More > JRiver Media Center 24 for Windows
high quality music (hdtracks) is it worth it?
RD James:
--- Quote from: perry59 on March 25, 2019, 02:15:28 pm ---On this page http://www.hdtracks.com/quality
HDtracks makes their claim to being hi-res and not just upsampled
--- End quote ---
That's pretty funny - they couldn't even find tracks without spurious tones to use in their examples.
Here you have two continuous and piercing tones, much louder than everything else, at ~29kHz and ~75kHz.
If we could hear these high frequencies, or if we were affected by them in any way, all it would lead to is a headache.
Same thing - though to a lesser degree - with their 96kHz example too:
A piercing continuous tone at ~28kHz and ~43kHz.
Not all high resolution tracks are like this, but a lot of them are, and it just goes to show that it's snake oil.
Even if you can't hear those tones, it's possible for them to cause your distortion from your speakers in the audible range.
In both of these examples it would be better to have filtered out the higher frequencies and delivered a 44.1kHz or 48kHz track - though it should not be necessary to stick to divisors of the original sample rate if you have a good resampler (like SoX in Media Center).
larryrup:
This is an interesting discussion!
I've listened to a variety of high res files of different resolutions to try to come to my own conclusion as to the merit or myth of high res audio. My 2 channel audio system might be considered mid fi. Listening with this equipment was quite inconclusive.
I own three pair of headphones each arguably highly regarded. Each one could not be more different from the other, but give one a couple of hours and that is my current favorite! My then headphone dac/amps could not handle anything greater than 16/44.1 I had an excuse to upgrade my DAC/amp! I can now listen to 24/384. It's a great headphone amp. I was off to the races.
I informally listening to lots of different files in cd quality and a HD tracks of the same song, or sometimes using the JRiver test feature lowering the resolution of a file to test/compare.....or using what I had on hand, and came to the conclusion there was no very clear winner. As an example, the last CD I listened to both ways was Jackson Brown's Running on Empty. The HDtracks files (24/192) for the entire album sounds fabulous. While this is not a favorite CD, I have owned one version or another since it was released. Since that dates back to the mid 70's I had listened to it often enough to quite familiar. The HDTracks files were new to me and produced stuff I had clearly never heard before. I do not know what if any remastering may have been done. I know this album was originally made available at 24/96 but what I listened to was clearly labeled 24/192. Way better than the 16/44.1 flac files.
Has anyone every heard a 24/192 file of Chet Bakers Baker's Holiday through a good pair of headphones? It is like VR for audio yet it is straight up stereo. What made this sound so fabulous? Wish I actually knew....because that's what everything should sound like. However on the other hand, the HDTracks hi res files of the Joni Mitchell's Blue album were horrible. Clearly an inferior listening experience to the files I have from ripping a commercial CD.
After listening to allot of additional material these are my un-scientific conclusions:
The recording/production/mastering is the number one certain ingredient in a wonderful sounding recording. No degree of resolution can help a poor recording
Listening for bit depth/resolution requires some training/practice. I now can generally tell any file at 256KB or lower, but at 16/44.1 (and I include lossless flac here) and 320KB it is not as easy...I think I can tell may 50% of the time through my home speakers and maybe 70% of the time through headphones but a wonderfully engineered recording blurs the difference. Listening in a car with just about any (including pricey optional) stereos I don't believe you would ever tell the difference between a CD and 320KB file. Further, higher resolution files in a car makes no sense to me. It's just too noisy
Hi res files at 24/96 do not seems to distinguish themselves very much from 16/44.1. 24/192 do distinguish themselves more often, but NOT consistently, nor most of the time. My guess is they are noticeably better ~40% of the time....again for what I sampled which was certainly not chosen with any criteria as to what might have mattered (like age of recording, newly remastered...etc..... what I listened to/tested was what I came across and had interest in). When hi res was noticeably better to my ears, was it because of remastering? Source material? Resolution? I would think if it was the resolution, I'd hear a noticeable improvement more often than I did.
Some 24/96 and 24/192 files are worse than the 16/44.1 CD files, but not very often.
I once read (it was a while ago) that bit depth and not the resolution represents the biggest improvement in hi res audio. I didn't hear that or at least, can't draw that conclusion.
I'm not sure if this was a total waste of my time or not! Unlike cables, and USB filters, where I was able to get to my own opinion with relative ease, primarily because of consistency in what I did or did not hear...bit depth and resolution I continue to struggled with. It could be I do not know other variables at play.
One question for the learned people on this topic about the higher file size of hi res files: Does ALL of that additional file size fall below and above the human hearing range? If not it's quite easy to conclude it adds to the depth of the recording. If so, I'm inclined to believe what improvements I hear are NOT attributable to the bit depth or resolution.
Amazing with all the things we can do today, we are not able to come to consensus on this one!
LarryRup
dtblair:
I started with LPs, moved to cassettes, then onto to CDs. Once CDs got their act together regarding the high-end filter (the first CDs were pretty harsh), I've never looked back. I've now moved into SACDs and audio blu-rays. The best sound out there is audio blu-ray. You get DTS, Atmos, DSD352.8, and almost always, a downloadable 24/96 and above (and multichannel). I really like SACDs but they are more difficult to find. I rip them using a Sony BDP-S590. I only purchase SACDs that have a referenced original resolution. And here is back to your original question. Analog tape maxes out at 28kHz (from what I have found, tell me otherwise). Telarc at one time played with 50kHz tape for recording. If you are creating a HD file (24/96 or above) from the analog tape, there is no additional info. HDtracks is the worst. Here is proof they are upsampling:
Here is an original CD from Norah Jones analyzed by "SPEK"
Here is the "remastered" HD track at 192Khz from HD Tracks:
As you can see there is nothing above the original CD at 22Khz. That dosen't stop them from charging $25 for a CD. They do sound different, but I'm sure that is due to a change in mastering and volume.
Here is an example of a real recording at 96KHz:
I find that higher resolution sounds better, but it's comparing apples to oranges - for classical a different orchestra / conductor, for older files a better remastering. Most popoular CDs were mastered for radio playback so have a good deal of compression. Compare the original Beatles to the remastered - they are different but the same resolution. Are they better?
If you are looking into HD files, find out how they were originally recorded. That will have a huge impact on the final product. (eClassical. com is a great source with always above board recording info)
dtblair:
Here are the pics
swiv3d:
If you enjoy them - yes. But the cd quality variant can be just as good.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version