I would like to know the difference between HD downloaded tracks from sites like HDtracks (whose downloaded FLAC files have a 5000+ bitrate) vs regular computer ripped CD's played on music servers like JRiver Media Center with the sample rate set to 192Hz/24 bitdepth and played through a DAC? I have a nearly 500 CD library that's all been ripped to my computer as FLAC files. I play them on JRiver Media Center at 192/24 through my Calyx 192/24 DAC and the music is deliciously melodic. I've downloaded a few HD albums from HDtracks that also sound great. What's the difference? It would be cheaper to buy the CD and just rip it to my computer and play it through my DAC. What's the advantage (if there is any) of paying $25 for downloaded HD albums?
Music audio CDs are 16-bit/44.1K (or at least 99.99% of them are), best to just make them into 16-bit/44.1K FLAC audio files, as ripping into anything higher then 16-bit/44.1K will not improve audio quality.
So those music audio CDs you ripped to 24-bit/192k FLAC will not sound any better then those that ripped from music audio CD to 16-bit/44.1k FLAC.
Higher sample rate gives you the ability to record higher frequencies. Higher bit depth gives you a lower noise floor. 44.1KHz sample rate already contains all the frequencies you can perceive, and the 16 bit noise floor almost always is below the noise floor of the recording, your room, and what you can perceive. So there is no benefit of the higher sample rate or bit depth.
In some cases the HDTracks files can sound better if they were mixed and/or mastered differently. There is no reason they couldn't put the best sounding mix on the CD version, but sometimes they don't, because reasons.
Music audio CDs are 16-bit/44.1K (or at least 99.99% of them are), best to just make them into 16-bit/44.1K FLAC audio files, as ripping into anything higher then 16-bit/44.1K will not improve audio quality.
So those music audio CDs you ripped to 24-bit/192k FLAC will not sound any better then those that ripped from music audio CD to 16-bit/44.1k FLAC.
I didn't rip my music to 192/24. I don't even know how to do that. I ripped my CD's to FLAC. I upsample the FLAC files through JRiver Media Center through its DSP output format and send it through my DAC at 192/24. As I mentioned, I have downloaded some music from HDtracks, (Aretha Franklin's Amazing Grace and Donny Hathaway's Everything is Everything). Since I don't have those albums in CD format I can't compare whether HDtracks high resolution version sounds better than if I had ripped it to my computer and upsampled it, but I know they both sound fantastic. But so does the music from the CD's I've upsampled. The thing is HD music is so limitied. I listen to a lot of Gospel and R&B (old school 70's and early 80's). I also like jazz, soundtracks and Christmas music. Those genre's are pretty much non existant in the high resolution world so I'm doing the best I can by ripping and upsampling. And I must say my music sounds pretty amazing to me.
I've often wondered what equipment is needed to make high resolution tracks and what the process is. If I knew and could afford it, I'd start my own business. And I'd definitely include a much wider range of genre's and artists than are available now.
I have asked the same years ago, there is no answer because 99% of sound quality is the quality of it's original recording regardless of sample rate, blah, blah. Ripped remastered CDs are all you want despite sample rate marketing.
I've often wondered what equipment is needed to make high resolution tracks and what the process is. If I knew and could afford it, I'd start my own business. And I'd definitely include a much wider range of genre's and artists than are available now.
I would think you would need access to the recording storied at the studio where the tracks were made,
And I'm guessing the recording companies are not going to give you access, unless you put up a big stack of cash.
This question is part of an old discussion prone to fierce opinions (or is it opinionated ppl?) and flamewars. I have been an audiophile since the pre-digital era. And I own/know/heard a lot of dffferent dac's and types of dacs. I have been modifying my dacs since about 5 years now. And I have trained ears and a critical mind. When I don't hear a difference I will plainly say so even if the look on peoples indicate they think I'm dumb. Just like I have maintained from the beginning, against the torrential stream, that analog sounds better. Only the last 10 years (IMO and IIRC) the sound quality of digital has been approaching the same level of enjoyability. And only the last 5 years I have been really enjoying digital. I still experience more moments of enchantment during analog listening, but now it starts to depend more and more on the recording/music.
