Found this website with downloads of the Japanese Flat Transfers
Exile: [www.e-onkyo.com]
But unfortunately it's only available in Japan.
Any other download store where you can buy these?
I do not own a SA-CD-Player as all this stuff is very expensive.

Just two magic words - google and torrent.

Quote
ironbelly
Just two magic words - google and torrent.

Found some of these but being not an internet crack I have some security concerns and many of them need premium accounts don't they?

Quote
ironbelly
Just two magic words - google and torrent.

Don't use torrents for official content nowadays

E-Onkyo is due to licensing restrictions only available in Japan - while [OnkyoMusic.com] is also available in the United States, United Kingdom and Germany.

But at Onkyo the RS-Albums are "only" FLAC, not DSD (like on SACD).

Acoustic Sounds is unfortunately only available in North America:

Let It Bleed DSD: [Store.AcousticSounds.com]

Mono-Box DSD: [Store.AcousticSounds.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-13 21:00 by Irix.

Quote
glimmertwin1

Quote
ironbelly
Just two magic words - google and torrent.

Don't use torrents for official content nowadays

Unless you already bought an original of what you download...

I bought all the Japanese flat transfer SACD but was happy to be able to download a digital copy of them on a well-known site so I can also enjoy them on other devices than my SACD player...

Quote
Irix
StonedRambler - if you temporary unhide your eMail, there'll be a hint ....

Sure

It's a shame that you can't just simply buy them. Why do they not want getting money from us?

Quote
999

Quote
glimmertwin1

Quote
ironbelly
Just two magic words - google and torrent.

Don't use torrents for official content nowadays

Unless you already bought an original of what you download...

I bought all the Japanese flat transfer SACD but was happy to be able to download a digital copy of them on a well-known site so I can also enjoy them on other devices than my SACD player...

Sure thing - Stones don't care but torrents can bring you great trouble nowadays ... that's what I meant.

That's a good question. Why Universal can't release these excellent remasters/flat transfers (or whatever they call them) as downloads in PCM form. That would be fantastic.

Currently Onkyo has only EOMS, Sticky Fingers, Tattoo You, Goats Head Soup and Love You Live. [www.e-onkyo.com]

Quote
kowalski
That's a good question. Why Universal can't release these excellent remasters/flat transfers (or whatever they call them) as downloads in PCM form. That would be fantastic.

Currently Onkyo has only EOMS, Sticky Fingers, Tattoo You, Goats Head Soup and Love You Live. [www.e-onkyo.com]

Do you know how to buy it from there from outside Japan?

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
kowalski
That's a good question. Why Universal can't release these excellent remasters/flat transfers (or whatever they call them) as downloads in PCM form. That would be fantastic.

Currently Onkyo has only EOMS, Sticky Fingers, Tattoo You, Goats Head Soup and Love You Live. [www.e-onkyo.com]

Do you know how to buy it from there from outside Japan?

No idea. I think Onkyo asks for a Japanese credit card number.

With a bit of researching in the Internet I found out that there are not just SA-CDs (for which you need a SA-CD player) but also SHM-CDs which you can play on a standard CD player. They use the same flat transfer masters as the SA-CDs, just that they are 16bit/44KHz instead of 24bit/96KHz. But as I don't need those high Samplerates and Bit dephts anyway, I ordered Sticky and Exile as SHM-CDs. You get these for around 45€ (really expensive for normal CDs) but as those are two of my alltime favourite albums and I know I will listen to them for the rest of my life, it should be worth it.

So for those who want the Flat-Transfers but have no SA-CD Player. Just look after the SHM-CDs from 2013 (those from 2010 use the Remasters)

Quote
StonedRambler

They use the same flat transfer masters as the SA-CDs, just that they are 16bit/44KHz instead of 24bit/96KHz.

Not quite correct: (SHM-) SACDs use the 2.8MHz/1bit DSD-Format while the (SHM-) CDs use the 44.1kHz/16bit PCM-Format.

Thanks Irix! Did not know that. Do you guys hear a definitive sound improvement from "HD" quality (more than 16bit/44.1khz) and CD Quality? I do not really, as I have some downloads from HD Tracks although I am somebody who hears obvious differences between 320kbit MP3 and lossless.

Quote
StonedRambler

Do you guys hear a definitive sound improvement from "HD" quality (more than 16bit/44.1khz) and CD Quality?

Hi-Res as well as SACD sounds more detailed, more transparent and more spatially. CD-Quality on the other hand sounds more compact.

But the most important thing is the Recording-Quality as well as the Mastering ....

