[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 
 


Well, I had to leave work in my shop several times today to clear all of the new snow that arrived (12 inches + in the last 12 hours), so for me, it is Rush/Moving Pictures in 24/96, and a Bell's Two-Hearted IPA.

 

Nice! One of my top 5 albums of all time.

 

 

[Dubstep Girl]

Quote:

 
 


Well, I had to leave work in my shop several times today to clear all of the new snow that arrived (12 inches + in the last 12 hours), so for me, it is Rush/Moving Pictures in 24/96, and a Bell's Two-Hearted IPA.

 

very nice. i love rush!
 
how'd u get 24/96 though, is it a vinyl rip?

 

[jc9394]

Quote:

very nice. i love rush!
 
how'd u get 24/96 though, is it a vinyl rip?

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00602527636993

 

[Dubstep Girl]

oh nice, didn't know they had it lol.
 
im happy with my MFSL version for now though. 

 
still debating on wheter or not to make the jump to 24/96 since right now everything i have is 16/44 lossless. i've even downloaded 24/96 or 24/192 but ultimately downsample to 16/44.

 

[Silent One]

Downloading to 16/44.1 your preference or the default action of the DL-III?

 

[Red Jacket Mike]

 
Quote:

i've even downloaded 24/96 or 24/192 but ultimately downsample to 16/44.

 
If you're using iTunes, you can use MAX to convert 24/96 or 24/192 flac files to AIFF or lossless (or any other format); the bit depth and sample rate can remain the same.  On some of the HD Tracks hi-res material I've downloaded, I don't hear any difference between it and the regular CD, but with others (particularly Moving Pictures) the difference is significant.

 

[Zombie_X]

I personally think that there is no SQ improvement when going from 16/44 to 24/96. If there is a difference then it's not noticeable. Plus you save money when not got to higher resolution files. For Moving Pictures I have both the HD-Tracks 24/96 version as well as the MFSL disc and there is no sound quality difference. If anything the MFSL sounds better to my ears.

 

[Rawrbington]

i've never heard a hi res and bit depth vinyl rip that  sounds as good as a lossless cd rip

 

[Dubstep Girl]

thats what i've noticed with 24/96. i can't really tell a diifference. i will try again next time i get a chance with a recording, but im pretty happy with 16/44 and the convinience of it.

 

[Dubstep Girl]

Quote:

Downloading to 16/44.1 your preference or the default action of the DL-III?

my preference so i can easily play off of anything and so its easily transferrable to ipod.
 
of course, i could just keep the higher bit-rate stuff and just let jriver media center convert... but thats also more work.
 
 

 

[grokit]

Agreed, but upsampling to 24/96 can help to mitigate the negative by-products of digital volume adjustment and effects processing.
 

 

[thrak]

Quote:

Nice! One of my top 5 albums of all time.

 

+1 and Two Hearted is one of my top 5 beers of all time 

 

[Dubstep Girl]

Quote:

Agreed, but upsampling to 24/96 can help to mitigate the negative by-products of digital volume adjustment and effects processing.
 
 

 

 

[musicman59]

I personally think that there is no SQ improvement when going from 16/44 to 24/96. If there is a difference then it's not noticeable. Plus you save money when not got to higher resolution files. For Moving Pictures I have both the HD-Tracks 24/96 version as well as the MFSL disc and there is no sound quality difference. If anything the MFSL sounds better to my ears.

I personally and respectfully disagree. Last weekend I had a Fleetwood Mac session playing my Rumours remastered CD and also the hi-res version I got from HDtracks. IMO the level of detail and the soundstage presentation of the hi-res version is clearly better.

With the CD I was using my Teac VRDS-10 transport highly modified by GNS feeding my PWD. For the Hi-res version I used my Mac Book Pro feeding the same DAC. The amp used wa my WA5-LE and the HD800 with Zeus cable.


The Computer files are actually 24/192 but down converted to 24/96 to go over usb

 

[hodgjy]

I don't want to get into the specifics of it, because that should go in the sound science forum, but there is a difference between how we hear standard def tracks and high def tracks.  However, it has little do with how our ears hear the sampling rate.  It is entirely to do with how the engineers mix the songs.  Because there are different tools at their disposal, they will mix them differently, which we will hear.  We will hear different volumes and tones and instrument placements.  We will not hear differences between 16/44 and 24/96.  Double blind tests have repeatedly showed that taking 24/96 tracks and playing them, then downsampling to 16/44, cannot be differentiated.  And that of all things, since you are bastardizing the the track, should be noticeable if it could be noticeable.  But, it's not.