Purchases Today

[Todd]

Any guidance for how to make Junglesearch actually filter a search?

I used a combo of price filtering ($5-$9.99) and then basic search terms (eg, Mahler).  Since the current volume of Add-ons cuts off page 400 prices at around $5, I was mostly interested in my target price range.  You can also just change price range in the URL itself.  Maybe one day Amazon brings back advanced search.

[JBS]

Followup to info provided by Aligreto although it is not the recording he posted (different singers)

Only available on Amazon as a used CD, but for less than $6 incl shipping...
Only other alternative was download (which I don't do) or a $20 Amazon CD-R.

[aligreto]

Followup to info provided by Aligreto although it is not the recording he posted (different singers)

Only available on Amazon as a used CD, but for less than $6 incl shipping...
Only other alternative was download (which I don't do) or a $20 Amazon CD-R.

Would be interested in your thoughts when you eventually get to hear it.

[Judith]

Sibelius Symphony no 5 (Original & Final Versions)
Lahti Symphony Orchestra
Osmo Vanska

Never knew about the other versions until  I read the programme from last weekends concert.

Mentioned it on Twitter and someone recommended this CD🎼🎼

[aligreto]

Sibelius Symphony no 5 (Original & Final Versions)
Lahti Symphony Orchestra
Osmo Vanska

Never knew about the other versions until  I read the programme from last weekends concert.

Mentioned it on Twitter and someone recommended this CD🎼🎼

You should enjoy that. I think that Vanska does very well with Sibelius 5. Enjoy your listening and comparison.

[Omicron9]

High-res doesn't mean any better audio quality than CD. It's a way to milk more money out of those who don't understand digital audio. You save money and storage space by accepting 16/44.1 digital audio without any lose in subjective quality.

Incorrect.

[Harry]

On my order list.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

On my order list.

That's a winner!

[71 dB]

Incorrect.

I'll wait for your rationale. Here's mine: Hi-res audio allows (1) larger bandwidth and (2) larger dynamic range compared to CD format. Both of these are useless in music listening.

(1) Larger bandwidth:
CD format allows 20 kHz bandwidth which is the bandwidth of human hearing at young age. With age the ability to hear high frequencies disappears and typically older people don't hear beyond about 16 kHz. Even if you can hear 20 kHz tones, very high sound pressure levels are needed (100-120 dB!) to exceed the hearing threshold. What kind of even nearly practical music listening scenario contains high frequency content played at levels approaching the pain threshold? So, we don't do anything with frequencies over 20 kHz and this has been confirmed in double blind listening tests over and over again. In fact larger bandwidth can be a problem if the recording contains high levels of ultrasonic noise which can be transferred into audible range due to non-linearities of the sound system (e.g. amplifiers don't necessory behave that well at ultrasonic frequencies). So, limiting the bandwidth to 20 kHz can be a benefit.

(2) Larger dynamic range:
CD format allows over 90 dB of technical dynamic range and using shaped dither subjective dynamic range up to 110-120 dB. The dynamic range of human hearing is about 120 dB from hearing threshold to pain threshold, but not at the same time! When you hear loud sounds your threshold of hearing raises. Momentary dynamic range is only about 70 dB! That's why vinyl nuts think vinyl has adequate dynamic range (60 dB at best). Recordings of dynamic variation bigger than 70 dB are "too dynamic" and make no sense. The background noise of a quiet listening room is about 30 dB, so taking advantage of the technical dynamic range of CD requires peak levels of ~120 dB! Since the momentary dynamic range of hearing is only about 70 dB, hearing 120 dB sounds would raise the hearing threshold temporarily to ~50 dB. So, we can never really experience the full technical dynamic range of CD and it's in fact about 3 bits overkill (13 bits optimally used would be enough). If CD is already overkill, why would you need even more dynamic range? A 24 bit music file doesn't have 24 bit worth of dynamic range, because the electronics used to produce the recording has much lower dynamic range (20 bits worth at best). So, the lowest 4 bits or more in a 24 bit file are noise anyway, and what is not noise is too quiet to make any practical difference compared to a 16 bit version. The difference is very very quiet noise below the threshold of hearing at any reasonable listening level. There is not musical detail in a 24 bit music file that you can hear, but is lost in a 16 bit file. So, no benefits in having more than 16 bits which itself is already overkill.

