The Loudness Wars has invaded the streaming services.

[Sal1950]

Adding my 2 cents.

Should we worry that non-compressed (in a loudness sense, and not in the file size sense) masters get irremediably lost ?

I mean, the moment all those old CDs (approximately pre-loudness war era) get worn out.
How we can guarantee that the original material that was the basis of the dynamic and compressed master will be conserved.

Is the original material always digitized, and then mastered (in a dynamic or compressed way) ?

Not sure as to who's files you're worried about.
If their yours, a proper backup procedure is required.
If you mean the record company, they need to do regular backups of archived material to guard against deterioration. Also keeping storage in multiple locations, as the recent fire where so much music was lost forever, should have highlighted.

 

[oursmagenta]

Not sure as to who's files you're worried about.
If their yours, a proper backup procedure is required.
If you mean the record company, they need to do regular backups of archived material to guard against deterioration. Also keeping storage in multiple locations, as the recent fire where so much music was lost forever, should have highlighted.

Ah yeah, no, I meant the companies that maintain the original material (before mastering) in a good shape (or not, that was my concern).

I guess that for a lot of (pre-90s) content the original material could be analog in nature (analog tapes), sometimes digital (in the forms of digital tapes or files maybe also).

 

[bigguyca]

So it goes. Buy the newest MQA DAC based on “scientific“ SINAD wars and then use it to stream DR6 music

Individuals who buy MQA products are a target market for other "hi-res" audio products.

 

[threni]

Adding my 2 cents.

Should we worry that non-compressed (in a loudness sense, and not in the file size sense) masters get irremediably lost ?

I mean, the moment all those old CDs (approximately pre-loudness war era) get worn out.
How we can guarantee that the original material that was the basis of the dynamic and compressed master will be conserved.

Is the original material always digitized, and then mastered (in a dynamic or compressed way) ?

You can rest assured that such important cultural artefacts are backed up and stored safely in multiple locations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Universal_Studios_fire

 

[oursmagenta]

You can rest assured that such important cultural artefacts are backed up and stored safely in multiple locations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Universal_Studios_fire

Interesting, now they just need to stop compressing the dynamic of everything that comes out from those volts... and call them high res remasters.

 

[Sal1950]

You can rest assured that such important cultural artefacts are backed up and stored safely in multiple locations:

I hope so, the last time was kept secret for over 10 years.
Some people are hard to teach.

 

[L5730]

...
I would say this is the good example of Tidal's Bullshit. They just converted an mp3 to flac, that's just sad. Its better to upload the mp3 version than to make a fake flac version smh.
...

That reminds me a little of HDTracks release of Fleetwood Mac's Tango In The Night. Took a 16/44.1 and probably just went DAC/ADC to get a 24/96 or whatever. The source is 16/44.1 as far as I'm aware there isn't another master of higher bit depth or sampling rate. The CD, cheap readily available and only 1 version I think, warts and all.

 

[Helicopter]

Amazon has an equal loudness setting for their streaming service that is on by default. I bet 95% of users never turn it off. So at least there is very little incentive for record companies to add compression to the files they send in. Of course if they already have a compressed mastering handy, they may still send that one without considering it.

Amazon also often has multiple versions of many recordings. There are 5 versions of Fleetwood Mac Rumours, including one that says it is a 2001 remaster. Unfortunately, most of the versions don't give you mastering data, so you would have to analyze to fund their best one. Still, better than nothing.

The real solution here is obvious, buy vinyl, which doesn't deteriorate like other media, then don't play it, so it won't wear.

 

[mSpot]

I would say this is the good example of Tidal's Bullshit. They just converted an mp3 to flac, that's just sad.

To be fair, it is probably not Tidal's doing. It is more likely that those files were provided from the record label.

 

[ThatM1key]

That reminds me a little of HDTracks release of Fleetwood Mac's Tango In The Night. Took a 16/44.1 and probably just went DAC/ADC to get a 24/96 or whatever. The source is 16/44.1 as far as I'm aware there isn't another master of higher bit depth or sampling rate. The CD, cheap readily available and only 1 version I think, warts and all.

