Hi-Res Download News (HDTracks, ProStudioMasters, Pono, etc.) & Software/Mastering Part 12**

possibly, though I also suspect that frequently, in those instances where labels want to sell 96 or 192kHz files for recordings that have nothing above 22-24kHz, a sonic maximizer is used and this does technically present data that justifies the larger frequency range of the file.

 

You feel differently?

 

I'm not disputing your observation about sonic maximizers, but this specific title was originally prepped for SACD a decade ago and never released; odds are that this is the 2005 DSD master finally slipping out to the public, albeit in PCM form.

 

...and if so the proper way would have been as a 176.4 fold down. Not 192.

 

Agreed. Not that I regret the purchase, but I did make it believing this might be a new master. Had I known it was a DSD conversion, I would have waited; plenty of other things to buy first.

 

An informed customer is not the business plan in the hi rez market.

 

Yes.

 

No problem.

 

Could they be the MoFi SACD remasters?

 

RE: 24/192 Jeff Buckley's 'Grace' from HDtracks.

Okay - had an opportunity to listen to a few tracks last night - the first three tracks, mainly.
My playback is a Sony NW-ZX2 and a pair of Oppo PM-3 closed-back headphones.
I compared the 24/192 version (mastered by Emily Lazar, it seems) and the SACD/DSD version (mastered by Bernie Grundman) - I do not have a redbook version to compare.
The SACD/DSD version was both the native files (SACD ISO, ISO2DSD - tagged with Yate) and 24/88.2 files created by DSDMaster.

The 24/192 version is noticeably louder, and the dynamics are greatly reduced.
It does sound more energetic - whether that is better is up to the individual.
Personally, I found the SACD/DSD version a better version to listen to - smoother, more textured, less fatiguing and a more convincing treble.
I did attempt to volume match - but it was 'by ear' only on the Sony NW-ZX2.
The 24/192 version isn't bad; it's just not as good as the SACD/DSD version - in my opinion.

Here's the MusicScope reports from 'Mojo Pin' (again, excuse the formatting) - first is the DSD64 file; second the 24/192 flac file downloaded from HDtracks:

Report generated by the MusicScope 1.3.14 - www.xivero.com

File: 01 - Mojo Pin.dsf

Audio format: DSD
Bit depth: 1 bit
Sample rate: 2822.4 kHz

Cut-Off Frequency: 36.6 kHz

TPL Left: -0.1 dB
TPL Right: 0.4 dB
TPL Mid: 0.0 dB
TPL Side: -7.8 dB
RMS Left: -19.0 dB
RMS Right: -19.1 dB
RMS Mid: -19.6 dB
RMS Side: -28.4 dB
CREST Avg.: 9.6 dB

Max. M-Loudness: -8.4 dB
Max. S-Loudness: -9.3 dB
Integrated Loudness: -15.3 dB
Loudness Range: 17.4 dB
PLR Avg.: 7.6 dB​

and:

Report generated by the MusicScope 1.3.14 - www.xivero.com

File: 01-Mojo Pin.flac

Audio format: PCM
Bit depth: 24 bit
Sample rate: 192.0 kHz

Cut-Off Frequency: 43.0 kHz

TPL Left: 0.0 dB
TPL Right: 0.0 dB
TPL Mid: 0.0 dB
TPL Side: -1.2 dB
RMS Left: -13.6 dB
RMS Right: -13.2 dB
RMS Mid: -14.1 dB
RMS Side: -21.8 dB
CREST Avg.: 9.1 dB
IS L/M: 0
IS R/S: 0

Max. M-Loudness: -2.9 dB
Max. S-Loudness: -3.7 dB
Integrated Loudness: -9.6 dB
Loudness Range: 17.3 dB
PLR Avg.: 7.3 dB​

Hope that helps a bit.

Rob.

 

Other than not not liking a particular mastering or not being a new digital transfer with older technology, is there anything inherently bad with a DSD sourced conversion? I'm assuming there would be the potential for data loss -- kind of like taking a picture of a picture. Or is there something else?

 

No, but clearly something went wrong with that Dylan
This was a DSD DL I converted to 176, From the Opus 3 Comp

 

There are several methods of doing a DSD to PCM conversion, and they don't sound all the same.
I don't think any sounds exactly like the original DSD played through a pure DSD DAC (although really really close most of the time).

 

Why do you say something went wrong? They both probably look pretty similar up to 20kHz, hard to tell since the other one goes up to 96K and mostly shows the DSD->PCM noise. If anything "went wrong" it was not filtering out that noise at a lower frequency, there is really no point going 24/192 on a DSD conversion. 24/88.2 is probably the most that makes any sense since you should filter anything above 30-35kHz or so anyway.

 

When I read the statement about the 'cloud' Steve I assumed it may have been audible, that's all

 

Inherently bad? No, I wouldn't say so. But DSD conversions I can do on my own; if I'm going to buy something, I'd rather have it in its native state. Plus, there's that provenance thing that ServingTheMusic could tell you all about...

 

It affects the sound IME, though some people prefer it un-filtered.

 

Indeed.

I find it insulting they would just magically create a new download out of an exsisting product. As you said, you can take the DSD
files and with any number of utilities create your own PCM files.

I, and I am sure everyone else is ONLY interested in new formats if they are FRESH tape transfers.

 

spot on.

 

Yep. But I think this Dylan album is a somewhat rare case in that it's a DSD>PCM conversion of an SACD that was never released. The same with New Morning. (Of course, I'm referring to the Sony SACD series from a dozen years ago and not the new MFSL line.)

 

Yes, but there are also a bunch available, like Desire, where there were SACDs, and for that matter, DSD downloads on Superhirez.com

 

The difference in DR may simply be due to the fact they took the PCM conversion and applied gain.

 

Yes, I suspect the record companies are knowingly exploiting the fact that there are obsessives constantly on the hunt for a new version in the chance that it may be a little better than the last.

 

There is more to it. They are realizing DSD is DOA. They want to move product. So magically convert.

 

That's a possibility. I prefer the Bernie Grundman mastering.
Looking at the price difference on HDtracks UK - they were charging £10.50 for the 24/96, and £21.00 for the 24/192.
If anyone is thinking of purchasing - I'd go for the 24/96 version, and pocket the difference (unless your DAC is 24/192 and plays native resolution files better).