View Full Version : Which Are The Best Sites For Downloading High-Resolution Audio?
Minstrel SE
01-10-2017, 22:36
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
02-10-2017, 07:13
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
02-10-2017, 14:12
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[emoji41]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
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.
Boyse6748
02-10-2017, 16:53
Not into HD downloads then [emoji6] played on my system, it sure ain’t a con.
Each to our own !!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
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
02-10-2017, 18:05
Seems like your not to be convinced [emoji41] 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 [emoji7][emoji7]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Boyse6748
02-10-2017, 18:12
In addition..... my apologies to the guy that posted the. Question in the first place.
We have not answered you question...... sorry
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This one is free (and legal):
https://archive.org/details/cj2009-10-05.ku100_at37
Cowboy Junkies live, recorded using "dummy head" technique and downloads as FLAC - great on headphones on my little Sony hi res player.
My two favourite sources of FLAC files, including hi-res, are Linn Records (http://www.linnrecords.com/) and qobuz (http://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/shop)
KindOfDaz
02-10-2017, 20:52
I used and liked Technics/Onkyo tracks website
Spectral Morn
03-10-2017, 06:38
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.
https://tracks.technics.com/GB/
https://www.7digital.com/
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/hd_downloads.php?search=yes&composer=&work=&performer=the+russian+state+symphony+capella&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
03-10-2017, 08:06
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.
Seems like your not to be convinced [emoji41] 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
03-10-2017, 18:40
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?
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
03-10-2017, 20:32
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
03-10-2017, 21:25
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/application_notes/14949325-high-resolution-audio-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
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.
It is possible to downsample with no effect on sound quality and indeed this has been done by the AES and others in order to test if there is any difference in the audibility of recordings made with extended bandwidth. Unsurprisingly no-one who took part in the tests was able to tell the difference. Had they been able to it would have been a very big deal as far as medical science is concerned.
One other thing worth looking out for is that some publishers will issue a high rez recording along with the same recording in 16/44.1 as a comparison. They will deliberately hobble the 16/44.1 in order to demonstrate that the high rez is worthwhile. Shocking really, but the fact is there are no limits to what some people will do to put food on the table.
Syngate Records are looking to start selling 24 bit recordings. The latest album by Michael Brückner is in 24 bit format. It is 24 bit 44.1Khz. I think other artists will follow soon, I plan to. As for the sample rate, in my own tests the jump from 44.1 to higher seems to make very little difference compared to the jump from 16 bit to 24 bit which is noticeable on a good system or cans. Also the higher sample rate can sometimes sound worse. Maybe these higher rates suit clean jazz and classical better but less so for synth based music. Some synths don't play well at higher rates and can even produce unwanted changes to a sound.
My latest release (messages) I stuck with 16 bit but was careful in mastering and not going for maximum loudness which many artists still seem to do. Everything maximised in volume catering for poor systems and headphones were the soft and very quiet passages would be lost guess. I can't quite bring myself to be heavy with the compressor :)
What are peoples opinions on sample rates for 24 bit. What would be accepted in the Hi-Fi world. There seems to be no standard. 44.1khz 24 bit is the easier recording mode with the final recording output exactly matching the laid tracks in the software workstation. 88.2khz also works well since it is 2x the rate. 96khz I have found to be an issue sometimes.
is 24 bit 44.1 considered HD recording ? Or does it need to be 48K+
David,
Have you looked at this very recent thread/discussion here?
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?54088-Which-Are-The-Best-Sites-For-Downloading-High-Resolution-Audio
BW
Richard
Just started a similar thread here
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?54127-Syngate-Records-24-bit-Recordings-Samplerates-Question
I record music for release on Syngate Records and to my ears the jump to 24 bit at 44.1 makes a reasonable difference on very good headphones / ears but the jump in sample rate has little or no effect and in some cases is worse.
Can maybe a mod move my original post to the other thread and delete / close this thread then ? Seems like the ideal place to carry on the discussion...
What sort of difference do you perceive between 16 and 24 bit David?
Merged. I currently use 24 bit/ 44.1 in jriver oddly.
Recording is different but for playback there should be no audible difference.
Jeff Wood
04-10-2017, 15:30
...when I worked at LFD Audio I remember my boss Dr Bews saying that he didnt really agree with higher bit rates because the full potential of CD was rarely realised, ie, 16 bit 44.1 is plenty good enough.
And I can also remember hearing some test cd's that Bews had and they sounded absolutely amazing, which kind of backs up his view.
So, I find myself agreeing with Macca, it probably is the better re mastering that's making the "hi res" tracks sound better, rather than the increased bandwidth.
And yes, there's money in it ! On some sites the Hi Res albums sell for about £30 !
But...saying all the above, If buying a Hi Res version is the only way to get the better quality re master, then that's what we have to do..
Recording is different but for playback there should be no audible difference.
Ive heard minor differences in setting different rates, although its not great and sometimes inaudible. Again though i'm old and ears dont go up as far as young uns
Recording is different but for playback there should be no audible difference.
Well the difference is not vast but to me a final rendered track in 24/44.1 compared to 16/44.1 is hard to put in words. The bass on synth sounds is slightly fatter, warmer, has more decay. There seems to be more 'air' around all the sounds with a slightly more 'open' spacious sound. I hate using cliche's but I cannot think of any other words to describe it.
Now going to 96Khz seems a complete waste of time as it makes no difference in my stuff. 44.1 to 48k is marginal also but the 16 to 24 bit seems worth it. I guess HDCD was 20 bit so 20 bit would be good enough also and a pitty 20 bit HDCD was not more adopted. Being in a position to render finished tracks in the DAW to 16 bit and 24 bit without any changes on the mix / master bus means I can do A-B tests with exactly the same material with no changes to the mastering.
I use HD800 cans BTW. I would not pay 2x the price for a 24 bit version of an album, it really is not worth it but if the cost is the same for 24bit 44.1 vs 16bit 44.1 then you might as well. Syngate priced their first 24 bit digital download the same as previous 16 bit releases so no big deal.
If you want to do your own test if you have some 24 bit tracks then grab the open source audacity, import a 24 bit wav and export as 16 bit. Check the prefs for setting the dithering quality. You can then A-B yourself with a favourite track.
Thing is the bit depth only determines the maximum dynamic range it has nothing to do with the frequency response.
We can't rule out the electronics behaving differently with different dampling rates. Benign distortion is a possibility. Some products that clism to improve digital replay by reducing noise and distortion actually increase noise and distortion. But people buy them, use them and like what they do. In the subjective realm, as always, all bets are off. Some change might improve the subjective sound, but not for the reasons we think, or that the manufacturer's claim.
Sorry about all the misspellings. On my phone and they are a bitch to correct.
David I have done a comparison with a 24/192 recording downsampled to 16/44.1
Neither I nor my friend who set it up could distinguish them.
Maybe the track renders slightly different from the synths in 24 bit. That could account for the sound difference. I doubt I could hear it on anything but higher end headphones tbh unless your speakers are something very special. I cannot tell a difference on budget ear phones or budget stand mounts I have between 16 bit and 24 bit. I only hear a slight improvement on the HD800 cans so I bet for 90+ % of users 24 bit is a little pointless. Like I said the change is not vast and you need to have trained ears tuned to your own equipment.
........One other thing worth looking out for is that some publishers will issue a high rez recording along with the same recording in 16/44.1 as a comparison. They will deliberately hobble the 16/44.1 in order to demonstrate that the high rez is worthwhile....
I am not doubting you and I can't say I'm surprised but do you have any material corroborating this and if so, would it not be a good idea to try and publicise the fact more widely?
I'm sure the wider 'Hi-Rez' buying public would be interested.
Jim.
Another point I remember, it is not uncommon to use an EQ curve in the final mix be it hardware or software. These usually roll off the very low frequencies and also the high above 22K and have been around for a very long time even before the digital era. Does this make the higher sample rate 24 bit files pointless ? I think as already said these re-hashed older albums have just been re-mastered using better methods and tools.
Canetoad
05-10-2017, 03:45
It is possible to downsample with no effect on sound quality and indeed this has been done by the AES and others in order to test if there is any difference in the audibility of recordings made with extended bandwidth. Unsurprisingly no-one who took part in the tests was able to tell the difference. Had they been able to it would have been a very big deal as far as medical science is concerned.
One other thing worth looking out for is that some publishers will issue a high rez recording along with the same recording in 16/44.1 as a comparison. They will deliberately hobble the 16/44.1 in order to demonstrate that the high rez is worthwhile. Shocking really, but the fact is there are no limits to what some people will do to put food on the table.
In my experience it's more about putting a Mercedes in the garage than food on the table.
Minstrel SE
06-10-2017, 20:10
So we all need to sit in a room again with the experts and see if we can hear any difference. I think it probably is down to the re-mastering/mastering as there seem countless tweaks to be made on the desk if you have access to the original master.
When was the last double blind test? Its time we had another one on the best equipment and put this to bed.
Ive had some great sounds on cd this week but Ive still got some upgrading to hear cd reproduced at its best. I then get dissatisfied when I hear Fremer and co going on. Then the vinyl vs cd debate rears up again and then I think of all the threads on multiple forums with people loading Flac files etc and talking about high res.
I use apple lossless just for ripping my cds. I rarely buy in i tunes 256k when I must have the track right away. So far I havent been interested in other file formats and high res downloads
What Hi Fi ( I flick through it in Sainsburys :)) are running another section on personal Hi Res players. I cant really afford many high res recordings and I reckon Macca Martin is right about this as there have been listening tests where nobody could hear any real difference. Is this really the Emperors new format?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.