Thoughts around a Lejonklou Streamer

[Music Lover]

Also I like to mention that although I have tried many times I have never found a digital downloaded copy of an album to be better that my own cd rips. If they are high res they are usually even worse. This also aplies to Linn records.

A true nightmare.

[lejonklou]

Also I like to mention that although I have tried many times I have never found a digital downloaded copy of an album to be better that my own cd rips. If they are high res they are usually even worse. This also aplies to Linn records.

A true nightmare.

I find this really interesting and also strange.

Not having done any proper evaluation of downloads versus CD rips, I only have a handful of practical experiences. So far all of them confirm your findings; downloads have sounded worse than CD rips (in particular I must point out that the few rips I've received from Linnofil have been extraordinarily good) and the high resolution downloads sound "high res" in a dull way that gives an impression of more information but less order. Not unlike what I hear in the clips matthias linked to in the topic 'Non-MQA vs. MQA clips':
http://www.lejonklou.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3970

[Charlie1]

Not having done any proper evaluation of downloads versus CD rips, I only have a handful of practical experiences. So far all of them confirm your findings; downloads have sounded worse than CD rips

Not for a second doubting any findings. Maybe a daft query, but I assume the data residing on the NAS differs slightly between that obtained via CD and that obtained via download...?

[matss]

Not for a second doubting any findings. Maybe a daft query, but I assume the data residing on the NAS differs slightly between that obtained via CD and that obtained via download...?

Interesting question. Can anyone confirm in what ways a CD rip digitally can differ from a downloaded file of the exact same CD?

In my own very limited investigation I can see that downloads (I use FLAC) always use some level of compression to make the music files smaller, than when I rip a CD (lossless FLAC). I can also see that hi res downloads very often contains various forms of high frequency noise and carriers, that I suspect can have an adverse effect on sound quality being intermodulated down to audiable frequencies. As far as I understand it is confirmed that MQA coding messes up red book CD playback. What about water marking and how do we ensure the download is exactly the same mix as used on the CD?

It would be really interesting if someone can confirm digital differences between rip and download of the same CD, in order to better understand why they might give us different musical pleasures?

kr, mats

[matthias]

.......and the high resolution downloads sound "high res" in a dull way that gives an impression of more information but less order.

This is very interesting.
Brian Lucey, a mastering engineer and strong opponent of MQA, wrote something similar:

"I often print at 44.1 with the Pacific Microsonics AD. This is not inferior to 96k or higher in a modern piece. Production CHOICES are more important than slices per second and cutoffs above human hearing. 44.1 has a density in the low end that 96k does not. HF details are not the prime currency of music, they are only one form of ear candy in a cocktail of musicality."

Maybe this order Fredrik is writing about comes from this density in the low end that is much more important than HF details.

Matt

[matss]

What is this density in the low end of 44.1? Did Brian give any further explanation to this supposed quality? Or does anyone else understand what he is refering to?

/mats

[lejonklou]

Interesting expression; 'density'. I think the word refers to his practical experience when working with the music. Not any specific technical aspect or property of the format.

I also suspect this is due to flaws in the handling and conversion of higher resolutions. When they're done right, they should be at least as good as 16/44.1.

[matthias]

I think you get more density when you have an excellent system and add a subwoofer which is perfectly matched to it.
Suddenly all aspects of the music get better, not only the deepest octave.

Matt

[matthias]

I also suspect this is due to flaws in the handling and conversion of higher resolutions. When they're done right, they should be at least as good as 16/44.1.

Agree,
it should not be done like MQA for example.

Matt

[lejonklou]

I think you get more density when you have an excellent system and add a subwoofer which is perfectly matched to it.
Suddenly all aspects of the music get better, not only the deepest octave.

I think it's something else that he means. He does refer to "a density in the low end". I'm sure some will say it's due to higher levels of distortion that can be perceived in a positive way. But I think that's a simplification.

[matthias]

I think it's something else that he means. He does refer to "a density in the low end". I'm sure some will say it's due to higher levels of distortion that can be perceived in a positive way. But I think that's a simplification.

AFAIK, his preferred format is 24bit/44.1kHz in contrast to 24/96.

Matt

[Music Lover]

Brian Lucey stated "44.1 has a density in the low end that 96k does not"

Brian Lucey seems to be uninformed and/or incorrect.

I agree with Fredrik, likely this is due to flaws in the handling and conversion of higher resolutions.

PS
mattias, sorry for the poor quote!!

[Tendaberry]

I recently made an interesting comparison: HD Tracks 24-192 download of Aretha Franklin's Lady Soul versus a 24-192 digital recording through a Katalyst KDSM of a US-pressed original lp (in pretty bad shape, not washed), played on a Klimax SE LP12. The recording of the lp absolutely trounced the HD Tracks download.

[lejonklou]

Brian Lucey seems to be uninformed and/or incorrect.

It appears to me as if you have misunderstood him. He's talking from experience how different formats behave and/or sound. And I think I understand what he means.

[lejonklou]

AFAIK, his preferred format is 24bit/44.1kHz in contrast to 24/96.

Huh! I didn't quite expect that. So high resolution is fine but high sampling rates are not? I'd like to know whether he's reached those preferences on specific equipment or whether he finds it reproducible anywhere.

[Charlie1]

I recently made an interesting comparison: HD Tracks 24-192 download of Aretha Franklin's Lady Soul versus a 24-192 digital recording through a Katalyst KDSM of a US-pressed original lp (in pretty bad shape, not washed), played on a Klimax SE LP12. The recording of the lp absolutely trounced the HD Tracks download.

I guess what we don't know is whether this has more to do with the HD Tracks service, or the quality of their digital source file, and/or the deterioration of the original analogue master tape when used to make that source file. I guess the master tape deterioration would be the most fundamental difference.

[matthias]

Huh! I didn't quite expect that. So high resolution is fine but high sampling rates are not? I'd like to know whether he's reached those preferences on specific equipment or whether he finds it reproducible anywhere.

More from BL:

"Hi Res = 24 bits. Period. There is nothing better about 96 or 192, that's a marketing myth. The PHYSICAL CONVERTER and the PROCESSING are the quality of the result. The "best quality" is the sample rate from the mastering session. Higher humbers are just an easy way for lazy people to measure quality and for greedy people to take your money and perpetuate this myth of more samples= better.
Filtering, analog stages, clocking. These are everything. 44.1 in a great AD kills 96k in a lesser AD."

"A well made AD at 44.1 beats a shitty AD at 96k. The engineering is 98% of the sound.
96k vs. 44.1 in the Pacific Microsonics = less low end density at 96k, plus you need to SRC down to release it on CD. This is stupid. Lesser gear needs higher rates to shine, the best gear does not.
Higher rates alters the presentation, not the quality. Flavors of the same meal. Not a better meal. Sideways by sample rate, assuming great gear."

I think it is enough.

Matt

[lejonklou]

Thank you Matthias. I wish I could spend a week with a really skilled mastering engineer doing his job. I know there are some really dedicated people in that line of work and I have a lot of respect for their knowledge.

[matthias]

Thank you Matthias. I wish I could spend a week with a really skilled mastering engineer doing his job. I know there are some really dedicated people in that line of work and I have a lot of respect for their knowledge.

Welcome Fredrik,
I would trust a mastering engineer who serves 600 clients a year more than an "audiophile".
BTW, I dislike this term.

Matt

[matss]

I still don’t understand the BL reference to ”less low end density” for an increased sample rate. Does anyone understand what he is talking about?

I can think of many potential issues with increased sample rate, but not how this relates to low end performance. I could really do with some help to understand this better.

/mats

[sunbeamgls]

I wonder why an engineer would use an AD that was good at 44.1 but not good at 96 and the proclaim 44.1 as better? Why not just use an AD that works well at 96 and then make a comparison?

[matthias]

I wonder why an engineer would use an AD that was good at 44.1 but not good at 96 and the proclaim 44.1 as better? Why not just use an AD that works well at 96 and then make a comparison?

Professionals make money with their gear and have what they think is the best. I am sure the PM ADC that BL uses is better at 44.1 than some others at 96. Reading professional forums like gearslutz they have their own ranking for gear like audiophiles too. They compare gear and publish like Matthew Gray on his blog:

http://matthewgraymastering.com/blog/35 ... s-the-rest

Matt

[christian]

I recently made an interesting comparison: HD Tracks 24-192 download of Aretha Franklin's Lady Soul versus a 24-192 digital recording through a Katalyst KDSM of a US-pressed original lp (in pretty bad shape, not washed), played on a Klimax SE LP12. The recording of the lp absolutely trounced the HD Tracks download.

I guess what we don't know is whether this has more to do with the HD Tracks service, or the quality of their digital source file, and/or the deterioration of the original analogue master tape when used to make that source file. I guess the master tape deterioration would be the most fundamental difference.

First of all I have never heard anything that comes from HDTracks that sound musically good. I think I have heard about 40 albums. Mostly of older music.

I think all this has to do with the computer power that is available today and how you use it. You take the original Analog master tape, witch I guess can be good or has gotten bad over time. But my feeling is that there are a lot of older master tapes that still performs well. But this is just a speculation. What then happens is that they do a A/D konversion and after that things starts to go wrong. Perhaps because since a lot of people seems to think that ”digital is digital” and that you can start to process the music in powerful computers applying filters and stuff to try to make the sound better without affecting the music. But the fact is that the music gets lost.

For example (popular albums like Eagles - Hotel California):

The album was issued in the seventies and the original vinyl sounds great.

In the early to mid eighties the album is issued on CD. Sound is normally quite thin with especially thin bass. Normally the music is a little worse than on the LP but still quite good.

Then it gets remastered a number of times and usually the sound gets better every time and the music get worse every time.

Then the album is released as a digital hi res download and is even worse and also since vinyl is becoming more popular as a 180 gram LP. The LP sound just as bad as the digital download so I don’t think this has to do with the format.


I recently picked up an original US copy of a Jazz Album that was recorded back in 1959 (Cannonball Adderly on Riverside RLP 1148). Music and sound of this album is truly very impressive and I guess they had very poor equipment compared to todays standards. One of the factors for the musically superior sound of this album I think is the fact that they did not have any ways to try to manipulate the recording after it had been recorded. I also think that the early issues of CDs as stated above is better for the same reason because at that time they did not have all the powerful tools to manipulate that are available today.

[Music Lover]

Brian Lucey seems to be uninformed and/or incorrect.

It appears to me as if you have misunderstood him. He's talking from experience how different formats behave and/or sound. And I think I understand what he means.

I understand he is talking from experience, but he seem to be sure about the reason behind his experience.
Digital is a lot more complex that he think!

The additional text, provided by mattias - just made it even clearer.

"less low end density at 96k"...
Do you understand what he referring to, Fredrik?

[matss]

Professionals make money with their gear and have what they think is the best. I am sure the PM ADC that BL uses is better at 44.1 than some others at 96. Reading professional forums like gearslutz they have their own ranking for gear like audiophiles too.

To me someone prefering the sound of a device over others might be an interesting observation. But it does not prove anything on superiority of a technical concept. At least to me.
I think we missed an opportunity when we didn't define Red Book Digital as for example 20 bit resolution with 50k sampling frequency. By that enabling possible standard digital resolution completely outside the envelope of our human hearing, and then making things digital a straight race for perfection in execution instead of this never ending discussion/argumentation on different conversion/storage/transportation formats. I strongly believe execution is much more important than format, in the quest for musical satisfaction.

/mats