[djmckaytx]

Grabbed mine this morning...they're offering both the 24/88.2 and the 24/176.4 flavors in FLAC, depending on what you want.  Use the code STONES10 to get 10% off at checkout.  Enjoy!

[ted_b]

Yes, I announced this in HiRez News yesterday.  I was therefore going to delete this...but figured it would be a good thread to keep open for feedback from those who buy, or those who feel compelled to discuss it.  So, thanks djmckaytx.   

OK, I'll start.   

I have mixed emotions about these.  I am pleased that David Chesky has continued to ask the great Bruce Brown (Puget Sound) to rip the existing SACD catalog....Bruce does an excellent job.  I chatted with Bruce this morning and he tells me David wants SACD's to now be ripped in both 88.2k and 176.4k (good integer multiples for DSD64). 

However, for HDTracks to call this "historic" is a bit much (HDTracks had an ad campaign the last couple of weeks saying they were going to make History).  These do not represent new material available to the hirez community, just new ways to buy them (downloads).  True, we couldn't access the SACD hirez content via their DACs prior to this, unless one used my HDMI de-embedder solution (btw, might be a good way to compare for those who own both versions    ) but that is about all. 

Is it wayyy better than the lossy Beatles catalog on iTunes??  Wayyyyy.     Is it new hirez material we've not heard and paid for before?  Nope.   

[Nels Ferre]

I bit the bullet and downloaded the 176.4 version of Thru The Past Darkly (Big Hits Volume 2)

Wow!!!!!!!  That is the only word I can think of as my jaw is on the floor.

Running with a DAC that only does 24/96....yeah I know I'm not getting "everything" but I wasn't going to buy the album in 88.2 only to eventually buy it again in a higher resolution.

Oddly, the Mac Mini running Pure Music won't play it from memory, even though I have 8GB installed. It just shows "Downsampling (Not Native) Playing from Disk" I am hearing a down sampled 88.2 signal, as I fully expected.

I am aware these aren't "new" as they are remastered from the SACDs (which I don't have.)
That said, so far these are stunning. I'll be buying more.

[djmckaytx]

I've only had time to play them through my work computer system so far and as one might expect they blow down the hybrid layer of the SACD.  Lots more presence...but Ted's right, it's essentially the same material I bought used a while back.

I hope to take the digital files home and run them through my home system this weekend to see how the 176.2 files fed into my DAC-2 line up against de-embedded 88.2 SACDs.  My bet is that I won't be able to tell much difference - nothing earth shattering.  Nice to have the higher quality to listen to during the long seasonal hours CPAs go through during this time of year. 

[G E]

I wish we were going to be treated to Sticky Fingers and Exiles but it looks to be the same catalog offered on sacd format until recently.

However, it is a chance to backfill one's library with items missed. And I am grateful for this. It beats taking ones chance on eBay or waiting forever on the used bins or paying $60+ bucks for the Japanese shm Sacd versions coming out. (I have 3 of these and they are excellent: gentle giant, caravan and fairport convention)

Will rock n roll circus be a part of this series?

[ted_b]

Hi. GE.  No, R&R Circus will not be part of it, just the SACD's that were released in 2005.

I'll hijack for a second.....and ask you about the SHM Caravan and Gentle Giant.  I am a huge fan of both and would love a great SACD version of If I Could Do it...but realize it's In The Land Of.  An SACD Octopus would be great, too...it's good, huh?  Also, have you heard Gasoline Alley (the SHm SACD that is)?  Many are gaga over Who's Next as well.

[G E]

The octopus sacd from japan is silly good. Holographic imaging - width, depth and height- and little if any compression.  Nice inner detail present.   If only the Genesis 1970-1975 sacd releases had been this good.

In the Land of... Is also worth having but doesn't have the 3d imaging of Octopus.

A buddy of mine has gasoline alley and he says it's ok but nothing special. We both have decent rigs and well done productions shine

[djmckaytx]

Ted, to hijack your hijack I have the Who's Next SHM SACD.  I think it's far and away the best version of this I've heard (and I have the MCA gold, the MFSL gold, the Japanese remastered box set, and MANY other versions).  I have bunch of others (MCA/MFSL gold CDs included).  To hear it (and Mark Knopfler) through the Atlona is one of the reasons I was so happy I went through the de-embedding exercise.

Based on some other things I've read, others would NOT agree so YMMV.  Of course I've also read that the more times you play an SHM disc the more it "opens it up" and "breaks it in."  That has not been my experience.

I also think the Steely Dan Aja SHM SACD is the best sounding release of that disc.  Again, others might not agree.   

[bprice2]

From CNN

Satisfaction! Rolling Stones selling HD catalog online

The Rolling Stones plan to sell high-quality downloads of their first 27 records for the first time online.

[Mike Nomad]

While I'm looking forward to Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! & Let It Bleed, I'm a little skeptical: Why convert the original DSD files to 176.4 or 88.2?

[djmckaytx]

From CNN

Satisfaction! Rolling Stones selling HD catalog online

WOW...good press for hi-res...that is great to see!

[ted_b]

While I'm looking forward to Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! & Let It Bleed, I'm a little skeptical: Why convert the original DSD files to 176.4 or 88.2?

How else will you be able to download and play them?  DSD64 (SACD) don't play on any commercial DACs natively per se.  They need to be converted to PCM, and 24/176.4 is about the equivalent resolution if you do the math.  Plus, the DSD files themselves are not available except protected in SACD form.   My infamous approach of having the player (oppo, Sony, etc) do the conversion and then use an HDMi de-embedder is a poor man's solution...as the player machine is not the greatest converter in the world.  The Weiss Saracon conversion tools used on the Stones project is much more sophisticated. 

[Lyndon]

I am with you, Ted.
But I bought some of those SACD Stones releases.  I think that the one that stood out as being very nice was the Beggar's Banquet?  Not sure as I am done teaching and I am totally brain dead.  Too tired to listen to the new R.E.M. being downstreamed by NPR right now.  I am a bit shocked by those Japanese SACD prices mentioned above.  $70 for Aja? Not going to get a lot of customers for that.  But if they made the download in hi-rez reasonable enough, I would be in as well.

[ted_b]

yes, I think Beggars Banquet was the best of the SACD bunch.

[Mike Nomad]

How else will you be able to download and play them?  DSD64 (SACD) don't play on any commercial DACs natively per se.  They need to be converted to PCM, and 24/176.4 is about the equivalent resolution if you do the math.  Plus, the DSD files themselves are not available except protected in SACD form.   My infamous approach of having the player (oppo, Sony, etc) do the conversion and then use an HDMi de-embedder is a poor man's solution...as the player machine is not the greatest converter in the world.  The Weiss Saracon conversion tools used on the Stones project is much more sophisticated.

I don't have a problem with someone converting the DSD stream for me (since I don't have the gear to do it), I'm questioning the decision to go to an 88.2 or 176.4 kHz sampling rate.

[ted_b]

I don't have a problem with someone converting the DSD stream for me (since I don't have the gear to do it), I'm questioning the decision to go to an 88.2 or 176.4 kHz sampling rate.

as opposed to?  They are integer multiples, way better than 96 or 192.

[Mike Nomad]

as opposed to?  They are integer multiples, way better than 96 or 192.

This is what I was afraid of... Why not 96 or 192? It's all math. I've never understood the integer multiple argument, unless the source (master) tape is a stone-age 16/44.1 reel.

[ted_b]

Mike, I'm not sure what you mean by "it's all math".  Sample rate conversions that are NOT based on integer multiples (DSD is 64 x 44k) can have artifacts in the conversion that show up as image smearing, ringing, etc.  The conversion (AARC) would have to use different clock timings, etc.  Yes, SRC's like Weiss and Izotope can do a great job, but why do the extra work and risk it?  And also...why do you care?  If your DAC does 96k it'll do 88.2k just fine, and same for a 24/192k DAC doing 24/176.4k.  In fact, one would argue that a 24/192k DAC might even play better at the slightly lower sample rate, as 24/192 may be pushing it. 

[Mike Nomad]

Mike, I'm not sure what you mean by "it's all math".  Sample rate conversions that are NOT based on integer multiples (DSD is 64 x 44k) can have artifacts in the conversion that show up as image smearing, ringing, etc.  The conversion (AARC) would have to use different clock timings, etc.  Yes, SRC's like Weiss and Izotope can do a great job, but why do the extra work and risk it?  And also...why do you care?  If your DAC does 96k it'll do 88.2k just fine, and same for a 24/192k DAC doing 24/176.4k.  In fact, one would argue that a 24/192k DAC might even play better at the slightly lower sample rate, as 24/192 may be pushing it.

Hey Ted,

By saying, "it's all math," I mean that converting the data stream from one kind and rate to another isn't effected by anything inherent to the chips being made to do the job. While multiplying 6 by 6 is a lot more elegant than 12 by 3, either way, you wind up at the same place.

If I understand you correctly, the idea is that because simple, even math is not being employed by the chips doing the work, external effects (voltage bleed, RF in general, temperature, etc.) are less easily controlled for. That starts to look like a conversation about sloppy design hampering solid engineering.

Your idea about what I'll call 'operating headroom' in the DAC I can certainly understand. If the top PCM sampling rate for a DAC is 192 kHz, leaving 8% (2 x 2 x 2) for the top, you get 176.64.

[ted_b]

Yeah, headroom is one good thing, but the other (easy math) is as important in my mind.  192 is not divisible by 44.1 (the base of DSD) unless you like the integer called 4.35374149659 yada yada.  It's just too much too fix.  176.4 is an easy 4.000