 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As we had in other discussions before, blind testing certainly helps to determine the relevance of high-resolution sound, but it can always only focus on one aspect. (Blind testing also would often lead people to pick "brickwalled" sound as an immediate preference, even though they would chose differently after prolonged and more intense listening sections.)
As always, Nick, enjoy our back and forths even when we disagree.
Do we disagree?
Here you are talking about differently mastered versions of a recording; I'm talking about identical recordings and masterings released at a variety of resolutions. My response was only intended to address claims of audible superiority of high rez versions over CD quality versions of identical sources.
I was in my posting specifically referring to both. Because both are relevant in the real world.
For a "lossless vs high-res" audio quality double blind test to have any useful validity, a few things should be assured.
First of all, only people who are already positive that they can hear the difference should be tested.
I don't know about "only" testing those that are positive they hear a difference, but the tests I've been involved with almost always involve those who claim to hear differences.
Well, there is not much point in testing random people or people, as it is established that the majority of people neither care nor hear the difference. Maybe it's a bit like testing for perfect pitch, only about .01% of all people seem to have it. That is a significant number, but it is also just a tiny minority.
That's why the test exists as a challenge. It's usually the people making claims like "if you can't hear the difference you must be deaf" or "your equipment is just not revealing enough." Hence my product list from my previous post - I'm talking some serious high end gear here. FWIW, confirmation bias also exists in the reverse - people who are convinced there are no audible differences should be tested as well.
Confirmation bias totally exists, yes, I would even say to a considerable amount when it comes to hifi listening. But that's why I would say it is important for any test to take place that the listener has ample time to familiarize him (or her)self with the exact files used in the test.
The majority of people was happy to leave CDs for 128kbps, for cryin' out loud.
With more modern, refined codecs it's getting harder and harder for people to hear the difference between 128kbps or lossless. There's a great blind online test here - be curious to know your results correctly picking lossless vs. lossy using modern codecs (will only take up between 5 and 30 minutes of your time):
https://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html
Well, I have done a test years ago with MP3 and CD sound, and the difference was obvious. But let's say codecs get better with time and hearing gets worse with time, why would anybody ever compromise sound to MP3? What is there to gain? There is literally NO advantage to it at all. (Unless you need disc space, but I consider that a non-issue.)
I have two open challenges here - one is for people claiming to hear big differences in electronics and high rez recordings to test their claims. So obviously it's tilted toward those claiming to hear differences.
The other is for people to bring in speakers of any brand and at any price range and compare them level matched and blind with a Revel, Perlisten or JBL Synthesis model. Since Revel in particular was developed from the Canadian NRC program that correlated listener preference with speaker measurements (the speakers that have the most neutral response on and off axis are overwhelmingly preferred in level matched, controlled listening tests), we usually use those as the benchmark. So far we have never had a speaker beat a Revel during one of these tests, though a few have come close to tying.
Not quite sure what a level matched blind test for speakers would do, as people buy speakers according to lots of things, not just how they would sound in a blind test? But what speakers people prefer is a completely different debate that has nothing to do with high-res.
I'd love to have you over for a controlled listening test! I think we'd have much to share and talk about 
I'm sure we would have a lot fun, though I don't see myself as the ideal testing candidate; I don't even claim to hear the difference between high-rez files and their professionally downsampled counterparts. The question is not if you or I can hear it, but if anyone can. (I do claim to hear the difference between certain masterings though.) I don't even consider myself all that much of an audiophile. Sure, I enjoy good sound and music and hifi, and I know what bugs me and what doesn't, but I am sure there are people with ears more golden than mine for testing purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stereo is a two-channel record/playback system; it is NOT an encode/decode system. There are no rigid rules guiding how sounds are captured by microphones, how they are electronically processed, and how they are combined (mixed) into a final master recording with or without added synthesized spatial illusions. These are subjective decisions made by recording engineers and musicians while listening to “unknown” loudspeakers in “unknown” listening spaces - the basis for the “circle of confusion”.
