[Sonic Defender]

  How come live registrations often have much better sound than studio recordings?
Oh well, this track sounds wonderful with the Z7s
 

I'm not sure they do, many variables at play including and most importantly what the listener prefers. Typically I don't enjoy live albums and greatly prefer the studio versions. I like live shows and have seen many, but live albums, not as much.

 

[Mickice]

Model no. 2214
Launch day, one of the first units sold in Australia. 

 

[SptTablo]

Hey Everyone, 
 
This is kind of off-topic question but where are good places to get high-res audios?
 
I want to get high-res audios for jazz songs but I cannot find good websites. 
 
I have found highresaudio.com but it seems that purchase in Canada is blocked. 
 
Any suggestion would be deeply appreciated
 
Thanks!

 

[zazex]

  Hey Everyone, 
 
This is kind of off-topic question but where are good places to get high-res audios?
 
I want to get high-res audios for jazz songs but I cannot find good websites. 
 
I have found highresaudio.com but it seems that purchase in Canada is blocked. 
 
Any suggestion would be deeply appreciated
 
Thanks!

 
http://www.hdtracks.com/

 

[SptTablo]

Thanks!

 

[Sonic Defender]

  Thanks!

Do yourself a favour that might save you money. Find something that is available in both 16bit and higher bit rate. Listen to both without knowing which version of the song is 16 bit versus the higher bit rate version. You may need somebody else to help you and you may need them to volume match as the higher bit rate versions might be mastered at a higher volume (which will make them sound better). If after volume matching you can actually hear a difference then by all means by the high resolution versions (which cost more money and take more space). If you can't really tell them apart you just saved a bunch of money. I can't tell high resolution from normal 16 bit recordings when I listen blindly and knowing that has saved me money. You may be different of course.

 

[longboy]

 
Yeah, of course.
 
I think it has been mentioned several times here that it's understandable that when someone who hasn't heard many alternatives that are better, or different, in the same price class as the Z7, and then they go to the Z7, they'd feel like it's such a huge leap forward.
 
Personally, I have nothing against the Z7, but I did say multiple times before I even owned the Z7 that I wouldn't expect it to blow my socks off, given that my frame of reference is coming from getting used to planar magnetics, electrostatics, and HD800. It's really all about managing expectations.
 
The good news (or bad, depending on if you want to look at it from your wallet's perspective) is... there is still more to be had. So once you're tired of the Z7 (might take a while), you know you can still save up to get "better".
 

"once you're tired of the Z7 (might take a while)."  With any luck, having been born around the time that Hitler invaded Poland, I won't live long enough for that to happen, especially if it might take a while. Of course, you never know. "Life sucks. And then, you die."
 
'

 

[longboy]

   
http://www.hdtracks.com/

http://www.bluenote.com/ is another good one, jazz only. I shop at both sites and like them both.

 

[SptTablo]

 
Do yourself a favour that might save you money. Find something that is available in both 16bit and higher bit rate. Listen to both without knowing which version of the song is 16 bit versus the higher bit rate version. You may need somebody else to help you and you may need them to volume match as the higher bit rate versions might be mastered at a higher volume (which will make them sound better). If after volume matching you can actually hear a difference then by all means by the high resolution versions (which cost more money and take more space). If you can't really tell them apart you just saved a bunch of money. I can't tell high resolution from normal 16 bit recordings when I listen blindly and knowing that has saved me money. You may be different of course.

Thanks for the good advice. 
 
Would it be fare to try to blind test mp3 version which is 320kps and alac version which is in 24/96? 
 
This is also going to be worth a try for me since I am deciding between two DAC where one of them is limited to 24/96 and other is limited to 32/384.

 

[Mickice]

I've done blind tests, 320mp3 side by side with CD is noticeable, but by its self it's perfectly fine.

I have tried 24/192 with Dr Chesky's and while good, CD is the sweet spot.

 

[Beginner008]

I've done blind tests, 320mp3 side by side with CD is noticeable, but by its self it's perfectly fine.

I have tried 24/192 with Dr Chesky's and while good, CD is the sweet spot.

You must have very good ears! I once blind test with some friends in the college day between a Sony CDP-101 and a cassette tape recorded out of it on a Luxman deck (which happened to have zero hiss). Not a single one of us can consistently id which was which!
 
I also compared the HD "Jazz at the Pawnshop" tracks with a 128mp3 rip from a CD and the mp3 actually sound better, it must be a difference master!

 

[Sonic Defender]

  Thanks for the good advice. 
 
Would it be fare to try to blind test mp3 version which is 320kps and alac version which is in 24/96? 
 
This is also going to be worth a try for me since I am deciding between two DAC where one of them is limited to 24/96 and other is limited to 32/384.

Yes, blind testing is the gold standard and the more you test assumptions, the more money you may save. Even when people tell you they can hear the difference you need to be skeptical as these tests are often not blind testing so bias may be at play, plus we need to know how many trials were done. It is important to do enough trials, I would say about 15 in order to establish reliability. There is always chance that can explain any results so the more trials you do, the less likely chance can explain the results. There is plenty of opinions on both sides, but as far as I can tell, the camp that says above 16bits is wasted has made the best case, and when I test blind up to this point I can't hear a difference. And as I said, volume match as I think one way they make high resolution files sound better is that they are mastered just a little bit louder. I won't pretend what I am saying is fact, simply that it is well worth your time to see about testing. I even find a 320mp3 can sound amazing.

 

[Sonic Defender]

 
You must have very good ears! I once blind test with some friends in the college day between a Sony CDP-101 and a cassette tape recorded out of it on a Luxman deck (which happened to have zero hiss). Not a single one of us can consistently id which was which!
 
I also compared the HD "Jazz at the Pawnshop" tracks with a 128mp3 rip from a CD and the mp3 actually sound better, it must be a difference master!

Yes, there can be different masters which really confounds testing. I would think a 128mp3 should differ enough from a lossless version, but perhaps it is only evident at certain points so if your attention wavers or the playback volume is too loud or quiet, that might also be a factor in detection.

 

[Mink]

 
Yes, blind testing is the gold standard and the more you test assumptions, the more money you may save. Even when people tell you they can hear the difference you need to be skeptical as these tests are often not blind testing so bias may be at play, plus we need to know how many trials were done. It is important to do enough trials, I would say about 15 in order to establish reliability. There is always chance that can explain any results so the more trials you do, the less likely chance can explain the results. There is plenty of opinions on both sides, but as far as I can tell, the camp that says above 16bits is wasted has made the best case, and when I test blind up to this point I can't hear a difference. And as I said, volume match as I think one way they make high resolution files sound better is that they are mastered just a little bit louder. I won't pretend what I am saying is fact, simply that it is well worth your time to see about testing. I even find a 320mp3 can sound amazing.

If I really try hard I can hear a very, very, very, slight difference between a 256kb AAC music file and a losseless format. In order to notice this futile difference I have to listen with an extreme fixed concentration for a long time, tediously switching between both formats. No fun. The AAC file obviously isn't tonally less satisfactory, I don't miss any musical pleasure with it, so I use this format and bitrate as the standard for importing CD's on my disk drive. The last couple of years I almost exclusively listen music via my iMac.

 

[Sonic Defender]

  If I really try hard I can hear a very, very, very, slight difference between a 256kb AAC music file and a losseless format. In order to notice this futile difference I have to listen with an extreme fixed concentration for a long time, tediously switching between both formats. No fun. The AAC file obviously isn't tonally less satisfactory, I don't miss any musical pleasure with it, so I use this format and bitrate as the standard for importing CD's on my disk drive. The last couple of years I almost exclusively listen music via my iMac.

I agree, the differences seem quite small to me and I am very skeptical of claims that a high-bite rate lossy file is very noticeably different than a lossless, or high resolution version. I buy CDs so when I rip I do use Apple lossless, however, for on the go I have never had an issue with the 256 AAC or a 320mp3 and both sound excellent. I even have some lossy files on my main rig and listening through a decent DAC, expensive silver litz cables through to my 560 I don't hear anything missing.