Gents (m/f),

Short version:
Guy (me) looking for high definition audio sources. (96/24 or even better, 192/24, assuming it is not just a resampled copy!). Preferrably NOT SACD. (since I don't own a player). Suggestions? There were some online stores for it but I can't find stores that actually cater to Europe.

More details:
I'm setting up a listening test at my home.

Fixed: Speakers (Quad 989's), Power amp (Bel Canto Evo4 gen2, bridged)
Variable (i.e. this is what we're testing):

• Bel Canto DAC3 (BurrBrown 1792A based, 192K resampling through highfreq ASRC, 192/24 input)
• Benchmark DAC1 (AD1896 based, 110K resampling through ASRC, 96/24 input)
• High-end CD player (don't know the specs, but I assume 44/16)

Now Im interested in 'many things' including differences in source material and the rendering thereof. So any sources of 192/24 or 96/24 would be very welcome.

If you can find the special edition of Neil Young's Live at Massey Hall 1971, the bonus DVD has the concert in 24/96 PCM. If need be, you can separate the audio out through ripping tools (doom9.org is a good starting point) and play the WAV files to compress to another lossless.

Wow, with your setup you are in the position of easily find differencies between "transparent lossy" (as somebody talks about on the forum) and perfect rips. No ABX needed. Just use yor ears.

Due to my economy, I had to sell my gear and can not compete with your, but my ears are still active

I am still interested in your idea of finding real hi-fi samples, I will try to help you. I am working at a video production company and working with some sound engineer pros. Maybe they can provide samples at high sample rates and bitdepths.

I think what you want is here:

http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-downloads-what.aspx

Cheers,
David.

You can try the Mytek (AD and DA converters) website. Quite a few samples there, including flac and ABX promotion !

http://www.mytekdigital.com/compare/index.htm

The problem with such recordings you suggest, is that they are remasters off analog master tapes. Back in that day, those masters would be lucky if they would have a SNR of 70dB. Your suggestion is definately worth a listen to see what gives, but I think as far as top-quality-sources go, this one would not do.



Wow, I didnt know that DVD audio could be separated off the DVD so easily, I of course do have a DVD-rom in my computer so if I can pull the data off the drive and send it to my player (I play all my audio with winamp driving a semi-pro (24/192 capable) m-audio revolution 5.1 sound card's digital out)

Your specific point about 'PCM' is well-taken though, nabbing some 'DTS' or (the horror!) AC3 source off DVD will not do. Lossy! Surround! Aiieee.. (ok I exaggerate, some STEREO, High-bitrate DTS or even AC3 tracks are perhaps fine.)

Can anyone suggest more DVDs with DVDA tracks that are perhaps digitally recorded? Especially please chime in if it says the audio is in 192K/24!


Ah but I don't trust my ears More specifically since all psychological factors point toward the Bel Canto. Y'see I actually just bought that one and I can't return it, only can sell it (which should not be -that- hard, it is brand new, full warranty and I got it at 60% new price!). It's so pretty and it matches my amplifier and it's a lot more expensive. Everything points to that being the DAC I -want- to win, compared to the very utilitarian Benchmark DAC1. As many experiments here tell, people that WANT to hear some result, will usually convince themselves they do hear it.

ABX it must be.



That would be awesome. If you could, please ask them too about the possibility of '192Khz sources'. Upsampling performance is one thing, but my interest also lies with 'maxed out' sources. That said, for now I think the state of the art is only recently moving to actual 192K/24b recording instead of 96/24 (and perhaps software upsampling.. cheaters!)



Cool, thanks! Ive already downloaded the test samples, and ooooh Mozart's Requiem in 24/96 FLAC.. I think Im going to have to buy that one.. Eep. 27 euros.. thats pretty steep.



Excellent Kees, my previous response to von runkel is already out of date, it looks like those are 192K sources! *all excited*.

Keep them coming everyone.

As a small update, I did find this:

http://www.aixrecords.com/catalog/sampler2.html

Fair point. I will give this title one last nudge as the album has been mentioned in two separate instances in the forum's 'well-mastered albums' thread, and AFAIK that was for the CD version (mine was anyway... hah). If you try it and still find it short, no worries.

As someone pretty smart once said - Usually its either good music or well recorded, but -both- is very rare. Currently my goal is trying to find some differences between sources, which means if I can get a 192K source and downsample it myself, I can do proper comparisons. When that is done I'll go right back to enjoying good music, and well actually finding 192K recordings of artists I like is simply impossible still. Neil Young on the other hand is on my 'like him' list...

That said.. in general I dislike live recordings.. (a concert is awesome to be at, but listening at home to people having a good time, singing along out of key, clapping with no rythm and whistling, hollering.. mm..)

This is really good...

http://www.chesky.com/core/details.cfm?pro...uctcategoryid=2

...but the high resolution tracks are DVD-A, and so not as easy to rip. I think I bought it via Amazon (not cheap).

I think this one is DVD-V:
http://www.chesky.com/core/details.cfm?pro...uctcategoryid=2
I think it's where I got McDougal's men (hosted at ff123's samples page downsampled to 48kHz) from, but IIRC there's a mastering error (several samples delay between channels!) which I had to correct.

There's other nice stuff from Chesky. I believe many of his masters are high resolution PCM in Ambisonic B-format (which he can render very nicely to 6 speakers), but sadly audiophiles seem to prefer SACD so that's what most of his releases are.

Cheers,
David.

ABX (or some blind protocol) still needed. ABX is 'just using your ears'. The type of comparison you're advocating uses ears, eyes, and built-in biases.

The samples the OP wants can be gotten by ripping from DVD-A (difficult and possibly illegal, but not impossible), some music DVD-V with 'high res' PCM tracks, the few 'HDD' 'high definition' music discs from Classic records (2-channel 96/24 PCM), or making some test signals yourself with any number of audio tools (e.g. Audition) , or home recording with a suitable soundcard.

Don't know why the OP is obsessed with 192/24 -- it's ridiculous overkill, and no guarantee of mastering quality.
But FWIW here are two DVD-As with 192/24 stereo tracks :

Steely Dan Everything Must Go (probably Two Against Nature too) -- packaging says 96/24 but it's not, it's 192/24, according to my player readout
Neil Young Harvest

Isn't that just annoying though? I think Ive found out what to do and how, but all I really want to do is play back music that I own, as well as 'technically' possible.

Well indeed, recording 96/24 off microphones, then remixing at 192 is feasible too.

that is what I am scientifically (as well as I personally can anyway) am trying to find out, instead of listening to some unfounded claim

Nothing guarantees mastering quality, but everything else being equal..

Thanks!

I don't get you.

What's preventing you from playing your DVD_As?

Ripping them makes playing them more *convenient* , is all.



And what would be the point of that?




The 'claim' is founded in rather good science regarding the limits of human hearing.



And how , pray tell, are you going to guarantee THAT?

Well, for one, isn't that reason enough to be opposed to this type of restrictive DRM that prevents me to play a disk the way I want to play it.
But if you wish more reasons, how about this: I've specifically bought my main stereo around the concept of high end digital audio. I have made the choice to not 'bother' with analog sources.

Yet DVD-A requires of me to somehow create an analog path if I want to play them back. (since players are not allowed to digitally output the source at 24/96, let alone 24/192).

Instead, I would either have to purchase an analog pre-amp, Or I would have to resort to ripping. And if I would buy the analog pre-amp, I would then be degrading my audio quality down to some midclass DA conversion setup built into the DVD-A player, while I have the 'perfect' DAC standing idle right next to it.


Any digital mastering engineer will tell you it makes sense to master at a higher bitdepth than the recording sources are. If you need detailed explainations google for them. Perhaps the question if it is all overkill might be legit but as I said before, that is (partially) the reason I set out to do this experiment in the first place: to find out if there are differences.

In that case, please provide good science, instead of just claiming you have good science.


This is what one would commonly refer to as 'logic+science'. Nothing in our non-perfect world can be made into a perfect 'all things being equal' situation. Instead, the scientific way is to try to -approach- the perfect situation you can, try to account for all discrepancies and then draw your conclusions.

Anyway I would ask you guys to stop the discussion about 'if 192/24' is a good idea at all. While it is a legit question in principle, it is off topic in this discussion. Feel free to point to a relevant topic and then carry on here, pointing at links to HD sources.

I've just been doing some reading up this morning and as far as I've worked out it is possible to play back DVD-A and SACD content over a digital connection if your player has HDMI out and your amp has HDMI in.

Either the player will decode the audio and send the PCM to the amp or the player will send the MLP and the amp can decode. Not sure under exactly what circumstances either of these rules take over. But it's definitely possible Guess you just need to research which players and amps support DVD-A/SACD over HDMI feature

Enjoy
24/96 material.

Grabbed the sampler! Thanks a bunch. Wow more to listen than I expected. I ordered 2 disks from AIX records too.

Thank you very much!

I am (ab)using them to test my lossless TAK codec. For this purpose "Historic du Soldat" is very interesting because it totally fools one of TAK's prediction methods...

Well, if you are really committed to that, you *could* use one of the player/receiver combos that do allow digital transmission of DVD-A, using ilink, HDMI or a proprietary link. (I'd recommend the Oppo 970 HD as a lowcost option which can pass DVD-A via HDMI , but it's unclear whether that truncates 24-bit sources or not (it does via analog outs).




Again, see above. Digital transmission of DVD-A (and SACD) have been available for some years now.
It's just not very widespread.



My question pertained specifically to the sampling rate. Production at a bitdepth higher than 16 bit is sensible (24 or 32 suffice); raising the sampling rate to 192 kHz is *pointless*, as Dan Lavry, a guy whyo designs high-end ADC/DACs, will tell you (and explain why too)



I guess now it's my turn to tell you to 'google for it'...perhaps starting with the JAES article index. Or consult psychoacoustics texts (I even recall a thread on HA that was devoted to listing references like that...)

Not necessarily. The HDMI version matters. HDMI 1.1 is required for DVD-A; SACD in its native form (DSD) requires HDMI 1.2 (.1. can pass it after conversion to PCM ); also, presence of the 'proper' version doesn't guarantee that all its options have been implemented. I'm not which if any HDMI 1.2 rigs actually pass DSD.



In these cases (where player can pass hi-rez digitally) the player decodes, the AVR merely receives the PCM or DSD and does D/A conversion. Pioneer, Denon, Yamaha are three 'name' brands I know of that offer at least one player with a 'hi rez' digital out (ilink or Denonlink). HDMI 1.1 is pretty common by now in both players and AVRs but again its presence is no guarantee that he unit will pass all 'hi rez' sources.

You're welcome
Waiting for the next release of TAK

Please post the results of your listening test when you're done. I'd be very interested to know what you find.

Hi guys,

OK my test between the Benchmark DAC1, The Bel Canto DAC3 and the (built-in) DAC inside a Bow Technologies ZZ-Eight CD player is done.

The Bel Canto DAC3 sounds just as good as the Benchmark to me and one of my friends. The second friend had a mild preference for the DAC3 - so I returned the DAC1 (not just because of the minute possible audio quality difference, I was also allowed to still return the DAC1, and the DAC3 would have to be sold secondhand if the DAC1 had the way stronger vote.)

Some more specifics:

Setup Used:
- Bel Canto Evo 4 gen2
- Quad 989 speakers.
- PC playing various audio sources (winamp -> kernel streaming -> M-Audio Revolution 5.1 -> 75ohm coax cable)

The test:
Essentially two people sat behind eachother (in the center of the room), while a third person would secretly switch between the 3 devices as source. Devices were all matched to the Bow's audio output. I know, this isn't exactly fair since at least the DAC3 uses digital attenuation. Oh well.

The ABX tests were then done with multiple sources :

- Always a use - Madeleine Peyroux (HDCD and normal CD)
- November '99 - Manu Katzche
- One without the Other - Dorian Michael - 192/24 DVDA
- Bad Condition - Steve Pierson - 96/24 DVDA

Sony Sound Forge 9 was used to downsample sources when needed. (best quality)

Of course for the CD player, some sources had to be downsampled. I have no idea how to make HDCD sources so the CD player had the advantage with Madeleine, but the disadvantage with the DVDA sources.
The DAC3 was not able to handle 192Khz sources, so we downsampled.
The results basically were as follows:

The statements below were verified by doing the actual ABXing, i.e. if the listener was able to pick out the source they claimed had their preference 3 out of 4 times when been given samples without telling which was which. Also a statement is only mentioned below when 2 out of 3 of our listeners agrees.

- We were able to distinguish between 96/24 sources and a 48/16 downsample, also played with the same DACs. (downsampling 96 to 44 did seem less fair). The differences were subtle, usually described as more defined highs, but also the stereo positioning seemed more defined.

- The CD player lost in every situation except when playing the HDCD version while the DAC's had to upsample the normal CD data. The conclusion seems to be that if you have a choice, get the HDCD.

- Lagavulin Whisky tastes very nice.

- The sound the CD player made was, in general, much thinner and sounded anemic. Also the depth of the soundstage just seemed less deep, all instruments sounded like they were on one line right between the speakers, no 3rd dimension.

- Nobody could distinguish between XLR and RCA('tulip') connectors anywhere in the signal line.

Finally, we tried introducing jitter by (instead of using 75ohm coax cable) we used two long (10m) single strands of standard lamp wire. No luck, both DACs played just fine.

In the end I guess the conclusion must be that sound-quality wise the DAC3 and the DAC1 are very close rivals, and your choice will be mainly based on things like:
- Aesthetics, few people will disagree that the DAC3 is built 'prettier', while the DAC1 is an industrial looking piece of equipment.
- Headphone outs. The DAC3 has none.
- New Price: DAC1-USB was about $1300, DAC3 is $2500 (also USB)
- Remote: DAC3 has one, DAC1 doesnt.

In my case, I bought a brand-new, in-warranty DAC3 for $1500, which perfectly matches my Bel Canto amplifier, so the choice wasn't hard. Sound quality wise, either will do just fine for most people, including me.