Soundproof

Yes, but we're not discussing 24-bit high-res recordings, we are discussing files in inferior resolutions bumped up to high-res, without the benefits of 24-bit high-res recording having been applied during the recording session. Which is why Point 2 in my 4-point run-through is worth a moment of thought.

When offered a high-res version of a recording from the golden age, there are a few steps worth going through before one even bothers looking at the spectrogram. 1. When was the recording made? 2. What was the medium it was recorded onto? 3. What is the provenance of the version used to create the high-res file? 4. What is known about the recording technology that was used? Question 1 gives an immediate frame of reference for what to expect from a file. Most recordings from the "golden age" have very little frequency content above 18kHz (as that was the limit for a 2nd generation tape). As most recordings were made with microphones that topped out at about 16kHz, the point is moot as far as the tape goes, the engineers knew that they would be able to retain enough information. And if the production was intended for vinyl, the engineers knew they had even more headroom, as few LP-issues from the golden age has any musical content above 15-16 kHz. It the production was among the happy few in the 60s that had high-quality tape as the prime destination, then one can expect more. If it was a DMM vinyl production in the 70s, then there is more information in the higher register, but that was strongly disliked by audiophiles who liked the "warmer" sound of the 60s LPs. In short - if the technology topped out under 20kHz, which it did, then there is no benefit in a high-res version. (And a lot of people will protest, but let the winds blow.) Question 2. Recorded before high-resolution microphones and digital high-res recording machines were available? Or after? If after, then there could be information relevant to a high-res chain, but often there wouldn't be any, as the engineers were aiming for CD releases. Recent recordings do have authentic high-res information, and should therefore be safer bets. Question 3 - is the issuer fortright about the chain of provenance of the file used to create the high-res version? Or are we getting a lot of smokes-and-mirrors? The straighter the story, the better the chance that there's some high-res there. Files offered without a clear chain of provenance are not worth bothering with. Question 4 - touched upon in earlier questions. But the internet is wonderful place, and these days there's lots of information to be found about even the most obscure recording sessions. Do some searches, read some reports, study what's known (and it can be quite a lot), and then evaluate what to expect from a high-res issue. After those steps, it might be worth it to fire up the analysis software. In my experience, 99,9% of what's offered as high-res from the era before the technology crashed through the ceiling imposed by microphones and recording media, is not high-res. Back in 2009, after evaluating some "high-res" offers, I asked the question posed in the link below. Subsequent developments have not exactly been encouraging: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/hdtracks-bumps-or-drawn-masters-2146/

This reminds me of another thread where a person went to impressive lengths to secure a courier carried harddisk from 2L, with music at their maximum resolution. These files were then compared to the Redbook versions, and said person waxed potently lyrical about the vast differences in quality between high-res max resolution and Redbook. There was only one way forward after this! Until it became clear that the Mac used had not been set correctly to pass through the high-res, and had downsampled to ----- 16/44.1. Yes, sure, possibly, maybe, something had survived the downsample, but definitely not to the point of explaining the overdosed language used to describe the benefits of the high-res version pushed. And the whole exercise was fatally flawed, when it could have been interesting. Teresa is now in the same position, her thoughts on the topic reduced to fluff. This has to be a spoof? Fourth generation iPod Shuffle? (Insert assortment of smileys here. Maybe read the spec's first, and understand them?)

Is perfection always the highest possible resolution? Should our listening rooms be stand-ins for a sound engineer's workspace, where one hunts for what's wrong; or a place to sit back and relax, where one enjoys what's right? It comes down to what kind of listener you are. Do you sit down to find errors in the playback, whether at home or somewhere else? Or do you actually listen to the music? And what is it about the music you listen for - the sum of all the details, or the absolute smallest details you can hear? I think a lot of people are missing out on the enjoyment, because they are obsessing about an unattainable perfection, and wondering what's wrong, instead of simply savoring all that's right.

I installed this in 2007. Must confess that the room was one of the reasons I picked this apartment - quite ideal proportions, and with the possibility of placing the speakers well clear of walls. BeoLab 5 speakers with acoustic lenses, connected to a soundcard, which is then connected to various sources, with chief playback from a Mac mini, using Pure Music, fed from a ReadyNAS+. Controlling everything from the iPad. I've actually had the founder of 2L in the listening room on one occasion. It's been fine tuned for a nice listening experience - I have two meters to the back wall, from the listening position, and can even open doors behind it to let "symphonic energy" escape to avoid any risk of back-scatter. I like the listening room to be dark and with warm lighting. Here it's photographed in the early morning. I've put a light on the acoustic lenses, which I consider to be nonpareil in their ability to create a realistic soundscape. (The site is cropping the photo, click the link below for a full view.) All equipment is in the cabinet under the television, and the doors can be closed as I listen, to avoid any "mechanical distractions." The unit to the left of the television is there now as I'm listening to some musicassettes at the moment, and need it to connect the tape player. I usually keep it in another room, and think I'll also be hiding the AppleTV that can be seen under the television.

No - USB DACs are due to PCs. FireWire was initially under royalty to Apple, and therefore didn't spread widely to PCs. But most PCs had USB-connections, and there were 19x as many PCs as Macs, anyway. And that's why we have USB-Dacs. It's a simple way for users to connect a DAC to a computer, without having to be tech-savvy, and without the need for a separate soundcard, etc. I've been using a Mac mini porting via FireWire to a separate soundcard since 2007, and wish FireWire hadn't been under royalty initially, it would have been the porting standard now.

