Dan Sheffield

I have a D-Link DWA-125 802.11n wireless modem. The cable modem transfers data to my PC wirelessly. I don't know if this has been asked before on this forum, but does anyone know if a study or investigation has been done on the bit-for-bit accuracy of hi-resolution audio files that have been downloaded wireless from a cable modem to a PC? I don't believe the wireless would matter but considering things like the effects of clock jitter in other realms of digital audio discussion, nothing would surprise me at this point. Dan

A loaded question of course, but we all know the answer to that one! The question is really this - Does anyone have a list of which download sites offer files without DRM? (I'm assuming most, otherwise it would be something of a suicidal business model.) I'm interested mostly in classical, and buying the hi-res studio masters right from the label itself. I know Linn doesn't do DRM, which they say right on their site. Specifically, what about Channel Classics? Their "contacts" webpage comes up blank, otherwise I'd ask them directly. Thanks! Dan

Russel - good catch with the Channel Classics at 88.2 rather than 176.4. I must've had the Rolling Stones on the brain at that moment. ;-)

Ted, I hope there'll eventually be a hi-res file categorization or scheme, much like the CD SPARS codes of AAD, ADD and DDD. Something that would denote the file's "pedigree" or "bit path" for lack of a better phrase. In his book "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio", Robert Harley mentiones the need for consumers having a right to know the "provenance" of a hi-resolution file. I fully agree, and that doesn't seem too much to ask. And I also realize that HDtracks doesn't play games either, to their credit. I imagine the original labels don't either (I mentioned Channel Classics, Linn and Chandos earlier.) I posted this originally to address that kind of consumer knowledge that we only seem to be able to get by word of mouth at this point. Dan

Hi Steve, Were the 2 files you mentioned of the same title (apples to apples) or different?

Thank you firedog. That makes sense. And yes, I pretty much assumed that a 24/192 was not upsampled from a 24/176.4 file. That would be a little bit "Frankenstein" I'd think. Some of my questions are below, and I'll use an example to ask it. Channel Classics uses 24/192 studio masters. HDtracks offers the "same" release in 24/176.4. To me that suggests, as you said, HDtracks used a 2 channel SACD data layer as their source since the DSD sampling rate of 2.8224 MHz is a 64X multiple of the CD's 44.1 kHz and the 176.4 kHz is 4X. Integer multiples.... so far so good. This thread has morphed a little but my questions are these (using Channel Classics as an example): 1. What of the original 24/192 studio master? In theory, should it be better in sound quality and with a "purer" signal than the SACD-derived 176.4? (Although the differences would likely be inaudible.) In theory, I'd say it would have to be marginally better. (In theory.) 2. Is or was the 24/192 studio master a PCM file? Is that the original source? 3. The consumer dilemma ultimately.... what should one buy? The 24/192 studio file directly from Channel Classics or the 24/176.4 HDtracks file? I'm wondering what advantage or disadvantage one may have over the other? (I know HDtracks offers .pdf's which I'm assuming they get or scan from the liner notes.) Dan (And Happy Easter everyone.)

Steve, I think if there's a choice to be made, I'm leaning towards the original 24/192 (or 24/96) files. And I have a few Linn SACD's (Handel's "Messiah" by the Dunedin Consort and Bartok's "Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta" with Mackerras/Scottish Chamber Orch.) and even the Redbook layer on my humble SONY car CD player is amazing enough. And I think as I mentioned earlier, relative to "audiophilia nervosa".... even if it took days to download.... I guess in many cases it'd be worth it. Dan

Russell, That's interesting. Ironically, I discovered that very thing on my own over the weekend and had directly asked HDtracks for an answer on that. (Channel using a master of 192/24 but HDtracks with the same title using an 88.2/24 resolution.) I didn't know about the whole Puget Sound Studios thing though, and I still haven't heard back from HDtracks yet. I'm sure there would be a difference due to the completely different base multiples of 44.1 and 48, but then.... would it be an audible difference? With such a high bit rate and frequency, I'm guessing not - but there'd still be the psychological issue of knowing you don't have the highest rate / purest file. I'm thinking by default, I'd go with the 192/24 for that reason alone (the psychological one). "Audiophilia nervosa", which we're all stricken with to some extent is probably 1/2 actual sound quality, but 1/2 "OCD" as well. :-) Dan

Thanks all. I guess the best way (but the most expensive unfortunately) would be to trial purchase a hi-res file both ways (original label and HDtracks), and then if there actually IS a difference (.pdf images etc.), you stick with the better one from there forward. And yes if there were any down conversions of a studio file (example with Linn), that'd obviously be a loss in every sense of the word. I'm guessing with the Chesky audiophile heritage of HDtracks however, they probably don't do that. I'm not seeing Linn on their label roster but the same argument could apply with other labels, so good point made. https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=labellist I'll dig further into this directly with HDtracks and post what I find if anyone's interested. Thanks for your responses again guys. Dan

Does anyone know if there's a difference between downloading a hi-res album offered by HDtracks vs. the same album from the manufacturer? (The bit for bit content, I'm sure would be the same.... I'm thinking differences relative to .pdf liner notes, DRM etc.) For example - Say I wanted to buy an 88/24 FLAC file of some given Chandos album. Other than "one-stop shopping", is there any advantage or disadvantage in getting the same file directly from Chandos? Dan