Which Are The Best Sites For Downloading High-Resolution Audio?

[Minstrel SE]

Hi

Ive just been doing some basic research and listening to some samples which sound very nice through my Grado headphones. Im getting into this and beginning to see this now.

Ive just heard samples of Thriller, The Carpenters and Sounds of War on piano and violin...it sounded better than cd and a good challenge to the vinyl copies Ive heard. when I click the sample arrow Im not entirely sure whats coming down the line but it sounded very nice indeed...clearer more detailed, more controlled, less sibilance and other lower grade nasties

Ive found a top 5 listed from the Sony site

Acoustic Sounds Super HiRez
HDtracks
ProStudio Masters
iTrax
Native DSD Music and Beyond

Ive sampled a couple and just wondered if anybody else uses these sites. I want to get into high res audio and together with a DAC and valve amplifier I may be on the right track.

I was looking at the Fiio player and also what software I need on computers and phones.

Cheers
Martin

[Boyse6748]

I use HDTracks and sometimes a couple of the others mentioned. JRiver is my preferred interface.

Download resolution is a matter of preference, but anything 96 to 11mHz DSD is good. However, make sure your preferred player can handle the highest resolution available and you have the space to store these files ( they can be very large indeed - several GB.)

Bare in mind High Res Music ain’t cheap !! And not all labels / artists are available.

Tidal music streaming is also very good.

I’m sure others will have differing views.

Peter


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Boyse6748]

Sorry, I forgot mention..... make sure your DAC (when you decide the model) is also capable of DSD playback..... some/many are not!! Otherwise you will be limited to 192 / 24 bit files.

I’ll shut up now


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Macca]

Don't waste your money, all you are buying, at best, is a different mastering. There is no intrinsic benefit to so called 'high resolution' audio, it makes no odds if it is 24/96, 24/192 or whatever. Listen to the same master in 16/44.1 it will sound identical. The whole thing is a total con.

[Spectral Morn]

Don't waste your money, all you are buying, at best, is a different mastering. There is no intrinsic benefit to so called 'high resolution' audio, it makes no odds if it is 24/96, 24/192 or whatever. Listen to the same master in 16/44.1 it will sound identical. The whole thing is a total con.

Not to my ears, 192 sounds better.

[StanleyB]

Not to my ears, 192 sounds better.

You mean "different". Not all of them sound better. I suppose it is down to the original master track. Mind you, saying that I have noticed that some high res tracks are a different composition to the lower res versions. If you listen via headphones you can even detect a different mix, with instruments etc coming from the left hand side instead of the right hand side for instance.

[Boyse6748]

Not into HD downloads then played on my system, it sure ain’t a con.

Each to our own !!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Macca]

If it sounds different or better, it is a different mastering. It isn't because of the frequncies beyond your hearing that are not on the recording anyway, unless they used hi res mics to record it. It's a con.

[Boyse6748]

Seems like your not to be convinced as I worked for both Decca and Island Records in the the day,...... do you really think they have dug out the two inch master tapes to do the new re realises?.

Me thinks not... perhaps digitised to a reasonable standard. This is called HD music. I have both Vinyl that sounds good and bad..... the same with HD downloads. It’s nothing to with what you perceive to hear! It’s what sounds good, in either format.

Sorry, but not getting into some no win argument about the black stuff.... against other formats.

We all have our own views


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Macca]

Seems like your not to be convinced as I worked for both Decca and Island Records in the the day,...... do you really think they have dug out the two inch master tapes to do the new re realises?.

Me thinks not... perhaps digitised to a reasonable standard. This is called HD music.

Not only do they dig out the original tapes, in some cases (The Rolling Stones' Beggar's Banquet) they re-mixed as well. Granted in some case they may just have settled for tweaking the existing master, a bit of eq adjustment, add a little reverb. It is very difficult in some case to find out what they did do because they don't want to say. But the work on the 'Stones back catalogue is fairly well documented.

A new mastering is not necessarily 'HD' or high resolution, i.e has a bandwidth greater than 22Khz. Regardless of whether the new version is 16/44.1 or 24/192 it is going to sound different to the old version because it has been re-mastered to sound different. This is the 'obvious' difference that people report when listening to so called high resolution audio. The mistake is to think that the extended bandwidth has anything to do with the difference in sound, since it does not, except possibly to add some distortion artefacts within the audible range if replayed at 24/192.

This is all explained in the article Jim linked to above, I'd recommend anyone interested in digital replay read that, and possibly have their eyes opened.https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Of course if you prefer the new mastering then that is a good reason to access the high rez version, assuming that is the only way of obtaining it. Personally I am not entirely convinced that I want a new mastering, let alone a new re-mix. I mean do we have a stereo to listen to music or to the recording? If you are not happy with how the original version sounds it might be better to improve the playback system rather than the recording.