Paul McCartney Band on Run

[George47]

Just downloaded the Macca album and in Audacity it has nothing over 18 kHz and looks a lot like the CD. HDTracks said:

 

 

Thank you for contacting HDtracks. I'm sorry you're not satisfied with the quality of your download, but I can assure you that the files are absolutely at the quality at which they are advertised. Sir Paul McCartney himself is selling the identical tracks on his personal website. I'm not sure what other assurances I can give you, but perhaps you can inquire with Mr. McCartney or with his label, Hear Music.

 

I do not deny they are 24/96 but wonder they bothered with 24/96

 

[wooster]

Have you compared with the regular CD? The 24/96 version without limiting (from Paul McCartney's website) sounds fabulous to me.

 

[George47]

False alarm; audacity me problem.

 

[wgb113]

On Paul's site, do you select the download version during checkout? It doesn't really make things clear what version you're buying and in what file format?

 

Bill

 

 

[George47]

I got mine from HDTracks and it is very obvious which is the uncompressed and the compressed version. It does sound better but not by much.

 

[blueixus]

HD tracks use FLAC which in my view is better as it carries all the track metadata and is a smaller file size..

 

If you use 'Pauls' site this is actually operated by Topspin Media Inc.

 

They will supply zipped .wav, either in one giant file or in individual files, which carry no track metadata.

 

I am one who has had problems with Topspin Media Inc, infact I still don't have what I bought a week later.

 

If you are happy either using FLAC or converting it to the file type you prefer after download (AIFF etc)which is easily done, I would cautiously recommend HDTracks.

 

I am glad to say the Topspin Media Inc are finally addressing my problems but it has been a far from satisfactory process.

 

[firedog]

As I commented on another thread, Audacity is not a reliable tool for this purpose. Apparently it has problems with hi-res material.

 

It doesn't always give repeatable results, and often gives even ridiculous results like the one above. I've had cases where a file known to be 24/96 was shown to have no material above 8K in Audacity.

 

I downloaded the file from PM (topspin). It sounds very good, and other tools assure me it is 24/96. Try downloading the free "Sonic Visualizer" and test your file with it.

 

I think this is a case of Audacity being "wrong", not HDTracks

 

[firedog]

My experience is that Audacity isn't a reliable and accurate tool for spectrum analysis, especially for hi-res flac.

 

The original post here got me curious, so I ran a test: 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): shows full hi-res spectrum to 48k

 

BOTR 24-96 in flac:

 

Audacity shows hard cut off at 22k frequency

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.

 

Post script: I also downloaded the track from HDTracks and tested. Identical results to above.

 

 

[George47]

Downloaded Sonic Visualiser and loaded the FLAC version of BOTR. And there is data above 22kHz.

 

So I agree with firedog. Thanks for the tip on Sonic V.

 

[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.

 

(later edit: one of the files tested was BOTR hi-res flac - several tracks. Audacity 1.2 only software that reported that it is not hi-res. Adding this comment so you guys can test yourselves.)

 

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.

 

edit: the above was using Audacity 1.2. I just tried 1.3.12 beta and it seems to be free of the problems described here.

 

[firedog]

Another user reports:

 

"there is also a bug in the Soundforge Pro 10 spectrum plots when hires files are examined. Sometimes it plots only the first half of the range, i.e. 0-24 kHz for a 96 kHz file and then folds the 0-24 kHz spectrum into the range 48-24 kHz, as would happen if FFT dropped every other sample.

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=81458

 

just another example of why one tool shouldn't be depended on for frequency spectrum analysis

 

[webvan]

Big Macca fan about to download the Hi-Res versions that came with my Deluxe version. Hopefully I won't have any problems with the Topspin version...

 

Anyway I understand I can reencode the .wav files to .flac to save space? That's good news, any recommended tool?

 

While I'm at it may I ask what the minimum config is to enjoy the Hi-Res version? I have an old stereo but some nice cans, ATH A-900. Soundcard is the one that came with my computer, are there any USB cards that can do Hi-Res audio justice?

 

Thanks !

 

[firedog]

Based on the problems shown here with Topspin, I'd recommend HDTracks as your source.

 

Yes you can re-encode them as wav. Use either dbPoweramp or EAC. (HD Tracks file download is flac, Topspin is wav).

 

Minimum config? Don't know what you mean. Unless your computer soundcard is very old, it will play the file fine.

 

You do need to have your soundcard (see:sound>pick your card>properties) or or playback software set to play 24/96 in order to hear the track as it was intended. Most aren't set up that way on their own.

 

Sound quality would be improved with something more specialist in the sound card/computer audio area, but that's a topic for another time.

 

[webvan]

Well I got the Hi-Res files with my purchase of the Deluxe package so can't go to HDTracks unfortunately. I downloaded the 5.1Gb package from Topspin and while WinRAR did manage to extract the "limited" version, it failed on most of the "unlimited" version...just my luck ! So I had to find a way around it and discovered in the process that you can easily burn a DVD Audio in 24/96 with some free tools, in case it helps someone else :

 

"First Download these 3 software programs below. Follow instructions. If you need further assistance PM me.

 

1.) FLAC Frontend (http://sourceforge.net/projects/flac/files/flac-win/flac-1.2.1-win/flac-1.2.1b.exe/download) To convert .flac files to .wav. Drop newly converted .wav files into Lplex.exe .....

 

2.) Lplex (http://audioplex.sourceforge.net/) To create an .iso. Drop newly created .iso file into ImgBurn to burn a 24/96 audio DVD.....

 

3.) ImgBurn (http://www.imgburn.com/) To burn .iso file to DVD.

 

DVD will play on any stand alone DVD player."

 

Ironically I had to convert the topspin .wav files of the limited version to flac and then back to wav to get Lplex to work properly.