Andy, Can you tell us more about HDtracks

[carole cucumber]

According to Andy Skurow's facebook post, the Lady Sings the Blues remaster done by Kevin Reeves will be available exclusively on HDtracks. It's a shame it won't be getting a Motown Select release though with bonus tracks, essay, rare photos, etc.

Going to their website, I found some very interesting other news

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=news

[soulster]

Heh! I've been repeatedly posting about HD Tracks here and hardly anyone seems to care.

I've bought several albums from HD Tracks, including a few that were done by Kevin reeves, produced by Harry Weinger, like Rick James' "Street Songs", "What's Going On" by Marvin Gaye, and "Natural High" by Commodores. They all sound fantastic! I am looking forward ro more classic soul albums.

Not Motown, but I have been disappointed in recent soul offerings lately, particularly from Warner. The sound is good, but the album choices are not. The labels keep telling us that audiophile R&B doesn't sell very well, and, how can it when the labels keep issuing duds like Sister Sledge's "Circle Of Love" when everyone wants "We Are Family", or some Mass Production album no one remembers. UMe and Sony have been better about this.

But, I digress...

[nabob]

Heh! I've been repeatedly posting about HD Tracks here and hardly anyone seems to care.I look forward to your posting that conveys your passion for this form of media. Seeing someone showcase their enthusiasm and passion is always a good thing.

As I grow older, I 'm listening to far less music than in the heyday. My own passions are now directed toward other endeavors that yield lots of pleasure and enjoyment. With a large collection, how much more often is that audiophile version going to be played compared to how often the current version is played? The other issue is not wanting to spend money on repackaged music that's been in the collection and enjoyed for decades. Put something out different like the deluxe packaging or albums previously not released and the money set aside for those other things might get moved.

[calvin]

Based on the pricing, I don't think it's the goal of the music labels to sell large numbers of these high definition downloads.

The marginal cost of producing an additional unit of a download is practically 0. With older analogue recordings, there is the one-off initial cost of the digital mastering [[a cost which you also have for the physical cd), but for new releases recorded digitally in high resolution, they're selling you copies of the master tapes for downloading. And yet physical cds - including shipping costs - are usually considerably cheaper. For the most part, they're marketing these for audiophiles who need to have the best and are willing to pay up for it, not for the general consumer. Apparently they seek to sell fewer units with a bigger profit margin on each unit. Rightly or wrongly, the music labels think they can make bigger profits this way.

Radiohead showed that this doesn't have to be the case. They issued their King of Limbs album, the master tapes, as a high definition download priced the same as the cd. I have no idea what the sales figures were for this, but if more artists/labels did this the interest would grow.

From what I've read, HDTracks also got off to a rocky start with audiophiles because they were accused in some cases of selling "upsampled" digital recordings - meaning an algorithm was applied to the cd masters at 44.1 kHz / 16 bit to convert them to 24 bit and a higher frequency [[for more, google: HDTracks upsampled). I've read that HDTracks has since pulled the upsampled titles. [[I've also read that many SACD disks on the market are actually upsampled.)

I have interest in these downloads, but most of my cds are good enough for me and I wouldn't purchase these downloads to replace them. But if new releases, including from Motown Select, came out in this format and were priced comparably to the physical cds [[as with Radiohead), I'd buy them.

[soulster]

No one cares about getting sound that is closer to, or an exact reproduction of the master tape?

[calvin]

No one cares about getting sound that is closer to, or an exact reproduction of the master tape?

I didn't say I don't care about it, but it's a matter of how much I gain versus how much extra I pay.

If I already have a cd that sounds very good, I'd be paying a lot [[based on the pricing of these) for a very small improvement [[to me) over what I already have.

If it's something I want but don't already have on cd, and the price is roughly comparable to the price of the physical cd, I'll buy it.

[soulster]

If I already have a cd that sounds very good, I'd be paying a lot [[based on the pricing of these) for a very small improvement [[to me) over what I already have.

Have you ever compared anything from HDTracks to the CD counterpart?

[Jimi LaLumia]

when is "Lady Sings The Blues" released?

[alanh]

While there's certainly a vast technical improvement in sound quality from HD files, don't forget that gaining the full benefit will also depend on the quality of the equipment you're listening on and how good the master recording was in the first place. While HD will indeed reveal 'studio quality' we all know of recordings that are better than others. Also, how good are your ears - mine are pretty bashed after many years of sound as well as naturally ageing. Also, hopefully our neighbours won't mind either as we crank it up to enjoy the quality! But listening to some samples on the website, they do sound good and I'm tempted to at least try an album to compare. Whether it's worth spending the extra money is of course in the ears, let alone wallets, of the beholders.

There are growing comments within the music industry these days that it's about time record companies started releasing music in HD themselves and don't delay yet again in making music available in the form that many people would now like. Part of the excuse for lower quality [[ie smaller) files in the past was that computers hadn't got the memory capacity to store large files. Now they have, so there's no technical reason not to make HD files available. And of course it'll be yet another way to get us all to buy the music we already have from them all over again[[!!).

[calvin]

Have you ever compared anything from HDTracks to the CD counterpart?

No, I haven't - so you're right, I shouldn't assume that the difference is very small. I have heard high definition studio masters [[classical) that a friend bought from Qobuz, and they sounded very good, but we didn't have the cds for comparison.

I don't claim to be an expert on this, and I'm not an audiophile, but I am aware that there is controversy surrounding whether listeners can notice improvement due to the higher bit rate and frequency. In double-blind tests of like for like, listeners could not tell the difference between 24-bit high frequency and 16-bit, 44.1 kHz, at normal-to-loud volumes [[they could at extreme volumes). For example
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

But I'm not disputing that these downloads sound better than released cds, as cds often suffer from the "loudness war", while these recordings will not. And that could be reason enough to buy these over physical cds. And as I wrote, I would like to buy some myself. I'm not sure that I would hear much if any difference, but I'd buy them anyway for new releases if they cost about the same as the physical cd. [[And as I noted above, they cost less to produce than the physical cds - but they are priced higher to target audiophiles who will pay up for them. I would buy them but not pay up too much to do so.)

Incidentally, studio masters of the new David Bowie album are 14.99 EUR on Qobuz [[about £13), while the physical cd is £12 on Amazon UK - this is not much difference [[though third party vendors offer the physical cd for less than £10.)

But as an analogy, consider blu-ray vs dvd. There is no controversy that blu-ray is noticeably much better, even with a normal high-def tv. Nevertheless, I didn't go out and replace the dvds I already had with blu-rays. But when I buy something new, I compare the prices of the dvd and blu-ray versions, and I prefer to buy the blu-ray version if it isn't too much more expensive.

I'd also like to live in a better home, but I have to balance that against how much money I have and other things I'd like to spend my money on, now or in the future. It's all about preferences and limited resources.

[soulster]

No, I haven't - so you're right, I shouldn't assume that the difference is very small. I have heard high definition studio masters [[classical) that a friend bought from Qobuz, and they sounded very good, but we didn't have the cds for comparison.
Bingo!


I don't claim to be an expert on this, and I'm not an audiophile, but I am aware that there is controversy surrounding whether listeners can notice improvement due to the higher bit rate and frequency. In double-blind tests of like for like, listeners could not tell the difference between 24-bit high frequency and 16-bit, 44.1 kHz, at normal-to-loud volumes [[they could at extreme volumes). For example
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

Virtually every single audio engineer can tell the difference, and most audiophiles, and a whole lot of non-audiophiles can tell.

The problem I have with these studies is that most non-audiophiles do not know what to listen for. They tend to concentrate on things like the lyrics and singing. On top of that, many do not have good hearing and don't ever realize it. And, too many people listen to music on lousy speakers or headphones. I can even hear a difference on my modest stereo at home.


But I'm not disputing that these downloads sound better than released cds, as cds often suffer from the "loudness war", while these recordings will not.

What you will hear on a high-definition recording is analogous to the difference between blu-ray and DVD. There will be clarity in the sound, which means more focus in the soundstage, and more definition and realism of the musicians and singers.


And that could be reason enough to buy these over physical cds. And as I wrote, I would like to buy some myself. I'm not sure that I would hear much if any difference, but I'd buy them anyway for new releases if they cost about the same as the physical cd.

Why don't you just try one? If you don't have your computer hooked up to a good sound system, you can copy the files to a USB and play them that way, or burn a DVD-R and play it that way.


[[And as I noted above, they cost less to produce than the physical cds - but they are priced higher to target audiophiles who will pay up for them. I would buy them but not pay up too much to do so.)

CDs once cost more than records and tape when they became popular.


Incidentally, studio masters of the new David Bowie album are 14.99 EUR on Qobuz [[about £13), while the physical cd is £12 on Amazon UK - this is not much difference [[though third party vendors offer the physical cd for less than £10.)

True, but what you gain in the increase in price is the improved sound quality. I notice that has not been part of your argument, but the very reason these hi-rez albums exist!


But as an analogy, consider blu-ray vs dvd. There is no controversy that blu-ray is noticeably much better, even with a normal high-def tv. Nevertheless, I didn't go out and replace the dvds I already had with blu-rays.

People don't complain when blu-ray costs more than DVD, but they bitch about music.


But when I buy something new, I compare the prices of the dvd and blu-ray versions, and I prefer to buy the blu-ray version if it isn't too much more expensive.

I admit that I am not replacing all of my current CDs and LPs with hi-rez, mainly because my money is tight these days, and HD Tracks isn't coming out with enough of the music I want to have in that format. Unfortunately, most audiophiles are not that into R&B music. We need more R&B audiophiles. This is one of the reasons I post about this stuff on this forum. Audiophiles have always been on the cutting edge of advancements in audio, and the music is part of it. So, before we let R&B slip as much as it did with the ascension of the CD, why not make it part of hi-rez before more of it gets left behind like with CD and lossy downloads?


I'd also like to live in a better home, but I have to balance that against how much money I have and other things I'd like to spend my money on, now or in the future. It's all about preferences and limited resources.

Well, we aren't the only ones who don't have lots of money to play with, but music is so important in my life that I try to work it in my budget. At this point, I refuse to settle for iTunes just because it's cheaper. iTunes music sounds awful!

[calvin]

Virtually every single audio engineer can tell the difference, and most audiophiles, and a whole lot of non-audiophiles can tell.

The problem I have with these studies is that most non-audiophiles do not know what to listen for. They tend to concentrate on things like the lyrics and singing. On top of that, many do not have good hearing and don't ever realize it. And, too many people listen to music on lousy speakers or headphones. I can even hear a difference on my modest stereo at home.

These studies may be right or wrong [[and that study did include professionals and audiophiles), but double-blind tests are the only way to test something like this, where you need to take the confirmation bias into account. It's something like testing a drug against a placebo. If someone can really hear the difference, he/she should be able to hear it in a properly conducted test as well, where they aren't told which they're listening to.

But note that these studies are NOT making the comparison you're making - cds versus the high-resolution downloads. They are testing whether, other things being equal, one can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit, 44.1 kHz and a higher frequency. But there are other differences between a cd and the high-res download, for example the loudness problem with cds [[which is unnecessary but there, thanks to the music labels), as I mentioned. In fact, I explicitly wrote that I'm not disputing that these downloads sound better.


True, but what you gain in the increase in price is the improved sound quality. I notice that has not been part of your argument, but the very reason these hi-rez albums exist!

People don't complain when blu-ray costs more than DVD, but they bitch about music.

You missed my point. As with blu-ray vs dvd, I will pay extra to get something better - but we all have our limits [[and my limit is apparently just lower than yours). I mentioned the David Bowie example as a case where the difference is small - if I were a big Bowie fan, I'd buy that download from Qobuz. But I'm not sure I want to buy that album at all.

And what is my "argument"? I'm not against these downloads. I'm only saying that I'm not so interested in buying the stuff I already have all over again. I love Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On", but I already have it on vinyl, on cd, and the 2-cd deluxe version including the Detroit mix and the Kennedy Center concert. I passed on the 3-cd+vinyl 40th anniversary edition because, well, it was expensive and at that price my 2-cd set was good enough for me. Same goes for the high-res download. It's great to make it available in this format - I wish that EVERYTHING were available in a high-quality format - but how about some titles besides the "classics"? Give us [[for example) a box set of all the LPs of Jr Walker, or The Originals, and make it available as a high-res download in addition to the physical cd, and I'll buy the high-res download.


At this point, I refuse to settle for iTunes just because it's cheaper. iTunes music sounds awful!

Who said anything about ITunes? I've never been into that, I've always preferred the physical cds.

[soulster]

These studies may be right or wrong [[and that study did include professionals and audiophiles), but double-blind tests are the only way to test something like this, where you need to take the confirmation bias into account. It's something like testing a drug against a placebo. If someone can really hear the difference, he/she should be able to hear it in a properly conducted test as well, where they aren't told which they're listening to.

Not true. The differences are so obvious so there is no expectation bias.


But note that these studies are NOT making the comparison you're making - cds versus the high-resolution downloads. It's possible that these studies are correct AND hi-res downloads DO sound better than their cd counterparts - for example because of the cd loudness as I mentioned.

Even without the loudness aspect of CDs [[and hi-rez files can be subject to the compressor too), the differences are there in the way that I described above.


[[In other words, comparing the high-res download to the cd does not keep everything the same other than the bitrate/frequency.) In fact, I explicitly wrote that I'm not disputing that these downloads sound better.
Correct. The CD is already inferior because of the fact that it is 16-bit. 16-bit does not provide the adequate resolution to reproduce the original, lifelike sound of the master tape or mic feed.


You missed my point. As with blu-ray vs dvd, I will pay extra to get something better - but we all have our limits [[and my limit is apparently just lower than yours).

I got your point. But, what I wonder is, if you will pay extra for a superior picture, why won't you pay more for superior sound?


I mentioned the David Bowie example as a case where the difference is small - if I were a big Bowie fan, I'd buy that download from Qobuz. But I'm not sure I want to buy that album at all.

Well, we could debate all day on how small the differences are, and you would be at a disadvantage because you have admittedly not heard the hi-rez version.


And what is my "argument"? I'm not against these downloads. I'm only saying that I'm not so interested in buying the stuff I already have all over again.

What I am asking is, despite the fact that you own something already, isn't the lure of better sound important to you? Think of how cool it is to hear "What's Going On" as Marvin himself heard it in the studio!


I love Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On", but I already have it on vinyl, on cd, and the 2-cd deluxe version including the Detroit mix and the Kennedy Center concert.

So, you aren't against buying something more than once! What makes the hi-rez version different?


I passed on the 3-cd+vinyl 40th anniversary edition because, well, it was expensive and at that price my 2-cd set was good enough for me. Same goes for the high-res download.

here's the thing: how do you know what you have is good enough if you don't hear the improved versions?


It's great to make it available in this format - I wish that EVERYTHING were available in a high-quality format - but how about some titles besides the "classics"? Give us [[for example) a box set of all the LPs of Jr Walker, or The Originals, and make it available as a high-res download in addition to the physical cd, and I'll buy the high-res download.

And, it could happen if more soul lovers like us support the format. Without the support, the labels won't bother. It's up to us!


Who said anything about ITunes? I've never been into that, I've always preferred the physical cds.

Even the CD is better than iTunes! I mentioned iTunes because that's the way most people want their music nowadays, and it's a step backward from where we were going until the original Napster came along.

I'm not picking an argument, i'm just debating an issue, and trying to get at why people here aren't interested in hearing their soulful favorites in a higher quality than what they know.

[calvin]

Not true. The differences are so obvious so there is no expectation bias.

If it's so obvious, one should be able to pass a properly-conducted double-blind test easily.


Well, we could debate all day on how small the differences are, and you would be at a disadvantage because you have admittedly not heard the hi-rez version.

I was talking about the difference in *price* being small enough that I would buy it over the physical cd - if I wanted to buy that title.


What I am asking is, despite the fact that you own something already, isn't the lure of better sound important to you? Think of how cool it is to hear "What's Going On" as Marvin himself heard it in the studio!

Well if you want to get picky, I guess Marvin Gaye heard analogue master tapes.


So, you aren't against buying something more than once! What makes the hi-rez version different?

Having it on cd was a matter of convenience. Then I bought the 2-cd set for the Detroit Mix and the Kennedy Center concert, which I didn't have. Also, I never said I'm absolutely against buying something more than once. But I shouldn't have to justify my preferences and what I choose to purchase.

[soulster]

If it's so obvious, one should be able to pass a properly-conducted double-blind test easily.
However, YOU discussing A/B blind testing is moot because you haven't heard hi-rez.


Well if you want to get picky, I guess Marvin Gaye heard analogue master tapes.

Yes, he did! But, what you may not realize is that 24-bit/192kHz has the same quality as analog tape, and will preserve every bit of resolution as that tape.


Having it on cd was a matter of convenience. Then I bought the 2-cd set for the Detroit Mix and the Kennedy Center concert, which I didn't have. Also, I never said I'm absolutely against buying something more than once. But I shouldn't have to justify my preferences and what I choose to purchase.

Of course, you don't. But, again, I am not wondering specifically about you. I'm wondering about other R&B fans who will not partake in hi-rez.

[calvin]

However, YOU discussing A/B blind testing is moot because you haven't heard hi-rez.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. First, double-blind testing is a scientific method of testing a claim, and a deaf person could conduct or discuss such a test. Second, I told you above that I have heard some classical music in high resolution, and it was very good.


But, what you may not realize is that 24-bit/192kHz has the same quality as analog tape, and will preserve every bit of resolution as that tape.

No, the waveforms will be physically different, but one can claim that the difference is not audible to the human ear. If someone claims he/she can hear the difference, that should be tested in a double-blind trial.

The thing here is, I'm open to buying the stuff, and will when the right titles come out, if they are reasonably priced compared to the cd [[yes, they can cost more).

[soulster]

[QUOTE]Ok, this is getting ridiculous. First, double-blind testing is a scientific method of testing a claim, and a deaf person could conduct or discuss such a test. Second, I told you above that I have heard some classical music in high resolution, and it was very good.

I know very well what double-blind testing is, thank you! Again, the issue is moot for you because you have not heard any comparisons at all. It is apparent that you are working on the assumption that there is little to no difference between the two types of media. A/B testing might be warranted if there was a discrepancy as to how small differences are, but they aren't in most cases.


No, the waveforms will be physically different, but one can claim that the difference is not audible to the human ear. If someone claims he/she can hear the difference, that should be tested in a double-blind trial.

And, the people who say that they aren't audible to the human ear are talking out of their asses. They clearly haven't either heard hi-rez or compared it against CD. As I said, CD is inferior because 16-bit cannot store the full resolution. That is a mathematical fact. 16-bit only yields 96db of dynamic range.


The thing here is, I'm open to buying the stuff, and will when the right titles come out, if they are reasonably priced compared to the cd [[yes, they can cost more).

HD Tracks have sales all the time. When something you could be interested in goes on sale, then download it.

[calvin]

I know very well what double-blind testing is, thank you! Again, the issue is moot for you because you have not heard any comparisons at all. It is apparent that you are working on the assumption that there is little to no difference between the two types of media. A/B testing might be warranted if there was a discrepancy as to how small differences are, but they aren't in most cases.

And, the people who say that they aren't audible to the human ear are talking out of their asses. They clearly haven't either heard hi-rez or compared it against CD. As I said, CD is inferior because 16-bit cannot store the full resolution. That is a mathematical fact. 16-bit only yields 96db of dynamic range.

You know, a lot of this seems to be the result of your not reading what I actually wrote. I haven't assumed anything. And as I've stated repeatedly, the test was NOT comparing high-res to a cd.

The part about not being audible to the human ear was a response to your claim that the full resolution of the analogue tapes is captured in 24 bit / 192 kHz. As I wrote, physically this is not true, the waveforms are different [[one is digital!) and you will not be able to exactly recapture the analogue waveform from the digital. But it can be that the human ear can't hear the difference between these two - ie the original analogue masters and the 24 bit / 192 kHz digitization. In other words, I'm agreeing with you that hearing the master tapes in 24 bit / 192 kHz may sound the same to our ears as the original analogue masters.

[soulster]

You know, a lot of this seems to be the result of your not reading what I actually wrote. I haven't assumed anything. And as I've stated repeatedly, the test was NOT comparing high-res to a cd.

But, dude! you're the one who keeps bringing up A/B blind testing!


The part about not being audible to the human ear was a response to your claim that the full resolution of the analogue tapes is captured in 24 bit / 192 kHz.

Now you're saying that i'm not reading what you wrote, but you also did not specifically state you were referring to analog vs. 24-bit/192kHz. In the absence of that little bit of detail, what was I to think?


As I wrote, physically this is not true, the waveforms are different [[one is digital!)...

A waveform is nothing but a graphical representation of audio.


...and you will not be able to exactly recapture the analogue waveform from the digital.

Based on what evidence?


But it can be that the human ear can't hear the difference between these two - ie the original analogue masters and the 24 bit / 192 kHz digitization.

According to most engineers, it can't. The ultimate test for many, including by buddy Barry Diament, is the direct mic feed. According to him, 24-bit/192kHz is the only format that will duplicate the live mic feed. Also, any engineer will tell you that the secret of what to listen for is the reverberation tails. High-rez will reproduce them exactly. With 16-bit, they will fall off.


In other words, I'm agreeing with you that hearing the master tapes in 24 bit / 192 kHz may sound the same to our ears as the original analogue masters.

Again, not picking a fight, just having a lively discussion/debate about something other than a certain singer or female group, for a change.:cool: It's refreshing!

[calvin]

But, dude! you're the one who keeps bringing up A/B blind testing!

I brought it up once, then it was understood to mean blind testing of high-res vs cd [[which it wasn't) so I had to keep coming back to it.


Now you're saying that i'm not reading what you wrote, but you also did not specifically state you were referring to analog vs. 24-bit/192kHz. In the absence of that little bit of detail, what was I to think?

Well I wrote it as a response right underneath a quote box in which you wrote that the 24-bit/192 kHz has the same resolution as the analogue master.


A waveform is nothing but a graphical representation of audio.

That's true, but it's a graphical representation of something physical [[the air compression/rarefaction). And the differing graphs mean there's a physical difference [[though I know that what comes out of the speakers is not quite what you see in that waveform). There may well be an alien race which could hear this difference clearly, even if we can't hear it at all.


Based on what evidence?

Are you denying that information is lost in the digitization process? The way to show this would be to start with two nearly identical, but not exactly identical, waveforms A and B which lead [[or could lead, if there is randomness involved) to the digital waveform C. This would mean that starting from C, you couldn't know where it came from - A or B would both be possibilities. I don't know the technical details of the digitization process well enough to do this but I think it can be done.


According to most engineers, it can't.

I would tend to believe this. If some claim they can hear the difference, I would be skeptical but not totally dismissive - but I would like to see someone pass a test before I believe that it can be done.

I'm also not trying to pick a fight, I enjoy reading your posts on this forum. I feel like I'm mostly trying to defend myself and my purchasing preferences here. I never claimed to know much about audio. I won't go into detail, but I do have a very strong background in physics and mathematics, so it's interesting to me and I guess I could learn the theory pretty quickly. Of course, it's totally intertwined with the limitations of the human ear, and those limitations are really the source of the controversies.

[soulster]

There may well be an alien race which could hear this difference clearly, even if we can't hear it at all.

Who says we can't?


Are you denying that information is lost in the digitization process?

Deny? I outright dispute it! And do you deny that information is lost in analog recording? LOL!


The way to show this would be to start with two nearly identical, but not exactly identical, waveforms A and B which lead [[or could lead, if there is randomness involved) to the digital waveform C. This would mean that starting from C, you couldn't know whether it came from A or B. I don't know the technical details of the digitization process well enough to do this but I think it can be done.

Here's that A/B testing again! I'm not arguing one could tell a difference in two wave forms in some situations. But, we do not record waveforms! We record sound waves. Air pressure. Most engineers would most likely tell you that if you fed a live mic feed into 24-bit/192kHz , and one into analog running at 30 i.p.s., no Dolby, the digital stream would come up sounding the most transparent. That's just how good digital has gotten. But, to bring it back to CD, you will not hear that transparency on CD. You don't even hear analog tape transferred to CD that clearly.


I would tend to believe this. If some claim they can hear the difference, I would be skeptical but not totally dismissive - but I would like to see someone pass a test before I believe that it can be done.

It's one thing to rely on others' responses to A/B blind testing, but it's another to actually LISTEN for yourself. After all, you're not listening to someone else's ears, you can only hear through your own.


I'm also not trying to pick a fight, I enjoy reading your posts on this forum. I feel like I'm mostly trying to defend myself and my purchasing preferences here.

I'm not asking anyone to defend their purchases. I'm saying that how can you make all these claims and come to your conclusions if YOU have not heard the comparisons, sighted or unsighted?


I never claimed to know much about audio. I won't go into detail, but I do have a very strong background in physics and mathematics, so it's interesting to me and I guess I could learn the theory pretty quickly.

I'm all about science too, but there's one thing science cannot grasp: what we hear and see. We cannot quantify what our senses tell us. We are all individuals with varying capabilities. We are not all created the same. That's the danger of relying only on scientific method.


Of course, it's totally intertwined with the limitations of the human ear, and those limitations are really the source of the controversies.

Then, why rely only on inconclusive scientific results for the only argument you may have?

[calvin]

Who says we can't?

You did. If you check, this refers to your claim that the 24 bit/192 kHz recording captures the "full resolution" of the analogue recording. It doesn't [[but it may be that no human can hear the difference). And then you dispute that information is lost. You might be confused because of the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, which shows that you can recover the full signal if the bandlimit is less than half the sampling rate AND you know the exact amplitude at each point you sample. But when you quantize the amplitude, you lose information about its value, you no longer know it exactly. This is a simple fact.

So - it may be true that Marvin Gaye wouldn't be able to hear the difference between his analogue masters and the 24-bit/192 kHz digitized masters, but they are physically different and sensitive equipment could detect this difference. Which is why I wrote that an alien race might well hear the difference between the two as clear as night and day, even if [[perhaps - I am not claiming this!) no human can hear the difference.


Deny? I outright dispute it! And do you deny that information is lost in analog recording? LOL!

Here's that A/B testing again! I'm not arguing one could tell a difference in two wave forms in some situations. But, we do not record waveforms! We record sound waves. Air pressure. Most engineers would most likely tell you that if you fed a live mic feed into 24-bit/192kHz , and one into analog running at 30 i.p.s., no Dolby, the digital stream would come up sounding the most transparent. That's just how good digital has gotten. But, to bring it back to CD, you will not hear that transparency on CD. You don't even hear analog tape transferred to CD that clearly.

Information is lost in the amplitude quantization as I noted above. And no, what I wrote that you are referring to was not "A/B testing". I was writing in words, in case you don't have a math background, that if f[[A)=f[[B) for some A not equal to B, then f is not invertible.

And yes, I know that the waveforms are a graphical representation of the air compression/rarefaction [[as a function of time). I wrote that above, read it. But if we measure two sounds and find that they have different waveforms, this means that the air pressures are not the same at all times - so they are physically different.


I'm all about science too, but there's one thing science cannot grasp: what we hear and see. We cannot quantify what our senses tell us. We are all individuals with varying capabilities. We are not all created the same. That's the danger of relying only on scientific method.

Our senses are very sophisticated tools for observing the physical world, but they are also limited and have shortcomings. And in combination with our brains, they sometimes tell us all kinds of crazy things. Have you ever seen an optical illusion where figures in a picture appear to be moving? You know they can't be moving but you can't stop them! You can't always trust your senses. We also have all sorts of biases, such as the confirmation bias, and without proper safeguards we fall for these.

When people have a hearing test, they aren't played a high frequency and then asked if they can hear it - if they know it's playing, they may actually believe they hear it even if they don't. So instead, the tone is played for an interval, stopped, played again, etc, and the subject is asked to indicate when it starts and stops. There are very good reasons why scientists do such types of tests to safeguard against biases.


Then, why rely only on inconclusive scientific results for the only argument you may have?

Seriously, I can't follow you. What was my argument in my previous post for which I'm relying on inconclusive scientific results? That the analogue and 24-bit/192 kHz masters are not physically identical? That's a mathematical fact. And you keep coming back and saying that I'm arguing that people can't hear the difference between HDTracks and a cd, despite my repeated clarification that I never claimed that.

What I did write [[but not in the last post, and I now regret writing it) is that there seems to be controversy as to whether people can hear the difference at normal-to-high volume between a 24-bit/high frequency signal and *the same signal* passed through a 16 bit / 44.1 kHz bottleneck. Some double-blind tests which included professionals and audiophiles found that no one could do this except at extremely high volumes [[so they aren't even claiming that it can't be done at all). I didn't argue that the test was done properly or that the result is correct. But to conclusively demonstrate to skeptics [[as scientists should be) that someone can discern the difference at normal or low volumes, someone should pass a double-blind test. If the difference is as obvious as you say, this would be easy to do. Perhaps it has already been done. I don't know. And as your answer is always that you can hear the difference between HDTracks and cd, then you apparently don't know either, because that's not the same thing.

Then you fall back defensively on illogical arguments. I'm not allowed to discuss any double-blind tests because I never bought anything from HDTracks. Am I allowed to discuss the findings of a scientific paper on the effectiveness of a new drug even if didn't participate in the study or take the drug myself outside of the study? [[Though as I mentioned above, I have heard some high-res downloads from Qobuz.)

Or you say that I can't say that one of my cds is "good enough for me" if I didn't buy that title on HDTracks and compare. This is absurd. It's good enough for me if I'm satisfied with it. I'm not claiming that it's the best on the market. For you "good enough" might mean the best that is currently available. Have you ever eaten at Noma? If you haven't, then maybe none of the food you like is actually good enough for you.

I read a small fraction of an electrical engineering paper on digital audio, just covering the bare basics: discrete time sampling and the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, quantization of amplitude and quantization error [[this is where information is lost going from analogue to digital!), signal-to-quantization error ratio, quantization noise, and dithering. I understand this, but again I don't claim to know much, as there is clearly MUCH more to the subject. The positive side of this thread is that it led me to learn something new, it's an interesting topic and I may read further if I have time. But I've lost interest in this conversation because of your derogatory attitude and repeated misrepresentations of what I write, while it seems that that you don't fully understand this basic theory.

I apologize to everyone for my role in ruining this thread. In the future I think I'll stick to artists, music, new releases, etc, and avoid this topic.

[stephanie]

I am amazed at conversations like this I feel so left out. I know nothing [[like Schultz on Hogans Heroes) I learn a lot.

[soulster]

Calvin, just don't try to say that no one can hear a difference. It's not a good idea to decide something so subjective for everyone else. I know you didn't do that, but just in case...


You did. If you check, this refers to your claim that the 24 bit/192 kHz recording captures the "full resolution" of the analogue recording. It doesn't [[but it may be that no human can hear the difference). And then you dispute that information is lost. You might be confused because of the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, which shows that you can recover the full signal if the bandlimit is less than half the sampling rate AND you know the exact amplitude at each point you sample. But when you quantize the amplitude, you lose information about its value, you no longer know it exactly. This is a simple fact.

The extended frequency response allows the filters to be set at a much higher frequency, and the overtones produced by instruments both have an effect on what we can hear. Again, I go by what I hear, not by just numbers. Any engineer will tell you that numbers do not tell the whole story. And, sampling rate, or frequency response, is separate from dynamic range and resolution. 16-bit will not provide the full resolution that 24-bits will give you!


So - it may be true that Marvin Gaye wouldn't be able to hear the difference between his analogue masters and the 24-bit/192 kHz digitized masters, but they are physically different and sensitive equipment could detect this difference.

Who the hell cares if they are different physical mediums? Isn't what you hear all that matters?


Which is why I wrote that an alien race might well hear the difference between the two as clear as night and day, even if [[perhaps - I am not claiming this!) no human can hear the difference.

Prove that YOU can't hear the difference and try an HD Tracks version!


Information is lost in the amplitude quantization as I noted above.

You didn't prove anything! :D


And no, what I wrote that you are referring to was not "A/B testing". I was writing in words, in case you don't have a math background, that if f[[A)=f[[B) for some A not equal to B, then f is not invertible.

What do you call it if it isn't A/B testing? Again, YOU have to see for yourself.


Our senses are very sophisticated tools for observing the physical world, but they are also limited and have shortcomings. And in combination with our brains, they sometimes tell us all kinds of crazy things. Have you ever seen an optical illusion where figures in a picture appear to be moving? You know they can't be moving but you can't stop them! You can't always trust your senses. We also have all sorts of biases, such as the confirmation bias, and without proper safeguards we fall for these.

You know how you can confirm or deny this conformation bias? Stop living on speculation ans put it to the test! Try comparing a CD with a hi-rez file!


When people have a hearing test, they aren't played a high frequency and then asked if they can hear it - if they know it's playing, they may actually believe they hear it even if they don't. So instead, the tone is played for an interval, stopped, played again, etc, and the subject is asked to indicate when it starts and stops. There are very good reasons why scientists do such types of tests to safeguard against biases.

Most hearing tests are flawed because they do not test for higher frequencies than, say, 10kHz. You have to go higher. And, again, overtones affect how accurately the tones we do hear are reproduced. If you sat down and listened to a 22kHz recording and even a 44.1 recording, you will hear the difference. And, once again, like so many who argue against hi-rez, you completely ignore the other part of the equation: the bit-depth!


Seriously, I can't follow you. What was my argument in my previous post for which I'm relying on inconclusive scientific results?

Your assumption that the difference between CD and hi-rez would be too small to matter to most people.


That the analogue and 24-bit/192 kHz masters are not physically identical? That's a mathematical fact. And you keep coming back and saying that I'm arguing that people can't hear the difference between HDTracks and a cd, despite my repeated clarification that I never claimed that. You did too! Go back to your first post.


What I did write [[but not in the last post, and I now regret writing it) is that there seems to be controversy as to whether people can hear the difference at normal-to-high volume between a 24-bit/high frequency signal and *the same signal* passed through a 16 bit / 44.1 kHz bottleneck. Some double-blind tests which included professionals and audiophiles found that no one could do this except at extremely high volumes [[so they aren't even claiming that it can't be done at all). I didn't argue that the test was done properly or that the result is correct. But to conclusively demonstrate to skeptics [[as scientists should be) that someone can discern the difference at normal or low volumes, someone should pass a double-blind test.

Problem: It's not conclusive.


If the difference is as obvious as you say, this would be easy to do. Perhaps it has already been done. I don't know. And as your answer is always that you can hear the difference between HDTracks and cd, then you apparently don't know either, because that's not the same thing.

I know I can hear the difference. If I couldn't, I wouldn't bother with them. I do my own transfers. I've done my own tests. I hear the difference.


Then you fall back defensively on illogical arguments. I'm not allowed to discuss any double-blind tests because I never bought anything from HDTracks.

You are not validating your submission of double-blind tests because you have not done them yourself.


Am I allowed to discuss the findings of a scientific paper on the effectiveness of a new drug even if didn't participate in the study or take the drug myself outside of the study? [[Though as I mentioned above, I have heard some high-res downloads from Qobuz.)

Instead of relying on what someone else said, wouldn't you like to confirm it yourself? You heard a hi-rez file. I got that. But, for this argument, you did not compare it to anything else. So, that claim means nothing. If you are a scientist, as you claim, you would want to compare that files to a CD, for example, to hear the difference. It looks like you are putting up an argument against hi-rez when you have never heard the difference yourself. That;'s not good science.


Or you say that I can't say that one of my cds is "good enough for me" if I didn't buy that title on HDTracks and compare.

I didn't say you couldn't say that. I'm asking you do you know it's good enough for you if you never did a comparison? I'm not talking about A/B/ testing here. The differences are significant enough to hear in a "sighted" test. now, if you do compare a CD and it's hi-rez counterpart and decide that the difference is not significant enough for YOU to buy them, that's cool. And, I agree, you regrettably muddied up your argument by citing the AES study.


This is absurd. It's good enough for me if I'm satisfied with it.

Again, you don't know that.


I'm not claiming that it's the best on the market.

No one said you did!


For you "good enough" might mean the best that is currently available.

In the the modern vernacular, that could be interpreted as "I'm blissfully ignorant of any differences.", or, "I don't care!". Could that be what you are saying here? I mean, that's all you had to say from the outset.


Have you ever eaten at Noma? If you haven't, then maybe none of the food you like is actually good enough for you.

Very true!


I read a small fraction of an electrical engineering paper on digital audio, just covering the bare basics: discrete time sampling and the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, quantization of amplitude and quantization error [[this is where information is lost going from analogue to digital!), signal-to-quantization error ratio, quantization noise, and dithering. I understand this, but again I don't claim to know much, as there is clearly MUCH more to the subject. The positive side of this thread is that it led me to learn something new, it's an interesting topic and I may read further if I have time. But I've lost interest in this conversation because of your derogatory attitude and repeated misrepresentations of what I write, while it seems that that you don't fully understand this basic theory.

Firs, you should have kept reading and made note of when it was written. And, second, I have not been derogatory against you. I have kept it civil and non-insulting. It is you who quickly got defensive.


I apologize to everyone for my role in ruining this thread. In the future I think I'll stick to artists, music, new releases, etc, and avoid this topic.

My first post advocated these versions of soul music, and then I lamented the seemingly lack of interest among soul music lovers in these hi-rez versions that are closer to the master tapes. Then you came in talking about the cost. Valid argument, and I do agree. Things were cool until you mentioned that study and I started arguing the point. And, in all this, I discovered that I missed a post from another member. Now I have to go back and read the thread to pick up on what I missed! Don't get so defensive! You have to admit, this was a nice little diversion.

Sorry Carole Cucumber!

[soulster]

Hi alanh!

I agree!

I fully accept that if one cannot hear a difference, they shouldn't bother. But, I can, and a lot of others can too. So, if you can, I advocate supporting this hi-rez endeavor.

[calvin]

Soulster, I came back to add/edit something to my last post [[which I won't do now), and I did read your post. To be honest, I think this is more than a bit silly, we are arguing over nothing important. But I'm glad that you didn't dismiss and ridicule me in your last post [[writing "YOU" and dismissing my arguments with "LOL!" did seem derogatory).

Again - I mentioned a study that compared people listening to two signals which were identical except that in one case the signal was passed through a bottleneck, limiting it to 16 bit/44.1 kHz. I repeat again - I don't claim that this or other studies were properly conducted or that the results are correct. I don't know enough about it [[and I wrote that I'm not an expert on the topic - I only mentioned that there does seem to be this controversy). Also, I wrote that this test is not the same as comparing HDTracks to a physical cd, because there are other differences between the two - for example, the increase of loudness that is unfortunately [[and unnecessarily) applied to cds. Again, I repeat - I am NOT claiming that no one can hear the difference between HDTracks and the cd! If you still think that I'm claiming that, there is nothing more I can write, that's as clear as I can get.

Also, as I wrote, I would like to try something in this format. But I'd prefer to buy something that I don't already have on a cd that sounds good to me. [[And not all my cds sound great even to me, especially some of the older stuff from the 1980s and early 1990s). So I hope they come out with more titles. Being in the UK, I can't download easily from HDTracks, though of course there are ways around this [[including legal ones, like doing it on my laptop the next time I'm the US - I'm pretty sure that they only care that you're accessing them through an IP address that's in the US). We have Qobuz here in the EU [[and maybe others I don't know about), though their selection is even more limited in the pop/R&B/soul genres. Maybe they'll have something in classical or jazz that will interest me at some point. [[And classical works often have very large differences in amplitude between the quietest and loudest passages, so the bit depth could make a bigger difference in quality here than with most pop music.)

I've agreed from the beginning that all that matters is what you hear. But you made a claim that a 24-bit / 192 kHz digitization has the same resolution as the analogue signal. I wrote that information is lost in the digitization process and that the analogue signal can't be recovered exactly. Although I didn't know the process yet, I know that you can't in general convert something continuous to something discrete without losing something.

You dispute this. OK, consider a digital recording with bit depth m and a sampling rate of n per second. Consider 1 second of analogue sound. There are infinitely many possible 1 second analogue sounds [[even if we restrict ourselves to audible frequencies). But there are 2^[[mn) [[2 to the power m times n) possible digital representations of 1 second of sound at this digitization. That's a finite number. A function mapping an infinite set to a finite set can't be invertible - meaning you can't invert the process to recover the exact analogue signal.

You can recover some analogue signal, but you couldn't be sure that it would be the original one. For example, suppose a random number between 0 and 1 [[inclusive) is represented with one bit of data, but you only know that the digital value is 1. The original input could be anything between one half and 1, and you can't know which. Information was lost.

Finally, I make this remark. I agree with you, again, that all that matters is what you hear. You write that 16 bits won't give the same dynamic range as 24 bits. Of course it won't! And 24 bits won't give the same dynamic range as 48 bits. But let's say hypothetically [[I'm not claiming this, it would have to be tested!) that no one can hear any difference between 24 bits and any higher bit depth. Then 24 bits would suffice for playback if all that matters is what you hear. Now [[staying in this hypothetical) there may still be reasons to record with a greater bit depth, say [[hypothetically) 48 bits, because these signals go through a lot of processes, and it's more accurate to "round down" [[dither) to 24 bits at the very end of the process rather than beginning by recording using 24 bits. One can always go to higher and higher bit depths for recording and playback, but at some point it won't help anymore because of the limitations of the best recording equipment, the best processing equipment, the best playback equipment, and your ears.

[soulster]

But I'm glad that you didn't dismiss and ridicule me in your last post [[writing "YOU" and dismissing my arguments with "LOL!" did seem derogatory). I really wasn't trying to be. My point through all of it is that one should compare a CD against hi-rez to know if the differences make a difference to you. They make a significant difference to me, and I do not have a mega-buck system. I do not think every album on HD Tracks is worth it for ME to buy. Not all sound that great.

Cost is a concern for many people, but HDTracks does have periodic sales. Right now, they are offering sale prices for some female artist titles including Anita Baker, Aretha Franklin, Carly Simon, Natalie Merchant, Nina Simone, and others, and the price is about the same as the CD. My initial thing is that soul audiophiles should support the music in hi-rez or else we may not get them anymore.


Again - I mentioned a study that compared people listening to two signals which were identical except that in one case the signal was passed through a bottleneck, limiting it to 16 bit/44.1 kHz. I repeat again - I don't claim that this or other studies were properly conducted or that the results are correct. I don't know enough about it [[and I wrote that I'm not an expert on the topic - I only mentioned that there does seem to be this controversy). Also, I wrote that this test is not the same as comparing HDTracks to a physical cd, because there are other differences between the two - for example, the increase of loudness that is unfortunately [[and unnecessarily) applied to cds. Again, I repeat - I am NOT claiming that no one can hear the difference between HDTracks and the cd! If you still think that I'm claiming that, there is nothing more I can write, that's as clear as I can get.

OK.


Also, as I wrote, I would like to try something in this format. But I'd prefer to buy something that I don't already have on a cd that sounds good to me. [[And not all my cds sound great even to me, especially some of the older stuff from the 1980s and early 1990s). So I hope they come out with more titles. Being in the UK, I can't download easily from HDTracks, though of course there are ways around this [[including legal ones, like doing it on my laptop the next time I'm the US - I'm pretty sure that they only care that you're accessing them through an IP address that's in the US). We have Qobuz here in the EU [[and maybe others I don't know about), though their selection is even more limited in the pop/R&B/soul genres. Maybe they'll have something in classical or jazz that will interest me at some point. [[And classical works often have very large differences in amplitude between the quietest and loudest passages, so the bit depth could make a bigger difference in quality here than with most pop music.)

There are some titles that are as loud as the CD, as they were derived from the same mastering. That is unfortunate. But, the labels supply the companies with the files.


I've agreed from the beginning that all that matters is what you hear. But you made a claim that a 24-bit / 192 kHz digitization has the same resolution as the analogue signal. I wrote that information is lost in the digitization process and that the analogue signal can't be recovered exactly. Although I didn't know the process yet, I know that you can't in general convert something continuous to something discrete without losing something.

And I still call BS on that.


You dispute this. OK, consider a digital recording with bit depth m and a sampling rate of n per second. Consider 1 second of analogue sound. There are infinitely many possible 1 second analogue sounds [[even if we restrict ourselves to audible frequencies). But there are only n2^[[m) [[n times 2 to the power m) possible digital representations of 1 second of sound at this digitization. That's a finite number. A function mapping an infinite set to a finite set can't be invertible - meaning you can't invert the process to recover the exact analogue signal.

The sampling and bit-depth is high enough to replicate whatever is thrown at it. The proof is in the listening.


You can recover some analogue signal, but you couldn't be sure that it would be the original one. For example, suppose a random number between 0 and 1 [[inclusive) is represented with one bit of data, but you only know that the digital value is 1. The original input could be anything between one half and 1, and you can't know which. Information was lost.

And, again, I disagree.


Finally, I make this remark. I agree with you, again, that all that matters is what you hear. You write that 16 bits won't give the same dynamic range as 24 bits. Of course it won't! And 24 bits won't give the same dynamic range as 48 bits.

However, 24-bits provides more than enough dynamic range for capturing live sound, and is important for processing. Besides, there are are no 48-bit converters.


But let's say hypothetically [[I'm not claiming this, it would have to be tested!) that no one can hear any difference between 24 bits and any higher bit depth. Then 24 bits would suffice for playback if all that matters is what you hear. Now [[staying in this hypothetical) there may still be reasons to record with a greater bit depth, say [[hypothetically) 48 bits, because these signals go through a lot of processes, and it's more accurate to "round down" [[dither) to 24 bits at the very end of the process rather than beginning by recording using 24 bits. One can always go to higher and higher bit depths for recording and playback, but at some point it won't help anymore because of the limitations of the best recording equipment, the best processing equipment, the best playback equipment, and your ears.

I disagree. And, if I didn't have to get to a appointment to have my car fixed, i'd go into this deeper right now.

[ejluther]

Can someone tell us what Andy's original FB post was? I went to his page but couldn't find anything...

[carole cucumber]

Andy is asked about all the Diana Ross & Diana Ross & the Supremes releases scheduled for May [[on Culture Factory) and his reply is thus
"the only reissues that went through me are Lady Sings The Blues which will come out through HDTrax [[won't be on Amazon) and An Evening With, which I believe is coming out in Paris. Otherwise they're probably reissues of material you already have likely with no new mastering. Our next project should be Baby It's Me Expanded, hopefully sometime soon. Hope all is well with you!"

[ejluther]

Thanks, Carole...