Reminds me of those Hong Kong SACDs. Upscaling 16/44.1 to DSD64. Even some Sony SACDs do this too.

Amazon has an equal loudness setting for their streaming service that is on by default. I bet 95% of users never turn it off. So at least there is very little incentive for record companies to add compression to the files they send in. Of course if they already have a compressed mastering handy, they may still send that one without considering it.

Amazon also often has multiple versions of many recordings. There are 5 versions of Fleetwood Mac Rumours, including one that says it is a 2001 remaster. Unfortunately, most of the versions don't give you mastering data, so you would have to analyze to fund their best one. Still, better than nothing.

The real solution here is obvious, buy vinyl, which doesn't deteriorate like other media, then don't play it, so it won't wear.

I would say normalizing volume is only good when you want to go to sleep. I bet those versions have weak DR like the Poison albums. I do give credit for Amazon Music HD and Qobuz for streaming actual files above 16/44.1. Look at tidal, it could be the shittest copy of the album and you have to ring it out with a $100 to $500 usb dac (Not including the LG V30 and above). Going to LP is a good solution but I prefer getting old CDs from the 80s to mid 1990s.

To be fair, it is probably not Tidal's doing. It is more likely that those files were provided from the record label.

Probably but Tidal still allowed it on there "Luxury Hifi" service.

 

[firedog]

That reminds me a little of HDTracks release of Fleetwood Mac's Tango In The Night. Took a 16/44.1 and probably just went DAC/ADC to get a 24/96 or whatever. The source is 16/44.1 as far as I'm aware there isn't another master of higher bit depth or sampling rate. The CD, cheap readily available and only 1 version I think, warts and all.

There's no such thing as an HDTracks release. They are simply a reseller of what's provided to them by distributors. AFAIK, HDT started checking for fake hi-res several years ago, and it's ceased to be an issue. Maybe an occasional exception, but as a rule there aren't upsampled files there anymore.
Hi-res from tape is a different animal. For some it's an issue, for others not.

 

[firedog]

Reminds me of those Hong Kong SACDs. Upscaling 16/44.1 to DSD64. Even some Sony SACDs do this too.

In classical music, turning old Redbook into SACD is considered acceptable, especially for multichannel purposes. There's a market there where the release of an SACD multichannel is considered more important than the fact that the source is Redbook. Also true in Japan, where SACD is still popular.
Classical labels tend to print the recording provenance on the booklet, so buyers know what they are buying.
Of course, I don't know much about Hong Kong SACDs. I'm referring to known classical labels.

 

[ThatM1key]

In classical music, turning old Redbook into SACD is considered acceptable, especially for multichannel purposes. There's a market there where the release of an SACD multichannel is considered more important than the fact that the source is Redbook. Also true in Japan, where SACD is still popular.
Classical labels tend to print the recording provenance on the booklet, so buyers know what they are buying.
Of course, I don't know much about Hong Kong SACDs. I'm referring to known classical labels.

I don't mind some Multichannel SACDs using 16/44 like Rock N Roll Memories (They say its 24bit 96khz master but I believe thats a lie). I'm talking about those SACDs that just upscale 16/44.1 Stereo to DSD Stereo and claiming its "High Quality" True DSD like Sony's "80's Hits" SACD. For context I'm not refereeing to the CD layer of those Hybrid SACDs, just the actual SACD layer itself. My problem with those upscaled SACD's is that people jack the price of them to high prices just because there "SACD" and the fact its just a waste of a upscale.

 

[Helicopter]

How do you even listen to multichannel SACD when the players (what I saw at least) don't have highres digital outputs or multichannel outputs?

 

[Sombreuil]

The real solution here is obvious, buy vinyl, which doesn't deteriorate like other media, then don't play it, so it won't wear.

A French engineer who worked with Daft Punk did an interview for a (French) webzine and said that, when he used to press vinyl he saw people using the CD master most of the time, the original master is apparently barely used nowadays.

 

[ThatM1key]

How do you even listen to multichannel SACD when the players (what I saw at least) don't have highres digital outputs or multichannel outputs?

