Which site offers truly "high resolution" downloads

[chilest]

Folks, I am wondering if it is possible to determine which downloads sites, such as Linn or Chesky or HRx offer "uncompromised" downloads of the original recording? I am considering downloading FLAC files at 24/96 or 24/88.2 etc. from Linn and Chesky and wondering if the original recordings were: First, carried out at 24 bit and for example 96 sample rate, as the FLAC files indicate on these web sites; and Second, between the recording and download site chain, has the original data been preserved (for example,never "downsized" to redbook CD).

 

Tom

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Tom - Very good question that is very tough to answer. About the only thing I can guarantee is the Reference Recordings are all uncompromised downloads. I talked to RR about its downloads and I was pleased to hear about the wok done to assure top quality.

 

[fmak]

Linn is transparent about the origin of their files. 2L also. But HDTracks seems to sell resampled RR material at 24/96 and is not transparent about the source.

 

RR sells discs at 24/176.4 but the catalog is limited. There is a bargain at Hodie where they are selling off native 24/192 recordings at bargain prices and moving to CD downloads.

 

Some 'hirez' downlaods sites just provide CDs!!!

 

We needs more clarity per dollar.

 

[DSD_mastering]

I'll tell you why.

 

In the March edition of Stereophile, Jason Serinus says this: "Depending on whether PentaTone's SACD titles sound best at 24/88.2 or 24/96, those hi-rez downloads will soon join hi-rez downloads from the Chicago Symphony's CSO label on HDTracks".

 

Here's why. DSD has a base freq of 44.1 and is clocked at 44.1 We do all the SACD/DSD/DVD-A transfers for HDtracks and other sites. We spent months transferring DSD information into every known sample rate and format via hardware and software. With sample rates at a base freq. of 48k (24/96 or 24/192) it just didn't sound "right". There was an uneasiness to the sound and "ringing" with HW transfers.

It sounded best at 352.8 and 176.4, but it was decided that the files were just too big to be manageable for download. Thus.. 88.2kHz!

So just because files are offered at both 24/96 and 24/88.2, don't assume that the higher sample rate is "better". It just came from a different source and they just want to get the highest fidelity possible!

We are turning these files out as quickly as we can. If there are glitches, we have to either re-transfer or try to clean them up.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

[audiozorro]

I wish more sites would offer the high-rez files on optical discs, like Reference Recordings and DesignwSound. It takes me less than two minutes to order discs online compared to the hours that it took me to download the Studio Masters from Linn Records. In addition the physical discs provide an automatic backup for the files that are copied to my computer.

 

I remember having problems with one of the sites that offered sample downloads. For some reason the downloaded file was always smaller than the file size posted on the website and the music track was incomplete. When I got the physical disc the music tracks were perfect.

 

I guess for low-rez albums and single tracks downloads make a lot of sense. But for some websites and home internet connections, the long downloads of high-rez albums can be tiring. I guess the larger market for movie downloads will eventually lead to super fast downloads. But I can’t help but think that if given the choice for buying movie DVDs online or downloading the DVDs I would almost always prefer the get the physical discs.

 

 

[DSD_mastering]

Yes, we have had a few people come to us wanting to offer hi-rez downloads of up to DSD/DXD. We didn't think anyone would want a physical disc. A better alternative would be loading them on to a USB thumb drive or something like that. There you would not have the optical errors of a physical disc.

 

 

Regards,

 

[ralph]

We never produced DSD recordings, we tested converters with DSD but the result after AD-DA conversion was very disappointing compared with the analog source and other modern high sampling PCM converters.

SACD is the biggest audio nonsense ever developed. Just a few days ago I read a very good article in a German studio magazine. There the technical background of this experience is desribed very good.

SACD was a good idea outgoing from the technology of the early 1990th, based on 48kHz/20Bit converter chips with 2,822MHz/1Bit delta-sigma modulators. But with the development of 96k chips it already lost his right to exist. And now compared with modern multibit chips - flagship performance is 6 Bit / 12,288 MHz delta-sigma modulator - the resulting 96kHz or even 192kHz / 24 Bit PCM signal contains much more resolution than SACDs 64x DSD. SACD is not more than 20Bit/48kHz performance with the disadvantage of very high level high frequency quantisation noise and massive noise shaping. And it is much easier to get a high quality signal @96kHz/24Bit out of the 6Bit/12,288MHz stream than 64fs DSD (SACD).

 

Therefore it should be no problem to achieve the SACD sound in a 88,2kHz or 96kHz PCM signal. But: The result would be much better if the signal would never have been a DSD signal before. Straight 96kHz is much better.

 

I personally hate SACD because it kills the music. I can understand why some people like it for its technical clean sound, but at all SACDs I ever heard, the CD layer plays more music than the SACD layer. And I´ve talked to many people, also customers, who said the same.

 

I´m very happy that now the market does not longer need SACD and we now are able to distribute high resolution as downloads in real 96kHz and 192kHz 24 Bit resolution. I would classify HD downloads outgoing from SACD similar to very good CD quality, by no means better.

Some labels that have produced SACDs did their recordings in HD PCM. Now they have the advantage over pure DSD recordings, regarding download offers.

 

Best,

Ralf Koschnicke

ACOUSENCE

 

 

[DSD_mastering]

I'm really sorry you feel this way. I'm also glad that not many in the audiophile community share the same thoughts. We are doing most of our recordings either in 32/352.8 or DSD128fs. It just all depends on what you want the end product to sound like. Unfortunately the 2 mentioned formats are not very consumer friendly, thus we have to downsample.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

[ralph]

I trust you that DSD 128fs is a good thing. I tested it a few years ago and I must admit that this higher DSD rate is quite good. Perhaps not as good as 192/24 Bit PCM but much better than 64fs. This can be explained very easily. One important thing is that the high level quantisation noise begins much higher than at 64fs DSD, now it is more comparable with 192kHz PCM. The only problem is that no consumer format exists for it. And it is not possible to convert 128fs to 64fs without a complete requantisation, and thereby you lose the better quality. This process is unfortunately not comparable with a downsampling in the PCM world.

 

What converters do you use for 32/352,8kHz? I thought it would physically be impossible to design converters with more than 24Bit.

Or do you mean mixdown, not conversion?

 

In my mind higher sampling rates than 192 kHz are unnecessary. I´m very convinced that 44,1 kHz or 48kHz is not enough for music recording, but already the step from 96kHz to 192kHz is much more difficult to decide. Higher sampling rates than 96kHz are physically not necessary because music signals contain frequencies till about 35-45kHz. Therefore 96kHz sampling rate with its 48kHz bandwidth is enough. 192kHz gives us a small additional improvement due to the higher precision of the conversion process. Perhaps converters with 8x sampling rates can be better again. But because I reach a fully transparent signal path at 192kHz I think the margin should be very small. In my mind we will get no race about higher and higher sampling rates. This is mainly marketing, not more.

 

In one case I would admit you, if you want to do the mixdown and other processing in the digital domain, too. Then even 352,8kHz is perhaps not really comparable with the precision of good analog audio technics. I tried digital mixing with 192kHz and it is far away from what I want, but perhaps with sampling rate doubled again it becomes good. This is an interesting point, but only interesting for professionals.

 

I´m convinced that we need an audio format higher than 48kHz, but I´m convinced, too, that we don´t need more than 192kHz. I think we should not confuse our customers with other things.

 

Regards,

Ralf

 

[fmak]

Ralf, I have to disagree with you completely.

 

I shall leave the question of the sound of the 192k filrd which you produce.

 

However, I have been playing dsd L,R and Bck signals direct from a Pioneer DV755 and DSD converted to PCM on a Pioneer DV989 with a very high quality conversion system. I have also been playing hthese against native 192k material fed I2S into the same dac.

 

My conclusion has been nothing but praise for the native sacd discs played this way.There is a balance betweenn hf and lf with digital dsd playback which is absent from PCM material. I put this doen to several factors, two of which are:

 

1. digital signal integrity and separate clock line from dsd output, and

2. lack of severe brickwall filters; with the hf signal being attenuated by a simple analog filter of matched roll off frequency to the downstream system.

 

Apart from this, there is far more native dsd material than pcm.

And for me, there is no need to segregate playback from a PC from playback from a high end system. Conversion of dsd to 88.2 and 176.4 k is just not desirable.

 

 

[ralph]

Hi Fred,

I trust you this experiences. But do you really know what you have compared? Have you made the recordings by your own? Do you really have material of the same recording in DSD and PCM, and are you absolutely sure that not one of those is a result of a conversion process outgoing from the other.

 

With prerecorded material it is difficult to separate the influence of the recording format from all other influences.

Therefore I check converters always with a repeatable high quality analog signal. Then I take a AD and DA conversion line. Now for me the perfect ADDA converters are converters I can not hear. This means no difference if I switch between analog direct and ADDA output.

If I do this test with one of the highly recommended DSD converters I hear much difference. As much difference as I never heard before since early CD days. But the difference is completely different from the influence of a standard sampling PCM line. The signal seems to be polished in a special way. I think this is the explanation why many people like SACD. It has to do with listening habbits and expectations. And I think all people that come from a very analytical and technical point of few like SACD very much. For me the artistic side of the recording process is the most important thing. I want to reproduce the intention of the performers, the atmosphere and the musical liveliness in a best possible way. Regarding this the output of the DSD line was very disastrous.

This test did also show that DSD with 128fs is quite close to the ideal. But 192kHz was it a bit more, and this with converters for about a quater of the price of the DSD converters.

One remark: I must admit that this test is based on a test with only two devices. I don´t want to specify the devices here, but I used the DSD converters that many DSD recording people highly recommend as the best. I hear the same characteristic on nearly all SACDs and so I´m convinced that this is a systemic characteristic. On the other side it is certainly no problem to find a worse sounding PCM converter. I searched a long time till I have found the one we use for all recordings for a few years.

 

Best wishes,

Ralf

 

P.S.: But please let us stop this discussion, it makes no real sense. DSD and SACD is dead. Perhaps there are some labels with very specialized customers that will produce SACDs furthermore. But I´m sure that DSD is completely irrelevant for the audio future. The future is PCM not DSD.

 

 

 

[DSD_mastering]

We do DSD and DXD recording/mastering every day. DSD is NOT dead. Korg and Tascam have made DSD recorders available to the masses and we get DSD files from artists almost every single day to master.

SACD is not the most viable medium, which is why labels are sending us their discs to capture the DSD information off of and give them PCM files that are more "consumer friendly".

 

Go ahead an name your converters... we'll name ours. We use Digital Audio Denmark, EMM Labs/Meitner and Playback Designs. Each with their own strengths and weaknesses, but in this stratosphere, we're splitting hairs.... not the night/day difference you allege.

 

Regards,

 

 

[audiozorro]

Bruce, what is the state of the industry right now for mastering and recording for music genres other than classical and jazz?

 

What formats and resolutions are prevalent at the studios?

 

Is there more of a trend for mastering/recording at very high resolutions and then downsampling for consumers or is there more interest in upsampling existing music tracks to meet any hi-rez demand?

 

What effect does the Blu-ray formats seem to have on any of this?

 

Is copy protection still leading the way for what gets done or not?

 

[DSD_mastering]

There are more mainstream artists looking into the advantages of hi-rez. It doesn't cost any more until you get to the final production. More and more are also opting for tape during the recording/mixing sessions too. As stated, we're getting more DSD files from studios that have purchased these Korg and Tascam units for 2-track mixdown. About once a week, we're getting DSD files from bands that have recorded 2-tracks at a time.

Whenever I get a project in, I automatically upsample to the Pyramix native format. During processing, worksations upsample and downsample so many times, especially people who use plug-ins. Each plug-in seems to have it's own native resolution/bit depth and the less times you have to make a change, the better.

We probably have a few years work ahead of us with companies wanting to get the DSD and DVD-A information off of the discs that have already been produced. Talks are already in the works to record more direct-cut vinyl.

 

Regards,

 

 

[PeterSt]

Ralph, man of my heart ...

 

The signal seems to be polished in a special way.

 

This is more literal than you might think. Although ... everywhere in between your lines I read it : too much oversampling at the A/D process.

 

If you say "polished", this is the exact good description for what happens at sigma-delta PLAYBACK. One thing : it happens AGAIN. In the end only sines are left ...

 

Think about this when violins start to sound like flutes, synths are not as interesting as they (so, so much) can be, timbre isn't the timbre you'd expect at playing back, and dynamics are ... well, just flawing.

No foot tapping, not being able to get into the music. You know ...

 

On the D/A side I know everything about it, and that halve is under our control (relatively, and when you are able to create an NOS 24/192 which I did), but the mastering side ... not.

 

I am sorry if this sounds like ranting, not being in the recording business at all, but my life is about creating the best playback means possible (which happens to be digital :-) but it stops at the recording;

Most people say that the old recordings (70's, earlier) sounds so much better because of less/no compression, but I think this really is about "multi bit" recordings since we didn't know "better" those days.

 

Peter

 

PS: Ignorant as I am, my upcoming DAC is 24/384 (352.8) NOS, with no means yet to playback PC files.

:-)

 

[wavac]

I have many high definition material from Linn, HDtracks, highdeftapetransfers and I could say that the Linn recordings are the best but most of them with no quality music. Stravinsky - L' historie de soldat is also an excellent choice from highdeftapetranfers.

 

[audiozorro]

DSD and SACD is dead. That is according to Ralf from ACOUSENCE. Ha.

 

I reread this thread with great interest (and some amusement) now that I have a Korg MR-2000s. I can’t speak for SACDs since I’ve largely abandoned optical disc playback for computer audio and my only value in optical discs is to transfer the audio files to my music server. But my interest in DSD has never been higher.

 

As I digitize some of my vinyl collection to DSD128, I can’t help but think of all the glorious DSD masters many studios have. If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a hundred times, I want the same master files the studios have. I don’t want the files that are downsampled, resampled or otherwise degraded for public consumption. I have only a vague idea where the musical treasures are but I really don’t know who is selling them.

 

Not too long ago I purchased a few digital and analog offerings from ACOUSENCE. I was not too impressed with the digital product (perhaps I need to re-listen to confirm), but the Scheherazade LP blew me away. I recorded it to the Korg and play it quite often, musical heaven. Needless to say I will definitely be buying more vinyl from ACOUSENCE.

 

Now just where can I spend my money to get comparable DSD (preferably 128fs) material?

 

 

[The Sound Guy]

Hi Bruce,

 

This is not the first time that you have mentioned that 88.2/24 could not contain the richness of a SACD. Why don't you offer 16 - 20 bit files but at 176.4 kHz sampling? After all processing, 24 bit is over kill and you could save file size by cutting off these unwanted bits!

88.2@24=2116bits

176.4@16=2822bit, approx 30% more data for much clearer transients & less pre/post ringing?

I trust you have compared 88.2/24 to 176.4/16. What are your comments?

 

Andrew.

 

[PeterSt]

After all processing, 24 bit is over kill

 

Which means ... without processing it is not ?

I suppose you have good reasons to state what you did, but can you elaborate a bit (or 8) for those who don't get it ?

 

approx 30% more data for much clearer transients

 

Because ... ? transients will become steeper at using less bits ?

No, you didn't say nor mean that, but it is what it implies (coming from 24 bits). Or ?

 

I would agree with 176.4 @ 18 bits being sufficient (without further explanation from my side this time), but not 16 ...

But we won't be able to store 18 bits words (hmm ... DSD maybe).

 

Peter (not teasing, but those who don't understand tend to disagree :-)

 

[PeterSt]

Talks are already in the works to record more direct-cut vinyl.

 

And you know what ? I just yesterday listened to a "Vol1" and "Vol2" version of that, from 1971 and 1972 (so, start guessing). It might be the best I have ever heard.

 

One small problem : I listened to the redbook version of it, "ripped" from that direct cut master.

So, what is the real difference : no tape involved.

 

Now what ?

 

The documentation suggests that tape flattens the dynamics. Ok, I can believe that. What doesn't go along with it though, is the digital headroom left (on at least the "Vol2") so a +4.5dB digital boost is allowed (which is WAY much).

 

Maybe to keep in mind : no audiophile recordings existed in those times, and (listening to it) clearly no tasks were undertaken to let excel things which normally don't (Linn cymbalscome to mind). This is just the "production process" doing it and it really makes me wonder how low we did all go since then.

 

Peter

 

PS: My system (most of it incurred by the player) is said (not by me) to show vinyl as good as it ever can. But I now realize that it won't be happening as long as the recording was not meant for vinyl and only that. Something to think about !

 

[firedog]

I corresponded with them about this. They say all files labelled hi-res on their site are either native hi-res or high res conversions of analogue source.

 

Acc'd to them, if they find out this isn't true for a particular item, they remove it from hi-res section of site.

 

[audiozorro]

Several months ago I was so impressed with the vinyl release of Scheherazade from ACOUSENCE that I hardly listened to the digital release of Gustav Mahler Symphony No. 6. Well tonight I finally listened to the just the 24/96 DVD (I have the comparison kit which includes the 16/44.1 CDs and 24/192 FLAC). I stand corrected, I am impressed with the digital product.