Hi Res early Rolling Stones ...

Thanks for that. Can you  let us know how they sound.

Gerry

I just got back from a trip and saw the Email announcement. LOVE to hear your views on the quality. Although my mouse finger is twitching as I type.

Thanks

I am still downloading ... I haven't listened to the hi res files on my main kit, but I have a feeling that the 24/88 files will sound almost identical to the ones I'm downloading in 24/176. I listened very briefly to MP3 320 files against the 24/176 on my office set-up through on-board audio on my PC using J River Media Center 15 for playback and I did not hear a huge difference. But don't take that as a conclusive answer.

Best wishes,
Peter

Thank you Peter. If they're not maxed out and clipped they're probably going to be good enough for me. But i will use you as a guinea pig if you don't mind because we've been here so often before.

What do you play these files with?

That is a very good question: at 176/24 I only have my 1212m EMU sound card in my semi-moveable Shuttle computer. I will move it next to my Naim kit to anable true 176/24 playback. Then I can compare some of the files with MP3 played through SB Touch/Aune DAC.Clearly I will need a streamer/DAC capable of hi res sooner than I thought ...

I am trying right now to configure my PC sound card to play back 176/24 as I write this.

It took a long time to download the files.

EDIT: I have a nagging feeling that 176/24 is not supported in my EMU 1212m (PCI) sound card ... Another reason to buy a decent DAC, I suppose.

Best wishes,
Peter

In another thread it was reported that the 176/24 files would play through the Naim DAC, but that the "HD" light would not go on.  With the 88/24 files, however, it did illuminate.  Any further reports?  I'd like to know if the 176/24 is worth the extra cost.

Apparantly, these hi res downloads have been converted from the digital DSD masters used for the 22 Rolling Stones SACD releases around 2002, so they have not been made on the basis of analogue masters.There is some controversy as to whether the hi res 176/24 files are what they are sold as. An inspection of two 176/24 flles indicates that they "are sampled with 88.2" which "can’t be right."

I can't judge this, but if this is true there is little reason to buy the 176/24 files. I am looking forward to reading an answer from HD Tracks.

Best wishes,
Peter

Peter, thanks.  I have most of the 2002 SACDs, and they sounded pretty darn good.  I no longer have a functioning SACD player, however.

I downloaded one of the 88/24 albums, and will compare with the CD layer of the 2002 release at some point.  First impression of the HD Tracks version isn't terribly positive...

I've just played the 24/176 of 'Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass)'. The HD indicator on my nDAC did illuminate.

Hi Hot Rats. In Audacity the files are shown as 24/176, so they should tally in as that in your nDAC. It's good that they do.

Best wishes,
Peter

On another forum someone reported from a careful comparison of one track "Paint It Black":

"We have set a blind comparison, using Linn Klimax DS as source.
Track: Paint it Black "(176.4 download and a friend got the 88.2 of TTPD)
"The results are a surprise to me (even more to my friend).
I anticipated a very slight difference or not difference at all, but there is
a noticeable difference. 176.4 sound better (blind) at least in my system.
Then we compared (not blind) to Vinyl (200g Japanese pressing, not the
“remastered” one). For the first time vinyl doesn’t beat to dust
digital. Vinyl is somehow better, but not in every aspect."

You better make your own comparisons.

Best wishes,
Peter