So, the conclusion is there is no benefits in high-res audio compared to CD audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit). High res formats are useful in music production. 24 bit dynamic range makes managing the dynamic range easier since there's safety marginal, but after the recording is produced, mixed there are no benefits in keeping all the dynamic range or ultrasonic content. Music listeners simply don't benefit form it. High-res formats are simply a way to milk people who don't know/understand the stuff I wrote above. They can sell Pink Floyd albums yet again in high-res. Yes, they might do the tape transfer better and increase sound quality doing so, but you have all that in a 44.1/16 format too. Many sound engineers who know what they are doing use 44.1 kHz (music) and 48 kHz (video sound) sample rates UNLESS the client asks for higher sample rate for marketing reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/v/-Bd99cADk70

[71 dB]

I feel I'm having a British music phase. Interesting to hear Payne's orchestration of the Crown of India.
Howells is a composers I haven't explored nearly at all, but he seems interesting (an undervalued composer?)

[asin]B002Q1LJZQ[/asin]
[asin]B000026BZL[/asin]

[André]

I feel I'm having a British music phase. Interesting to hear Payne's orchestration of the Crown of India.
Howells is a composers I haven't explored nearly at all, but he seems interesting (an undervalued composer?)

[asin]B002Q1LJZQ[/asin]
[asin]B000026BZL[/asin]

Both works are really beautiful - essential even in the case of Hymnus Paradisi.

[flyingdutchman]

I'll wait for your rationale. Here's mine: Hi-res audio allows (1) larger bandwidth and (2) larger dynamic range compared to CD format. Both of these are useless in music listening.

(1) Larger bandwidth:
CD format allows 20 kHz bandwidth which is the bandwidth of human hearing at young age. With age the ability to hear high frequencies disappears and typically older people don't hear beyond about 16 kHz. Even if you can hear 20 kHz tones, very high sound pressure levels are needed (100-120 dB!) to exceed the hearing threshold. What kind of even nearly practical music listening scenario contains high frequency content played at levels approaching the pain threshold? So, we don't do anything with frequencies over 20 kHz and this has been confirmed in double blind listening tests over and over again. In fact larger bandwidth can be a problem if the recording contains high levels of ultrasonic noise which can be transferred into audible range due to non-linearities of the sound system (e.g. amplifiers don't necessory behave that well at ultrasonic frequencies). So, limiting the bandwidth to 20 kHz can be a benefit.

(2) Larger dynamic range:
CD format allows over 90 dB of technical dynamic range and using shaped dither subjective dynamic range up to 110-120 dB. The dynamic range of human hearing is about 120 dB from hearing threshold to pain threshold, but not at the same time! When you hear loud sounds your threshold of hearing raises. Momentary dynamic range is only about 70 dB! That's why vinyl nuts think vinyl has adequate dynamic range (60 dB at best). Recordings of dynamic variation bigger than 70 dB are "too dynamic" and make no sense. The background noise of a quiet listening room is about 30 dB, so taking advantage of the technical dynamic range of CD requires peak levels of ~120 dB! Since the momentary dynamic range of hearing is only about 70 dB, hearing 120 dB sounds would raise the hearing threshold temporarily to ~50 dB. So, we can never really experience the full technical dynamic range of CD and it's in fact about 3 bits overkill (13 bits optimally used would be enough). If CD is already overkill, why would you need even more dynamic range? A 24 bit music file doesn't have 24 bit worth of dynamic range, because the electronics used to produce the recording has much lower dynamic range (20 bits worth at best). So, the lowest 4 bits or more in a 24 bit file are noise anyway, and what is not noise is too quiet to make any practical difference compared to a 16 bit version. The difference is very very quiet noise below the threshold of hearing at any reasonable listening level. There is not musical detail in a 24 bit music file that you can hear, but is lost in a 16 bit file. So, no benefits in having more than 16 bits which itself is already overkill.

