Peter,

It seems that a 16 bit 48khz song upsampled 4X slows down the pitch. When I tried 2X it was ok...

Thanks.

Alain

Hi Crisnee,

I would like to help you, but my knowledge about the Bill Evans Trio is quite recent and I did not bother looking for the provenance... But you describe quite well the positioning of the instruments. There is some noise, but as for the level, I am not quite sure...

I think that Peter will be of some help, since he seems to have 2 versions I think ? If it is of some interest, Peter could send you a song from the download I sent him (through filemail) ? Peter, could you ?

Regards,

Alain

Well the most obvious "anomaly" came from "Highway Star", during the intro. Deep Purple traditionally has Blackmore's guitar on one side and the Lord's Hammond on the other. With the original version, the hammond is quite present, but not on the DVD...

I also noted that at the end of "Smoke on the Water", it closes with the drums but on the DVD there are "back and forth" that alters the drum solo to a point where I was wondering if it was really part of the song...

Do you have the "standard" CD also ?

Thanks for the info about the 16/44 - 24/96. I am still in learning mode and from what I read on many forums, the more I read, the more I realize my ignorance :-) But I am willing to understand, as long as there is not too much maths ;-)

Yes, I thought about the NOS, but I got my sound system from one year ago and I need some time to "absorb" the expenses...

Where are you from ?

By the way I noted the amount of memory you have on your PC ! Wow ! I have a RAID hardware card on my desktop (I was tired of having BDOSs with the integrated Intel chip). One SSD for the OS, and 5 x 160GB HDDS for the rest. No, it's not on that PC that XXHE resides - it would be too noisy ;-)

You helped me a lot in explaining how XHE and the NOS work... I can't do better than what the signature shows, because the laptop is not powerful enough to go further. Still I am so amazed at the difference of quality when I compare with JRiver that I was using previously...

Another personal question: Frank Sinatra - Deep Purple... ? Just curious.

Regards,

Alain

Hi Pedal,

Thanks for pointing the SQ of the first 3 albums (Black Sabbath). Yes, they sound good. My apologies. It was more a joke about comparing rock music to classical music. Maybe I should call it "a biased point of view" on my part :-) Classical music is not my cup of tea, but for reasons I have yet to find, I hope I will learn how to like it someday... Maybe my girlfriend will stop saying how ugly my loudspeakrs are then ;-)

This reminds me of something. The first time I heard about Black Sabbath, it was from the "Master of Reality" album. The fuzz was so present, I was amazed ! The friend owning the album got it through an import (Vertigo label). When I bought my own copy, it was from Warner Brothers and the sound was absolutely not the same. The fuzz was still present, but not to the level of the Vertigo pressing. And there was way too much bass.

I still have a few hundred LPs. My turntable is alas in a box... It has been sitting there for many years now. I consider removing the dust that covers it and have it checked... Too bad the cartridge is not functionnal anymore (the rubber suspension surely had disintegrated)... It is a Grace F9e (it was a Ruby when I bought it, but it was not available anymore that last time I changed the stylus).

Ooops.... I really am far from the subject :-)

I have only few DVDs and I got them because they were included in the CD I was ordering. Up until recently I didn't even bother to extract them. I bought DVD Audio Extractor because I was curious about a Lighthouse album (1 CD, 1 DVD). I like to use it but it is more complicated since I have to enter all the titles myself. I don't "tag" my music. I use the Windows folders for this: Genre/Artist/Volume A/01 songA, 02 song B, etc... I use EAC for extraction and it made me lazy (it gets the infos from an internet database as you surely know).

I just changed my whole sound system and it's a 2 channel ensemble... I am not ready to go through new expenses for a while.

Do you have the Machine Head DVD Audio from 2001 (Rhino) ?

How do you feel when you realize that even after paying more for your music, you get served in second ? That is how I felt after I listened to "Machine Head". The sound is gorgeous, but those fluctuations and the almost total disappearance of the hammond (Jon Lord) is very frustrating...

Regards,

Alain

Hi Mark,

I am using a laptop  with a dual core 1.6GHZ CPU and 4GB of ram. I am a minimalist, I got rid of a lot of unwanted software that were starting with windows.

The results are impeccable, but of course a desktop should be better as it generally accommodate for more powerful CPUs and more ram. But it certainly will work :-)

Alain

Hi Peter,

I admit that when I suggested that the Deep Purple "Machine Head" download had something wrong, I was barely making a supposition about the downmix thing... I tried to put in words what was happening. Of course I would not have ask questions if it was the first time I was listening to that album, but I know it from 38 years ago... And it's a pity because apart from the mix, the sound is way better on that download...

I still am not sure what to understand about the hi-res files in general. Are they all doomed... ? This reminds me of some remastered versions of albums (on CD) I have known for as long as Machine Head - some sound richer, fuller - some others sound compressed to the max and unnatural. It is only when you have either the CD or the download in your hand that you discover the results...

The music industry is renown for extremes - sometimes they can make wonderful recordings, but I don't know if I am too negative about this, most of the time it feels almost fraudulent...

OTOH I am aware that I will not expect too much from the genre ("Rock", that is). Someone mentionned Black Sabbath somewhere. Well, I still listen to them (rarely nowadays) and I do not expect the same SQ as for a classical symphony... The mono-led recording technique used with guitars that were swinging from one channel to the other - all the manipulation (sound-on-sound, echo, etc...) were new and used a lot... It certainly was not hi-fi ;-)

I guess that any remastering will be dependant on the person sitting at the console...

As for SACD, I downloaded a few of them from Blue Coast Records. Many are free and they are offered in DSDIFF format. I don't know if it is the choice of music that is making me feel that way, but it sounds a little "thin" (I don't have the vocabulary to express better what I perceive). But it could be the sound recording technique or the DSD sound signature, I don't know...

Maybe someday the music industry will be more honest with the origins and the techniques applied to an old recording... I am not sure I will be alive to see this though ;-)

Alain



 

 

Hi Peter,

I do not have the chance of having the 16/44 version of the album. Which one would you recommend ? I am very curious about theses differences. I still have a lot of things to learn.

Here are some thoughts:
- Is the resolution up to a point where some micro-informations are "too much" for a recording from 1961 ? I am quite sure that the microphones from that time were not as accurate and silent as those of today ?
- Maybe the master tapes are not in such good shape as the 16/44 version ?
- If you write to the engineer, maybe he will give some answers as for the conclusions you have ?

Each time I think I get it, I realize that there is something new I have to take in account...

Thanks,

Alain

Hi,

I did not have the chance to listen to the redbook CD from the Bill Evans Trio ("Waltz for Debby"), bit I am quite sure that it is fabulous, because the sound recording is.

I admit I am an hi-res addict. Something happend 4 days ago though and I am not sure I will stay on that track, unless there is a good description about where it comes from, when it was done and what was done. Keep clear of the Deep Purple "Machine Head" offered in a 24/96 flavour ! It is a surround downmixed in 2 channels and there are a lot of flaws in the spatial representation of the instruments. The sound is good, but the reste if awful.

I was so angry that I wrote to them about my perceptions and the results of my findings. The first person who answered me did not do anyting, but the second offered me to pick another album. At least there is customer service out there.

As for the Bill Evans Trio, while I can't compare with redbook, the hi-res version is good, very good. If all hi-res were like this one, I would not have the slightest distrust to go buying those that interest me.

I leave 2 links: one leads to the Hdtracks page where the Bill Evans Trio is. Read the paragraph about what was done with the master tapes.

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HX00888072330030

As for the other, there is an interview with Ted de Paravicini. The guy is quite interesting ! He can take a professional reel to reel that has a standard frequency response of 20 hz to 15 khz and bring it back with a frequency response of 7 hz to 35 khz. We are talking about an analog reel to reel tape here...

http://ear-usa.com/timdeparavicini.htm

Quite amazing !

Alain

Hi Peter,

To say the truth, I was in "hibernation" for many years when I started computer programming in 1987, until 2002. I was so into it that a lot of things went down the drain and the music was part of that...

I just woke up a couple of years ago and that awakening made me spent a few k$. Now I am just looking around and find what I missed. I only discovered a few "oldies" up to now...

So no, there are lots of albums I am not aware of... Is that "In Rock" version that good ? I have always found it quite distorted and doubted it would sound ok one day... ?

I have a few others of them: Fireball, Who Do We Think We Are... I used to have more of them, like Stormbringer, Burn, even Rainbow...

About the document... Yes, it's creepy ! I don't know what to think about this, but it does not smell good... So each time I will see a hi-res, I will ask myself if it worths the buy... I am already slowing down. I would prefer to go for new stuff or at least just get what I still want from my vinyls...

The good new is that I am now an unconditional of you !

Thanks and regards,

Alain

Hi Peter,

Thanks for those many answers. You do not have to excuse yourself for being disgusted about the ploy from the majors... I have always asked myself why they simply don't do things right in the first place. I am not really interested in multi-channel music, but it could be all we will get in an uncertain future... And I really feel sad about this.

As for the "Machine Head" from Deep Purple, I listened to it again. Yes, this is definitely taken from the 5.1 surround remastered version and downmixed to 2 channels. This was done in 2001 and at the time they were still in learning mode as for using this new technology. On "Highway Star" it is quite obvious, as the Hammond from Jon Lord almost disappears at certain passages (as if it was going "somewhere else"). But I have to say at least that the sound (apart from the awful mix) is a lot better than what I was accustomed to, be it from the vinyl and the regular CD. But it does not excuse the total lack of care about the mix...

I found a few sites where there seemed to be some indication about what was on this DVD-A, but there are contradictions...

I fell on an article giving information about the DVD-A white papers. I took that from http://www.dvd-a.net/faq.html. I am sending it as an attachment with this reply.

At page 8 of this document it becomes quite interesting and it confirms that in some situations the 5.1 can be downmixed in 2 channels with a protocol called "SMART" and it comes from... Warner Brothers... I do not automatically conclude that this is what happened, but it could be. But whatever was applied, the result speakd for itself.

And yes I agree with you. The song I sent to you yesterday about the "Wrong header" is a good example of the Loudness War...

Thanks and regards,

Alain

Hi Peter,

I am trying to find articles that explain in not so technical words what is the difference we should hear between a regular CD format song and its high resolution equivalent.

I am aware that in the seventies, 20khz was quite the maximum at which the microphones and magnetic media could go. Maybe there were exceptions to this, but the music I was listening to (and I am still listening to nowadays) was not hi-fi music.

It is my belief that some high resolution music has been remastered with better equipment, better electronics, better attention to the small details and with little to no compression nor artificial adding from generation tapes very close to the first generation tape.

Yes, I know... It sounds naive doesn't it...

I have an example of this with an album on HDtracks, called "Waltz for Debby" by the Bill Evans Trio (Jazz). The interesting thing about it (apart from the incredible sound) is that there is a written explanation on what was done (partially) to revive the master and allow it to be put in 24/192. This recording is from 1961 and is fabulous !

This is to explain how I feel about hi-res... I am not necessarily thinking that buying a hi-res file will automatically mean "better sound", but I hope each time that the music was treated with care from the master tapes... I guess that this is done to appeal audiophiles that are hesitating about buying SACDs... And possibly DVD-As ?

What bugs me is that most of the times, the "pre-digital" albums that are selling in hi-res do not carry any explanation as how things were done to justify the higher cost and the supposed better sound.

I know of the malpractice with "upsampling" (for me it is the same as if someone was taking an MP3 song and converting it to WAV, in a effort to make fast money). HDtracks is supposed to have taken care of this now. Supposed...

Now, when I see an album that I listened to in my younger days, I can't determine if the care I mentioned before is applied to it.

In your last post, you mention that the filtering applied to the music destroys any advantage that could apply to most of hi-res music. I guess that you are talking about the "shortcuts" many music companies are taking to profit from our naivety ?

I would love to eventually get your DAC here in my home... I have to wait a while. My actual DAC was just bought a year ago and I spent a lot of money on changing my audio components.

I also followed the "used gears" tracks... Listed here is my components today. I am really happy with the results, but I won't pretend that I have the best (that would be stupid):
- Audiophilleo 2 USB -> SPDIF reclocker (new)
- Bryston BDA-1 DAC (new)
- Meitner PA-6 preamp (used, from 1990, all caps and some circuitry changed to the latest version of that component) (used)
- Meitner (Museatex) CAS-10 power amplifier (100w/c), same maintenance and upfrades as for the preamp (used)
- Tannoy System 15 DMT Studio Monitors, with the coaxial 15'' Dual Concentric speaker (almost not used)
- Tannoy subwoofers (1 for each channel) TS-1001 (new)
- Tannoy supertweeters ST-100 (almost new)

I remember that at first, I had problems with the System 15. They are a little picky on the source and they will tell me when a recording is compressed or harsh... Apart from the fact that the LF are not as big as I am used to, they really are wonderful to listen to.

I also bought "audiophile" cables (power cables and interconnects). I have put an "audiophile" AC outlet (Wattgate that is). I am using bi-wiring for the Tannoy.

Up to now I haven't taken care of the acoustics of my room. There is no absorbent material, my rack is directly on the floor with no dampening, so are the Tannoy... I have to make myself a rack that I should fill with sand to dampen the vibrations and eventually take care of my audio components rack to isolate it.

I also think about changing my actual laptop for a desktop specifically oriented towards silence and good components. I am not wishing to pay for a "music server" - it is too expensive in my beliefs...

Well, that tells a little more about me I guess - hope :-)

Thanks for your patience.

Alain

P.S.: You should have received a song that triggers the error message "Wrong header..." with XXHIGEND...

Hi Peter,

Can you provide me with an email address where I can send that file to ?

I will write to you some questions but I will do my homework first about hi-res :-)

Thanks again.

Alain

Peter,

Yes I could send you a song, but how and where ? I think it exceeds the maximum allowed...

As for the hi-res thing, why don't you recommend it ?

I have downloaded many from HDT in 16/44 and a few in 24/88,24/96, etc...

I understand that the max freq response does not legitimate the price difference and the hi-res as for frequency response, but is it only about frequency response or it also has with tonality and other attributes (apart from dynamic range and filtering purpose) ?

Alain

Hi again Peter,

FYI, this download (the whole album) comes from Naim Label, bought a few weeks earlier. I have another download from them, but no problem. Strange... When I rip, I use EAC...

By the way, I have downloaded an album from HDtracks yesterday... There is something wrong with it. I thought I could mention it: Deep Purple "Machine Head". I am waiting for their answer. I have this album on vinyl, CD, Audio Fidelity CD an now in 24/96. But this last version seems weird. The Hammond on the right channel (DP mostly had the guitar on one channel and the hammond on the other) in "Highway Star" intro is almost not there and there are fluctuations in the sound that I am not sure of. I have written to HDtracks to ask for a refund or in hope that they will correct the matter... I do not systematically buy hi-res downloads, but... If they come from DSD, maybe they should be available in DSDIFF...

Thanks again. I am still amazed at the "rendu" of the music with XXHIGHEND. It now is a pain when I have to come back to any other player...

Alain

Hi Peter,

I mentioned in another thread that sometimes I had problems playing a file... This is one example...

The messages simply says: Wrong header for file (...)

The file is a plain WAV file, no tags, no nothing I am aware of.

I have included the log.

Thanks,

Alain