Sound image placement across the soundstage is the result of interchannel time or amplitude differences generated by pan-pots, coincident directional mics, or spaced mics. All else generates poorly-correlated “spaciousness”. All of this is under the guidance of the recording engineer - it is an artificial artistic creation and the recording is the dominant factor, not the loudspeakers. If a listener happens to like a particular rendering of “soundstage and imaging” it is nice, but there is nothing to ensure that it will be a regular occurrence. Recordings are not consistent. I have gone into Tidal, selected a movement of a classical piece, and listened to many different recordings of the same music. The differences in sound quality and spatial rendering are huge! Some present a small and distant perspective. Others are close up and “HiFi”. Some are, in my judgment, quite natural, realistic in perspective. A few are just dreadful; muddy, colored, almost mono. It is an education. Popular recordings are likewise variable - even a few old fashioned L, C, R and not much else. It is art. There are no rules."
I agree with everything in you post here, which is well summarized in this quote from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether I buy CDs or lossless/ high-res downloads depends on availability, price, format, etc. Soundtrack releases from specialty labels I usually try to buy in "packs" because of postage. I usually order them from Music Box or Intrada, sometimes also from labels that only sell their own releases if I order at least three.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intrada's EXTREME PREJUDICE cost me €7.49 for the 24bit/96kHz download, it would have cost me somewhere close to €60.- if I ordered just that one (yeah, I know it's 2) CD from Intrada directly, so a lot cheaper when it comes to international shipping and handling and customs.
Good thing you paid less for the "hi-res" files because they're not true hi-res...
Actually, they are. The files are genuine high-res files, I checked it with a spectrum analyser as well. I was even surprised they released the score in that format. I guess because it's an early 1987 (partly?) digital recording, there is no true point in releasing it in24bit/96kHz, as it sure wasn't recorded as such, not sure why Intrada did that. I assume they had some additional analog sources, did the mastering at 24bit/96kHz and they just released that?). Only Intrada knows. Since Qobuz high-res downloads are usually at sale prices, I didn't mind. IIRC, the spectrum analysis varies in the tracks though. Where did you get yours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good thing you paid less for the "hi-res" files because they're not true hi-res...
Actually, they are. The files are genuine high-res files...
I think what Doug meant was that the music is not hi-res. The files are, the 'containers', but he determined that they contain CD quality audio.
The capacity of a file is irrelevant. The quality of the audio is what matters when we're talking about hi-res audio. A little Godzilla toy delivered in a big Godzilla toy box is still a little Godzilla toy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good thing you paid less for the "hi-res" files because they're not true hi-res...
Actually, they are. The files are genuine high-res files...
I think what Doug meant was that the music is not hi-res. The files are, the 'containers', but he determined that they contain CD quality audio.
The capacity of a file is irrelevant. The quality of the audio is what matters when we're talking about hi-res audio. A little Godzilla toy delivered in a big Godzilla toy box is still a little Godzilla toy.
Yes, I'm sure he did, but what I am saying is that they are high-res files with content in the frequency range above 22kHz. So there is content apart from the little Godzilla toy in the big Godzilla toy box. How exactly that content got there and what it is only Intrada can answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm sure he did, but what I am saying is that they are high-res files with content in the frequency range above 22kHz. So there is content apart from the little Godzilla toy in the big Godzilla toy box. How exactly that content got there and what it is only Intrada can answer.
I purchased mine from Qobuz as well. More disconcerting to me than the spectral analysis (upper plots in my graphic) showing a near-brick wall drop-off below 22.05 kHz (the range, of a CD) are the quantization plots (lower) which clearly show the files are straight 16-bit to 24-bit up-quantized files. So fake 24-bit data having only CD-quality dynamic range.
And yes, the frequency plots do vary from track-to-track in the Qobuz files but a vast majority of them have the brick wall effect around 22.05 kHz. All exhibit fake 24-bit data, however.
I see. Yes, and as I've said, I don't think there even were any 24bit/96kHz digital recordings in 1987, and indeed you can clearly see the the drop at 22.05kHz. However, it's not just merely a 16/44.1 file in a 24/96 container. Still don't know why Intrada did that. Perhaps they had some analog elements and/or mastered everything in 24/96 and just released that? Just a presumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last point before I conclude this novel
Last night I spent some time listening to some Atmos remixes of favorite recordings. Some of those were absolutely sublime! (Some were awful too, but that's the way it goes with all things.) Now with multichannel you literally can hear more detail and sense of space between instruments because you have more channels to reproduce them with.
When I do home theater demos here I always include some multichannel music. People are usually astounded at the experience. IMO, that's where the future is - not with high resolution two channel.
Maybe, but if it is, it is certainly slow to come. Nice for you if some of your favorite recordings are released in Dolby Atmos, I can't say the same about some of my favorite recordings. When I started to look into it in 2017 for a new setup, I looked into multichannel but decided against it. Apart form there being so many things impractical about multi channel setups (from furnishing nightmares such as placing loudspeakers on the ceiling or in the middle of our living room to being required to be sitting more or less at pre-determined positions, etc.), there really wasn't much music out there. And now, five years later there's still hardly any multichannel Dolby Atmos mixes of classical music (which is about 80% of what I listen to) out there, certainly not for sale in any case. (Yes, there is the occasional audio blu-ray etc, but I would prefer to buy downloads rather than blu-rays for music.) While there may be some benefits of hearing a Beethoven Sonata by Igor Levit performed in a Dolby Atmos mix rather than just stereo setup (even though a piano is just in front of me when I go to a concert as well), nobody has even bothered to release such a mix. And I can't think of a lot of places that sell Dolby Atmos mixes as digital downloads. Before I would spend thousands on a system to play music, I would at least want to be sure that I can actually BUY the recordings I want to listen to, rather than solely rely on streaming service subscriptions to provide the mixes. It's now six years later, and not much has changed. Yes, there is now more classical music available in Dolby Atmos on streaming, but not for sale as FLAC/ALAC.
I can see multichannel for home theater or gaming (especially gaming), but for classical music, it is most certainly slow in the coming. Note: I am not at all questioning that there are potential benefits of multichannel listening in a controlled room with ideal positioning (of listener and setup), but that's different from being practical and suitable for everyday listening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 30, 2023 - 7:34 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
thx99
(Member)
|
I see. Yes, and as I've said, I don't think there even were any 24bit/96kHz digital recordings in 1987, and indeed you can clearly see the the drop at 22.05kHz. However, it's not just merely a 16/44.1 file in a 24/96 container. Still don't know why Intrada did that. Perhaps they had some analog elements and/or mastered everything in 24/96 and just released that? Just a presumption.
Yes, if a file contains 24-bit audio data, that audio data can't, by definition, be classified as 16-bit data. But, when the 24-bit data is created by padding out the 16-bit values with an additional 8 zeroes, as is happening in the case of Extreme Prejudice and several other "hi-res" film music releases out there (not just from Intrada), then you aren't getting anything more than CD/16-bit resolution in the data. Meaning, from a quantization/bit depth standpoint, the file doesn't contain hi-res audio data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 30, 2023 - 7:41 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Oscarilbo
(Member)
|
I see. Yes, and as I've said, I don't think there even were any 24bit/96kHz digital recordings in 1987, and indeed you can clearly see the the drop at 22.05kHz. However, it's not just merely a 16/44.1 file in a 24/96 container. Still don't know why Intrada did that. Perhaps they had some analog elements and/or mastered everything in 24/96 and just released that? Just a presumption.
Yes, if a file contains 24-bit audio data, that audio data can't, by definition, be classified as 16-bit data. But, when the 24-bit data is created by padding out the 16-bit values with an additional 8 zeroes, as is happening in the case of Extreme Prejudice and several other "hi-res" film music releases out there (not just from Intrada), then you aren't getting anything more than CD/16-bit resolution in the data. Meaning, from a quantization/bit depth standpoint, the file doesn't contain hi-res audio data.
Yeah, this is common practice even in some cases you had mp3 quality in a FALC container. In the end tho, the 24bit album is still the better option, as you have more changes of getting the best version in terms of resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 30, 2023 - 8:02 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
thx99
(Member)
|
Yeah, this is common practice even in some cases you had mp3 quality in a FALC container. In the end tho, the 24bit album is still the better option, as you have more changes of getting the best version in terms of resolution.
Well, in the case of Extreme Prejudice and the other "hi-res" albums I've tested that have the fake 24-bit audio, it's not the better option. It's not worse than CD quality but if you're expecting to get true 24-bit audio, you aren't.
And that's the point of what W. David Lichty [Lorien] and I have been spouting off about for a good while now in various threads here. At this stage, a buyer is taking a risk by buying hi-res files, if they're expecting to get true hi-res audio files. They don't know what they're getting until they test them with a metric, as in my graph above. We as buyers shouldn't have to question what we're getting but here we are. And the same thing goes for the vendors - they should not have to question the "hi-res" material they're being handed to sell to the public.
While Qobuz and HDTracks might refund one's money when confronted with data showing that their wares are not truly what they say they are, they do so begrudgingly and in my personal experience, in an insulting way at times (HDTracks told me that "hi-res audio might not be for you"). My response should have been "well maybe selling hi-res audio might not be for you either".
What if Qobuz was selling a product labeled as stereo but when downloaded, it's clearly mono? I'd imagine folks would be up-in-arms about it. Why should the situation with alleged hi-res audio be any different?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see. Yes, and as I've said, I don't think there even were any 24bit/96kHz digital recordings in 1987, and indeed you can clearly see the the drop at 22.05kHz. However, it's not just merely a 16/44.1 file in a 24/96 container. Still don't know why Intrada did that. Perhaps they had some analog elements and/or mastered everything in 24/96 and just released that? Just a presumption.
Yes, if a file contains 24-bit audio data, that audio data can't, by definition, be classified as 16-bit data. But, when the 24-bit data is created by padding out the 16-bit values with an additional 8 zeroes, as is happening in the case of Extreme Prejudice and several other "hi-res" film music releases out there (not just from Intrada), then you aren't getting anything more than CD/16-bit resolution in the data. Meaning, from a quantization/bit depth standpoint, the file doesn't contain hi-res audio data.
It's interesting when you look at some "real" high-res files, such as Emil Gilels Brahms Piano Concertos (from a 1972 analog recording) or the Haydn Piano Concertos with Matthias Kirschnereit (recent digital recording... I used these two as I also bought them from Qobuz), there is actually "less" data in the 24/96 file than EXTREME PREJUDICE. So while t Extreme Prejudice has been upscaled and the others are "real", the upscaling has put more "bits" into the container than if it actually were a straight 24bit/96kHz album.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, this is common practice even in some cases you had mp3 quality in a FALC container. In the end tho, the 24bit album is still the better option, as you have more changes of getting the best version in terms of resolution.
Well, in the case of Extreme Prejudice and the other "hi-res" albums I've tested that have the fake 24-bit audio, it's not the better option. It's not worse than CD quality but if you're expecting to get true 24-bit audio, you aren't.
And that's the point of what W. David Lichty [Lorien] and I have been spouting off about for a good while now in various threads here. At this stage, a buyer is taking a risk by buying hi-res files, if they're expecting to get true hi-res audio files. They don't know what they're getting until they test them with a metric, as in my graph above. We as buyers shouldn't have to question what we're getting but here we are. And the same thing goes for the vendors - they should not have to question the "hi-res" material they're being handed to sell to the public.
While Qobuz and HDTracks might refund one's money when confronted with data showing that their wares are not truly what they say they are, they do so begrudgingly and in my personal experience, in an insulting way at times (HDTracks told me that "hi-res audio might not be for you"). My response should have been "well maybe selling hi-res audio might not be for you either".
What if Qobuz was selling a product labeled as stereo but when downloaded, it's clearly mono? I'd imagine folks would be up-in-arms about it. Why should the situation with alleged hi-res audio be any different?
It shouldn't; I fully agree with you. D'accord. In fact, it's of particularly high importance when it comes to high-res audio, precisely because it is not immediately obvious. So you have to trust what you are getting.
However, I see the fault with the labels rather than the retailers like HD Tracks or Tidal. For a number of reasons. First of all, the retailers sell you the FILES. They sell you 24bit/192kHz FLAC/ALAC files. It's the labels that pack the content into these files. And what's in there is up to the labels. Sure, retailers have also a responsibility, but I see them considerably smaller than the labels themselves here. Because the labels make and label and deliver the containers, the retailers just pass them on. The files the labels provide tend to be the same at all retailers. It's the same with movies. The question is though when something is "accurately labeled"? A bluray release of a movie may be taken from DVD image and upscaled to Blu-ray, it may even be released in 4K... just that the image wouldn't be up to par regardless. But the bluray could still be sold as "4K". If Intrada provides an upmix of 16bit/44.1 to 24bit/96kHz, it is not the same as a digital recording in 24bit/96kHz, but it is still the product it is selling.
To stay with the Godzilla toy earlier mentioned in this thread as an example: if Mattel sells a small Godzilla toy in a big Godzilla toy box, it's not Amazon who is at fault when you order it and unpack the small Godzilla. Because the same oversized box would be sold at Walmart or Toyland or wherever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last point before I conclude this novel
Last night I spent some time listening to some Atmos remixes of favorite recordings. Some of those were absolutely sublime! (Some were awful too, but that's the way it goes with all things.) Now with multichannel you literally can hear more detail and sense of space between instruments because you have more channels to reproduce them with.
When I do home theater demos here I always include some multichannel music. People are usually astounded at the experience. IMO, that's where the future is - not with high resolution two channel.
Maybe, but if it is, it is certainly slow to come. Nice for you if some of your favorite recordings are released in Dolby Atmos, I can't say the same about some of my favorite recordings. When I started to look into it in 2017 for a new setup, I looked into multichannel but decided against it. Apart form there being so many things impractical about multi channel setups (from furnishing nightmares such as placing loudspeakers on the ceiling or in the middle of our living room to being required to be sitting more or less at pre-determined positions, etc.), there really wasn't much music out there. And now, five years later there's still hardly any multichannel Dolby Atmos mixes of classical music (which is about 80% of what I listen to) out there, certainly not for sale in any case. (Yes, there is the occasional audio blu-ray etc, but I would prefer to buy downloads rather than blu-rays for music.) While there may be some benefits of hearing a Beethoven Sonata by Igor Levit performed in a Dolby Atmos mix rather than just stereo setup (even though a piano is just in front of me when I go to a concert as well), nobody has even bothered to release such a mix. And I can't think of a lot of places that sell Dolby Atmos mixes as digital downloads. Before I would spend thousands on a system to play music, I would at least want to be sure that I can actually BUY the recordings I want to listen to, rather than solely rely on streaming service subscriptions to provide the mixes. It's now six years later, and not much has changed. Yes, there is now more classical music available in Dolby Atmos on streaming, but not for sale as FLAC/ALAC.
I can see multichannel for home theater or gaming (especially gaming), but for classical music, it is most certainly slow in the coming. Note: I am not at all questioning that there are potential benefits of multichannel listening in a controlled room with ideal positioning (of listener and setup), but that's different from being practical and suitable for everyday listening.
Absolutely speaker placement issues become more challenging with multi-channel. And most people have far from perfect spaces for setting up a multichannel system, me included. However, I think you would be surprised how good an Atmos system - or even a basic 5.1 surround system - can sound in a compromised space providing you take the time to calibrate the levels properly.
I have a 9.4.6 system in a 15.5' x 22' x 8' family room that's far from an ideal space (that's nine bed channels, six heights and four subwoofers). My left side surround speaker is partway down a hall, my rear surrounds are asymmetrically placed, and the back of the room is open to the kitchen. But it sounds amazing. We've done a few 5.1.2 systems that are very impressive. Atmos adapts to your actual channel count, so is quite flexible. Again, the main thing that needs to happen is a good calibration. Fortunately, today's receivers and pre-pros have pretty good calibration software built in that can get things dialed in correctly.
As far as seating position it could be argued that it's even more critical for stereo listening, because once you are out of the sweet spot you're out of luck in terms of proper imaging. Having more channels (particularly a center) can help widen the sweet spot.
Agreed there's hardly anything available to purchase, music-wise, in surround or Atmos. However, Apple Music has a ton of lossless Atmos mixes available to stream. My only objection here is that I can't take it with me in the car or on the plane. But at home, what's the objection? There is quite a large classical and jazz selection with Apple, and even a few soundtracks.
