[Marius]

HI,

Other than Audacity, which is rather daunting in its possibilities, do you know of software than can test/verify the quality of ripped files. I know the bdp1 shows bitrate and file type, but cd rips can be 44100 and sound horrible is my experience, so there has to be some other way of testing those files without playing them?

related question: In Finder on the Mac I have no indication when I (right-)click a flac or wav file other than size, that says anything about the bitrate/resolution/samplingfrequency. Is there a way known to you that would enable this?

Thanks,
Marius

[Chromisdesigns]

Marius:

dbPoweramp does this when ripping CDs, by comparing them to an online database.  I don't know if it can be made to check existing flac files, though.  I suspect not, but it would be a good question to post on their support boards.  Someone there might know how to do it another way.

Regards,

Bob

[terrycym]

I don't know what you mean exactly by checking files, Marius, but the following lets to check if a file is truly hi-res or not
You can see if the music is clipped too.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/How-check-recording-quality

[Marius]

Hi Terry,

This is exactly what I meant. I read this, and tried the described method with audacity, but it is rather extensive and complicated. I had hoped for something easier. Maybe the future will bring that, since computer audio in audiophile quality is still in its early stages.

Greetings,
Marius

I don't know what you mean exactly by checking files, Marius, but the following lets to check if a file is truly hi-res or not
You can see if the music is clipped too.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/How-check-recording-quality

[ted_b]

Marius,
There is no simple button to push to check the provenance of a recording.  Tools like Audacity provide a fairly easy process to look at both the waveform (to check clipping and compression) and spectrum analysis (to check, among other things, hirez energy across time).  Most other recording tools are more difficult and don't get you any closer.

The biggest problem is not whether Audacity is easy to use, but whether the results tell you everything you need to know.  If the recording is not native (i.e has been upsampled, transferred, digitally remastered, etc) then the only things you can really discern is whether the purchased/downloaded content has been likely upsampled (i.e you paid for a 24/96 recording only to find a brick wall at 22k, no energy above it, and therefore safely discerning that the original recording was simple redbook).  However, many changes/alterations/digital remastering, etc could have been done over the life of the original recording and very little or none of that will be obvious.  Good luck viewing an analog recording that was transferred to 24 bit years ago, converted to an SACD (1 bit DSD), then ripped to PCM for download at 24/96.  It could show any number of things.

[Marius]

Hi Ted,

Thanks, I guess you hit the nail spot on. And that's only talking about the bonafide. What about mp3 that get up sampled and marketed as 24bit flac's. It's rather a trial and error exploration sometimes.

I still don't know why the SoS downloads sound so horrible for example, I can't imagine B&W sell files that would be tempered with, or are not what they are marketed to be: 24bit hires files. Which is no guarantee for Quality of Sound that's for sure.

Marius

Marius,
There is no simple button to push to check the provenance of a recording.  Tools like Audacity provide a fairly easy process to look at both the waveform (to check clipping and compression) and spectrum analysis (to check, among other things, hirez energy across time).  Most other recording tools are more difficult and don't get you any closer.

The biggest problem is not whether Audacity is easy to use, but whether the results tell you everything you need to know.  If the recording is not native (i.e has been upsampled, transferred, digitally remastered, etc) then the only things you can really discern is whether the purchased/downloaded content has been likely upsampled (i.e you paid for a 24/96 recording only to find a brick wall at 22k, no energy above it, and therefore safely discerning that the original recording was simple redbook).  However, many changes/alterations/digital remastering, etc could have been done over the life of the original recording and very little or none of that will be obvious.  Good luck viewing an analog recording that was transferred to 24 bit years ago, converted to an SACD (1 bit DSD), then ripped to PCM for download at 24/96.  It could show any number of things.

[srb]

What about mp3 that get up sampled and marketed as 24bit flac's.

While it's been proven and acknowledged that there are some 16/44.1 uncompressed files that have been upsampled and marketed as hi-res, it's hard for me to believe that anyone would stoop low enough to upsample MP3s and offer them for sale as hi-res.
 
Steve

[terrycym]

Thanks, I guess you hit the nail spot on. And that's only talking about the bonafide. What about mp3 that get up sampled and marketed as 24bit flac's. It's rather a trial and error exploration sometimes.
Marius

Who's doing this then so I can avoid them?

