More > JRiver Media Center 24 for Windows

high quality music (hdtracks) is it worth it?

<< < (6/7) > >>

perry59:
I guess HDtracks is still dubious at best and probably not worth the money. I'd like to find sacd and dvd audio but the content is very limited.
I guess I am yearning for my old audiophile days of the '80's when I had good equipment. McIntosh amp & preamp, bang & olufsen linear tracking turntable and klipsch speakers.
I often bought limited "master" press discs at a shop in Fayetteville, yes, I started on vinyl and thought it sounded best. I remember putting emmylou harris on and that was the most beautiful sound I ever heard. I could hear her breathing and walking around the microphone.
I don't know if I will ever get that gorgeous sound again!

perry59:
Also just did a little research on ripping SACD's. Sounds like a non starter. You need special hardware that is either difficult to get and/or expensive. And the process sounds like a hassle. sigh

kr4:

--- Quote from: perry59 on March 27, 2019, 05:15:23 pm ---Also just did a little research on ripping SACD's. Sounds like a non starter. You need special hardware that is either difficult to get and/or expensive. And the process sounds like a hassle. sigh

--- End quote ---
1.  It will run on many players including inexpensive Sony players but the Oppos are easier to run.  Also on certain PS3s (and I have a few that I need to get rid of).
2.  The process reads like a hassle but, in practice, is a simple repetitive task.  I do it casually every week or two.

Scobie:

--- Quote ---If it sounds different (better) it's almost certainly sourced from a different master.
--- End quote ---


Indeed. Often times it is worth seeking out 24/192 or 24/96 etc. material because it is a sign that the recording has been revisted, as in taken from original master recordings or has been remastered using different (modern) equipment or by a different Mastering engineer who might give it a new flavour.

I can listen to different versions of the same album, not listening for which "sounds better" but just enjoying the nuances of the results. Of course this often results in a preferred version but for me it's taking an interest in the process as much as anything, so long as my ears still like what they hear. For a SACD or 24/192 lossless recording that lives up to the hype try Cafe Blue by Patricia Barber - an absolute feast.

The higher bit depth can result in easier / superior filtering in the mastering process, but it is doubtful there is any real improvement in the playback of a 24/192 over a 16/44 that are taken from the same master recording, if the 16/44 has been dithered appropriately. As mentioned here the greater bit depth just increases what is already an ample dynamic range - especially for today's Loudness Wars recordings - and a dithered signal taken with a 44Mhz sample rate is  plenty for human ears.

But it's all great fun to look at noise spectra and the like, certainly beats working.

Manfred:
For example I have Wagner's Solti Ring in different versions 1984 CD's; 1997 CD's all 16 bit 44,1kHz FLAC's and on Audio BD 24 bit 48 kHz as FLAC and converted to DSD.

They all sound different! Best sound's the Audio BD converted to DSD. The 1997 remastered version sound's sometime's to bright to me.

My Devialet DAC converts all pcm formats to 24 bit 192kHz and DSD by using MATŪ DSD Core technology is converted to the DSD format into Expert internal native PCM 40 bits / 384 kHz format.

Some of my HighRes Album's like Jazz at the Pawnshop (2xHD) DSD or the Tony Bennet/Diana Krall Album in 24/192 or van Zweden's Parsifal (available on NativeDSD) on DSD sound simple fantastic.

My conclusion is, it depends on the recording/remastering process and the DAC. If it is well done HighRes can sound fantastic.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page