# A Sensational, Fantastic, And Simply Amazing New Binaural Album By Chesky!



## jude

​   
*Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, And Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show!  *That's the name of the latest binaural album from Chesky Records (made especially for Head-Fi'ers), and that title describes exactly what this album is. Using Chesky's new "*Binaural+*" technology, this is the first-ever album of its kind--a binaural album that can be played on loudspeakers. It's the ultimate binaural trip, with incredible binaural tracks that include surround imaging tests, bass tests (that include _deep_ bass extension), fun demonstrations of the realistic out-of-head placement possible with binaural, and, most importantly, great _music_ (in several genres) presented with unprecedented immersion and sense of space--and a feeling of being there, _live_. For headphone audio enthusiasts, this album ushers in what I hope is a new era in recording and audio.
   
A little over a year ago, Chesky Records released its first binaural album, _Explorations In Space And Time _(which was also made for Head-Fi'ers). If you're wondering what a "binaural recording" is, and why it's so significant for headphone audio enthusiasts, let me re-post this bit from the article I posted last year about that first binaural album from Chesky:
  
 Quote:  Originally Posted by *jude* 



  ...In case you're not familiar with what a binaural recording is, let's discuss what it is, and why it's so very relevant, so very cool, for Head-Fi'ers: Many here would agree that excellent headphone systems can open up a recording's innermost details and subtleties like few loudspeakers can. From a price/performance standpoint, headphones, in my opinion, almost always outperform their loudspeaker counterparts in several respects. Still, though, headphone listening has its shortcomings, key among them imaging--when it comes to imaging, headphone listening is fundamentally flawed. As HeadRoom describes part of the problem:
   
  Quote:   Originally by *HeadRoom*:
  So here's the problem with headphone listening in a nutshell: the sound in the right channel is only heard in the right ear and the sound in the left channel is only heard in the left ear. What's missing in headphones is the sound going from each channel to the opposite ear, arriving a short time later for the extra distance traveled, and with a bit of high frequency roll-off for the shadowing effect of the head.




   
  If you've tried crossfeed, then you know it can help solve _some_ of the imaging issues inherent with headphone listening, helping to form a more cohesive image, but still unable to take the image _out_ of your head. To achieve convincing, realistic imaging through headphones requires _much_ more than a crossfeed circuit can achieve; and this is where binaural recording comes in.

 Rather than try to explain the science and mechanics of binaural recording in great detail, let me instead give you links to pages that do a far better job of explaining it than I could:
  

 *Wikipedia's page about binaural recording*
 *The Binaural Source's "Binaural For Beginners" primer*
 
  Simply put, the intent of binaural recording is to capture sound exactly as the human ears hear it. Even more simply put, one of the most common ways to do that is to place high-resolution microphones inside the ears of a purpose-built dummy head, its ear-shaped molds designed to simulate the fleshiness/pliability/resonance and shape of actual ears. (This can be taken further still with a full simulated head/neck/shoulder/torso setup.)

 So, given what binaural recordings are (and especially because of how they're made), an obvious challenge comes to mind: One cannot simply take _existing_ recordings from Chesky's catalog and create binaural versions of them. You have to start from scratch--you have to capture the performances that way from the get-go. None of the prior recordings in Chesky Record's catalog were recorded binaurally. In fact, look at the libraries of _all_ labels big and small, and you'll find _very_ little--next to nothing--in terms of available binaural recordings. So to produce binaural recordings means having to record new material using the aforesaid recording techniques...




  
 Having been there for the recording of that first album, I can say that through headphones the binaural version of _Explorations In Space And Time _was a fantastic capture of not just the music that was played, but also the space it was played in. Listening to that album continues to thrill me to this day (over a year later), vividly bringing me back to the Hirsch Center for those exciting days of recording. 
  
 Since then, David Chesky has redoubled his commitment to the science and art of binaural recording. Working with his team, Chesky Records has come up with something called "Binaural+." With _Explorations In Space And Time_, Chesky included two different versions of each track on the album--a soundfield version for playback on loudspeakers, and a binaural version for headphone listening--doubling the number of tracks on each album. With Binaural+, Chesky has developed filtering techniques that allow the binaural recordings to also be played back through loudspeakers, eliminating the need to have two versions of each track.
  



 *(video) David Chesky introduces Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, And Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show! and Binaural+.*​  ​  The second binaural album from Chesky--and the first to use the new Binaural+--is the just-released _Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, And Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show!, _and it's outstanding! After the release of the first binaural album (which was almost entirely percussion music), the request we received the most was to offer binaural recordings with a greater variety of music. After hearing so much rhythm in binaural, listeners were ready for Chesky to expand to something more melodic done binaurally. With _Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, And Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show!, _music from several genres--folk, jazz, Arabic, classical (including some _deeeeeep_ bass organ work), rock, percussion (including a couple of tracks from _Explorations_), choral, funk, and New Orleans--is combined with binaural test tracks and fun binaural demonstration tracks.
  
 I love the whole album, but do have a few particular favorites:
  

 *Track 1*, Amber Rubarth singing "Storms are On The Ocean." From the gentle guitar, to the ethereal, airy string accompaniment, to Amber's serenely sung vocal (intimately placed at center front), this track is representative of my hopes for the future of binaurally recorded music. I usually listen to this track not just once, but a few times each time.  It is entirely immersive, simple, beautiful.
 *Track 4*, The Brooklyn Funk Band playing "Pamafunk." Okay, I'm partial to a funky groove. One that surrounds you thoroughly, completely and charges every molecule of air in the venue...well, _that_ I'm even more partial to.
 *Track 11*, The Manhattan Chamber Ensemble playing "Mozart Divertemento in D Mov 1." You're a VIP. The Ensemble has come to your home or office, and opens up with some lighthearted Mozart--all just for you, front and center. That's what this one is.
 *Track 12*, Sukoon playing "Raqs el-hawanim." Close your eyes, and you're completely surrounded by a place that is likely very far from home (unless you live in the Middle East). If your head isn't bobbing, your feet not tapping, have someone check your pulse.
 *Track 14*, Choir of the Church of the Blessed Sacrament performing "Bach Jesu Joy Of Man's Desiring." This one was performed and recorded in the Church of St. Paul the Apostle in New York City, the beautiful voices of the choir atop the deep, gentle, cascading accompaniment of the church's sonorous organ.
   


 *(video) David introduces Lars (the dummy head), and Nick Prout and Alex Sterling explain the setup used to record Amber Rubarth.*​   
 Again, I love the whole album. And the test tracks are a blast! Hear David Chesky walk to you and whisper in your ear. Have the barber give you a virtual haircut with scissors--or have David give you a virtual buzzcut. _Deeeeeeep_ bass down to 16.35Hz? Do you want that via acoustic bass or organ? And there's more in this album.
  
 The liner notes by Steve Guttenberg and Chesky are also awesome (and fun).
  
 I _so _wish I could have been there for the recordings for _Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, And Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show!_ Though I was invited to attend the recording sessions that made up the bulk of this new album, scheduling conflicts prevented me from being there. I'll attend as many future Chesky binaural recording sessions as I can, but I know from my experience with _Explorations _that David and his team have the ability to transport me to the sessions via the resulting albums even when I can't physically be there for the recording of them. As David said in the new album's liner notes:
  
 Quote:   Originally by *David Chesky*:
  We need to establish and understand that binaural is not a gimmick with sounds popping out on the sides all the time, it provides a live concert perspective, and that’s it.




  
  
_Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, And Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show! _is an exciting hint of where we can go from here, and I hope for more binaural albums (from Chesky and other labels) in the future.
   
_Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, And Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show! _is available in CD-quality 16/44.1, and better-than-CD-quality 24/96, and master-tape-quality 24/192. The regular price of these albums is $11.98, $17.98, and $24.98, respectively. For a limited time, Head-Fi'ers can get the album for 20% off by using the coupon code *[size=14.0pt]drcheskyhf20[/size]*
   
*CLICK HERE to pick which version of the album you want, and to listen to sample tracks!*​  ​    
 *An Important Note:*
  
 What we're working toward is very regular releases of binaural albums by Chesky, spanning virtually all genres. Every time David thinks of binaural recordings, he thinks of the Head-Fi community. But this is not an inexpensive endeavor (and David and his team are always working to improve binaural techniques and technology), so it requires our support. If you listen to some of the demo tracks on HDtracks.com and you like what you hear, please support our goal of seeing several new binaural releases from Chesky every year by buying _Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, And Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show! _and future Chesky binaural releases that are already being worked on.


----------



## MorbidToaster

I'll be picking this up soon enough for test tracks and just Binaural fun. Been curious since the ads started running.


----------



## Llloyd

Not really a fan of their pricing method.  Why not just have one flat price for all quality levels?  It's not like it takes much to change the quality level of a file.  Not only that it has all sorts of implications about the quality of a file compared to the value of the actual music.
   
  25$ is too much for a digital album.  I don't care about the quality level or what tech you used to record it.  Not only that, if the master tape was already there to begin with, why are you charging extra just to let others hear it?  It's kinda silly if you ask me.  Seems like another way to take advantage of the audio enthusiast market.
   
  Anyway sorry to bash without actually listening or commenting on the music.  That's just my first impression.  If they weren't trying to break my wallet just because many people who love audio are willing to pay extra for it, I'd actually be pretty into this.  Even if a vinyl ends up being 25 I get pretty sad about paying for it, but at least then I get the huge art.
   
  10$ for 16/44 is average though I'll admit.  Just seems a little strange that the other stuff costs extra


----------



## omerbu1

I'm hoping "Binaural+" will become a standard in all Recording Labes,Loudspeakers doesn't lose a thing from this particular type of recording while headphones have everything to gain.
   
  Go Chesky!


----------



## MorbidToaster

I would imagine it has to do with the file size differences. Well...I think that's part of it. I do feel a little bugged by their 24/192 prices as well I'll admit, but that's usually the excuse sites use for Lossless upgrade charges.
   
  Beatport practically doubles their prices if you want Lossless.
   
  Quote: 





llloyd said:


> Not really a fan of their pricing method.  Why not just have one flat price for all quality levels?  It's not like it takes much to change the quality level of a file.  Not only that it has all sorts of implications about the quality of a file compared to the value of the actual music.
> 
> 25$ is too much for a digital album.  I don't care about the quality level or what tech you used to record it.  Not only that, if the master tape was already there to begin with, why are you charging extra just to let others hear it?  It's kinda silly if you ask me.  Seems like another way to take advantage of the audio enthusiast market.
> 
> ...


----------



## Benjamin6264

I got the album a few days ago; the unusual advert with Dr. Chesky staring at my soul got the best of me.  Overall, the "binaural effect" isn't as present/obvious as in Explorations in Space and Time (of which some tracks are featured in Chesky's compilation), but the sound quality is top-notch, and I discovered a few great artists through it, namely Amber Rubarth, who performs divinely in Storms Are On The Ocean. Highly recommended album! Be sure to get yourself a copy.


----------



## MorbidToaster

While I use them as test tracks I honestly didn't like 'Explorations in Time and Space'. It was just...weird to me. A few things I liked but mainly felt like it was just gloriously recorded noise. 
  Quote: 





benjamin6264 said:


> I got the album a few days ago; the unusual advert with Dr. Chesky staring at my soul got the best of me.  Overall, the "binaural effect" isn't as present/obvious as in Explorations in Space and Time (of which some tracks are featured in Chesky's compilation), but the sound quality is top-notch, and I discovered a few great artists through it, namely Amber Rubarth, who performs divinely in Storms Are On The Ocean. Highly recommended album! Be sure to get yourself a copy.


----------



## brunk

Just finished listening to the album and...WOW!!


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





llloyd said:


> Not really a fan of their pricing method.  Why not just have one flat price for all quality levels?  It's not like it takes much to change the quality level of a file.  Not only that it has all sorts of implications about the quality of a file compared to the value of the actual music.
> 
> 25$ is too much for a digital album.  I don't care about the quality level or what tech you used to record it.  Not only that, if the master tape was already there to begin with, why are you charging extra just to let others hear it?  It's kinda silly if you ask me.  Seems like another way to take advantage of the audio enthusiast market.
> 
> ...


 

 Agree and now Chesky wants to make millions more reselling his record again.  Wow


----------



## jude

Quote: 





llloyd said:


> Not really a fan of their pricing method.  Why not just have one flat price for all quality levels?  It's not like it takes much to change the quality level of a file.  Not only that it has all sorts of implications about the quality of a file compared to the value of the actual music.
> 
> 25$ is too much for a digital album.  I don't care about the quality level or what tech you used to record it.  Not only that, if the master tape was already there to begin with, why are you charging extra just to let others hear it?  It's kinda silly if you ask me.  Seems like another way to take advantage of the audio enthusiast market.
> 
> ...


