[jamesg11]

"Rich Woman" from Krauss/Plant's Raising Sand, cd version:



Not the worst of dynamic compression, but not something I enjoy listening to, even though I like most of the album's songs.

[jamesg11]

Just had another look at the 24/96 - not a huge difference really re  - both are compressed - & just looked at the 'Dynamic Range Database' website (http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=krauss&search_album=) - cd is average of dc 7, whilst 24/96 is 8.  Pretty ordinary really.

[Mike Nomad]

Just had another look at the 24/96 - not a huge difference really re  - both are compressed - & just looked at the 'Dynamic Range Database' website (http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=krauss&search_album=) - cd is average of dc 7, whilst 24/96 is 8.  Pretty ordinary really.

Thanks for the link. I'm not familiar with the site, so, I drilled down a little. Found this:

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=7680

What's up with the down-sampling mentioned in the comment block? Does that mean they tested using a down-sampled version of the track?

[jamesg11]

Thanks for pointing to that - I hadn't noticed.  I've looked occasionally at this site, which is taking up arms in the 'loudness wars', which I'm sympathetic to. At a certain point in the improvement of my listening gear, compressed material became hard to enjoy (go hirez, well recorded/mastered!).

My understanding is that there is software on the site to download which 'measures' the dynamic compression of tracks/albums - hence the database collection provided by contributing members.  Perhaps it only works on 16/44.1, & therefore we get a conversion? I'm guessing. I also don't understand the far right column - lossy/lossless etc.

[Mike Nomad]

Thanks for pointing to that - I hadn't noticed.  I've looked occasionally at this site, which is taking up arms in the 'loudness wars', which I'm sympathetic to. At a certain point in the improvement of my listening gear, compressed material became hard to enjoy (go hirez, well recorded/mastered!).

My understanding is that there is software on the site to download which 'measures' the dynamic compression of tracks/albums - hence the database collection provided by contributing members.  Perhaps it only works on 16/44.1, & therefore we get a conversion? I'm guessing. I also don't understand the far right column - lossy/lossless etc.

I'm with you (and them) on the Loudness Wars. The current "fashion" of slathering on compression at the mastering point is a big reason why I listen to so little contemporary "pop" music...

I'm going to dig around some more re: their testing method. At this point, I'm skeptical.

[Mike Nomad]

Here's a couple of different takes of the Rolling Stones' track Gimme Shelter. The first graphic is of the new 24/176 HDtracks download, followed by the SHM-CD.

[ted_b]

Mike, those are not equivalent scales.

[firedog]

You Can't Always Get What You Want - 24.88. Goes up to about 39k overall, small bits to 44k.

[Mike Nomad]

Mike, those are not equivalent scales.

Ted,

I was trying to strike some sort of medium re: physical and visual size. The software (Audacity) generates / determines the scaling, not me.

The scales are labeled, and there are easy enough differences to spot: -18dB vs. -5dB on peak, hi-rez spike @ 29K, -71dB vs. -61dB @ 15K, etc.

firedog,

Interesting numbers. I'll have to pull up the same track, and see what I get.

[vhiner]

I'm not professionally or technically qualified to debate the science of hi Rez, but so far I have only heard one hi rez dowload of older music that I felt was a significant improvement over the redbook cd I own...the 24/176 remaster of the Rolling Stones Greatest Hits volume II, which was done by Bob Ludwig. I listen over Thiel CS3.7 speakers, which are mighty accurate and revealing. My 24/96 dowload of Raising Sand has not been preferred by anyone who's heard it side by side with the redbook. HdTracks gave me a refund and I've heard others say the HdTracks version of this album sounds " off." There's more upper register detail but the soundstage and dynamic range across the spectrum seem almost compressed to my ears. Bottom line: big numbers don't guarantee good sound. Hi rez versions of poorly remastered or transferred source material can sound surprisingly bad. Just my two neophyte cents.

[jamesg11]

"Raising Sand" is hot/compressed in its redbook form, & it's no better in this respect as a 24/96 file.  Pity, it's great music.

[kenreau]

"Raising Sand" is hot/compressed in its redbook form, & it's no better in this respect as a 24/96 file.  Pity, it's great music.

Has anyone done a sidexside to the vinyl version?  I should specifiy the 2nd generation vinyl (I recall reading the 1st pressings had quality control issues).  I bought the vinyl, but sold my analog rig before getting a chance to listen to it.

Kenreau

[Mike Nomad]

firedog,

Interesting numbers. I'll have to pull up the same track, and see what I get.

Well, two month later...Yeeesh. It's been one of those weekends. You Can't Always Get What You Want @ 24/176. Peak looks about -8dB, gentle rise @ 20K, strange peak @ 29K, and the track is gone @ 36K.

[Mike Nomad]

I purchased the Albert King & Stevie Ray Vaughan "In Session" record as a 24/96 from HDtracks when it first came out. A couple of weeks ago, they sent me a link for a free upgrade to the 24/192. So, what follows is a graph of the the track Pride & Joy. The 24/96 is followed by the 24/192.

[Mike Nomad]

The World Is A Ghetto [40th Anniversary Expanded Edition] - War

24/96 download from HDtracks. They say a 24/96 transfer from the masters. So, I dropped "Where Was You At" into Audacity, and looked at the graph. It looks (and sounds) like it should: