TjPhysicist
100+ Head-Fier
no problem...we're all here to help one another.
see 7digital.com....there are other online sites selling FLAC files
https://ca.7digital.com/
i got my remastered Rush albums here in 24/192
see also hd tracks etc.
there are some who say 24/192 isn't worth it..that you can't tell the difference unless you have $$$ premium equipment.
and maybe that is true...it also depends on how well mastered is the cd/album.
see steve hoffman where alot of people discuss which master matters etc.
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/
and Rush's albums (along with Beatles remasters) were done by Sean Magee at Abbey Road studios.
...both groups' remasters had great reviews.
my additional rational for 24/192 vs lower resolution: we're moving towards better audio all the time
so maybe these files will be more widely accepted and supported as we move forward...
plus the diff in price from 24/96 to 24/192 is negligible
and don't forget loudness wars link:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=
awesome, thanks. Yea I've heard of HDTracks, actually. I don't quite understand the "loudness wars" link btw. As for 44.1 vs 192, I'm with you: maybe it doesn't matter now but I'm not going to say no to "more information" in my music at any rate. For better or worse I can def. hear the difference in this 192 "Hotel california" album.
Also, better equipment and files always exposes bad masters, IMO that's the way it's always gonna be. There are some songs I can't stand to hear unless it's with my phone and my cheaper headphones.