My AV receiver can decode Multichannel DSD. For Physical SACDs I use my Sony UDP-X800 which outputs the DSD through HDMI. For DSD files I can use the receivers usb input or use my players usb input. My receiver is the Sony STR-DN1080. Its got a built in native DSD chip.

 

[Wombat]

My AV receiver can decode Multichannel DSD. For Physical SACDs I use my Sony UDP-X800 which outputs the DSD through HDMI. For DSD files I can use the receivers usb input or use my players usb input. My receiver is the Sony STR-DN1080. Its got a built in native DSD chip.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

 

[Sal1950]

Hi-res from tape is a different animal. For some it's an issue, for others not.

There's no such thing as HiRes from an analog tape.

My problem with those upscaled SACD's is that people jack the price of them to high prices just because there "SACD" and the fact its just a waste of a upscale.

That's for the crowd that buys into the claims that resampling PCM to DSD returns better sound, sure.

How do you even listen to multichannel SACD when the players (what I saw at least) don't have highres digital outputs or multichannel outputs?

That was done by the dirty rats to protect SACD's from being digitally copied like CDs.
You use HDMI to get the hirez stream into your AVR.
Their anti copy scheme is Ancient history now.

 

[ThatM1key]

I found more tidal bullshit.

I'll talk about each one

Standard: Techinally there not wrong but they don't tell you that there's files going under 320kbps. AAC is better than MP3 thats a plus I guess.

Lossless: The "1411kbps" is the standard of wav not flac, I don't know whos behind this marketing. Techinally there is fake flacs running around on Tidal as we seen before.

Master: I believe Tidal is starting be ashamed of having MQA, they don't even say it anymore. Techinally its a lossy codec and its literally being broken up. All MQA I've came across barely make it to 2000kbps. I have no idea where there getting that fucking 9216kbps figure from.

There is one thing they didn't talk about on there home page: Dolby Atmos.
Tidal using DD+ for Dolby Atmos, I wouldn't mind that if the mixes were good, there not. They felt like cheezy 5.1 upscales (like my alan jackson dvd). They barely used my Height speakers. Techinally DA (packing into a DD+) stream should be possible with chromecasting but its not and I don't know why. With my receiver its only gets the hifi version. Luckily I can get the direct files so I'm not worried. The problem is that you can't send a Dolby Atmos (any kind) over HDMI using Tidal (on pc) and thats stupid. Tidal does not plan to add that feature, so you have to go and out and buy a firestick, firecube or apple tv. The whole Dolby Atmos music thing reminds me of DTS 5.1 CDs and MP3Surround. Its pretty much a gimmick at this point. The movie side of DA is amazing. If you want a true DA experience you gotta watch the John Wick movies.

 

[L5730]

Its not all bad. Kenny G's older albums haven't been affected by the loudness, only the newer ones are. I would test Qobuz too but I don't have a subscription with them anymore.

My Physical Copy
View attachment 108256
Tidal:
View attachment 108257
Deezer:
View attachment 108258
Youtube (Direct OPUS):
View attachment 108264



My Copy:
View attachment 108260
Tidal:
View attachment 108259
Deezer:
View attachment 108261
Youtube (Direct Opus):
View attachment 108266


Links:
Tidal: https://tidal.com/browse/album/673610
Deezer: https://www.deezer.com/en/album/116410
Youtube:

Conclusion
There is some good cd's floating around on these platforms but they are hard to find. I wish companies would offer actually different versions of albums instead of having 4 of the same brickwall versions of the same album. Luckily there is only 1 version of this album on each platform and its really good. Even the free version has good DR.

Perhaps there could be a database somewhere that collects all of the "only one digital version" releases.
Whilst that Kenny G album sounds awfully dated (to me) with those synth lines and usual-name hired singers, it does have a certain clarity which lacking in a lot of material.

OK, so Fleetwood Mac "Tango In The Night" there is one CD, which was as cheaper than a couple of beers in supermarkets a few years ago.
Is there only one version of Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" CD?, I think so, but there are DVD-A and other digital variants.
It seems very few releases exist that have one CD version, and haven't been goosed with an updated 'modern' remastering. Quite a few have more than one period CD mastering, but they aren't dynamically neutered, just that one maybe from a higher gen. tape source.