Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Show us your Head-Fi station at it's current state. No old pictures please...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Show us your Head-Fi station at it's current state. No old pictures please... - Page 992

post #14866 of 20056
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post

Yeah. Actually, that Norah Jones album is just upsampled (shame on HDTracks and the SACD publisher) from the redbook causing all kinds of bad mojo. The CD is the best version. Actually, the vinyl is since i've compared both, but that's not digital.
And even that has distortion unfortunately. frown.gif
post #14867 of 20056

It's important to note that some SACDs are also upsampled redbook, so be weary of the scams.

post #14868 of 20056

Unless you are using high end gear, I really wouldn't worry about 24 bit sacd copies or rips of any music. Seriously, they'll just consume your memory. Your computer will be working twice as hard to decode them and the SQ will not sound any different than 16 bit cd. L3000.gif

 

Also, if you like vinyl rips, make sure the original recording was analogue otherwise you'll be listening to a digital recording pressed to analogue then back to digital... It will sound warmer. But much duller. 

 

This is just my experience :)

post #14869 of 20056
Just keep in mind that the quality of the sound you hear is governed by the quality of the master. Whether its 24 bit,16 bit, or even 320 kbps MP3, its debatable whether any difference is audible (another topic for another thread).

I personally enjoy buying used CD's from Amazon for $2 or $3 each and ripping them to FLAC. I rip DVD's too and have some downloaded music as well. I guess its my age - I just feel reassured knowing I have a physical copy buried away in case I want/need it in the future.
Edited by palmfish - 8/28/13 at 6:05pm
post #14870 of 20056
Quote:
Originally Posted by palmfish View Post

Just keep in mind that the quality of the sound you hear iis governed by the quality of the master. Whether its 24 bit,16 bit, or even 320 kbps MP3, its debatable whether any difference is audible (another topic for another thread).

 

Couldn't agree more. 

post #14871 of 20056
Haha, it looks like about 6 of us all posted at the same tme. I also agree with the other comments above...
Edited by palmfish - 8/28/13 at 1:57pm
post #14872 of 20056
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post

Yeah. Actually, that Norah Jones album is just upsampled (shame on HDTracks and the SACD publisher) from the redbook causing all kinds of bad mojo. The CD is the best version. Actually, the vinyl is since i've compared both, but that's not digital.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LugBug1 View Post

Unless you are using high end gear, I really wouldn't worry about 24 bit sacd copies or rips of any music. Seriously, they'll just consume your memory. Your computer will be working twice as hard to decode them and the SQ will not sound any different than 16 bit cd. L3000.gif


Also, if you like vinyl rips, make sure the original recording was analogue otherwise you'll be listening to a digital recording pressed to analogue then back to digital... It will sound warmer. But much duller. 

This is just my experience smily_headphones1.gif

Quality of the master is the ONLY thing that matters between formats. The digital vs analogue master debate included.

You can have a bad sounding album in either domain, and amazing sounding albums in either.

You can only really speak in broad strokes here, unfortunately. The 'broad strokes' I've generally found is this...

Generally, I find most albums touted as 'all analog' sound good. When someone takes the time and effort to specifically seek out good analog gear to work on, they usually dedicate more time to making that master better.

Beyond that you tend to get into liking one engineer over another (digital or analog). Modern mastering is a name game for me lately. If it has Steve Hoffman or Kevin Gray's name on it...chances are it kicks ass.

The bottom line is the master. With vinyl even though a lot if modern vinyl is pressed from digital masters, a lot of that still sounds better due to someone putting more thought into fidelity with the vinyl (digital) master.

Good recent example is the new NIN album. They recently announced it will have 2 (and actually more like 3) masters. One for CD (descibed as the 'loud' one), one 24/48 WAV (described as the 'audiophile' one), and possibly another for the vinyl cut (they originally said it'd just be the 'loud' master but then said they're doing a specific vinyl master to make it the best for that format).

I'd bet the 'audiophile' version is going to be the best to our ears. Preserved dynamics.

As for Come Away With Me? If you want the best version, get the Analog Productions LP. Why? BECAUSE THE MASTER IS BETTER. Better than the Blue Note LP, SACD, HD Tracks or redbook. I own every one. Lol.
post #14873 of 20056
This burns me up. There appears to be no easy way to find "the best" recording. To follow the perscribed methodology, one would have to buy a piece of music multiple times to decide which is best. And then you might end up with an LP, a CD, an SACD, and a hard drive full of various rips. No wonder people "download" music.
post #14874 of 20056
Quote:
Originally Posted by OPR8R View Post

This burns me up. There appears to be no easy way to find "the best" recording. To follow the perscribed methodology, one would have to buy a piece of music multiple times to decide which is best. And then you might end up with an LP, a CD, an SACD, and a hard drive full of various rips. No wonder people "download" music.

The Steve Hoffman forums and Dynamic Range Database are excellent tools for this.

Both have saved me some money on 'trying' new releases.
post #14875 of 20056
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorbidToaster View Post


The Steve Hoffman forums and Dynamic Range Database are excellent tools for this.

Both have saved me some money on 'trying' new releases.

+1 they are great resources for this kind of thing.

post #14876 of 20056
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post

+1 they are great resources for this kind of thing.

 

plus two

post #14877 of 20056

 

I'm still not quite done obtaining my new gear (the Onkyo CD player is a slightly glitchy holdover until I can upgrade), but I couldn't help but post a photo of my new SX-780, which somebody actually paid me to get rid of for them. In a little while, the big desk will be gone and replaced by a small rack so I don't have to stack components, and the Missions will be on stands. In addition, I'm planning on adding some floorstanding Klipschorns pretty soon if I can gather the funds necessary for a restored or new-production Heritage set.

 

Not pictured are the ESP950 and E90, the MDs (with the exception of its cable), a Benchmark DAC1 running bitperfect from Gmusicbrowser, a Dynaco PAT-4 that I use occasionally as a headphone amp, and an Auditor that gets so little use that I may sell it soon.

 

Writing about my gear makes me realize just how out-of-date my profile is. Maybe I should update it sometime this week...

post #14878 of 20056

Thanks for the pluses.  I'll check Steve Hoffman and the Dynamic Range DB out.

post #14879 of 20056

 

 

New schiit has arrived!

post #14880 of 20056
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfetan44 View Post

 

 

New schiit has arrived!


Sweet!  Enjoy smily_headphones1.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Show us your Head-Fi station at it's current state. No old pictures please...