About the stale discussion; I've never bought/believed the dogma that 20kHz is all you need and all you can hear (for ppl over 20) and just dump everything over 20kHz in the dev/null. So just brickwall filter everything over 22kHz.
Nor did I believe that cd-quality (16/44) is all you ever need. That was not just unwarranted or unproven belief, no, all I heard was pointing in the other direction. I even almost lost all interest in listening to music 'thanks' to boring cd-'quality' for about a decade. LP's were hard to get and cd's were getting worse by the year (brickwalled).
The absence of noise does not indicate the presence of information. This is pure information science.
If you upsample your cd-quality/16-44 you make it easier on the dac. But you are not recreating lost information. If you have true 24/192 files you just have more information. Whether this information is of any use I leave up to your discretion. In my experience true 16/96 sounds better than 16/44. Under normal conditions I can't hear any difference between 16 or 24 bits. But if you use your computer for controlling volume the extra bits are sensible. Just like in the studio when mixing. So I stick to 24/96 for optimal quality.
So why make it easier on the dac? Delta-sigma dacs make a lot of ultrasonic noise. R2R (or NOS-)Dacs just a little. That's just math. So... if you can't hear anything over 20kHz, why do you need to filter that much over 40kHz? Because the interference acts like a tremolo. Delta sigma dacs are cheap to manufacture but they need lots of filtering. And filtering has implications in the time domain (phase shift). The steeper the filter the worse it gets. So thats why the oversampling. You get louder highs, but smeared timewise (artifical detail; you can hear it tingling but you can't really tell where it's coming from). And that is how you loose relevant information (musical detail). R2R dacs need much less filtering, so you ultimately maintain more of the original information. Feed it with 96kHz and you will get (almost) all information there originally is. Just like on your HD-TV. Real 1080p looks better than upsampled NTSC quality, even if you sit 20' away and use max sharpening effect.
There is just so much to digital coding and decoding. It is not easy to tell in just a few lines. So I'll just stick to the short and ugly: yes, real 24/96 sounds better than upsampled 16/44. But a lot depends on your dac (type). And then there's the I/V stage that just destroys information (how much again depends on the type). The more integrated and the more complicated the more you loose.
What's the benefit of real HD downloads? Better quality. But you need a system with enough resolving power (quality) to be able to take advantage of it.
Additional benefit: often cd's are prone to be victims in the 'loudness war' (brickwalled/too loud/compressed to sound good in MP3-players and on the radio) and HD tracks are treated better for discerning buyers (caveat; as long as you're not ripped off, there are always ppl making shortcuts to 'earning' money).
Try to get a HDTT 24-96 remaster of old tapes. They are showpieces of what 60 y/o music can sound like.
If I were you I'd get a good TurnTable (+record cleaning machine) ASAP. Your music is ubiquitous and almost free in garage sales. I bought 9 classical LP's for €6 today and they sound awesome.
"If I were you I'd get a good TurnTable (+record cleaning machine) ASAP. Your music is ubiquitous and almost free in garage sales. I bought 9 classical LP's for €6 today and they sound awesome."
I presently have a Pioneer Quartz PLL Automatic model PL-560 turntable my husband bought back in the late 70's. It's coupled with a Shure M97xe Magnetic phono cartridge. It has worked without a hiccup these past 30 something years and I don't see myself replacing it unless it dies. Would a better cartridge make a difference and if so which one(s) would you recommend? Record cleaning machines costs a pretty penny. I'm not sure one would be cost effective considering I don't have many LP's (maybe 40 or so) and only 3 45's.
So, if you already have a TT why don't you go and see if your choice of music isn't easy and cheap to get? It'll usually be in the bargain section of 2ndH stores, on garage sales or w/e there is vinyl for sale. Ebay etc will be more commercially priced (ie. higher). The upside on those is that they are often cleaner and are normally ok for playing, but a lot of cheaper stuff often has been gathering dust in the attic, or worse, musky basement. That is why the cleaning is necessary.
I'm not sure one would be cost effective considering I don't have many LP's (maybe 40 or so)
It's not what you have, it's what's on offer. If you can easily get hundreds of albums for $1/pc it is worth investing in a record cleaning machine. Say, a 100 lp's + 1 RCM is 100+600=$700. 100 new lp's/cd's/DL's is $2000. If you were to acquire a real collection of a 1000 albums (some new, some collectors items), that would be 1000+600= rounded off $2000. Bought new in the medium of choice that would make an easy $20,000.
It has worked without a hiccup these past 30 something years and I don't see myself replacing it unless it dies.
Have you looked in the mirror and compared that to 30ys ago? Does your husband tell you the same thing or what?
Maybe the TT is working ok, but the needle does wear. And deterioration is going slowly but surely. So after 30y it might be a good idea to have the needle checked under a microscope, and if needed replaced. A worn needle can and will damage your vinyl. On second thought, the Shure isn't that old (and a new easy drop-in replacement is $75). It's a good cartridge and quite a decent match for the Pioneer. But in view of the topic question this might not be quite in the same league (I mean high end audio). That would require more like a TT setup (TT+cart+phono pre-amp) in the $2k range. Considering my example above that would still be a lot cheaper than buying commercial reissues.
So it's all about availability and how big a collection you are envisioning. But from what you said, my first thought was; vinyl.
Jeep, I have a Marantz PM11S3 Integrated amp. To me it sounds fantabulous with music played through my DAC, but not quite as much with vinyl played directly from my turntable. I spent a few days transferring some of my vinyl to digital on my computer through the recording program "Audacity," (I've got more to work on). That process is no small feat and very time consuming. But afterwards being able to enjoy my music through my computer is so much easier and pleasing to my ear. After that process the detail, clarity, resolution and articulation of my vinyl music increased quite noticeably. I'm not against listening to vinyl on a turntable but to enjoy it to it's fullest, I 'd definitely have to do more than just buy a record cleaner. I'd need to invest in a more up-to-date turntable, cartridge and phono amp. To tell you the truth if I'm going to spend $2K I'd rather spend it on a better pair of speakers. I probably will take advantage of acquiring vinyl in my preferred genre's through 2nd hand stores. But if I do, I still think I'll be using Audacity to transfer them to my computer. Call me lazy but it's so much nicer to listen to only the tracks I LIKE, vs the whole album. Turning vinyl to digital makes that possible, enjoyable (and affordable) on my "old" equipment. Thanks for the heads up on bargain vinyl. I will start searching.
Vinyl has an organic presence that very few digital systems possess. Sure, vinyl is colored and has less dynamic range than CDs, so personally, I prefer digital for my classical collection. But it seems rather wasteful to buy vinyl, then convert it to digital. Most vinyl recordings are likely available as CDs , so save yourself time and money by simply buying the CD and ripping it to your hard drive (or whatever your source is).
Do you have a phono preamp? That may vastly enhance your vinyl pleasure rather than an integrated amp. An outboard phono amp negates issues re. noise floor, cross-talk, etc etc.
I find it quite strange that vinyl played directly over the amp sounds worse than digitized over a pc. If it's from the same TT. That would mean the phono section of the Marantz is no good or broken, or you are not using the right input without RIAA phono equalisation? (I'm just sayin', plz don't hit me). Vinyl played right, over a good phonoamp should sound a lot better. So much better that recording should just not come to mind.
To tell you the truth if I'm going to spend $2K I'd rather spend it on a better pair of speakers.
Sorry to say, but 'that dog don't hunt' (as they say in Teeex's). I made a comparison for future investment. If you were to buy better speakers (which is ok but irrelevant for my comparison) that would mean you would A) go on buying full price, or B) do a lot of time consuming recording without the benefit of HD quality. Those $2k I mentioned were to open up the possibility to buy cheap with great quality. If you are not intending to go for a >1k album (LP/CD/DL) collection then I would recommend staying with cd.
One (financial) argument I forgot to mention: collectible LP's will keep their value (meaning: regardless of inflation, they will increase in price over time). CD's much, much less so. Downloads have no intrinsic value.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
![]eep](https://cdn.head-fi.org/avatars/m/139/139747.jpg?1273084439){kind=avatar}
