Bargains

[Stunsworth]

Slightly cheaper (£9.23, even after Paypal's less than competitive exchange rate) if paid for in Euros via the French version of the site

I think you need to be a subscriber to the French site (which I am) to get that price. Even though I'm a subscriber to Qobuz I've downloaded this. Too much of a bargain not to.

[Dave2002]

Slightly cheaper (£9.23, even after Paypal's less than competitive exchange rate) if paid for in Euros via the French version of the site.

The pdf of the booklet is a bit of a pain, The first scan offers pages 28 and 29, followed by 30 and 27 ... .

Though by going for cheapness there might be some relative loss of quality for some of these. Some of the symphonies are available in 24 bit versions, though at a higher price from the Qobuz site. In other words, some of the downloads may sound better than the CDs or the 16 bit equivalent downloads.

Whether it's worth it ....

[Stunsworth]

I already have some of the symphonies as 24/96 downloads, but not all of them are available in that format. So buying the 16/44.1 download was something of a nobrainer at that price.

[Dave2002]

I already have some of the symphonies as 24/96 downloads, but not all of them are available in that format. So buying the 16/44.1 download was something of a nobrainer at that price.

I'm veering towards the "buy" button on the collection. However, do you think there is much difference between the 24/96 and the 16/44.1? Maybe not enough to be worth worrying about for most of us - though it does strike me as slightly odd that there aren't physical media versions of some of the 24/96 versions.

Perhaps many companies are now producing so called "hi-res" versions as a matter of course, and then releasing them as an when it suits them either because someone in the company really believes they might be/sound better, or as a marketing ploy. Anyone remember SBM - Super Bit Map versions of CDx from a decade ago? Perhaps they were better - but maybe the SBM label was simply a ruse to get us to buy yet another copy of something we may already haave had in our collections!

Not all companies are driven by bottom line and marketing, but quite a lot are. I admired some of the relatively independent companies where due to the enthusiasm of one or two "high up" people, recordings of unusual - possibly unpopular - music were made simply because a few people wanted that to happen.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Is there a difference?. Can you hear the difference? Does it matter to you?

Is there a difference?
It may be the case that the Hi Res file has a different source from the CD quality file. Not sure how you find out, but it may be the case you are actually buying something different at Hi Res file - presumably better. However, unless the vendor actually says so, you have to decide whether to place your trust in that assumption.

Can you hear the difference?
Surely the only way you know whether Hi Res files are worth extra £££ is to do an ABX test yourself. In the article linked to below, Footnote 19 points to Foobar etc as a program with an ABX facility (if you can use it on your OS). I am definitely in the middle aged bracket, and my hearing is not likely to be free of degradation, so for myself I have not been sure….

Does it matter to you?
Given your post - potentially it does. Not much else to say, an entirely personal question.
But confirmation bias or other effects may come into play. Even where ABX tests are referred to, you will find on forum posts, no doubt web pages all over, saying that the ABX test environment or parameters militated against hearing the true quality of ….Hi Res….Vinyl….MusicCassette…..(?Wax Cylinder?) - as against the lowly Red Book CD.

Informative article below, seems unbiased to me. However, I couldn't answer questions on every aspect covered but I understand enough to find it informative. (BTW if you are interested in the the actual AES paper referred to PM me and I can steer you to a source for it).

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

For myself, I have decided to buy or rip to FLAC as my default position. I anticipate I'm unlikely to get much benefit from Hi Res. Presently I will only buy in a new format or file where I can establish there has been re-mastering to better effect.

I was thinking of buying a Chandos Hi-Res download to try an ABX, as I admire the audio quality of their recordings (other qualities too). I asked them about the source files for Chandos recordins on "The Classical Shop" (which I consider generally somewhat overpriced, including for CD quality). They told me that:
"the flac files for our standard lossless downloads come from the original CDs which are 'ripped' directly into flac format. The Studio 'Hi Res' flac files are made from our original recording master files. Obviously the CDs are also made from these files too but down 'sampled' to standard 16bit 44.1kHz for the CD format."
Full marks for transparency - not sure that other vendors or labels will be as forthcoming.

(It will take me a while to get round to doing my own ABX as I'd have to get to grips with something like Foobar but it would be easier than setting up a backcloth, audio sources behind and getting a volunteer to switch sources etc)

Having said all this, I think the most important factors at play are what one wants to believe, and how important all this is - I recall my singing teacher listening to a ghetto blaster and on enquiry about her "audio equipment quality" dismissing the point with "I'm listening to the musical performance…."

I suspect you are right in questioning, as a general approach to downloads from the larger commercially driven outfits (and who knows, who else?) you are right to be cautious

......... maybe the SBM label was simply a ruse to get us to buy yet another copy of something we may already haave had in our collections!

It seems to me that the industry has an overriding need to generate income in a falling market.

[Dave2002]

Is there a difference?. Can you hear the difference? Does it matter to you?

I can definitely hear the difference between some compressed audio and some non compressed. I can also tell the difference between some poorly recorded music and some recorded more carefully. Whether I can distinguish between 24 bit recordings and 16 bit recordings is rather in doubt, and as for the higher and inaudible frequencies I certainly can't hear them, but some have argued that they do influence the overall tone. Another argument in favour of at least 24 bit recordings is that they may be better mastered. The remastering argument might also apply for higher sampling rates.

My original comments re the Naxos recordings were based on the fact that as far as I could see the only physical media versions available are CDs at 44.1kHz 16 bits. Naxos have previously issued some recordings on DVD-A, maybe SACD and occasionally Blu Ray, which makes me wonder if they are generally recording at higher resolution and higher sampling rates than what is then sold on physical media. Other recording companies may be doing the same thing. However many of the companies which do do record in so-called "hi-res" formats do sell physical media equivalents for the downloadable versions - e.g Linn has SACD as well as hi-res downloads - whereas some of the Shostakovich recordings seem only to have hi-res versions in downloadable format.

Does it matter? Perhaps sometimes - Yes! If I know that there is no possibility of audible improvement for any recording, then I can accept that, but if there is a chance of gaining even a modest quality improvement at reasonable cost then I'd go for that. Sometimes this is indeterminate. For example, I have recently purchased downloads of two string quartet collections - the Dekany/Fine Arts set of Haydn, and the Taneyev Quartet set of Schubert. There are obvious audio quality flaws in both of these - which is perhaps not surprising since they are both digitally compressed - but what I don't know is what the master recordings sound like. Just because they may have been recorded decades ago (I don't know ...) doesn't necessarily mean that the recordings are poor, and it should certainly be possible to produce high quality digital transfers if the master material was well done, and if the recorded masters have not deteriorated.

Re "it's the music .." that's fine up to a point. Sometimes the obvious flaws in a recording could probably have been avoided, and do detract from the enjoyment of listening, even if the performances are/were superb. There is a balance. I'd rather listen to an excellent performance in an OKish recording than a boring one in superb sound, but there is a limit to how far this goes. I'd suggest that few of us listen to some really great historic performances with enjoyment if the sound quality is really poor.

[Beef Oven!]

Last week, Bryn pointed out a good deal on 3 Robert Craft 1950s Webern CDs on Qobuz. I duly bought them and downloaded all 3 CDs in minutes. Transferred to my iPod and was listening on the beach within a couple of hours.

The other day, Stunsworth pointed out a great deal on Petrenko's Naxos DSCH symphonies. Duly bought them, but when I try to download these recordings, it gives an estimated time of 2 days 15 hours, and each time my internet connection fails or Turkey runs out of electricity and the whole shebang goes down.

Anyone know why the first lot downloaded in no time, but the Petrenko won't?

I haven't changed my set up or internet provider, etc.

[Stunsworth]

I'm veering towards the "buy" button on the collection. However, do you think there is much difference between the 24/96 and the 16/44.1? Maybe not enough to be worth worrying about for most of us - though it does strike me as slightly odd that there aren't physical media versions of some of the 24/96 versions

I haven't done a direct comparison, and have only dipped into the set so far, but the 16/44.1 are very well recorded - not close miked, a more distant presentation.

I don't know if Naxos still make SACDs, if they don't that would explain why they're not available physically as high resolution releases.

[richardfinegold]

I can definitely hear the difference between some compressed audio and some non compressed. I can also tell the difference between some poorly recorded music and some recorded more carefully. Whether I can distinguish between 24 bit recordings and 16 bit recordings is rather in doubt, and as for the higher and inaudible frequencies I certainly can't hear them, but some have argued that they do influence the overall tone. Another argument in favour of at least 24 bit recordings is that they may be better mastered. The remastering argument might also apply for higher sampling rates.

My original comments re the Naxos recordings were based on the fact that as far as I could see the only physical media versions available are CDs at 44.1kHz 16 bits. Naxos have previously issued some recordings on DVD-A, maybe SACD and occasionally Blu Ray, which makes me wonder if they are generally recording at higher resolution and higher sampling rates than what is then sold on physical media. Other recording companies may be doing the same thing. However many of the companies which do do record in so-called "hi-res" formats do sell physical media equivalents for the downloadable versions - e.g Linn has SACD as well as hi-res downloads - whereas some of the Shostakovich recordings seem only to have hi-res versions in downloadable format.

