[NewWaveAudio]

Suffer, Some Type of Love, and I won't tell a soul by Charlie Puth

 

[veikko77]

Banda Sonora - Guitarra G - Martijn Ten Velden Remix

 

[FFBookman]

Omg this too!!! George Martin And Geoff emerick. What a team of producing/engineering. World class.

I am patiently awaiting a new beatles box set - i want the original mono LP's in 24bit. as far as i know they published mono's @ 16/44 and stereo's @ 24/44 but they haven't done mono's at 24bit.
 
If it doesn't show up eventually I'll get the mono's in 16/44. 
 
i love stereo but in this case it was too early and applied too after-the-fact to serve the band's vision. i think it wasn't until sgt. peppers that the band was actually recording/mixing in stereo. everything before that was outsourced to another guy across town. he was sent stems (usually 3 tracks) and he would pan them hard left, hard right, center, or some combination thereof. he did all of this without the band or george martin's input. he was mixing for like 5% of the market so it was literally an afterthought.
 
the band also hated most of the stereo mixes, which goes a long way with me.
 
finally - the mono versions sound like a rock band, which the beatles were. the kick and bass are locked in and driving. the guitar doesn't need pan to stand out, it's tone and EQ. the vocals are all coming from the same place, the same unit, like a rock band.
 
most people love and respect the beatles, but not everyone thinks they 'rock hard'. hearing the mono mixes shows them in full power, not in trendy-hippy stereo separation.  just my $.02

 

[Saraguie]

Omg this too!!! George Martin And Geoff emerick. What a team of producing/engineering. World class.

+11111111111111

 

[FFBookman]

sad to report that i found my beatles 1 cd
in pieces under car seat
don't have a flac of it either. damn.
 
my wife made the mistake of buying some beatles LP's on iTunes a couple weeks back.
she was complaining immediately. SQ was horrible, mix seemed wrong, and of course no artwork or proper credits.
she says to me "sorry, i don't know what I was thinking, i should have bought them in hi-res"
 
sorry i told her, hdtracks.com and ponomusic.com and prostudiomasters.com still don't have the beatles in hi-res. or in regular res. it's a crime.

 

[chuckwheat]

I've used this a few times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Zce9gmjIA
There's a flac download link in the description. I find it's a decent track to test things with.

 

[serman005]

"Fannie Mae" - Fourplay

 

[drgnfrc13]

  ----
 
Just a friendly reminder that none of these youtube links are actually making your headphone WOOOOOW!!! 
 
They are making your headphone EEEEHHHHHH?
 
That's all they can do at 192k quality from youtube.  That's roughly 10% of the original WOOOOOW!!!.
 
Any of these songs lossless will make actual WOOOOOW!!!
 
Any of these songs at 24bit on your nice DAP will make WOOOOOW!!! WOOOOOW!!! just like the artists and engineers designed.
 
----

 
 

 

  @FFBookman... I am a big fan...you are one of the few that actually talk more sense than nonsense on this website, but maybe you should spend more than $100 on a headphone, you might enjoy the "lesser" recordings more ( going by your profile page). If you do own audiophile grade headphones ( I suspect you have at least heard them) then check your equipment is fit for purpose...
come on man, 95% of the most recent posts have been better than average...
 
No offense intended...

None taken I just don't spend on hi-end speakers. Never have. Never will. On my head or in my studio or in my various rooms. Or in my guitar amps, PA, car, etc..  
 
I've heard them at almost every level. Cheap/thin is crap and to be avoided, then there's a competently built and tuned speaker for a fair price, then there's the land of sorry, i have kids and bills.  Or damn, I can buy a neuman and focus rite preamp for that!
 
A decent speaker, if fed pure source, and positioned properly, will perform admirably.  Most people's rigs are deficient far before the speaker. Then they try to shine the turd.
 
The improvement on the high-end of speakers isn't enough to justify the cost over middle range-flat response stuff to my ears.  If I hit the lottery I still wouldn't spend more than $300 on headphones. Wouldn't put more than $1k of speakers into a living room, maybe $2k for studio monitors if they are self-powered.

 
 

  I'd like to hear $800 headphones but I can't imagine ever purchasing a set. More power to you!  
 
I might scratch together $400 some day for proper cans for the PP, but if/when they fail me and my abuse, my clumsy self will be back to $50 headphones. AKG and Sennheiser generally. Crammed in a bag ridden hard all over town. When I'm home I put the music up in the air.
 
I have way too many other instruments and audio devices that I would sink that cash in to. $800 is a few nice cymbals, or a nice fender bass, or  a standup bass, or a good bass rig, or a nice preamp, or a nice mic, or halfway to an 8-track tape deck i can go on.the studio shopping list is ever growing...

The difference in quality between $50 headphones and $800 headphones is faaaaaar greater than the difference made by switching from decent compression to lossless. I would much rather listen to 126kbps AAC with my Hifiman HE-560, than 24-bit/192kHz on my old Koss PRO DJ-100 (and those were excellent headphones, for $50).

 

[FFBookman]

   
 
 
 
The difference in quality between $50 headphones and $800 headphones is faaaaaar greater than the difference made by switching from decent compression to lossless. I would much rather listen to 126kbps AAC with my Hifiman HE-560, than 24-bit/192kHz on my old Koss PRO DJ-100 (and those were excellent headphones, for $50).

That's getting to the gist of it. But I don't know that I agree with you.  Let me think it out --
 
A:
128k MP4 on a nice DAP with expensive $800 headphones
 
vs
 
B:
24bit FLAC on a nice DAP with mainstream $50 headphones
 
 
Is the material using real instruments and real voices, or is it EDM and/or heavily processed?  If it's natural I expect B to sound better because it will convey the true, accurate sound as recorded.
 
If the material is modern, fake, electro, or otherwise has it's humanity compromised, perhaps A would sound louder and fuller.  Better? I doubt it. Lossy (perceptual) coding is a slippery slope of badness. It doesn't really matter if you think you can hear it, it's still far less than the artist intended. 
 
I just don't understand how you don't hear lossy degradation, especially to the soundstage and the timbre of the instruments, not to mention how it absolutely demolishes any natural reverb and screws up delays, pulling them back together again. it's like pouring glue all over a nice apple pie.
 
Or perhaps to say - music before 2008 or so - better in hi-res. Stay native, own the masters if you can.
 
I'd be happy to test this on my PonoPlayer if i just had $800 headphones....

 

[nephilim32]

I am patiently awaiting a new beatles box set - i want the original mono LP's in 24bit. as far as i know they published mono's @ 16/44 and stereo's @ 24/44 but they haven't done mono's at 24bit.

If it doesn't show up eventually I'll get the mono's in 16/44. 

i love stereo but in this case it was too early and applied too after-the-fact to serve the band's vision. i think it wasn't until sgt. peppers that the band was actually recording/mixing in stereo. everything before that was outsourced to another guy across town. he was sent stems (usually 3 tracks) and he would pan them hard left, hard right, center, or some combination thereof. he did all of this without the band or george martin's input. he was mixing for like 5% of the market so it was literally an afterthought.

the band also hated most of the stereo mixes, which goes a long way with me.

finally - the mono versions sound like a rock band, which the beatles were. the kick and bass are locked in and driving. the guitar doesn't need pan to stand out, it's tone and EQ. the vocals are all coming from the same place, the same unit, like a rock band.

most people love and respect the beatles, but not everyone thinks they 'rock hard'. hearing the mono mixes shows them in full power, not in trendy-hippy stereo separation.  just my $.02

Interesting opinions and feelings.
Certainly the differences between mono and stereo are not subtle and it comes down to personal taste, but for my taste I'd take these very well crafted stereo mixes over any mono mixed recording anyday, especially with regards to the Beatles. For me, this blu-ray shows and allows you to hear the Beatles in full power as you said. Now, I don't know what kind of gear you possess but I think regardless of that you should hear this blu-ray.
I'm also sorry to hear about your cd getting wrecked in the mail, so now I think this is the perfect opportunity to hear this blu-ray.
I think you'll be very impressed with the stereo mixes in full 24/96khz.

Try it out and go "woooooooooooh!"
Believe me. It has that effect.

 

[nephilim32]

That's getting to the gist of it. But I don't know that I agree with you.  Let me think it out --

A:
128k MP4 on a nice DAP with expensive $800 headphones

vs

B:
24bit FLAC on a nice DAP with mainstream $50 headphones


Is the material using real instruments and real voices, or is it EDM and/or heavily processed?  If it's natural I expect B to sound better because it will convey the true, accurate sound as recorded.

If the material is modern, fake, electro, or otherwise has it's humanity compromised, perhaps A would sound louder and fuller.  Better? I doubt it. Lossy (perceptual) coding is a slippery slope of badness. It doesn't really matter if you think you can hear it, it's still far less than the artist intended. 

I just don't understand how you don't hear lossy degradation, especially to the soundstage and the timbre of the instruments, not to mention how it absolutely demolishes any natural reverb and screws up delays, pulling them back together again. it's like pouring glue all over a nice apple pie.

Or perhaps to say - music before 2008 or so - better in hi-res. Stay native, own the masters if you can.

I'd be happy to test this on my PonoPlayer if i just had $800 headphones....

Yup. I never opt for lossy like AAC or AIFF. All WAV, FLAC, ALAC and M4A for me. When you have the proper gear the differences are NOT subtle!
But anyhow. Interesting comparison. I have often wondered about what you are talking about and of course tried it out and it's definitely quality gear paired with lousy sources. Lol I would even take 48kps against the latter! lol.
However, I've learned that there are no shortcuts in the world of audio. You gotta have a winning team all around. Think of a baseball team. If you have great defense and great hitting, but awful pitching you aren't gonna win the World Series now are ya?

Anyway. My HEAPHONES along with the rest of my sources are singing with this.....



Beautiful 24/192khz

 

[Audioholic123]

 
That's getting to the gist of it. But I don't know that I agree with you.  Let me think it out --
 
A:
128k MP4 on a nice DAP with expensive $800 headphones
 
vs
 
B:
24bit FLAC on a nice DAP with mainstream $50 headphones
 
 
Is the material using real instruments and real voices, or is it EDM and/or heavily processed?  If it's natural I expect B to sound better because it will convey the true, accurate sound as recorded.
 
If the material is modern, fake, electro, or otherwise has it's humanity compromised, perhaps A would sound louder and fuller.  Better? I doubt it. Lossy (perceptual) coding is a slippery slope of badness. It doesn't really matter if you think you can hear it, it's still far less than the artist intended. 
 
I just don't understand how you don't hear lossy degradation, especially to the soundstage and the timbre of the instruments, not to mention how it absolutely demolishes any natural reverb and screws up delays, pulling them back together again. it's like pouring glue all over a nice apple pie.
 
Or perhaps to say - music before 2008 or so - better in hi-res. Stay native, own the masters if you can.
 
I'd be happy to test this on my PonoPlayer if i just had $800 headphones....

My understanding is that headphones such as T1's/HD800's (and the like) where designed to output the maximum possible amount of all audible data contained within a signal.
Contrary to cheaper headphones - there's no veil. Feed them some acoustic music and nothing compares...they'll deceive you into thinking you are with the band as they perform.
Now combine that with a high end amplifier and??!!!

It does have it's drawbacks though...something like an HD558 armed with a Fiio X1 full of Flac's is often good enough

 

[DoctaCosmos]

Some headphone despite their price are better at revealing higher quality than others. My findings is that the fullness of body coming from planars plays better with lower quality music than a dynamic driver playing lower quality music.

 

[Saraguie]

"Rice With Angles" by Jonas Hellbourg

Ginger Baker's son Kofi on drums and Sean Lane on guitar. Fantastic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9_B4RnDFo&sns=em

 

[taffy2207]

Good idea, let's get back on topic