Hi Res music

[stevebrock]

I have finally got some hi res music (24/96)

The Eagles - Hotel California

Stevie Wonder - Talking Book

Have both these albums streaming from an iMac to a SBT then into a Rega DAC via optical......

It hasnt blown me away with more detail but it almost sounds like vinyl but its very smooth, clear and enjoyable - like it a lot! is this what Hi Res is about?

 

[Hi-FiOutlaw]

I have finally got some hi res music (24/96)

The Eagles - Hotel California

Stevie Wonder - Talking Book

Have both these albums streaming from an iMac to a SBT then into a Rega DAC via optical......

It hasnt blown me away with more detail but it almost sounds like vinyl but its very smooth, clear and enjoyable - like it a lot! is this what Hi Res is about?

Funny the way you put this down... I fell the same exact thing with my hi-res files, may be due Rega DAC, but I often said to my self (never had the courage to post it here like you did) that sound exactly like vinyl...

If we are the only two what the hell...

:cheers:

 

[stevebrock]

To be honest I did not know what to expect with 24/96 files - All I know is that those 2 albums sound fantastic.

But most of my vinyl sounds fantastic too, which got me thinking I should invest in an RP3!

O god hifi is soo addictive!

 

[Hi-FiOutlaw]

To be honest I did not know what to expect with 24/96 files - All I know is that those 2 albums sound fantastic.

But most of my vinyl sounds fantastic too, which got me thinking I should invest in an RP3!

O god hifi is soo addictive!

In white... :roll: :twisted:

 

[krish123]

hi guys im intrigued as to what are 24/96 files can u download them in this format or what? is this format better quality than cd's ?

 

[Hi-FiOutlaw]

hi guys im intrigued as to what are 24/96 files can u download them in this format or what? is this format better quality than cd's ?

For me the quality is the same as the CD, but will depend on your DAC, as digital files need a treamer and a DAC to sound in it's best! Or a PC and a DAC.

And yes you have to down load in that format.

 

[SteveR750]

Get a copy of the 24/96 version of Rumours - you will be blown away, but that's most likely down to a better remaster rather than the (debatably) superior SQ of hi res.

 

[stevebrock]

Get a copy of the 24/96 version of Rumours - you will be blown away, but that's most likely down to a better remaster rather than the (debatably) superior SQ of hi res.

where from in the uk?

 

[SteveR750]

That bit I can't help with I'm afraid. I got mine from HD tracks just before the shutters came down.

 

[CJSF]

For what its worth, I have had a couple of sessions over this weeken on line . . . I subscribe to 'Spotify Unlimite' . . . some of the music I have been listening too has blown my mind! My DAC is a tiny HRT no bigger than a *** packet. I find the older recordings 80's and older are so much better?

In particular, a mind sticker; Karl Denvers album 'Wimoweh' great 60's music. Try Ladysmith Black Mambazo, some amazing African style acapela music that draws you in . . . if you let it. I dig around a lot in Spotify, diping in to albums, there is some real dross, but in there are some real gems if you give them a chance . . .

I put the SQ I get from Spotify down to the HRT DAC.

Purley my opinion and personal findings.

CJSF

 

[Craig M.]

but that's most likely down to a better remaster rather than the (debatably) superior SQ of hi res.

+1. The switch to 24 bit increases the potential dynamic range, but 16 bit already has a higher dynamic range than any stereo. The higher sample rate just means that higher frequency sounds can be captured, but 44.1 gives higher frequencies than you can hear (unless you're a teenager, maybe) and your kit might not be able to play them anyway.

They can be worth it though, for the better remasters. They're not always better though, sometimes just different - Nirvana Nevermind being an example.

 

[The_Lhc]

but that's most likely down to a better remaster rather than the (debatably) superior SQ of hi res.

+1. The switch to 24 bit increases the potential dynamic range, but 16 bit already has a higher dynamic range than any stereo.

Yes but it's not quite that simple is it? CD might be capable of that kind of dynamic range but it isn't being used. We all know about the "loudness" wars, with dynamic range being compressed to within an inch of its life. That doesn't appear to be happening with 24bit recordings, so it's entirely possible that a 24-bit recording WILL have a greater dynamic range than the equivalent CD, not due to anything inherent in the format but simply because more care is beng taken.

Now, if this prompts mastering engineers to do the same for CD issues (however long they continue for) then your point will stand and of course, we'll all be a lot happier for it!

 

[Craig M.]

but that's most likely down to a better remaster rather than the (debatably) superior SQ of hi res.

+1. The switch to 24 bit increases the potential dynamic range, but 16 bit already has a higher dynamic range than any stereo.

Yes but it's not quite that simple is it? CD might be capable of that kind of dynamic range but it isn't being used. We all know about the "loudness" wars, with dynamic range being compressed to within an inch of its life. That doesn't appear to be happening with 24bit recordings, so it's entirely possible that a 24-bit recording WILL have a greater dynamic range than the equivalent CD, not due to anything inherent in the format but simply because more care is beng taken.

Now, if this prompts mastering engineers to do the same for CD issues (however long they continue for) then your point will stand and of course, we'll all be a lot happier for it!

Did you actually read what I'd posted? I selectively quoted Steve's post to isolate the point about the remaster and gave it a +1, and also mentioned that the 'hi res' music can be worth downloading for the better remaster. I thought I'd made that clear? None of which has anything to do with the greater bit-depth on offer because even the 'hi res' downloads are, dynamically, nowhere near the limits of 16 bit material.

 

[The_Lhc]

but that's most likely down to a better remaster rather than the (debatably) superior SQ of hi res.

+1. The switch to 24 bit increases the potential dynamic range, but 16 bit already has a higher dynamic range than any stereo.

Yes but it's not quite that simple is it? CD might be capable of that kind of dynamic range but it isn't being used. We all know about the "loudness" wars, with dynamic range being compressed to within an inch of its life. That doesn't appear to be happening with 24bit recordings, so it's entirely possible that a 24-bit recording WILL have a greater dynamic range than the equivalent CD, not due to anything inherent in the format but simply because more care is being taken.

Now, if this prompts mastering engineers to do the same for CD issues (however long they continue for) then your point will stand and of course, we'll all be a lot happier for it!

Did you actually read what I'd posted?

Yes, did you read mine and if so, what makes you think I was having a go at you? I was just expressing the point that engineers have ignored the dynamic capabilities of CD for decades, so its capabilities are almost irrelevant if they aren't being used. That's it, that's all I said, so what's with the attitude? I was agreeing with you for fucks sake...

 

[Craig M.]

Sorry, I think we're at cross purposes here. You said it's not that simple, I think it is - the improvement is down to the master not the format. Which I think is all I said in my post, along with a brief explanation of what 'hi res' audio files actually are, ie: not hi res as most would understand the term.