High resolution digital music

[magiccarpetride]

In my search for hi rez digital music, I've stumbled upon this site: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

Downloaded the samples, and listened to them through my Logitech Squeezebox Duet.

Now, although to my knowledge the Duet can only cope with the 24-bit 48KHz format (and all the samples were either 24-bit/96 KHz or 24-bit/192 KHz, with some even going all the way up to 24-bit/352.8 KHz), the sample tracks nevertheless sounded stunningly brilliant. In my opinion, the sound quality was worlds apart from anything I have on CDs.

Anyone else experienced the same jump in sound quality when listening to these higher sampling rate tracks?

I can easily fathom the fact that, if the performed music has been recorded using the high resolution digital equipment, the resulting FLAC file, mastered at either 24-bit/96KHz or at 24-bit/192 KHz, will deliver superior sound. What I cannot clearly fathom, however, is whether it is possible to go back to the original analog tapes and convert them faithfully to such high resolution formats?

Case in point: http://www.highdeftapetransfers.com/storefront.php

I've downloaded all their sample tracks, and found the sound to be stunningly clear. But again, I'm not sure if I'm merely psyching myself into hearing the improvement in the sound, or if it is indeed possible to convert the original analog recording into such a high resolution digital track, without messing things up in the process?

Sorry if the question is overly naive, I'm very new to this brave new world of hi rez digital music.

[DSJR]

IMO, it's all FOO!!!!!

The analogue tapes won't be good enough, 'cos all you're going to do is reproduce the tape hiss better. Furthermore, most replay machines used in mastering houses will be playing 1/4" tapes at 15IPS, which limits upper response to well under 25KHz I think, and more like 18KHz, judging by the Studer A80's Decca used, their heads only replaced when the 15KHz line-up level adjustment pot ran out of travel.....

[Rare Bird]

IMO, it's all FOO!!!!!

The analogue tapes won't be good enough, 'cos all you're going to do is reproduce the tape hiss better. Furthermore, most replay machines used in mastering houses will be playing 1/4" tapes at 15IPS, which limits upper response to well under 25KHz I think, and more like 18KHz, judging by the Studer A80's Decca used, their heads only replaced when the 15KHz line-up level adjustment pot ran out of travel.....

Changing subject a touch but with keeping in your statement Dave, One major reason i begrudge paying so much for my early prog albums on CD.Don't know how they have the cheek to tbh

[Ali Tait]

Yes,I too have noticed a large jump in SQ playing 24/96 on the Touch.The main differences to my ears are loss of the upper mid hardness so prevalent on cd,and the reappearance of soundstage depth in the way you get with good vinyl.You get the sense of ease you get with vinyl too.If you like what you are hearing,you would love a Touch.From what I've heard the Touch is significantly better than the Duet.

As for analogue tapes,well I'm no expert,but I guess you can record them digitally to the highest resolution the kit you are using will support.There's probably no practical limit to the level it can be digitised at,just depends how much space you have on your drive!

In reality though,I've been told there is little if any difference between 24/96 and 24/192 as far as SQ is concerned.So you might as well just stick with the smaller file.It's fine saying much higher sampling rates are coming,but you need the space to store them.2Gb per song is going to need a bloody big hard drive!

[Ali Tait]

IMO, it's all FOO!!!!!

The analogue tapes won't be good enough, 'cos all you're going to do is reproduce the tape hiss better. Furthermore, most replay machines used in mastering houses will be playing 1/4" tapes at 15IPS, which limits upper response to well under 25KHz I think, and more like 18KHz, judging by the Studer A80's Decca used, their heads only replaced when the 15KHz line-up level adjustment pot ran out of travel.....

Fair point Dave,but in real terms,how much musical information is present at those frequencies? Only teenagers can hear much if anything over 18K.Even if it lacks very high frequencies,a good recording is a good recording...

[nb2]

I guess the mastering of those files is very good (on purpose).

You actually listened to data transcoded by the server.
(lossy transcoding since the server lowered stream frequency).

In my opinion, it confirms what I tried to explain in the mp3 thread.
Sound engineering and mastering is much more important than actual file format quality.
(Of course don't use mp3 64 cbr ...)

I often listen to an internet radio station with streams at mp3 128.
Most of the time, the quality is average.
But some live concerts are astonishingly good.
I would have never supposed you can reach such quality with mp3 128

I guess the radio station has excellent technicians, and offers a much better quality than what we get on CD's

[Codifus]

IMO, it's all FOO!!!!!

The analogue tapes won't be good enough.........

.....especially dynamic enough. I love dynamic music. Some older recordings I like are;

Pink Floyd's Speak to me from Dark side of the moon
School from Supertramp
In the Air Tonight from Phil Collins

All those tracks get you all psyched up for some great climactic event, but when it happens, it's not quite as strong dynamically as my newer recordings can deliver.

I am especially wanting of Pink Floyd's heavy heartbeat:(

I know its because recording technology at the time just couldn't capture it all. Shame.

On Supertramp's Brother where you Bound, however, dynamics are especially powerfull. High frequencies are a bit shrill on this album but the music brings the thunder at full scale when called upon. :)


Remaster old master tapes? Well, they're old:)

[DSJR]

Yes,I too have noticed a large jump in SQ playing 24/96 on the Touch.The main differences to my ears are loss of the upper mid hardness so prevalent on cd,and the reappearance of soundstage depth in the way you get with good vinyl.You get the sense of ease you get with vinyl too.

There ARE CD players which do this, mine and probably Marco's for a start. The old Naim CDI gave it a fair try and the CDS-2/XPS had it licked IMO, although at a stupid price.

Upper mid hardness is as much to a master eq'd for LP's being dubbed without correction as anything else. Also, many domestic tweeters are dire, as are the crossovers driving them.. ;)

Anyway, I/we digress.. I'll leave it there, as I don't want all-out war :D

[magiccarpetride]

There ARE CD players which do this, mine and probably Marco's for a start. The old Naim CDI gave it a fair try and the CDS-2/XPS had it licked IMO, although at a stupid price.

No doubt, but what seems interesting here is that, with Touch, us poor slobs get to experience that slice of heaven for a mere $299.00. I'm not aware of a CD player on the market that can deliver that for the same price.

[magiccarpetride]

In reality though,I've been told there is little if any difference between 24/96 and 24/192 as far as SQ is concerned.So you might as well just stick with the smaller file.It's fine saying much higher sampling rates are coming,but you need the space to store them.2Gb per song is going to need a bloody big hard drive!

Last year I bought a 1 Tb hard drive for $80.00 CDN. I'm expecting it's even less expensive today. Heck, even 2 Tb external hard drives are now becoming super affordable.

I wouldn't worry too much about the size of the high rez music files. We shall be able to easily lick all that at the consumer grade level. The final frontier will soon be the network bandwidth.

[Rare Bird]

Hi Alex
Sounds like your trying to convince yourself Music high rez files are the best thing since sliced bread.. ;)

[The Grand Wazoo]

No doubt, but what seems interesting here is that, with Touch, us poor slobs get to experience that slice of heaven for a mere $299.00. I'm not aware of a CD player on the market that can deliver that for the same price.

So this is your 'the best possible source' is it?

[magiccarpetride]

So this is your 'the best possible source' is it?

Bingo!

[Mr. C]

It's a nice start Alex, it is a good first step on the ladder.

[Ali Tait]

That's what I think Tony,and for the money it's a great sounding bit of kit.What do you have that significantly betters it,and how much is it?

Dave,no war from me,but I would say,what crossovers? I use full-range electrostatics!

[Ali Tait]

One thing has transpired from using the Touch,and that is I'm back listening to music again.I'd pretty much stopped,and was just using the system for AV duties,because I was always getting this horrible hard sound which set my teeth on edge.I know it wasn't the rest of the system as the Sky+ box sounded great.Even using the Marantz CD94 I'd still get the same problem.Having ripped cd's to FLAC and playing through the Touch,this has largely removed the problem.Stuff that was previously unlistenable is now sounding great,and stuff that sounded good before is now fabulous! I still haven't figured out why this is..

[Macca]

IMO, it's all FOO!!!!!

The analogue tapes won't be good enough, 'cos all you're going to do is reproduce the tape hiss better. Furthermore, most replay machines used in mastering houses will be playing 1/4" tapes at 15IPS, which limits upper response to well under 25KHz I think, and more like 18KHz, judging by the Studer A80's Decca used, their heads only replaced when the 15KHz line-up level adjustment pot ran out of travel.....

Dave - it just isn't Foo

Compare a re-mastered 16 bit CD through a good player to the SACD of the same album through even a cheap Sony SACD player and there is no comparison - SACD is way better particularly noticeable with cymbals and hi-hats but also with bass quality and pretty much everything else.

I can't believe you have never tried this comparison. 16 bit 44.1 khz is just not good enough, SACD and DVD-A demonstrate this quite clearly to my mind. There is a lot more than tape hiss on those old reels that 16 bit just does not do.

I'm a luddite and so I don't like the whole idea of 'computer audio' but if music at 24/196 starts to become widely available for download Spotify style then I will be there straight away.

[Mr. C]

That's what I think Tony, and for the money it's a great sounding bit of kit.What do you have that significantly betters it,and how much is it?!

Hi Ali,

I am actually listening to one as we speak, Absolute radio is gracing the demo room 1, (I do not sell SB products either) for the outlay it is an excellent way to get on the ladder with quality performance for the money.

Everything is built to a price whatever you buy, in terms of bettering the unit, it really depends on what you wish for in your music system.
Obviously adding a Dac is a very good upgrade to the touch, I am pretty sure a lot of you guys use and aftermarket unit already.

Without actually taking apart the touch, fabricating a high quality linear, well regulated, ultra low noise stiff power supply with also pay dividends. Or if you are feeling brave a high current battery psu!

I will be having a good look inside the touch in the coming weeks so I see if I cannot come up with some recommendations for the unit.

Upgrading humm.... we have built, listen to pretty much most variations on digital streaming in the last 2 years or so.

Had very good results, with quality sound cards, running direct into Dacs'
What signal transmission to use, USB, Ethernet, SPDIF, AES, AES 30, Toslink, AT&T, wireless.

With this statement I with no doubt win any friends, it is not meant as knock in any way, we have never had the same quantifiable results with Mac's as we have with PC based systems for pure performance, even when using the latest OS and aftermarket music playing software, while they still sound very good, they do not seem to quite reach the same level, close but no cigar.

If you think about the transmission protocols they should be no theoretical difference between wireless and Ethernet transmission, all the data is checked and sequenced for as close to no error as humanly possible.

However we have found that Ethernet does seem to 'consistently' outperform the wireless method even with differing equipment.

USB is slightly different in that it needs galvanic isolation and realistically, a high quality asynchronous reclocking device of sort to really get the performance out of that method of data moment.

Anyway to the question, upgrading over the squeeze box touch.

Most informed people getting onto this high rez ladder, usually have a proprietary music playing software device, Windows media player, Media monkey, Foobar Almera etc.

This have inbuilt SRC and latency compensating coding inside them among other ietms.
They are able to accept various digital data formats, AC3, AC4, FLAC etc.
They will read the data stored on the HDD or slaved drives etc. then the data will pass via a sound card or be sent direct to squeeze box etc or directing feeding a quality DAC
There are a number of issues than can affect the performance of a server based system.

1. Electrical noise, Radiated RFI, EMI
2. Power supply spikes and poor regulation (PC's generally use switch mode power supplies which are small,, neat, compact and powerful, but in all fairness piss poor for sound quality!)
3. Mechanical interference, PSU fans, HDD tec.
4. Operating system conflicts, the draining of machine resources , too much processing power used for other operations inside the PC other than just playing music.
5. Data transmission methods.
6. Software limitations.
7. System set up issues.
8. Keeping external HDD switched on
9. How you physically connect to the audio system

That is a basic sample of a few items that will require attention.

Another good upgrade is to use a style of software player, that loads the data file into ram, switches off all unnecessary system power usage and HDD's
Just uses the buffered file in the ram to stream.

The difference over even the very latest Foobar is like having a £5K cdp instead of a £2k unit.

Taking that a stage further, dispensing with the operating system entirely, building a custom board dedicated to music playing, not high performance gaming or data storage / number crunching, with 50 amp psu's water cooling, built in 2TB drives, mega graphics card etc.

Coding your own player in Linux, you can get rid of all unnecessary traditional pc functions.

I know far easier to write here than do the task, I realise.
However my personal system uses no HDD at all, (I have 76TB on back up raid drives) all my collections are on 50GB smart drives, no noise (well maybe 2 or 3 mew amps of quiescent current) instant pure music with a theoretical S to N of over 170Db.

You can then include a high quality dac into the design with a few digital inputs and a high quality A to D for vinyl achieving as well.
The possibilities are quite endless and very exciting.


This may surprise you, I have not achieved any of my 3000 cd collection yet :stalks: even.
I just purely use the music server for red book lossless down loads and high res files only.

Although there are still inconsistencies between high rez recordings too, if you use Foobar you can check the bit rate for each track.

Generally a red book is 1411Kps or 1.4Mps data rate, a quality 24/96Khz should be in the region of 4800Kps, yet a very well know companie offering tracks at that same sample rate equate to nearer 2900Kps humm...

Just compare one of the recordings to say a HD tracks, I-trax, HTT or HRX recording, something not right there in my book.

The bottom line it is a great new source of entertainment, with more and more software (music) coming on line everyday it will only get better.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

I have to say it's really nice to read from someone who is optimistic about the future of high Rez music and hifi!

[Ali Tait]

Thanks for that comprehensive answer Tony.The reason I waited for the Touch was because it can be used without a pc running.This is what I wanted,as I find it distracting when I want to listen to music.I'd be interested in developments along these lines.I do indeed use the Touch with an Audio Note dac.Sounds great,certainly better than any cd player I've tried.

[Mr. C]

Being honest Ali, for the money I do think there is anything out there that comes close, for functionality, ease of use, simple hook up and performance for the outlay.

This format will only gather momentum in the coming months / years and will bring a great deal of listening pleasure to a lot of people who would not have necessarly considered an audio system too.

[Ali Tait]

Hi Alex
Sounds like your trying to convince yourself Music high rez files are the best thing since sliced bread.. ;)

At the recent Owston,it was easy to hear that vinyl on a really good deck is still superior to hi rez digital,but I don't think this will always be the case.Digital,especially hi rez,is still in it's infancy,and I think there will be huge improvements in the coming years,when it will beat sliced bread!

[The Vinyl Adventure]

I think it will be interesting when the big companies like Sony get involved, not just for the technology but these huge companies have the power to convince the masses need something in thier lives (HD tv for example). It would only take Sony to release a specific for perpous streamer designed for quality audio for the rest of the big brands to get on the band wagon... All of a sudden there would be a huge demand for high Rez music and streaming and we would all be onto a winner!

[Ali Tait]

I hope it happens Hamish,it would be just the incentive the format needs,though I'd put money on Sony releasing their own bloody system that would be unique to them!

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Yeah... Atrack style... Fingers croosed they don't!

[DSJR]

Dave - it just isn't Foo

Compare a re-mastered 16 bit CD through a good player to the SACD of the same album through even a cheap Sony SACD player and there is no comparison - SACD is way better particularly noticeable with cymbals and hi-hats but also with bass quality and pretty much everything else.

I can't believe you have never tried this comparison. 16 bit 44.1 khz is just not good enough, SACD and DVD-A demonstrate this quite clearly to my mind. There is a lot more than tape hiss on those old reels that 16 bit just does not do.

I'm a luddite and so I don't like the whole idea of 'computer audio' but if music at 24/196 starts to become widely available for download Spotify style then I will be there straight away.

I have tried it. SA-CD is either contrived when compared to the master, or the files have (usually) been tampered with. The extra air and space often isn't there on the original and there are really great Red book machines out there which are better IMO.

People who should know better than me have also compared the SAME file on SA-CD and then professionally down-converted it to Red Book and haven't heard any difference. Now, either they're deaf (quite possibly), or the SA-CD files are being tinkered with if remastering is the goal (they most definitely are if Martin Colloms' findings of major eq changes are anything to go by).

I can't speak for current classical music recordings, as they are often made with extreme care and mastered straight to SA-CD, so they're going to be better in any case. I DO know what analogue masters sound like (generically) and they're so far ahead of most turntable systems (except Decca's and similar widely dynamic pickups) and musically so much more like CD, if not identical on many analogue-sourced digital masters..

You have to forgive me here please. I'm no longer in the industry and cannot lay my hands on the tapes my contacts had. Working in the West End for a good few years (ok, a long time ago, but still..) brought me into contact with many recording and sound engineers and my mate at Decca opened my eyes. This is something that most domestic consumers can never do sadly and although 99.9% of members here vastly prefer the sounds coming from their vinyl players for various reasons, until they have an inkling of what the original master sounds like, it'll always be just opinions, mine vs yours for example. Analogue masters are far more dynamic usually than the LP, they're also not as overtly "musical" and often "dry" in reverb/acoustic terms. By the time the music is cut and pressed on vinyl, all sorts of added "warmth," "musicality" and "sweetness" is added, which is why I try to go for a crisper sound than many off my records, as this is the first thing that is seemingly taken away in the pressing process.

I'm not saying that hi-rez files are wrong, far from it, but it depends if you can obtain them cheaply enough. I suspect that they'll be a good excuse for charging lots of dosh for them, as they have to practically give away the standard CD rez ones...

I'm just going to have to beg to differ and keep an open mind. I still think Blu-Ray could be an amazing potential audio only carrier of very high quality.

[DSJR]

At the recent Owston,it was easy to hear that vinyl on a really good deck is still superior to hi rez digital,but I don't think this will always be the case.

Superior with reference to what? A "nice" sound, or the original source file/tape, or personal memory?

Apologies, I don't mean to stir the poo, although I know I shall when presenting such opinions on this forum. I've said before, the finished vinyl is NOTHING like the cut acetate played on the same turntable - it's always grossly inferior in just the ways so many audio people like. The original is often fierce, bleached and "rude" in its presentation. Cutting it to LP smooths all this over and adds the musical equivalent of syrup (in the worst cases) or fine sugar (in the best ones) to the recording.

I'd better retire from this before I get myself banned.

Apologies again for rocking the boat fella's.....

[purite audio]

Check out 'Reference Recordings' 176/ 24 HDX discs they are the digital masters, very fine recordings.
Keith.

[Mr. C]

Hello Keith,

You actually looked busy at Munich and were enjoying yourself good stuff :-)
There is actually a problem even with the HRX recording, no matter how good you feel they sound they are still recorded on optical medium (disc) so the same old issues apply even at that bit and sampe rate. Try obtaining the actual digital file and compare against the disc, it is a real ear opener Keith.

[Themis]

I'm not saying that hi-rez files are wrong, far from it, but it depends if you can obtain them cheaply enough. I suspect that they'll be a good excuse for charging lots of dosh for them, as they have to practically give away the standard CD rez ones...
I won't argue on the rest of your posts, Dave, but, I'm sorry to remind you that we were already obliged to pay several times already (various "remasters", each "better" than its predecessor) the RedBook Industry.

And now, after having made us pay 3 or 4 times per album you say that RedBook is perfect enough ? :doh:

:lolsign:

[DSJR]

Me lips is now sealed guv... ;)

SOME re-masterings are amazing though, for a variety of good reasons.....

[magiccarpetride]

It's a nice start Alex, it is a good first step on the ladder.

One thing I'd like to try: I am setting up a cozy little home recording studio right now. I've been recording myself on the guitar, as well as singing. When I mix the overdubs down and master the tracks as AIFF, and then stream them to my Squeezebox server, the signal pushed through the Caiman and onto the Maggies sounds nothing short of awesome. The clarity, the resolution, the dynamics, everything sparkles, just gorgeous (my sloppy playing/singing notwithstanding;)

All that via the crusty old 16-bit/44 KHz digitization. What I'd like to do now is record and master the tracks in 24-bit/96 KHz digitization, and also the same tracks in the 16-bit/44 KHz digitization, and then compare the sound.

Right now I'm just using GarageBand on my iMac for recording, and its highest resolution is apparently only 16-bit. What program should I use to record in 24-bit/96 KHz?

