AudioCircle

Audio/Video Gear and Systems => The HiRez Music Circle => Topic started by: ted_b on 15 Jan 2010, 08:41 pm

Title: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: ted_b on 15 Jan 2010, 08:41 pm
A recent thread question got me thinking that it might make sense to start a sticky thread repository where we AC'ers can report any download sites or sources that purport to have HiRez files but are actually just upconverted 16/44 (found out through sneaker net, web info, etc.).  If you have any potentials, feel free to list them here and I will go to the website/source and inquire for us.

Don't get me wrong, most sites like HDtracks, Linn, Naim, HDTT, etc are quite up front about their sources, or are easy to find out...and most end up being sourced from high resolution sources (24/48 and above) or are mastered high rez from high quality analog tapes...without first going to the redbook dumb down.

I will start, although it's not exactly on target.  Rhino has started a download service and they call their 16/44 FLAC files "high definition" to differentiate them from the other option...MP3.  That doesn't cut it in my (or anyone else's) book!  Too confusing.  Like calling standard DVD's HighDef cuz it's in comparison to VHS. ?
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Mike Nomad on 15 Jan 2010, 09:01 pm
Are you interested in downloads only, or do you want to know about DVD-A & SACD as well?
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: ted_b on 15 Jan 2010, 09:20 pm
Are you interested in downloads only, or do you want to know about DVD-A & SACD as well?
Sure.  Let's add Norah Jones Come Away With Me 2 channel SACD layer....accidentally sourced from redbook (mch layer is ok).
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Mike Nomad on 15 Jan 2010, 09:48 pm
Rhino is engaged in similar "High Definition" shenanigans in their set up for Grateful Dead downloads. They offer AAC, FLAC, MP3, and WMA versions at various price points, but there is no indication of bit rate, etc. The web site is glaringly incomplete on the point. I planned on contacting their customer service people anyway, so, I'll report back.

The reason I asked about the inclusions of disc based material is, I think the 24/192 stereo track on the Doobie Brothers "Captain & Me" DVD-A is actually 24/96. Yes, either way it's Hi-Rez, but that is still a big difference.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: ted_b on 15 Jan 2010, 09:52 pm
Rhino is engaged in similar "High Definition" shenanigans in their set up for Grateful Dead downloads. They offer AAC, FLAC, MP3, and WMA versions at various price points, but there is no indication of bit rate, etc. The web site is glaringly incomplete on the point. I planned on contacting their customer service people anyway, so, I'll report back.

The reason I asked about the inclusions of disc based material is, I think the 24/192 stereo track on the Doobie Brothers "Captain & Me" DVD-A is actually 24/96. Yes, either way it's Hi-Rez, but that is still a big difference.

Yes, the Rhino site is quite ironic, cuz they spend a good amount of time educating folks on the differences between MP3 and lossless FLAC, then go and leave gaping holes in their actual content, with many files having missing metadata, etc.....with redbook being called HiDef the ultimate irony.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Mike Nomad on 16 Jan 2010, 03:40 pm
Yes, the Rhino site is quite ironic, cuz they spend a good amount of time educating folks on the differences between MP3 and lossless FLAC, then go and leave gaping holes in their actual content, with many files having missing metadata, etc.....with redbook being called HiDef the ultimate irony.

Lord... I didn't know about the metadata issues. I remember when Rhino used to be a really cool record label. Where Have All The Good Times Gone? Indeed.

As I write this, I am doing the impossible: My Pioneer is passing a 24/192 signal through its S/PDIF jack. The track is identified as 24/192 not just on the tray insert, but on the information display while the tracks are running as well.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Mike Nomad on 21 Jan 2010, 04:27 pm
Round One Report: Rhino Customer Service does not have the capacity to handle technical questions. So, I was given a different 800 number, and bounced to Someone At Rhino, Where I had to leave a message. Sigh...
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Mike Nomad on 5 Feb 2010, 07:51 pm
Round Two Report:

Still no reply to the voice mail message I left w/ Mack (?sp) @ Rhino Customer Service.

No response from the 1st Tier Rhino Customer Service inquiry that (allegedly) was escalated.

I contacted one of the wranglers at Dead.net, and gave them the rundown. They said they would try to get someone at Rhino to answer the question (for the record, I believe they will actually try to get an answer). Nothing yet.

I think I see a pattern beginning to emerge...
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Mike Nomad on 19 Apr 2010, 06:25 pm
Round Three Report:

After a few e-mails, I found out, definitively, that the "Lossless" files used for the Grateful Dead downloads are indeed sourced from the 16-bit files found on the CDs. I then suggested that Rhino should change the wording on the downloads FAQ to better reflect reality. As of now, they haven't.

It looks to me like it's actually cheaper to get titles on physical media.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: wilsynet on 21 Apr 2010, 07:22 am
They're selling lossless, 16/44.1 sourced material.  In a world dominated by iTunes, the Amazon music store, etc, and 128K and 256K lossy music files, it may very well be true that lossless is indeed high resolution.

I'm not offended and I wasn't deceived.  Anyone who's doing 24/88.2, 24/96, 24/192, etc. advertises this up front.

Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: bdiament on 21 Mar 2011, 02:51 pm
I would hope we don't confuse "less low" with "high".

In my view, it is misleading at best, to suggest something that is not higher in resolution than CD is in fact, "high resolution".   (Just as it would be to suggest a car that is faster than a broken Geo with a flat tire and a missing spark plug is in fact a "high performance" automobile.  It isn't.  It is simply not as debilitated.)

Just my perspective, of course.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: werd on 21 Mar 2011, 03:49 pm
Round Three Report:

After a few e-mails, I found out, definitively, that the "Lossless" files used for the Grateful Dead downloads are indeed sourced from the 16-bit files found on the CDs. I then suggested that Rhino should change the wording on the downloads FAQ to better reflect reality. As of now, they haven't.

It looks to me like it's actually cheaper to get titles on physical media.

Hello

I have always consider loss-less to be their delivery or storage medium (flac for eg) and not playback medium. May have made the wrong assumption on that ?
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: ted_b on 21 Mar 2011, 04:01 pm
Werd,
FLAC is fine for direct playback in many software players.  Download sites use it cuz it's compressed (i.e smaller).  Feel free to convert it to any other lossless format (aif, wav, etc).  It's just a container.

My beef with sites like Rhino, as stated at the top, is that they have the balls to call 16/44 redbook "high def" and it's only because they compare it to MP3.  ??  Horrible logic, is if comparing Super VHS to VHS makes the former hidef!
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: jtwrace on 21 Mar 2011, 04:08 pm
comparing Super VHS to VHS makes the former hidef!

 :rotflmao:
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Geardaddy on 24 Mar 2011, 11:48 am
great idea Ted. 

Isn't it sad that the general public considers Redbook or FLAC as hi rez.  Gen Y and younger are all frying their eardrums with MP3 files via Ipods.  Studies have shown that the pods are more destructive to hearing to short bursts of high spls are a concert.  A grim future.   :?
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: eclein on 24 Mar 2011, 03:20 pm
Ted--Great idea!! You got me thinking about this when I thought the new -Radiohead, "King Of Limbs" that the website mentioned as hi-rez was actually just a Redbook CD quality download and you were kind enough to point that out....its interesting and I will check back here frequently before jumping on an advertised hi-rez file. Ever since I grabbed the Steely Dan "Gaucho" offering and setup my equipment to play it back in all its glory I'm hooked, the sound is just broader, cleaner, clearer, all around betterer..LOL!!! :thumb:
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Mike Nomad on 24 Mar 2011, 04:32 pm
Hello

I have always consider loss-less to be their delivery or storage medium (flac for eg) and not playback medium. May have made the wrong assumption on that ?

Hi werd,

What I'm getting hung up on is a record label using the term "lossless" in a way that is inconsistent with normal usage. If someone in The Biz is telling me they are selling a "lossless" version of a release, the expectation is (and I am _far_ from alone on this) that the new release is at least from a stereo pressing master tape.

Did Rhino go back to that master tape and make a new, higher resolution copy? No. They went back to the CD master, and by virtue of having higher resolution formats available, elected to make a lossless copy of a lossy file.

Rhino lies by omission. For me, it's that simple.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: ted_b on 24 Mar 2011, 05:05 pm
Hi werd,

What I'm getting hung up on is a record label using the term "lossless" in a way that is inconsistent with normal usage. If someone in The Biz is telling me they are selling a "lossless" version of a release, the expectation is (and I am _far_ from alone on this) that the new release is at least from a stereo pressing master tape.


Mike, No offense but that's not true, and not normal useage.  Your use of the terms lossless and lossy are incorrect. Lossless does NOT mean master tape quality.  It simply means those formats that do not lose resolution or musical information in their conversion.  They include wav, aiff, FLAC, Apple Lossless, monkeys audio, ogg vorbis to name a few.  They can be ANY sample rate, such as cd/redbook.  Lossy means lost musical information or resolution and includes the family of Mp3, Dolby digital, DTS core and AAC.

The issue with Rhino is NOT the term lossless, but the term hidef when all they are selling is lossless redbook.  Hidef infers higher than redbook.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: werd on 24 Mar 2011, 05:29 pm
Werd,
FLAC is fine for direct playback in many software players.  Download sites use it cuz it's compressed (i.e smaller).  Feel free to convert it to any other lossless format (aif, wav, etc).  It's just a container.

My beef with sites like Rhino, as stated at the top, is that they have the balls to call 16/44 redbook "high def" and it's only because they compare it to MP3.  ??  Horrible logic, is if comparing Super VHS to VHS makes the former hidef!

Hi Ted

So would you recommend converting all your stuff from flac to wave or just leave it in flac ?. Cuz right now i am all flaced up.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: ted_b on 24 Mar 2011, 05:40 pm
Hi Ted

So would you recommend converting all your stuff from flac to wave or just leave it in flac ?. Cuz right now i am all flaced up.

What player are you using, and in what system, the main rig or a desktop/portable or secondary system?  I would recommend keeping everything in FLAC for archiving/storage at least!  Why?  Smaller files and good tagging support.  But...I personally hear sonic differences between FLAC and wav, and it pisses me off...cuz there are supposed to be none (topic of another thread), they are the same at the receiving end once FLAC is decoded.  So, for me, the complete bs hassle of tagging in iTunes, etc for my main rig (I don't play in itunes, I just use it for library management, I play in Pure Music or Amarra, both of which use iTunes library) is somewhat worth it.  But if you don't hear the differences (and there should be none, and most folks don't hear a diff) then convert to any other lossless format that your player is comfortable with.  If the player is comfortable with FLAC, then keep it in FLAC. 
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: werd on 24 Mar 2011, 06:11 pm
What player are you using, and in what system, the main rig or a desktop/portable or secondary system?  I would recommend keeping everything in FLAC for archiving/storage at least!  Why?  Smaller files and good tagging support.  But...I personally hear sonic differences between FLAC and wav, and it pisses me off...cuz there are supposed to be none (topic of another thread), they are the same at the receiving end once FLAC is decoded.  So, for me, the complete bs hassle of tagging in iTunes, etc for my main rig (I don't play in itunes, I just use it for library management, I play in Pure Music or Amarra, both of which use iTunes library) is somewhat worth it.  But if you don't hear the differences (and there should be none, and most folks don't hear a diff) then convert to any other lossless format that your player is comfortable with.  If the player is comfortable with FLAC, then keep it in FLAC.

Oh oh, i am using a bdp into a bda. I like flac since it gives me more room on my usb sticks but i should probably do a back to back and see.  What program do you use to get from flac to wave?
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: ted_b on 24 Mar 2011, 06:16 pm
I use DBPoweramp.  PM me or create a thread with any other thoughts, cuz we need to get this thread back on topic.  :)
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Mike Nomad on 24 Mar 2011, 07:35 pm
Mike, No offense but that's not true, and not normal useage.  Your use of the terms lossless and lossy are incorrect. Lossless does NOT mean master tape quality.  It simply means those formats that do not lose resolution or musical information in their conversion.  They include wav, aiff, FLAC, Apple Lossless, monkeys audio, ogg vorbis to name a few.  They can be ANY sample rate, such as cd/redbook.  Lossy means lost musical information or resolution and includes the family of Mp3, Dolby digital, DTS core and AAC.

The issue with Rhino is NOT the term lossless, but the term hidef when all they are selling is lossless redbook.  Hidef infers higher than redbook.

Hey Ted,

I'll agree that we disagree (but I think we're saying pretty much same thing two different ways)...

Lossless does not _necessarily_ mean master tape quality. Referring back to my earlier post, I'll put it another way: If the highest resolution digital recording currently available was Redbook, and Rhino tells me they are selling lossless copies of a particular release, then I expect I am getting a lossless copy of their lossless _digital_ master.

However, Redbook is no longer the digital be-all-end-all. There are other, higher resolution formats / bit-rates available. At this point, Redbook becomes a lossy format, because we can compare it against higher-resolution recordings, and hear a difference.

Rhino's use of the term "high resolution" is downright laughable. Their use of "lossless" is, I feel, misleading. They do not mention _anywhere_ on the dead.net site (unless they have made a change since my original go-round with them last year) the source for the FLAC files.

If Rhino would come clean on the FLAC file source(s) they definitely put themselves in a corner on the issue of "high resolution." They don't even have consistent language use for the same releases (Grateful Dead) across two different website that (as far as I know) they are responsible for transactions: rhino.com & dead.net. Nice touch on the rhino site, where they put Lossless in quotes...

I'm getting spun up. Stopping here to keep from getting more bitchy.

Peace, Ted.

Mike

Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: rbbert on 25 Mar 2011, 12:45 am
"Lossy" in a digital sense means that the original data cannot be recovered after the encode/decode process.  MP3, AAC, Dolby Digital, etc. all have this property.

OTOH, FLAC, wav, ALAC, etc.  all retain transparency in the encode/decode process no matter how many times it is repeated, so they are "lossless" regardless of the original data density (even if it's 14 bit/ 32 kHz sampling, e.g.)

I'm not sure where "hi def" starts?  Is it 24/44.1, like the Beatles, and like much (or even most) current pop/rock recording?  24/88.2?  It's certainly all better than redbook CD.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Geardaddy on 25 Mar 2011, 01:26 pm
...I personally hear sonic differences between FLAC and wav, and it pisses me off...cuz there are supposed to be none

I have one experiments comparing Apple lossless to AIFF and AIFF sounds better (this was after having my 700+ CD library converted to lossless!).  I think Soundkeeper Barry and his friends did some experiments and were consistently able to identify the lossless formats vs AIFF.

Nomad, Ted is right on the lossless nomenclature. 
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: rbbert on 26 Mar 2011, 12:14 am
...I personally hear sonic differences between FLAC and wav, and it pisses me off...cuz there are supposed to be none (topic of another thread), they are the same at the receiving end once FLAC is decoded. 

I don't know about "supposed to be none" in real time playback.  There are "supposed to be none" during the encode/decode cycle, i.e. wav in -> identical wav out.   
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Mike Nomad on 26 Mar 2011, 10:53 pm
I have one experiments comparing Apple lossless to AIFF and AIFF sounds better (this was after having my 700+ CD library converted to lossless!).  I think Soundkeeper Barry and his friends did some experiments and were consistently able to identify the lossless formats vs AIFF.

Nomad, Ted is right on the lossless nomenclature.

Hey GD,

I'm being unsuccessful on trying to get across the point I was trying to make, so, I fold. Sometimes the language, in print, fails me. Or I fail it. Eh, all is good.

I found your Apple Lossless vs. AIFF observation interesting: I did the same thing when the iPod Shuffle came out. I was _very_ disappointed in the Apple Lossless files. Every once in a while, I'll encode something that way for comparison: It is still not ready for prime time. The biggest problem (for me) still seems to be on transients. Sounds just like a noise gate / limiter / etc. with noticeable lag.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Geardaddy on 27 Mar 2011, 12:02 am
Mike, I understood what you were trying to say, but Ted broadened the nomenclature beyond audiophilia.  But who knows...print is irritating in its limitations.

You are exactly right with your description of Lossless.  My computer nerd friends had nothing but derision for this observation since "bits are bits" and all the "information" is there.  Phooey.  I blinded my wife who is a musician and has great ears, and she heard the difference with 100% accuracy.  I believe Barry and his engineering buddies had a similar success rate in discerning the two. 

I cannot speak for wav versus FLAC.  I have read mixed things. 
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: ted_b on 27 Mar 2011, 12:24 am
Redbook (aka cd, 16 bit/44.1khz) and hirez (greater than redbook, usually considered hirez if 24 bit...being general here) BOTH require a lossless format to store them in, so as not to lose quality.  Those lossless formats can be either compressed (for storage savings, and include FLAC and Apple Lossless as the most popular, but also include Ogg Vorbis, etc) or uncompressed PCM (wav and aiff are the most often thought of here and are the standards by which we know computer audio files). 

If a format/container is NOT lossless, it is therefore lossy, i.e it has lost musical information in order to save huge space, never to be retrieved/reconstructed again.  In that case, the above two examples (redbook and hirez), if converted to lossy, are no longer bit perfect, no longer lossless (even if MP3 is converted later to FLAC, the damage is already done).  Lossy formats, like MP3 and Appple's AAAC have their place, but their place is wayyy too large in our musical world right now.  MP3 and AAC are everywhere.  The teens and 20 somethings of the world have been raised on lossy formats.

So, can FLAC contain lossy information?  Sure, if someone took their 192kbps iTunes lossy download and converted it to FLAC.  FLAC lost nothing (remember, it's lossless) but was given a fraction of the music to begin with, so the damage is done, never to be reconstituted.

The object of this thread was never to worry about something as low quality as lossy... the object of my thread is to report when standard lossless redbook is trying to be represented as 24 bit hirez.  Just because you upconvert 16/44 music to 24/96 does not make it hirez.  We call that "faux" hirez and are out to police the download sites to make sure the higher selling prices of hirez don't tempt companies to try and resell redbook (still lossless) as anything more than what it is, great stuff but not hirez.  The Rhino fiasco is an anomaly...they aren't trying to upconvert redbook to 24 bit and sell it...they are calling redbook "hidef"!!!  Confusing, introduces a new term that the download public thinks is "hirez", and..oh, wrong!

Soo...let's please get back to the subject of reporting 24 bit files with 16 bit DNA.  Thanks.   :thumb:
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: GarfL on 3 Nov 2011, 05:15 pm
A candidate for discussion, Talking Heads, True Stories from HDTracks

Love for Sale:

(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=53356)

(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=53358)

(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=53357)


Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: ted_b on 3 Nov 2011, 05:27 pm
GarfL,
Thanks.  We discussed this album specifically on CA awhile back.  Sorry you didn't see it.

Yes, it looks very much like a redbook upsample!!
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Mike Nomad on 3 Nov 2011, 09:43 pm
Didn't know there was any movement on this thread... I nominate both HDtracks versions of the SRV/Albert King record In Session. Graphs found on this other thread:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=91193.msg1007415#msg1007415

@ Ted: Given the tenor of comment, etc. here, would merging the content of the thread above into this one make sense? The intent of the other one hasn't been realized.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: griff2 on 29 Jan 2012, 03:55 pm
What player are you using, and in what system, the main rig or a desktop/portable or secondary system?  I would recommend keeping everything in FLAC for archiving/storage at least!  Why?  Smaller files and good tagging support.  But...I personally hear sonic differences between FLAC and wav, and it pisses me off...cuz there are supposed to be none (topic of another thread), they are the same at the receiving end once FLAC is decoded.  So, for me, the complete bs hassle of tagging in iTunes, etc for my main rig (I don't play in itunes, I just use it for library management, I play in Pure Music or Amarra, both of which use iTunes library) is somewhat worth it.  But if you don't hear the differences (and there should be none, and most folks don't hear a diff) then convert to any other lossless format that your player is comfortable with.  If the player is comfortable with FLAC, then keep it in FLAC.

My own take on this is there is no difference in quality between formats.  However, there is a big difference in the quality of the codecs.  Also the quality of the software decoders on the playback device can favour one format over another, ie I have a Squeezebox Touch that sounds better with wav than flac (which may be down to the extra processing overhead), whereas my Popcorn Hour A200 sounds better with flac than wav (and sounds better overall than the Squeezebox, but that's another story).
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Archimago on 3 Jul 2012, 11:53 am
Although it's impossible to verify if 16-bit sources were used, on many SACD's, I believe the source was 44kHz simply by looking at the severe brick walling of high-frequency content when the SACD's are ripped and converted to PCM.

Notable examples:
- All the Dead Can Dance SACD's from MFSL
- Beoga - Live At Stockfisch Studios
- Eugene Ruffolo - Even Santa Gets The Blues

I find it bizarre because these are supposed to be 'audiophile' releases. Examples such as these really make me question the value of SACD unless source material can be verified.

For the record, these recordings do still sound excellent.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: wayneoh on 5 Mar 2014, 01:27 pm
report any download sites or sources that purport to have HiRez files but are actually just upconverted 16/44 (found out through sneaker net, web info, etc.).

Ted, can you elaborate more specifically on how one can determine if a purported HiRez file is just an upconvert? I don't understand what you mean by "found out through sneaker net, web info, etc."
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Archimago on 30 Apr 2014, 03:16 pm
I have a page on this...

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/07/list-suspected-44-or-48khz-pcm.html (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/07/list-suspected-44-or-48khz-pcm.html)

Lots of faux SACDs out there folks.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: ted_b on 30 Apr 2014, 03:33 pm
I have a page on this...

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/07/list-suspected-44-or-48khz-pcm.html (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/07/list-suspected-44-or-48khz-pcm.html)

Lots of faux SACDs out there folks.

Thanks.  I have a slightly different take on "faux" since it implies duping, but whatever.  Of the 7800 or so SACDs out there only about 3500 are either DSD recorded or analog-to-DSD mastered, the rest are PCM-based.  If these SACDs are the only way we can hear hirez to-date, and of course they are not native DSD recordings but instead take their source from PCM masters, then there is really no duping going on (unless the SACD is saying its natively recorded DSD, or is taken from literally a redbook cd source like the first Norah Jones CAWM SACD).  Add on to that any multichannel content (like BIS and their 44k sourced stuff) and you have a unique product of some value.  And Robert (BIS) is totally transparent about it and now offering those as 44k PCM downloads.    But thanks, cuz it's good to know provenance, regardless.
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: Russtafarian on 30 Apr 2014, 04:20 pm
Quote
I have a page on this...

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/07/list-suspected-44-or-48khz-pcm.html

Lots of faux SACDs out there folks.

Do you have some spectrum snapshot examples of valid analog to DSD transfers and native DSD recordings?  I'd like to see how their spectrum profile differs from the 44/48 examples you posted. 

Russ
Title: Re: Please report "faux" hirez (sourced from regular 16/44) files here
Post by: RDavidson on 30 Apr 2014, 04:20 pm

The object of this thread was never to worry about something as low quality as lossy... the object of my thread is to report when standard lossless redbook is trying to be represented as 24 bit hirez.  Just because you upconvert 16/44 music to 24/96 does not make it hirez.  We call that "faux" hirez and are out to police the download sites to make sure the higher selling prices of hirez don't tempt companies to try and resell redbook (still lossless) as anything more than what it is, great stuff but not hirez.  The Rhino fiasco is an anomaly...they aren't trying to upconvert redbook to 24 bit and sell it...they are calling redbook "hidef"!!!  Confusing, introduces a new term that the download public thinks is "hirez", and..oh, wrong!

Soo...let's please get back to the subject of reporting 24 bit files with 16 bit DNA.  Thanks.   :thumb:

Yup. EXACTLY! Same thing happens with digital photography. One can take a high res photo, which would have 100% of all information that makes the photo (color, contrast, brightness, sharpness, etc. etc.). Now let's say that person needs to reduce the size of the picture for easy/quick viewing on the web, so he reduces the size (resolution) by 50% and posts it somewhere. So 50% of the photo information is gone. When someone else then downloads this photo from the web in its 50% reduced file size, it will never look as good as the original 100% photo, EVER. One can take the 50% file and increase the resolution in Photoshop as much as they want. The problem is, all this is doing is taking the lower resolution file and chopping it into finer pieces. That's all. Nothing more. Once a file's resolution is dropped, there's absolutely ZERO way of getting the original information back. So those out there who are selling hi res downloadable music by merely taking CD rips and chopping them up into finer pieces (ie making them 24/96 or whatever) are scamming you. Again, just because the bits are finer, they're no better quality than the CD rip they came from EVER. What you want is that original file in its 100% resolution state, not its reduced then reconstituted 50% state.