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

Are you saying that doesn't exist on the original vinyl release?

 

So on those files from the "Commodores 13" release - where does all that info higher in the spectrum come from, if its a 44.1 source? Just added noise from some conversion? It it even music?

Anyone know anything about the original recording on that album? I'm not sure its ever been even legitimately released on CD. Discocs shows only LP, cassette and 8-track listings. No CD's at Amazon. There is one listed on Ebay (guy wants $200 for it, LOL), but it doesn't have an actual picture and has no info at all. Calls it a 1990 re-issue. But I don't think you can trust someone asking $200 for a CD with no pictures or info.

 

That IS what I'm saying.

And this isn't normal wow/flutter-this sounds like something wrong with the tapes that maybe they digitally monkey'd with to "fix". BUT...I would never have noticed it if I didn't LITERALLY have the vinyl gain matched right here flipping between them because I geek that way.

I don't think it sounds "bad"...like if you heard it you'd go "hey--WTF is THAT?"...it was just SO close to the vinyl all the way and then that last chord was like "wow...ok...THAT's completely different".

 

How can I test if a music file really is, say, 24 bit 48kHz, or if its been upsampled from 16 bit?

 

I’ve been using Lossless Audio Checker. It seems to work ok but I don’t know how accurate it is; it just labels each track checked as “clean” or “upsampled” without any additional information.

 

No clue if this is new for news. CDJapan upcoming Cream Goodbye SHM SACD

 

The World's Biggest Bookstore is gone too!


Little correction: HMV is at the bottom of Yonge and Dundas. Cheapies was at College Station.

 

Sign...... my 192/24 phone died (blew up) last night. I can get a replacement Hi-res phone quicker on the internet than in the Seattle area. And it's not a boutique brand: it's an LG. If neither Amazon nor UPS F Up, I'm supposed to have it Wednesday. And hopefully I can get the sim card out of the old one (The USB port is blocking opening the phone) & save my "contacts". And even more hopefully, hoping the battery will have enough charge left to transfer apps.

 

Actually you’re right: when Records On Wheels moved to a storefront from an actual streetcar, it moved to where the future southern part of HMV would be (HMV was actually two buildings wide, combined into one).

 

What?! You phone exploded. Did you get hurt?

 

Slight exaggeration. It actually overheated in the charging port, & melted the port & the cable. Nor sure what caused it. It was originally a moderate odor & I thought some cat Pheromones that were plugged in nearby were running out. Didn't realize I had an issue until I finally glanced at the phone & the port was smoking big time. I'm not even sure if the case can be opened up to save my Sim card with my "contacts". When I shut the phone off, it had 100% charge. After about 20 minutes of use today, it's down to 55%. Unless there's an emergency, it won't be turned on until the new one arrives, in hopes I can transfer apps.

It just got a new expensive battery a month or 2 ago. I have no idea what caused this. I couldn't find a repair person available before Tuesday. I talked with one guy who thinks the phone is toast. Never had a problem before (LG V20).

One thing that sucks about cells, I'm without a phone until the new one arrives, gets charged, & I go to the T-Mobile store to get it set up.

 

Take care of yourself Classic Car Dude..

 

you're kind of asking two different things here but you can check sample rates pretty easily by loading the file into a program like Audacity and viewing the spectrum of the file. simply put, if the file is 96kHz, you want to see meaningful content in the spectrum up to 48kHz. If it's a 192kHz file, you want to see meaningful content up to 96kHz and so forth. and by meaningful, I mean something other than stray lines or, at worst, empty space. for example, if you load up a file that's supposed to be 96kHz and there's basically no spectral content visible above, like, 20kHz, it's a safe bet that what you've got has been upsampled. at that point it's like taking 1lb of grapes and putting it in a bag that can hold 5lbs of grapes - you've still got only 1lb of grapes but you're now saddled with a much larger bag with plenty of empty space.

 

You can tell if it has been upsampled from 44.1 or 48 khz. They got cheap-ass software for that. Assuming if it has STAYED in the digtial domain.

Move in close childern......I have a tall tale for you.


TALES FROM THE PHANTOM MASTERING ENGINEER - Chapter 97. Uncensored. The New Zealand version.

A 16/44.1 can never be a 24/192. Not true. There is a way. A cheat really. I have done it and so have other mastering engineers. Even one of the Lord-Alge brothers do it.

Take you circa 1984, 16/44.1 file and convert it to analog. Now, run it through a nice old 60's tube amp. And then run it through a Manley Massive All tube passive mastering EQ. Do your EQ here. Now do your normalizing through a tube limiter. The older the better. Preferably one that is broken. That adds to the ancient tube sound. Now you have all that tube analog detail that the signal has just soaked up like mother's breast milk. Now take it back in at 24/192 or whatever suits your digital fantasy. And no way will you be able to see the dreaded 44.1 khz low pass filter on your screen. Because there is now new info.....hopefully.....Maybe.....

We generally don't care if a few audiophiles are looking for evedience of upconversions. Audiophiles are a minority and the obsessive audiophile who do this "44.1 khz search" is a tiny minority of that minority. So sorry but no one is listening to you.
Well, I am......But no one listens to me either.

It is no different when I take a 16/44.1, 3324A DASH tape and run it through a Ampex 12 channel tube board. But regardless of the monkeying I always mention in my mastering notes for the client that such and such tracks are upconversions. And the 16/44.1 as well as the 24/176.4 upconversions are sent off to the client.
Now all that added information of: tube sound, tube distortion and other fine analog goodies get captured at 24/176.4.

Easy as pie or cake or any of the good sheet I can't eat anymore now that I had DT2. Actually i have had Diabetes Type 2 for 8 years. I just ignored it. Refused to get a blood test. My whole body is failing me.
But I got a Moon CD-2 and Grado R-1 headphone amp. So life is still pretty good.

 

I've noticed you state pretty much the same thing repeatedly in here and it's simply false, at least where this thread's subject matter is concerned. The hi-res audio market is targeting people who, whether accurately or not, self-identify as audiophiles. And equally incorrect is your assertion that the sites who charge bloated prices for upsampled files are doing so innocently; these files carry a price point based on the assumption that the content is something more than a redbook file in a hi-res bit bucket. If I consistently sell (at best) CD quality audio in a 24/192 container with the price point to match 24/192 content, I am straight up trying to rip you off. Now whether sites just have lousy quality control and aren't spending the time to actually check their files is another story, but if I'm selling Ferrari chassis with Hyudani engines in them, I can't consistently fall back on "aw shucks, forgot to check under the hood!" without my customers rightfully assuming I'm a crook.

 

Remember, JUST FOR THE RECORD just below Bloor/Yonge? They had tons of hard to find records. Lots of bootlegs. Back in 1993 a friend and I purchased Led Zeppelin - Earl's Court for $250.

If the owner had to go to the can he would put me in charge. If I was there. And I was.
John was of the characters that worked there. A great guy.

Often he would just make tapes from his private Zep collection and give it to us. John was a real character. A real Dark Disney character.

 

No one is trying to RIP you off.....on purpose. That is your opinion. Just because you don't like what I am saying doesn't make it true. After 22 years of being in the business I find the arm-chair mastering engineer a joke You have no idea what goes on. And it bugs you when someone finally tells you.

Fact: between 1982 - 1987 1500 master/copy tapes were transfered to digital without the proper Dolby A code. The mastering engineers could tell that the sound was all wrong but they did it anyway. If only every audio engineer had written Dolby on the tape box this would not have happened. But 1500 times it did! They hear no Dolby A 850 hz blip tone so they thought no Dolby A encode. No one suspected that the leader might have been cut out.

Sorry but we don't live in a perfect world. Yes, you are getting ripped off but not on purpose.
Ask any mastering engineer on here who gets 16/44.1 material. It is all upconverted at some point. Mostly this is done for work reasons. Mastering engineers will put the signal through a lot of equipment and programs. The belief is that a 24/192 signal will be more robust. Is it true? Most will do a ADC first and send it through some expensive tube equipment. Then it is upsampled to 24/96 or whatever back to Pro Tools.

When I send mastered files off to DECCA, EMI or whomever I provide all of my notes. Some engineers believe that when they do their upconversions that it is a real upconvert. And that they have provided for the client a real high definition file. And so nothing is mentioned. They should not do this some do.

You and I believe that a 192 khz file sounds better than a 44.1 khz file. Assuming it was recorded at these sampling rates. But sir, not every mastering engineer believes this! Some feel anything above 48 or 44.1 khz is wrong and hurts the music. To many mastering engineers 48 khz and 192 khz is the same thing. Many famous and well known recording engineers are still recording at 16/48. Up until 4 years ago the older of the Lord-Alge brothers was still recording at 16/48 with his 1988, Sony DASH 3348. He runs all his music through a SSL 4064 board. The output is sent to quarter inch , half track. And a digital 24/96 high definition version is made as well. His technique is well known. Check for yourself. Any of his high definition files are not really high definition. His little brother does the same. Only he uses a DASH 3348 HR. 24/48.


You made several claims that record companies are trying to lie to you. All I did was show you how upsampled tracks can be accidentally labeled as real high definition tracks.
I love your straw man. Attacking my character doesn't make what I am saying is wrong..

Pay attention. I didn't say no one was buying high definition downloads. All I said was that high definition downloads make up a tiny part of the music market. And people like you who stare at monitors looking for proof of upsampling are rare. Sorry, but most audiophiles don't go looking for "44.1 khz signs of life" on their monitors. This behavior is considered extreme. Most audiophiles just listen to the music. But it is good that you are watching for fake high definition files. Keep us on our toes.


So you really think that everyone that works in the business as an encyclopedia of knowledge on digital history? When did 88.2 or 96 khz become the norm? Pretty much by 1995. 192 khz? The last 20 years. But even for me it is hard to pin point down. If the mastering engineer fails to provide adequate notes to the client then confusion can happen. And some mastering engineers believe that their upsampled tracks are real high definition files.

Yes, the record companies shouldn't allow this to happen. But it does. I am sorry that you over paid. That is wrong.

 

Cars are not high definition files. Real faulty analogy.....

I came on this site to learn. And to hear what audiophiles think of the music we make.. And hopefully I can educate many as to how we do things. I hope I have helped some members on here.

Keep in mind there is what many of you believe a high definition files is and what the industry thinks. Many of you think high definition files are anything 24/88.2 and over. Nope. High definition files are anything 18 bit or over. It is the bit depth and not the sample rate. That is why in 1993 the Sony PCM DASH multitrack was called the 3348 HR. "HR" meaning high definition. And yet it never went above 48 khz.

If it is 24 bit, 44.1 khz is a high definition file. If you see a file that is 24/48 and the same file is being offered at 24/192 it should sound alarm bells. That is an upconvert.

I get a group of tapes to transfer and I do my best. When I get a DAT 16/48 tape it is not easy. Sometimes the client will say, "We want this to be all available in high definition."
Regardless of what the record company/client wants I always clearly mark my work. If it is upconvert then it is my notes. I also provide the down plopped 16/44.1 files.

Does the client ever lie and put them up as overpriced high definition files? Not to my knowledge. But I can't sit here and say it never happened. I can say I know of several well known mastering engineers who did upconverts and did not tell the client that it was an upconvert. This does happen for real. I put myself at risk just posting this.

 

several things to unpack in the above set of statements.

Could you kindly point to a standard which defines "High definition (as) anything 18 bit or over."?

""HR" meaning high definition.": "HR" as used by SONY in product nsme 3348HR was related to High Resolution, wrt the unit's capability to record/pb at bit depths 16-24 bits, ie via SONY's own 20-bit A/D/A converter pack for the 3348HR, or up to 24-bit resolution via iirc MADI-connected converters.

"It is the bit depth and not the sample rate.": You've equated high definition with high resolution, in which case your statement is - perhaps inadvertently - incorrect.

Although there may (still?) not be any formal standards-based definition as to what defines "high-resolution" audio, generally-accepted public nomenclature since at least the 2014 DEG/CEA/Sony/Universal/Warner agreement applies in the case of audio samples/files having either/both of bit depth and Fs exceeding those of CD's 16/44.1 spec.

Anecdotally, I can also confirm based upon my work in the late-70s/early-80s (AES; Bell Labs working with several manufacturers and research organizations in digital signal processing for pro audio, consumer audio, and what eventually became HDTV) that the phrase "high-resolution audio" was already then in use for audio applications considering bit depth a/o Fs beyond those defined in the (1980) Red Book standard.



edit: schpellink, formatting

 

The above statement isn't necessarily true.

If sample rate conversion is performed, a relevant issue could be related to the specific digital filtering philosophy utilized.

(Remember, sample rate conversion is "just another digital filtering operation," albeit specialized in mathematical multi-rate architecture.)

ie say the original recording format was DSD, which was then downsampled to create that 192k or 96k file.

If the user (or SRC software creator) decides to define a fairly low cutoff frequency for bandlimiting the downsampled result (both to avoid aliasing and very specifically to keep DSD's severe shaped RF noise from corrupting the PCM workproduct), you won't see "meaningful content" above the filter cutoff.

One of the most-widely-acclaimed professional SRC software packages might typically apply a lowpass filter corner frequency in the 20-30kHz range and a cut of >50dB by 40kHz.

 

Well, since the Red Book standard was 16-bit, anything beyond that could legitimately be called high - or at least higher - definition.

 

and yet with everything you’ve said you’re failing to address my basic assertion:

selling redbook files as high resolution files is dishonest. there is zero relevance to talking about what you even want to deem as high resolution when so-called high resolution files pretty much always carry a higher price point than CD res files. no matter how you slice it, if I take upsampled CD resolution and charge you higher than the CD resolution file(s) would cost, I’m overcharging you based on the assumption that what you’re buying is superior. and regardless of the percentage, sites that exist to sell to the high resolution market are catering to that percentage. perhaps their business model is flawed by targeting a niche market, but there’s little doubt that if I target a niche market with terminology (and pricing) to attract the niche market only to sell them mainstream market goods at inflated prices, my business approach is not an honest one.

 

That...depends. If the material was upsampled for editing, especially in the analog domain via tube amps or whatever, I'd rather have the high res version of that work as opposed to having something downsampled back to 16/44.1 after the remaster was completed.

Now, whether that's worth paying a price premium for over a 16/44.1 file is another story. I guess you could argue it's "better" than a downsampled copy so some price premium is still attached, but maybe not as much a premium as one from material that was high-res to begin with, or analog and freshly transferred to high res digital.

The funny thing is, back in the day people would pay a huge price premium for "audiophile" CDs from MFSL and DCC, and those were all stock standard 16/44.1 product. But lots of care was generally taken with those masters and the golden ears contingent had no problem shelling out big bucks for them. Ultimately, people need to judge with their ears and not with a spectrogram. Way too many "true" high-res remasters sound like absolute, compressed to hell garbage, while I'm sure there are also upsamples out there that really do sound a lot better than the 16/44.1 originals, and if you're a fan of the material might actually be worth the asking price, upsample or not.

The real problem is, there's not a great way to preview any of this, although with the arrival of high-res streaming from Amazon and others, you can kind of piece together on your own - for select releases, anyhow - which remasters are pretty good and which aren't worth the price of admission, irrespective of their digital pedigree.

 

It can be worse than upsampling! This You Tube got posted on Ice today regarding MQA.

 

I checked out the Joni Mitchell single "A Case Of You" from the upcoming remasters. DR9. CRAP.