Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 395
  1. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hutton View Post
    Because of the license the LABEL offers them. That is the way it is.

    This is very common in the world.
    Robert, this makes perfect sense for locally produced and or sold physical products, but not at all for digital content.

    I'll stop here, sorry for sidetracking this thread.
    Main: iMac late 2009 8GB SSD / Qobuz Sublime > Audirvana+/JRiverMac/AmarraSQ > Audioquest Forest USB > BelCanto mlink > Atlas Ascent BNC > Exposure 2010S2 Dac > Audioquest King Cobra > Exposure 3010S2 Integrated > Chord Carnival Classic > B&W CM8
    HP system: > Audioquest Golden Gate > Sennheiser HDVA600 > Sennheiser HD800
    Mobile: Iphone 6 > Ultrasone Tio or B&W P5II

    musicophilesblog.com - From Keith Jarrett to Johannes Brahms

  2. #27
    The point is that the digital world with all these restrictions constitutes a major step back. This licensing issue is merely a way to be able to operate with different price levels in different markets and thus earn more money. Then the companies do not care that this limits the content available to customers in the unlucky smaller markets. In the physical world private customers would always be able to buy books, music and films abroad and import them (paying taxes and customs of course). This would make all the cultural products available to all and also potentially function as a means to get more competitive prices in smaller markets. But with the advent of music download and soon film downloads/streaming this option is now closed down for the companies to maximise their earnings but as I stated to the serious detriment of all customers outside the largest markets.... I really can't see how you can defend the license holders - and then they wonder why piracy is rampant!!

  3. #28
    Site Founder The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Posts
    14,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasmussen View Post
    In the physical world private customers would always be able to buy books, music and films abroad and import them (paying taxes and customs of course).
    This is part of the reason. What small music site wants to go to the expense and hassle of collecting taxes for every country in the EU? In the US now we are still working through the Internet tax issue.
    Chris Connaker

    Founder
    Computer Audiophile

    Listening Room | System Details

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hutton View Post
    That's going to be a game changer. Chad is a smart businessman, and I am told in the industry that hi-res downloads are killing the premium 45 vinyl business, so it makes perfect sense.

    Also, Gray has recently upgraded his mastering chain to pure class A with very high end digital conversion, so he is going to become one of three go-to guys (with Sterling and Grundman the others) for audiophile hi-res digital.

    I would think that this will force MOFI to get into downloads also.
    Hopefully, the provenance of these DSD downloads by whomever is provided so that we can be reasonably assured that it is really High Resolution and not some digitally manipulated output. Not sure how true it is but heard that problem with many of SONY SACDs was that they were generated from Red Book files and not native DSD to capitalize on market demand. IMHO, some SACD releases don't even sound as good as the original CD and that may be (part of) the reason.

  5. #30
    Site Founder The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Posts
    14,762
    Quote Originally Posted by BigGuy View Post
    Hopefully, the provenance of these DSD downloads by whomever is provided so that we can be reasonably assured that it is really High Resolution and not some digitally manipulated output. Not sure how true it is but heard that problem with many of SONY SACDs was that they were generated from Red Book files and not native DSD to capitalize on market demand. IMHO, some SACD releases don't even sound as good as the original CD and that may be (part of) the reason.
    Another possible reason the sound wasn't good is because 99% of DSD is converted to PCM for editing than back to DSD. I haven't been able to confirm this yet, but I was told by someone with extensive knowledge of the Sonoma DSD system that even the Sonoma EQ board must convert or use DSD converted to PCM to function. If true, the only real DSD music would be recorded straight to DSD, then offered for download pretty much untouched.
    Chris Connaker

    Founder
    Computer Audiophile

    Listening Room | System Details

  6. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by The Computer Audiophile View Post
    Another possible reason the sound wasn't good is because 99% of DSD is converted to PCM for editing than back to DSD. I haven't been able to confirm this yet, but I was told by someone with extensive knowledge of the Sonoma DSD system that even the Sonoma EQ board must convert or use DSD converted to PCM to function. If true, the only real DSD music would be recorded straight to DSD, then offered for download pretty much untouched.
    That is completely untrue.

    1. Most classical titles recorded in true DSD stay that way.

    1. Labels like Analogue Productions, MOFI, ORG and other true audiophile labels always take a direct DSD feed.

    3. Most remasters from analog are straight to DSD, and these is no editing necessary to a master tape.

    4. Some classical labels record PCM and convert to DSD for the SACD. Labels like Marinksky, LSO Live, Challenge, and a number of others are recording pure DSD.

