Sign in   |  Join   |  Help

Beosound 5 and HD music files

rated by 0 users
Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 45 Replies | 3 Followers

VANTAGE
Not Ranked
66 Posts
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
VANTAGE posted on Wed, Jun 6 2012 6:52 PM

 

Hi all,

I am confused and hoping that somebody here can give me a bulletproof answer ;-)

I am the happy owner of a BS5/BM5 combo. All my music is in lossless-format, ie. in at least CD quality (16 bit-44.1 KHz), sometimes above (typically 24 bit-96 KHz). Regardless of quality or format (FLAC, WMA…) everything plays well on my system.

Here’s the question: on a well-known Danish B&O forum, I have read that BS5/BM5 does not play above CD quality, ie. if a file is provided in a higher quality (FLAC 24 bit-96 KHz for instance), it is “downgraded” to 44.1 KHz before being played. In an e-mail I have received today from Struer, I am even told that any FLAC-file above 48 KHz needs to be converted to 44.1 KHz before it can be played: that’s just plain wrong, as I haven’t touched the high resolution music files that I have bought, and they all play correctly. B&O also tells me that having BL5s (with digital cables and with BL5 selected as speakers in the BS5 menu) does not change things one bit: it will still be CD quality (44.1 KHz), no more.

Now maybe I got things completely wrong, but here on Beoworld I have read that the BS5 Encore can play up to 96 KHz and the BS5/BM5 combo, up to 192 KHz.

To sum things up: I know for a fact that my system DOES play files that are above 44.1 KHz or even 48 KHz. The question is whether it is playing them at the original high frequency, or not? Am I wasting money buying the more expensive HD music files? I mean it’s pretty pointless buying HD files if they get downgraded to CD quality anyway, right?

Can anybody here confirm FOR A FACT that BS5 / BM5 plays HD files correctly, at the appropriate original high frequency?

Many thanks for your support and guidance on the matter Smile

VANTAGE

 

 

Beovision Eclipse 65 -  BL5 - BL3

McIntosh MC601 x 2 - McIntosh C50 - McIntosh D100 -  McIntosh MHP1000 - Focal Scala V2 Utopia - McIntosh McAire

All Replies

koning
Top 25 Contributor
holland
4,188 Posts
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
koning replied on Sun, Mar 29 2015 12:51 AM

Jeff:

flachd:

I am buying flac files converted only from vinyls. The sites I am using is converting all the music only from the origin old vinyls which has better quality than from cd. They have all 192kHz/24bit. Sound great, believe

Try to donwload some from FLACHD.COM

Interesting, but a question. How were they ripped? What turntable, arm, and cartridge combo? What phono preamp? Unlike CD LPs can sound markedly different depending on the associated hardware, and opinions about turntable sound are at least as strongly held as in the digital file world. How do you know you got the best rip, for your ears or speakers, that a different combo would bring you to sonic nirvana?

and you also get all the LP issues as well as alleged benefits, distortion, inner groove particularly, mono bass, poor channel separation, phase irregularities. I have an album, Return To Forever's Romantic Warrior, severe inner groove distortion and limiting, I never heard the end of either album side cleanly until CD  

 

 

Oke'  

Vinyl Cleaning Process

 

3 Liter Ultrasonic Cleaner (Tap water with Sporicidin) on custom rotating assembly at 1 RPM for one hour

Vacuum off with Nitty Gritty

AIVS Premium Record Cleaner Formula No. 15 applied with Mofi Brush while rotating on VPI 16.5

McCulloch MC-1275 Heavy-Duty Steam Cleaner applied with Mofi Brush while rotating on VPI 16.5

Vacuum off with VPI 16.5

L’Art du Son Record Cleaning Fluid applied with VPI Bristle brush

Vacuum off with VPI 16.5

Whole Foods Deionized Water applied with Mofi Brush (Separate from AIVS Mofi Brush)

Vacuum off with VPI 16.5

Flip record and repeat

Place record on Plate Demgnetizer

Turntable Equipment Profile

 

VPI Scoutmaster with inverted bearing and 300 RPM motor

Trans-Fi ResoMat

Gingko Cloud 11 Vibration Control Platform

VPI Synchronous Drive System turntable motor speed controller and line isolator

Trans-Fi Audio Terminator T3Pro tangential tracking air bearing tonearm with Tomahawk Armwand

