[sterling1]

I'm comfortable with iTunes. I think my  downloads from the iTunes Store sound real good from my HT connected to my laptop. Still, I'm on the lookout for better, so, I recently   downloaded a few  Diana Krall 24/96 flac tunes from HDTracks; and, I've been playin' em through Foobar. These tunes sound real good too; but, neither the downloading , access to files, or storage of files is as intuitive as using the iTunes Store and iTunes media player. Any thoughts from those here regarding their HDtracks experience? Do the hi-res files from HDTracks sound better than other media?
 
One more thing, in a comparison of aCD with the HDTracks version, the spectrum analyzer shows a greater frequency range from the CD, all the way to 17k while the 24/96 download only goes to 14k on the same Diana Krall material, Quiet Nights. What's that about?

 

[TMRaven]

I personally don't bother with 24bit files.  It's a cool thing to experiment with, but at the end of the day I only came away with a placebo effect and peace of mind rather than a legitimate difference in sound quality.
 
The 14k vs 17k thing sounds like a difference in mastering or encoding.

 

[KingStyles]

Typically the HR files sound better than the redbook version. A lot of things go into this including better mastering usually. I always convert mine fron the flac to aiff which works and files just as easy in itunes. The better the system, the more apparent the differences can be. If you are happy with your itunes downloads, stick with it and save yourself some money. At least you gave it a shot before you made your decision wither it was worth it or not.

 

[Rizlaw]

I have an HDTracks account and have purchased 24/96 and 24/192 whole albums from their online store. For me it's a very tedious experience because I use Linux and while they claim their download scheme works cross-platform, it doesn't. After I buy an album, I wind up having to switch to Win 7 to complete the download. Notwithstanding the fact that I'm in a minority regarding my choice of primary OS, HDTracks has some good hi-rez selections, and the true 24/96 or 24/192 tracks/albums do indeed sound better to me than the 16/44.1 versions, but not, in most cases, by a jaw dropping amount.
 
I also recommend that anyone buying pricey online hi-rez music read the Mark Waldrep article "HD download debacle!". http://www.itrax.com/Pages/ArticleDetails.php?aID=32
 
Quote:

I'm comfortable with iTunes. I think my  downloads from the iTunes Store sound real good from my HT connected to my laptop. Still, I'm on the lookout for better, so, I recently   downloaded a few  Diana Krall 24/96 flac tunes from HDTracks; and, I've been playin' em through Foobar. These tunes sound real good too; but, neither the downloading , access to files, or storage of files is as intuitive as using the iTunes Store and iTunes media player. Any thoughts from those here regarding their HDtracks experience? Do the hi-res files from HDTracks sound better than other media?
 
One more thing, in a comparison of aCD with the HDTracks version, the spectrum analyzer shows a greater frequency range from the CD, all the way to 17k while the 24/96 download only goes to 14k on the same Diana Krall material, Quiet Nights. What's that about?

 
 

 

[sterling1]

Quote:

Typically the HR files sound better than the redbook version. A lot of things go into this including better mastering usually. I always convert mine fron the flac to aiff which works and files just as easy in itunes. The better the system, the more apparent the differences can be. If you are happy with your itunes downloads, stick with it and save yourself some money. At least you gave it a shot before you made your decision wither it was worth it or not.

How do I convert from flac to aiff? I have iTunes on a PC.  I'd like to get these tunes into my iTunes library. Also, my system is pretty high end;  yet, I've noticed even 256k iTunes downloads are difficult to discern from SACD. I do think mastering must have a lot to do with my perception of quality. No matter what the format, Miles Davis, Some Kind of Blue, while artistic, is like listening to finger nails on a chalk board.
 
 

 

[TMRaven]

I'm surprised an audiophile hardcore enough to get 24bit songs would even think about transcoding.  

 

[RingingEars]

Quote:

I personally don't bother with 24bit files.  It's a cool thing to experiment with, but at the end of the day I only came away with a placebo effect and peace of mind rather than a legitimate difference in sound quality.
 
The 14k vs 17k thing sounds like a difference in mastering or encoding.

+1. I experimented with 24bit as well, but ultimately went back to an NOS DAC and 16/44.1 files.

 

[Roller]

Quote:

I'm surprised an audiophile hardcore enough to get 24bit songs would even think about transcoding.  

There's not that much transcoding since both are lossless, which I assume is more of a format convenience than anything else. Though, being unable to read FLACs is what I find to be at fault, IMO.
 
And from what I've been able to understand, 16/44.1 audio comes from a different source than 24/96, mainly better mastering, which ends up providing higher SQ, even if potentially marginal, depending on the mastering itself and/or the system where it's listened to.

 

[TMRaven]

Hm that would be worth it, to get a better mastering.  

 

[Currawong]

I investigated the iTrax claims and found that the issues were resolved (I tested all of my downloads from them). It is rather disgusting of iTrax to slander a competitor as they have been IMO.

 

[sterling1]

All,
 
Well, here's where I am right now, I downloaded a trial version of DBpoweramp flac to aiff converter; thereafter, I converted all my flac files downloaded from HDTracks to aiff files. I sent these to my iTunes library, then I deleted the redundant flac files. It sounds real good; and, now I have the convenience and intuitiveness I have been used to with my iTunes media player. I still question, however, whether the 24/96 files sound better than CD, or even my ACC downloads. Reading the article on hi-res as suggested by an earlier poster, I think my next download will be something more contemporary, any suggestions?

 

[Rizlaw]

Currawong,
 
I'm sure you meant to use the phrase "to libel a competitor" and not, as you did, "to slander a competitor" (the former having to do with defamatory written or published remarks and the latter with defamatory spoken or heard utterances).
 
My understanding is that Mr. Waldrep was writing a short piece about an investigatory article written by Keith Howard and published in HiFi News & Record Review (a respected British audio magazine). IMO, whether, the problems brought to light by Howard and Waldrep are truly "resolved", in the context of all online retailers of purported hi-rez music downloads, is still open to debate.
 
Quote:

I investigated the iTrax claims and found that the issues were resolved (I tested all of my downloads from them). It is rather disgusting of iTrax to slander a competitor as they have been IMO.

 
 

 

[juman231]

iTrax seems to be in the business of talking crap about their competitors. I just found one more.
 
http://itrax.com/Pages/ArticleDetails.php?aID=31&x=10&y=12
 
To the audio-savvy users, does this test that they've done actually prove what they claim to prove?

 

[TMRaven]

Extending to that high a frequency really doesn't play to the music's favor.  In fact, if  there's any super high frequency in a recording, it's probably just air.  Some recordings have that, and certain headphone setups can bring it out painfully so-- and that's probably even more the case with old analogue recordings.  I bet hdtracks is just filtering some of that stuff out with their own mastering.  (Most everybody above 30 can't hear past 16-17khz anyways)
 
And example I have of a track with high frequency in its recording/mastering: juvenile's back that azz up.
 
It is true that the higher the sample rate, the higher the frequency you can produce, but frequencies that high have no play on music.
 
As for 24bit/ 92khz or higher tracks making a legitimate difference in the normal music frequencies, there's already a couple topics about that.

 

[sterling1]

Quote:

Extending to that high a frequency really doesn't play to the music's favor.  In fact, if  there's any super high frequency in a recording, it's probably just air.  Some recordings have that, and certain headphone setups can bring it out painfully so-- and that's probably even more the case with old analogue recordings.  I bet hdtracks is just filtering some of that stuff out with their own mastering.  (Most everybody above 30 can't hear past 16-17khz anyways)
 
And example I have of a track with high frequency in its recording/mastering: juvenile's back that azz up.
 
It is true that the higher the sample rate, the higher the frequency you can produce, but frequencies that high have no play on music.
 
As for 24bit/ 92khz or higher tracks making a legitimate difference in the normal music frequencies, there's already a couple topics about that.

 
I'm just sayin' I found it interesting the CD I have of Diana Krall's, Quiet Nights produced output to 17k while the HDTracks 24/96 download produced output to 14k. Seems odd, nevertheless, it all sounds the same to me; therefore, it makes me question why pay the difference when I cannot hear the difference. I've yet to compare the tune mentioned with an ACC download of the same material from iTunes; but, I'd be surprised if it didn't sound as good as what I've experimented with so far. BTW the HDTracks  download was $2.49, iTunes downloads are $.99.