FLAC HD Files Not Really HD?

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

bazzer

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.

I accept this might be common practice, but is anything gained by having the final output at 96kHz I wonder? I can't see how. I wonder why they bother. Doesn't it just make the final product twice as big?

Travelar

bazzer wrote:

I accept this might be common practice, but is anything gained by having the final output at 96kHz I wonder? I can't see how. I wonder why they bother. Doesn't it just make the final product twice as big?

It adds the warmth and depth that you get from vinyl.

bazzer

Travelar wrote:

bazzer wrote:

I accept this might be common practice, but is anything gained by having the final output at 96kHz I wonder? I can't see how. I wonder why they bother. Doesn't it just make the final product twice as big?

It adds the warmth and depth that you get from vinyl.

Are you having a laugh?

CC55781

bazzer wrote:

I accept this might be common practice, but is anything gained by having the final output at 96kHz I wonder? I can't see how. I wonder why they bother. Doesn't it just make the final product twice as big?

I understand what you're saying and I thought the same thing initially. Mastering the file in the analog domain and outputting that to 96 kHz digital can improve playback due to the use of gentler filtering in the playback device. There are other technical reasons for doing this that I agree with but would likely bore the audience.

HIgh resolution itself can be quite controversial. For me it all comes down to how the final product sounds. If the 96 kHz bootlegs sound better than the 44.1 kHz versions then I'm all for the FLAC HD at 96 kHz. Sure we could talk about outputting from analog to 48 kHz rather than 96 kHz to save space but space is a non-issue for those playing high resolution. Most portable players can't handle high resolution and they are the only space constrained devices. Regular hard drives are so cheap that the difference between FLAC and FLAC HD is inconsequential.

cp3iverson

what's your setup to play these?

CC55781

cp3iverson wrote:

what's your setup to play these?

Hi cp3iverson - Here's a link to my current system. I can play almost any PCM sample rate and DSD files.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/members/the-computer-audiophile/?tab=profile_cat2#profile_cat2

DL40241

Thanks for following up and providing the explanation, Chris. I love Computer Audiophile, it's a great community and it's been super helpful confirming 24/96 playback on iPad for my app. I didn't realize you were a big Pearl Jam fan too.

I'd been buying the 24/96 boots from 2012/2013, trusting they would legitimately be full 24/96, but too lazy to confirm. When they released the '98 show as 24/96, I started to get suspicious and and checked the spectrum/frequency analysis of that one and the 2013 lolla shows...

The explanation makes sense - I just need to decide if it's worth the extra $5 .

CC55781

DL40241 wrote:

Thanks for following up and providing the explanation, Chris. I love Computer Audiophile, it's a great community and it's been super helpful confirming 24/96 playback on iPad for my app. I didn't realize you were a big Pearl Jam fan too.

I'd been buying the 24/96 boots from 2012/2013, trusting they would legitimately be full 24/96, but too lazy to confirm. When they released the '98 show as 24/96, I started to get suspicious and and checked the spectrum/frequency analysis of that one and the 2013 lolla shows...

The explanation makes sense - I just need to decide if it's worth the extra $5 .

Hi DL40241 - Thanks for the kind words. PJ is the best band on Earth. When I saw high res I got goose bumps! I remember the days of collecting the PJ CD Singles imported from Europe. They were about $15 each yet I still purchased all of them. An extra $5 for the HD download seems like a steal :~)

Are you going to Chicago this weekend for the PJ show at Wrigley Field? I wouldn't miss it for anything!

2-feign-reluctance

CC55781 wrote:

bazzer wrote:

I accept this might be common practice, but is anything gained by having the final output at 96kHz I wonder? I can't see how. I wonder why they bother. Doesn't it just make the final product twice as big?

I understand what you're saying and I thought the same thing initially. Mastering the file in the analog domain and outputting that to 96 kHz digital can improve playback due to the use of gentler filtering in the playback device. There are other technical reasons for doing this that I agree with but would likely bore the audience.

HIgh resolution itself can be quite controversial. For me it all comes down to how the final product sounds. If the 96 kHz bootlegs sound better than the 44.1 kHz versions then I'm all for the FLAC HD at 96 kHz. Sure we could talk about outputting from analog to 48 kHz rather than 96 kHz to save space but space is a non-issue for those playing high resolution. Most portable players can't handle high resolution and they are the only space constrained devices. Regular hard drives are so cheap that the difference between FLAC and FLAC HD is inconsequential.

Exactly, and there IS a big difference in how the FLAC HD sounds to my ears. Playback on a $300 pair of AT's though and through a proper stereo set up.

DL40241

CC55781 wrote:

Hi DL40241 - Thanks for the kind words. PJ is the best band on Earth. When I saw high res I got goose bumps! I remember the days of collecting the PJ CD Singles imported from Europe. They were about $15 each yet I still purchased all of them. An extra $5 for the HD download seems like a steal :~)

Are you going to Chicago this weekend for the PJ show at Wrigley Field? I wouldn't miss it for anything!

No I'm not in Chicago - My wife and I are expecting our first child any day now, so we're staying home .

Yeah I'll probably continue buying the high-res FLAC boots since I'm in favor of the practice and I don't want them to back to MP3-only. Voting with dollars I guess. My listening setup is pretty modest (iPad 3rd Gen, nuForce uDAC-2 USB DAC/headphone amplifier, Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones) but I'm happy with it. The uDAC was $100 and the headphones were $150 or so.