Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 33 of 33
  1. #31
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Everett, Wa
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by ralphpnj View Post
    CD quality but with a much larger file.
    I actually have purchased some good 44.1k downloads from them but they are far and few between. One of them is one of my favorite albums ever, Replicas by Gary Numan and Tubeway Army, this predates the song Cars by some months. Does it sound good? Absolutely! I'm bummed that I missed Gary Numan when he was in town a few months ago. Recent videos show that his shows are as good or better than they have ever been. To anyone that likes music that blows sunshine on you constantly, this is not for you.
    Last edited by Davesworld; 2018-02-07 at 17:34.

  2. #32

    HD is worth it; in some cases.

    I have a massive collection of flacs derived from 44.1 Khz CD's. I also have quite a number of HD tracks ranging from 24/48 up to 24/384. In many case I have the same album in both HD and 44.1. Most of the time, when comparing a HD track that was distilled from a HD master against the 44.1 version of the same track, the HD variant is better. Sometimes very much so. For HD tracks distilled from 44.1 or old analogue masters there is sometimes and improvement and sometimes very little perceivable difference. For tracks with wide dynamic range (typically orchestral stuff) distilled from HD masters there is a very considerable difference between the HD and 44.1. Anyone that doesn't hear that improvement should probably not spend too much on their audio systems.

    Assuming the HD track is distilled form a HD master the most significant factor affecting the HD quality improvement is the dynamic range of the material. The physics behind the dynamic range improvement of HD recordings are widely published. If you have the gear and the inclination try comparing a standard 44.1 version of Cassandra Wilson's 'New Moon Daughter' album with the 24/192 recording from HD tracks. The improvement is astonishing. A number of other albums are similarly improved. For orchestral/wide dynamic range HD is almost always better when a HD master has been used

  3. #33
    Senior Member Mnyb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vństerňs Sweden
    Posts
    16,388
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanMiddleton View Post
    I have a massive collection of flacs derived from 44.1 Khz CD's. I also have quite a number of HD tracks ranging from 24/48 up to 24/384. In many case I have the same album in both HD and 44.1. Most of the time, when comparing a HD track that was distilled from a HD master against the 44.1 version of the same track, the HD variant is better. Sometimes very much so. For HD tracks distilled from 44.1 or old analogue masters there is sometimes and improvement and sometimes very little perceivable difference. For tracks with wide dynamic range (typically orchestral stuff) distilled from HD masters there is a very considerable difference between the HD and 44.1. Anyone that doesn't hear that improvement should probably not spend too much on their audio systems.

    Assuming the HD track is distilled form a HD master the most significant factor affecting the HD quality improvement is the dynamic range of the material. The physics behind the dynamic range improvement of HD recordings are widely published. If you have the gear and the inclination try comparing a standard 44.1 version of Cassandra Wilson's 'New Moon Daughter' album with the 24/192 recording from HD tracks. The improvement is astonishing. A number of other albums are similarly improved. For orchestral/wide dynamic range HD is almost always better when a HD master has been used
    Define "same album" ? or better try this .

    Take the HD tracks 24/192 version downsample it yourself to 16/44.1 don't compare with a CD rip or other download source even if they claim to be the same .
    I've done this myself .
    yes HD versions vs bougth on CD can differ .
    But when you downsample yourself to CD rez the diffrence is not there . So in my opinion the diffrence is in the master the container is unimportant as long it is 16/44.1 or better .

    If had HD cabality for a decade and 100's of DVD-A and really did believe that bigger bit container did something , it does not. There really is no case at all for better 16/44.1 rez on consumer distrubeted formats (your studio should ofcourse operate on another level ).
    The real diffrence was discrete multichannel , an unbetable feature of SACD and DVDA that everyone forgets

    So thats marketting issue if have a better version and try to sell that they blown "remastered" as a moniker , it's usually interpretted uber compressed and worse .
    So selling it as "HD" in an impressive bit container of 24/192 or DSD or MQA does the trick .
    How to convince byers that our new CD or 16/44.1 has much better provence and more carefull mastering from better sources ?
    If you can slap an DSD or MQA sticker on it sells better.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub.
    Bedroom/Office: Boom
    Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4
    Misc use: Radio (with battery)
    iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad
    (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
    server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux

    http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •