The Smiley Smile Message Board

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=artistdetail&id=10078

Use promo code "smile15" to get 15 % off

Aren't these kids notorious for fucking these sets up, often times the downloads just being upsampled? Not that I'm gonna buy it, but yeah.

Discussion on the upsampling topic:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/music/197454-nirvana-nevermind-24-96-remaster-hdtracks.html

Very cool! Wish they had a WAV/AIFF option, FLAC has never quite rubbed me the right way. But i'm still considering...

FLAC is so easy, I don't know why folks think it's some crude, unmanageable format. Any decent media player (i.e. not iTunes) comes with a plugin to play them, and hunting down a program like dBpoweramp that converts them to any format you could possibly want in mere seconds is pretty easy, too, all while retaining tags, filenames, etc. I've been dealing with FLAC files on a daily basis lately - editing, tagging, converting to and from with absolutely no problems. WAV is a huge waste of space.

Yeah, if this isn't upsampled -- news to me that HDtracks did that at all actually (does it affect all their releases?) -- I'd be definitely interested in picking it up...

edit: runners knows what's up 8)

I don't know if it's all their releases - one would think they'd have been shut down by now if that were the case. I just know I've read people talking about it on a few different sites that a specific release was indeed just upsampled and it wasn't the first.

It doesn't have anything to do with the manageability.  It's just something about the sound, there's just something weird to me, I can't put my finger on it.  It's just a personal opinion, not a stab at the format.  And for the right songs, WAV is definitely not a waste of space.

Eh? FLAC is a form of lossless compression, or at least it should be if you're doing it roight. In other words, a WAV of a song and a FLAC of a song should be 100% indistinguishable from one another. I don't mean that as in "lol people cant even hear what 128kbps mp3s take away, you snob", I mean literally, mathematically, they should be 100% indistinguishable from one another in terms of what comes out of the speakers and into your ears. Correct me if I'm wrong?

You are not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't really see how this is going to make much of a difference. We're talking about recordings from more than 45 years ago that were probably not treated terribly well over the years. How much more audio definition are you supposed to get out of them?

It varies. But they can only sound better at higher resolutions (if they are mastered properly of course; by the time material gets to this level of "high rez", it's usually being mastered by the types who know how to wring the most fidelity out of the recordings). The question is what type of gear it takes and what types of ears it takes to hear a significant difference.

I've listened to some high-rez audio on modest to middle-of-the-road systems, and I think it sounds better but would probably sound even better with higher end gear that takes at least hundreds if not thousands to invest in.

What gear would you need to play these files anyway?  I don't believe you can burn them to CD without compressing the sound quality, and these things don't play on iPods and other MP3 players. 

A computer! ^_^

...zing!

Seriously though, I guess I am specifically talking about playing them on something other than a computer.  Like an iPod.  Don't think high-quality files are compatible with it. 

Convert them to Apple Lossless (m4a) or WMA with a free converter at 320 kbps. Seriously, there are so many converters out there it's insane.

A Squeezebox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezebox_%28network_music_player%29) would be your best bet.  They sound really nice.

You can convert FLAC flies to Apple Lossless for use in the iTunes world, they will play in iTunes or on your iPod but only at 16bit.  Squeezebox is an excellent option for playing high res files.  If you take a HD Tracks download and convert it to ALAC, the same file will play at 16bit via iTunes or 24bit via the Squeezebox.  It's great to have a high-res option available, I'm disappointed it's the 2 disc version and not the entire box.

Has anybody had the chance yet to A/B this with the CD release and give us an idea of how much sonic improvement can be heard?

These appear to all be stereo (not mono) versions/mixes as well.

Regarding mono/stereo the HDtracks download is all the same as the 2 CD version (minus the bonus tracks).  I A/B'd a few tracks and the difference is really subtle, I hear it as very slightly richer sibilance. I wouldn't say this merits re-purchase.  Here are Spek graphs of Cabinessence...

(http://jeffcdo.com/images/2012/cabin1.jpg)
http://jeffcdo.com/images/2012/cabin1.jpg

(http://jeffcdo.com/images/2012/cabin2.jpg)
http://jeffcdo.com/images/2012/cabin2.jpg

As I understand it based on viewing other recordings, that band around 29 kHz is noise from the tape machine itself.  You can see there is definitely new information above 21 kHz so it's not simply upsampled.

Thanks Jeff, I really appreciate your analysis. I'd love to just up and purchase this, but Paul McCartney has my wallet right now and I wish I had more to go around!

If you want to hear brief clips of Wonderful (mono) and Heroes and Villains (stereo) comparing the 16 bit CD with the 24 bit hdtracks, click here: http://98.131.169.2/SC

TBH they sound exactly the same to my ears.

I'm sure they will to a lot of folks, just as a lot of folks can't tell the difference between the CD or a decently encoded MP3. Not faulting those folks in any way, just sayin' - these types of releases cater to certain folks and serve no purpose to others. Always glad to see all ground covered with albums, from MP3s to releases like this that go beyond CD quality.

I am sure the difference may be more apparent on a nice audio set up (as opposed to my crappy computer speakers).  :lol

If you're a Macca fan and have to choose, definitely go for the RAM reissue, huge difference from earlier versions.

On my computer with the headphones that came with my iPhone (the white earbuds), there's a very minor, subtle difference. The 88 kHz FLAC sounds a little richer, and the vocals are a little warmer.  The difference is more noticeable on my Grado headphones.   I have $25 to spare, so I think this one's worth it.

As Ram is my 3rd favorite Macca album (behind Unplugged and, believe it or not, Electric Arguments), I'm shelling out the $$$ for that one too.

[deleted]

The Smile Sessions HD tracks hi res is sourced from the 88.2/ 24 bit HDCD master. It is not upsampled from the CD.

Mark Linett

Don't think I was accusin' you kids of nothin' as far as upsampling ^_^ I just know there have been instances on this site of the folks who run it mishandling the files before it's sold, unfortunately.

Thank you much for the confirmation, and glad to see you around these parts again. :)

COMMENT:

24bit/88.2kHz flac format is the same resolution as a studio master or over 200 times the resolution of a standard consumer Red-Book CD.

These versions are available for download to computer. The difference in quality is readily discernible on any high-quality, high-resolution sound system. Downloads in the flac format are directed to the audiophile market where HD source formats are the preferred storage medium.

I have a separate two-terabyte drive that holds my entire flac album collection of master copies. These have resolutions of 24/88 to 24/192.

More and more masters are being release in this format. See >>> https://www.hdtracks.com/   (including SMiLE)

Congrads to Mark L. on this release!

~swd  

Is it possible we could see more 24bit BB releases this year?  Sunflower/Surf's Up would be obvious choices, but it would be awesome if Brian's original mono mixes of the early albums could finally see a modern digital release as well.

I have a hunch this 24 bit release of SMiLE is just the tip of the iceberg as far as upcoming archival releases.  This is exciting!!

Is that link at HDtracks.com not working for anyone else?

Nevermind. Page finally loaded and I purchased it. My first HD audio purchase.  ;D

Just a reminder about the 15% off promo:

COMMENT:  If Sunflower or Surf's Up are released in HD it would be STUPID to not release them in the matrix format -- finally!  To release them in regular stereo ONLY and not the way Carl and the group mixed them (through the matrix) would be one of the biggest disappointments of the last fifty years.  The way to offer these albums is in both regular stereo and matrix stereo. 

You can't remix them in 5.1 because of all the original reamping that was done at the time of mixdown, and not captured on tape. Therefore a remix is not a mimic of the original, it is a complete departure and NOT the product of the original producers.   ~swd

Actually, Winamp will output 24bit. Just have to check the option in preferences.
From my experience you can hear the difference between hirez and redbook on a cheaper than $35,000 (or even $10,000) set-up, as long as it's good. You do need a stand-alone D/A though.

COMMENT #1:

Let me be clear on this - - - I’M AN ANALOG ENGINEER LIVING IN A DIGITAL WORLD.  Therefore, I am not a computer wiz, but I have been around the block a time or two and know enough to be dangerous.

Yes, this is one of those tricky things to watch out for. All the plug-in’s Winamp, Quicktime, etc. and even Windows Media Player say on their respective screens that you are getting 24/96 resolution or HD resolution.  But based in Windows, the final output will still be down-converted.  In other words, listening through Windows 7, XP or Vista is not the way to hear the full resolution, i.e., all that HD has to offer. Sure, you can hear the downloaded song and it will say it is 24/96 resolution (or whatever resolution the original track was downloaded in) on the player, but it will be down-converted further along the pathway in Windows.

When I started my HD Audio collection and deciding on equipment, I spoke with an engineer at Winamp and two audio engineers at Microsoft and with designers at Emotiva and Iomega. From those conversations and from the readings on my instruments I feel confident that the above is true. As I said this is tricky stuff. There for a while I was tearing my hair out (what little is left) trying to get over the stumbling blocks of language and definitions.

For example, at this website (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/70308-how-play-24bit-wav-files-windows-media-player.html) the question is, how to play HD WAV files using Windows Media Player.  Now the solution offered is to download this bandage or that conversion, but the real problem is with the word “play.”  Yes, you can play HD tracks, but will you hear the full resolution.

I’ve tried all this stuff. My D/A processor has a resolution readout or a screen that tells the bit rate (sampling frequency) and bit depth (bits per sample) of what I’m hearing, not what I’m playing. It is important to distinguish between the two words, play and listen.

I guess that is the most misunderstood definition. Winamp will say it is playing HD, but unless you are outputting the digital signal via HDMI, you are not listening to HD or at least the full resolution.  In my experience, I kept seeing a playback of 24/96 on the computer screen, but on my processor (Digital to Analog converter) it was showing that the converter was not receiving 24/96.

I was not interested in just playing HD, I wanted to hear it, like I can in the studio. I wanted my home listening experience to be the equal of my studio listening exposure.

Finally I decided to NOT go with a separate D/A processor since I had spent a considerable amount of money on an audiophile grade D/A processor. I wanted to use the chips in that unit (EMOTIVA UMC-1) and not duplicate it with an outboard D/A unit. I also knew that my computer hard drive would quickly fill up with flac files and wanted them housed in a separate drive. After looking at a number of units I decided on the IOMEGA as a sort of interface. A device that would read flac files, store them, and output the digital signal via HDMI to the UMC-1, thereby using it’s D/A processors.

Check out the IOMEGA MediaPlayer ScreenPlay MX2-HD >>> http://download.iomega.com/com/launchkit/mx2/multimedia_ss_summer2011.pdf

I paid around two hundred dollars for the unit. I just download a flac file to my computer, then copy over to the MX2-HD. It comes with software for managing all your music and video collections. Playback is via HDMI that supports resolutions up to 24/192 which are accepted by the UMC-1 processor without any down-converting. I know I am listening to the full resolution of whatever I have loaded onto the MX2-HD.  At one-terabyte of storage space, I have plenty of room on the hard drive to download many, many masters. I use a second MX2-HD as a backup.

I hope I have been clear on all this and you understand my points. Looking forward to any opinions or points you may wish to make.

COMMENT #2

I did not say that you would not hear a difference between CD and HD resolutions on everyday systems, only that the full capability will not be heard. I’m sorry if I did not make my point clearly.

What I wanted to state is that there are two factors in play here; building a collection of HD tracks and listening to your collection.

Building a collection of music on CD is a matter of a few dollars per album or 99 cents per song. The same collection of music in HD will cost three to five times as much. This is a consideration each person must make. You can download several CDs to each HD file. Then there is hard drive space to consider too. This also costs money.

Listening to HD over several hundred dollars worth of equipment may give you a different sound – somewhat better. But is it worth it?  If you are an audiophile or stereophile, sit down and just listen, no talking, lights dim, and that sort of thing, then you undoubtedly have invested as much as you can in your playback system. In this case you may wish to invest in a HD collection because you will always be improving your playback system and you will want the best source material you can manage. As you improve the resolution of your system, you begin to hear nuances in the music you never knew were there. Over time, each improvement to your system brings along another subtlety of sound. In time what you originally heard as “a difference in the sound” will become a major improvement in the sound. Not just a little difference, but a foremost distinction in the clarity and realism of the sound. But in order to hear the full capacity of the resolution in an HD track, you have to move from regular consumer quality equipment on up to audiophile grade or professional grade stuff.

I am not trying to be elitist here or snobby. It’s just the way of the world. In almost all cases, better stuff costs more money. I have heard sound systems of only two-channels that the owner spent as much money on as a 3-bedroom house. My own system is worth as much as a good car. But then I’m a sound engineer and have designed and built much of my own equipment. The average Joe may have invested several thousand dollars in their playback system that, by today’s standards, will provide excellent sound. Over such a system HD to CD playback does give you a different and better listening experience. However, it is not all that HD has to offer. To hear that, you’ve got to invest an unreasonable amount of money that only Doctors, Lawyers, and Business Executives seem to have. But hey! Some people like to travel, some like boating, some like putting their kids through ivy league collages. To each his own. But for those people who like music and listening to the best, the equipment is out there to buy. And many do. For these folks, the full potential of HD is there for the listening.      

~swd     
 

A quality DAC can be had for less than $500.  I use this one with a Squeezebox and the new(ish) enhanced audio plug in to allow direct output via USB:

http://audioengineusa.com/Store/Audioengine-D1 (http://audioengineusa.com/Store/Audioengine-D1)

Of course the sky is the limit with audiophile equipment, but I've been really pleased with this little DAC and it didn't break the bank.

COMMENT:  Nothing wrong with the Squeezebox Audiophile model.  Just keep in mind that it uses internal D/A converters to provide 24/96 resolution out of the analog outputs. You will not get that high a resolution on coax. Only HDMI provides for HD. Why? Copyright protection. The content is coded and a HDCP handshake between two devices is necessary to release the better stream. I guess the USB connection is for digital input, otherwise present conventions limit USB resolution to 16/44.

REFFERENCE >>> http://www.avguide.com/forums/blu-ray-24192-output-coax

The only way to really hear HEAR (as in listen) to HD audio downloads such as flac is via the HDMI connector and an external receiver/processor. You can also get full resolution from the analog outputs, but using analog RCA jacks to feed your amplifier limits your fidelity to the chip set used by Squeezebox ... and they're not saying. HD Audio chip sets can run from a few dollars to several hundred. That's just the cost of one chip. So you get what you pay for. The reviews of Squeezebox have been favorable. However, unless the Squeezebox model you have has an HDMI output, your resolution is limited and the number of channels is also limited to two. USB only supports resolutions of 16/44 as the HDMI patent limits resolutions on all connector types except HDMI. Only HDMI passes full 24/192 audio resolution in multi-channel formats.

You see the manufacturer's all want you to buy new equipment. What a cleaver way to make us all spend more money then by patent protection. And that is how it is. HDMI is the only pathway to full 24/192 audio resolution over two or 7.1 surround.   OR use the RCA jacks.   ~swd

Great stuff, Stephen. Thanks.

So now I'm really confused! No argument (I guess) that you can't get 24/192 through coax/optical/USB, only HDMI (explained in the reference you posted). But 24/96? You can't get more than 16/44 on coax/optical/USB? I have a 24/96 DAC with USB, coax and optical inputs only, how can that be?

I must respectfully disagree, USB is not limited to 16 bit:

http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/USB.html (http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/USB.html)

And as for the Squeezebox, I'm not using it's analog output, or it's internal DAC, I'm using the USB output sending digital straight to the external DAC...

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?94512-Announce-Enhanced-Digital-Output-app-USB-Dac-and-192k-Digital-Ouput (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?94512-Announce-Enhanced-Digital-Output-app-USB-Dac-and-192k-Digital-Ouput)

COMMENT:  OK, Great. Now you can pass 24/96 over USB and I stand corrected. It use to be more limited. As I understand you must be running 7.7.0 software for the 24/96 to handshake with the processor, but assume you've upgraded to this algorithm. Of course, even a coax cable can transfer 24/192 data. What then? Does one end of the cable handshake with the other and in the correct syntax? There's more to it than just passing data. The processors must speak to each other. It's all the continuing digital evolution that I can't keep up with. HDMI was or is designed from the get-go to deliver 24/192 in two-channels or 24/96 in six channels. So I'm sticking with it, but as I said in an earlier post, your solution is one alternative.
 
HDMI Protocols >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

For this analog engineer, to be certain about any of this digital stuff, I use HDMI because it's the only standard that is straight forward and assures me of full resolution. All the other protocols seem to need one program bandage or another add-on to work. I'm afraid that I'm just not that savvy having grown up in an analog world. I say analog world, but there really is no such thing. The LP's sample rate is limited by the molecule size of vinyl plastic, tape recording's sample rate is determined by dipole length, sound in the air by air molecules, and even the brain is limited by latent synaptic action-potential delays that cause it to transfer frequencies above 1500Hz by labeled line coding -- a form of digital language. But apart from neural processing, digital encoding in nature has a resolution that is so tiny in bit samples that we just call it analog.

At the site listed below you will find a very interesting chart. It shows resolution rates for various types of signal storage for sound. The article explanes the terms used. Very Interesting >>> http://www.enjoythemusic.com/Magazine/manufacture/0909/ 

~swd
 

TWGMTR now available in 24bit at HDtracks.

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD5099946320056 (https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD5099946320056)

Hi Stephen.

I record in 24/96 and own many releases in 24/96 and 24/48. I'm also a Macintosh technician. Whle it's true that Apple computers downsample through the analog output, I don't believe they downsample through the optical outputs. Likewise, there are lots of great A/D-D/A convertors for much cheaper, such as the Echo Audiofire 2.

I believe my iPad can play a maximum of 24/48 or 16/48, and will downsample anything else, but PowerAmp on Android is able to play 24/96 files on phones with a Wolfson audio chip (Galaxy S in my case).

According to much of what I've read, the big gain is in 24-bit depth rather than the sampling rate, which is beyond the human ability to hear. Still, 24/96 sounds great to me through the aforementioned hardware, and it is not downsampled in most cases.