Using microphones that are sensitive to levels far above those ordinarily used when recording music. I doubt that Gaucho was recorded with microphones sensitive in the frequencies relevant for high-res, and even when reworked in 24/96 for the multichannel version, you can't invent high-res information that isn't in the original recording, no matter how you transfer from the original master tapes. But the work that was carried out is described nicely here, at the bottom: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug03/articles/steelydan.htm

I think Linn has handled this responsibly, though it should provide pause due to the fact that so many involved did not notice something "was missing" until the file was measured. However - in addition to checking that they haven't committed the silly error that was the culprit here, I would like to know how the higher frequencies come to be: they require microphones sensitive in that region, and we should get information about the mic's used. Well done by Linn though.. For their own recordings there is no doubt as to the microphones, by the way. But a number of the offers from other providers can't possibly have been made with microphones sensitive above 15-16 kHz, as microphones usually reached up there, as a maximum, during the 50s-90s.

Yes, they can be used with PCs, as long as you have a network they can log on to or extend. Requires that you have iTunes installed to control music playback.

I would think the fact that files have been pulled, by various vendors, is another quite conclusive test, supporting that revealed by Audacity (among others.) Sometimes you wonder why people have to quarrel about the obvious on the internet ...

So here's what this situation has led to for me. Today I've received an e-mail from HD-Tracks, with links to music from DGG which I would immediately download, if I felt certain about the provenance of the material. Boulez conducting Mahler's 3rd, in 24/88.2 would be on my harddisk in a minute. But I'm holding back for several reasons. 1. The numerous reports about files not being what they purport to be. 2. The fact that HD-tracks doesn't state clearly how these files came to be. That shouldn't be so hard. Just write a couple of sentences about how the 24/88.2 was pulled, and by whom, and that HD-Tracks have checked the files - and I'm a happy buyer snapping up this material faster than you can punch the digits for the total sale. Until that happens - until providers such as HD-Tracks and others provide this assurance, I'm holding back. In the recentLinn example, we are dealing with material which has not been produced by Linn, but which has been provided by an outside company, for sale through Linn's webstore. In those instances, I feel that Linn should check the files, as a matter of routine, before making them available. HD-Tracks does little production of its own, and there the files are provided by outside companies. HD-Tracks needs to keep us buyers informed - it's quite silly to have to check your purchases after download -- and basically I just don't want the hastle of having to complain and wait for resolutions. So - strong recommendation to providers: State the provenance, as if you were selling a work of art (which you are). 1. Original source. 2. Method of transfer to digital file. 3. Whether any subsequent manipulations have been carried out. Cheers!

I started this thread last year: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/HDtracks-bumps-or-drawn-masters When I became quite convinced that something wasn't quite as it should be. And I'm still calling for a "statement of provenance" from the high-rez companies. They should clearly state the original source - the manner in which it has been pulled to digital - and the specific resolution of the material, as verified by them before being made available. This they're not doing, and that doesn't serve their purpose, if that is to grow a wide user base. I've become skeptical of high-rez claims as a default setting on my meter, these days.

I think there are several things it would be good to standardize when it comes to High-Resolution Audio (HRA) as far as music is concerned. 1. A chain of authentication of the transfer. With vinyl, you can see the pressing details on the record. With HRA you should be able to ascertain how the release "came to be." 2. Was it just bumped up from Redbook? 3. Did they go back to the analog Mastertapes? 4. Has it been pulled from the Studio Master or from intermediates? 5. Has the content been bumped across several formats before ending up in the one offered to you? 6. Has the content been "X-sampled"? That is - has it gone through non-native resamples before we arrive at the end result. The ideal should be a straight transfer from a Studio Master or a pull from the analog master mix tapes. With the Studio Master format being offered without resample, and with the pull being offered in what one could hope would become the default format, for instance 24/96. Until this is sorted out, and CA could try to take a lead in this respect, users will find high-res to be an intransparent mess. It would probably help if users managed to resist the urge to always go "mostest is bestest" when it comes to resolution, if we are to achieve a wider dissemination of the format. Today, you risk having to play back at least a dozen different formats/resolutions/varieties, all posing as high-res - just because the people offering them can't agree on what should be the standard. And that's a mess, while also offering opportunities for people who are actually just exploiting the urge to switch to high-res.

Something's definitely wrong with your setup. I have the following: 1. ReadyNAS server - connected to Airport Basestation which is connected to router 2. 3 different Airport Express Units 3. 1 MacBook, 1 MacBook Pro, 1 13" Alu Mac, 1 15" Alu Mac, 1 iMac, 1 Mac mini, 1 TimeCapsule 4. All connected to the same WiFi network (and with a back-up of Ethernet from Basestation to MacMini.) I have experimented with having four different movies playing on Macs, fed from the NAS, while also playing music from the MacMini to my audio system, and from AE to two different other systems. No glitches, stutters or problems. I have a fast internet connection, the WiFi is set up according to the recommended procedure, and I live in an area with a lot of other WiFi networks. I think you need to have another look at the manual.

Thanks, Geoffrey, Unchecking that option seemed to help when it comes to every other track being skipped, so that's sorted. EDIT - nah, still got the skipping. Played The Wall, which I'd ripped from the original, and it kept skipping a track as it was loading into memory. I had marked the album as gapless. Still wondering why certain albums get loaded into Memory automatically, while others are played back from disk. Would have been great not to have to check that, once Memory playback's been selected. And then there's also the mysteriuos "having to press play for each track" on certain albums. The advantage being that these things will probably be sorted in later versions, unless it's operator error! I see there's some discussion about "bloatware." Pure Music is as far from as you can get, I'd think. A very compact download, doesn't take much space, and does wonders. Very good manual, and excellent follow-up from the developer. What's the problem? :-)