Thread: Alert: All Downloaders of Hi Res files.

Posts: 76
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next

Post by Chris May 13, 2011 (61 of 76)
Arnaldo said:

My upgrade was actually to the Ultrasone Edition 8 Limited and the Edition 10. Th

Regardless, the use of a good amplifier is mandatory with top headphones. Besides my Luxman P-200 amp, I went for a SPL Phonitor, which uses crossfeed and phase effects to emulate stereo speakers, but without EQ or additional DAD conversions. On the plus side, it's also a superb headphone monitoring amplifier when bypassing the effects. (http://spl.info/hardware/kopfhoererverstaerker/phonitor/kurzinfo.html).

But all these components are a matter of personal choice. With your Sennheiser phones and the Hegel amp, which I'm not familiar with, you have now the proper weaponry to fully appreciate the crystalline details of DSD and high-rez PCM recordings.

Thanks for your response, I will investigate and see if I can get a demo or a pair of Ultrasone on loan too for comparison. The "out of body" effect sounds interesting .Is it something similar to the Smyth Realiser?

My new headphone amp is in fact not from Hegel only the DAC is. The M1HPA "pure class a" headphone amp is from the British Company Musical Fidelity and is one of the best headphone amp I have ever heard, certainly the best I have had in my own system.I auditioned it extensively against an actually quite a bit more expensive unit from Beyer among several others including the Benchmark.
But on really well recorded large scale classical material I preferred the M1HPA.

Regarding BIS´s stunning Seascapes Download or SACD? My preferences ? Well compared to my SACD player hmm,maybe a slight advantage for the download.
In this case it seems that DSD conversion, or upsampling? might have added a wee bit of sweetness that wasn´t neccessarily there in the first place?
In my limited experience of DSD sessions ,I have actually once heard DSD slightly sweeten string sound on the finished product, that I do know was not there in the hall.

One thing is absolutely clear to me .Both are excellent examples of a HI RES recording of truly wonderful music IMO.
All the best Chris

Post by audioholik May 13, 2011 (62 of 76)
AmonRa said:

PMC marketing: 144 dB DR (should be 146 by the way...), FH response to 48 kHz. Truth: best converters give 128 dB DR (one 28 bit converter claims over 150 dB)

You should also read the RELEVANT brochures.

The truth is that whether a converter has 128dB or 150dB dynamic range is IRRELEVANT.

Post by Chris May 13, 2011 (63 of 76)
Getting this thread back on its intended focus,I just browsed The Classical Shop and found a multi set of Jansson´s Tchaikovsky symphonies series under the 24/96 section. But the recording dates state early to mid eighties!
I doubt Chandos or anyone else for that matter was recording in 24 bits at that time. This could very well be upsampled 16 bit recordings? Or possibly from analogue masters?
I honestly couldn´t care less about some of the nonsense of 138 or 144 db or other completely irrelevant topics brought up by some here. But I am not interested in paying Premium Price for recycled 16 bit material!
What are they up to at Chandos?

Post by Claude May 13, 2011 (64 of 76)
The set has been remastered in 24bit, although that doesn't make it native 24/96 material, which people would expect when buying hi-rez downloasds. According to JPC, these were digital recordings (i.e. 16/44).

http://www.theclassicalshop.net/Details.aspx?CatalogueNumber=CHAN%2010392S

http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Peter-Iljitsch-Tschaikowsky-1840-1893-Symphonien-Nr-1-6/hnum/6527334

Post by AmonRa May 13, 2011 (65 of 76)
audioholik said:

The truth is that whether a converter has 128dB or 150dB dynamic range is IRRELEVANT.

Yes, when DSD claims better specks than PCM, you trumpet them as proof of DSD superiority, but when PCM conveters sport better specks than DSD even theoretically can have, those figures are suddenly IRRELEVANT...

Post by Mongo May 13, 2011 (66 of 76)
Chris said:

Getting this thread back on its intended focus,I just browsed The Classical Shop and found a multi set of Jansson´s Tchaikovsky symphonies series under the 24/96 section. But the recording dates state early to mid eighties!
I doubt Chandos or anyone else for that matter was recording in 24 bits at that time. This could very well be upsampled 16 bit recordings? Or possibly from analogue masters?
I honestly couldn´t care less about some of the nonsense of 138 or 144 db or other completely irrelevant topics brought up by some here. But I am not interested in paying Premium Price for recycled 16 bit material!
What are they up to at Chandos?

Chris,
This set is the very good Oslo Phil set from that Chandos recorded in the mid 80's. As Claude has said, the recordings have been remastered in 24/96.
I have the disc set, and it's pretty good.

Post by hiredfox May 13, 2011 (67 of 76)
AmonRa said:

DAC (it is not a computer) does not have any kind of intelligence or predictive powers

1-0-1-0-1

Post by compander May 13, 2011 (68 of 76)
There's a key difference between the DSD 1-bit format (at either 2.8 MHz or 5.6 MHz) and ALL the other digital formats (though with DXD the difference blurs) that doesn't seem to be mentioned on this forum.
(If I'm wrong about this I'd welcome a correction, partial or total, by the way.)