Of course I get your point about a piano concerto, but then again, in a typical concert hall only about 30% of what you hear is direct sound coming from the stage. Most of what you hear is the sound of the room, which multi-channel can more realistically reproduce.
Of course, close mic'd recordings violate this rule, which is often the case with solo instruments.
Well, I have done a test years ago with MP3 and CD sound, and the difference was obvious. But let's say codecs get better with time and hearing gets worse with time, why would anybody ever compromise sound to MP3? What is there to gain? There is literally NO advantage to it at all. (Unless you need disc space, but I consider that a non-issue.)
To me the advantage to MP3 (or AAC) is strictly for listening in the car or on the plane. I have almost a terabyte of music in FLAC format, which would totally fill up the storage on my phone (actually, exceed it). So for taking my music mobile the mp3 format is valuable. With modern codecs going with about 256 kbps is indistinguishable from the original file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as seating position it could be argued that it's even more critical for stereo listening, because once you are out of the sweet spot you're out of luck in terms of proper imaging. Having more channels (particularly a center) can help widen the sweet spot.
Depends. "Proper" imaging is an interesting concept as well in audio. Let's stay, for starters, with just the simple Igor Levit performance of Beethoven's piano sonatas (I actually just took them as an example as I was was just listening to Beethoven's Sonata 21.Op.53.) They sound terrific (I bought the boxed CD set, not the high-res downloads), but it's just one guy playing piano. Sure, Dolby Atmos might make a more realistic imaging of the room the original recording was done (Neumarkt, Historischer Reitstadel), but I am not sure how much this would benefit the reproduction of this music in my own room? (Perhaps some... but not necessarily enough to wage a war with my wife for more speakers and cables. :-) ) I can see that some pop music becomes perhaps more interesting if you have sounds coming from various directions though, I don't question that immersive capacity.
Agreed there's hardly anything available to purchase, music-wise, in surround or Atmos. However, Apple Music has a ton of lossless Atmos mixes available to stream. My only objection here is that I can't take it with me in the car or on the plane. But at home, what's the objection? There is quite a large classical and jazz selection with Apple, and even a few soundtracks.
Oh, I have several objections. Not against streaming per se, I use it (usually for exploring recordings I don't have), but I do not at all like to rely on a subscription of a streaming service to deliver my music. First of all, I could cancel any subscription to any music service any time without feeling any loss. I got plenty of music as it is. Secondly, streaming services have AWFUL tagging when it comes to classical music. It is just awful sometimes what's in the display of my streamer! Composers where there should be performers, in operas sometimes orchestras, sometimes singers, sometimes conductors, it's as if NO ONE ever paid the slightest attention to a halfway decent organization of the music files they put out. Even FINDING stuff on streaming services is difficult, because you never know if the performer you put in is in the music tags of the music.
Studio Canal recently removed all their movies from Sony Playstation. Even the movies people BOUGHT! Now I was not affected in any way (I tend not to buy DRM stuff), but I would never ever want to face something like that in my music collection. The equivalent would be to pay thousands of bucks for a streaming setup, and then Hyperion decides their releases will no longer be on Apple. (They have already decided not to be on most other streaming providers.) Not so good.
I sometimes listen to music via streaming, but if I then really like what I am hearing, I usually buy it. (As download or CD to rip.)
I would guess that 80-90% of my listening is done from music of my own NAS, the rest is everything else. I have a Qobuz subscription (I used to have Tidal), but the ability to actually BUY the music and do with it as I see fit is imperative. Changing the tagging to make sense, making AAC copies for the car (or my wife's car) is essential for me. I don't have anything against streaming, I use it myself, but I'm not going to invest much money into a system that relies primarily on a third party service I have to pay continually to provide me with music that could get canceled or withdrawn on a whim. No way. I prefer to have my own music library and not be at the mercy of a streaming provider. (That's probably because I have a music library already of thousands of albums in lossless and high-res at my disposal, I might feel differently if I just started out.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Sound quality" versus "convenience" versus streaming is not the essential issue here.
The essential issue here is the many re-downloads that have to be performed on "digital" files because so many of them come through corrupted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