So, the conclusion is there is no benefits in high-res audio compared to CD audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit). High res formats are useful in music production. 24 bit dynamic range makes managing the dynamic range easier since there's safety marginal, but after the recording is produced, mixed there are no benefits in keeping all the dynamic range or ultrasonic content. Music listeners simply don't benefit form it. High-res formats are simply a way to milk people who don't know/understand the stuff I wrote above. They can sell Pink Floyd albums yet again in high-res. Yes, they might do the tape transfer better and increase sound quality doing so, but you have all that in a 44.1/16 format too. Many sound engineers who know what they are doing use 44.1 kHz (music) and 48 kHz (video sound) sample rates UNLESS the client asks for higher sample rate for marketing reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/v/-Bd99cADk70

Oh, I remember these useless arguments from Classical Insite days. 

[steve ridgway]

So, the conclusion is there is no benefits in high-res audio compared to CD audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit). High res formats are useful in music production. 24 bit dynamic range makes managing the dynamic range easier since there's safety marginal, but after the recording is produced, mixed there are no benefits in keeping all the dynamic range or ultrasonic content. Music listeners simply don't benefit form it. High-res formats are simply a way to milk people who don't know/understand the stuff I wrote above. They can sell Pink Floyd albums yet again in high-res. Yes, they might do the tape transfer better and increase sound quality doing so, but you have all that in a 44.1/16 format too. Many sound engineers who know what they are doing use 44.1 kHz (music) and 48 kHz (video sound) sample rates UNLESS the client asks for higher sample rate for marketing reasons.

Very interesting thank you. I can see the sense in using more bits to record individual tracks as when mixing multiple tracks the volume of each one has to be turned down to keep the total of all the tracks below the maximum and there can be dozens of tracks in digital mixing systems. Some bits are going to be lost from each track but a good range kept for any sections where one track may be soloing fairly quietly. The final stereo mix should then still have more range than needed so is the best stage at which to reduce to 16 bits. I'm certainly finding enough dynamic range in classical CDs - too much in some cases as having listened comfortably for some time a deafening blast will appear from nowhere .

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Very interesting thank you. I can see the sense in using more bits to record individual tracks as when mixing multiple tracks the volume of each one has to be turned down to keep the total of all the tracks below the maximum and there can be dozens of tracks in digital mixing systems. Some bits are going to be lost from each track but a good range kept for any sections where one track may be soloing fairly quietly. The final stereo mix should then still have more range than needed so is the best stage at which to reduce to 16 bits. I'm certainly finding enough dynamic range in classical CDs - too much in some cases as having listened comfortably for some time a deafening blast will appear from nowhere .

Yes, it is basically a headroom issue. When recording live you have to set the gain low enough that you cannot possibly saturate the recorder, which means you are basically leaving several bits of sensitivity unused. If your source is 16 bits, when you adjust the gain for full volume in the final mastering you will end up with less than the full 16 bit resolution. Having a high resolution recorder solves the problem. In the early days of crude ADCs and DACS the 44.1 kHz sample rate presented a technical problem, but with the current crop of Sigma-Delta ADCs and oversampling DACS, you get the benefits of a high sample rate with the standard 44.1 kHz data rate.

[71 dB]

Very interesting thank you. I can see the sense in using more bits to record individual tracks as when mixing multiple tracks the volume of each one has to be turned down to keep the total of all the tracks below the maximum and there can be dozens of tracks in digital mixing systems. Some bits are going to be lost from each track but a good range kept for any sections where one track may be soloing fairly quietly. The final stereo mix should then still have more range than needed so is the best stage at which to reduce to 16 bits. I'm certainly finding enough dynamic range in classical CDs - too much in some cases as having listened comfortably for some time a deafening blast will appear from nowhere .

A DAW handles all tracks imported in a very large bit depth (for computational accuracy), so nothing is "lost" when mixing a recording. It's just that the music listener doesn't really need more than 13 optimally used bits, so 16 bit is already mildly overkill and in 24 bit files almost half of the bits are overkill! 24 bit doesn't offer higher fidelity and the reason is partly how our hearing works and partly how digital audio works.

Digital stair steps don't exist in reality, they are an abstract (and sadly misleading) graphic presentation of digital information). The pictures of digital stair steps makes people think they understand digital audio, but they don't. They lack the mathematical understanding of how digital audio actually has 100 % of the information of bandlimited signals + noise floor which in case of 16 bits is low enough for any practical listening scenario. Since Blu-ray is clearly better than DVD and more is usually better, people are eager to think 96 kHz/24 bit must be better than 44.1 kHz/16 bit. But it isn't, because 44.1 kHz/16 bit is all we need. Heck, even 320 kbps lossy files are most of the time enough and they are lossy which is much much much worse than raising the noise floor from inaudible to higher but still inaudible levels.

