mikemalter

Have you installed the W4S driver on your computer? The driver slaves the computer to the dac.

Erik, I checked with James Tanner of Bryston who told me that the BDP-1 supports Apple Lossless. However, there may be album art issues because of the way Apple stores is during the conversion process.

I think there are a couple of issues here and possibly we'd be better served if we made some distinctions: 1. The labeling and selling of a release as 24/96 or 24/192 when spectrum analysis shows a cutoff at 42. 2. The sound of a release. In #1, the vendor is charging extra money because the product is labeled as 24/96 or 24/192, but in reality the source was at 44.1 and then upconverted to 24/96 or 24/192. In this instance the buyer could have paid less for the 44.1 recording, but paid more for something extra that is arguably worthless. As for #2, sound quality is something we each decide for ourselves; we know what we like and what we don't. As consumers we are at a disadvantage before the conversation even gets started if we combine the two ideas in the discussion. I have no issue with vendors branding their products any way they want. They can call it high defination or even super high defination if they want, but they don't get to say a release is 24/96 when it isn't. Think of it like this. You go into a soda fountain and buy a 12 ounce cherry coke. The soda jerk puts in some syrup and then soda water. He hands you your cherry coke. Then you say, you know what, I'm really thirsty, can you make that a 24 ounce cherry coke? The soda jerk then gets a 24 ounce container, pours your original cherry coke in there and then fills the rest with soda water. That is what HD Tracks is doing to us when they sell upconverted source material at 24/96.

Thanks for the post, very interesting. If I can say some of it back to you to see if I understand it. So anything from master tapes is covered at 24/96 and is really all we need? So the 172 sample size Rolling Stone releases sold by HD Tracks is an extra that does not really do anything? At what point does 24/192 come into the picture? Would 24/192 be worth it for current recordings if they were done right?

I'm checking on ALAC compatibility. When you said Apple Lossless I thought your meant AIFF. Even if it doesn't, dBpoweramp has a mass conversion program that will convert your entire library over to another format. I just recently re-ripped my entire CD library to WAV and will be selectively exporting music for my iPod (iTunes is just another bucket for me now). The SQ of the BDP-1 is very high. From my perspective, it was worth the money to me because I was looking for a high fidelity digital transport. If I'm going to invest in 24/96 and 24/192 recordings, I want something that will get out of the way of the music. There are alternatives, like the Touch and other DAC's that have built in digital streamers and do much more than the BDB-1 which I have heard but IMHO don't measure up sonically to the BDP-1.

Yes, it plays apple lossless files. The player itself has basic navigation to step up or down through folders. For really using it there are a number of remote interfaces available for free. The one I like the best is Gnome, and it has album artwork and it's navigation is nice.

Labjir, I think Dr. AIX is correct, and I share his perspective. I am also not sure if I agree with you when you say that everyone here has problems with the way HD Tracks transfers music. I have no problem with the way HD Tracks transfers music, just how they label them. I also welcome Dr. AIX's take on technical issues. Speaking for myself, my issue with HD Tracks is that I believe I am not getting what I paid for. They charge more money for a 24/96 issue, and even more for a 24/192 release and yet, spectrum analysis demonstrates they are selling 44.1 upsampled releases to 24/96. I have an album I just bought there that is labeled 24/96 and it is clear that it is simply an upsampled 44.1 release. It is all in how you define what a 24/96 or 24/192 release is. Dr. AIX is adding to the conversation in a very positive way by sharing ideas that can drive decisions to produce a clear and commonly acceptable idea of what Hi-Rez is. He is giving vendors and others a roadmap to toward Hi-Rez and take it out of the provinance of a carny cupie doll contest. I'll share with everyone the response that HD Tracks gives me when I email them on Monday. I'm not going to ask for my money back, just a refund on the difference in price between the 44.1 and 96. I want to stay their customer and I want them to know I support their business.

Mike, From my perspective, you hit the nail right on the head. They say they don't do the upsampling, but they do sell upsampled recordings. Whether or not it was converted correctly years ago when it changed format, my issue is with today; what they can label something to get a price point. I just wanted to get another pair of eyes on this before I write back to them. I think that this is damaging their brand and killing sales. At one point, HD Tracks was my exclusive provider of hi-rez audio until I started reading about this issue, and now I have found other hi-rez vendors. Also, there have been times where I was tempted to buy new music, but didn't because I was afraid of being cheated. Now, having the tools to analyze what I am buying, I can see that I paid for something I did not get, and am going to take this up with them.