Does it matter? Perhaps sometimes - Yes! If I know that there is no possibility of audible improvement for any recording, then I can accept that, but if there is a chance of gaining even a modest quality improvement at reasonable cost then I'd go for that. Sometimes this is indeterminate. For example, I have recently purchased downloads of two string quartet collections - the Dekany/Fine Arts set of Haydn, and the Taneyev Quartet set of Schubert. There are obvious audio quality flaws in both of these - which is perhaps not surprising since they are both digitally compressed - but what I don't know is what the master recordings sound like. Just because they may have been recorded decades ago (I don't know ...) doesn't necessarily mean that the recordings are poor, and it should certainly be possible to produce high quality digital transfers if the master material was well done, and if the recorded masters have not deteriorated.

Re "it's the music .." that's fine up to a point. Sometimes the obvious flaws in a recording could probably have been avoided, and do detract from the enjoyment of listening, even if the performances are/were superb. There is a balance. I'd rather listen to an excellent performance in an OKish recording than a boring one in superb sound, but there is a limit to how far this goes. I'd suggest that few of us listen to some really great historic performances with enjoyment if the sound quality is really poor.

Klaus Heymann (Mr. naxos) gave an interview with an American Audiophile magazine recently. He basically said there si no market for High Rez content, and that they hope to move most of their business to streaming in the future

[Dave2002]

I haven't done a direct comparison, and have only dipped into the set so far, but the 16/44.1 are very well recorded - not close miked, a more distant presentation.

I don't know if Naxos still make SACDs, if they don't that would explain why they're not available physically as high resolution releases.

I'm not sure if they still make SACDs either, but they have done in the past - http://www.naxos.com/news/default.as...os_News&op=123

There are some recent Blu Ray Audio discs - http://www.naxos.com/blu-ray_audio.asp

I guess this indicates that they are at least recording at higher bit rates and greater bit depth - for some releases at least.

[Cockney Sparrow]

I guess this indicates that they are at least recording at higher bit rates and greater bit depth - for some releases at least.

In the web page I linked to in my previous post, in the section " When does 24 bit matter?" It says
Professionals use 24 bit samples in recording and production [14] for headroom, noise floor, and convenience reasons.

16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare. It does not span the entire possible signal range of audio equipment. The primary reason to use 24 bits when recording is to prevent mistakes; rather than being careful to center 16 bit recording-- risking clipping if you guess too high and adding noise if you guess too low-- 24 bits allows an operator to set an approximate level and not worry too much about it. Missing the optimal gain setting by a few bits has no consequences, and effects that dynamically compress the recorded range have a deep floor to work with.

An engineer also requires more than 16 bits during mixing and mastering. Modern work flows may involve literally thousands of effects and operations. The quantization noise and noise floor of a 16 bit sample may be undetectable during playback, but multiplying that noise by a few thousand times eventually becomes noticeable. 24 bits keeps the accumulated noise at a very low level. Once the music is ready to distribute, there's no reason to keep more than 16 bits.

I've read numerous posts, references on the web in the same vein - I'm sure the professionals would not make master recordings in anything but the most extensive format possible (given the huge cost of musicians, technicians and recording studios per hour in relation to uncertain commercial returns - why limit yourself?). But, as above, that doesn't mean that any one person, or even more than a few percent, would be able to tell the difference.

I'm with you in being able to tell the difference in compressed formats - I prefer Radio 4 speech at higher bit rates than I would have used 7-8 years ago when data storage was more costly. But whether the costs involved in Hi-Res are worth it, and whether I can, in reality, hear the benefit are the questions that remain for me. (I would also bear in mind the factor of much increased file size (even at today's prices) and download times - so I for one need to strike a balance for my default position on downloads/rips).

For a treasured performance, and where the vendor is willing to be clear about the superior source file (i.e. better than the one available on CD/FLAC download) then I would be willing to go for the superior offering. But my discussion is about the difference between a Hi-Res file and a FLAC/CD file from the same source master recording file

I'm not trying to flog the detail, so I'm not intending to re-post trying to assert my views on the same issue much more.

[Dave2002]

I'm not trying to flog the detail, so I'm not intending to re-post trying to assert my views on the same issue much more.

I'm pretty much with you, though some do claim to be able to hear the differences between CDs and so-called hi-res sources, and also CDs and SACDs. I have felt that SACDs usually sounded slightly better - smoother - though why - it's open to question, as many of us can't actually hear the higher frequencies.

Sometimes though I think we are being fed with what the companies think they can get away with. During the 1970s I heard various Sony/CBS recordings - some were I think on disc, and some were claimed to be tape masters - Elgar Symphonies by Barenboim was one I recall. It sounded superb. I am really not convinced that many current CDs sound that good - at least on the kind of equipment that most of us use. That's also considering that at the time CBS recordings were not supposed to be particularly good - though I think the Barenboim Elgar might have been recorded by a UK team. However I did also hear some recordings from the same distribution company which I think were on LP and made by CBS engineers in the US, and they were also very good. The demo recordings I heard were, of course, analogue - though that doesn't mean that I subscribe to the "analogue is better" or "vinyl is better" point of view - I definitely do not, but I have been very surprised at how good some analogue recordings can sound, when played on very good equipment - either vinyl/record decks or CD remasters.

Also, some mp3s and other digital compressed formats can sound very good - though very often they don't. I ordered the BBC NOW set of Glazunov symphonies conducted by Otaaka (BIS) as a download, and then liked them so much that I ordered the CDs. On my equipment there's not a lot of audible difference - though perhaps it depends on the state of my ears. Sometimes digitally compressed audio does sound dire, though - and there really is no excuse for some of the really poor offerings which get put and - and charged for - if the original masters are OK.

I might order the Shostakovich set at the bargain price and also try the hi-res version of Symphony 4 for £7.19 for comparison. Could get expensive if I do prefer it and try to fill in the gaps from the other available hi-res recordings - which seem to be of 7, 14, 1 and 3, 6 and 12 at present.

[PJPJ]

I'm pretty much with you, though some do claim to be able to hear the differences between CDs and so-called hi-res sources....

What do you mean by "so-called"? And what do you mean by "claim"?

In a very small number of cases there have been errors and they've been quickly corrected by the likes of qobuz and so on. I listen to a lot of music in high resolution and find little difficulty telling the difference between 16 and 24 bits or CD and SACD. I've also heard some nasty harsh recordings on SACD made in pure DSD, and wonderfully smooth ungrating ones made in high resolution PCM streamed as flac. Similarly, I've heard the full spectrum of quality of new recordings from the standard CD.

I say little difficulty as one of the labels which show but a small improvement (if any in certain circumstances) is Naxos. And your SACDs may well sound smoother due to the ultrasonic noise characteristic of DSD recording. It does sound as though you're not hearing much if any difference in sound quality.

I think I've suggested before that the curious could do a lot worse than downloading the free sample tracks at all sorts of resolution from 2L whose recordings (especially in 5 or more channel) are in my opinion quite superb.

http://www.2l.no/

Click "about", then top right "2L brand store" => drop-down menu "test bench HD audio files"

To get the best from these, half-decent equipment and undamaged hearing are needed. Also, try using high quality headphones (I don't), such as Sennheiser HD600.

[mahlerei]

What do you mean by "so-called"? And what do you mean by "claim"?

In a very small number of cases there have been errors and they've been quickly corrected by the likes of qobuz and so on. I listen to a lot of music in high resolution and find little difficulty telling the difference between 16 and 24 bits or CD and SACD. I've also heard some nasty harsh recordings on SACD made in pure DSD, and wonderfully smooth ungrating ones made in high resolution PCM streamed as flac. Similarly, I've heard the full spectrum of quality of new recordings from the standard CD.

I say little difficulty as one of the labels which show but a small improvement (if any in certain circumstances) is Naxos. And your SACDs may well sound smoother due to the ultrasonic noise characteristic of DSD recording. It does sound as though you're not hearing much if any difference in sound quality.

I think I've suggested before that the curious could do a lot worse than downloading the free sample tracks at all sorts of resolution from 2L whose recordings (especially in 5 or more channel) are in my opinion quite superb.

http://www.2l.no/

Click "about", then top right "2L brand store" => drop-down menu "test bench HD audio files"

To get the best from these, half-decent equipment and undamaged hearing are needed. Also, try using high quality headphones (I don't), such as Sennheiser HD600.

Totally agree.

[teamsaint]

a decent Ring Cycle ,used, under a fiver, with Librettos.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wagner-Ring-Nibelungen-Complete-Librettos/dp/B00004YU9V/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1444166099&sr=8-2-fkmr0&keywords=ring+cycle+neuhold