where do you download good quality music
post-7588235
Thread Starter
Post #1 of 35

horus

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
8
Reaction score
10
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Posts
8
Likes
10
ok im in ireland and  i want to know what sites you guys download ur music from is itunes good quality or are other sites better also what media player do you use, i a complete newbie so sorry if this is a stupid question i just want to get the best out of my gear thanks
 
     Share This Post       
post-7588340
Post #2 of 35

anadin

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
18
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Posts
2,475
Likes
18
Paid or unpaid?
 
     Share This Post       
post-7588449
Post #3 of 35

Fraiz

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
17
Reaction score
10
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Posts
17
Likes
10
I know a pretty decent Russian forum website where you can download almost anything in FLAC. They even have 24bit vinyl rips and its completely free.
 
Too bad I can't tell you the name of it on here. But i'm sure with a bit of searching, you'll come across it. 

 
     Share This Post       
post-7588496
Post #5 of 35

tom2011

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
Joined
May 26, 2011
Posts
146
Likes
0
if you want paid
better buy cd its more quality
 
i download from the internet
 
     Share This Post       
post-7588504
Post #6 of 35

maverickronin

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
7,390
Reaction score
420
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Posts
7,390
Likes
420
Quote:
if you want paid
better buy cd its more quality
 
i download from the internet


Not really.  If you want to go over the top with more sample rate and bit depth than is needed there are places like HDtracks.  The only problem is that their selection is quite limited.
 
     Share This Post       
post-7588589
Post #7 of 35

Roller

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
3,813
Reaction score
86
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Posts
3,813
Likes
86


Quote:
Not really.  If you want to go over the top with more sample rate and bit depth than is needed there are places like HDtracks.  The only problem is that their selection is quite limited.


Exactly. Redbook only goes up to 16/44, while places like HDtracks sell far higher quality versions, like 24/88.2 and 24/96.
 
     Share This Post       
post-7588653
Post #8 of 35

sesshin

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
176
Reaction score
16
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Posts
176
Likes
16
HDtracks is probably the most popular source, but sadly the existing crop of HD music available online for download is pretty limited.
 
People keep talking about the day when we abolish the Redbook standard and all music is released in a high-def format and available for download, unfortunately that doesn't look to be happening any time soon. :/
 
     Share This Post       
post-7588705
Post #9 of 35

maverickronin

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
7,390
Reaction score
420
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Posts
7,390
Likes
420
Quote:
People keep talking about the day when we abolish the Redbook standard and all music is released in a high-def format and available for download, unfortunately that doesn't look to be happening any time soon. :/


I sure hope doesn't go away.  Redbook is already near perfect within the bounds of human hearing and there's no reason to spend more than double the space on something you can't actually hear.  Some of us aren't interested in having to build a data center in the basement just to serve (and more importantly BACK UP) all our music.
 
     Share This Post       
post-7588740
Post #10 of 35

schwallman

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
1,167
Reaction score
20
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Posts
1,167
Likes
20
Depending on what you listen to, Beartport sells music in 320 or wav format. The price for .wav is crazy though.
 
     Share This Post       
post-7588817
Post #11 of 35

sesshin

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
176
Reaction score
16
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Posts
176
Likes
16


Quote:
I sure hope doesn't go away.  Redbook is already near perfect within the bounds of human hearing and there's no reason to spend more than double the space on something you can't actually hear.  Some of us aren't interested in having to build a data center in the basement just to serve (and more importantly BACK UP) all our music.


With hard drive space getting cheaper, smaller and more efficient all the time, it's not that far off we'll reach a point where 24/96 or 24/192 FLACs aren't going to be that much more trouble to store than 16/44.1 FLACs. or 320kbps MP3s. I'm already there truthfully. Then its more a question of, why wouldn't you want high-resolution music? If hard drive space is taken out of the equation, I'm assuming since most of us here are audiophiles (including the OP or he wouldn't have asked about HD music) we would choose hi-def music over Redbook any day of the week. I'm not going to get into a debate over whether you can hear the difference or not. That's topic for another thread.
 
16/44.1 will never go away as a bit depth/sampling frequency, but I'm quite certain at some point physical media of CDs and DVDs will go away. then you'll just have to decide what resolution you want the music on your hard drive to be in.
 
     Share This Post       
post-7588826
Post #12 of 35

sesshin

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
176
Reaction score
16
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Posts
176
Likes
16


Quote:
Depending on what you listen to, Beartport sells music in 320 or wav format. The price for .wav is crazy though.


Yeah, I like Beatport and buy A LOT of wav files from there (which are all 16/44.1 btw), but sometimes I swear some of the wavs are just MP3s that they reincoded. Either that or the songs are just mastered badly. The quality can vary quite a bit from song to song.
 