Zyx 4D-X/SB2 cartridge

 

Phono Stage Profile

 

Musical Surroundings Phonomena Phono Preamplifier

Musical Surroundings Battery Power Supply

Analog/Digital Convertion

 

RME ADI-2 =< ADAT =< E-MU 1212M

Adobe Audition 3.01 running on Windows XP in a Shuttle PC form factor

Post Processing Of Audio

 

Run thru ClickRepair(if necessary) at level 7 with

Pitch Protection | off

Reverse | on

Simple

Resample to 96khz in Izotope Rx2 using the default preset

Manually listen to album in Adobe Audition cleaning any clicks/anomalies

Flac with Xrecode II for hi-rez files

Flac with Trader’s Little Helper for redbook files

 

Satisfied Jeff ????

Jeff
Top 25 Contributor
USA
3,510 Posts
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Jeff replied on Sun, Mar 29 2015 12:17 PM

Satisfied? I think you missed my point. I might be satisfied if I happened to like that particular analog setup, never having heard it I have no idea, though I've had experience with both VPI and some tangential arm setups I'm not familiar with those particularly that cartridge. If you're saying "look, see, they use expensive and bespoke stuff so it's got to be good" I will grant you they seem to take care to do it well but the simple fact this looks expensive and tweaky is no guarantee I'd like the sound. In my experience different LP rigs, most especially cartridges, but also including cartridge/arm interactions and such, can sound as different as different speakers. There is no perfect electromechanical transducer, from the mics in the studio, to cartridges, to the speaker used to reproduce the sound.

And my point about capturing all the vinyl issues in digital form is still valid. Inner groove distortion for one, does not arise only from the fact that a non-tangential arm is used, though that induces non-linearities in the cartridge performance you don't get with a tangential arm. Notice I said the first time I heard a particular album without inner groove distortion was on CD, not the first time I heard it on a tangential tracking table. That is a simple matter of the linear velocity of the groove and how densely the wiggles that are the signal are packed in.

Also, if this is all you will buy, which I'm doubting, it would mean no new music not released on vinyl which limits selection greatly. But then there was the old joke about the audiophile who only listened to 10 special albums of music he couldn't stand because they were so well recorded and pressed.

Jeff

I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus. Sad

Chris
Top 75 Contributor
Ostend-BE
1,167 Posts
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Chris replied on Sun, Mar 29 2015 12:52 PM

Jeff:
the audiophile who only listened to 10 special albums of music he couldn't stand because they were so well recorded and pressed.

so thoroughly the truth! Whistle

 

"Believe nothing you read and only half of what you see, let your ears tell you the truth."

Millemissen
Top 10 Contributor
Flensborg, Denmark
12,414 Posts
ONLINE
Bronze Member

No matter how many liters of cleaning fluid, you would use, no matter how weird the power supply may be.......16 bit/48 kHz would be enough to capture anything, that can be in a vinyl release. If the source was a second (or third) generation analog tape, even less would do the trick.

The only 'good thing' about vinyl releases is, that they aren't as hot mastered as many of the CD releases - simply because that is not possible.

Taking the best available analog master tapes (for older recordings) and using state of the art D/A converters to make a redbook/CD quality version, would be far better, than doing a vinyl version (ripped to 24/96-192). But you would (of course) not get the beloved 'analog' feeling/sound, that comes with a vinyl release.

Personally I prefer the correct (digital) version to the coloured (analog) version.

MM

There is a tv - and there is a BV.

Puncher
Top 10 Contributor
Durham
11,600 Posts
OFFLINE
Bronze Member

koning:
RME ADI-2 =< ADAT =< E-MU 1212M
Not sure I understand why you would do this! The RME is a decent enough converter capable of 24 bit 192khz conversion - why record to 16 bit 48khz ADAT, process to remove noise and clicks and then upsample to 96khz? It seems to make no sense, surely you would record directly to pc at 24 bit 96khz, process using Audition's 32 bit floating point engine and then save as 24bit 96 khz flac!

A well recorded and mastered cd (or hd file, i may not be able to hear any difference but it cant be worse!) for me anyday!

Ban boring signatures!

koning
Top 25 Contributor
holland
4,188 Posts
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
koning replied on Sun, Mar 29 2015 6:26 PM

Personally I prefer the correct (digital) version to the coloured (analog) version.

 

Have you download a album from PBTHAL Millemissen?

Millemissen
Top 10 Contributor
Flensborg, Denmark
12,414 Posts
ONLINE
Bronze Member

koning:

Have you download a album from PBTHAL Millemissen?

This is 'old stuff' to me - left that road years ago!

I used to be 'a believer'.

Now ------- I buy my downloads, rip bought CD's and pay for a streaming service!

MM

There is a tv - and there is a BV.

koning
Top 25 Contributor
holland
4,188 Posts
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
koning replied on Sun, Mar 29 2015 7:38 PM

None of you guys actualy listened to these rips.

You can only comment.

So I stop with this discussionAngry

 

Jeff
Top 25 Contributor
USA
3,510 Posts
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Jeff replied on Sun, Mar 29 2015 8:30 PM

Puncher:

koning:
RME ADI-2 =< ADAT =< E-MU 1212M
Not sure I understand why you would do this! The RME is a decent enough converter capable of 24 bit 192khz conversion - why record to 16 bit 48khz ADAT, process to remove noise and clicks and then upsample to 96khz? It seems to make no sense, surely you would record directly to pc at 24 bit 96khz, process using Audition's 32 bit floating point engine and then save as 24bit 96 khz flac!

A well recorded and mastered cd (or hd file, i may not be able to hear any difference but it cant be worse!) for me anyday!

You're right, that is really odd, and in general the more digital conversions the worse off you are as it's one more chance to muck it up. I think the reason they upsample to 96 is marketing, but why they'd not encode directly to it is odd.

As for not having heard them, I've heard plenty of analog in my life. I don't need to listen to another incarnation of it to know the problems that are inherent to the medium. I also by now don't need to taste kale to know I don't like it, or step in dog doo to know it smells.

Jeff

I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus. Sad

Millemissen
Top 10 Contributor
Flensborg, Denmark
12,414 Posts
ONLINE
Bronze Member

koning:

None of you guys actualy listened to these rips.

You can only comment.

So I stop with this discussionAngry

There are several 'guys' out there distributing (!) rips of vinyls (aka 'needle drops').

They all have a slightly different approach to 'vinyl ripping'.

I am not going to spend more time on this matter.

So I would also stop this discussion - however, I don't need to attach a Angry because of that!

MM

 

There is a tv - and there is a BV.

Puncher
Top 10 Contributor
Durham
11,600 Posts
OFFLINE
Bronze Member

Thanks

koning:

None of you guys actualy listened to these rips.

You can only comment.

So I stop with this discussionAngry

 

what is the ultimate aim - to accurately reproduce the sound encoded on vinyl or to best reproduce the sound capture during recording? ? They are different things!

 

Ban boring signatures!

Millemissen
Top 10 Contributor
Flensborg, Denmark
12,414 Posts
ONLINE
Bronze Member

Puncher:

 what is the ultimate aim - to accurately reproduce the sound encoded on vinyl or to best reproduce the sound capture during recording? ? They are different things!

You actually can 'reproduce the sound capture' made during the recording in different ways - depending on the medium of the reproduction.

If you go for vinyl, you will have to master for vinyl - which involves preparing the files/the music for the specifications of the 'medium vinyl'.

Same goes for preparing for a CD. With a CD release though, it is easier to do 'hot mastering' (make 'loud releases') as with a vinyl release.

That and the 'feeling' of the vinyl sound is the reason, why some prefer the vinyl releases.

if the origin of the files allows for it/if the recordings were done in 24/96 or more, they should be released as 24/96 downloads, or on discs like BluRay or DVD-A.

A 'responsible' mastering engineer does not do any 'hot mastering' - responsible artists don't allow 'hot mastering' of their studio work (there are 'artistic exceptions'). In most cases this kind of mastering (which has lead to the 'loudness war' ) is pushed by producers, record companies etc - because they believe, that this is the only way, that 'their' releases can stand out against the competition!

it is not so much a matter of, which medium is used - it is more a matter of, how the engineers etc are dealing with the 'flat masters' coming from the artists and the recording/mixing engineers in the studio.

Many older 'classic rock' artists even prefer analog/vinyl releases of their recordings.

Personally I don't see much reason in releasing modern 24/96 recordings on vinyl!

In most cases I am happy with a CD or a redbook standart FLAC download.

MM

There is a tv - and there is a BV.

Jeff
Top 25 Contributor
USA
3,510 Posts
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Jeff replied on Mon, Mar 30 2015 12:01 AM

Back when this whole analog/digital kerfluffle started various people did tests where they took the master tape, the vinyl release, and the CD release, often on "audiophile" labels that released in both LP and CD, or in some cases compared the CD to the master tape itself where there was no LP release. They compared the end media to the final master tape from the studio, not of course to the adjusted tape used to cut LPs. In every case I know about the CD was either identical (tests I trust more ) or nearly so (sighted tests that I don't trust as much) to the master. That was enough to convince me that CD, old fashioned 44.1/16, is transparent enough. If you still believe LP sounds more "real" or such, you prefer the euphonic distortions LP induces. Some of them can sound engaging, but they also come along with a lot of other distortions and noise that aren't as pleasant.

Back in the 80s Bob Carver produced and sold a thing called a Digital Time Lens. He had examined LPs and reproduced the freq response and phase anomalies common to LPs. You ran the CD player output thru the processor and could switch the effect in or out. It did indeed make CDs much more vinyl like, but by then I was already over my fetish with LP sound and had fully embraced digital, so it never tempted me.

I always thought someone could do a CD player with a DAC that had plug ins that captured the measured aberrations of different cartridge/arm/table combos and you could sell multiple plugins. Say, one was for a VPI table with an SME arm and Shure V15, another would be for say a Grace 707 arm with a Denon moving coil on a Revolver or some such. I'm surprised no one has done this but it appears the hard core vinylphile won't even consider that CD can be as good and won't buy into this.

 

 

Jeff

I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus. Sad

Millemissen
Top 10 Contributor
Flensborg, Denmark
12,414 Posts
ONLINE
Bronze Member
@Jeff Some mixing engineers use such or similar plugins, and can easily make their mixes 'sound analog' - if prefered. Still - I think you are right, the hardcore-vinylphiles would never buy the cd anyway.... ......but maybe the 'highres' versions (for 10 $/€/£ more). MM

There is a tv - and there is a BV.

Jeff
Top 25 Contributor
USA
3,510 Posts
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Jeff replied on Mon, Mar 30 2015 10:45 PM

Millemissen:
@Jeff Some mixing engineers use such or similar plugins, and can easily make their mixes 'sound analog' - if prefered. Still - I think you are right, the hardcore-vinylphiles would never buy the cd anyway.... ......but maybe the 'highres' versions (for 10 $/€/£ more). MM

MY brother-in-law is a pretty good musician, manages to fill most nights a week with gigs. He is in a rhythm and blues band, plays sax and guitar. He has a studio he built in his basement that is remarkably well equipped and laid out, he records there and rents it to other muscians. He has shown me his setup and I've seen it morph over the years and you're right, he has some amazing "plug in" filters and equalizer settings implemented fully in the digital domain. He is quite adamant that he wants to record at 24 bit because of the fudge factor but that mixing down to 16 is all he feels required. I've listened to his recordings over the years, and it's amazing how much he's progressed, both in equipment and in talent/skill too...his latest stuff sounds as good as most anything I hear short of a few higher end, very well recorded albums, and that is perhaps due as much to studio acoustics as engineering talent. He's a talented guy.

Back in the day of the famous Columbia mono orchestral recordings, they used a series of different rooms with an Altec 604 coax speaker at one end and a mic located towards the other end. Different room treatments, even different pressures and types of gas in the rooms, some pressurized, some partially evacuated, some with nitrogen. They connected to these over very long distances of telephone cable from the studio, and they were used to provide different ambiance and reverb/hall effects by mixing in different amounts from one or more rooms to the final recording, an extremely analog/physical approach to what's done in digital today.

Jeff

I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus. Sad

Page 3 of 4 (46 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS
Beoworld Security Certificate

SSL