The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off

[Audio Empire]

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?

[Edmund[_2_]]

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

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

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"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.

[Audio Empire]

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.

[ftran999]

> 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.

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Andrew Haley]

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.