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

[KindOfDaz]

I used and liked Technics/Onkyo tracks website

[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.

[JimC]

https://tracks.technics.com/GB/

https://www.7digital.com/

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/hd_...la&label=&cat=

https://www.promates.com/music-store/

This is interesting reading................
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
I'm not saying this is my viewpoint but it does make an interesting read.

Cheers,

Jim.

[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.

[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.

[Minstrel SE]

Thanks Ive read that article and I will read it again and again.

However I still dont understand the stair step sampling principle as I would have thought that more digital information per second (tending to infinity)would lead to a greater level of information, control and ambiance.

I would have thought 24 bit depth helps. I dont understand if its better to have the ultrasonics there because I cant hear above about 12k anyway. It does raise the questions about the limitations of my older ears.

In the same way that 256kbps to 1000kbps is clearly audible, I would have thought a higher resolution is audible throughout the frequency range. Fremer talks about hearing the air around the instruments and how the musician is working the reed etc on a good vinyl pressing. I would have thought the higher digital resolution would give more of this information.

Some cd recordings can sound cold and lifeless as if there is something missing. I will see if I can get the links. Ive heard The Carpenters Interplanetary craft on a couple of formats but I thought it sounded very nice on sample from one of those sites.

Yes I agree its expensive and it hasnt really caught on. However surely they can do better than 16/44.1 after all this time...can they not?

[Macca]

Your thinking in terms of resolution, like a video or photograph. It does'nt work like that with audio. Audio is much simpler. You just have amplitude and frequency. Amplitude is the difference between the quietest and loudest sound, the dynamic range, and is determined by the bit depth. Frequncy is determined by the ampling rate. The highest frequncy you can reproduce is half the sampling rate. So 44.1 is 22khz or higher than a human can hear.

16 bits gives you more dynamic range than lp or tape running at 15 ips. I think I read that someone had found a recording that required more than that, but it is very rare.

There is no stair step. The waveform i.e the change of voltage over time, which is all an audio signal is, is reproduced exactly. There are no further gains to be had. You want to hear the breath of the flute player you need to lower noise and distortion to a minimum in your system. Which is not easy after a certain point.Hence all the products on the market that claim to do this just by buying them and plugging them in.

[Cycleallday]

Its odd how discussions on hires vs cd files always seem to get back to be based on old recording masters.

Surely the new hires technology should be put into context with new recordings made using the same technology and then a balanced discussion can be had on the pros and cons of high v low/standard.

Head over to the Norwegian 2l site and listen to the new recordings in various resolutions. Then off to America to Blue Coast music and try those DSD files.

Now have discussions which are relevant to the music recorded and played in modern digital format.

As an advocate of Vinyl I definitely favour the Blue Sound approach to recording and playback over analogue - they sound incredibly lifelike in a way vinyl never has to my ears.

Mel

[Minstrel SE]

Your thinking in terms of resolution, like a video or photograph. It does'nt work like that with audio. Audio is much simpler. You just have amplitude and frequency. Amplitude is the difference between the quietest and loudest sound, the dynamic range, and is determined by the bit depth. Frequncy is determined by the ampling rate. The highest frequncy you can reproduce is half the sampling rate. So 44.1 is 22khz or higher than a human can hear.

16 bits gives you more dynamic range than lp or tape running at 15 ips. I think I read that someone had found a recording that required more than that, but it is very rare.

There is no stair step. The waveform i.e the change of voltage over time, which is all an audio signal is, is reproduced exactly. There are no further gains to be had. You want to hear the breath of the flute player you need to lower noise and distortion to a minimum in your system. Which is not easy after a certain point.Hence all the products on the market that claim to do this just by buying them and plugging them in.

Well yes and I have been reading these starter guides on the Nyquist limit and why the cd sampling frequency was selected

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/app...io-sample-rate.

So if the sample rate is around 44000 times per second there cant be information missing apart from ultrasonic frequencies which I cant hear anyway. Some say you cant hear the difference above a cd standard. Then again enough people seem to have a go at the cd quality of sound reproduction

I think as Mel says we need a balanced discussion on the high vs low standard with new recordings made using the same technology.

Im off to do some more listening on all the sites mentioned
Cheers
Martin

[JimC]

The trouble is (as far as I can see) is that the stuff recorded at the higher Sampling Frequencies and larger bit depth isn't also recorded at 'low res'. So to compare the two you'd have to 'down-sample' and reduce the bit depth which would take some mathematics done by the PC, or whatever it is done on, and my worry would be that this process would be audible.

Does anyone know of any recordings (I guess they would be test recordings so not commercially available) where the same model of Microphones were connected by the same model of Cables into the same model of Recorder. One recorder set to say 192kHz/24 bits and the other set to 44.1kHz/16 bits and then they record the exact same piece.

That would be the only true test as far as I can see. If I'm missing something then please let me know and if you know of any recordings done this way I'd love a listen.

Cheers all,

Jim.