So now that the PONO music store has launched with not just the odd high-res album, but quite a decent library of 16/44.1 popular albums available as FLAC downloads. Has anyone from the UK purchased any music? Or is it going to be limited to US only like HD tracks had been for ages.
High-Res downloads
- Thread starter Dommer
- Start date
Infiniteloop
Well-known member
SteveR750
Well-known member
HD tracks is opne for business in the UK (was when I last tried it anyway about 4 months ago). That's of course if you want to pay double for an upsampled CD audio track....
basshound
Well-known member
spockfish said:
There has been some contoversy about this,I seem to remember HD Tracks having to take down some albums when it was proved that they were indeed upsampled versions. There is also a whole other debate about whether even genuine Hi-Res recording are audibly better. IMO the mastering process is far more important than hi -res or cd quality, a well recorded/mastered cd has enough dynamic range for anyone.
There is ,I think, another side to this as well,record companies are businesses and are out to make money so if they can get you to buy the same music 2 or 3 times over they will. For example,I`m a long time Genesis fan and have bought their albums on lp,cassette,cd,remastered cd,box sets with video dvd extras etc. (sucker !)
SteveR750
Well-known member
spockfish said:
No, but when you challenge HD tracks to confirm whether a file is remastered in HD or simply upsampled they have never replied, to anyone, it's a well documented issue. Maybe things have changed. If you want evidence, a good remastered hi res album is Fleetwood Mac Rumours. The 24/96 version is stunning, miles apart from the original CD version. I've also got a couple of REM albums in 24/96 and they are identical to the CD versions. If there is any difference I could not hear it (and I'm not alone in that). Just check what you're paying for that's all!
EDIT: check out Porcupine Tree, you can download their albums in 16/44 or 24/96 and there is a noticeable difference, as they mastered in hi res. If you're buying hi-res audio then I personally would want that to be clear, otherwise I'd not waste my money, after all I could get windows to upsample all of the CD tracks to 24/96.....
matt49
Well-known member
It's dead easy to find out for yourself whether a supposed hi-res track is in fact upsampled 16/44.1. Just put a snippet through Audacity.
HFN+RR now publish frequency analyses of the downloads they review.
HFN+RR now publish frequency analyses of the downloads they review.
I tried to buy Paul Simon's Graceland in 24/96 from the UK HDtracks, but it says it's not available in this territory. So why do they even have it on the UK site... 
SteveR750
Well-known member
BigH
Well-known member
Dommer said:I tried to buy Paul Simon's Graceland in 24/96 from the UK HDtracks, but it says it's not available in this territory. So why do they even have it on the UK site...
yes I agree, fed up with there emails saying what is available on uk site and when you click on it, you get message saying not available. AnywY I did try their free sample download and for me I did not think it was worth buying as difference not much better. I think 24 bit is not worth it if you down sample it to 16 I doubt I can tell the difference.
SteveR750
Well-known member
watch this youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y8JMTIOtis
that got me thinking .... I have not bought a cd for a long time and now listen most of the day to spotify
I'm 'old school' and I have a huge collection opf cd's so I will keep my cd player, ...
but maybe it's time to start taking music streaming seriously and add a good DAC to my system?...
I have been trying to find cd's on spotify that have been 'well recorded'.... (and music that I like), so I will still buy cd's but not so many as previously (I will be more selective)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y8JMTIOtis
that got me thinking .... I have not bought a cd for a long time and now listen most of the day to spotify
I'm 'old school' and I have a huge collection opf cd's so I will keep my cd player, ...
but maybe it's time to start taking music streaming seriously and add a good DAC to my system?...
I have been trying to find cd's on spotify that have been 'well recorded'.... (and music that I like), so I will still buy cd's but not so many as previously (I will be more selective)
davedotco said:
LOL ... don't laugh as I've just started and have a small budget
so far, I have an old Pioneer 700L receiver, connected to my laptop and an old pair of Wharefedale Diamond speakers (the 1st version)
I don't have a DAC yet and I am using a cable connected into my speaker outlet on the laptop, connected to the amp
sounds a lot better than my old desktop pc speakers, and I will 'upgrade' this system by easter.
However .... I have a cdp, tuner and amp (all 3 are Tom Evan's tweaked Pioneers) .... amazing soundstage.
the speakers are old B&W Dm2's (transmission line). These speakers were connected to an old Pioneer SA-9800 amp and a Marantz CD63MKII K1 signature CDP .... I used this sttem for over 10 years and the amp started 'popping', and the CDP started skipping tracks so I sold both.
The DM2 speakers are not suited to the Tom Evans components, but I will keep both the DM2 speakers and Tom Evans Pioneer items, and get smaller speakers for the Tom Evans components (Perhaps Harbeth P3Esr or similar), and to this system, I will get a good DAC for Spotify etc
I may get another strong (old amp ) for the B&W speakers ...perhaps an old Luxman or big Sansui .... and a good older CDP.
decisions ... decisions?
dim_span said:
A dac for your laptop system should be a real improvement. Good asyncronous dacs can be had for less than £100.
spockfish said:
Few facts to consider before buying Hi-Res audio.
1. Both Analogue and Digital audio are resolution limited (digital is superior). Anything that isn't 24/96 DDD and above, is either upsamled 16/44.1 DDD or worse (AAD, ADD, DAD). To make an audible difference, Hi-Res formats are also remastered or at least slightly changed in loudness.
2. Studios have only recently accepted 24/96 as a standard, few still work in 16/44.1 and few with 24/192. 16/44.1 was a studio standard for 30 years and during that period 16/44.1 was Hi-Res. 24/96 has benefits for more headroom while repetitive resampling during production and mastering. Once that is finished, whether you get a 24/96 file or a downsampled 16/44.1 file/CD, makes no audible difference at all.
3. Studio microphones rarely if at all record over 20kHz. Why would they? Human hearing is limited to 20Hz-20kHz (ideally).
So to determine how much a Hi-Res audio file is high resolution, just look at its first recording date. If it wasnt recorded Hi-Res, it can never be Hi-Res.
Why would you need Hi-Res audio in the first place if the microhones (or the engineer) never recorded anything beyond 20kHz and your adult male homo sapiens ears can't hear anything beyond 16kHz? *scratch_one-s_head*
Well if it makes you warm and fuzzy inside, then why not. *pardon*
SteveR750
Well-known member
Vladimir said:
Are you sure all recoording engineers roll everything off at 20Khz? I appreciate that CDA does with ani-aliasing filters, and what about remastering an analogue master tape? There is only one recording I have in hi-res that sounds markedly different (and it's not just louder) and that is Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, which was downloaded from HD Tracks. There is also a subtle improvement, but again it's noticeable on Porcupine Tree's tracks off their own website.
Whilst the human hear mostly is limited to 20K or below; it's possible that ultrasonic frequencies have an interharmonic affect on the audio spectrum, which *might* explain why Hi-res purports to sound smoother in the upper frequencies. I studied this whan I was at uni on a project with premier percussion, albeit examining material structural influences on acoustic properties, but spent a lot of time in an anechoic chamber with the sound engineers.
It's an interesting area of acoustics, as ever the caveat being caveat emptor when actually parting with cash.
SteveR750 said:
This is not that hard to check.
Take the hi-res track that you think sounds the best. Use Foobar to downsample the track to 16/44.1.
Then use the ABX comparator in Foobar to set up a blind ABX test with the two files, see how easy or hard it is to hear the difference.
SteveR750
Well-known member
SteveR750 said:
Doesn't matter if the engineer decides not to. Somewhere in the recording-mixing-producing-mastering chain it is bound to happen. If not with the microphone, then with 16/44.1 and finally our ears.
SteveR750 said:
Nope.
Everything beyond 13kHz is tizz fuzz and pssshhht, information of not much musical relevance, even less in harmonics. What happens after 20kHz I leave to the bats.
SteveR750
Well-known member
So what exactly is tizz fuzz and pssshht?
20k isn't necessarily our upper limit http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_hearing
And this
http://www.tinnitusjournal.com/detalhe_artigo.asp?id=109
That was just a 2 minute search there's bound to be more if you look further. I know there's been some work undertaken at Cardiff and Southampton university but I can't find them, looking at the mechanism and effect of ultrasonic exposure.
20k isn't necessarily our upper limit http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_hearing
And this
http://www.tinnitusjournal.com/detalhe_artigo.asp?id=109
That was just a 2 minute search there's bound to be more if you look further. I know there's been some work undertaken at Cardiff and Southampton university but I can't find them, looking at the mechanism and effect of ultrasonic exposure.
SteveR750 said:
Notice my comment was about how irrelevant that sonic information is to enjoy music. Play some ultrasonic music at home and let us know how that went.
SteveR750
Well-known member
You don't need "hi-fi" to enjoy music. The point being is that in theory the more you spend the less you take away. It's clear that ultrasonics ate detectable. Remove them and it's not a true reproduction. If that's important to you, ymmv.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram