When is Hi-Res not really Hi-Res?

[boh10]

Thanks for posting the link Tom.
If something has gone to CD, no amount of processing is going to bring back what was lost.

I encourage anyone to post interesting articles here about hi-rez files or suspect files.

Hi Bruce, I got the forum and your name from avsforum (amirm) some time back when posting around HDtracks, quality (or lack thereof!) and hi-rez music in general.
I would like to ask if you have seen any improvement in HDtracks becoming more open of what they are actually selling/distributing. Because I haven’t. Have had some real hits and misses with them, e.g. Hotel California is just terrible (over-compressed and heavily clipped) but some of the 44.1KHz/16 bit blues stuff is great. Downloaded Santana Abraxas this evening. What do you make of this:



And this is just the 88KHz/24 bit version, I wonder what the 176KHZ version looks like? This was recorded 1970..
I personally don't buy "hi-rez" music because of higher bandwidth or bit depth, I buy it because it is getting harder to find stuff on CDs, it is convenient, and hopefully they will have sourced the right mix. One could even argue that with correctly applied dither you don't really need more than the 44.1/16..

Thanks, boh

 

[Bruce B]

I would like to ask if you have seen any improvement in HDtracks becoming more open of what they are actually selling/distributing. Because I haven’t. Have had some real hits and misses with them, e.g. Hotel California is just terrible (over-compressed and heavily clipped) but some of the 44.1KHz/16 bit blues stuff is great.

No... sometimes I don't even know where the files or tapes came from??

View attachment 7993

And this is just the 88KHz/24 bit version, I wonder what the 176KHZ version looks like? This was recorded 1970..

This came from a SACD transfer.
I'm sorry you don't like some of the material from HDtracks. The overcompressed stuff they have no control of. It's what the labels give them.

 

[rbbert]

A spectrum view is much more useful if the lower resolution limit is less than -84 dB (as in the example above). Even 16 bit goes down to -96 dB...

 

[Bruce B]

A spectrum view is much more useful if the lower resolution limit is less than -84 dB (as in the example above). Even 16 bit goes down to -96 dB...

+1 I usually pull it down to -124dB and then set my freq to start at 10k

 

[Julf]

A spectrum view is much more useful if the lower resolution limit is less than -84 dB (as in the example above). Even 16 bit goes down to -96 dB...

Generally yes, but in this particular case it is clear from the spectrogram that the noise floor is at -84 dB.

 

[rbbert]

Generally yes, but in this particular case it is clear from the spectrogram that the noise floor is at -84 dB.

Maybe, maybe not. With an appropriate graph it would be more certain.

 

[Julf]

Maybe, maybe not. With an appropriate graph it would be more certain.

Nothing uncertain about the noise floor of the graph that was posted. But as I wrote, yes, your advice is useful in the general case.

 

[boh10]

I'm sorry you don't like some of the material from HDtracks. The overcompressed stuff they have no control of. It's what the labels give them.

I guess this is my problem; I do believe that HDtracks should know what they are selling just like any other business. Let’s be frank here, there are automatic tools that can easily rip through their music downloads and let them know exactly what they are selling with a minimum effort and expense. But if you want to sell 176kHz/24 bites Rolling Stones recorded on tape in the 1960’s at a premium why would you do that?
So, yes I do believe they need to have control over what they market and sell. Don’t you agree?
Cheers, boh

 

[Andre Marc]

I guess this is my problem; I do believe that HDtracks should know what they are selling just like any other business. Let’s be frank here, there are automatic tools that can easily rip through their music downloads and let them know exactly what they are selling with a minimum effort and expense. But if you want to sell 176kHz/24 bites Rolling Stones recorded on tape in the 1960’s at a premium why would you do that?
So, yes I do believe they need to have control over what they market and sell. Don’t you agree?
Cheers, boh

I agree totally with your statement concerning quality control knowledge of product being sold.
It's about time they stepped up their game.

However, the Stones downloads are superior to the CDs...and unless you are willing to pay a huge premium for the hard to find SACDs...
these are the best digital versions available.

 

[Bruce B]

I Let’s be frank here, there are automatic tools that can easily rip through their music downloads and let them know exactly what they are selling with a minimum effort and expense. Cheers, boh

BS..... if there was such a thing then I'd be using it. I pour hours of my time over graphs and such and sometimes even I can not determine the provenance of a file beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Julf]

I pour hours of my time over graphs and such and sometimes even I can not determine the provenance of a file beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Agree - some cases are rather obvious, while others are very hard to figure out.

 

[boh10]

I will be open with you, I think 176 KHz sampling is BS. I can’t hear these frequencies (almost 90 KHz), I don’t have an amplifier that can amplify those frequencies, and I don’t have speakers that can reproduce those frequencies, and I have very good equipment. I can’t hear above 20 KHz, like the rest of human species.
I buy at HDTracks, as stated, before because it is convenient, and hopefully they will have sourced the right mix. I am concerned that they don’t care (yes, I have emailed them) what products they are selling. I love a lot of their Blues and Jazz offerings (high quality, good recordings) but it seems there is a lot of shovel-wear in there. Just like any new media (CD-ROMs, CDs, Blue-Ray) there is a commercial interest to get many titles out there, irrespectively of quality.
Yes, I believe you need to know what you sell. You can’t say that we will just forward whatever the recording companies’ gives to us. This is also BS.
Some quick (and automated) tools provide the following information comparing CDs vs. the High Sampling Rate/Increased bit depth counterpart:





In these cases we seem to have lost dynamics. I have not done a proper ABX testing (Rolling Stones), but I am sure on first listening the SACD would sound “better” because it is louder. Why would any increased bit depth mix loose dynamic range?
Why is there an 88 KHz and a 176 KHz versions of Rolling Stones available? What energies do we think are persevered in the bandwidths between 44 and 90 KHz recorded on tape in the 60’s that actually we believe can be brought forward, amplified by our systems and enjoyed by a human being?
I am sure you have read this article, but if you haven’t spend 30 minutes: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Thanks, boh

 

[Bruce B]

I will be open with you, I think 176 KHz sampling is BS. I can’t hear these frequencies

No one can

In these cases we seem to have lost dynamics. I have not done a proper ABX testing (Rolling Stones), but I am sure on first listening the SACD would sound “better” because it is louder. Why would any increased bit depth mix loose dynamic range?