     Share This Post       
post-7588949
Post #13 of 35

Roller

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
3,813
Reaction score
86
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Posts
3,813
Likes
86


Quote:
With hard drive space getting cheaper, smaller and more efficient all the time, it's not that far off we'll reach a point where 24/96 or 24/192 FLACs aren't going to be that much more trouble to store than 16/44.1 FLACs. or 320kbps MP3s. I'm already there truthfully. Then its more a question of, why wouldn't you want high-resolution music? If hard drive space is taken out of the equation, I'm assuming since most of us here are audiophiles (including the OP or he wouldn't have asked about HD music) we would choose hi-def music over Redbook any day of the week. I'm not going to get into a debate over whether you can hear the difference or not. That's topic for another thread.
 
16/44.1 will never go away as a bit depth/sampling frequency, but I'm quite certain at some point physical media of CDs and DVDs will go away. then you'll just have to decide what resolution you want the music on your hard drive to be in.


I'm with this guy. Lossy formats surfaced over the need of a space efficient format, not a quality preserving format, as with all lossy formats available, information is lost, no matter from which angle you look at it.
 
Space is indeed costing significantly less than it used to a decade ago, for instance. The slow shift of mechanical to flash based drives is a setback when it comes of price per GB, but those drives aren't meant for archiving purposes at all, leading us back to mechanical drives which have continuous price drops.
If looking strictly from a file size perspective, uncompressed audio has the biggest file sizes, while lossless formats can have almost 50% reduction in size while maintaining the exact same quality. The place for lossy formats is on portable setups that are used on noisy enough environments where true sound quality can't be appreciated in its entirety, music that was made from the original lossless music kept at the stationary setup.
 
About the last paragraph, while there is still a lot of interest from movie and record companies about physical mediums, mainly due to a retrograde philosophy, there will be a shift on content distribution, and youtube ripping people will then be faced with content quality higher than they've ever seen or heard, and that time does have the possibility to be amazing for audiophiles.
 
     Share This Post       
post-7589154
Post #14 of 35

maverickronin

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
7,390
Reaction score
420
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Posts
7,390
Likes
420
I'm not even saying to go for lossy.  That can actually be ABXed from lossless and it will keep you from losing any quality if you need to transcode to a new lossy format for something like a DAP where space is at much more of a premium but even on a desktop setup 24/96 takes up an insane about of space at present.  The "storage is getting cheaper" argument is also a red herring.  Storage will of course always get cheaper, but is that an excuse to increase sample rates and bitdepths indefinitely?
 
The important question is what's good enough to exceed the capabilities of human hearing.  Depending on what studies you read and what you make of their methodologies redbook is worst case scenario, very close to that edge.  Nobody need the extra 40 or so dB of dynamic range from 24 bit because most of it is hardly ever used, even in good classical recordings.  A few extra bits would be good for some headroom but given the way standards go, there aren't many DACs that would elegantly accept say, 20 bit words, so we'll probably be stuck with 24 even though 18 or 20 is already overkill.  We could also benefit from a higher sample rate than redbook for better headroom in filter design.  Once again though, 88.2 and 96 are complete overkill and just waste space.  24/88.2 or 24/96 are only defensible in the sense that they're already a standard.  They're already overkill and adding any more on top of that just wastes space and bandwidth to no effect.
 
     Share This Post       
post-7589237
Post #15 of 35

sterling1

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
620
Reaction score
47
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Posts
620
Likes
47


 
Quote:
I'm not even saying to go for lossy.  That can actually be ABXed from lossless and it will keep you from losing any quality if you need to transcode to a new lossy format for something like a DAP where space is at much more of a premium but even on a desktop setup 24/96 takes up an insane about of space at present.  The "storage is getting cheaper" argument is also a red herring.  Storage will of course always get cheaper, but is that an excuse to increase sample rates and bitdepths indefinitely?
 
The important question is what's good enough to exceed the capabilities of human hearing.  Depending on what studies you read and what you make of their methodologies redbook is worst case scenario, very close to that edge.  Nobody need the extra 40 or so dB of dynamic range from 24 bit because most of it is hardly ever used, even in good classical recordings.  A few extra bits would be good for some headroom but given the way standards go, there aren't many DACs that would elegantly accept say, 20 bit words, so we'll probably be stuck with 24 even though 18 or 20 is already overkill.  We could also benefit from a higher sample rate than redbook for better headroom in filter design.  Once again though, 88.2 and 96 are complete overkill and just waste space.  24/88.2 or 24/96 are only defensible in the sense that they're already a standard.  They're already overkill and adding any more on top of that just wastes space and bandwidth to no effect.

I'm buying into all you've said, in fact, my own observations, comparing HDTracks material at 24/96 to  the same material on SACD, CD, and iTunes downloads, indicate that I cannot discern one from another. I'm content with CD; and, therefore, with plenty of hard drive space left on my Dell Inspiron, I rip CD's to 16/44.1 .wav files for convenience plays from my iTunes library. My time, which is precious,  allows for little luxury, like listening to music for pleasure, so, spending any of it on wild goose chases for better sound is a thing of the past for me now. I'm a happy camper with what I've got.
 
 
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top