High Definition Tape Transfer

Another great Pure DSD256 transfer. This is from Jonathan Horwich’s IPI recordings and transferred from his 15ips master tape. About as clear and pure as most of us ever get to hear.

The following of their help section makes clear how compromised many needledrops, people make themselves, must be. But no matter if the flac/wave discussion or such topics, the old “bits are bits” camp is probably also still alive and arguing :wink:

—————
If you would prefer to burn these onto a CD or DVD, for optimal sound quality we recommend a good burning program such as Sony’s CD Architect for PC. For the Mac we recommend Roxio Toast. Toast will also burn the 24/96 files to DVD format. A good program for a PC to burn 24/96 files is Cirlinca. High quality media is essential along with a high quality burner, preferably an external unit. Burners inside of computer cases are in a very noisy environment. Please remember jitter is a major factor in the burning process. If you do not have a good burning setup, we would strongly recommend you purchase the discs from us. To sample rate convert (SRC) to 16/44 to burn on redbook CD’s we recommend a high quality SRC such as r8brain, which is available free at www.voxengo.com. Of course, please e-mail us with any suggestions that you might have on any of our products.

Continuing @shankha 's original theme of best “HDTT in DSD256”, here’s another contribution to the list:

A solo piano tribute to the tunes of Thelonious Monk by a seriously great jazz/rock and roll pianist. Recorded by Jonathan Horwich in 2013 to 15ips 2-track tape using two vintage Neuman U67 microphones, then transferred from the master tapes to DSD256 for release by HDTT.

2 Likes

I just downloaded the 24bit 382.6k file to compare. It’s been 2.5 months and HDTT still allow me to download old files… great!
My findings are the DSD256 does not sound dull and veiled at all, it sounds very live and engaging in my system. The 24bit 382.6k file is the one sounding a little veiled and lacking in richness and life. But that is my system with the modified DS DAC. I found it was true on several other HDTT recordings I did this comparison on as well, so my advice is for people that get these recordings is to try both DXD edition and DSD256 and see which is better for them.
I am listening to the DSD256 version right now track 3 (Another Git together) and I really am blown away by the sound, so live sounding!!

2 Likes

Excellent! This difference in result is why we should test/audition. Great information to share. And, what you are hearing matches what I hear most of the time with Bob’s new process. Just not this time for some odd reason. (Again, with my particular DAC.)

So you guys say normally a DXD edited file sounds better over the DAC when back converted to DSD256. That’s strange, as, as far as I remember, Ted some time (for the DS) recommended to let the DAC do the conversion instead of an external conversion if there’s a choice. Preference of the original format.

But as the differences you examined showed, we never know what happens during each external conversion. The variables of digital seem to surpass even those of vinyl :wink:

No, I’m not saying that and I really wish you’d stop summarizing by putting words in my mouth. :face_with_diagonal_mouth:

The main point is the one @waymanchen11 stated succinctly: “my advice is for people that get these recordings is to try both DXD edition and DSD256 and see which is better for them”

1 Like

My feelings are it’s not just the DAC, but the format as well as the mastering. There’s only 1.9gb on the FLAC 24bit 382.6k file. The DSD256 is over 6gb’s, over 4x as big. I don’t care how you compress and decompress for this lossless thing, what I hear is more information with the DSD256 file.

That would make sense wouldn’t it - more information; or, a smoother rendering of the individual bits and bots making up the musical signal, if you will?

Sorry, didn’t mean to do that. I really understood you thought your last observation where the DSD/DXD sounded better than DSD/DXD/DSD was an exception in your experience. But maybe I misunderstood that.

1 Like

The difference in file size is an absolute reality. But keep in mind that this DSD256 file is derived from that DXD file. The DXD is the edit master. So whatever information is in the DSD256 file has to somehow be in the edit master file.

This is why I would say any sound difference in this case comes from how our respective DACs are processing the respective files.

2 Likes

I do not disagree, the DAC can make all the difference in the world. Although the mastering process also matters, but as an audiophile and a music lover, I just care on the end result whether it’s DXD, DSD, PCM, or whatever. I have also bought a HDTT recording “Caribe”. Sounds fantastic, but does not come in DSD256. I got the 24bit 382.6k, and the DSD128 versions and found the DSD128 version superior! My DSD DAC maybe just prefers high rate DSD.

1 Like

Exactly. The design of the DAC may favor one format or another. This is why we need to listen to different files with our gear to determine where we are getting the best sound quality results.

I know that in my case, my primary DAC normally gives me the best sound quality by feeding it whatever format/file is closest to the edit master. But, the DAC in our second system will likely give better results on this album by feeding it the DSD256 file, based on prior listening comparisons.

Another example are DSD files that are pre-modulated to a higher frequency, e.g., original recorded format of DSD64 modulated to DSD256 by the mastering engineer. With my primary DAC, the original DSD64 files consistently sound better even though I know the DAC is doing the same modulation internally to DSD256. It just does the modulating better than Signalyst HD Pro (which is frequently used). On another DAC, the offline modulation may sound better than the on-the-fly modulation. listen, listen, listen…

2 Likes

This is the latest HDTT DSD256 that is blowing my mind right now! Fabulous transfer! One of the best!

2 Likes

Yes, I agree. A wonderful album and a terrific Pure DSD256 transfer.

1 Like

Seems like the more I play these recordings, the better they sound! Here’s another one that’s unbelievable! Must be my recent cable upgrades. Everything is sounding so much more live!

3 Likes

I am so delighted to find another listener who is as excited about the terrific sound quality (and terrific albums) being offered by HDTT. To me, flipping through HDTT’s extensive catalog is like walking into a treasure vault of some of the greatest recordings made over the golden era of stereo, plus mono gems as well.

There are wonderful jazz recordings from Blue Note, Prestige, Verve, Riverside and more. Plus if you are a classical music fan, some of the greatest recording from the RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence, Decca, EMI, and Vanguard catalogs are to be found here as well. I’ve written multiple articles for Positive Feedback simply focusing on the recordings to be found at HDTT from recording engineer legends like Kenneth Wilkinson (Decca), Lewis Layton (RCA), Robert Fine (Mercury and Command). I started to do another on Rudy van Gelder but gave up that project because there are just too many.

I hope you keep going with your reports! I love them.

2 Likes

Thanks, I will. And I hope HDTT will keep coming out with these gems. Many of them sounds to me like I’m actually listening to the master tapes. The sound is so dense, so complex, the ambience so real, so rich, so much presence, digital has really come a long ways.

I agree with you. Have you listened to the new release Saxophone Colossus yet? It’s 1956 mono, but a wonderful transfer of that tape.

1 Like

It’s on my list. I do have the DSD 64 ripped from a SACD that sounds wonderful, but I’m sure the DSD256 will be considerably better. But I’m not that much into mono recordings. i like to hear a wide spread of instruments sideways as well as front to back for a better illusion of a live event. I do listen to mono occasionally for the music.