Quote
Irix

Quote
StonedRambler

Do you guys hear a definitive sound improvement from "HD" quality (more than 16bit/44.1khz) and CD Quality?

Hi-Res as well as SACD sounds more detailed, more transparent and more spatially. CD-Quality on the other hand sounds more compact.

But the most important thing is the Recording-Quality as well as the Mastering ....

But why should it sound better? A 44.1 KHz Sample Rate is able to 100 percent accurately reconstruct an analog waveform to until 20KHz. And most of us will not hear frequencies over 17 KHz. There are anti-aliasing filters but they are working at around 20KHz which most of us do not hear. I would say that if people hear differences then either because their converters work better with higher sample rates or because the mastering is different. But I doubt there is a difference between a 2009 Remaster from a CD and a 2009 Remaster from HD Tracks. As for Bit Depth 16 bit gives 96db of dynamic range and that should be more than a symphonic orchestra takes, or not? But if someone can give reasonable arguments for HD audio being better, would be very interesting

There is no digital format which is able to 100 percent accurately reconstruct an analog waveform,in my opinion.

Quantization noise,errors,jitter.

2009 Remasters are no good. "Some Girls" eventually did go on sale at HDtracks but,the HD they were selling for that particular album was garbage. Probably up-converted from the same material as the 2009 Universal CD .... worse than the old CBS CD.

You hit the nail on the head with the "converters" issue. Most DAC's (digital-to-analog converters) which can handle both pure DSD and PCM seem to have an easier time, or do a better job with DSD.

I can hear the difference. But depending on equipement it can be more or less revealing. Usually à CD has some kind of edgeness to the sound. It just sounds harsher than 24 bit releases. Then there's a lack of definition. If you listen only to CD's you won't probably notice much difference when listening for the first time to a 24 bit recording. But if your ears are used to 24bit (or DSD) recordings, you would immediately notice the difference. To me it's really a matter of comfort. CD is not that bad, it can reproduce the original recording quite fairly, but it struggles to convey any emotion, which DSD or 24 bit can achieve much better.

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
There is no digital format which is able to 100 percent accurately reconstruct an analog waveform,in my opinion.

Quantization noise,errors,jitter.

Well, the signal-to-noise ratio of 16bit is around 96dB, quantisation noise happens that low that if you would like to hear it during some super, super, super quite parts, you had to turn it up so loud that you would lose your hearing instantly (no joke)! If you could even find a system that could be turned up that much... Also the dithering noise which is used to smooth out quantisation errors is much quieter than the tape hiss you hear on most analogue recordings (if you turn the volume up), so even if you would turn it up that much that you would lose all your hearing - you still could not hear the quantisation noise 'cause the tape hiss would mask it. Just to show how overrated these "artifacts" are. The digital waveform is more similar to the original waveforms (in the range until 20Khz) of the masterbands (if a flat transfer is made) than any vinyl will be
As for DSD I read about a study where trained musicans should hear the differences to PCM on state of the art audio equipment in an optimised and sealed off room. And the biggest part could not hear any differences at all. So I would say, if you do, it has more to do with your audio system that works better with DSD files.
Here's a very interested article about DSD: [www.mojo-audio.com]


Unfortunately the reputation of digital audio still suffers from it's early days when the resolution was really low and it sounded cold and sterile. So peope think that is still the same, just that the sterility is less because the resolution is higher. And so it seems logical that with higher resolution the sterility gets less and less. And that's partly true, but people forget that the resolution increases exponentially bit every bit. It's clear that it sounded kind of sterile with 8 bit which has just 256 dynamic increments. But with 65,536 increments at 16 bit? C'mon guys..

I would recommend every audiophile to employ with the basics of digital audio.
I did because in the past I worried about digital audio as I thought of it as it is trying to simulate the converted analog signal, and that we just don't notice it being simulated as we don't notice the individual pictures of a film. But now as I know how it really works I just started to appreciate what a blessing digital audio actually is!

Anyway, I'm totally fine if these HD versions give people a better feeling and make them happier when they listen to them. But as I don't hear a difference and I also can not rationally explain why there should be any, I am fine with 16bits



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-17 18:42 by StonedRambler.

CD or High Res Audio is both good IF the mastering is good. No point in buying a brickwalled digital product with compression and no dynamic range to speak of.

Give me dynamic range values 10 or higher and I buy the cd with the music I like.

The problem is the crushing of the dynamic range in the mastering nowadays. Totally don't understand this practise.

By the way, speaking of the SACD's from 1971 - 1986 : Dirty Work is the biggest improvement to my ears and sounds fantastic.