 
   
  This isn't going to be #1 (or even #100,000) on Billboard or iTunes, guys. Ultimately, over the life of the album, sales of this type of thing are usually _very_ limited. Chesky hires engineers, equipment, rents musical instruments that may be needed (which they rented quite a lot of for _Explorations_), hires the musicians, consults with experts in 3D audio, rents out the venues (and the recording sessions typically span days), and incurs the day-to-day costs associated with being a business. And then, if all goes well, there's hopefully some profit at some point--no venture can continue without it; no more albums of this type can be made without at least some reasonable hope of it.
   
  Albums like this are obviously part of a very niche, very specialty market right now, and will likely be so for a long time to come (and may remain so forever). This is high-resolution, binaurally recorded music, and most of the folks who care to buy an album like this one are people like us, and we're not exactly the broader market. And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody is putting more effort and passion into it than Chesky.
   


frank i said:


> Agree and now Chesky wants to make millions more reselling his record again.  Wow


 
   
_Millions?_ Really? Even if 100% of the $24.98 price of the 24/192 version was profit (which _obviously_ it _cannot_ be), Chesky would have to sell _40,000_ units to make _one _million (and over _50,000_ units at the discounted price)--again, that's with the ridiculous hypothetical of 100% of each sale being profit. So, _millions? _Really?
   
  I hope _Explorations _turned a profit. I hope _this_ album turns a profit. Passionate as he is about all of this, even David cannot continue to make binaural albums if they do not turn a profit.


----------



## TheWuss

i'm sure no one cares a hill of beans about my unsolicited opinion.
  but, since this is head-fi, i'll gladly share it.
   
  i was very jazzed about the album when i saw it featured on Inner Fidelity.
  and bought it straight away in 24/96.
   
  however, as was mentioned in an earlier post, the binaural effect on this recording is quite subdued.
  actually, disappointingly subdued, if i'm being honest.
   
  also, there are quite a number of test tracks at the end of the record which are only of passing interest, and only bear replay when a new piece of equipment needs to be put through the paces.
   
  and, as far as the musical content, i have to say it feels pretty light weight. 
   
  a very safe sounding reading of a classical piece here, a doe-eyed folk song there.  a stilted rock performance here, an exotic stringed instrument work-out there...  it's all very fine and pitch perfect, but i found it a bit on the boring side.
   
  My biggest overarching criticism of the record, however, is one of my criticisms of quite a number of Chesky's recordings - he spends too much effort recording the space, and not enough effort on the performance.
   
  The egalitarian treatment of each performance on this recording - AKA "stick 'em in a church and let's hear those darn reverb trails" - is unsuccessful more often than not here.
  While the opening track, Storms are on the Ocean, benefits from the recording space, other tracks like "Binocerous" or "Pamafunk" become a bit of a mess.  Not literally, as the sound is quite pristine, but the acoustic setting is strangely antithetical to the musical content.
   
  I am and will continue to be a happy supporter of interesting music.  And am a voracious consumer of music - laying my wallet gladly at the altar of HDTracks and other marketplaces. 
  But, as much as i wish everyone would support Chesky and other leaders in our hobby, i can't recommend this record.
   
  Instead, get "Explorations in Space and Time", and then patiently wait for Chesky's next single-artist recording... 
  Let's hope it's a good one...


----------



## Wantosmile

Seems to me that, as a budding enterprise, and the fact that there are significant costs to develop the process and acquire the machinery, the time consumption in assessing a new method, as well as the relatively small audience, it's a good and respectable way to participate in a new adventure/venture. Go Chesky and your ilk!


----------



## SeeHear

I thought the OP was talking about Chesky's prices, in general.  They charge a lot of money for their "HDTracks" and, sometimes, they turn out to be resampled 16/48 files cough Frampton Comes Alive cough.  The production costs of most of their catalog were recouped years ago.  Some of the HDTracks material is very good; a lot is pretty OK.  For example, the Stones Beggar's Banquet is outstanding, the aforementioned Frampton Comes Alive is no better than the CD, and not as good as my (first pressing) album.
   
  The notion that they are simply charging what the enthusiast market will pay is spot-on, in my opinion.


----------



## NecroNeo

And that's exactly what it is worth, SeeHear. Products are worth what the market will bear. And, as has been mentioned, the market for this album is niche and wealthy by world-standards, therefore the album is worth the price they are charging. If you aren't willing to pay that much, that just means the album isn't worth that much _to you_. I probably won't be buying it anytime soon, but I'll be bookmarking the product page for the future when I (hopefully) have more disposable income.


----------



## El_Doug

Complaining about the pricing scheme is kinda silly - since there is no proof of an audible difference, and the math indicates that 192/24 could potentially sound worse, everyone should be buying the $11 album anyways  
   
   
  I just bought the album, it is downloading now.  I'll hopefully get around to posting some impressions later


----------



## Llloyd

Quote: 





jude said:


> This isn't going to be #1 (or even #100,000) on Billboard or iTunes, guys. Ultimately, over the life of the album, sales of this type of thing are usually _very_ limited. Chesky hires engineers, equipment, rents musical instruments that may be needed (which they rented quite a lot of for _Explorations_), hires the musicians, consults with experts in 3D audio, rents out the venues (and the recording sessions typically span days), and incurs the day-to-day costs associated with being a business. And then, if all goes well, there's hopefully some profit at some point--no venture can continue without it; no more albums of this type can be made without at least some reasonable hope of it.
> 
> Albums like this are obviously part of a very niche, very specialty market right now, and will likely be so for a long time to come (and may remain so forever). This is high-resolution, binaurally recorded music, and most of the folks who care to buy an album like this one are people like us, and we're not exactly the broader market. And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody is putting more effort and passion into it than Chesky.


 
   
  Well, to be honest while I think binaural stuff is really cool, it doesn't strike me as the way all music should be recorded or something like that.  I'm not against it and I think I could find a lot of enjoyment in it.  I don't think he's like trying to make millions.  I realize the sales are limited.  The sales are also limited with many, MANY bands that I listen to, and they still charge no more than 20$ for vinyl, and you get whatever format you desire (some including 24bit) as many times as you want once you've bought the album.  
   
  I understand it's quite the investment, and I realize it's niche but then why is the 16/44 only 12$?  It's a little weird that's all.  Make it all a flat high price if it was really that expensive.  Making the higher bitrates cost so much just seems to be kind of a downer for the audio community.  Anyway when you are charging 25 for pure digital that's when you're getting into gimmick territory if you ask me.


----------



## wlvca

If you want to try some binaural recordings for free, sign up for a trial membership at the Bowers and Wilkins Society of Sound.  They have three separate binaural albums and you can download one sample song from each at no cost.
   
  That way you can check it out the recording technique and sound before you commit to a purchase on the Chesky site.
   
  To be honest, I wasn't crazy about any of the selections they offered for popular music (as opposed to classical), but we all have different taste in music so it might float your boat.
   
  It was fun listening to the binaural recordings on headphones.
   
  I presume the Chesky recordings are higher quality but its free to try at B&W....
   
http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Society_of_Sound/Overview.html


----------



## SursumCorda

I listened to this album, and picked it up in 24bit 96khz, and it sounds great!
  It really makes me want to hear more.. =)
   
  Keep up the good work guys!
  Binaural is great stuff!


----------



## songmic

Okay guys, has anyone run into this problem with this album like I did? I purchased the binaural album about a week ago actually, the 96/24 version. It was great, as many others have pointed out, but there were *4 track files that were heavily distorted and caused severe playback errors.* They were track 10, 14, 15, and 26, to be specific. The remaining 22 songs all played OK without any issues. I addressed this problem to HDTracks, and they sent me those 4 tracks for me to download again, but the problem still persisted with those tracks. So I emailed HDTracks again, telling them that the problem isn't fixed, and later they replied that they too found out the problem, but were simply "waiting for instructions." I haven't heard from them since.
   
  Am I the only one who noticed this? Did anyone else have problem with the 96/24 version of the above-mentioned 4 tracks? Since the rest of the 22 tracks play fine in my system, I'm pretty sure something's wrong with those specific tracks. I hope HDTracks does something fast to fix this, before more unaware buyers purchase the album to find out some of the files are messed up.


----------



## bcschmerker4

Thanks for a heads up on a method that I can use for new material.  Roland Corporation's Cakewalk® software division has applications for Microsoft® Windows® 6-up that are compatible with binaural recording techniques, provided that the correct hardware is used in the recording; SONAR™ X™ would come to mind for pros and prosumers alike, but even Music Creator™ 5 (probably 6 as well) will record parallel audio streams as one track with a stereo or binaural source (e.g., through the stereo Mic In of the XONAR® Essence™ STX in my Asus® CM1630-06).  Once I have a headset worthy of the XONAR's® internal headphone amplifier, I should be able to hear any issue in the tracks that I lay down.


----------



## El_Doug

Anyone find the binaural severely lacking in this album?  Not sure if it is this particular recording, or this new "Binaural+" headphone/speaker technique, but the spatial positioning is simply 90% not there.  I bought Chesky's first binaural album (the percussion one) back when that was first released, and it had an incredible feel of being in the room with the musicians, truly amazing.  This one, on the other hand, simply sounds like very good stereo, but still with a side/side image only. 
   
  Am I the only one disappointed with this?  Am I the only one experiencing this!? 
   
   
  Don't get me wrong, the music is just as well recorded as always from Chesky, I'm just not getting the desired effect here.  I do enjoy the various tunes, though!


----------



## TheWuss

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> Anyone find the binaural severely lacking in this album?  Not sure if it is this particular recording, or this new "Binaural+" headphone/speaker technique, but the spatial positioning is simply 90% not there.  I bought Chesky's first binaural album (the percussion one) back when that was first released, and it had an incredible feel of being in the room with the musicians, truly amazing.  This one, on the other hand, simply sounds like very good stereo, but still with a side/side image only.
> 
> Am I the only one disappointed with this?  Am I the only one experiencing this!?
> 
> ...


 
  me as well.
  made mention in my review on page one. 
  i think the binaural plus processing might have been too good to be true.
  sorry, dr. chesky.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

It's absolutely wonderful on my system, the illusion is very effective, giving a very solid sense of instrumental placement, well beyond a typical stereo soundfield. I'm not sure this could be achieved in a normal stereo recording. Cut three, "Phrases" is an excellent example; its rendering is one of the best examples of binaural recordings I've personally heard, followed by "PermaFunk" which makes me wonder what could have been achieved with the direct to disc versions of "Tower of Power" releases by Sheffield Labs. Very well done Chesky!    
  Quote: 





el_doug said:


> Anyone find the binaural severely lacking in this album?  Not sure if it is this particular recording, or this new "Binaural+" headphone/speaker technique, but the spatial positioning is simply 90% not there.  I bought Chesky's first binaural album (the percussion one) back when that was first released, and it had an incredible feel of being in the room with the musicians, truly amazing.  This one, on the other hand, simply sounds like very good stereo, but still with a side/side image only.
> 
> Am I the only one disappointed with this?  Am I the only one experiencing this!?
> 
> ...


----------



## Luke-

Hi guys,

I downloaded this album my connection got interrupted four times during download,the download manager said its was complete but the audio folders are empty but I have album artwork.

Tried to email hdtracks but have not had reply yet do you know if I can redownload them again? because this must be some sort of error because I don't fancy paying $18 for nothing.


----------



## Benjamin6264

I think you can re-download any album you purchased by browsing your orders archives. I could be wrong though. I'm pretty sure there's a way though.


----------



## paulebarrow

Does anyone know if Chesky downloads are available in the UK as HDtracks won't allow purchases other than from US residents?
   
  Thanks


----------



## Luke-

paulebarrow said:


> Does anyone know if Chesky downloads are available in the UK as HDtracks won't allow purchases other than from US residents?
> 
> Thanks




Hi,

I did last night via PayPal worked but my files are missing let you know what happens I'm from uk also.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

All these recordings are efforts in a similar vein, and expectations abound. However, I'm going in the opposite direction of your assessment, and believe the binaural effect is as pronounced as I've heard, but different. Maybe "refined" is a better adjective. Chesky's first collaboration with Head-Fi was a good one too, in my estimation. Was it better? I'd say it was one step in the binaural evolution. Is this version better than the first? I'd say it excels in some areas, and is similar to the first in others. Overall, I'd say it's an improvement.
   
