FLAC HD Files Not Really HD?

CC55781

Hi Guys - I just purchased the FLAC HD bootlegs for Sao Paulo, Atlanta Midtown, and Missoula. According to the info pages on each album the FLAC HD version is supposed to be 24 bit / 96 kHz. After downloading the files I opened a few from each album in Adobe Audition to run a frequency analysis. All of the files are 24 bit. However, all of the files appear to be upsampled from 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz to 96 kHz rather than original 96 kHz HD recordings.

I've included a link to an image below of the analysis showing what I'm talking about. These FLAC HD downloads are not original 24/96 HD files.

http://images.computeraudiophile.com/ca/PJ/pj.png


Chris Connaker

Founder
Computer Audiophile

bazzer

Hmm. I'm interested to hear what becomes of this. I take it this is your first HD boot? Maybe it's a one-off issue, or maybe someone thinks you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (as much as a 24/48 is a sow's ear!).

pjradio

hmmmmm

LloydXmas

:geek: :corn: :corn:

papa_pearls_jam.pj20

MP3! MP3! MP3!
:corn:

october22

Chris. I see this is your second post in 13 years.

This is your moment. This is your time.

And you, my friend...


nailed it.

mca47

october22 wrote:

Chris. I see this is your second post in 13 years.

This is your moment. This is your time.

And you, my friend...


nailed it.

:corn:

Spencer

Any update on this?

regalturbo

I too would like to hear an official explanation for this. I'll need to look at my FLAC-HD boots to see if the same thing is present (not that I'm as savvy as the OP). If this is true, then we don't really have any reason to buy FLAC-HD boots, and in fact, maybe we should be getting a partial refund on the HD boots we've bought (the difference between FLAC and FLAC-HD boots).

pjradio

regalturbo wrote:

In fact, maybe we should be getting a partial refund on the HD boots we've bought

...Proceeding to buy every HD release in the shop

bazzer

regalturbo wrote:

I too would like to hear an official explanation for this. I'll need to look at my FLAC-HD boots to see if the same thing is present (not that I'm as savvy as the OP). If this is true, then we don't really have any reason to buy FLAC-HD boots, and in fact, maybe we should be getting a partial refund on the HD boots we've bought (the difference between FLAC and FLAC-HD boots).

24/48 is still better than 16/44.1 though, isn't it?

pjradio

bazzer wrote:

regalturbo wrote:

I too would like to hear an official explanation for this. I'll need to look at my FLAC-HD boots to see if the same thing is present (not that I'm as savvy as the OP). If this is true, then we don't really have any reason to buy FLAC-HD boots, and in fact, maybe we should be getting a partial refund on the HD boots we've bought (the difference between FLAC and FLAC-HD boots).

24/48 is still better than 16/44.1 though, isn't it?

not the point...(allegedly)

CC55781 wrote:

According to the info pages on each album the FLAC HD version is supposed to be 24 bit / 96 kHz. However, all of the files appear to be upsampled from 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz to 96 kHz rather than original 96 kHz HD recordings.

if true, that seems messed up to me

Spencer

The HD-FLAC files (even at 24/44.1 or 24/48) are still less compressed (in a dynamic sense) than the regular FLAC files, so they're still preferable regardless.

mca47

:corn:

JH57554

I think this is a pretty interesting post and I'm definitely interested in what comes of it, but have you emailed 10c about it, yet? I doubt you're going to get any answer from just posting this on the forum.

In fact, you may get a quicker, more informed answer by contacting someone at Nugs.net.

DewieCox

I'll never understand why people have to put music into a program and to check the waveforms. I get some people are into that sorta thing, but isn't what your ears perceive more important?

It's a shitty move if the files you get aren't what's being advertised.

Rossum20

DewieCox wrote:

I'll never understand why people have to put music into a program and to check the waveforms. I get some people are into that sorta thing, but isn't what your ears perceive more important?

It's a shitty move if the files you get aren't what's being advertised.

Maybe his ears perceived less-than-HD quality? It's not like what he did is in any way difficult. But in a sense, you're right. The boot mixes from 2003 blow away the HD mixes or otherwise since that time - so it does matter what the ears perceive, yes. I bet he didnt run a test on those 03 boots

mookieb10

DewieCox wrote:

I'll never understand why people have to put music into a program and to check the waveforms. I get some people are into that sorta thing, but isn't what your ears perceive more important?

It's a shitty move if the files you get aren't what's being advertised.

So how could you confirm the files arent a advertised unless you put them in a program?

CC55781

JH57554 wrote:

I think this is a pretty interesting post and I'm definitely interested in what comes of it, but have you emailed 10c about it, yet? I doubt you're going to get any answer from just posting this on the forum.

In fact, you may get a quicker, more informed answer by contacting someone at Nugs.net.

I emailed the 10c. I'll let everyone know if or what I hear back.

CC55781

Spencer wrote:

The HD-FLAC files (even at 24/44.1 or 24/48) are still less compressed (in a dynamic sense) than the regular FLAC files, so they're still preferable regardless.

Hi Spencer - Less dynamic range compression is a terrific thing and can have a larger effect on sound quality than higher resolution files. I also downloaded a regular FLAC version of the Sao Paulo boot to compare the dynamic range compression to the HD version. Yes the HD version is less compressed but not by much at all. The two versions are really close when it comes to compression.

pjradio

CC55781 wrote:

Spencer wrote:

The HD-FLAC files (even at 24/44.1 or 24/48) are still less compressed (in a dynamic sense) than the regular FLAC files, so they're still preferable regardless.

Hi Spencer - Less dynamic range compression is a terrific thing and can have a larger effect on sound quality than higher resolution files. I also downloaded a regular FLAC version of the Sao Paulo boot to compare the dynamic range compression to the HD version. Yes the HD version is less compressed but not by much at all. The two versions are really close when it comes to compression.

:geek: :ugeek: :corn:

CC55781

DewieCox wrote:

I'll never understand why people have to put music into a program and to check the waveforms. I get some people are into that sorta thing, but isn't what your ears perceive more important?

It's a shitty move if the files you get aren't what's being advertised.

Hi DewieCox - Selling music as HD even though it's not really HD is very common. Using an analysis tool like Adobe Audition is one way to show people with pictures what they may purchase or have purchased. If I simply explain what I'm talking about without visual proof or a more scientific analysis, other than my ears, people would be less apt to understand or believe what I'm saying. I'm simply making sure we are getting what was advertised. My hope is that there are true 24/96 versions with less dynamic range compression available rather than these HD files being removed or renamed to something different.

Pearl Jam is my favorite band of all time. I'd listen to their music through an AM radio if necessary. However, the better their music sounds the more one can get lost in the illusion of a live performance in one's own home.

Dr. Delight

regalturbo wrote:

I too would like to hear an official explanation for this. I'll need to look at my FLAC-HD boots to see if the same thing is present (not that I'm as savvy as the OP). If this is true, then we don't really have any reason to buy FLAC-HD boots, and in fact, maybe we should be getting a partial refund on the HD boots we've bought (the difference between FLAC and FLAC-HD boots).

Absolutely

cp3iverson

CC55781 wrote:

DewieCox wrote:

I'll never understand why people have to put music into a program and to check the waveforms. I get some people are into that sorta thing, but isn't what your ears perceive more important?

It's a shitty move if the files you get aren't what's being advertised.

Hi DewieCox - Selling music as HD even though it's not really HD is very common. Using an analysis tool like Adobe Audition is one way to show people with pictures what they may purchase or have purchased. If I simply explain what I'm talking about without visual proof or a more scientific analysis, other than my ears, people would be less apt to understand or believe what I'm saying. I'm simply making sure we are getting what was advertised. My hope is that there are true 24/96 versions with less dynamic range compression available rather than these HD files being removed or renamed to something different.

Pearl Jam is my favorite band of all time. I'd listen to their music through an AM radio if necessary. However, the better their music sounds the more one can get lost in the illusion of a live performance in one's own home.

Good find. keep us updated. interested to hear what happens with this. When you have a high end audiophile setup you can hear subtle differences sometimes.

lolobugg

very interesting... i purchased the Atlanta show in HD and while it sounded great(very good mix I thought), my receiver never indicated that it was a 96khz. i thought that i maybe transferred it incorrectly to DVD but the visual indicator on my TV was 24bit/96khz. (i just figured my blu-ray is decoding it???)

Keep us updated on what you hear from 10club or Nugs.

CC55781

HI Guys - I heard back from the 10C. I also checked the answer I received with another highly respected mastering engineer. I'm satisfied with the answer and will continue purchasing the FLAC HD downloads.

What is done for the FLAC HD files is this -> The digital files are originally recorded at 48 kHz, then transfered to analog for most of the processing, then converted back to digital at 96 kHz.

This is a common practice used by mastering engineers.

regalturbo

Thanks for updating us and thanks to 10c for clarifying!

BE9456

CC55781 wrote:

HI Guys - I heard back from the 10C. I also checked the answer I received with another highly respected mastering engineer. I'm satisfied with the answer and will continue purchasing the FLAC HD downloads.

What is done for the FLAC HD files is this -> The digital files are originally recorded at 48 kHz, then transfered to analog for most of the processing, then converted back to digital at 96 kHz.

This is a common practice used by mastering engineers.

Transferred to analog? That can't be right. Makes no sense at all.

Spencer

BE9456 wrote:

CC55781 wrote:

HI Guys - I heard back from the 10C. I also checked the answer I received with another highly respected mastering engineer. I'm satisfied with the answer and will continue purchasing the FLAC HD downloads.

What is done for the FLAC HD files is this -> The digital files are originally recorded at 48 kHz, then transfered to analog for most of the processing, then converted back to digital at 96 kHz.

This is a common practice used by mastering engineers.

Transferred to analog? That can't be right. Makes no sense at all.

Sure it does, it simply means they're doing the mixing and any other processing using analog outboard equipment before transferring to 24/96 digital for the final master.

Thanks very much for the update (and to the 10C for clarifying.)

pjradio

Mango