Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
Has anybody a comment on how come nobody noticed, by listening (it was
found, apparently accidentally, by someone who was looking at the frequency distribution of some of the files he'd downloaded), that HDTracks and other web-based music selling services were (inadvertently?) selling up-sampled 16-bit/44.1 KHz material as "hi-rez" *downloads and charging $20-$30 an album for them? Could it be that there is no AUDIBLE difference between 16-bit/44.KHz material and so called hi-rez as was found by Meyer and Moran in their notorius ABX study of DSD, and that's why the fraud supposedly went unnoticed even by the people selling the music files? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 00:52:14 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:
Has anybody a comment on how come nobody noticed, by listening (it wa= s found, apparently accidentally, by someone who was looking at the frequency distribution of some of the files he'd downloaded), that HDTracks and other web-based music selling services were (inadvertently?) selling up-sampled 16-bit/44.1 KHz material as "hi-rez= " =C2=A0downloads and charging $20-$30 an album for them? Could it be tha= t there is no AUDIBLE difference between 16-bit/44.KHz material and so called hi-rez as was found by Meyer and Moran in their notorius ABX study of DSD, and that's why the fraud supposedly went unnoticed even b= y the people selling the music files? Well I did take a look at some so called hi res audio files but did not ever see any information above 20 kHz yet. And don't know for a fact if there ever was a recording studio that had=20 equipment ( microphones ) that even could record anything above 20 kHz but I think there never was, maybe until now. I am waiting for the first real hi res recording studio and the first rea= l hi res music, then we start talking about whether or not differences are audible. And yes I know that people suggest that above 20kHz isn't a factor but I=20 don't know that, I do know however, it will not be a factor as long no=20 one is recording it :-) If anyone know where to find real hi res music, please let me/ us know. Edmund |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... Has anybody a comment on how come nobody noticed, by listening (it was found, apparently accidentally, by someone who was looking at the frequency distribution of some of the files he'd downloaded), that HDTracks and other web-based music selling services were (inadvertently?) selling up-sampled 16-bit/44.1 KHz material as "hi-rez" downloads and charging $20-$30 an album for them? Could it be that there is no AUDIBLE difference between 16-bit/44.KHz material and so called hi-rez as was found by Meyer and Moran in their notorius ABX study of DSD, and that's why the fraud supposedly went unnoticed even by the people selling the music files? It works kind of like religion. They talk a big game, but when it comes down to actually being able to hear these things, game over. The only real advantage that there could be from the new formats would be the more careful mastering of originals, or producing new recordings in good surround sound. I am trying to look into some music videos on DVD in surround sound, to see if anyone is getting it right with real acoustic space and not overproduced rock/pop stuff. Haven't hit one yet, but not many of them under my belt yet. Gary Eickmeier |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
On 7/24/2011 9:00 AM, Edmund wrote:
Well I did take a look at some so called hi res audio files but did not ever see any information above 20 kHz yet. I have not seen any commercial "high res" FILES. However, I have looked at SACDs with a 100 kHz 16 bit ADC and yes there is musical content above 22 kHz, at quite totally negligible levels. Also, in some few analog commercial open reel tapes (Barclay-Crocker). Doug McDonald |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:47:43 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... Has anybody a comment on how come nobody noticed, by listening (it was found, apparently accidentally, by someone who was looking at the frequency distribution of some of the files he'd downloaded), that HDTracks and other web-based music selling services were (inadvertently?) selling up-sampled 16-bit/44.1 KHz material as "hi-rez" downloads and charging $20-$30 an album for them? Could it be that there is no AUDIBLE difference between 16-bit/44.KHz material and so called hi-rez as was found by Meyer and Moran in their notorius ABX study of DSD, and that's why the fraud supposedly went unnoticed even by the people selling the music files? It works kind of like religion. They talk a big game, but when it comes down to actually being able to hear these things, game over. The only real advantage that there could be from the new formats would be the more careful mastering of originals, or producing new recordings in good surround sound. While I agree, it's sort of irrelevant to the point. They are selling upsampled 16-bit/44.1 Khz "CD masters" as true 24-bit/96 KHz. Doesn't matter that hi-rez really does nothing sound-wise, what matters is that those who are giving up their money for 24/96 aren't getting what they are paying for and that's, at the very least immoral, and at worst, illegal. It's not like selling $4000 interconnects because when you buy those, you are actually getting expensive wire and expensive connectors. That there is no difference, sonically, between the expensive wires and some cheap ones is neither here nor there. With wires you are getting a product that is as advertised for your money. With the downloads you are paying for hi-rez and getting regular-rez masquerading as hi-rez. That's like paying $250 grand for a Ferrari only to find that what you have purchased is the chassis from an old Mustang with fiberglass body on it that merely LOOKS LIKE a Ferrari. On the surface, at first glance, it looks like you are driving a Ferrari, but you aren't even though the the mustang running gear might provide similar performance. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 07:00:48 -0700, Edmund wrote
