mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,145
Do you want some hi-rez files that I find are lacking or do you want some outstanding sounding 16/44.1 titles?
Streaming vs CD’S
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Do you want some hi-rez files that I find are lacking or do you want some outstanding sounding 16/44.1 titles?
NewAlkyogre
Active member
Are there somewhere databases with good hi-res cd‘s? For me it is pure luck. Albums I eager to listen are so damned disappointing, and some I didn‘t expect anything sound amazing. So difficult to pick the right Recordings
Mr Peabody
Well-known member
When streaming from a service I find what I want to listen to then if there are choices of resolution I will sample each to see which one I will listen to. I don't go chasing high res.
There had been a couple times I have tried to listen to an album on Tidal and it just didn't sound as good as I was used to and went to my rip on the HD. That's not always a choice and it doesn't happen often but it has happened. Alicia Keys comes to mind. Makes me wonder if it may have been one of those 320 kbps masked as 1411.
Each format had its greedy growing pains. When CD first came out I remember them using the LP master which sounded like crap on CD. It took them a learning curve to get the EQ right. From what I understand a similar issue plagued SACD where they just used the 44.1k on SACD format.
There had been a couple times I have tried to listen to an album on Tidal and it just didn't sound as good as I was used to and went to my rip on the HD. That's not always a choice and it doesn't happen often but it has happened. Alicia Keys comes to mind. Makes me wonder if it may have been one of those 320 kbps masked as 1411.
Each format had its greedy growing pains. When CD first came out I remember them using the LP master which sounded like crap on CD. It took them a learning curve to get the EQ right. From what I understand a similar issue plagued SACD where they just used the 44.1k on SACD format.
NewAlkyogre
Active member
SACD is on paper amazing, sadly in practical they use a cheap plastic dvd mechanism. This is the reason I use a normal cd player with a Philips mechanism and laser. If the disc is right, the sound quality is excellent.
Second problem, there are not many SA-CD’s on the market.
Second problem, there are not many SA-CD’s on the market.
- Thread Author
- #25
True! Esoteric, Luxman, TEAC (CD3000) and Marantz (10 series) are ones we carry.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
As in anything else, there is a great variance among the sources, CD, SACD, files, etc. I have always found that playing from an internal M.2 or SSD drives on my server to be superior to playing a disc. I literally ripped every CD and SACD that I have ever owned to my server for both convenience and superior sound consistency. I also purchase a lot of music online from sources such as HDTracks and NativeDSD. The higher the resolution the better.
With this said I also believe that DSD is a far superior format to PCM if your DAC is designed to handle these files correctly. My T+A DAC uses a Burr Brown chip for PCM but has T+A's own in house DSD decoding. They are what I refer to as a DSD specialist. DSD are far too large of files for streaming. I have several DSD albums that are 14-15GBs in size; some have actually eclipsed the 19GBs album total file size. Streaming is not even a consideration when you are wanting DSD.
I use Roon as my control system and meta data provider and then it hands off the signal to the amazing software HQPlayer as the playback engine. All files as presented to my DAC as DSD512/48 (24.6 Mhz). Yes there is a variance in quality as with anything else. I also believe that the better in the better out. Even though all files are played back in DSD512/48, for the most part, with some exceptions, DSD original files seem to up-sample even better. Roon and HQPlayer are the two applications running on my custom built server for playing digital music.
I have never been a fan of streaming for a few reasons. First off is the lack of control and inconsistent play back. Also, I simply do not need access to so much online. I have a hard enough time deciding what I want to listen to from my own library
. I prefer to own the music I play.
Most every artist I know have stated that what they earn from streaming is a pittance to what they earn from selling their music and live events. Some have gone as far as financing their own music production since it is the only way, even with the inherent risks, of making a living with their music. Streaming does not provide a good income for a vast majority of artist out there. I have actually received notes back from artists thanking me for purchasing their music from them versus streaming it.
With this said I also believe that DSD is a far superior format to PCM if your DAC is designed to handle these files correctly. My T+A DAC uses a Burr Brown chip for PCM but has T+A's own in house DSD decoding. They are what I refer to as a DSD specialist. DSD are far too large of files for streaming. I have several DSD albums that are 14-15GBs in size; some have actually eclipsed the 19GBs album total file size. Streaming is not even a consideration when you are wanting DSD.
I use Roon as my control system and meta data provider and then it hands off the signal to the amazing software HQPlayer as the playback engine. All files as presented to my DAC as DSD512/48 (24.6 Mhz). Yes there is a variance in quality as with anything else. I also believe that the better in the better out. Even though all files are played back in DSD512/48, for the most part, with some exceptions, DSD original files seem to up-sample even better. Roon and HQPlayer are the two applications running on my custom built server for playing digital music.
I have never been a fan of streaming for a few reasons. First off is the lack of control and inconsistent play back. Also, I simply do not need access to so much online. I have a hard enough time deciding what I want to listen to from my own library
. I prefer to own the music I play. Most every artist I know have stated that what they earn from streaming is a pittance to what they earn from selling their music and live events. Some have gone as far as financing their own music production since it is the only way, even with the inherent risks, of making a living with their music. Streaming does not provide a good income for a vast majority of artist out there. I have actually received notes back from artists thanking me for purchasing their music from them versus streaming it.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,145
I can only tell you about some albums that purport to be hi-rez and don't sound as good as the 16/44.1 versions. I can't prove or disprove they really aren't hi-rez because I don't have the software that verifies their true provenance, nor do I care about downloading it. I listen to what I think is the best sounding version of a given album.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,145
Nope. I doubted the record labels allowed their master tapes to be used to cut digital files for every different hi-rez bit depth and sampling frequency available.
- Thread Author
- #31
I’ve personally witnessed a mastering engineer taking 16/44 files and upsampling them to 24/96, 24/192 for download sites.
Tape to 24/96 or 24/192 or DSD or recorded direct to 24/96, 24/192 is the only true way.
FWIW, DSD was, to my knowledge, true tape to DSD masters. A perfect example is Elton John’s Tumbleweed Connection. The DSD is mind blowingly good. It was tape to DSD. Others too.
Tape to 24/96 or 24/192 or DSD or recorded direct to 24/96, 24/192 is the only true way.
FWIW, DSD was, to my knowledge, true tape to DSD masters. A perfect example is Elton John’s Tumbleweed Connection. The DSD is mind blowingly good. It was tape to DSD. Others too.
As far as your first sentence, this has never been in doubt. The real point of contention is whether or not, and/or how often, that happens with recordings that were originally analog, and my contention is not that often; after analyzing thousands of hi-res releases from originally analog masters my experience is that this is quite rare.
FWIW, the stereo version of the SACD of Tumbleweed Connection is by far the most dynamically compressed of all versions of that album. Both the MFSL CD and the SHM-CD sound better IMHO. The 5.1 surround of Tumbleweed Connection sounds much better than the stereo (the same applies to the early SACD of Dark Side of the Moon)
Also remember that even with a new hi-res transfer, the eventual release may sound bad due to too much compression and/or unpleasant EQ in the remastering. I have never said or thought that all hi-res releases necessarily sound better than all CD versions and I know it is true for many albums, but not for most in the music I listen to.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,145
That's still digital hocus pocus.
- Thread Author
- #37
Totally disagree on Tumbleweed. The SACD is by far the best sounding. It’s very analog sounding. The others sound compressed by comparison.
- Thread Author
- #38
Randy Myers
Well-known member
DSD is, all else being equivalent, the most analog sounding digital format. I read a while ago that many record companies were doing their archives in DSD as back ups to their analog tapes.
All DSD is not the same though. DSD64 is the base DSD and what the files in SACDs are. There can be some fairly serious noise issues in the audible range with these files. T+A goes as far as turning off some functions in their DACs when DSD64 is detected in order to protect other gear, specifically speakers.
Native DSD is far better. True "native DSD" starts at quad DSD (DSD256). Lesser DSD uses DSD over PCM (DoP) to transport the signal to the DAC. Native DSD is transported without the conversion. I know I have not explained this correctly, but the point I am making is valid. True DSD is quad or higher. DSD256, DSD512, etc. Above DSD512 the advantages are beyond the point of diminishing returns. From what I read, record companies mostly archive in DSD256 for the best preservation of their original materials.
I have compared and quad or above is superior. My DAC also likes it better and allows all of its functions at this level. This is why all of my material is presented to the DAC in DSD512 (actually using a base of 48 instead of the standard 44.1). Therefore my DAC plays all in 24.6Mhz. It is truly analog sounding in my view. HQPlayer as the playback engine handles all of the files. I cannot begin to explain how all of this works, but it does. HQPlayer is amazing software. It is not cheap, but it is not overly expensive either.
The main and real issue with DSD is file size. The size of the files makes it prohibitive for streaming, especially when we start talking about "Native DSD". The largest I have encountered is a recent album that I purchased which is over 20GB in size.
Yes there are some very fine DACs that do not support DSD. Berkley for example. There are others that specialize in DSD. T+A for example examines the signal coming in and has completely different paths for PCM or DSD. PCM using more standard chips (mine uses the BurrBrown, I believe now called Texas Instruments), but uses an in house developed system for decoding DSD files. Some such as Benchmark throw in basic DSD64 decoding in order to claim DSD support. In order to truly support DSD correctly Native DSD (DSD256 or above) is required.
Another example is PS Audio. Internally all files are converted to extremely high DSD, I believe they use 10x DSD internally (it might actually be higher). The final stage converts the signal back to DSD128 for converting to analog. I talked with Ted Smith (their digital guru) extensively on this subject. While he talks way above my head as far as digital goes, the main point was that a DSD stage in processing is required for the most analog sounding digital.
And as to Mike's point. I have the Tumbleweed SACD and ripped the DSD64 files to my server. When played using the HQPlayer engine to a "native DSD" DAC, it is about as good as digital gets.
Last edited: