi-res" posted by HDTracks and sold as hi-res was the result of SACD with fake hi-res (read "upsampled redbook turned into SACD") material that was licensed to HDTracks as hi-res. They thought it was true hi-res and converted it to 24/88 for sale.

 

Acc'd to Bruce at Puget Sound, he is now very diligent about testing SACDs to see if they are true hi-res before he converts them for HDTracks. They weren't so diligent about this in the past, until users alerted them to several possible fake hi-res files.

 

Again acc'd to posts by Bruce, it isn't quite as easy as we think to tell fake from real hi-res, as often "tricks" occur so that a cursory examination of an SACD makes it look like real hi-res when it isn't. And unfortunately, apparently it isn't uncommon for SACDs to be fake hi-res. So Bruce says he now tests more thoroughly to make sure the SACD's are true hi-rez.

 

HDTracks seems to be very good about pulling a file as soon as they find it isn't true hi-res. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be as good at offering at least partial credit or a refund. They do if you ask for it, but they don't email all the downloaders of a "fake" file and alert them that they didn't get what they paid for. This would be extremely easy for them to do, as they have CC info and email info for all their customers, and they know exactly which files each customer has downloaded.

 

This is their major failing in my eyes.

 

I agree that they should give more information on their site. Each file should have a short description of the source of the hi-res, and state that files from outside the company have been checked to come from a true hi-res source.

 

 

 

[firedog]

WGScott and others: I didn't say Audacity "never" works for spectrum analysis, just that it isn't reliably consistent and accurate. So you can't know for sure if your results are correct or not. It seems to ESPECIALLY have a problem with hi-res flac.

 

I've had several instances of Audacity being the only one of several tools to report a file as not being hi-res, including it reporting frequency cut off at 8K(!), when other tools clearly reported hi-res frequency spectrum.

 

Just today in another thread here (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Paul-McCartney-Band-Run), a poster said Audacity told him his hi-res BOTR flac download from HDTracks isn't hi-res. He wrote HDTracks and they responded that the track is definitely 24/96 as advertised.

 

Look around the forum, and you will find other posters who get results in Audacity that aren't repeatable with other tools, such as sound forge.

 

The original post here and in the above link got me curious: so I took the title track of BOTR hi-res, in both wav and flac versions, and spectrum analyzed.

 

Results:

 

BOTR 24-96 in wav:

Audacity shows hi-res spectrum

Sonic Visualizer (another free program, download it and try it yourself): shows full hi-res spectrum to 48k

 

BOTR 24-96 in flac:

 

Audacity shows no hi-res frequecy

Sonic Visualizer: Shows full hi-res frequency, identical to results with wav file

 

So much for the claim that Audacity can't fail in spectrum analysis of hi-res files. HD Tracks and my test agree.

 

Later edit: To be 100% fair, I also downloaded the track from HDTracks (I had the download from the McCartney site)and got identical results as those above.

 

Of course one of you will probably respond that Audacity must be correct and that HDTracks is lying, or that I am, Please don't.... they've shown repeated willingness to acknowledge when a track turns out not to be true hi-res. And I have no reason to campaign against Audacity, it's just that I've learned from using other tools that it isn't the right tool for spectrum analysis of hi-res files, especially FLAC. I don't understand why some of you take it as an "impossibility" when several posters here report that a free piece of software isn't perfect - especially when you haven't tried anything else for comparison.

 

The bottom line: running a spectrum analysis with Audacity isn't proof of anything. Several of us have experienced results with Audacity that can't be verified by other tools. So try one or two other tools and see if they agree before you conclude you've been ripped off. It's certainly okay to alert the vendor to your suspicions, but understand that Audacity may be leading you astray.

 

[ted_b]

As I stated above, Bruce does ALL the SACD transfers for HDtracks (and all at the integer-friendly 24/88.2k) , is now up-to-date on all of them (sleuthing for faux hirez sources), threw out some DG ones recently, but the Boulez is real.

 

He analyzes 100+ a day (don't know if that's files/songs or albums), often rejects more than 50%. This kind of diligence ought to be published on HDtracks site, as a sort of good housekeeping seal of authenticity. I know others feel it's table stakes and anything less is fraud...but I think we need to mix in a little realism and know that this is an industry (hirez downloads) in its infancy, and demanding tighter scrutiny (and refunds) is fair, proper and realistic. The next step, once we get past this and to some level of standard authentication, is to get to zero tolerance. I just hope the market lasts long enough. My $.02

 

And furthermore, yours and others inconsistent Audacity results continue to support my claim that we are playing in an area that requires more expert eyes...and likely better tools. But, one thing is sure, it's clear this column is being read by Linn and others..they pulled product based on our nosing around...

 

[Mike in MD]

They have been very good at communication. And this weekend I will try Sonic V and run Audacity on WAV in addition to FLAC.

 

Mike

 

 

[firedog]

I just analyzed several different flac files with Audacity, Sonic Visualizer, and Cool Edit (precursor to Adobe Audition).

 

Audacity seems to have some bugs regarding FLAC. I loaded a 16/44.1 flac file of the same title track to BOTR (my rip from CD): Audacity says it is 44.1k,"mono" and only one channel appears! The other programs see both channels. When you listen to the file it is clearly in stereo.

 

Loaded several other flac files into both Audacity and the other programs.

 

In default settings, Audacity consistently gets the sample rate frequency of FLAC files wrong. On redbook flac (44.1k) it saw sample rates ranging from 8k to 44.1K; on hi-res flac it had similar mistakes, but it didn't read the sample rate (96k)of any of the hi-res flac files correctly.

 

Other programs saw the sample rate of these files (either 44.1k or 96k) correctly every time.

 

Audacity didn't have any problems correctly reading these same flac files when converted to wave.

 

So of course Audacity also can't do proper spectrum analysis, because it doesn't know the actual sample rate of the flac files it is analyzing. I set the sample rate frequency by hand in Audacity in a couple of cases, and with the corrected sample rate it seems to give similar spectrum analysis to the other programs.

 

Update: above was using Audacity 1.2 (stable release). I downloaded the 1.3.12 Beta and it seems (quick check) to be free of the problems mentioned here.

 

[Encore]

"And unfortunately, apparently it isn't uncommon for SACDs to be fake hi-res. So Bruce says he now tests more thoroughly to make sure the SACD's are true hi-rez."

 

Which is why HDTracks, Linn and others should check the provenance of material from others. As one poster wrote, they are audio specialists, so one would think that they wouldn't just take any album claimed to be hi-res and put it in their webshop.

 

But otherwise I second you, Firedog and ted_b. For the sake of getting the download business rolling, let's forgive them a little fumbling and give them a chance to gather experience. Now we should be able to expect that this kind of error doesn't occur again.