Looks like a different master. So you have not done a proper ABX test though you automatically dismiss the hi-rez. I'm sorry... I haven't learned to listen with my eyes yet.

Yes, I believe you need to know what you sell. You can’t say that we will just forward whatever the recording companies’ gives to us. This is also BS.

Why not?? Grocery stores don't taste everything they sell. HDtracks sells hi-rez files. These are hi-rez... they don't claim to sell non-compressed files (the exception being the 2 titles that came as compressed and uncompressed versions).

Why is there an 88 KHz and a 176 KHz versions of Rolling Stones available?

Because David asked me to make 2 versions.

I am sure you have read this article, but if you haven’t spend 30 minutes:

I spent 60 minutes because I read it twice.... So?

 

[dallasjustice]

Bruce,

When you say 24 bit compressed versions of the original 16 bit CD can still be "hi-rez", it's distinction without a difference.

The whole point of offering 24 bit files is that they allow for substantially greater dynamic range than 16 bit files. When anyone offers a 24 bit file claiming "hi-rez" with 1/2 the dynamic range of the original 16 bit CD, that's ugly.

 

[Bruce B]

Bruce,

When you say 24 bit compressed versions of the original 16 bit CD can still be "hi-rez", it's distinction without a difference.

The whole point of offering 24 bit files is that they allow for substantially greater dynamic range than 16 bit files. When anyone offers a 24 bit file claiming "hi-rez" with 1/2 the dynamic range of the original 16 bit CD, that's ugly.

16-bit files are NOT hi-rez

You'll have to lay the blame on the label that told the mastering engineer to compress the hell out of it. It may be ugly, but it's still technically "hi-rez". If they were claiming greater sonority, then that would be wrong!

 

[dallasjustice]

16-bit files are NOT hi-rez

You'll have to lay the blame on the label that told the mastering engineer to compress the hell out of it. It may be ugly, but it's still technically "hi-rez". If they were claiming greater sonority, then that would be wrong!

"Sonority?" I guess that's a new technical term.

If HDTRACKS receives a file that's way more compressed than the original CD, why not offer it at the higher sample rate like 176k but make it 16 bit? Isn't the whole 24 bit word length totally unnecessary for many of these files?

 

[Bruce B]

If HDTRACKS receives a file that's way more compressed than the original CD, why not offer it at the higher sample rate like 176k but make it 16 bit? Isn't the whole 24 bit word length totally unnecessary for many of these files?

Why do you want to do another conversion? Every change degrades the sound.

 

[boh10]

Just so we know what we are talking about, the below is the “hi-rez” version of Hotel California. The red stuff is clipping. I have zoomed in one area to show what that means. This is over-compressed, heavily clipped and distorted music. I feel like an idiot paying for it.


Let’s say that HDTracks can sell whatever they want without caring about the quality and charge an extra $10 just because there are people who will pay for absolutely nothing (e.g. Rolling Stones 88 KHz and a 176KHz offerings) thinking they are somehow getting a better recording.

My suggestion is simply to allow for people who buy music at HDTracks to rate the recordings Amazon style. This would weed out the bad recordings and install confidence in trying new music based on other customers feed-back. If 1 person says a recording is crap then you don’t know, but if 10 people comment then you have a pretty good idea of what you are buying.

HDTracks would benefit from this and I am sure that one day they will introduce it, because it is good customer service and they have nothing to lose. They will sell more. Right now, based on what I purchased (~30 titles) I feel “safer” buying a 44.1/16 old blues recording than an 88 or 176/24 rock album.
Cheers, boh

 

[dallasjustice]

Just so we know what we are talking about, the below is the “hi-rez” version of Hotel California. The red stuff is clipping. I have zoomed in one area to show what that means. This is over-compressed, heavily clipped and distorted music. I feel like an idiot paying for it.
View attachment 8092View attachment 8093

Let’s say that HDTracks can sell whatever they want without caring about the quality and charge an extra $10 just because there are people who will pay for absolutely nothing (e.g. Rolling Stones 88 KHz and a 176KHz offerings) thinking they are somehow getting a better recording.

My suggestion is simply to allow for people who buy music at HDTracks to rate the recordings Amazon style. This would weed out the bad recordings and install confidence in trying new music based on other customers feed-back. If 1 person says a recording is crap then you don’t know, but if 10 people comment then you have a pretty good idea of what you are buying.

HDTracks would benefit from this and I am sure that one day they will introduce it, because it is good customer service and they have nothing to lose. They will sell more. Right now, based on what I purchased (~30 titles) I feel “safer” buying a 44.1/16 old blues recording than an 88 or 176/24 rock album.
Cheers, boh

You don't need to wait for Hdtracks to do that. The free market is taking care of that for you. All you need to do is go to the places where folks post their findings about files downloaded from Hdtracks. I have stopped buying music from HDtracks. However, I might be convinced to buy again if someone else hits the barbed wire first and posts their graphs.

 

[garylkoh]

I too have given up buying anything from HDTracks, but in this case, it might not have been their fault. This is a rip from the original DVD-A - and it looks identical to the picture that boj10 posted. I thought that it still sounded better than the CD though.