Hi Res download comparisons

[Overdose]

Does anyone know if there are any well recorded hi-res downloads, say 24/96, that are also available on the same site at 16/44 as a FLAC file?

The reason being, I am thinking about dipping a toe in the hi-res water, but would like to be able to do some comparisons.

 

[John Duncan]

Linn Records is the best place to start I think. They are, by all accounts, extremely well recorded and have 24/96 and 16/44 versions available on most stuff; there are also no question marks over any upsampling shenanigans as has been alleged of other sites.

 

[amcluesent]

Linn Records (doh! what he said...)

 

[Anonymous]

I can second/third Linn records.

I bought some hi res stuff from there.

The best way to test it though is to downsample it yourself so you're sure it is the same master. I wouldn't claim this of any site in particular, but I wouldn't be surprised if some sites "made sure" that the higher bit rate stuff was better quality.

Since I tested it I don't buy hi-res any more...I can't tell the difference between 24/96 and 16/44.1. But I'm glad they (sites like Linn) exist, because the recording quality of the stuff is generally extremely high.

 

[Overdose]

Linn Records is the best place to start I think. They are, by all accounts, extremely well recorded and have 24/96 and 16/44 versions available on most stuff; there are also no question marks over any upsampling shenanigans as has been alleged of other sites.

I really need to do a bit of reading up on this, but I presume you mean a 16/44 track processed into a 24/96 track? This would, I take it, not improve sound quality at all? Whereas, a track initially recorded in 24/96 would perhaps show an improvement on a 16/44 track?

 

[CnoEvil]

As has been said above, Linn is a great place to start. In another thread, I chose one track that I thought was good for demonstrating this, and explained (as best I could) the differences that I heard. See here Post No.7:
http://www.whathifi.com/forum/computer-based-music/mp3-320-kbps-vs-flacwav?page=4

 

[Overdose]

Thanks for all of the advice. I'll down sample a 24/96 track myself, to make a known comparison.

One more question though, is there any particular music which would potentially sound better as a hi-res file? I have quite a lot of electronica, but will download something that is most likely to highlight any differences.

 

[amcluesent]

>is there any particular music which would potentially sound better as a hi-res file<

Harpsichord. Which is just as well with Linn Records ...

 

[Overdose]

I dunno, it's got some techno and ambient, even some acid driven stuff, albeit a little experimental sounding. Quite surprised at some tracks being £3.60 though. :O

 

[CnoEvil]

Harpsichord. Which is just as well with Linn Records ...

......electronic Harpsichord?

 

[paradiziac]

"In the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9), two veteran audio journalists who aren’t professional engineers, E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran, present a breakthrough paper that contradicts all previous inputs by the engineering community. They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with literally hundreds of double-blind listening tests at matched levels, conducted over a period of more than a year, that the two-channel analog output of a high-end SACD/DVD-A player undergoes no audible change when passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz A/D/A processor. That means there’s no audible difference between the original CD standard (“Red Book”) and 24-bit/192-kHz PCM or 1-bit/2.8442-MHz DSD."

EDITED BY MODS - House Rules

In theory, 16/44 offers more than enough dynamic range (and much more than vinyl)--but if you've got ribbon tweeters, you might find your dog prefers 24/96

The most likely explanation for 24/96 sounding better is if the recording has been remastered for "audiophiles", i.e. not compressed within an inch of its life for the sake of sounding loud on cheap car stereos, as many CDs are.

I couldn't tell the difference. But neither can I can tell the difference between mp3 above 192 and the corresponding .wav file in an ABX test!

Alwas best to test for yourself, let us know the results!

 

[nopiano]

One more question though, is there any particular music which would potentially sound better as a hi-res file? I have quite a lot of electronica, but will download something that is most likely to highlight any differences.

To make a reasoned assessment I'd choose something you can hear in real-life, and recorded in a normal acoustic (not a creation of the engineer's head). Personaly I'd consider a grand piano, or vocal with small group (say, guitar, bass, drums). Or an orchestra, assuming you've heard one in concert conditions.

In Linn terms, that means the likes of Artur Pizzaro, Claire Martin, Caiol Kidd, Sir Charles Mackerras/SCO, for example.

Listen not just to the tonal qualty, but more particularly, the naturalness of the reverberation, the decay, etc.

 

[John Duncan]

Free track available here btw...

http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-whathifi-comp.aspx

 

[CnoEvil]

One more question though, is there any particular music which would potentially sound better as a hi-res file? I have quite a lot of electronica, but will download something that is most likely to highlight any differences.

To make a reasoned assessment I'd choose something you can hear in real-life, and recorded in a normal acoustic (not a creation of the engineer's head). Personaly I'd consider a grand piano, or vocal with small group (say, guitar, bass, drums). Or an orchestra, assuming you've heard one in concert conditions.

In Linn terms, that means the likes of Artur Pizzaro, Claire Martin, Caiol Kidd, Sir Charles Mackerras/SCO, for example.

Listen not just to the tonal qualty, but more particularly, the naturalness of the reverberation, the decay, etc.

Exactly so, which is exactly why "A case of you" by Ian Shaw works so well.....very simple, beautiful recording, with just Piano, Double Bass and singer.

 

[nopiano]

Indeed, Cno, I didn't mean it to look as though I hadn't read your previous advice...

 

[CnoEvil]

Indeed, Cno, I didn't mean it to look as though I hadn't read your previous advice...

Didn't cross my mind. I was really using your comment to highlight the suitability of that particular piece of music for demonstrating differences.....it has most of the elements you were talking about (it is "simple" enough to hear exactly what is going on).

 

[Anonymous]

Of course, the simpler the material is, the less important the resolution, and the easier it is to compress transparently.

 

[CnoEvil]

Of course, the simpler the material is, the less important the resolution, and the easier it is to compress transparently.

....so if you can hear a difference, it clearly exists.

 

[john1000000boy]

Can i download the free track and playback using my existing equipment?? I do not have a dac. if i can what connection should i make between my macbook and lx 82?? Also i only use itunes for all my music, will i have to use different software to rip with??

Always wanted to try high res.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course, the simpler the material is, the less important the resolution, and the easier it is to compress transparently.

....so if you can hear a difference, it clearly exists.

Indeed. There is no doubt there is a difference...just that I for one can't hear it.

I actually thought I had passed an ABX of 24/96 and a downsampled 16/44.1, but later realised I had been listening to the same identical track (both 16/44.1). I managed 5/5 in ABX and was convinced. In the end it was a combination of expectation and sheer luck... I couldn't pass a 2nd time

If you really can hear a difference, great. The more people spending money on the high bit rate material means more high quality CD quality FLAC or MP3 for me

 

[John Duncan]

Agreed, i can't tell the difference, but the stuff i listen to has low dynamic range. Try some full on orchestral stuff...

 

[Anonymous]

Agreed, i can't tell the difference, but the stuff i listen to has low dynamic range. Try some full on orchestral stuff...

It's certainly possible that it is better. But AFAIK there doesn't exist ANY recording that has a dynamic range even close to that which is possible with a simple red-book CD.

 

[Overdose]

Free track available here btw...

http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-whathifi-comp.aspx

Barb Jungr - 'Man in the Long Black Coat' 96Khz/24 bit

Just got to work out how to down sample it and then I'll be set.

 

[John Duncan]

Dbpoweramp probably your best bet...

 

[Anonymous]

Audacity. Free.