[rutledj]

I've purchased a few of the hi res recording from HDtracks and I'm not entirely sure I can hear the difference between those and the cd versions. Just wondering how many of you can. What is the difference that you hear? More detail? Better soundstage? Do you have some examples of hi res vs cd that you can really hear a difference?
 
Also, I'm wondering if the flac files at hdtracks that are recorded in the same resolution as the cds actually are any different than making your own flac files from a cd?

Thanks,
Rut

 

[Music Alchemist]

The only thing that matters is the master. If it's the same master, it sounds the same.
 
Read this: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[silvrr]

I received a credit from another member here on head-fi and decided to see if there were any differences.  
 
I got the Eagles - Hotel California Album in 96/24 FLAC from HD Tracks
http://www.hdtracks.com/hotel-california
 
I previously had Hotel California via there recently released box set.  Ripped to 16/44 FLAC via Exact Audio Copy.
http://www.amazon.com/Eagles-The-Studio-Albums-1972-1979/dp/B00B7VPKMY
 
I loaded up Hotel California in Foobar's ABX plugin and was amazed I could pick out with 100% accuracy which track was which.  What made it so easy was a volume difference and a large difference in the amount of bass on the tracks.  I would say that the HD tracks version had a lot less bass and possibly more detail to it, but that could just be the lowered bass not muddying things up.  
 
I have been meaning to look into the masters for each to see what the source was.  Which reminds me I need to find a original release of the CD next time I am at the record store, although HD tracks reports a 2013 release date next to the album which matches up with the box set release.  
 
Cliff notes: There are differences but as the above poster said, its likely down to master which plays a much larger role than bit rate should.

 

[RRod]

You could ABX the hi-res version against a downsampling of itself; that will let you decide what the higher bits and sample rate are getting you. After that, it's a matter of comparing masters, which can be an arduous process.

 

[silvrr]

  You could ABX the hi-res version against a downsampling of itself; that will let you decide what the higher bits and sample rate are getting you. After that, it's a matter of comparing masters, which can be an arduous process.

 
I took the HD Tracks version down to 16/44 and through a quick review didn't detect a difference.  I am more interested in if they used the Original Master (Not the 2013 release) or some other known master or tweaked it themselves.  There are a lot of sources for this album out there.  Original, SACD, 2013 and another I can't think of right now.

 

[PurpleAngel]

  I've purchased a few of the hi res recording from HDtracks and I'm not entirely sure I can hear the difference between those and the CD versions. Just wondering how many of you can. What is the difference that you hear? More detail? Better sound stage? Do you have some examples of hi res vs CD that you can really hear a difference?
Also, I'm wondering if the FLAC files at HDtracks that are recorded in the same resolution as the CDs actually are any different than making your own FLAC files from a CD?

 
Audio CDs are 16-bit/44.1K.
So making FLAC files from a CD does not normally improve audio quality if the FLAC is made higher then 16-bit/44.1K., from a CD source.
Some people have claimed they can hear an improvement if they make a FLAC higher then 16-bit/44.1K, from a CD source.
Personally, I have no plans to make FLAC files from an Audio CD source any higher then 16-bit/44.1K

 

[rutledj]

I guess I was thinking how I heard Neil Young talk about the compression process they came up with for cd's was flawed and that getting the hi res versions would not have this problem. Or was he referring to something else?

Also, how do you go about finding out what the master is for a cd?  
 
Another question, I have a few concert blue rays that I'd like to get the audio from. Would these audio files be comparable to cd's or are they encoded at a higher sampling rate?

 

[RRod]

  I guess I was thinking how I heard Neil Young talk about the compression process they came up with for cd's was flawed and that getting the hi res versions would not have this problem. Or was he referring to something else?

Also, how do you go about finding out what the master is for a cd?  
 
Another question, I have a few concert blue rays that I'd like to get the audio from. Would these audio files be comparable to cd's or are they encoded at a higher sampling rate?

 
CDs contain uncompressed PCM data; perhaps he was referring to mp3 compression or to dynamic range compression.
 
For finding out mastering details you can find the particular release on Discogs and see if they have information, and check out their forums and the forums of other sites where people discuss releases (like the forums on Steve Hoffman's site). You can also get some information from the dynamic range database.
 
Blu-rays I have range from 24/48 to 24/192; some have surround tracks and some don't.