[ted_b]

I live this stuff..and know of no site that sells upsampled MP3's as hirez.  Marius, who are you talking about??

[Marius]

Hi Steve, Maybe I expressed myself in an inaccurate way. What I meant to have said was that I heard a set of Ripped CD's, these were Queen Greatest Hits 1 2 and 3, that sounded as if they were coming out of an old transistor radio. Something must have gone wrong in the ripping proces. Hence my Mp3 remark.

The SoS 24bit downloads sound real confined and like coming out of a cotton box, and miss a lot of 'Air" and ambiance. Like they donwmixed a surround recording, but forgot the surround mic's. I also dl'd some of the 16 bit's and they actually sound better.

Final conclusion is you don't know what you buy until you are able to listen to them.

Marius

While it's been proven and acknowledged that there are some 16/44.1 uncompressed files that have been upsampled and marketed as hi-res, it's hard for me to believe that anyone would stoop low enough to upsample MP3s and offer them for sale as hi-res.
 
Steve

[Marius]

otah,

Audacity analysis

of this fine Tallis Scholars 24b/96hz recording of Palestrina's Stabat Mater http://www.gimell.com/recording-Allegri-Miserere-Palestrina-Missa-Papae-Marcelli.aspx looks rather polluted, but sounds terribly fine. Or is the top pink display the "Ambiance", and just as it should be?

Anyway, the search on how to show soundfile-properties in Finder continues.

Marius

[ted_b]

Yes, that looks to me like an SACD rip.  It has good energy way beyond redbook (22k) and then looks like DSD-induced noise shaping above 30k to 48k (96k's max).  Frankly, all that really matters is how you like it, but I assume it sounds good.

[Marius]

It does, not one of their best, but it's ringing right now. So beautiful.

They are real ESL-breakers btw. The only recordings that make my ESL63's suffer from the soprano's highs. Too bad cause I play them often. My next speakers which I will be selecting this year I hope, will have to handle those priority nr 1. Hope James reads along to test these recordings on his new speakers....

I dl this, and don't think they sell as SACD. They have only one of those.

Thanks,
Marius

Yes, that looks to me like an SACD rip.  It has good energy way beyond redbook (22k) and then looks like DSD-induced noise shaping above 30k to 48k (96k's max).  Frankly, all that really matters is how you like it, but I assume it sounds good.

[Marius]

what about this one then, which does not sound very nice. Distorted is the wrong word, but very metalical, some might even say Digital...

Mozart Symfonies Paris, Hafner, Linz on Linn Records 24/192 http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-mozart-symphonies-29--31--paris---32--35--haffner----36--linz-.aspx


closer look:





Marius

[ted_b]

I can't ell real well from the resolution of the screen capture but it looks like a good 24/96 recording (some good energy to 48k) that doesn't reallly take much advantage of 24/192...but who knows, some DACs sound better at 24/192.  You need to show the spectrum analysis too.  Simply, once this is done, go up to top level menu and go to analyze, and pick "plot spectrum".  Choose Blackman Harris and 8192 as size.  This shows energy over time (usually about 50 seconds of hirez only, which is fine)




The example above shows a Patricia Barber SACD that I ripped and converted.  When i first made this screenshot I mislabeled it as redbook brickwalling, which it really isn't.  I found out the original was done as 24/48k then transferred to SACD.  Hence there is no real brickwall (flat line of cuttoff red spikes at 22k which would say "redbook") but nothing great either, more like a pretty good brickwall at 24k...but at least the original was 24 bit (something we don;t know from these graphs..I learned it later that the tapes were trasnferred at 24/48).  The recording is very nice, but not worthy of hirez, at least the way its transferred here.  I can now listen to native DSD and that version (no PCM conversion) is a lot nicer.   The Purple and white graph is the spectrum plot.

[Marius]

Thanks Ted, here is the Bachman Harris, but the 8192 size is not in the options, 4096 is max.



This is what the Frequency analysis looks like:



Bachman Harris 8192 selected.
Marius

[Marius]

New SoS 24 bit flac download of The Wilderness of Manitoba, When You Left the Fire-FLAC24




and




this the infamous red book brick wall?

Marius