|
|
|
Lunna said:
I just bought my first HDTracks download, Jimmy Smith - The Cat. Sounds good to me, but not that much better than an early West German redbook CD pressing... Seems like it is 96/24 FLAC (at least that's what the files read, and my DAC shows, but what is the provenance of the source? Same as the SHM-SACD's that I've been dreaming about purchasing? Is Acoustic Sounds more reliable regarding source? (I bought my second download - Michael Jackson - Thriller from them yesterday)... To be honest, I feel much more comfortable with good old SACDs than with these downloads.
You are asking the right questions. The quality of reissues on HDtracks is all over the place (Acoustic Sounds looks similar).
The Bill Evans - Waltz for Debby is a great example of how reissues should be listed.
http://www.hdtracks.com/classic-100-jazz/waltz-for-debby-192-24
"Remastered by Paul Stubblebine using the Keith Johnson-designed Pacific Microsonics converter.
These files are transferred from the original analog master tapes exclusively, not from safety copies or production dubs."
In a perfect world, that information would be listed on every reissue. If no details are listed, then proceed with caution as many are hiding the obvious (mastering and/or source). As far as DSD sourced titles (24 88/176), I'm not sure if any list the details. You would probably have to search the web for that information. Hoffman's site will have useful information from time to time.
SHM-SACD, the source is often listed on CDJapan. You usually need to do a web search for the transfer process (e.g. FX Copyroom).
Or you could save a lot of headache and buy early vinyl pressings. But then you have other issues to deal with. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
audiogirl said:
You are asking the right questions. The quality of reissues on HDtracks is all over the place (Acoustic Sounds looks similar).
1) The Bill Evans - Waltz for Debby is a great example of how reissues should be listed.
http://www.hdtracks.com/classic-100-jazz/waltz-for-debby-192-24
"Remastered by Paul Stubblebine using the Keith Johnson-designed Pacific Microsonics converter.
These files are transferred from the original analog master tapes exclusively, not from safety copies or production dubs."
In a perfect world, that information would be listed on every reissue. If no details are listed, then proceed with caution as many are hiding the obvious (mastering and/or source). As far as DSD sourced titles (24 88/176), I'm not sure if any list the details. You would probably have to search the web for that information. Hoffman's site will have useful information from time to time.
SHM-SACD, the source is often listed on CDJapan. You usually need to do a web search for the transfer process (e.g. FX Copyroom).
2) Or you could save a lot of headache and buy early vinyl pressings. But then you have other issues to deal with. :)
I don't often do the '+1' bit, but I'll make an exception here:
1) Indeed, mastering source and methodology should be clearly indicated on any download. In a perfect world....
But, regretfully, this ain't. So it all comes back to 'caveat emptor'. A bit of research to find out the original recording age, provenance, recording type and sampling rate also helps!
2) Vinyl pressings? Indeed, but that's a whole new can of worms. Unless you're fortunate enough to have them already! And how many still do nowadays?
And an extra raspberry for the erstwhile Olympian who deleted DSD Mastering's information post on SACD ripping. Is this Forum hosted in North Korea now?
Personally, I'd love to find out more on SACD ripping. After all, everyone does it on RBCDs, so why not this format, too?
|
|
|
Post by aoqd22 April 13, 2014 (73 of 80)
|
|
Lunna said:
I just bought my first HDTracks download, Jimmy Smith - The Cat.....
If I was offered a 96/24 download that appears to originate from a 1964 analog recording that was remastered in 2008 for re-issued on SACD I too would want a little more information! I wouldn't waste time chasing round the internet as what really matters is the files the vendor is offering for download and the description they have put on their website. If the vendor has no information on their website indicating the provenance then that's a good reason for asking questions. Here in the UK you enter into a contract with the vendor of the goods when you buy (I would be surprised if its different in the US) so questions about provenance of audio files should go to the vender. If they fail to reply or give a less than full answer I would regard them as not to be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by Lunna April 13, 2014 (74 of 80)
|
|
I spoke with someone at Acoustic Sounds, and he told me he didn't know what the source of Thriller was, but that "if we find out the source is not the original - or was taken from an RBCD, we will remove it from our site." He also told me, once you've downloaded something, you're stuck with it (not his precise words, but to the same effect). Apparently, so he told me, the company with whom they have the license automatically gets a record of the download and so Acoustic Sounds is on the hook if they refund your purchase money. As for trying to contact HDTracks, for get about it - you can't even reach a real person when you call, assuming you can eventually find their phone number...
So, to make a long story short, caveat emptor indeed. In concept, hi-res downloads, I believe, can be better than physical media (if you have the right equipment) for the reasons stated by others, but only if the source itself is high-res (source being a problem, too, with SACD, in many cases). It's a real minefield out there, it seems - ugh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The text of this post has been deleted by the moderator. Reason:
Posts on methods to bypass SA-CD copy protection isn't allowed, same for links to sites containing such information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
Thanks for this. The ethics are clearly open to debate. But people are only interested in doing this in the first place because the format designers intentionally crippled the SACD spec!
I regard it as morally similar to - say - region-coding of DVD and BluRays. Which most folk now circumvent as a matter of course.
Or selling eBooks in closed formats that can only be accessed on one platform. Which - you guessed it - most folk now hack and circumvent.
We should not regard decisions made on the basis of commercial advantage as being necessarily moral. Sometimes the moral thing to do is to negate restrictive or closed-format practice.
I would also posit that laws which:
1) Have no credible moral basis
2) Are unenforceable
3) Are widely flouted/negated or evaded
4) Are not regarded as reasonable by the majority of citizens
... shouldn't be there in the first place. Vide the USA's disastrous flirtation with prohibition in the 1920s and 30s. Silly laws always have undesirable and often unforeseen consequences.
And here's an outrageous assertion: SACD ripping would, in fact, prolong the lifetime of this format. As they used to say in my exam papers- 'discuss'.
But you are right, this is clearly a debate for elsewhere.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by tailspn April 13, 2014 (77 of 80)
|
|
Jonalogic said:
The ethics are clearly open to debate. But people are only interested in doing this in the first place because the format designers intentionally crippled the SACD spec!
Hi Jon
A counter view:
Yes, you're correct. The "crippling", or non copying provision of SACD's was a most significant selling point to the labels from Sony/Philips. Does that then make the labels suspect when they then choose to release their projects on SACD?
I see this as a business issue. Labels choose/chose to sell their highest quality level studio masters via a copy protected system, and PRICED their products accordingly. The market value (at least as judged by the labels) is much higher for the unprotected product, than the protected. It's one of the reasons that unprotected real studio master recordings are priced at a significantly increased price over the SACD equivalent.
The download price complainers here, and on other sites, are clueless about not only the production costs of recordings, but the distribution costs of downloads. That's fair, why should they be. But it should be understandable that if a label prices its product on one level of conditions (copy protected), and those conditions change, something has to give. IMO, SACD ripping is just another nail in the SACD coffin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD_Mastering said:
The text of this post has been deleted by the moderator. Reason:
It's been a longstanding policy of this site that discussions on bypassing SA-CD copy protection is off limits. Those labels drawn to the format knowing their content would be protected should have their rights preserved, irrespective of what individuals think are their own "rights".
I didn't see the original post, although I assume it said that he got the data via a professional device like a Sonoma DAW. I don't think mention of that or other methods should per se be off limits. They are methods which are unavailable to the vast majority of end users, and their use to transfer data from a SACD to a different format is not illegal if the owner of the copyright has specifically authorized it. I don't think it would change the tenor of this board, and frankly I recall that it has been freely discussed in the past.
I do agree that discussion of ripping by consumer devices should be prohibited, even if the information is easy enough to find elsewhere.
And from my understanding, it's an understatement that copy protection was important to Sony and other music labels. From a business perspective, SACD was all about copy protection. Higher fidelity was the draw to get people to repurchase their media in a format protected by the access control provisions of the DMCA in the US, and other implementations of the WIPO Copyright Treaty worldwide.
I wonder if the lack of viability of a copy protection regime for music (as shown by things like iTunes getting rid of copy protection) is part of why the majors lost interest in SACD.
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr April 13, 2014 (79 of 80)
|
|
Ubertrout said:
I wonder if the lack of viability of a copy protection regime for music (as shown by things like iTunes getting rid of copy protection) is part of why the majors lost interest in SACD.
The "majors" lost interest in sacd because they weren't making enough money selling them.
|
|
|
Post by mekduk April 16, 2014 (80 of 80)
|
|
I have been in touch with Bruce and got the answers needed. The devices are certainly not affordable but definitely obtainable. I have asked Bruce of what could be done to achieve better result than his current method (perhaps possible) and rest assured the current method that he uses will result in bit perfect DSD stream. No point kicking the tyres on this issue and if you are keen to know the answers, you may wish to email me or Bruce directly.
|
|