[Omicron9]

I'll wait for your rationale. Here's mine: Hi-res audio allows (1) larger bandwidth and (2) larger dynamic range compared to CD format. Both of these are useless in music listening.

(1) Larger bandwidth:
CD format allows 20 kHz bandwidth which is the bandwidth of human hearing at young age. With age the ability to hear high frequencies disappears and typically older people don't hear beyond about 16 kHz. Even if you can hear 20 kHz tones, very high sound pressure levels are needed (100-120 dB!) to exceed the hearing threshold. What kind of even nearly practical music listening scenario contains high frequency content played at levels approaching the pain threshold? So, we don't do anything with frequencies over 20 kHz and this has been confirmed in double blind listening tests over and over again. In fact larger bandwidth can be a problem if the recording contains high levels of ultrasonic noise which can be transferred into audible range due to non-linearities of the sound system (e.g. amplifiers don't necessory behave that well at ultrasonic frequencies). So, limiting the bandwidth to 20 kHz can be a benefit.

(2) Larger dynamic range:
CD format allows over 90 dB of technical dynamic range and using shaped dither subjective dynamic range up to 110-120 dB. The dynamic range of human hearing is about 120 dB from hearing threshold to pain threshold, but not at the same time! When you hear loud sounds your threshold of hearing raises. Momentary dynamic range is only about 70 dB! That's why vinyl nuts think vinyl has adequate dynamic range (60 dB at best). Recordings of dynamic variation bigger than 70 dB are "too dynamic" and make no sense. The background noise of a quiet listening room is about 30 dB, so taking advantage of the technical dynamic range of CD requires peak levels of ~120 dB! Since the momentary dynamic range of hearing is only about 70 dB, hearing 120 dB sounds would raise the hearing threshold temporarily to ~50 dB. So, we can never really experience the full technical dynamic range of CD and it's in fact about 3 bits overkill (13 bits optimally used would be enough). If CD is already overkill, why would you need even more dynamic range? A 24 bit music file doesn't have 24 bit worth of dynamic range, because the electronics used to produce the recording has much lower dynamic range (20 bits worth at best). So, the lowest 4 bits or more in a 24 bit file are noise anyway, and what is not noise is too quiet to make any practical difference compared to a 16 bit version. The difference is very very quiet noise below the threshold of hearing at any reasonable listening level. There is not musical detail in a 24 bit music file that you can hear, but is lost in a 16 bit file. So, no benefits in having more than 16 bits which itself is already overkill.

So, the conclusion is there is no benefits in high-res audio compared to CD audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit). High res formats are useful in music production. 24 bit dynamic range makes managing the dynamic range easier since there's safety marginal, but after the recording is produced, mixed there are no benefits in keeping all the dynamic range or ultrasonic content. Music listeners simply don't benefit form it. High-res formats are simply a way to milk people who don't know/understand the stuff I wrote above. They can sell Pink Floyd albums yet again in high-res. Yes, they might do the tape transfer better and increase sound quality doing so, but you have all that in a 44.1/16 format too. Many sound engineers who know what they are doing use 44.1 kHz (music) and 48 kHz (video sound) sample rates UNLESS the client asks for higher sample rate for marketing reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/v/-Bd99cADk70

That's fine, but I still respectfully disagree.  Here's why:

I've listened to various recordings that were tracked at 192k/24 and 88.2/24, then mixed at the same resolution; in other words, if the original multitracks were at 192/24, then the final mix was also 192/24.  And then compared that to the 192/24 multitracks mixed to 44.1/16.  There is an audible difference in this situation.  But I am only referring to recordings that were originally recorded at a high-res and also mixed at the same resolution.

Now.  For you, that may be insignificant, but that doesn't mean it's not there.  It's like saying the difference between an LP and a CD is insignificant; hence there is no difference and a CD is a waste and just a way to pry cash out of former LP listeners.

