[skhan007]

Guys, I'm interested to learn from you who understand high-resolution audio and can steer me in the right direction with recommendations. Right now, I've purchased my first set of audiophile cans; Sennheiser HD800's, and I love them. I'm currently listening to ALAC files on my Macbook Pro and using an Apogee Duet DAC. 
 
I understand that I'm already at the top of my limits with iTunes (16 bit/44.1KHz sampling) and I've listened to sample tracks on HD Tracks and recognize what I'm missing out on. Here are a few questions:
 
1) Do I need a different/better DAC for hi-rez audio? My Apogee Duet tops out at 24/96 and I note that HD Tracks downloads are 24/96. I'm assuming my current DAC can fully optimize those files. 
 
2) I know I'll need different software to play Hi-Rez music, as it can't be done in iTunes. I've downloaded VOX and hope that's a good start. I've also read I need software to convert CD's to FLAC- will this be better than ALAC?
 
3) Is High-Rez music moving to DSD, MQA, and other things that I need to embrace to fully enjoy lossless music?
 
4) If I save my CD's to FLAC, are these going to sound as good as buying HD Tracks? I'm not sure if the CD is topped out at 16/44.1. If not, I have to re-purchase my favorite albums?
 
Thank you in advance!!
 
EDIT: I corrected some specs on my current DAC and noted:
 

Computer Connectivity	FireWire 400
Sound Quality	1st Generation
Roundtrip Latency performance	32 buffer @ 96kHz = 4.6 ms64 buffer @ 44.1kHz = 7.23 ms
Power	FireWire Bus Power
Sample Rate	24-bit/44.1-96kHz

 

[PleasantSounds]

So you reckon when you listened to the HDtracks demo your connection was automagically extended to 24/96 or maybe DSD? Note that you have heard the improvement through the same DAC....
 
The reason the recording sounded better is not because of higher bandwidth (which you didn't have) but because of better mastering of that particular recording. If you can get the same mastering version in redbook format, you'll enjoy all the benefits without the price tag.
 
If you really want to vote with your wallet, then buy the recording you liked, convert it to 16/44.1 and listen to that version. Then decide if you really need to go down that rabit hole.

 

[obobskivich]

So many big ideas and buzzwords flying wild in this post. I'll try to answer each one-by-one and see if that helps any.

1) Do I need a different/better DAC for hi-rez audio? My Apogee Duet tops out at 24/96 and I note that HD Tracks downloads are 24/96. I'm assuming my current DAC can fully optimize those files. 

If it can do 24/96 it can do 24/96, so if you have 24/96 content then it can do 24/96, because it can do 24/96. Sounds circular, I know, but that's what specifications are there for.

Generally speaking you want to output whatever is native for the content, so if you have 16/44 content, you want to be outputting it as 16/44. Some DACs will do stuff internally to it (e.g. convert it to some other format) and that's fine - let them do that, that's part of their design, whether or not it does anything for you is all you have to judge, but that's their design.

2) I know I'll need different software to play Hi-Rez music, as it can't be done in iTunes. I've downloaded VOX and hope that's a good start. I've also read I need software to convert CD's to FLAC- will this be better than ALAC?

Why not use Foobar2000?

As far as "software to convert CDs to FLAC" - do you mean re-ripping your CD collection in a good way? What do you currently have? If they're all ripped into ALAC they're already lossless, there's no point in wasting the time to re-rip into another lossless container (because its lossless).

Anyways, Exact Audio Copy is a nice CD ripper, and can output into whatever encoder you want - if you have the space for lossless, pick whatever is going to be most compatible with your gear - flac, ALAC, and WMAL are all popular but not all devices play one or the other so basically just go for what's compatible. Transcoding can be done but again, why?

3) Is High-Rez music moving to DSD, MQA, and other things that I need to embrace to fully enjoy lossless music?

No.

4) If I save my CD's to FLAC, are these going to sound as good as buying HD Tracks? I'm not sure if the CD is topped out at 16/44.1. If not, I have to re-purchase my favorite albums?

CDs, at least Compact Disc Digital Audio (aka "Redbook" or "Redbook CD") is 16-bit word length and sampling at 44.1kHz, with a datarate of 1411kbit/s in stereo. That's going to be any commercial CD you can buy. Why I qualified this: you can burn whatever you want up to ~700MB onto a CD-ROM, and I don't know exactly what you have or haven't done.

SO, ripping your CDs into a lossless format like flac, ALAC, WMAL, etc is going to give you a lossless reproduction of the data contained therein, and that's as good as it gets on the data side. Will it sound as good as HD Tracks or whatever else? Tough to say - provenance is a big deal with "high rez" and its hard to prove that:

A) The original source was high bitrate and not just itself upsampled from CD (which does nothing but waste space).
B) You're dealing with the same masters on both sides - the CD and the digital download (or some other album format) may be from another source, and there could be preferences towards one or the other in terms of production value, peculiarities of a specific performance, etc.
C) Some tomfoolery hasn't been done in one place or another to try and game you into spending money (I'm always very skeptical of "test tracks" or "demos" because more often than not they're doing something beyond just showing off whatever product they have, to try and get you to buy - its like food commercials "enlarged to show texture" and so forth).

Generally speaking I don't see a good argument for going "beyond CD quality" because CD quality itself is pretty good, as long as whatever is being recorded to the disc was done in a good way. In other words, I can go record an hour of my garbage disposal gnawing on a bag of nails with a little pocket recorder and turn that into a redbook CD, and its nothing you'd want to listen to, but hey it can become a flac lossless HD approved magical unicorn edition file! I could even record it at higher bit-rate and depth and turn it into a super magical unicorn of a file and release the 24/192 edition of an hour of my garbage disposal gnawing on nails. You still won't want to listen to it, even in HD. My point is: what's actually being recorded, and how its being recorded, and how its being mixed, and how its being mastered, are ultimately going to be a lot more important than how its being containerized or distributed. So no, I wouldn't run out and re-purchase your music library, buy a ton of new gear, etc but there is of course the possibility that some "high rez" downloads or releases include re-mastered cuts of whatever album (this is done on CDs and LPs too) and that re-mastered re-issue may be worth owning if you really like a specific album, but that "betterness" isn't because of some inherent quality of the container. If that makes sense.

 

[skhan007]

So many big ideas and buzzwords flying wild in this post. I'll try to answer each one-by-one and see if that helps any.
If it can do 24/96 it can do 24/96, so if you have 24/96 content then it can do 24/96, because it can do 24/96. Sounds circular, I know, but that's what specifications are there for.

Generally speaking you want to output whatever is native for the content, so if you have 16/44 content, you want to be outputting it as 16/44. Some DACs will do stuff internally to it (e.g. convert it to some other format) and that's fine - let them do that, that's part of their design, whether or not it does anything for you is all you have to judge, but that's their design.


Why not use Foobar2000?

As far as "software to convert CDs to FLAC" - do you mean re-ripping your CD collection in a good way? What do you currently have? If they're all ripped into ALAC they're already lossless, there's no point in wasting the time to re-rip into another lossless container (because its lossless).

Anyways, Exact Audio Copy is a nice CD ripper, and can output into whatever encoder you want - if you have the space for lossless, pick whatever is going to be most compatible with your gear - flac, ALAC, and WMAL are all popular but not all devices play one or the other so basically just go for what's compatible. Transcoding can be done but again, why?
No.
CDs, at least Compact Disc Digital Audio (aka "Redbook" or "Redbook CD") is 16-bit word length and sampling at 44.1kHz, with a datarate of 1411kbit/s in stereo. That's going to be any commercial CD you can buy. Why I qualified this: you can burn whatever you want up to ~700MB onto a CD-ROM, and I don't know exactly what you have or haven't done.

SO, ripping your CDs into a lossless format like flac, ALAC, WMAL, etc is going to give you a lossless reproduction of the data contained therein, and that's as good as it gets on the data side. Will it sound as good as HD Tracks or whatever else? Tough to say - provenance is a big deal with "high rez" and its hard to prove that:

A) The original source was high bitrate and not just itself upsampled from CD (which does nothing but waste space).
B) You're dealing with the same masters on both sides - the CD and the digital download (or some other album format) may be from another source, and there could be preferences towards one or the other in terms of production value, peculiarities of a specific performance, etc.
C) Some tomfoolery hasn't been done in one place or another to try and game you into spending money (I'm always very skeptical of "test tracks" or "demos" because more often than not they're doing something beyond just showing off whatever product they have, to try and get you to buy - its like food commercials "enlarged to show texture" and so forth).

Generally speaking I don't see a good argument for going "beyond CD quality" because CD quality itself is pretty good, as long as whatever is being recorded to the disc was done in a good way. In other words, I can go record an hour of my garbage disposal gnawing on a bag of nails with a little pocket recorder and turn that into a redbook CD, and its nothing you'd want to listen to, but hey it can become a flac lossless HD approved magical unicorn edition file! I could even record it at higher bit-rate and depth and turn it into a super magical unicorn of a file and release the 24/192 edition of an hour of my garbage disposal gnawing on nails. You still won't want to listen to it, even in HD. My point is: what's actually being recorded, and how its being recorded, and how its being mixed, and how its being mastered, are ultimately going to be a lot more important than how its being containerized or distributed. So no, I wouldn't run out and re-purchase your music library, buy a ton of new gear, etc but there is of course the possibility that some "high rez" downloads or releases include re-mastered cuts of whatever album (this is done on CDs and LPs too) and that re-mastered re-issue may be worth owning if you really like a specific album, but that "betterness" isn't because of some inherent quality of the container. If that makes sense.

Incredibly helpful!!! Thank you. I fully agree that the a well-done, well-mastered source makes all the difference. Thank for for the clarification on ALAC vs. FLAC. Good to know that if I have ALAC files, no need additional benefit from turning them into FLAC. I'll definitely took into Foobar 2000.
 
What I've done so far is taken my CD collection and started to download them into iTunes as ALAC files. Through my Apogee Duet and Senn HD800's, they sound great. I listened to some samples of albums I know very well on HD Tracks and noted they sound better. Just bigger, more depth, and more separation. I also noted that if I ad a bit of EQ to my ALAC files, they sound even closer to the dynamic range of the HD Tracks. Thus, I'm not exactly sure about spending $15.99/album for this additional (maybe) 10% improvement. Personal decision, I know. I'll think it over.
 
Again, thank you! Your advice is greatly appreciated. 

 

[obobskivich]

Incredibly helpful!!! Thank you. I fully agree that the a well-done, well-mastered source makes all the difference. Thank for for the clarification on ALAC vs. FLAC. Good to know that if I have ALAC files, no need additional benefit from turning them into FLAC. I'll definitely took into Foobar 2000.

If you're already living with ALAC, you're "there" - as long as there's no rip errors (you'd hear this generally as small pops or hiccups in the playback) its the same as whats on the disc.

What I've done so far is taken my CD collection and started to download them into iTunes as ALAC files. Through my Apogee Duet and Senn HD800's, they sound great. I listened to some samples of albums I know very well on HD Tracks and noted they sound better. Just bigger, more depth, and more separation. I also noted that if I ad a bit of EQ to my ALAC files, they sound even closer to the dynamic range of the HD Tracks. Thus, I'm not exactly sure about spending $15.99/album for this additional (maybe) 10% improvement. Personal decision, I know. I'll think it over.

Its entirely possible the HD Tracks demo is EQd or otherwise "jazzed up" and its also possible that its coming from different masters and its also possible that its 44.1 content that's been re-sampled at 24/96. Provenance is very sticky with these things. I'm not trying to cast some huge doom-and-gloom cloud over HD Tracks or any other provider, just pointing out where things aren't as clear-cut as we'd like them to be.

You aren't going to generate more dynamic range (the maximum difference between loud and quiet that it can reproduce) with EQ, but with the use of an exciter/expander (or an EQ etc) you may generate a more dynamic sounding or otherwise euphonic presentation that you like, and there's nothing wrong with that - there's a guy who posts here who has a signature line that's something like "EQ is like photoshop for sound, unless you're a reviewer, just do whatever sounds good to you" and that's pretty much what I'd say applies here - the point isn't absolute accuracy, its whether or not you enjoy your music.

Completely agree with personal decision, but personally speaking, I wouldn't spring $16/pop to re-buy my music collection, especially when provenance can be sticky, and when it will add another layer of complexity to playback (because now you've got to worry about what the computer is outputting depending on what file you're playing and is the DAC relocking and blah blah blah).