Quote
StonedRambler

Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
There is no digital format which is able to 100 percent accurately reconstruct an analog waveform,in my opinion.

Quantization noise,errors,jitter.

Well, the signal-to-noise ratio of 16bit is around 96dB, quantisation noise happens that low that if you would like to hear it during some super, super, super quite parts, you had to turn it up so loud that you would lose your hearing instantly (no joke)! If you could even find a system that could be turned up that much... Also the dithering noise which is used to smooth out quantisation errors is much quieter than the tape hiss you hear on most analogue recordings (if you turn the volume up), so even if you would turn it up that much that you would lose all your hearing - you still could not hear the quantisation noise 'cause the tape hiss would mask it. Just to show how overrated these "artifacts" are. The digital waveform is more similar to the original waveforms (in the range until 20Khz) of the masterbands (if a flat transfer is made) than any vinyl will be
As for DSD I read about a study where trained musicans should hear the differences to PCM on state of the art audio equipment in an optimised and sealed off room. And the biggest part could not hear any differences at all. So I would say, if you do, it has more to do with your audio system that works better with DSD files.
Here's a very interested article about DSD: [www.mojo-audio.com]


Unfortunately the reputation of digital audio still suffers from it's early days when the resolution was really low and it sounded cold and sterile. So peope think that is still the same, just that the sterility is less because the resolution is higher. And so it seems logical that with higher resolution the sterility gets less and less. And that's partly true, but people forget that the resolution increases exponentially bit every bit. It's clear that it sounded kind of sterile with 8 bit which has just 256 dynamic increments. But with 65,536 increments at 16 bit? C'mon guys..

I would recommend every audiophile to employ with the basics of digital audio.
I did because in the past I worried about digital audio as I thought of it as it is trying to simulate the converted analog signal, and that we just don't notice it being simulated as we don't notice the individual pictures of a film. But now as I know how it really works I just started to appreciate what a blessing digital audio actually is!

Anyway, I'm totally fine if these HD versions give people a better feeling and make them happier when they listen to them. But as I don't hear a difference and I also can not rationally explain why there should be any, I am fine with 16bits

How is this supposed top mean anything to anyone if you do not list your complete chain of equipment and which digital audio tracks you used to do a direct comparison ??

Digital audio's reputation suffers from its early days at 8-bit ?? The Compact Disc Digital Audio format has always been 16-bits / 44.1 kHz as far as I am aware. That was the standard format for around 20 years until degraded mp3's took off. Or were there 8-bit CD's,discs,or other digital media available to the public that I am not aware of ??

I am listening to birds chirping outside of my window right now. I can say without a doubt that I have never heard anything in the world of digital audio that sounds as realistic as real life. Certainly not on a standard CD or mp3.

Furthermore,to apply some common sense here,it is not possible to sound better than an original master. How would it be done?? By adding elements that were not actually there??

My post was not about my personal listening preferences but about some technological facts why 16bit audio is enough, about quantisation noise and dynamic range. Therefore my chain of equipment is irrelevant. These information are about digital audio in general. Early digital recordings were 12bit which technology was long used in sampling devices due to less storage. That the birds outside your window sound better than any recording does not have to do with digital/analog recording. There is just no microphone in this world which is able to record it the way we hear it.

Quote
StonedRambler
My post was not about my personal listening preferences but about some technological facts why 16bit audio is enough, about quantisation noise and dynamic range. Therefore my chain of equipment is irrelevant. These information are about digital audio in general. Early digital recordings were 12bit which technology was long used in sampling devices due to less storage. That the birds outside your window sound better than any recording does not have to do with digital/analog recording. There is just no microphone in this world which is able to record it the way we hear it.

I thought that you posted that you could not hear a difference ,or at least that you doubted that there would be a noticable difference. If not the case,then I apologize.

Sounds in nature are obviously not a recording but can be compared to a digital recording.

I was just trying to express my opinion that while digital audio can be great,it is not perfect.

Also,while a 16-bit / 44.1 kHz CD or WAV or FLAC file can be good enough for most people,in reality,most of the digital audio on the market today in this format (again,in my opinion) is not optimal. The reasons vary between earlier analog to digital transfers ; master recordings of varying quality ; and more recent brickwalled releases.

The first exception that immediately comes to mind are the Stones' Japanese MFSL CD's at 16-bits / 44.1 kHz.

Quote
Irix
StonedRambler - if you temporary unhide your eMail, there'll be a hint ....

Could I have the same hint? PLease???
(I would love to know what all the fuzz is about)

Chris from Belgium

Yes...I to would like to know the fuzz......