PDA

View Full Version : Reference Recordings Hrx Discs



purite audio
07-01-2009, 15:06
After a couple of false starts I have been enjoying some of the 'reference recordings' 176.4 HRx discs, using a Macbook and the Weiss firewire DAC II.
Sounds superb and the Macbook and Weiss are a neat and elegant solution.
Anyone else had a chance to listen to hi-res files?

John
07-01-2009, 18:48
I think what has been stopping me from doing this is the lack of music I be interested in purchasing (sorry nothing on Linn really interests me and nothing on reference recordings)this is slowly changing and I hope this continues as I would like to be able to use this medium to hear music in the future

purite audio
07-01-2009, 20:57
That is the problem, hopefully more and more music will be released, I suppose the record companies keep the original uncompressed master tapes?

John
07-01-2009, 21:03
Well there is nothing more that record companies like more is a new format to sell music so hoefully this might develop (sorry a bit cynical)

Mr. C
08-01-2009, 08:39
Hello Keith,

Had these for a good 6 months now, some of the very best recordings I have heard period. Problem is there are stock audiophile music great for a few to admire and revel over, for the masses not so sure!
Here's the odd thing though, I bought 3 sets of each just for this following purpose.
You see you still have the same problem with CD here :confused:, well they are suppiled on optical disc yes? Humm same issues as CD's then?
I copied the disc directly on to our deicated high rez server with the super dooper Pro 'Uber bit perfect' copier, played them back, they sound superb.
I then completed treated the disc, with lathe/light/cleaner etc.
Then made another copy the same way and compared the files, should be absolutely no differnce at all. Yeah right LOL!
The difference are far more than subtle, making the orignial sound mechanial and contrived in comparsion (which it isn't).
The problem is optical media (well the medium itself) you cannot change the data by performing the above treatments, but are you altering the medium?
And this the crux of the issue, the data on the disc, is just not the *same* as the raw data feed via a hard drive providing its been a flac/aiff file downloaded from the orginal master recording, no optical medium to 'obscure the view' so to speak.
I have close to 700 high rez music files, and 300+ 'cd quality' 1.411mps files, over 60 of which I have the original CD to make a comparison.
In every case except 2 the downloaded file is superior, not always a large amount, but enough to let you hear a listenable preferable difference.
The interesting POI here is the data rates for the downloaded file are always less than the CD :lol: typically a 20% less around 820-1100kps as oposed to 1.411mps.
Makes you wonder :lolsign:

Marco
08-01-2009, 08:41
I think what has been stopping me from doing this is the lack of music I be interested in purchasing (sorry nothing on Linn really interests me and nothing on reference recordings)this is slowly changing and I hope this continues as I would like to be able to use this medium to hear music in the future

Ditto :)

Otherwise there's no point and it's a bit of a 'white elephant'! I'm not particularly into audiophile lounge music.

The high resolution files will need to be represented by the same extensive musical catalogue as is currently available on CD and vinyl before I will entertain buying the necessary equipment to utilise the benefits of this potentially exciting format.

Marco.

Marco
08-01-2009, 08:49
The problem is optical media (well the medium itself) you cannot change the data by performing the above treatments, but are you altering the medium?
And this the crux of the issue, the data on the disc, is just not the *same* as the raw data feed via a hard drive providing its been a flac/aiff file downloaded from the orginal master recording, no optical medium to 'obscure the view' so to speak.
I have close to 700 high rez music files, and 300+ 'cd quality' 1.411mps files, over 60 of which I have the original CD to make a comparison.
In every case except 2 the downloaded file is superior, not always a large amount, but enough to let you hear a listenable preferable difference.
The interesting POI here is the data rates for the downloaded file are always less than the CD typically a 20% less around 820-1100kps as oposed to 1.411mps.


Hi Tony,

Superficially that sounds interesting. Could you explain it again somewhat more simplistically in layman's terms to a digitally uneducated dinosaur such as moi? :)

Marco.

Mr. C
08-01-2009, 13:52
Hi Marco,

This takes us back to, the original recorded analogue tapes are the best, well a true non compressed digital recording is pretty special too, if its not fooked around with RECORD COMPANIES you know you are the guilty parties!
Basically digital has always been capable of producing a superb sound, however CD/SCAD/DVD-A/Blu-ray is not really the way to do it.
They all use an optical disc based medium as a data transfer device, which involves spinning the disc and shinning a light on it reading the digital data as pits and peaks on the revolving disc.
The laser (what ever wave length is used for the specific medium involved) is reflected back off the disc on to photo diode, which in turn used the read Solomon inter leave error correction code, then receiver chip/src/reclocker etc<> dac chips.
All of which is subjected to outside influences, via mechanical/emi/rfi/ vibration thus effecting the digital data in transit.
Raw data supplied via a pc direct to a dac does not suffer as many influences as the above list, yes they are still obstacles to overcome, however the sound is significantly improved over a CD transport.
It is pure about data transfer and keeping it 'protected' from corruption, pure and simple.

Marco
08-01-2009, 14:36
Hey you're on a roll in 2009, Tony, that's exactly what I've heard myself when comparing a CD transport (any CD transport, even a very expensive one) against, in your words: "Raw data supplied via a pc direct to a dac"!

I don't doubt you're correct and I shall keep what you've written as a reference because I feel it rather neatly sums up what's going on :)

Still, it doesn't solve the limited availability of 'decent' music with these high resolution files you mentioned. I hope that the catalogue will become more diverse and interesting in due course otherwise for me it's a no-no.

Are you confident that the masses, out with of audiophiles, will embrace the high-res route for music sufficiently to enable that to happen anytime soon?

Marco.

Mr. C
08-01-2009, 15:30
Marco,

The question of music is the crux of the issue, this year will see a changes in the industry, (not as fast as you would like) however there will be changes.
You see, to produce music today at high res changes nothing in the recording process as it is currently recorded at this quality level (its after the problem occurs lol!).
Record companies, will realise that CD sales will tail off now (or have been)
To produce a high resolution down album to be internet accessible is far far more fanatically viable the running a pressing plant by a large margin.
However, with so many cd players in the market, it currently would be suicide to stop producing the optical media.
Also many people do not wish to currently change at all.
A lot of the older generation simply do not want to get involved with PC's.
One other problem is the platform that it is used on, a industry standard needs to be set, the user interface also is very important to many a consumer, they want the all singing and dancing graphic a interfaces like the I-phone (tosh lol!)
To actually programme one of these requires some serious professional people, time and investment (ask Naim aka the HDX)
The OS too plays a part, I do not use mac or windows.
The method of data movement and decoding is pivotal here, we ended up designing a bespoke interface, now we have the capability of moving upto 1000mps should we desire.
That is all well and good, if you have the hardware, interface and software.
One other item I wish to mention, we only use our PC system for high resolution only.
Ripping cd's to HD simply are a a biennial task, I have yet to hear a 'uber ripped' cd played through the same system, via a quality (not expensive transport) feeding the same dac supplied via the pc, sound equal to the original disc it was ripped from.
Now it sounds very good I feel around 95-6% of the original, but not the same, again 'bit perfect copy' LOL
I prefer to use a cd/ transport for cd's into a quality dac, also use the pc for high res duties, the best of both worlds.
I have close to 3000 cd's, the are staying.
It is an individual choice on this way, though I will say this, every person who has had the system demonstrated has purchased 100%.
Once you hear a correctly set up high res system, you simply will not go back to traditional sound quality.