  Musically, it is more diverse, although I really enjoyed the first album, especially if taken as a whole; for me it was more akin to a classical piece of music. I don't mind the test tracks either, and I'm going to have some fun with them on a truly big-rig, reference system as soon as I can get over to my buddy's house!
   
  Space? It's not so accented on my system as to be out of place. None of the Chesky recordings are in my system. In fact, I find it nicely balanced. It's certainly no worse than minimally mic'd stereo efforts like the FIM release of Propius "Contate Domino," or Opus 3 "GITARR-KVARTETTEN TRANSCRIPTIONS," (if you're lucky enough to have one). In their day, these were about as binaural as they could be. If anything, the focus on capturing the spacial characteristics of the recorded venue enhance the musical experience because they help us become experientially place-based. If you've ever been in a large cathedral or church hall setting, one of the immediate experiences is hearing our own voice echoing off distant walls. We usually wait for it it end. 
   
  "Permafunk" transported me back to my Sheffield Lab, "Tower of Power" days, considering what might have been possible if they could have recorded binaurally. At least on my system "Permafunk" is clear, distinct, and enveloping. Nothing confusing whatsoever! In fact, one of the draws for me with well recorded binaural music, is how distinct everything remains. Instruments hang separately, pinpoint from one another. I'm actually drawn into the music. At least that's what I'm hearing through my system.   
   
  Quote: 





thewuss said:


> i'm sure no one cares a hill of beans about my unsolicited opinion.
> but, since this is head-fi, i'll gladly share it.
> 
> i was very jazzed about the album when i saw it featured on Inner Fidelity.
> ...


----------



## IEMCrazy

Quote: 





llloyd said:


> Not really a fan of their pricing method.  Why not just have one flat price for all quality levels?  It's not like it takes much to change the quality level of a file.  Not only that it has all sorts of implications about the quality of a file compared to the value of the actual music.
> 
> 25$ is too much for a digital album.  I don't care about the quality level or what tech you used to record it.  Not only that, if the master tape was already there to begin with, why are you charging extra just to let others hear it?  It's kinda silly if you ask me.  Seems like another way to take advantage of the audio enthusiast market.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Quote: 





llloyd said:


> Well, to be honest while I think binaural stuff is really cool, it doesn't strike me as the way all music should be recorded or something like that.  I'm not against it and I think I could find a lot of enjoyment in it.  I don't think he's like trying to make millions.  I realize the sales are limited.  The sales are also limited with many, MANY bands that I listen to, and they still charge no more than 20$ for vinyl, and you get whatever format you desire (some including 24bit) as many times as you want once you've bought the album.
> 
> I understand it's quite the investment, and I realize it's niche but then why is the 16/44 only 12$?  It's a little weird that's all.  Make it all a flat high price if it was really that expensive.  Making the higher bitrates cost so much just seems to be kind of a downer for the audio community.  Anyway when you are charging 25 for pure digital that's when you're getting into gimmick territory if you ask me.


 
   
  I have mixed feelings about the pricing model of HDTracks, but generally the pricing model isn't unlike CDs and SACDs.  $11 may be more than an MP3 download from iTunes, but it's the same or cheaper than most physical CDs for 16/44.1.   Most things above that and up to 24/96 seem to be $15-18.   The $15 I can accept, the $18 pushes it a little for some of the content.  But you are talking about digital downloads representing up to a little over a gig a piece.  That takes money to store and transmit.  The only one that's extraordinary is the $25 for the 24/192 stuff, but considering what you're buying is effectively the _master_ one must ask why anyone feels they need to own the master to begin with.  Do you plan on editing it?  Running it through heavy DSP?  If so, the master is good to have, and $25 is probably a fair value for that.  For the rest of us, why do we need a 2GB+ master of any recording?  I dare any ABX test to reveal better SQ from it unless it's going through extreme DSP. You're also paying for risk assessment, with what is likely the master in tow, it's just screaming to be bootlegged.  I can see why storing/sending a 2GB file would cost a lot more on their end than storing and sending a 400mb file. More than double the price?  Maybe not, but, honestly, who buys the 192 version?  It would clog my server bandwidth  just playing the darned thing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  The offering of 192 is probably more gimmicky than the price of it.
   
   
  Price aside I'm looking forward to a brighter future in binaural recording.  I've always loved the effects of it, and there's just not enough of it around.  That's the key factor that keeps headphones and even speakers from sounding real: mono-directional recording. I commented in another thread relating to headphone prices that headphones are well past pushing the limits of what current recording can do, we need new recording tech for headphones to go anywhere at this point.  And this tech(nique) is just what the doctor (Cheskey) ordered!
   
  For the few people that commented on not hearing the binaural effect, which headphones were you using?  It's long been said that binaural works best on very flat headhones, not colored ones.  I'd think this would work best on things like ER4, K70x, HD800, HE-6, etc.


----------



## lilkoolaidman

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> Anyone find the binaural severely lacking in this album?  Not sure if it is this particular recording, or this new "Binaural+" headphone/speaker technique, but the spatial positioning is simply 90% not there.  I bought Chesky's first binaural album (the percussion one) back when that was first released, and it had an incredible feel of being in the room with the musicians, truly amazing.  This one, on the other hand, simply sounds like very good stereo, but still with a side/side image only.
> 
> Am I the only one disappointed with this?  Am I the only one experiencing this!?
> 
> ...


 

 See, I was afraid of this. Why not just have the "soundfield" tracks and the "binaural" tracks separate like in Explorations? I'll probably buy this anyway since it would be nice to have.


----------



## LFF

Quote: 





iemcrazy said:


> For the few people that commented on not hearing the binaural effect, which headphones were you using?  It's long been said that binaural works best on very flat headhones, not colored ones.  I'd think this would work best on things like ER4, K70x, HD800, HE-6, etc.


 
   
   
  As an amateur binaural recording enthusiast, I can confirm that the less colored (aka more neutral) your headphones are, the better the binaural effect will be. While I haven't heard the Chesky Binaural tracks on this album, I know there are many obstacles to overcome in order to get a great binaural recording that translates the best for the vast majority of the population.


----------



## El_Doug

The headphones used don't really matter, given that the first binaural album works flawlessly on the very same setup.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Yet, on my same setup, the difference is apparent with both albums. I suppose Chesky could release one or two  sample files in normal stereo soundfield. Maybe then you'd hear the difference?  
  Quote: 





el_doug said:


> The headphones used don't really matter, given that the first binaural album works flawlessly on the very same setup.


----------



## LFF

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> The headphones used don't really matter, given that the first binaural album works flawlessly on the very same setup.


 
  Read my comment again....
   
  I can confirm that *the less colored* (aka more neutral) your headphones are, *the better* the binaural effect will be.


----------



## jtaylor991

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> Anyone find the binaural severely lacking in this album?  Not sure if it is this particular recording, or this new "Binaural+" headphone/speaker technique, but the spatial positioning is simply 90% not there.  I bought Chesky's first binaural album (the percussion one) back when that was first released, and it had an incredible feel of being in the room with the musicians, truly amazing.  This one, on the other hand, simply sounds like very good stereo, but still with a side/side image only.
> 
> Am I the only one disappointed with this?  Am I the only one experiencing this!?
> 
> ...


 
   
  I listened to a few of the samples on the page and I felt the same way. Good imaging, but everything felt a bit far away (from what I listened to, the singer on the first or second track was close up though, and the guitar was off to the left, so it sounded very unrealistic unless it was meant to show someone else playing the guitar, but this seems unnatural for a song like that in general to me)/distant, and echo-y..y'know?
   
  Edit: I never heard the first one, but I was let down in the previews that I heard. Maybe my expectations were unrealistic but in a way so was the music. I was expecting to be surrounded by instruments playing music in an upfront, lively manner, but all I heard was an improved stereo soundstage that had good depth and was wider, making it feel a bit weird to me compared to what I'm used to. No extreme steps for music-lover kind IMHO. I'll go listen to the first one (Explorations In Space And Time) before I judge whether I even like binaural or if it just makes me feel awkward.
   
  Edit 2: Are the online samples actually good enough though or do I need to buy it to get it all/absorb and take it in? Maybe I'll buy it just for the music (especially sicne there's a refular version).


----------



## IEMCrazy

Does anyone know if the 24/96 versions file corruption issues mentioned have been fixed yet?  I'd love to buy it, but I know HDTracks is a nightmare if the download is bad...


----------



## rgs9200m

Thanks Jude for this. By the way Jude, thanks for doing a great job-- Headfi is the best site around by far.


----------



## Dave1972

Quote: 





songmic said:


> Okay guys, has anyone run into this problem with this album like I did? I purchased the binaural album about a week ago actually, the 96/24 version. It was great, as many others have pointed out, but there were *4 track files that were heavily distorted and caused severe playback errors.* They were track 10, 14, 15, and 26, to be specific. The remaining 22 songs all played OK without any issues. I addressed this problem to HDTracks, and they sent me those 4 tracks for me to download again, but the problem still persisted with those tracks. So I emailed HDTracks again, telling them that the problem isn't fixed, and later they replied that they too found out the problem, but were simply "waiting for instructions." I haven't heard from them since.
> 
> Am I the only one who noticed this? Did anyone else have problem with the 96/24 version of the above-mentioned 4 tracks? Since the rest of the 22 tracks play fine in my system, I'm pretty sure something's wrong with those specific tracks. I hope HDTracks does something fast to fix this, before more unaware buyers purchase the album to find out some of the files are messed up.


 

 The problem is those four tracks (10, 14, 15, 26) have been put in 4-channel containers, not 2-channel stereo ones. There's obviously been a serious error at HDTracks. I have checked these FLACs in Audacity, and channels 3 & 4 are just silent. They are very easy to fix using your software of choice to dump those silent channels and re-convert to 2-channel FLAC losslessly. I used Saracon to split out the channels, dump the silent ones, then re-interleave them. It worked a treat!


----------



## grokit

Hmm... as 96/24 would be my preferred download I will hold off on this.


----------



## Dave1972

Quote: 





grokit said:


> Hmm... as 96/24 would be my preferred download I will hold off on this.


 

 Please read my comment above - the problem with those four corrupt 24/96 tracks is very easily fixed.


----------



## jude

Quote: 





dave1972 said:


> Please read my comment above - the problem with those four corrupt 24/96 tracks is very easily fixed.


 
   
  Chesky fixed those tracks a few days ago. I re-downloaded the 24/96 and 16/44 albums, and they work fine. Let me know if you guys are still having problems, and, if so, I'll give them a call.


----------



## LemanRuss9

a shame,i cant purchase this.since im outside of the US


----------



## Jeff Graw

Quote: 





benjamin6264 said:


> I think you can re-download any album you purchased by browsing your orders archives. I could be wrong though. I'm pretty sure there's a way though.


 
   
  Nope.
   
Q: What if I accidentally erase my HDtracks from my hard drive? 
 A: We encourage you to back up all of your music files. HDtracks cannot be responsible for lost files. However, if you lose a file while the download is in progress, please contact us and we will help you to complete the process. 
   
  When combined with their overcharging for high resolution files, this is pretty lame, especially considering how cheaply one can pick up SACDs.
   
  There is a definite niche for downloadable high resolution music, but with their high prices and backwards single download policy, HD tracks has failed to meet it


----------



## Benjamin6264

Quote: 





jeff graw said:


> Nope.
> 
> Q: What if I accidentally erase my HDtracks from my hard drive?
> A: We encourage you to back up all of your music files. HDtracks cannot be responsible for lost files. However, if you lose a file while the download is in progress, please contact us and we will help you to complete the process.
> ...


 

 That's quite disappointing. I suppose one could re-download them from file sharing websites. I don't think it would be prohibited, considering that they did purchase the music already.


----------



## MorbidToaster

Your ISP won't see it that way. 
   
  Quote: 





benjamin6264 said:


> That's quite disappointing. I suppose one could re-download them from file sharing websites. I don't think it would be prohibited, considering that they did purchase the music already.


----------



## IEMCrazy

Quote: 





jude said:


> Chesky fixed those tracks a few days ago. I re-downloaded the 24/96 and 16/44 albums, and they work fine. Let me know if you guys are still having problems, and, if so, I'll give them a call.


 
   
  Thanks for the update, I downloaded the album as a result, but haven't had a chance to listen to it yet to verify the tracks. I'll try to test the troubled tracks tonight and report back.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> Your ISP won't see it that way.


 
   
  If you do it right your ISP won't see it at all...


----------



## IEMCrazy

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> If you do it right your ISP won't see it at all...


 
  And if HDTracks weren't practicing download policies that haven't changed since the 14th century, you wouldn't need to worry about it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I understand why they do it.  Bandwidth is expensive, and allowing 1GB+ transfers "as many times as you'd like" would multiply their costs to deliver albums, reduce the profits of running a business that is already highly niche, and probably drive costs up (which would be too high for us to willingly pay them, then they would go out of business.)  However it's still fairly annoying "just in case" something happens. 
   
  Even iTunes is draconian and won't allow re-downloads of music.  They allow it for apps, but not music.  And that's only 256k lossy stuff totaling 50-100mb.  
   
  One more reason to dislike digital distribution.   The only thing that keeps me a customer of theirs is there's no other place to reliably get high-res tracks to my Squeezebox rig, and if I had a disaster I would *not* be happy with re-ripping my hundreds, approaching 1k CDs either so I already retain backups in quadruplicate of my music server.  I've burned out enough CD drives ripping them all to begin with


----------



## Jeff Graw

Quote: 





iemcrazy said:


> And if HDTracks weren't practicing download policies that haven't changed since the 14th century, you wouldn't need to worry about it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Ever use steam? That's digital distribution done _right_.
   
  I really don't buy the bandwidth argument either, given that I can get a 10GB game for $5 in a steam sale that can be downloaded as many times as I want -- the developers _and_ valve make absolute bucket loads from those bargain basement sales.
   
  Any cost associated with the occasional repeat download would more than likely be made up for by the increased number of users willing to use the service. If their download policy wasn't so frustratingly backwards, I'd use HD Tracks extensively. As it stands now, I won't touch them.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





jeff graw said:


> Ever use steam? That's digital distribution done _right_.


 
   
  It's done better, but still not right.  There's still DRM
   
  For right I'd recommend GOG.


----------



## MorbidToaster

Just a heads up you can redownload anything you buy on iTunes now. They added a 'Purchased' section recently that allows you to redownload songs, movies, etc. 

Unfortunately all of my stuff was downloaded back when they did 128kbs instead of 256...and even though they no longer sell it in 128 that's all I can DL it in.


----------



## jtaylor991

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> It's done better, but still not right.  There's still DRM
> 
> For right I'd recommend GOG.


 
  Looks interesting, but the DRM is to prevent piracy. Does GOG have all of the latest games (on par with what Steam has)? I can handle the DRM, but I hate how it's against their usage agreement to sell your account. He got it back eventually but a kid with $1,800 (USD) got caught sellign his account on eBay and they banned it, and he lost all of those games (more importantly the money!). I'd raise hell. I have around $400 on my Steam account that I never use (in about 50 games, including all the Rockstar games [like GTA], COD Black Ops, etc) if anyone wants it 
   



morbidtoaster said:


> Just a heads up you can redownload anything you buy on iTunes now. They added a 'Purchased' section recently that allows you to redownload songs, movies, etc.
> Unfortunately all of my stuff was downloaded back when they did 128kbs instead of 256...and even though they no longer sell it in 128 that's all I can DL it in.


 
  It used to be "only once" but you could call in to Apple Support and they'd set your account to re-download everything you've ever bought, so next time you log in you have all your purchases re-downloading. They let me do it a few times in one week though when stuff kept getting screwed up, and half of it was stuff I never bought or wanted


----------



## IEMCrazy

Quote: 





jeff graw said:


> Ever use steam? That's digital distribution done _right_.
> 
> I really don't buy the bandwidth argument either, given that I can get a 10GB game for $5 in a steam sale that can be downloaded as many times as I want -- the developers _and_ valve make absolute bucket loads from those bargain basement sales.
> 
> Any cost associated with the occasional repeat download would more than likely be made up for by the increased number of users willing to use the service. If their download policy wasn't so frustratingly backwards, I'd use HD Tracks extensively. As it stands now, I won't touch them.


 
   
  Steam is nice for a variety of reasons, yes.  However, their model is very different to HDTracks since they're mass-market distribution.  Only core audiophiles have any interest whatsoever in HDTracks.  Also Valve has big market power with Steam and can demand fair contracts from content providers.  HDTracks is no doubt getting gauged from here to tomorrow from the music publishers who are DRM-paranoid, especially about their 24-bit masters & semi-masters transferred over HDTracks no doubt more modest supply.  Valve is no doubt getting huge per-GB discounts on bandwidth due to buying bandwidth in huge bulk contracts since they're wide mass-market and large-size per item transfers.  They're spending far more to buy that supply, but can because they have far more customers.  And publishers are willing to take a hit on it and sell at better bargains since it's DRM'ed, locked, and they don't have to splurge on copyright material.  So for a $50 game, Valve maybe paid $5-10 per license.  I bet HDTracks is getting toasted by publishers since they're DRM....maybe $7-8 on a $12 16/44.1.  No inside information on either of them, but general knowledge of the scales of economies of the limited market and the way game publishers versus DRM-less music publishers react. 
   
  I don't like HDTracks policy, and I only somewhat like their pricing, but I don't think they're making huge boatloads of money on the deal either after costs.  Profit, sure, but a steady trickle, not the huge dumptruck full of money it looks like. The music publishers on the other hand.....back the truck in slowly.  Cheskey and the like aside of course....they charge a lot, pull in a lot, but of course spend fortunes on the recording as well, right down to modeling dummy heads like we see here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  If you want to try to handle costs and scales of economy, just try running your own content distribution service and see how bandwidth costs start racking up 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  It's a lot more affordable if you're buying enough bandwidth on enough continents for a few terabytes a second.  
   
  Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> Just a heads up you can redownload anything you buy on iTunes now. They added a 'Purchased' section recently that allows you to redownload songs, movies, etc.
> Unfortunately all of my stuff was downloaded back when they did 128kbs instead of 256...and even though they no longer sell it in 128 that's all I can DL it in.


 
   
  Very cool, I'm glad to see that.  I'm not, in any way an iTunes fan with 256k lossy, though I have some around, but for that content I'd still prefer it to Amazon's simply because the AAC codec is nicer than Lame which Amazon uses.  On the other hand, speaking of scales of economy, it took Apple quite a long time to allow you to re-download something you bought.  If it took that long for one of the top companies on the planet in terms of finances, it's hard to be too angry at little old HDTracks.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





jtaylor991 said:


> Looks interesting, but the DRM is to prevent piracy. Does GOG have all of the latest games (on par with what Steam has)? I can handle the DRM, but I hate how it's against their usage agreement to sell your account. He got it back eventually but a kid with $1,800 (USD) got caught sellign his account on eBay and they banned it, and he lost all of those games (more importantly the money!). I'd raise hell. I have around $400 on my Steam account that I never use (in about 50 games, including all the Rockstar games [like GTA], COD Black Ops, etc) if anyone wants it


 
   
  Except that it doesn't actually prevent "piracy" and only makes things more difficult for the user.  They don't have all the latest releases but I never said they did.  They're just one of the few place that does digital distribution right.  They make it easier to buy the game than to "pirate" it.
   
  Personally, I no longer buy anything with those kinds of restrictions.  Otherwise I don't actually own it.  I don't put up with things that have to phone home, be activated over the internet, or can only be played by special programs because you never know when those are going to disappear.


----------



## jtaylor991

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Except that it doesn't actually prevent "piracy" and only makes things more difficult for the user.  They don't have all the latest releases but I never said they did.  They're just one of the few place that does digital distribution right.  They make it easier to buy the game than to "pirate" it.
> 
> Personally, I no longer buy anything with those kinds of restrictions.  Otherwise I don't actually own it.  I don't put up with things that have to phone home, be activated over the internet, or can only be played by special programs because you never know when those are going to disappear.


 
  True. At least you can play them offline except there's that one company, EA maybe?, that's changing that. What's messed up is buying a disc that activates with Steam, preventing its resale (even though you aren't really supposed to re-sell PC stuff since it can just be ripped and stored, and it still has a license key I guess but still kinda messed up). Smart idea to prevent piracy, but not very nice


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *jtaylor991* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> It used to be "only once" but you could call in to Apple Support and they'd set your account to re-download everything you've ever bought, so next time you log in you have all your purchases re-downloading. They let me do it a few times in one week though when stuff kept getting screwed up, and half of it was stuff I never bought or wanted


 
   
  I paid a small fee for the privilege of re-downloading all my older purchased music in the new DRM-free, higher-resolution (still lossy) iTunes Plus format.


----------



## jtaylor991

Quote: 





grokit said:


> I paid a small fee for the privilege of re-downloading all my older purchased music in the new DRM-free, higher-resolution (still lossy) iTunes Plus format.


 
  Yeah me too, it was like 30 cents a song or something, and 60c for videos, something like that.
   
  What's funny is they still call it "iTunes Plus". (I think, they still have the little "+" next to everything don't they?) If everything is the same thing like that, why does it need a special label?


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





jeff graw said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  If you lose your SACD, the shop wont give you a replacement either.  As for "overcharging" -- if the price isn't good for you, don't buy from them. Not to mention, there are quite a few SACDs now that cost over $100, sometimes $250 or more because Sony stopped making them, so I have to disagree with your argument.


----------



## MorbidToaster

Sorry to keep to the OT convo going, but how do I go about doing this? I'd love to have some of the stuff I downloaded before in 256. Do I just contact Apple support? D you have to upgrade all of your previous purchases or can you pick and choose?
   
  Quote: 





grokit said:


> I paid a small fee for the privilege of re-downloading all my older purchased music in the new DRM-free, higher-resolution (still lossy) iTunes Plus format.


----------



## grokit

It was a while ago, from what I remember it had to do with reviewing past purchases in your iTunes shopping cart/account.
   
  Here we go, just Googled "Upgrading to iTunes Plus" and this was the first result:
   
_"Any available upgrades will be shown on the Upgrade to iTunes Plus page. You can upgrade all of your items at once by using the Buy All button. This replaces all eligible previous purchases with iTunes Plus versions of the same items. You can also choose to make individual upgrades by clicking the Buy button to the right of each item. Song upgrades are available for 0.30 USD, video upgrades for 0.60 USD, and albums for 30 percent of the album price. The counter to the right of the "Upgrade to iTunes Plus" link in the Quick Links box will indicate when additional eligible content become available."_


----------



## IEMCrazy

Quote: 





jtaylor991 said:


> True. At least you can play them offline except there's that one company, EA maybe?, that's changing that. What's messed up is buying a disc that activates with Steam, preventing its resale (even though* you aren't really supposed to re-sell PC *stuff since it can just be ripped and stored, and it still has a license key I guess but still kinda messed up). Smart idea to prevent piracy, but not very nice


 
   
  It comes back to the old "did I buy the disc, or did I buy a license" debate where DRM-loving publishers want to eat their cake and have it too.  If you own the disc, then it is your right to sell that disc as property.  If you own a license, then it is your right copy and transfer that license to as many devices as possible so long as you're using only one license at a time and do not transfer it.  While they argue about you buying the disc or buying a license what they really provide you is a _lease_.  But "lease" doesn't sell well in marketing speak so they try to pretend it's something else.
   
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> If you lose your SACD, the shop wont give you a replacement either.  As for "overcharging" -- if the price isn't good for you, don't buy from them. Not to mention, there are quite a few SACDs now that cost over $100, sometimes $250 or more because Sony stopped making them, so I have to disagree with your argument.


 
   
  True enough, but to preserve an SACD you need only keep it in a box and not physically damage it.   My SACD's don't randomly depolarize and refuse to boot, or blow all backups at once in a serious power supply problem 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Trouble is while buying digital may be arguably cheaper (or more expensive!) backing up digital data is far more expensive and power hungry than backing up physical content.  With physical you simply must not physically damage it.  With digital, no amount of redundant storage is safe enough.  I come close to good backups.  A fileserver running a RAID array, plus the copy on the dedicated music server, then dual backups of the main server.  It's as safe as one can get outside a datacenter, and I'm not personally worried about it.  But that kind of backups for normal people comes at way too substantial an expense and cost in electricity.  I needed it for things beyond audio.  Joe User will have a hard time justifying the costs of servers and operation (and of course redundant power!) to keep their music from getting lost.  I don't blame HDTracks, but I also don't blame anyone who takes issue with that policy and refuses to support them because of it too. 
   
  I agree: If you don't like the price, no need to buy there, plenty of other vendors out there.  Right now they offer what I need, the only way to get 24 bit for my Squeezebox rig, and they're doing it at an almost palatable price.  It's within a dollar or two of what I used to pay Telarc for SACDs back when they sold them.  I just wish they'd update their weekly sales more.  It's been the same list for three weeks and counting.  I like buying up the entire page of Weekly Sales when it's different....I can justify those prices far more easily


----------



## IEMCrazy

Quote: 





jude said:


> Chesky fixed those tracks a few days ago. I re-downloaded the 24/96 and 16/44 albums, and they work fine. Let me know if you guys are still having problems, and, if so, I'll give them a call.


 
   
  The files work.  I only tested with a mono speaker,  I don't want to really listen until I have time to enjoy it, but I had to at least test it for the cause!  Thanks for the info!


----------



## jtaylor991

Quote: 





iemcrazy said:


> It comes back to the old "did I buy the disc, or did I buy a license" debate where DRM-loving publishers want to eat their cake and have it too.  If you own the disc, then it is your right to sell that disc as property.  If you own a license, then it is your right copy and transfer that license to as many devices as possible so long as you're using only one license at a time and do not transfer it.  While they argue about you buying the disc or buying a license what they really provide you is a _lease_.  But "lease" doesn't sell well in marketing speak so they try to pretend it's something else.


 
  I meant like you can't return a CD or the like for a computer (unless it's like defective) because people would buy, rip, and return (like some do with Netflix lol) but I see your point. I guess as long as I don't keep using it I could sell the license to someone else, but I think those license keys usually work only once


----------



## KT66

will this be out on CD?
   
  or another US only HD tracks offer, available to approx 4% of the worlds population


----------



## Benjamin6264

Quote: 





kt66 said:


> will this be out on CD?
> 
> or another US only HD tracks offer, available to approx 4% of the worlds population


 
   
  I don't think the market is big enough to make it worthwhile for them. Also, CD format would limit the sample rate to 44.1khz.


----------



## KT66

Quote: 





benjamin6264 said:


> I don't think the market is big enough to make it worthwhile for them. Also, CD format would limit the sample rate to 44.1khz.


 
  agreed CD would be wrong, but maybe sell as USB sticks?
   
  still missing out on 96% of the world, a lot of which is wealthier than the USA, is a bad business plan


----------



## IEMCrazy

Quote: 





kt66 said:


> agreed CD would be wrong, but maybe sell as USB sticks?
> 
> still missing out on 96% of the world, a lot of which is wealthier than the USA, is a bad business plan


 
   
  And their distribution radius is the _only_ thing about HDTracks that you find to be a bad business plan 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  The key here is it's an audiophile market, by a small-time US recording studio, centered on high-res distribution of stuff that otherwise would only be available on SACD & DVD-A.  Cheskey does, or did, have a DSD/SACD production setup, not sure if they still use it and distribute globally or not, but this particular album, an audiophile demo disc is so niche, the cost of SACD/DVD-A/BD-A production wold be a loss in money.  Setting up digital distribution and haggling with international requirements and publishing licensing, copyright ownership disputes, etc is a major business and costs a lot of money to get started.  Lets first worry about HDTracks getting enough record contracts, bandwidth capacity, and customer base in their home market before they go spending fortunes globetrotting? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  They may be missing "96% of the world" but I'm guessing not much of that world outside the US, CA, AU, (UK, DE, FR, and surrounding areas), CN, JP, etc has much of a market for audiophile recordings in high res let alone binaural demo discs.  Not all of the world is as crazy as we!  Besides, we Yanks are envious of your cheaper Sennheiser prices 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Of course there is a 16/44.1 version of this on HDTracks which makes me presume perhaps CD distribution is probable.  Not sure if Cheskey has any international distribution at all though.


----------



## JoeyRusso

I downloaded this last week and was mostly impressed.  My daughter got a kick out of the Test tracks, especially the left/right tracks.  She ripped the headphones off her head and said: "Wow, that's creepy"..  lol


----------



## IEMCrazy

Quote: 





joeyrusso said:


> I downloaded this last week and was mostly impressed.  My daughter got a kick out of the Test tracks, especially the left/right tracks.  She ripped the headphones off her head and said: "Wow, that's creepy"..  lol


 
   
  Very cool, I'm saving my copy for when I can sit down and really listen to it in dead silence.  I was going to pull out the K702 for true neutrality and better binaural effect, but I may just have to use HD650.   HD650 naturally has that "creepy" effect at times with a drum or something that sound so real and so very "just behind your shoulder", I can imagine what this sounds like with the binaural recording


----------



## JoeyRusso

Quote: 





iemcrazy said:


> Very cool, I'm saving my copy for when I can sit down and really listen to it in dead silence.  I was going to pull out the K702 for true neutrality and better binaural effect, but I may just have to use HD650.   HD650 naturally has that "creepy" effect at times with a drum or something that sound so real and so very "just behind your shoulder", I can imagine what this sounds like with the binaural recording


 
   
  She was using my Q701's at the time.. I suggest starting with them


----------



## IEMCrazy

Nice...I think I'll stick with the original plan then!  I'm looking forward to it.  I keep picking other genres since it's been a bit warm and I've had a fan on...this deserves dead silence.  I just hope to get to try it before November while waiting for "perfect silence"


----------



## jtaylor991

Quote: 





iemcrazy said:


> Nice...I think I'll stick with the original plan then!  I'm looking forward to it.  I keep picking other genres since it's been a bit warm and I've had a fan on...this deserves dead silence.  I just hope to get to try it before November while waiting for "perfect silence"


 
  I have tinnitus, therefore no perfect silence ;(


----------



## edstrelow

Quote: 





jude said:


> ​
> 
> 
> Quote:  Originally Posted by *jude*
> ...


----------



## TheWuss

Quote: 





edstrelow said:


>





> The recording sounds interesting.  Your psycho-acoustic explanation is off the rails.  Bianuaral recordings do not provide crossfeed, nor does regular stereo, listened through headphones..    The sound of each channel heard by the opposite ear is an artifact of speaker reproduction often called  a "phantom channel."  Far from enhancing locaization it messes it up as anyone who has heard speakers that suppress it knows.  Check out Polk's old SDA systems.   Blending and mixing up the 2 channels simply makes the minimizes the stereo localization cues.  The headroom people were simply full of beans on this issue and used this erroneous bit of psuedo science to peddle their cross-feed blend systems.  If you like blend and crossfeed that's your choice, it will shrink the width of a stereo image and some people seem to be able to convince themselves that this give better forward projection of sound.  In tuth it does sound more like speakers but speakers give flawed stereo.


 
   
  My understanding - and experience - with crossfeed couldn't be more different than how you just described it, edstrelow.
   
  Proper crossfeed widens the stereo image by moving the extreme left signal and extreme right signal into focus. 
   
  Saying that it "blends" the left and right channels is a bit of a misnomer.  and thus one of the reasons crossfeed is misunderstood as a "mono-izer".
   
_Audibly_, the left and right signals are not blended, but are actually pushed even further apart.  Because they are brought into focus, and the ear can pinpoint an acousstic location for the signal.  In other words, what once sounded as if it was eminating from within the headphone now sounds as if it is eminating from further away.
   
  And the center image, a "difference" signal between the left and right channels, comes into tighter focus, and appears to come from in front of the listener.
   
  I no longer use crossfeed, because my system produces a sufficiently holographic sound without it.  But, when I had a less resolving sytem it was of great benefit.  And I firmly believe crossfeed helped ease me into the realm of head-fi. 
   
  So, yes.  If speakers create "flawed stereo" - whatever that means - then I'd rather headphones sound like speakers.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





thewuss said:


> Saying that it "blends" the left and right channels is a bit of a misnomer.  and thus one of the reasons crossfeed is misunderstood as a "mono-izer".
> 
> _Audibly_, the left and right signals are not blended, but are actually pushed even further apart.  Because they are brought into focus, and the ear can pinpoint an acousstic location for the signal.  In other words, what once sounded as if it was eminating from within the headphone now sounds as if it is eminating from further away.


 
   
  Crossfeed actually _does _mix the channels together but it doesn't do it indiscriminately.  The level of crosstalk varies with the frequency and drops off as the frequency increases.  This mimics the way sound reaches you ears IRL.  Lower frequencies with longer wavelengths will bend more around the edges of obstacles, such as a person's face.  This means that the lower the frequency the more you will hear it in both ears even if source is at an angle to you and one of your ears doesn't have a straight line path to the source.  These difference in volume between each ear that vary with frequency and angle are one way that your brain determines what angle a sound is coming from.
   
  This centers the imaging and moves the soundstage forward because stereo mixes assume acoustic crosstalk from speakers which headphones lack.  A guitar panned most or all the way to one channel will still be heard with both ears when played over speakers from diffraction (the sound bending around corners) even if you're in an anechoic chamber.  With headphones you either won't hear it at all in one ear or the volume in the other ear will be lower than how you would hear it IRL.  A hard pan won't occur in nature but even something panned most of the way to one side will sound like it's at a greater angle on headphones than speakers because the level in the opposite ear will be lower.  Increasing the crosstalk between channels as frequency decreases helps to mitigate this by making the differences more natural and moving the stage forward.
   
  It's not perfect though.  The usual crossfeed circuits you see on most head amps aren't the most accurate simulation of what the sound waves do IRL.  They capture the broad brushstrokes but don't add the fine details.  There are other things that your brain uses to localize sound as well so even a perfect crossfeed won't give you perfect localization.
   
  Quote: 





edstrelow said:


> The recording sounds interesting. Your psycho-acoustic explanation is off the rails. Bianuaral recordings do not provide crossfeed, nor does regular stereo, listened through headphones.. The sound of each channel heard by the opposite ear is an artifact of speaker reproduction often called a "phantom channel." Far from enhancing locaization it messes it up as anyone who has heard speakers that suppress it knows. Check out Polk's old SDA systems. Blending and mixing up the 2 channels simply makes the minimizes the stereo localization cues. The headroom people were simply full of beans on this issue and used this erroneous bit of psuedo science to peddle their cross-feed blend systems. If you like blend and crossfeed that's your choice, it will shrink the width of a stereo image and some people seem to be able to convince themselves that this give better forward projection of sound. In tuth it does sound more like speakers but speakers give flawed stereo.


 
   
  I think you're probably the one full of beans on this issue.
   
  Stereo music is already mixed with the acoustic crosstalk from the opposite speaker in mind and accounted for as much as possible.  It's not perfect but it works pretty darn well in a well set up listening room.  Crossfeed is certainly not as good as a proper binaural recording which encodes a more accurate transfer function than a basic modified Linkwitz filter can.  Unfortunately pretty much all 2 channel music is mixed in stereo so we have to make due with what actually exists.
   
  The reason to add crossfeed is simple.  You hear sounds IRL with both ears even when they come from a single point.  Excluding the very softest sounds and shortest distances there is no such thing as a hard pan IRL like there is when listening to stereo recordings over headphones.  Reflection, diffraction, and even the attenuated and delayed wave which will pass though your head ensures that you hear the majority of sounds with both ears, especially _loud _sounds.  Headphones just can't do that when fed stereophonic material.  They sound loud when they only have to move a tiny bit of air right next to your ear but they don't put out nearly enough energy for the waves to audible after they get to the other side of your head.  This asymmetry that headphones create with stereo recordings is completely unnatural.  Stereo mixes that sound perfectly natural on speakers will commonly create soundfields that are physically _impossible _when listened to over headphones.  A fly can buzz in your ear, sound loud by proximity, and cause an annoying asymmetry but it still sounds like it's right next to your ear.  There is no instrument or voice which can be heard loudly in one ear, sound many feet distant, and simultaneously be inaudible in your other.  Congratulations if you're able to get used to that.  I get headaches from much more subtle imbalances.  It certainly opens up your options when shopping for amps.
   
  Crossfeed is indeed a compromise.  A few simple LCR filters don't accurately reproduce even a generic HRTF particularly well.  Even DSPs like TB Isone aren't perfect.  Some people might ask why we should bother if the only solution is such a compromise.  They probably haven't noticed that listening to stereo music over headphones is already a compromise, a far larger one than the "phantom" channel of stereo speakers IMO.  Ultimately you've got to pick your poison.  If you're not bothered by unnatural interaural level differences and prefer a wide soundstage over a deeper one then crossfeed isn't for you.  If you are bothered by those you can use crossfeed and trade some soundstage width for it.  Even binaural isn't perfect as individual HRTFs can vary quite a bit from the averages used to construct HATS.  The fewer compromises you make the less music you'll have left to listen to.
   
  You can talk about it's limitations or just not like the effect but it has a very firm basis in psychoacoustics.


----------



## IEMCrazy

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Crossfeed actually _does _mix the channels together but it doesn't do it indiscriminately.  The level of crosstalk varies with the frequency and drops off as the frequency increases.  This mimics the way sound reaches you ears IRL.  Lower frequencies with longer wavelengths will bend more around the edges of obstacles, such as a person's face.  This means that the lower the frequency the more you will hear it in both ears even if source is at an angle to you and one of your ears doesn't have a straight line path to the source.  These difference in volume between each ear that vary with frequency and angle are one way that your brain determines what angle a sound is coming from.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
   
  Very nice writeup on psychoacoustics and stereo.  The old audiophile myth of "stereo is best" gets somewhat tiring, even for speakers.  Stereo was simply a crude approximation or real world listening as theorized by recording engineers in the mid 20th century.  It's not the magic be-all and-all of audio that many make it out to be.  For headphones there's binaural, for speakers there's real surround recordings.  Both are sadly very limited in quantity. 
   
  But that's why I get irritated with all the excessive pushing for amps and headphones and tubes etc that add "more soundstage" since, IMO they're long-shot expensive attempts to correct what is in essence a flaw in the recording.  What's on the disc isn't very much like real life.  Sure one piece of gear or another may have elements of a bigger soundstage, but they're small fixes for the core problem of needing to move _recording_ technology forward before playback technology means much of anything.  It doesn't work for headphones but the genuine multi-channel SACDs/DVD-s, that weren't botched by the recording studio, give a taste of what we should be looking for!
   
  We need new recording technology and recording methods for any real improvement in audio to take place.  Virtually no one seems interested in investing in that technology, except Cheskey....thank goodness at least someone gets it!


----------



## pietcux

Quote: 





lemanruss9 said:


> a shame,i cant purchase this.since im outside of the US


 
  I am in Germany and I can get at least the MP3 version using pay pal.


----------



## CEE TEE

Finally listened to this for the first time at work the other day with UERM and I really like this album!
   
  Not only is there music that I will enjoy listening to many times, but some good system test tracks and fun examples to let people listen to on my rig.
   
  My favorite Chesky demo disc so far!  
   
  As for how "binaural" it is compared to Explorations, I have not compared yet.  Haven't really listened to the Explorations tracks that much but probably will later.
   
  I was worried that this album might not be "binaural enough" due to some comments, but quickly didn't worry about that as I enjoyed the music and recordings.


----------



## vicjohn

I wanna buy!


----------



## AlanHell

Always a fan to Chesky, they put more space and detail into HD800s.
  Just wish they do more music on different genres, like rock or Classic Goth.
   
  The digital price is a bit higher than usual, if they come with an SACD, I would be more than happy to pay for it~~~~~~
  FLAC......Now, I need to find my optical cable for my DAC1


----------



## BrainBlown

I'm new to all this and am excited to check out this Binaural album!


----------



## jamesWin

nice.. i'm on to this! thanks for sharing


----------



## songmic

I was slightly disappointed with this album, because overall it didn't sound "binaural" compared to the Explorations in Space and Time. However, I have to admit that a few non-music tracks sounded so real and binaural that they kinda creeped me out, especially the right and left hearing tests where Dr. Chesky practically whispers into your ears. They really gave me the goosebumps.


----------



## Hibuckhobby

I had a similar response.  For the most part, I felt I had other recordings that were not
  touted as binaural that created a better sense of space and depth to the sound.  With 
  that said, I enjoyed some of the music on it a great deal.
  Hibuck...


----------



## ChipnDalebowl

Listened to the samples, and they were honestly all blegh. Did he actually use binaural recording on this album? I seriously thought some of the Cincinnati Pops albums I have gave more sense of depth than these samples did.

http://orangetreeproductions.com/binaural-recording/ - These people at Orange Tree who make the National Parks Series albums make good binaural recordings - I have at least a dozen of their recordings. These sound far better than what I just heard and I'm not paying premium prices for their music either. They just record and let nature do the rest.


----------



## grokit

Even though it may not represent my taste in music, the only thing stopping me from buying this for at least the novelty factor is the fact that if I buy the 24/192 version of this I still have to buy the 16/44 version compare it to for curiosity's sake. It could very well expand my musical horizons as a bonus.
   
  HDtracks might find a wider audience if the lesser-quality downloads were included with the purchase of the HQ files.


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

Quote:


grokit said:


> Even though it may not represent my taste in music, the only thing stopping me from buying this for at least the novelty factor is the fact that if I buy the 24/192 version of this I still have to buy the 16/44 version compare it to for curiosity's sake. It could very well expand my musical horizons as a bonus.
> 
> HDtracks might find a wider audience if the lesser-quality downloads were included with the purchase of the HQ files.


 
  Of course, you can still down-sample with good results from the HQ version on your own computer (XLD is a good option on the Mac). I'm pretty sure HD Tracks pretty much do the same for their own lower quality versions... (It's up-sampling that would be pointless since you can't add data that isn't there (at the source level, not in terms of oversampling in the filter sense))


----------



## HiFlight

chipndalebowl said:


> Listened to the samples, and they were honestly all blegh. Did he actually use binaural recording on this album? I seriously thought some of the Cincinnati Pops albums I have gave more sense of depth than these samples did.
> http://orangetreeproductions.com/binaural-recording/ - These people at Orange Tree who make the National Parks Series albums make good binaural recordings - I have at least a dozen of their recordings. These sound far better than what I just heard and I'm not paying premium prices for their music either. They just record and let nature do the rest.




What a great find!!! The music is absolutely beautiful and the binaural recording quality is superb. Thanks for sharing this great music source!


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





thegrumpyoldman said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> grokit said:
> ...


 
   
  If I thought that was always the case, I would definitely downsample it myself. But it seems to be a somewhat 'open secret' that the reason that many hi-res music files sound different is because they are mixed and mastered to sound... drum roll... different (than their hi-res counterparts). Different doesn't necessarily mean better, and the jury is still out if the additional bit/sample rates add any more audible (to the human ear) resolution. So I would think that if there is a benefit to these more expensive file sizes, the companies pushing them out the virtual door at a ~100% premium would be more forthcoming about these details and invite more direct comparisons to Redbook files.
   
  But hey what do I know, except that snake oil is actually good for what ails you. True fact!


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

Quote:


grokit said:


> If I thought that was always the case, I would definitely downsample it myself. But it seems to be a somewhat 'open secret' that the reason that many hi-res music files sound different is because they are mixed and mastered to sound... drum roll... different (than their hi-res counterparts). <SNIP>


 
  (I guess you mean lo-res in one of the two above?) I think what would be interesting would be to buy both versions (one time only), create your own downsampled version from the "HD" version and compare it with their equivalent-quality version, both by ear and by measurement (binary comparison & inside audio editor) and see what, if any, difference there might be... I even think one audio site or magazine did that recently, and let's say it didn't turn out so well for the sellers... can't find the link to the article now.
   
  I only bought a few "HD" albums for the same reason you mentioned: because I -hope- they are mastered differently (better!) Sometimes they state it obviously, noting the sound engineer et al. Sometimes not so much... I bought one 24/44.1 track from an album I had ripped myself from CD at the usual 16/44.1 for comparison purposes, mostly because I kinda liked the album and it was brick-walled (very audibly) in the current fashion, hoping for a bit more range to alleviate the problem. It sounded exactly the same (to my ears anyway) and measured the same in the DR metering app (not the most complete, but since I was looking specifically for a DR improvement, adequate) In short, pointless purchase.
   
  We're getting off-track here, so I would just add that since Chesky himself rolled this one out, I would think that more care than usual was taken to optimize the varying versions...
   
  I myself bought the 24/96 version because I like the binaural thing a lot and want to encourage more of it. I have to concur with others that the track selection as a whole is a bit meh; some tracks are very enjoyable, the binaural experiments work very well, but a lot of it is just not something that will make me listen to the album as whole repeatedly. However, all of them are definitely binaural in the sense that they all have some parts "outside" of the headphones typical of binaural. Now in terms of soundstage etc., yeah, not that impressive.
   
  Frankly, my favourite "musical" binaural recordings remain:
  - Ottmar Liebert & Luna Negra's Up Close album (YouTube Sample) ('cause I like the guitar music anyway)
  - And the amazingly freely available Cowboy Junkies Live at the Ark (Hybrid Binaural, FLAC available) (at the Internet Archive) ('cause I'm a big CJ fan)
  For those not hanging out so much here yet, these were pulled from this thread and this thread
   
  Ultimately I put my money down for Chesky's album because: MOAR BINAURAL PLEASE!


----------



## grokit

Quote: 





thegrumpyoldman said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> grokit said:
> ...


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

Quote:


grokit said:


> *Interesting, was that Little Broken Hearts? If so and you use iTunes, I noticed that the metadata was wrong, it came out a a "2-bit" file instead of 24. Perhaps the 24-bit headroom is better for DSP though. *


 
  It was Lana Del Rey's Born to Die, on CD. Some songs on there are nice, but even the quieter ones have a noticeable harshness in her voice and of course the whole album is loud relative to my usual listening volume. I bought one track on HD Tracks to compare, Carmen, with the aforementioned result (also: DR Database entry, 5 album DR 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )  Looks like vinyl won out on that one, once again not because of the medium itself but because of more careful mastering...


----------



## William007

Want this on cd for my setup can't burn it on one because my cdp-101 can't read burned cd's


----------



## johnwmclean

I encourage a realistic volume level, anything less and binaural effect diminishes Sonically its an amazing album, my system did a fantastic disappearing act. As to the music is absolute rubbish, but I expected that from Chesky.


----------



## Ultrainferno

Quote: 





johnwmclean said:


> I encourage a realistic volume level, anything less and binaural effect diminishes Sonically its an amazing album, my system did a fantastic disappearing act. As to the music is absolute rubbish, but I expected that from Chesky.


 
   
  I did like a song or 2. Especially the organ ~ Bach Toccata And Fugue


----------



## songmic

I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks this way, but the two hi-rez binaural albums that garnered a lot of attention here at Head-Fi, namely "Explorations in Space and Time" and "A Sensational... Binaural Album" by Dr. Chesky, seem to have been recorded with the pure intention of showing off this binaural technology at its best. And frankly, yes, the technology is quite impressive. However, now that we know how advanced binaural technology has become thanks to these two albums, I'd like to listen to binaural albums of similar recording quality that don't just focus on the binaural factor but also has great music we audiophiles can enjoy. Admittedly, explorations in Space and Time blew my mind the first time I heard it, but these days I only listen to it every once in a while to remind myself how awesome binaural recordings sound, but not really because I enjoy the music itself. And with A Sensational... Binaural Album, it only seems like an experimental album filled with a rather disorganized array of short tracks, recorded with the intention of trying to re-prove the awesomeness of binaural technology which was already demonstrated in Explorations in Space and Time.
   
  I know binaural technology isn't relatively new but it hasn't been long since it captivated people's attention at Head-Fi thanks to these two albums, which somewhat served as eye-openers IMO. Now that we know and crave for more, I hope Chesky Records (and other recording studios, for that matter) to start recording and releasing binaural albums we can listen to enjoy not only "sound" but also "music" as well.
   
  On a side note, although I don't know if this is really doable, but I'd be thrilled if some of my all-time favorite albums from legendary bands like Pink Floyd, U2, etc. gets re-mastered and re-released in hi-rez binaural tracks.


----------



## AaronAnderson

What am I missing? I've got some decent equipment and lots of appreciation for stuff that sounds great.... This feels like some rubbish stuff recorded in big fancy halls and someone actually bothered to do some left/right separation.


----------



## 054k4

Quote: 





songmic said:


> I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks this way, but the two hi-rez binaural albums that garnered a lot of attention here at Head-Fi, namely "Explorations in Space and Time" and "A Sensational... Binaural Album" by Dr. Chesky, seem to have been recorded with the pure intention of showing off this binaural technology at its best. And frankly, yes, the technology is quite impressive. However, now that we know how advanced binaural technology has become thanks to these two albums, I'd like to listen to binaural albums of similar recording quality that don't just focus on the binaural factor but also has great music we audiophiles can enjoy. Admittedly, explorations in Space and Time blew my mind the first time I heard it, but these days I only listen to it every once in a while to remind myself how awesome binaural recordings sound, but not really because I enjoy the music itself. And with A Sensational... Binaural Album, it only seems like an experimental album filled with a rather disorganized array of short tracks, recorded with the intention of trying to re-prove the awesomeness of binaural technology which was already demonstrated in Explorations in Space and Time.
> 
> I know binaural technology isn't relatively new but it hasn't been long since it captivated people's attention at Head-Fi thanks to these two albums, which somewhat served as eye-openers IMO. Now that we know and crave for more, I hope Chesky Records (and other recording studios, for that matter) to start recording and releasing binaural albums we can listen to enjoy not only "sound" but also "music" as well.
> 
> On a side note, although I don't know if this is really doable, but I'd be thrilled if some of my all-time favorite albums from legendary bands like Pink Floyd, U2, etc. gets re-mastered and re-released in hi-rez binaural tracks.


 
   
  I had the same thoughts when I listend to the sample of the Exploration album and didn't buy it. The technology is indeed impressive, but I am not a fan of the music and the music is what matters the most to me. Dr. Chesky's album did it right in my opinion. He mixed in a lot of genres of music such that one would be able to have a few favorite tracks. Moreover, the "binaural-ness" is much more subtile in the Dr. Chesky's when compared to the Exploration album which is good to my ears. It actually feels that I am in the hall listening to the music. For vol. 2 I hope that they do not incude the binaural trick tracks ( left channel tests and etc ) and included more genres.


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

I agree the music is all over the place, but unlike a previous poster, I also think some tracks are very nice, incl. the first one in particular despite not being that much of a showcase for binaural. The test tracks were short, so I don't mind their addition, and it's easy to make a playlist of the album that only includes the music.
   
  As far as the sometimes weak binaural effect goes, IMHO it could be due to 2 things: one being the placement of the musicians & singers: if they're right in front, you can't expect the kind of spectacular effect (as in spectacle, literally) that the demo tracks have. The other may be their Binaural "+" technology whose main differentiator seems to be stereo compatibility, which seems to indicate a compromise, as in the binaural recording being somewhat compromised / watered down to accommodate better stereo playback? But since I haven't read any more technical explanation on how the tracks were processed, it's hard to tell...


----------



## liermam

This is sensational, fantastic, and simply amazing.


----------



## Double-A

Man why can't all albums be recorded binaurally?


----------



## Double-A

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> Complaining about the pricing scheme is kinda silly - *since there is no proof of an audible difference, and the math indicates that 192/24 could potentially sound worse, everyone should be buying the $11 album anyways  *
> 
> 
> I just bought the album, it is downloading now.  I'll hopefully get around to posting some impressions later


 
  Yes! This! Exactly this! There is *NO* proof of an audible difference! I agree with the "and the math indicates that 192/24 could potentially sound worse" part I saw a page on the internet talking all about how music that is higher bit and has a higher sampling rate than CDs is pointless and CAN potentially sound worse. I'm glad to see that there is another Head-Fier that knows this little tidbit of information! Practically everyone on Head-Fi buys 24 bit music with high sampling rates because they want the best quality music they can get a hold of and they believe it sounds better than CD quality but IT CAN ACTUALLY SOUND WORSE!! 
   
  Okay, I am calm now (hahaha). Moral of the story: just buy CD quality music and don't waste your money! Buy CD quality music and be happy with it!
   
  EDIT: By the way, sorry for double posting y'all!


----------



## nijohc

oh wow. great album.


----------



## vvs_75

Quote: 





aaronanderson said:


> What am I missing? I've got some decent equipment and lots of appreciation for stuff that sounds great.... This feels like some rubbish stuff recorded in big fancy halls and someone actually bothered to do some left/right separation.


 
  +1
  And what is  exactly "*Sensational, Fantastic, and Simply Amazing"  *about this show? The ultrasone CD with samples I got years ago for free with my headphones did a better job and had better music. The classical tracks does not sound that different from regular stereo recordings. Of course its just IMO.


----------



## IEMCrazy

I finally got around to listening to it an I have to say I'm extremely impressed. I don't want to hear about how multi kilobuck headphones are so uber detailed. This proves that while the popular Head-Fi adage about the headphones being more important than source or amp may be true to a certain degree, the recording is still far more important than the headphone. Bifrost + Lyr + K702 blew me away with the level of detail in the 24/92 edition of this recording. Is the recording really more detailed than any of Cheskey Records exceelent recordings? Doubtful. But the binaural nuiances really elevated the performance. Played at live volumes it sounded subtlely binaural and realistic and excellently detailed and spatial. K702 is the most neutral of my headphone stable, so I went with those for this recording. They didn't dissappoint

Contrary to some opinions here I think a good number of tracks were excellent as well. Namely the classical and world music selections and the concluding jazz track. The Dixieland jazz was the most standout on the album, but I do realize that's an acquired American taste and may not appeal to all. 

All in all , an excellent effort by Dr. Cheskey and I look forward to some real albums recorded in this manner instead of some demo discs. Favored genre or not, I believe I'll be buying whatever Cheskey releases with this binaural tech, purely for the sonic performance.


----------



## johnwmclean

Quote: 





ultrainferno said:


> I did like a song or 2. Especially the organ ~ Bach Toccata And Fugue


 
   
  It’s heavily abridged (butchered), two thirds shorter than the full piece.
  I just can’t get passed this, purposely cut just to show of an audio effect.
  Not to mention the mediocre interplay and a heavily handed interpretation.
  Bach would most certainly roll over.


----------



## Michael G.

Quote: 





johnwmclean said:


> It’s heavily abridged (butchered), two thirds shorter than the full piece.
> I just can’t get passed this, purposely cut just to show of an audio effect.
> Not to mention the mediocre interplay and a heavily handed interpretation.
> Bach would most certainly roll over.


 

 And on that note, I'd like to ask: Does anyone know of any binaural recordings out there that provide great *music* ?


----------



## paradoxper

Quote: 





michael g. said:


> And on that note, I'd like to ask: Does anyone know of any binaural recordings out there that provide great *music* ?


 
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/511850/awesome-binaural-albums


----------



## Michael G.

Quote: 





paradoxper said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/511850/awesome-binaural-albums


 
   
   

 Thanks for the link. Headphones and binaural recordings are the wave the future (at least as far as Hifi is concerned) because, as much as I like loudspeaker Hifi, the 1970's and 1980's are gone for good. I cannot envision another Hifi revival without compact and/or portable gear being at the center of it...


----------



## grokit

I'd buy this if I was bored enough, but would prefer that all the file options be 24 bit, and available in AIFF so I could just drop the songs into iTunes and not lose track of them. If I could get the 24/96 in AIFF or get the AIFF in 24/44 without conversion, I would have already bought it.


----------



## Rick Ross

I just got this last night and listened to it this morning (Sitting in a recliner with my eyes closed) via 16/44 AIFF on my K550s and I'm going to be honest, it'll probably be a lot better through a pair of open headphones on 24/96 or 195 (or whatever it is) the effect is pretty cool, I really enjoyed listening to it, but most of it wasn't really my taste, the only track I really really enjoyed was the Bach Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring, along with the test tracks of course.


----------



## zerodeefex

Sorry. We could not find any valid promotion with this code.
   
   
   
  Sad!


----------



## jayz

Dear Experts,
   
  Do you know of any other hires albums where the violin has been captured at this level of detail?
   
  I am referring to track 1 of this album Amber Rubarth singing "Storms are On The Ocean", the violinist comes across with astonishing amount of detail, the textures of the sound generated when violin bow brushes against the strings comes across so well.
   
  I have been searching hdtracks but most recordings are classical - full orchestral, not really what I am looking for. Would much rather like simple acoustic, folk, new-age or jazz compositions emphasizing the violin.
   
  Any feedback would be much appreciated.
   
   
  Thanks


----------



## sionghchan

Why does Front Imaging suffer in Binaural Recordings?
   
  Hi all,
   
  I have just bought a copy of this particular CD to try out Binaural recording.  This is my first exposure to Binaural recording.  While I did enjoy the album tremendously, the "binaural" effect was only somewhat effective.  I found that the left image, right image and behind the head image to be relatively accurately portrayed.  Also, I found the sense of space to be quite good.  
   
  However, I found the front image lacking.  It definitely didn't give me a locked in front image like how I would get through my Vandersteen loudspeakers.  I have fairly good equipment (HD650, DT880, K701, MS-1 powered by Meier Audio amp and converted using HRT's Music Streamer+ DAC).  In every one of the headphones, the front image is just lacking.  I found no difference between it and a regularly well recorded stereo album (i.e. both left and right channels are equally loud, but the sound is right there in the middle of my head and not in front).  Naturally, left and right both sound like they are coming from the right direction, however, again, I question, how different is that from a regularly mic'ed stereo image?  Granted, I am able to differentiate the vertical plane (higher and lower) of instruments placement when they were coming from the left, right or behind.  Not so from the front.
   
  Anyone else had my experience?
   
  Also, any experts out there who can provide some opinions as to why this is happening and how to improve in the front image?  Jude?  Dr. Chesky?
   
  Many thanks in advance.


----------



## jtaylor991

Quote: 





sionghchan said:


> Why does Front Imaging suffer in Binaural Recordings?
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> ...


 
  When I listened to the previews of this album on HDTracks I kinda felt the same way. It was just weird, I think I was experiencing the same thing you were, but you know how to put it into words. I think I've seen some people blame the new format that is supposed to work on both headphones and stereo. I've been thinking about buying Explorations and testing the differences myself to see if that's it.


----------



## sionghchan

Quote: 





jtaylor991 said:


> When I listened to the previews of this album on HDTracks I kinda felt the same way. It was just weird, I think I was experiencing the same thing you were, but you know how to put it into words. I think I've seen some people blame the new format that is supposed to work on both headphones and stereo. I've been thinking about buying Explorations and testing the differences myself to see if that's it.


 
  hi jtaylor991,
   
  If you were to get the Explorations album, please do let me know if you found the front imaging better.
   
  I found several interesting links about binaural recording.
   
  1) While this doesn't address the front imaging problems, it is an interesting FAQ for binaural beginners (like myself).  http://www.binaural.com/binfaq.html
   
  2) This Sony webpage does describe some issues with binaural recording specifically wrt the front imaging, however, it doesn't explain why.  So, it seems that front imaging for binaural is always the weak spot.  http://www.sony.net/Products/vpt/tech/index.html
   
  I have seen some explanation that the front imaging problem is mainly due to the shape of the dummy head's pinna (outer ear) being different from our own outer ear.  If you are lucky enough to have a pinna that is close enough to the dummy head, then the binaural effect is going to be much better.  However, if you are using circumaural headphones but your outer ear doesn't conform to the dummy head used in the recording, then the front imaging is going to be lacking.  I can't verify the accuracy of this information.  Any experts out there with their theories and thoughts?  How can I make it better?  If the outer ear is an issue, will IEM (i.e. goes straight into the ear canal and taking out the effect of outer ears) make it better?
   
  Thoughts?


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

Quote:


jtaylor991 said:


> When I listened to the previews of this album on HDTracks I kinda felt the same way. It was just weird, I think I was experiencing the same thing you were, but you know how to put it into words. I think I've seen some people blame the new format that is supposed to work on both headphones and stereo. I've been thinking about buying Explorations and testing the differences myself to see if that's it.


 
  Same here. However, it applies to pretty much -any- binaural album I have listened to, not just this one. They all seem to put the whole stage backwards a certain amount compared to regular stereo (ex.: Ottmar Liebert's Up Close, an excellent album) And I have never heard -any- album (binaural or stereo) that puts the sound really, truly -in front- of you.
   
  Something like the Smyth Realiser might do the trick but is just too expensive for an experiment. Listening to the SPL's Phonitor demo, crossfeed-based solutions don't make much of difference either.
   
  The only album I have listened to that seems to have the least issue with the above is the Cowboy Junkies Live one, but that was a hybrid mix putting together the binaural recording for ambiance with standard microphone feeds off the board.


----------



## grokit

Cowboy Junkies have many live albums. Are you talking about one of the Trinity Sessions?


----------



## jtaylor991

TheGrumpyOldMan, I just bought Up Close the other day and it arrived today. When I listened to it on Zune (which is 192kbps WMA mind you) it didn't seem that bad, but listening to a few track snow I see it, te lack of frontal staging. I'd personally blame this on the fact that maybe they weren't, um, in front of the head? Who knows, but it enveloped me in the music and took me to another world, which was what I wanted, so I bought it. Hopefully FLAC of it sounds even better 
   
  Hopefully I find more good binaural albums too, as I love music that envelops me with amazing soundscapes and can take me to another world. This is why I really liek certain types of electronic music too, it's pretty cool. Sample based electronic can also give you a taste of everything: acoustic/folk simple style; funky vocal samples and oddball drum beats; deep and soulful and/or sampled vocals that say things that make you really think or imagine; engaging and powerful.


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

Quote:


grokit said:


> Cowboy Junkies have many live albums. Are you talking about one of the Trinity Sessions?


 
  Yea, I guess I should have been more specific, but to my knowledge Live At The Ark is the only binaural one I'm aware of...


----------



## TheGrumpyOldMan

Quote:


jtaylor991 said:


> TheGrumpyOldMan, I just bought Up Close the other day and it arrived today. When I listened to it on Zune (which is 192kbps WMA mind you) it didn't seem that bad, but listening to a few track snow I see it, te lack of frontal staging. I'd personally blame this on the fact that maybe they weren't, um, in front of the head? Who knows, but it enveloped me in the music and took me to another world, which was what I wanted, so I bought it. Hopefully FLAC of it sounds even better
> 
> Hopefully I find more good binaural albums too, as I love music that envelops me with amazing soundscapes and can take me to another world. This is why I really liek certain types of electronic music too, it's pretty cool. Sample based electronic can also give you a taste of everything: acoustic/folk simple style; funky vocal samples and oddball drum beats; deep and soulful and/or sampled vocals that say things that make you really think or imagine; engaging and powerful.


 
  If you look at one of the corresponding YouTube videos you can see that they go all around... it really seems to be something with binaural recordings and perhaps the fact that we can't re-orient our head relative to the music to get a better sense of location?
   
  I just like to imagine that I'm sitting on a balcony on a nice evening in Spain, and the guys are jamming in the room behind me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  The music is, as always, excellent anyway.


----------



## jtaylor991

Quote: 





thegrumpyoldman said:


> Quote:
> If you look at one of the corresponding YouTube videos you can see that they go all around... it really seems to be something with binaural recordings and perhaps the fact that we can't re-orient our head relative to the music to get a better sense of location?
> I just like to imagine that I'm sitting on a balcony on a nice evening in Spain, and the guys are jamming in the room behind me
> 
> ...


 
  I didn't even notice them moving around that much, not like *all* around, hmm..we'll have to see if a FLAC rip fixes that though, it very well could for all I know


----------



## Benjamin6264

Looks like Amber Rubarth's (the singer from Storms Are On The Ocean) album just got released on HDtracks.
   
  https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=artistdetail&id=10313
   
  Sounds great!


----------



## yklee118

Quote: 





jude said:


> This isn't going to be #1 (or even #100,000) on Billboard or iTunes, guys. Ultimately, over the life of the album, sales of this type of thing are usually _very_ limited. Chesky hires engineers, equipment, rents musical instruments that may be needed (which they rented quite a lot of for _Explorations_), hires the musicians, consults with experts in 3D audio, rents out the venues (and the recording sessions typically span days), and incurs the day-to-day costs associated with being a business. And then, if all goes well, there's hopefully some profit at some point--no venture can continue without it; no more albums of this type can be made without at least some reasonable hope of it.
> 
> Albums like this are obviously part of a very niche, very specialty market right now, and will likely be so for a long time to come (and may remain so forever). This is high-resolution, binaurally recorded music, and most of the folks who care to buy an album like this one are people like us, and we're not exactly the broader market. And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody is putting more effort and passion into it than Chesky.
> 
> ...


 
  Well Said and I agree.


----------



## hedphonz

the left &  right channel ID tests were freaky - found myself leaning away from the sound when he was whispering into the dummy's ears - it was personal space invasion


----------



## TheWuss

The new chesky release of Amber Rubarth's solo album (Sessions from the 17th ward) doesn't seem to be getting the kind of promotional push that the compilation did.
I happened to be browsing hdtracks new releases today and saw it. 
Only listened through twice, but it is a much more cohesive (obviously) and pleasing album than the binaural comp chesky put out in june.
If you like folk, and female vocals, it is a win-win.
And, the cello and violin add a nice touch.

Highly recommended.


----------



## Failed Engineer

I've been an Amber Rubarth fan since Something New, and stumbled upon this binaural album of hers on HDTracks.  I bought the 24/96 version a couple days ago and it's spooky.  She sounds incredible as usual, but all the surrounding instruments are coming from crazy places for headphones.  It is a brilliant listen and I've spun the album 5 times already in less than a week.


----------



## Benjamin6264

Wicliffe Gordon's _Dreams of New Orleans_ recently came out as well, adding an album to Chesky's Binaural+ series. Highly recommended as well! 
  Quote: 





failed engineer said:


> I've been an Amber Rubarth fan since Something New, and stumbled upon this binaural album of hers on HDTracks.  I bought the 24/96 version a couple days ago and it's spooky.  She sounds incredible as usual, but all the surrounding instruments are coming from crazy places for headphones.  It is a brilliant listen and I've spun the album 5 times already in less than a week.


----------



## iamdarren73

I just do not see enough of a benefit going with this technology.  I am a loudspeaker person, mostly, but lately I have been using my single-ended headphone amplifiers and USB DAC for daily listening.  I bought the album, tried it with my Bayer DT770's (250-ohm) and HD595's and IEM's with several DAC's and amplifiers without ever going WOW!  It seems like a novelty, but maybe I am just getting old and my ears do not work as well as they did.  That, or I enjoyed my college years a bit much! 
   
  It is cool, no doubt, but not something I would pay a premium for or even chose over a well mastered and recorded album.  I still like listening to my LP12 with my EL84 headphone amp and my Ortho's.
   
  Darren


----------



## iamdarren73

OK - I publicly retract my previous statement!  I just listened to Explorations in both recording methods and I can say WOW!  The difference was much greater that I realized.  Having both recording techniques to compare with really showed the extra sense of space, richer, fuller and more textured sound.  I found my open backed 595's sounded a bit better than the DT770's in my set-up.  Really, really cool to hear both versions of the same song for comparison.  Without that, I do think the audible differences are less perceptible.
   
  Darren


----------



## Fairwell

Is the 20% coupon code still valid? I haven't bought anything yet from HD Tracks so I can't check it without creating an account beforehand.


----------



## HeadFrick

Wher can i bay flack version on internet ?
  bat not from hd sounds as i live in UK


----------



## jtaylor991

headfrick said:


> Wher can i bay flack version on internet ?
> bat not from hd sounds as i live in UK




like, FLAC as in Free Lossless Audio Codec? There's HDTracks.com, and I personally buy CDs and rip them to FLAC myself, seems to be the cheapest option for lossless (if not the only) and I still get a physical copy of my music. I enjoy vinyl too, which you could rip to FLAC if you really wanted to.


----------



## Fairwell

Quote: 





jtaylor991 said:


> like, FLAC as in Free Lossless Audio Codec? There's HDTracks.com, and I personally buy CDs and rip them to FLAC myself, seems to be the cheapest option for lossless (if not the only) and I still get a physical copy of my music. I enjoy vinyl too, which you could rip to FLAC if you really wanted to.


 
  Of course you can do that, but the tracks from high res stores such as HDTracks.com offer higher quality. They don't only offer 24/96 or 24/192 (where the difference is questionable, there are many articles on this, so I don't want to argue here) compared to regular 16/44.1 on regular CDs and (which is the really important thing) are mastered with high quality. A good mastering process really makes a huge difference. If you ever heard the same song with different masterings you will know what I'm talking about. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  If you want to compare prices you need to compare it with at least some kind of SACDs which also not only offer higher resolution but a good mastering process. Apart from that I think some albums (such as the Chesky Records albums etc) are not available as regular CDs.


----------



## jtaylor991

fairwell said:


> Of course you can do that, but the tracks from high res stores such as HDTracks.com offer higher quality. They don't only offer 24/96 or 24/192 (where the difference is questionable, there are many articles on this, so I don't want to argue here) compared to regular 16/44.1 on regular CDs and (which is the really important thing) are mastered with high quality. A good mastering process really makes a huge difference. If you ever heard the same song with different masterings you will know what I'm talking about. :tongue_smile:
> 
> If you want to compare prices you need to compare it with at least some kind of SACDs which also not only offer higher resolution but a good mastering process. Apart from that I think some albums (such as the Chesky Records albums etc) are not available as regular CDs.




I just watched a video with a roundtable discussion on a bunch of the most famous music producers, mastering engineers, etc. and many/all seemed to agree that SACD was the closest to the master tapes, so I'd love to hear some but the limited amount of material is kind of, well, limiting  (discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY5hI98HEi0 )

And I know mastering is a big deal, but it seems like the music I would listen to isn't stuff that is a serious thing with mastering. Like (good!) hip hop, and modern rock (Skillet, Breaking Benjamin etc.), and metal (Disturbed and Black Sabbath and maybe Metallica). Well I was gonna keep an eye out for different masters on the Black Sabbath and I noticed a difference on some vinyl rips of Metallica's black album vs. the streaming (but that's FLAC vs. MP3 anyway) but the other stuff, I mean....*shrug*
I like vinyl and it probably sounds better because of the better mastering and stuff on them for the audiophile market vs. CDs, but I wish there were such thing as "Audiophile" or "Vinyl-Mastered" CDs that were just the superior vinyl master on CD. Maybe that's what SACD is?


----------



## bcschmerker4

Quote: 





jtaylor991 said:


> I just watched a video with a roundtable discussion on a bunch of the most famous music producers, mastering engineers, etc. and many/all seemed to agree that SACD was the closest to the master tapes, so I'd love to hear some but the limited amount of material is kind of, well, limiting
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 The Super Audio CD is inherently limited in the performance increase it offers by the capacity and throughput constraints of the Compact Disc.  I wanted to investigate the possibility of better approaching the seamlessness of analog via the Digital Versatile Disc Audio format, which is capable of at least 24/192 stereo or binaural performance in typical album durations (DVD has already demonstrated 24/48 performance in multichannel audio formats); the Sony® Blu-Ray®, a further evolution of the DVD, is potentially capable of 24/192 multichannel audio.


----------



## jtaylor991

bcschmerker4 said:


> The Super Audio CD is inherently limited in the performance increase it offers by the capacity and throughput constraints of the Compact Disc.  I wanted to investigate the possibility of better approaching the seamlessness of analog via the Digital Versatile Disc Audio format, which is capable of at least 24/192 stereo or binaural performance in typical album durations (DVD has already demonstrated 24/48 performance in multichannel audio formats); the Sony® Blu-Ray®, a further evolution of the DVD, is potentially capable of 24/192 multichannel audio.




Hopefully someday soon people will wake up to wanting better audio quality and then that technology will develop further and have more material.


----------



## Fairwell

Quote: 





jtaylor991 said:


> I just watched a video with a roundtable discussion on a bunch of the most famous music producers, mastering engineers, etc. and many/all seemed to agree that SACD was the closest to the master tapes, so I'd love to hear some but the limited amount of material is kind of, well, limiting
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I agree here. SACD does not only offer higher resolution but also way better mastering process.


----------



## Benjamin6264

There's just been a new addition to the Binaural+ album collection:
   
  https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HX090368035967
   
  I'm surprised that HDtracks has done nearly no advertizing for the Binaural+ albums since the sensational/fantastic/amazing album. The last 3 didn't even make it to the featured 'New Albums' on the front page.


----------



## solserenade

Quote: 





benjamin6264 said:


> There's just been a new addition to the Binaural+ album collection:
> 
> https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HX090368035967
> 
> I'm surprised that HDtracks has done nearly no advertizing for the Binaural+ albums since the *sensational/fantastic/amazing album*. The last 3 didn't even make it to the featured 'New Albums' on the front page.


 
   
  Which do you mean (which album is sensational/fantastic/amazing) ?
   
  Thanks!


----------



## Benjamin6264

The one this thread is originally about.


----------



## Benjamin6264

Well, speak of the devil.
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/a/2012-head-fi-holiday-gift-guide-dont-forget-the-music


----------



## solserenade

Quote: 





solserenade said:


> Which do you mean (which album is sensational/fantastic/amazing) ?
> 
> Thanks!


 
   
  Quote: 





benjamin6264 said:


> The one this thread is originally about.


 
   





   Holy cow ... It's hard to believe I didn't pick up on that! 
   
  Thank you.
   
  ....
   
  and I will be getting that Sensational album, as soon as I can get things straight with HDtracks downloads (I'm having trouble with it).


----------



## HeadFrick

the problem is that im in england and they don't sell to europ


----------



## orky87

Thanks for the heads up.


----------

