ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
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
VANTAGE
Current: Beovision Eclipse 65" v1 - Beolab 50 - Beolab 28 - 2 x BS2 (GVA) - 1 x BS1 (GVA) - Beoremote Halo - H9i
Past:
Beovision MX4000 - Beovision 3-32 - Beovision 7-55
Beosound 9000 - Beosound 5 / Beomaster 5
Beolab 6000 - Beolab 8000 - Beolab 5 - Beolab 3 - Beolab 17
On some tracks, I can hear a huge difference between the CD converted in FLAC and the same song bought on Qobuz in 24/96. And I'm sure it's not a placebo effect, as I've invited some friends to tell the difference between files, and they were never wrong, always prefering the depth of the 24/96 files.
So I'm sure that I hear the difference between CD and HD, but I'm quite sure that what I'm hearing is the difference between 24 and 16bits, and not the difference between 44,1 and 96kHz sampling rate, but that's personnal, maybe some people here can hear the difference.
So I can assure you that 24bit files are played as 24bit files.
On my Encore, all sampling rate are read between 44,1 and 96kHz, but not higher. That also seem to indicate that the Encore actually reads the file as it should, not downgrading to 44,1kHz, because if it was doing that, why not doing it on 192kHz files?
If you want to test with some files, don't hesitate to download the free frequency test album from Qobuz : if you already have an account, enter the qbzfreq2 gift code. (and if you don't have an account, why not being sponsored by me with this link ? it gives you 5% on your first order)
diisign.com
Thanks a lot for your input Mbee. I have also made some comparisons and do think that HD files sound better compared to CDs. I was just worried that it might be a purely psychological thing! I'm glad your experience tells you the same, also with the 'blind tests' you have conducted with your friends.
As for Qobuz, I am a big fan! I have used this website quite a few times already, here's hoping that they will extend their HD catalogue even further!
Cheers, VANTAGE
Thanks for the tip!
Now getting a complete list of all formats supported by BS5 / BM5 might be tough, since my experience (see above) has told me that even B&O has got it wrong :-)
Vantage
BS5 up to 192kHz 24bit FLAC
BS5e up to 96kHz 24bit FLAC
BS5e: no down sampling of 192kHz files (any files above 96kHz), there is simply no sound to be heard
my own experience with both systems (ripped DVD Video/Audio, BR and SACD as well bought HD files)
see
http://archivedarchivedforum2.beoworld.org/forums/p/41746/346373.aspx#346373 (post of Geoff Martin from Stuer)
Good stuff, thanks a lot Carolpa, you really made my day
I will continue hunting HD files then...
(A question for Geoff Martin at the archived Beosound 5 forum (http://archivedarchivedforum2.beoworld.org/forums/p/41746/346373.aspx#346373))
In this archived discussion you listed the specs. for the BS5 Encore. Do you know the specs for the BS5/BM5 combo?
I tried a 24bit 192kHz FLAC file on my BS5/BM5 system but it didn't play. I asked about sound quality at the B&O support and this is their answer:
We recommend using FLAC files in CD quality, which is 16bit 44.1kHz, so in order to get it to work you must downgrade to 16 bit.
BeoSound 5 will be able to play all kinds of FLAC formats, men formats above 48 kHz will be downgraded to 44.1 kHz
Regards.
@Frisp
was the file a 24bit 192kHz 2 channel music file? Or was it a multichannel file? The multichannel file will not be audible!
the answer of B&o is in that way strange, that it is more complex to downgrade steaming music then put additional codecs in the system.
Note: the BM5 is build around a VIA board with HD capabilities/spec's.
Frankly speaking, I don't know and I'm not sure I get the meaning of the last part , except from the fact that it does look as if the BM5 is able to play HD files.
However, I have just tried a 24bit 192kHz file from the Linn site (http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-downloads-testfiles.aspx)
and it plays beautifully.
Thanks.
Hi All,
I also can play HD tracks and use Flac. However I cannot get the album art to show. I put it in folder.jpg but nothing shows. Anyone been able to solve this?
Thanks
mbee: On some tracks, I can hear a huge difference between the CD converted in FLAC and the same song bought on Qobuz in 24/96. And I'm sure it's not a placebo effect, as I've invited some friends to tell the difference between files, and they were never wrong, always prefering the depth of the 24/96 files. So I'm sure that I hear the difference between CD and HD, but I'm quite sure that what I'm hearing is the difference between 24 and 16bits, and not the difference between 44,1 and 96kHz sampling rate, but that's personnal, maybe some people here can hear the difference.
But here you are assuming that is was exactly the same stereo audio master that was used to generate the FLAC file and the Qobuz file - this is certainly not guaranteed and it's very likely that whoever was commisioned to render the FLAC and Qobuz file did their own "mastering" before encoding.
It is therefore possible (if not even probable) that the differences you hear have nothing to do with the actually codec or encoding bitdepth/frequency.
Ban boring signatures!
Puncher:It is therefore possible (if not even probable) that the differences you hear have nothing to do with the actually codec or encoding bitdepth/frequency.
Interesting point of view!
But in general I agree with Mbee. I converted a lot of DVDA, DVDV, SACD & BR in the digital domain to hi-res FLAC myself and there is most of the times a notable difference. But not always!?!
A nice example: the Beatles album collection on USB (official Apple release). Even despite they are "only" 44.1kHz 24bit, they are the best sounding Beatles around.
Sorry for being stupid, but how did you do this?
Carolpa:I embedded the jpg in the flac file. All pictures are shown on the BS5
Carolpa,
Sorry for being stupid, but how do you do this?
I believe you must use a freeware like mp3tag so you can ad the cover to the whole album.
Carolpa: Puncher:It is therefore possible (if not even probable) that the differences you hear have nothing to do with the actually codec or encoding bitdepth/frequency. Interesting point of view! But in general I agree with Mbee. I converted a lot of DVDA, DVDV, SACD & BR in the digital domain to hi-res FLAC myself and there is most of the times a notable difference. But not always!?! A nice example: the Beatles album collection on USB (official Apple release). Even despite they are "only" 44.1kHz 24bit, they are the best sounding Beatles around.
It must depend on what you're converting and what you're using to do the conversion. Obviously the conversion isn't, by definition, lossless as you're hearing differences between the source material and the FLAC file. SACD is slightly different as it first needs to be converted from DSD to PCM before it can be encoded as FLAC (unless of course it is the Redbook CD layer that is being converted rather than the high def. SACD layer).
I would be amazed if the FLAC encoder is introducing audible differences.
Puncher: It must depend on what you're converting and what you're using to do the conversion. Obviously the conversion isn't, by definition, lossless as you're hearing differences between the source material and the FLAC file. SACD is slightly different as it first needs to be converted from DSD to PCM before it can be encoded as FLAC (unless of course it is the Redbook CD layer that is being converted rather than the high def. SACD layer). I would be amazed if the FLAC encoder is introducing audible differences. Ban boring signatures!
1. The "difference" to be heard is not between the source and the flac file (they are equal), but between 24 bit >44.1 kHz and 16 bit =<44.1 kHz files (PCM, wav, flac).
2. The conversion was done lossless and compared with the original PCM
3. Redbook CD layer of a SACD is equal to CD (as stated); it would be stupid to define this as high resolution.
4. You' right, but DSD can be extracted from SACD and then converted to PCM and/or Flac (in the digital domain).
download program from mp3tag.de (Windows); install
Open program
Select one or more music file
Richt click on box with "disc"
Choose add cover
or
Select music file(s)
choose Tag sources, cover art, Amazon.com
put the album tittle in and choose a cover
Carolpa: Puncher: It must depend on what you're converting and what you're using to do the conversion. Obviously the conversion isn't, by definition, lossless as you're hearing differences between the source material and the FLAC file. SACD is slightly different as it first needs to be converted from DSD to PCM before it can be encoded as FLAC (unless of course it is the Redbook CD layer that is being converted rather than the high def. SACD layer). I would be amazed if the FLAC encoder is introducing audible differences. Ban boring signatures! 1. The "difference" to be heard is not between the source and the flac file (they are equal), but between 24 bit >44.1 kHz and 16 bit =<44.1 kHz files (PCM, wav, flac). 2. The conversion was done lossless and compared with the original PCM 3. Redbook CD layer of a SACD is equal to CD (as stated); it would be stupid to define this as high resolution. 4. You' right, but DSD can be extracted from SACD and then converted to PCM and/or Flac (in the digital domain).
Fair enough, I'm just trying to be thorough in defining what it is you're comparing. So where do these files originate - have you encoded them and if so from what or are they purchased?
Puncher:So where do these files originate - have you encoded them and if so from what or are they purchased?
most HD files are extracted/converted from my own DVDA, DVDV, BR & SACD. Some downloads are bought from Qubus, iTrax.com or HDtracks.com and some are bought directly from the artist.
I prefere to buy the "software" (cd's, dvd's, br's, sacd's) myself. In my opinion, there are hardly good lossless download sources around. And if you compare the prices of the discs and the downloads, they are almost the same!
I'm sorry, I don't seem to be asking my question very well. Can you describe for any given pair of tracks - a HD version and a 16bit 44.1KHz version - how each is generated before you listen and hear the differences.
Are they HD and standard rips of the same source track or is the HD rip from a different source disc or file to the standard rip of the same song?
The Beatles: 09-09-09 CD-box Stereo (black); cd's files compared with flac files from the Stereo USB stick from the Beatles (the same collection; same reissue) 24bit 44.1kHz.
Downloaded files of 96kHz 24bit Wav files compared to cd (remastered) of Band on the Run; Paul McCartney (both part of the Deluxe issue).
Extracted PCM 96kHz, 24bit from DVDV (music only) of Steve Earle compared to the cd in the same package; converted both PCM formats with the same software to flac.
etc. etc.
It would be strange if these examples do not have the same origin. But for sure there will be examples were the origin isn't the same..........
And I've also done my (non blind + blind with friends) test with Qobuz files : when bought in 24bit, Qobuz lets you download the same track from the same master in 24bits and in 16bits lossless (and in compressed formats...)
HD tracks do make a difference on my Beolabs (BL3), I think the difference is huge on full range speakers such as BL5. But as I've already said, difference between 16 and 24bit is huge in some tracks (for some, it's subtle), but I'm quite sure that I couldn't tell the difference between a 24bit/44,1KHz file and the same in 24bit/192KHz.
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
Buying.......hmmmm
try vinyl rips from PBTHAL
website vinyldoneright.nl
flachd: Sound great, believe
Sound great, believe
Believe......uhh, sounds spooky 👽
MM
There is a tv - and there is a BV
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
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
Millemissen: flachd: Sound great, believe Believe......uhh, sounds spooky 👽 MM
Where's the smoking man on all of this?
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
Whole Foods Deionized Water applied with Mofi Brush (Separate from AIVS Mofi Brush)
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 ????
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: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!
"Believe nothing you read and only half of what you see, let your ears tell you the truth."
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.
koning:RME ADI-2 =< ADAT =< E-MU 1212M
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!
Have you download a album from PBTHAL Millemissen?
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!
None of you guys actualy listened to these rips.
You can only comment.
So I stop with this discussion
Puncher: koning:RME ADI-2 =< ADAT =< E-MU 1212MNot 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.
koning: None of you guys actualy listened to these rips. You can only comment. So I stop with this discussion
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 because of that!