SMiLE Sessions on hdtracks.com in 24 bit / 88.2 kHz

[pixletwin]

TBH they sound exactly the same to my ears.

[runnersdialzero]

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.

[pixletwin]

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

[jeffcdo]

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

[AlFall]

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.

[doinnothin]

[deleted]

[yrplace]

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

[runnersdialzero]

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.

[Stephen W. Desper]

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  

[Ebb and Flow]

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.

[jeffcdo]

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!!

[pixletwin]

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

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

Just a reminder about the 15% off promo:

Use promo code "smile15" to get 15 % off

[Stephen W. Desper]

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.

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

[Stephen W. Desper]

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

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

Just a reminder about the 15% off promo:

Use promo code "smile15" to get 15 % off

COMMENT:  HD flac is a high resolution file format designed to bring professional master quality sound to the consumer market. Recently flac files have been discovered by the audiophile listener. This has developed a market for recording companies to release studio masters to the general public as flac files.

But beware, the high resolution market is not simple. It is a complex pathway to realize any advantage from these file types.

First: be aware that this market is for the audiophile; that is, people who have invested at least 10,000 dollars in their two-channel sound system. Most audiophile systems are valued in the $35,000 to $65,000 bracket and are listened to in acoustically optimized rooms. Unless you are in this league or have a world-class studio monitoring system, don’t waste your money. You will not hear any advantage if you download these expensive files.

Second: unless you’ve done your technical homework and have a detailed understanding of this audio realm, you can be confused, bewildered, or just mistaken about what you are actually hearing.  For example, all Windows formats, including Windows Media Player, Winamp, Quicktime, and other plugin’s, are all going to down-convert the flac file to 16/44 format for playback, the consumer RedBook CD format. That is just a design limitation. Mac’s will accept the flac format, but the D/A converters found in a Mac are not audiophile grade, so the output will not be capable of full resolution – more like a headphone output. You will still need an external D/A converter that will read the flac file format to hear HD sound.

The only way to hear the full potential of a flac HD file is by using (1) an external D/A converter with an L/R analog output, (2) a converter/storage device with an HDMI output you can connect to your audio receiver, or (3) an external converter with a coax output you can input to your audio receiver. But the coax still has some limits.

There are a few receiver/processor/amplifiers that will resolve a flac file, but it is usually by way of a DVD player and not a USB input. Such surround-sound receivers get good reviews for the most part, so that may be a way to go.   

Due to the connection conventions of the HDMI patent, full resolution of flac files in the consumer world can only be outputted using an HDMI connector. Even the coax connector has limitations. If you want to hear all that flac has to offer, stay with HDMI.

Audiophile grade D/A converters start at $500 for entry level quality and go up to $30,000. The audiophile grade world of components is very expensive. Consumer grade receivers that can play back flac files with reasonable quality start at around $300 up to several thousand.

Even my HD computer that is designed as a multi-media unit will not resolve a flac file. I must first transition from flac to HDMI and then HDMI to analog. In my system I use an IOMEGA MediaPlayer ScreenPlay MX2 to store and convert the flac files to HDMI digital, then input the HDMI to a EMOVITA UMC-1  preamp/processor that uses twin Cirrus® 32 bit dual core DSP’s for uncompromised high resolution HD audio decoding and signal management. Actually I have two IOMEGA’s of a tarebyte storage capacity each. One is a backup file of the other. These HD files are expensive and only “live” in the harddrive, so backing up files worth thousands of dollars is a must. This seemed the best solution for my needs.

The point of this posting is to make you aware that unless you have a high-resolution sound system operating in an well-designed acoustic envirnment, have thousands of dollars to invest in the front-end equipment necessary to convert flac files, and are technically informed of the in’s and out’s of this tricky HD environment, don’t bother. There is nothing bad about the CD resolution we all enjoy.

The other way to hear HD files is to buy the DVD. Don’t download anything. The downloaded files are cheaper, but if you don’t have all the up-front equipment, the simple way to get HD sound is to buy the DVD and a DVD player that will play flac files. Not all DVD players will play a flac file, only the high-end DVD players will. But this is the only alternative.

You can experience HD sound from most any Blu-ray DVD. The player must have surround analog outputs or an HDMI output. The HDMI is connected to your surround processor/amplifier.  Blu-ray DVD’s that feature a Dolby True HD or DTS-HD Master Quality sound track – which is most movie releases on Blu-ray – will produce HD quality sound. The resolution of all Blu-ray sound tracks is 24/96 or 24/192, whereas regular DVD resolution is still at CD quality of 16/44.  However, I must add that unless you use the HDMI connection for both the audio and the video, you will only hear down-converted audio. Unless you operate in a studio envirnment, HDMI is the key to HD sound reproduction in today's component system.

Or, just play an analog LP.

Good Listening,  ~Stephen W. Desper

[eran levy]

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.

[Stephen W. Desper]

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     
 

[jeffcdo]

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

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.

[Stephen W. Desper]

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

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

[Wirestone]

Great stuff, Stephen. Thanks.

[eran levy]

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

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

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?

[jeffcdo]

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

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

[Stephen W. Desper]

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

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

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
 

[jeffcdo]

TWGMTR now available in 24bit at HDtracks.

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

[b00ts]

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

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

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.