| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
June 24, 2008 - 11:44pm
#1
So how do hi res digital files work?
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
As far as I know, there is no PC (or Mac) file type that can directly store DSD (SACD) data. The DSD content on an SACD would first need to be read from the SACD and converted to PCM for storage. I know of no currently available hardware/software that can perform this task.
The content on DVD-Audio is encoded in PCM format but these disks are "protected" with DRM and must be cracked for ripping to PC files.
There are several sites now offering downloads of high-resolution audio (at least 24-bits/88.2kHz) in a variety of formats (FLAC, WMA, AAC, PCM). Have a look at iTrax, Chesky, Linn and MusicGiants. Once you've got one of these files downloaded to your PC or Mac, you should be able to play them through your Firewire 410. Let us know your impressions!
[Edit]After a little searching, I found that there is a file format that allows storage of DSD data - DSDIFF. Still, I am unaware of any means to rip an SACD to a PC or Mac hard drive.
CharlyD,
Thanks for the response. I checked out the sites mentioned. iTrax was very interesting in that their material was mixed hi-res from the start. I found that most of their samples sounded very good sonically. Some where mixed "not so much" to my liking.
Which kinda gets to the root of the issue - for me anyway. The crux of the audio experience for me is the music. I can "groove out" to the right music on an ipod (or car radio, or going way back a 4 track car tape deck.) Yea, the music sounds much better on a high end system, but to quote someone famous "it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing".
Sonically pure marginal music vs. sonically near-pure exceptional music?
I'm not convinced that remastering a recording made prior to the turn of the century to "high res" format is very fruitful.
I thought the best of my redbook CDs sounded very close to the average hi-res download I sampled. I think my average redbook CD fell behind the hi-res downloads I tried. (probably because the hi-res engineer knows they will be scrutinized for sonic quality...)
My takeaway - 24b oversampled is better. But it really comes down to the artists - composure, performer, producer, and engineer.
Keith
Did you happen to download any of the tracks from the Torme Sings Torme album (from iTrax)? That's one of the few that I've had a chance to seriously listen to, and it genuinely has got that swing.
Keith, you are right that if the music is not worth listening to it does not matter how it was recorded and available for listening.
There are many records from the last 50 years (rough time frame) well worth remastering in high resolution digital. What matters is how well it was recorded in the first place.
Finally, there are indeed 16/44 recordings with higher fidelity than some in 24/96 or SACD.
As always, it is a pick and choose process.
How did it work out with your FireWire 410? Whar platform are you using (PC or Mac)? What player are you using (e.g. WMP, iTunes, Foobar)? Did you happen to try any 5.1 tracks? And, of course, how did it sound?
The firewire 410 worked fine sending bits to the PS Audio DL3. I used the player provided by iTrax or Real for other sites that offered sample downloads. (I only relied on iTrax for audio quality comparisons as I wasn't sure that downloads from other sites were actually being delivered and played hi-res.) I only have 2.1 available, so I'm not really able to appreciate the full potential of music remastered for surround sound.
One thing that came to me - the DL3 (as well as any upsampling DAC/player) kinda does a Redbook -> SACD 2 channel "remastering". (Not as well as a talented engineer could do given quality masters.)
So when I listen to my best redbook tracks and compare to iTrax samples I'm not really comparing 16x44.1 to 24x176.4.
BTW - I wasn't meaning to dis any musicians recording new material at high res. There are probably some really talented people recording for iTrax, I'm just not familiar with most of them.
Too bad Coletrane. Miles, Wes, and so many others aren't around to lay down some fat 24bit tracks.
When contemporary artists (Metheny, Brecker, Redmond, etc.) record new material is it being recorded 24 x 176 or higher, then downsampled to redbook?
There is a difference between upsampling after the fact, vs. recording hi-res from the outset. But I guess analog tape doesn't know the difference, so if one has great analog masters... (But wouldn't analog tapes degrade after years sitting in a vault?)
When did the recording industry start recording exclusively digital? (I seem to remember buying DDD CDs in the 90s). When did studios start using hi-res digital recording as standard fare?
Guess I should google modern digital recording and get educated...
Keith