    There are many cases of a hi-res 24/192 copy of the master being given for the sACD, and so converted to DSD. I haven't got too much of a problem with that. But to say that 99% of DSD is being converted back to PCM and then again to DSD is ridiculous.

    As to the earlier post slamming Sony SACDs - again, rubbish. Some are incredibly good - the Miles, the Bernstein/Mahler, the Boulez titles, many, many others. Many of the Sony titles were done at the beginning of SACD - ao it has evolved, and gotten much better. But they were never garbage.

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by BigGuy View Post
    Hopefully, the provenance of these DSD downloads by whomever is provided so that we can be reasonably assured that it is really High Resolution and not some digitally manipulated output. Not sure how true it is but heard that problem with many of SONY SACDs was that they were generated from Red Book files and not native DSD to capitalize on market demand. IMHO, some SACD releases don't even sound as good as the original CD and that may be (part of) the reason.
    Amazing that on the day Chad announces his entry into hi-res the "provenance" already gets questioned.

    IT IS OBVIOUS.

    His DSD downloads will be exactly the same as the corresponding SACD title. Whoever mastered the SACD will be automatically the source of the dsd file. Why would it be otherwise?

  8. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by The Computer Audiophile View Post
    This is part of the reason. What small music site wants to go to the expense and hassle of collecting taxes for every country in the EU? In the US now we are still working through the Internet tax issue.
    You are rights of course. The cause of the problem is certainly not AS, but the entire business model of the big music companies. But applying the restrictions in a loose way as most download sites do would have helped.....

  9. #34
    Site Founder The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Posts
    14,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hutton View Post
    That is completely untrue.

    1. Most classical titles recorded in true DSD stay that way.

    1. Labels like Analogue Productions, MOFI, ORG and other true audiophile labels always take a direct DSD feed.

    3. Most remasters from analog are straight to DSD, and these is no editing necessary to a master tape.

    4. Some classical labels record PCM and convert to DSD for the SACD. Labels like Marinksky, LSO Live, Challenge, and a number of others are recording pure DSD.

    There are many cases of a hi-res 24/192 copy of the master being given for the sACD, and so converted to DSD. I haven't got too much of a problem with that. But to say that 99% of DSD is being converted back to PCM and then again to DSD is ridiculous.

    As to the earlier post slamming Sony SACDs - again, rubbish. Some are incredibly good - the Miles, the Bernstein/Mahler, the Boulez titles, many, many others. Many of the Sony titles were done at the beginning of SACD - ao it has evolved, and gotten much better. But they were never garbage.
    I stand by my statement that 99% of SACDs were at one point PCM.
    Chris Connaker

    Founder
    Computer Audiophile

    Listening Room | System Details

  10. #35
    Senior Member One and a half's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    BNE
    Posts
    3,733
    Acoustic Sounds, while a commercial decision, have given us an excellent source of Jazz, Pop, Rock, not so much emphasis on classical recordings on DSD.
    Congrats to them for taking this bold step, and please make the recordings available to other countries, cultural boundaries conflict with commercial interests, the latter winning most of the time, sad state of affairs that.

    Also find the XLS of the items on sale very beneficial to cross off what's downloaded, and to save the pennies to get more!

    I can't seem to find on the site where the format of the DSD files are stated, assume them to be dsf 64, same as the SACD's.

    Now to research how to convert DSF/DFF to 320MP3 for portables and the car, tried with JRMC, didn't work all that well. I think if you buy the DSD download, you should get the MP3 for a $1 extra, save's me the effort

  11. #36
    Masters Level Member ted_b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Westlake, OH, USA
    Posts
    7,262
    The downloads are stereo DSF files, nicely tagged.
    "We're all bozos on this bus"....F.T.

    My JRiver screencast tutorials : http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f1...tml#post272960
    My DSD database: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...ySk/edit#gid=0
    My SACD Ripping Guide (needs updating but still works): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...r%20v4.0.1.pdf

    US Technical Advisor, NativeDSD.com: www.nativedsd.com

  12. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by The Computer Audiophile View Post
    I stand by my statement that 99% of SACDs were at one point PCM.
    Great, Elvis is alive too. Sheesh.

  13. #38
    Masters Level Member ted_b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Westlake, OH, USA
    Posts
    7,262
    Quote Originally Posted by The Computer Audiophile View Post
    I stand by my statement that 99% of SACDs were at one point PCM.
    Of the 7500 SACDs out there, about 60% are PCM-based (i.e PCM recorded or PCM mastered), 30% are native DSD (Sonoma, Grimm, etc....I consider any recording native DSD if there was no PCM EQ......PCM track slicing doesn't count..except for a tenth of a second This category includes Pentatone, Channel Classics, etc) and 10%+ are analog-to-DSD transfers (which are some of the best out there...RCA Living Stereo, BlueCoast, AP jazz reissues, etc...hence the excitement over this new download site). However, of the 60% PCM, at least half of those are the best we've got right now. For these there are no HDTracks, etc providing us a better PCM hirez (i.e one generation closer to the original). So....find the PCM originals..and buy them. But in 5000+ cases I challenge anyone to find a closer generation to the master. Isn't that what it's all about?
    "We're all bozos on this bus"....F.T.

    My JRiver screencast tutorials : http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f1...tml#post272960
    My DSD database: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...ySk/edit#gid=0
    My SACD Ripping Guide (needs updating but still works): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...r%20v4.0.1.pdf

    US Technical Advisor, NativeDSD.com: www.nativedsd.com

  14. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by ted_b View Post
    Of the 7500 SACDs out there, about 60% are PCM-based (i.e PCM recorded or PCM mastered), 30% are native DSD (Sonoma, Grimm, etc....I consider any recording native DSD if there was no PCM EQ......PCM track slicing doesn't count..except for a tenth of a second This category includes Pentatone, Channel Classics, etc) and 10%+ are analog-to-DSD transfers (which are some of the best out there...AP jazz reissues, etc...hence the excitement over this new download site). However, of the 60% PCM, at least half of those are the best we've got right now. For these there are no HDTracks, etc providing us a better PCM hirez (i.e one generation closer to the original). So....find the PCM originals..and buy them. But in 5000+ cases I challenge anyone to find a closer generation to the master. Isn't that what it's all about?
    That is exactly my understanding of it. 30% native DSD (mostly classical) and 10% analog to DSD (popular and jazz), and the rest PCM to DSD are primarily also classical where the label records in PCM but issues a SACD, and a smaller number where a hi-res source - 24/96 or even 24/192 (Japanese mostly) are the source.

    Although I find 24/44 fairly lame to create a DSD file from, 24/96 is not bad, and it is pretty hard to complain about a 24/192 copy of the master tape being used - most consider a 24/192 copy near indistinguishable from the analog tape.

    But 99% ....that is just blatantly false.

  15. #40
    Senior Member baddog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Land of the Lost Bits
    Posts
    1,937
    Well, I think this is great news, and waded right in. Sentimental favorite, Counting Crows, "August And Everything After". I had this on CD, I bought the 2 LP Analogue Productions re-issue earlier this year, and now I have the DSD download. Still at work, but looking forward to giving it a "spin"!
    Silver Circle Audio | Roon | Devialet | Synology | Vivid Audio | Stillpoint Aperture | Auralic | DH Labs

  16. #41
    Senior Member elcorso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Nonisisland
    Posts
    2,706
    Quote Originally Posted by The Computer Audiophile View Post
    I stand by my statement that 99% of SACDs were at one point PCM.
    I agree with you, even if I'm not sure about the "99%"

    The most important thing is 'the way' how the transfer is done, since (to my ears) some DSD recordings are closer to the real thing, but on some others I could remain on PCM. Maybe my mind has changed a little as some new DACs hit the street and I have the chance to listen to them.

    I remember the times when my favorites were AAD Redbooks. Then, maybe we need a new classification on DSD as: AADSD, DSDPCMDSD or whatever?

    Roch

  17. #42
    Senior Member One and a half's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    BNE
    Posts
    3,733
    The tags are good, except for the track numbers, which were missing from the import in JRMC 19. Grumbling added them in manually....

    On entering the track number info in JRMC, I noticed the Encoding Scheme comment:

    KORG Audiogate Ver2.3.2 (MacOSX10.8 Intel)

    Why would you encode using Audiogate.... to tag the DSF or convert from PCM to DSF, or both?

    If the file was originally a PCM (Redbook or higher), now a DSF, what tools are available to verify?

    _whats-then.jpg

  18. #43
    Site Founder The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Posts
    14,762
    Quote Originally Posted by ted_b View Post
    Of the 7500 SACDs out there, about 60% are PCM-based (i.e PCM recorded or PCM mastered), 30% are native DSD (Sonoma, Grimm, etc....I consider any recording native DSD if there was no PCM EQ......PCM track slicing doesn't count..except for a tenth of a second This category includes Pentatone, Channel Classics, etc) and 10%+ are analog-to-DSD transfers (which are some of the best out there...RCA Living Stereo, BlueCoast, AP jazz reissues, etc...hence the excitement over this new download site). However, of the 60% PCM, at least half of those are the best we've got right now. For these there are no HDTracks, etc providing us a better PCM hirez (i.e one generation closer to the original). So....find the PCM originals..and buy them. But in 5000+ cases I challenge anyone to find a closer generation to the master. Isn't that what it's all about?
    Hi ted - How can those numbers be verified?
    Chris Connaker

    Founder
    Computer Audiophile

    Listening Room | System Details

  19. #44
    Masters Level Member ted_b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Westlake, OH, USA
    Posts
    7,262
    Quote Originally Posted by The Computer Audiophile View Post
    Hi ted - How can those numbers be verified?
    They are a conglomeration of what I've researched, what SA-CD.net counts up, etc. I've been asked this before, so I guess it's time to do some verification.
    "We're all bozos on this bus"....F.T.

    My JRiver screencast tutorials : http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f1...tml#post272960
    My DSD database: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...ySk/edit#gid=0
    My SACD Ripping Guide (needs updating but still works): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...r%20v4.0.1.pdf

    US Technical Advisor, NativeDSD.com: www.nativedsd.com

  20. #45
    Site Founder The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Posts
    14,762
    Quote Originally Posted by ted_b View Post
    They are a conglomeration of what I've researched, what SA-CD.net counts up, etc. I've been asked this before, so I guess it's time to do some verification.
    It would be great to verify but I don't believe its possible. You'd have to have reliable info about every release. At times not even the labels have this info.
    Chris Connaker

    Founder
    Computer Audiophile

    Listening Room | System Details

  21. #46
    Masters Level Member ted_b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Westlake, OH, USA
    Posts
    7,262
    Quote Originally Posted by One and a half View Post
    The tags are good, except for the track numbers, which were missing from the import in JRMC 19. Grumbling added them in manually....

    On entering the track number info in JRMC, I noticed the Encoding Scheme comment:

    KORG Audiogate Ver2.3.2 (MacOSX10.8 Intel)

    Why would you encode using Audiogate.... to tag the DSF or convert from PCM to DSF, or both?

    If the file was originally a PCM (Redbook or higher), now a DSF, what tools are available to verify?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	_What's this then.jpg 
Views:	179 
Size:	229.5 KB 
ID:	7461
    Audiogate might have been used to do the DFF to DSF conversion. Tagging with Audiogate sucks frankly. I'm involved with another label's project (200 albums) and JRiver is way easier...and I've streamlined the DSF tagging project using Excel spreadsheets as the source. Mr C at J River was VERY helpful with a perl script.

    By the way, you know that if you bring the tracks in sequentially (as they are found on the album) you can simply add track numbers via right-click "Library Tools - Fill Track Numbers From List Order"
    "We're all bozos on this bus"....F.T.

    My JRiver screencast tutorials : http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f1...tml#post272960
    My DSD database: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...ySk/edit#gid=0
    My SACD Ripping Guide (needs updating but still works): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...r%20v4.0.1.pdf

    US Technical Advisor, NativeDSD.com: www.nativedsd.com

  22. #47
    Senior Member baddog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Land of the Lost Bits
    Posts
    1,937
    My download from Acoustic Sounds imported into JRIVER 18 (Mac) with the correct track numbers. Which of course is neither here, nor there...
    Silver Circle Audio | Roon | Devialet | Synology | Vivid Audio | Stillpoint Aperture | Auralic | DH Labs

  23. #48
    Senior Member baddog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Land of the Lost Bits
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by bplexico View Post
    My download from Acoustic Sounds imported into JRIVER 18 (Mac) with the correct track numbers. Which of course is neither here, nor there...
    Ok, I am an idiot, you are right, the track numbers are NOT importing correctly.

    Humbly.
    Silver Circle Audio | Roon | Devialet | Synology | Vivid Audio | Stillpoint Aperture | Auralic | DH Labs

  24. #49
    Senior Member One and a half's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    BNE
    Posts
    3,733
    Quote Originally Posted by ted_b View Post

    By the way, you know that if you bring the tracks in sequentially (as they are found on the album) you can simply add track numbers via right-click "Library Tools - Fill Track Numbers From List Order"
    Thanks for this one, the filenames are numbered 01...02 etc. with the title, click on the filename column, sometimes you have the choice to sort the filenames by folder, some other times, the pop up is not there, to sort the column, then fill.

    For some reason, typically when importing DSF, the tracks are transposed 2,1,3,4,5,7,6,8, weird, in viewed order.

  25. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by The Computer Audiophile View Post
    It would be great to verify but I don't believe its possible. You'd have to have reliable info about every release. At times not even the labels have this info.
    But Chris - YOU seem to have verifiable info, as you state with certainty as an absolute that "99%" are PCM sourced.

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast