Moving from CDs to hi-res downloads

How do you figure this? Wouldn't credit be more appropriately given to the Sony and Philips engineers who designed the reconstruction filters in the first CD players? Or perhaps to Tom Stockham who incorporated such a filter into the Soundstream digital recorder in the 1970's?

 

It's all in the mastering, as has been pointed out more than once. If you choose only one delivery method, you are limiting your options severely. Certain titles are best on certain pressings/issues, and that applies to all formats. A download can be screwed up in mastering just as a CD or an LP can, but you may also be able to download something not available on another format. And then there is rare and obscure stuff you can only get in a certain way, be it a 7" single, CD or whatever else. Welcome to the future, indeed, but be thankful that this future allows us to have many ways to preserve the past as well.

Also, there is a lot to be done in bringing the experience of the file/download system closer to the physical medium. I have a few that have good music quality, but only a couple of lousy .pdf files as album art - and no lyrics or anything else. This is horribly impersonal. Give me the option of purchasing the files on a storage medium (memory card?) packaged in a 12"x 12" cardboard package emulating an LP cover, including lyrics I can actually read, and then we'll make a more fair comparison

 

I was giving credit only for the "myth dispelling", not for the technology development.

 

Going through and replayed by are different however.

 

People may be pointing fingers at the wrong party. It's the record labels who supply the files. Some say that the vendors should mind what they sell. I guess it's easier to point to the vendors because they are the ones we deal with. they are closest to us, and the ones we see, not the faceless, inaccessible, silent labels.

 

I wouldn't spend money on downloads, but that's just me. CD or SACD, if you want higher resolution. At least you have something in your hands that you actually own.

 

According to the letter of the (copyright) law, you never truly "own" music, you "own the right to play it." To the extent that constitutes "ownership," "owning" digital files is every bit as valid as owning physical media. Perhaps not to you which is fine. But you state your personal preference as if it is a universal truth. It is not. I know. Digital music is all I own. Trust me, even though I can't "feel it in my hands," I feel a sense of ownership every bit as strong as when I used to own physical media.

 

Leaving aside considerations of time and money (which of course most listeners, including serious listeners, either can't afford or choose not to do), if the issue is the one that you've posed here, then, yes, it all comes down to whether the listener likes what he hears or not, regardless of the reasons why and regardless of whether the sound quality is technically superior or not. But when it comes to the matter of whether technology X produces a different sound than technology Y and whether that difference produces an effect (other than a placebo effect) in the brain of the listener that is relevant to the experience of the music, I look to science, regardless of how incomplete it may be.

I should perhaps confirm that, although I'm interested in the science, my choices regarding the way in which I listen to music will—like most people—ultimately be determined by my subjective responses to what I'm hearing.

 

If the vendors are passing off upsampled CDs as high rez music, they're just as guilty as the ones suppliying the upsampled CDs. They can plead ignorance once, but they can't keep doing it album after album. This isn't analogous to a local pharmacy not being responsible for the tainted drugs the biotech company made.

 

Sorry, no credit in my book for stating the obvious to the ignorant

 

Maybe you missed the "but that's just me" part in my post. How is that a universal truth, bud?

 

This:

At least you have something in your hands that you actually own.

 

Again..."but that's just me". Not sure how you missed this since I've now written it three times.

 

If Walmart sells a defective item that kills someone, and they didn't know it was defective. are they liable?

 

I can hold a hard drive in my hands.

 

Not only is your argument fallacious even on your own terms—"something . . . that you actually own" is not a concept to which the qualification "but that's just me" can be applied—but your qualification clearly applies only to the first sentence.

 

In your opinion. Same as the other dude.

 

To make the analogy fit, Walmart in this case would have to continue to sell the defective items known to kill people, and routinely introduce new equally defective/lethal products from the companies that supplied them. And if they did that, then yes, they'd be liable. Like I said, they only get to plead ignorance the first time.

Why defend these folks?

 

It's the labels that are being dishonest and incompetent. The online stores like HDtracks and Qobuz and Pono and the others all have my sympathy. The labels are lying and say they've got high-res content when they don't. The labels are in the best position to know the history and provenance of their files. If they don't know then who does? Those files are their crown jewels. You can't tell me that they don't know what their files actually are. They know. The problem is they don't care. They don't care about what gets passed off to us as consumers.

The online stores like HDtracks and Qobuz and Pono don't want to sell misrepresented high res files. They can't verify everything. And it's not even possible to accurately verify all files. To a certain extent they have to trust what the labels give them is actually what the labels say it is.

It certainly is a minefield trying to buy high-res content as a consumer. Of course it's also a minefield buying LPs and CDs. They're not always sourced as they say they are. Can't trust the labels. They don't care.

 

This makes sense to me, which is why I wasn't completely convinced when reading Monty's article. Frugal as I am, I want Monty to be right about redbook. But his acknowledgement about 24-bit being appropriate in certain situations makes me wonder if it has more potential for playback than his interpretation of the science allows.

I learned early in my renewed interest in audio that the source is the foundation. I have no doubt that native hi-res, along with good mastering, is where the real potential is. Short of those criteria, I have doubts.

I agree, which is why Linn Records impresses me as a safer bet.

I understand what you mean. An optical disk isn't prone to mechanical failure like an HDD is. If I start downloading music, I'll definitely burn it to an optical disk right away. It just wouldn't be the same, though, without a nicely printed jewel case insert or at least a sleeve. Along with the option to order a 24/192 burned to disk and packaged with quality inserts, I'd love to see a utility that allows you to print your own inserts. A standard pdf doesn't do it for me.

 

Optical isn't a perfect archive medium either.

If you're worried about losing a HDD, simply back up remotely.

 

Because for the vast majority of the time, I am happy with what they've sold me?

 

Ultimately, very true. But, I can also see an artist's lawyer and manager telling the label that they will put out an EQ'ed, second generation, upsampled copy that they provided the label. The label has no choice but to play along and not say anything. The poor vender had to comply and take the heat because they need the label's product. Without product, they don't have a business. People forget that too many times, particularly when dealing with veteran artists with some clout, that it is the artist that gets the last word, or else. They can say for instance, that the remixed DVD they released ten years ago is "good enough", and the artist likes it.

 

There are cases where things are complex where the blame can be legitimately spread around. But there's also been some pretty clear cases where a series of albums has been sent to HDtracks or Qobuz as high res when they were really just upsampled 44.1 files. Both HDtracks and Qobuz have had to remove albums because of that and relist them as 44.1 files. I don't know if they've offered refunds for people who bought the upsampled versions or not. It's not something that I blame HDtracks or Qobuz for. It's not really their fault if they're lied to. Pono has mentioned that they're running their files through some sort of checking process. But automated checking can only do so much and is not foolproof and gets even more complex if DSD source is involved. I'd like to think that HDtracks and Qobuz have implemented similar automated checking now. It really shouldn't be necessary. The situation for HDtracks is a bit more complex because some of their files come from SACD rips that they've done. And sometimes the SACD source isn't actually high res.

As a consumer it does suck to pay extra for high-res that ends up being just upsampled 44.1. Ultimately we've got to be vigilant and watch out.

 

It could simply be cases of innocently mislabeled files, just as they have accidentally offered albums for the wrong price, like with the Chic catalog. A few of us snagged the entire collection for a fraction of the correct price. They pulled the entire collection literally seconds after I bought mine, which I found bizarre, and lucky.

Some collections, like the Eagles, are a mix-mash. "Hotel California" sounds fantastic, while some other albums aren't so great (to my ears). With Chic, the first S/T album sounds terribly dull, but the rest sound good, and the last one nothing like the digitally recorded CD. There numerous other examples. Fleetwood Mac's "Tango In The Night" is perhaps the best-sounding hi-rez i've bought there.