All just my opinion and based on my listening experiences.  I work in recording studios, so I've heard many of these types of high-res masters mixed to the same resolution.  There is a difference.  Whether that difference matters to you, or whether you can hear it is another topic.

Not looking to get into an argument; just sharing my experience and opinion.  I'll leave it there and reply no further.

Kind regards,
-09

[prémont]

I've listened to various recordings that were tracked at 192k/24 and 88.2/24, then mixed at the same resolution; in other words, if the original multitracks were at 192/24, then the final mix was also 192/24.  And then compared that to the 192/24 multitracks mixed to 44.1/16.  There is an audible difference in this situation.  But I am only referring to recordings that were originally recorded at a high-res and also mixed at the same resolution.

All just my opinion and based on my listening experiences.  I work in recording studios, so I've heard many of these types of high-res masters mixed to the same resolution.  There is a difference.  Whether that difference matters to you, or whether you can hear it is another topic.

But is it so, that one needs high tech professional equipment and professionally constructed listening rooms to be able to hear the difference? Only a few of us do have acces to that kind of luxury.

[71 dB]

That's fine, but I still respectfully disagree.

You are not alone. A lot of people agree with you, but that doesn't mean you are right. That's why I am educating people here.

Here's why:

I've listened to various recordings that were tracked at 192k/24 and 88.2/24, then mixed at the same resolution; in other words, if the original multitracks were at 192/24, then the final mix was also 192/24.  And then compared that to the 192/24 multitracks mixed to 44.1/16.  There is an audible difference in this situation.  But I am only referring to recordings that were originally recorded at a high-res and also mixed at the same resolution.

In music production 24 bit is very beneficial, because it provides plenty of dynamic headroom. You can be 20 dB below the optimal level and still everything works just fine. You can produce high fidelity music at 16 bit, but it's very difficult, because you have to optimize the dynamic range all the time. 88.2 kHz and 96 kHz are the highest samplerates of any benefits in music production, because all theoretical benefits of higher samplerate have been totally exhausted at about 60 kHz. So, if everything you can gain even theoretically is exhausted long before 96 kHz, it's pretty clear 192 kHz is comical overkill by a factor of 3.

There should not be audible differences between 192/24 and properly done 44.1/16 downmixes. Differences are mostly placebo effect (these differences tend to disappear in double blind tests) and some of it is other technical things such as DACs optimized to higher samplerate etc. The lower samplerate version might even be another mastering version making the comparing totally unfair.

Now.  For you, that may be insignificant, but that doesn't mean it's not there.  It's like saying the difference between an LP and a CD is insignificant; hence there is no difference and a CD is a waste and just a way to pry cash out of former LP listeners.

I am an acoustic engineer. I have studied digital signal prosessing in university. I don't need my feelings to tell me what is significant and what is not. The difference of 192/24 and 44.1/16 is ultrasonic content that we can't hear and noise at levels so low we can't hear. Audible frequencies are available at 100 % accuracy on both, only accompanied by different levels of noise floor.

LP and CD are totally different formats (the former analog and the latter digital) and hardly anyone says they sound the same. CD is a transparent format, LP is not. The difference is significant. 192/24 and 44.1/16 are both transparent, so there is no difference other than the other format makes much bigger files and can contain dog whistles and music for bats.

All just my opinion and based on my listening experiences.  I work in recording studios, so I've heard many of these types of high-res masters mixed to the same resolution.  There is a difference.  Whether that difference matters to you, or whether you can hear it is another topic.

As long as it's not double blind tests it's mostly placebo which affects very strongly what we hear. If you expect 192/24 sound better, then it will sound better. If the difference is in double blind test then the explanation is in DACs optimized for a certain samplerate or bad downsampling, antialias filter type etc.

Not looking to get into an argument; just sharing my experience and opinion.  I'll leave it there and reply no further.

Kind regards,
-09

Well thanks for your experiences and opinions.

[71 dB]

But is it so, that one needs high tech professional equipment and professionally constructed listening rooms to be able to hear the difference? Only a few of us do have acces to that kind of luxury.

In some cases poor equipment may reveal differences better than high-quality equipment.

[prémont]

In some cases poor equipment may reveal differences better than high-quality equipment.

Is it too much to say, that I am surprised. Would you mind to give some examples?