Did you get a chance to look at the Audiacity spectrum analysis of Zona Desperata? I'm trying to understand what upsampling looks like and it would be helpful to know if it is upsampled. I see a sharp cutoff just above 22k with no data beyond, and from what I have been reading here, it looks like upsampling. HD Tracks says they do not allow any upsampled content on their site, and have every album tested at an offsite facility. Yet, it looks to me like this is an upsampled release. I am not sure about this, it is my understanding also that analog tape is below 24/196, so that is upconverting too, right? I'm not addressing how well it sounds, I'm addressing truth in labeling. If something is labeled as 24/192 or 24/96 it should at least be recorded at 24/192 or 24/96.

First, this is one of the best threads out there. I really, really appreciate the knowledge transfers here and especially comments from recording engineers. Thank you very much. Reading this thread and then downloading Audacity and using it has gone a long way to helping me understanding what I am hearing. It's a wonferful tool I will be using in an ongoing basis. So, here is a verbatium, bit perfect , copy of an email conversation I had with HD Tracks regarding the issueing of publishing upsampled content Mike, We absolutely do not allow any upsampled content on our site. All of our high res albums are produced either directly from the original masters, or from SACDs, in either case transferred through high quality DACs set at the proper resolution. In addition, we have every album tested at an offsite facility to insure that it has not been upsampled prior to offering it for sale on our site. There is also often confusion between PCM and DSD, and the following document may help: https://www.hdtracks.com/files/DSD_to_LPCM.pdf Please let us know if you have any other questions or concerns. Regards, Satish Pennathur The HDtracks team On 7/9/2011 11:52 AM, [email protected] wrote: Dear Administrator, We have Received a Contact Inquiry From Mike Malter ________________________________________ Name: Mike Malter Comments: Hi, I have a question for you about an issue I have started hearing more about that has me very concerned. That is the marketing of music labeled as 24/192, 24/176 and 24/96 when the music was recorded at lower bit rates and sample sizes and simply converted to higher bit rates and sample sizes. A case in point is the new Rolling stones releases at 24/176. In the AudioCircle forum, a poster says he analyzed those recordings and they were recorded at a lower sample size and then converted to 176. What do you have to say about this? What are you doing to make sure your customers are not faced with feeling that they were fooled into buying and paying for a hi-rez product that turned out not to simply low resolution music converted to high rez? I have just gotten a new hi-rez player in the Bryston BDP-1 and now that I can play higher resolution music, I am looking to branch out and buy and recommend music from a vendor where its merchandise is true. Thank you for reading this and I am looking forward to your reply. Mike Malter Email: [email protected] Thanks, Website Administrator hdtracks.com So having this nice answer from Satish, I wonder how Al Di Meola, Flesh on Flesh, Zona Desperata and the rest made it up for sale. Please let me know if I am mistaken in thinking this has been upsampled. I'd like to check this out before raising the issue with them. Thanks.

So FLAC is good because it is lossless and handles tags in a broader way that WAV. When I use FLAC in dBpoweramp, I use Lossless Level 5 which is the recommended setting. You could go all the way up to 10 if you want. It's a balance between what the processor demands are when you are decoding and how much space you want to save. If you have a dedicated machine and not a lot of space go higher. Either way, whatever the level is, the output will be the same given modern processors today in an environment that is not doing too many other things at the same time.

What balanced interconnects are you guys using that you really like? Thanks.

At 50 hours, from my experience, the DAC-2 is just breaking in and needs at least 200 hours before you can start to hear what it can do. I've streamed from AppleTV via Toslink and I found that the cable made a very big difference. When I switched to a glass cable from a plastic cable, that was huge. If you can try that it is worth your while. The other thing about the DAC-2 is its phenomenly spooky good USB connection. They give you a driver you install on your computer that slaves your computer to the DAC and almost eliminates jitter. The difference between the AppleTV via toslink and your computer via USB with the DAC-2 will knock your socks off. I tried it in my setup with a plain el-cheapo USB cable and I just sat there going, "wow." Go at least 200 hours, my DAC-2 had audible changes up to the 200 hour point.

I'm trying out a Wyred 4 Sound DAC-2 and a Bryston BDA-1. I had a PS Audio DLIII with Cullen Level 4 mods for several years. I replaced it with a PS Audio PWD which I turned around and sold. I'm feeding the DAC's with the Bryston BDP-1 with everything from 16/44.1 to 24/192.