All the digital formats, except for 1-bit (which was originally commercialized by dbx incidentally, as an add-on unit for video recorders: 700 kHz/1-bit), are based on the Nyquist theorem, developed in the 1920s, for telephone use. The Nyquist theorem in turn was based on the theorem on vibratory motion developed by the French physicist and mathematician Jean Fourier (1768-1830). The Fourier theorem states that all combinations of oscillating sounds meaning sounds of REGULAR PERIOD can be analyzed as combinations of sine waves (the famous "Fourier Transform" , on which all PCM, non-one-bit digital recording and reproduction is based.) PCM, non-one-bit, recording which uses a chip to, in effect, disassemble complex musical sounds into combinations of sine waves; and then uses a second chip (in playback) to "reassemble" them into sine waves works perfectly on musical sounds IF THEY ARE RECORDED IN ANECHOIC CHAMBERS, AND IF THE TOPS OF STRINGED INSTRUMENTS (AS WELL AS MICROPHONE STANDS, ETC.) ARE PADDED WITH ABSORBENT MATERIALS SO THAT THEIR ARE NO REFLECTIONS FROM ANY SURFACE WHATSOEVER. The sine-wave based system is also one that works well for telephone use, where tone, timbre, "air", etc. are non-significant. Incidentally, the sine wave is the most common (and, I'd say, elegant) form of motion in nature it's also, of course, called "harmonic motion."
But the problem with using sine waves as the electronic "medium" to record music in real spaces, rather than in anechoic chambers, arises from two facts: 1) musical instruments have, since the mid-1700s, been built to play and/or played to an equal-tempered scale (piano, organ, etc and fretted instruments can only play in equal temperament; other strings and winds and voice are adapted in performance to play with them. The strings on, for example, a piano know nothing of equal temperament, so their natural overtones are slightly out of tune with the other strings on the instrument, and so create beat tones, which in turn have their own natural overtone series, all the overtones beating against each other. Helmholtz, by the way, hated organs, because he couldn't stand this kind of unavoidable beating in tempered instruments.
When you COMBINE this unavoidable BEATING of well-tempered instruments whose individual strings and columns of air cannot possibly be tempered WITH the PHASE DELAYS created by sounds reflected from the physical bodies of instruments, chairs, walls, moldings, etc. in any normal music environment, you get sounds that are APERIODIC, or, more exactly, aperiodic within any conceivably recordable and reproducible frequency spectrum. Thus, they cannot be analyzed, stored, and reproduced as sine waves. These are very low-amplitude, high-frequency sounds. When CDs and other Nyquist-based digital formats are said to lack "air", what is really being referred to are those very low-amplitude, high-frequency sounds that reveal the _presence_ of air in the space where the music was recorded.
1-bit, DSD, recording doesn't try to analyze sound as sine waves, as periodic sounds, and so this intractable problem is avoided. That's why there's no D/A converter at the end of the playback chain (which I call, in the case of CDs, a "sine-wave pump"), but only a low-pass filter. Around the time CDs first became available (c. 1980) the AES Journal ran an article with photographs of all the sounds "between the samples" fast spikes, for example that CDs ignored. These, and others, are the sounds I'm referring to. Recorded music engineers and electronics designers, by the way, have developed all kinds of excellent tricks to disguise the absence of non-periodic musical sounds: they are for the most part variations of the Aphex sonic enhancement approach of the mid-'70s: adding extra harmonics, at lower frequencies often, to add INTEREST that the ear misses: the brain wants to know where sound is coming from, and it wants to work at that. With all respect for those who enjoy multi-channel music, I wonder how many of them would still appreciate multi-channel if they hadn't been deprived of full musical enjoyment for a sufficient time by Nyquist-based CDs, not to mention MP3s.

Post by AmonRa May 13, 2011 (69 of 76)
Wellcome to the nuthouse, compander, you'll feel right at home!

PCM does not make any kind of Fourier transformations to or analysis of the signal, just dumbly measures the voltage values, stores them and DAC in turn reconstructs the signal within the parameters (sample rate which determines the highest frequency, sample depth which determines max dynamic range) used. Extremely dumb systems which have not studied calculus.

Post by Chris May 13, 2011 (70 of 76)
Mongo said:

Chris,
This set is the very good Oslo Phil set from that Chandos recorded in the mid 80's. As Claude has said, the recordings have been remastered in 24/96.
I have the disc set, and it's pretty good.

Yes I remember that at least 5 and 6 were very good musically and by early cd standards pretty good sq too. But in my not so humble opinion what Chandos is doing by trying to push them "re- mastered" and "upsampled" as 24/96 downloads to unsuspecting customers is simply fraudulent behaviour. And I actually thought they stood above such.
I am not in any way an expert on the technical side of these things. But most computer music playing programs have upsampling capabilities and so do many DACs What is the point of offering something that for most customers is not even needed?

And anyway upsampling can never add information that wasn´t there in the first place ! You can´t get more than a pint out of a pint bottle still applies.

I will contact them about this ,I have some cats to skin with them ayway.
Plenty of truncated files from their otherwise good downloads. 95% end of stream messages and such are far too common to be acceptable among other things.

This is quite similar to some of the early Cappricio SACDs where low res recordings were marketed as hi res under false pretexts!
In Chandos´ general defence I have to say that apart from all the excellent SACDs I have from that label ,I also have some equally excellent downloads in true hi res!

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next

Closed