[magiccarpetride]

Taking that a stage further, dispensing with the operating system entirely, building a custom board dedicated to music playing, not high performance gaming or data storage / number crunching, with 50 amp psu's water cooling, built in 2TB drives, mega graphics card etc.

Coding your own player in Linux, you can get rid of all unnecessary traditional pc functions.

I know far easier to write here than do the task, I realise.
However my personal system uses no HDD at all, (I have 76TB on back up raid drives) all my collections are on 50GB smart drives, no noise (well maybe 2 or 3 mew amps of quiescent current) instant pure music with a theoretical S to N of over 170Db.

I have experimented with the Amazon S3 media streaming. You can subscribe to that service at around 15 cents per Gb per month (I believe the price will only go down in the ensuing months/years).

Haven't noticed any difference in the sound quality, although theoretically this service should do away with all the issues you've enlisted above (i.e. any interference from a busy/noisy OS/hardware).

I wouldn't worry too much about these things; at least to my ears, the audible differences are not there.

[magiccarpetride]

IMO, it's all FOO!!!!!

The analogue tapes won't be good enough, 'cos all you're going to do is reproduce the tape hiss better. Furthermore, most replay machines used in mastering houses will be playing 1/4" tapes at 15IPS, which limits upper response to well under 25KHz I think, and more like 18KHz, judging by the Studer A80's Decca used, their heads only replaced when the 15KHz line-up level adjustment pot ran out of travel.....

Still, I think that the Abbey Road sound engineers did a miraculous job with the Beatles tapes last year. I mean, going back and listening to these remasters is such an eye opener.

My understanding is that they went back to the original source tapes, converted them, using state-of-the-art equipment, to 24-bit/192 KHz digital format. Then, they very carefully removed any clicks, pops, excessive hiss and other audible defects, sort of how the museum restorations of the old masterpieces go.

Once they got the original masters in the most pristine shape, they painstakingly went, song by song, through a very meticulous process of remastering (NOT remixing). The final results -- stunning. Aural nirvana for all us Beatlemaniacs!

So it is indeed possible to get a lot of mileage out of these old analog tapes. Providing, of course, that you know what you're doing (and that you're lavishly funded;)

[DSJR]

I have yet to hear the joys of the Beatles' remasterings..

The originals were as they were (especially the first four) because I remember reading that George Martin did them/had them done flat - all mid and tinny treble as he claimed the tapes really sound (unless played on very large speakers, in which case they sound ok). He seemed quite indignant as I recall when the audiophool set criticised the sound.. Even more embarrasing was that the out-take bootlegs on CD (I have one) sounded so much better...

Now obviously, today, there is so much more than can be safely done, especially with hi-res conversion, that won't touch the music itself unless the mastering engineer wants it to..

I'm not against hi-res at all, but so far I remain to be convinced that the difference is HUGE...... The first samples I've been kindly given to listen to sound a bit like having your LP12 tweaked up - the way everything takes a tad less concentration to enjoy :)


My education continues......................................... .......................

[magiccarpetride]

I have yet to hear the joys of the Beatles' remasterings..

The originals were as they were (especially the first four) because I remember reading that George Martin did them/had them done flat - all mid and tinny treble as he claimed the tapes really sound (unless played on very large speakers, in which case they sound ok). He seemed quite indignant as I recall when the audiophool set criticised the sound.. Even more embarrasing was that the out-take bootlegs on CD (I have one) sounded so much better...

Now obviously, today, there is so much more than can be safely done, especially with hi-res conversion, that won't touch the music itself unless the mastering engineer wants it to..

I'm not against hi-res at all, but so far I remain to be convinced that the difference is HUGE...... The first samples I've been kindly given to listen to sound a bit like having your LP12 tweaked up - the way everything takes a tad less concentration to enjoy :)


My education continues......................................... .......................

Sadly, we don't have access to the original 24-bit/192 KHz files. Perhaps one day...

My assessment of the Beatles remasters are strictly based on the red book CDs. I'm quite sure that, if we were to miraculously get our hands on the original 24-bit/192 KHz files, with proper hi rez, high-end equipment, the improvements in the sound quality would be undeniable.

[Alex_UK]

I have yet to hear the joys of the Beatles' remasterings...

You are more than welcome to borrow my set for a few weeks Dave, next time you are passing this way - PM me if you're interested.

[DSJR]

Many thanks Alex - If I do borrow them, it's unlikely you'll get 'em back in a hurry...;)

I have now been able to hear Magical Mystery Tour in remastered form, and this got me doing further research on what was done - quite a bloomin' lot I gather. EQ (in the bass I suspect), subtle limiting here and there (they used the tape itself as a compressor back then) and then the important SBM style digital noise shaping. I suspect what we hear now is actually far away from the tonal balance of the originals, but my Gawd the music shines brighter than ever and Paul's bass and Ringo's not inconsiderable drum skills are much better heard IMO.

The only thing which could better these transfers is collecting all the takes together on a multi-track, doing away with the bouncing down of tracks to make more room (listen to the Anthology tracks for proof) and doing as faithful a remix as possible in greater fidelity (the multi-track tape's have been digitised already I understand - there must be hundreds of them I suspect).

My thanks to both Alex and Mr Stratmangler - you're both very kind :peace:

[steve dixon]

yeah, great, hi rez, but hi rez obscure celtic folk? hi rez wierd and wonderful world music?

why do big companies like linn,naim etc invest a bomb recording the most obscure music they can find? probably artists that have never been out their local village, and it a village for locals, there's nothing for you here, only listened to by a handful at the bar on a friday night.

when they they start putting out POPULAR music i may pay attention, theres a clue in the name isn't there?

steve

[DSJR]

I wish the forst two Blue Nile albums could be properly remastered with modern equipment, adding the extended, rare and re-mixed tracks from this period. Sadly, I think there may be some difficulty between band and Linn Records, as, apart from some noisy 12" singles, some of these tracks have all but disappeared..

[magiccarpetride]

yeah, great, hi rez, but hi rez obscure celtic folk? hi rez wierd and wonderful world music?

why do big companies like linn,naim etc invest a bomb recording the most obscure music they can find? probably artists that have never been out their local village, and it a village for locals, there's nothing for you here, only listened to by a handful at the bar on a friday night.

when they they start putting out POPULAR music i may pay attention, theres a clue in the name isn't there?

steve

This is the chicken-or-the-egg situation. No one seems interested in investing money into a format that would be hard to sell due to the fact that very few households have the means to play that format back. We've seen the same patterns with CDs, VHS tapes, DVDs, blu rays, etc. There's always this period of incubation, during which both producers and consumers are sitting on the fence. Who flinches first? Consumers are not tripping over themselves rushing to the stores to buy the latest and the greatest hardware if the software is nowhere to be found. At the same time, producers are not going to trip over themselves to produce shiny new software if the hardware is not already deployed.

Then one day, you get up, and learn that the whole world switched from VHS to DVD. Or, from cassette tapes to CDs. How do these things happen? No one knows (god's ways are mysterious).

The same pattern will be repeated with regards to the high resolution music. As of right now, there isn't enough households that can play hi rez format. Consequently, the execs have no incentive to produce it.

One day, we'll wake up and learn that the critical mass has been (somehow) reached, at which point we'll see popular music starting to trickle in on a hi rez format. I don't have a crystal ball with me right now, so I can't tell you when is that day going to arrive.

[Peter Galbavy]

why do big companies like linn,naim etc invest a bomb recording the most obscure music they can find? probably artists that have never been out their local village, and it a village for locals, there's nothing for you here, only listened to by a handful at the bar on a friday night.

Follow the money. Obscure music recorded professionally and sold ? Struggling artists who will play for publicity ? Oh yeah. Why pay royalties when you can get talent for either nothing or a low session fee ?

[Ali Tait]

There is a fair amount of mainstream hi rez on hdtracks.lot of obscure stuff too though.

[Alex_UK]

Many thanks Alex - If I do borrow them, it's unlikely you'll get 'em back in a hurry...;)

As long as I get them back at some point, not a problem as I have them ripped to my external hard drive anyway. You really are welcome to "have a lend" as my old Granny used to say.