Hi Res download comparisons

[TALON1973]

hdtracks.com is a greta source of hi def music .. also has your standard 44/16 versions .. .. pretty good site imo

 

[Anonymous]

hdtracks.com is a greta source of hi def music .. also has your standard 44/16 versions .. .. pretty good site imo

[EDITED BY MODS for legal reasons]

 

[Overdose]

Audacity. Free.

I may be asking for some tips.

I'm currently resampling, but haven't yet worked out how to change the bit depth.

 

[Overdose]

Not very scientific or perhaps accurate, however these are my findings.

The original track was down sampled to 16/44 from 24/96, using Audacity. I've never used it before, but it seemed straightforward enough.

Both files were saved as FLACs and played back through my system using XBMC as the player. My partner also took part and had a listen not knowing exactly what or if any differences existed.

Between us both, although more my partner (she has younger ears), there was thought to be a discernable 'rawness' to the original high resolution file. Noticeable, but not in a typical night and day sense, you would have to be listening carefully for it.

Of far more importance and ultimately more obvious, was the immediate sense of quality that the recording had. Clearly very well put together.

For me though, the jury is still out there and what I heard, if indeed it was anything at all, was a small difference in sound quality that for me, does not justify the price of the file. Perhaps a more revealing system would split the difference more resolutely.

For some though, ultimate quality is of paramount importance and the cost will not be an issue.

 

[dannycanham]

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

I would certainly agree to encountering experiences similar to the descriptions in your comments. I myself would describe it along the lines of an increase in grabbing and holding attention and noticing a refinement to the depth as each jump is made from mp3 to 16-44 to 24-96. I am well aware that I am not in the same state when listening to each format though. In everyday form I encounter them as:

20 days worth of mp3s "making do" for listening out and about through in-ears on my phone.

30 days worth of 16-44 for "proper" listening at home through hi-fi.

A few hours of 24-96 for "experimentation".

These experiences are similar to the experiences of when a carrot in a meal originates from supermarket basics to supermarket finest to home grown. Still tastes like a carrot but the concentration will be held for longer and the flavour will have refined depth.

I am not saying that the difference is complete baloney here. I am in favour of hi res becoming popular especially if extra care is taken during the whole recording process. I am just finding it very difficult to judge qualities that might be expected anyway.

I would describe my outcome as that the experiences in themselves are a good enough reason for me to go for high res versions but the ambiguity in my findings would make it very difficult for me to tell others that they would benefit.

 

[6th.replicant]

hdtracks.com is a greta source of hi def music .. also has your standard 44/16 versions .. .. pretty good site imo

Caveat emptor!

IME HDtracks's quality control is lacking, hence its material is not always what it seems.

For example, I bought Frampton Comes Alive (FCA), which was listed as "96kHz/24bit". Indeed, my iTunes 'Get Info' indicates that FCA is 96kHz.

However, a scan with Audacity reveals that FCA is not 96kHz, it's 48kHz.

After complaints from various punters, HDtracks now lists FCA as 48kHz/24bit.

Google 'HD music fft atlas reference' and it's clear the above lapse in quality control is not isolated, judging by posted Audacity Spectrum screenshots.