(in article ): On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 00:52:14 +0000, Audio Empire wrote: Has anybody a comment on how come nobody noticed, by listening (it was found, apparently accidentally, by someone who was looking at the frequency distribution of some of the files he'd downloaded), that HDTracks and other web-based music selling services were (inadvertently?) selling up-sampled 16-bit/44.1 KHz material as "hi-rez" =C2=A0downloads and charging $20-$30 an album for them? Could it be that there is no AUDIBLE difference between 16-bit/44.KHz material and so called hi-rez as was found by Meyer and Moran in their notorius ABX study of DSD, and that's why the fraud supposedly went unnoticed even by the people selling the music files? Well I did take a look at some so called hi res audio files but did not ever see any information above 20 kHz yet. There actually ARE some, apparently, but one problem is that if the original recordings were analog (such as the famous Verve Getz/Gilberto album that HDTracks is selling) then the originals recorders were only maintained to be flat up to about 15-16 KHz. So they'd likely be pretty far down by 20KHz. And don't know for a fact if there ever was a recording studio that had equipment ( microphones ) that even could record anything above 20 kHz but I think there never was, maybe until now. There were/are mikes that have "usable" response to 30 KHz or so, but that's not the point. Transfer's to be sold as High-Definition should be digitized at high-definition. They shouldn't take 16-bit/44.1 KHz CD masters and up-sample them to 24/96. That's cheating. Never mind that one likely cannot hear the difference, or even that there's nothing on the master tape above 20 KHz, It's the fact that these are upsampled rather than quantized at the higher bit-depths and sample rates. And that's just plain dishonest. OK, I have a 24-bit upsampler. It takes lower "res" digital and outputs it at 24-bit, 96KHz. I can play the regular CD of the aforementioned Getz/Gilberto recording through my upsampler (or any upsampling DAC, for that matter) and get the same result as downloading (for an additional $18) the same title, quantized at 16/44.1 (just like the CD) and then upsampled to 24/96. If one is buying a hi-rez recording, one should get what one is paying for, shouldn't one? The value of which, of course, remains in the "ear' of the buyer. I am waiting for the first real hi res recording studio and the first real hi res music, then we start talking about whether or not differences are audible. And yes I know that people suggest that above 20kHz isn't a factor but I don't know that, I do know however, it will not be a factor as long no one is recording it :-) If anyone know where to find real hi res music, please let me/ us know. The point is that these sites as selling regular-rez as hi-rez and much of it isn't and we, the customers, have no way of knowing before hand, which is which. You want real Hi-Rez? Go to: http://www.bluecoastrecords.com and download a couple of their DSD samplers. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:47:43 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... Has anybody a comment on how come nobody noticed, by listening (it was found, apparently accidentally, by someone who was looking at the frequency distribution of some of the files he'd downloaded), that HDTracks and other web-based music selling services were (inadvertently?) selling up-sampled 16-bit/44.1 KHz material as "hi-rez" downloads and charging $20-$30 an album for them? Could it be that there is no AUDIBLE difference between 16-bit/44.KHz material and so called hi-rez as was found by Meyer and Moran in their notorius ABX study of DSD, and that's why the fraud supposedly went unnoticed even by the people selling the music files? It works kind of like religion. They talk a big game, but when it comes down to actually being able to hear these things, game over. The only real advantage that there could be from the new formats would be the more careful mastering of originals, or producing new recordings in good surround sound. While I agree, it's sort of irrelevant to the point. They are selling upsampled 16-bit/44.1 Khz "CD masters" as true 24-bit/96 KHz. Doesn't matter that hi-rez really does nothing sound-wise, what matters is that those who are giving up their money for 24/96 aren't getting what they are paying for and that's, at the very least immoral, and at worst, illegal. It's not like selling $4000 interconnects because when you buy those, you are actually getting expensive wire and expensive connectors. That there is no difference, sonically, between the expensive wires and some cheap ones is neither here nor there. With wires you are getting a product that is as advertised for your money. With the downloads you are paying for hi-rez and getting regular-rez masquerading as hi-rez. That's like paying $250 grand for a Ferrari only to find that what you have purchased is the chassis from an old Mustang with fiberglass body on it that merely LOOKS LIKE a Ferrari. On the surface, at first glance, it looks like you are driving a Ferrari, but you aren't even though the the mustang running gear might provide similar performance. OK, but I thought you were asking why the reviewers never noticed from the sound that these were not true 24/96 recordings, similar to if they didn't notice from driving one that the Ferrari was really an old Mustang. Gary Eickmeier |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... Has anybody a comment on how come nobody noticed, by listening (it was found, apparently accidentally, by someone who was looking at the frequency distribution of some of the files he'd downloaded), that HDTracks and other web-based music selling services were (inadvertently?) selling up-sampled 16-bit/44.1 KHz material as "hi-rez" downloads and charging $20-$30 an album for them? Some private individuals and a few people in the business noticed this a number of years back. For example: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/intermod.ppt (apparently from a 2003 AES convention) Could it be that there is no AUDIBLE difference between 16-bit/44.KHz material and so called hi-rez as was found by Meyer and Moran in their notorius ABX study of DSD, and that's why the fraud supposedly went unnoticed even by the people selling the music files? How about that? ;-) One other point has been made which is that the Meyer and Moran study was based on commercial SACD and DVD-A recordings, a substantial percentage (some say 1/3 to 1/2) were upsampled 44 and 48 KHz recordings. These recordings would have of course produced null results that washed out any true posistives from recordings that actually had the bandpass we have every right to expect from high sample rate recordings. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:34:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... Has anybody a comment on how come nobody noticed, by listening (it was found, apparently accidentally, by someone who was looking at the frequency distribution of some of the files he'd downloaded), that HDTracks and other web-based music selling services were (inadvertently?) selling up-sampled 16-bit/44.1 KHz material as "hi-rez" downloads and charging $20-$30 an album for them? Some private individuals and a few people in the business noticed this a number of years back. For example: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/intermod.ppt (apparently from a 2003 AES convention) Could it be that there is no AUDIBLE difference between 16-bit/44.KHz material and so called hi-rez as was found by Meyer and Moran in their notorius ABX study of DSD, and that's why the fraud supposedly went unnoticed even by the people selling the music files? How about that? ;-) One other point has been made which is that the Meyer and Moran study was based on commercial SACD and DVD-A recordings, a substantial percentage (some say 1/3 to 1/2) were upsampled 44 and 48 KHz recordings. These recordings would have of course produced null results that washed out any true posistives from recordings that actually had the bandpass we have every right to expect from high sample rate recordings. Yes, that's possible. M&M certainly don't mention in their paper the titles of the source material used or that source material's providence. Since we often don't know what the source of the recordings we buy is, It can belike buying the proverbial pig in a poke. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
You want real Hi-Rez? Go to:
http://www.bluecoastrecords.com and download a couple of their DSD samplers. I know this is getting off topic from your original post but that link your refering to points out in my opinion is one major flaw that exists in Hi-Rez downloads. There is no reason a digital dl should cost much more that it's equivalent physical media. For example BCR has the Blue Coast Collection DSD dl for $50 and the 96khz for $40. Amazon has the SACD for $27.32. Another example. I don't think I've paid more than $13 more most of the Stone's SACDs I have. However, HDTracks is selling the Hi Rez downloads for nearly $30. Yes, I am aware that there are costs invloved in storage, running servers, etc. But I doubt it's more costly than manufacturing a physical medium, Warehousing those disks, transporting those disks through various points from manufacturer to end user, etc. Oh, and another criticism about that site. If your going to offer free DSD samples, than offer FREE samples. Nevermind this Bull**** about having to register. Unfortunately bugmenot doesn't work for that site. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:36:14 -0700, ftran999 wrote
(in article ): You want real Hi-Rez? Go to: http://www.bluecoastrecords.com and download a couple of their DSD samplers. I know this is getting off topic from your original post but that link your refering to points out in my opinion is one major flaw that exists in Hi-Rez downloads. There is no reason a digital dl should cost much more that it's equivalent physical media. For example BCR has the Blue Coast Collection DSD dl for $50 and the 96khz for $40. Amazon has the SACD for $27.32. Another example. I don't think I've paid more than $13 more most of the Stone's SACDs I have. However, HDTracks is selling the Hi Rez downloads for nearly $30. Yes, I am aware that there are costs invloved in storage, running servers, etc. But I doubt it's more costly than manufacturing a physical medium, Warehousing those disks, transporting those disks through various points from manufacturer to end user, etc. Oh, and another criticism about that site. If your going to offer free DSD samples, than offer FREE samples. Nevermind this Bull**** about having to register. Unfortunately bugmenot doesn't work for that site. I agree with you. These Hi-Rez downloads are too expensive. Downloadable "software" is one of the few consumer items that a seller can sell over and over again and still have. There is no manufacturing cost, no warehousing cost, no shipping cost and no left-over stock when the item is obsoleted for whatever reason. But it makes the high cost of downloaded music seem even more out of place when one finds out that the hi-rez one thought one was buying, is really not. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off
Audio Empire wrote:
These Hi-Rez downloads are too expensive. Downloadable "software" is one of the few consumer items that a seller can sell over and over again and still have. There is no manufacturing cost, no warehousing cost, no shipping cost and no left-over stock when the item is obsoleted for whatever reason. I don't know about that. Without the high price, HDTracks et al wouldn't be in the business and there wouldn't be any hi-res downloads. But it makes the high cost of downloaded music seem even more out of place when one finds out that the hi-rez one thought one was buying, is really not. Indeed, but we don't know whose fault that is. I asked one firm which of their downloads really were originated in hi-res digital, and they told me that they received their hi-res files directly from the record labels themselves, and they didn't know exactly which process was used to generate the files. Andrew. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth | Audio Opinions | |||
High resolution digital recorders | Pro Audio | |||
High resolution Recording available on line? | High End Audio | |||
Nesa one high resolution audio ologram | High End Audio | |||
Q: Very High Resolution Microphones | Pro Audio |