HD Albums - first experience!

The 24 bit aspect of the HD gives a big difference, even when just talking about 24 versus 16 on 44.1. The higher up 48, 76.2...you will hear more room around the instrument and more life in the tonality etc. While the difference between 96 and 192 might not always be so clear.

The base however is the recording quality and mastering. Some of the high res is not at it's full potential due to the recording and mastering quality.

so advice would be to get it as high as possible, assuming it's not just up sampled ......, and be prepared to sometimes get underwhelmed due to bad recording / mastering or somehow fake stuff.

Ps one additional thought. Quite often you get high res cheaper through the right channels Qobuz and discounts on other sites, than the comparable pricing for a physical cd. I mostly buy below 10 euros for an album....

Bert, Thanks for the info with regard the bit aspect of music resolution - much appreciated. I’ll take note when looking for the next HD albums. Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run (30th Anni) caught my eye but I was a little hesitant as it was 96/24 as opposed 192/24.

RE HD album pricing - my first foray were bought with a HDTracks weekend promo voucher to help get over the surprised sharp intake of breath at the cost of each album!

So who are the other retailers other than HDTracks and Qobuz - and who has the widest selection of albums? As I notice that there seem to be certain albums available at one store and not at the other?

Yetizone - My advice is that, whenever possible go for the highest possible resolution.

Adam, Yes, I think that will be my mantra, especially with all time fav albums!

+1 to all the above.   The difference between PCM 16-bit & 24-bit is audible,  but you are asking about HD & 16-bit is not HD so I expect thats a dumb answer.  However using that difference between 16 & 24 bit as a benchmark  the changes between the various 24-bit sample rates is not so audible;  (IME) 48 to 192kHz is reasonably clear,  whereas 96 to 192kHz is subtle & probably more dependant on your systems abilities.    Then we mustn't forget DSD as that is HD.

Is it worth it ?  its relevant if there is a price difference & if you are worried about storage space.     The download stores usually have higher sample rates at higher pricing,  but recently I have seen some (e.g. HRA) with both at the same price so that might be a trend,  also I notice more are not offering a choice.   Its up to you; I buy the highest sample rate on offer if the price is the same or not significantly different.   Shop around as there are surprisingly different prices between the different webshops.     

Storage worries ?  - 2 things (1) storage is cheap  (2) FLAC can be (is normally) compressed & you can either play it as FLAC or transcode in your NAS & the streamer receives & plays it as WAV    .................  I have more than enough storage & have only WAV & DSD                    

Yetizone - regarding your initial post. Which ripped version of the David Bowie cd's do you have? The 2012/2014 remastered cd's sound better than the 1999 remastered versions to me, that could be the difference you are hearing and not necessarily because it is HD.

I have recently replaced the same two albums - on CD for £5 each. Is it worth paying the extra for HD versions?

p.s. Just looked at your profile, I ran and have still got my Monitor Audio R252's and Nytech CA252

Mike - thanks for the help - much appreciated. Interesting observations about the differences between file sizes. Storage is not an issue, so the bigger files sizes are easily accommodated. So it seems the best practice is to stick to the highest 96kHz and 192 kHz files that are available online, as this is where the improvements over the ripped CD's lie. CD's are ripped to FLAC, but are converted through Asset to WAV on my Mac Mini (acting as server as opposed to a NAS) before streaming.

So which stores are you buying from? I know about HDTracks and Qobuz, but are there other sites to investigate?

--

Toe -  The David Bowie CD albums I posses are the 1999 remastered versions - I bought them all at the same time in a Virgin Record closing down sale. Can’t comment on the 2014 remastered CD's as I haven’t heard them, but the HD version I have just downloaded are credited as a 2015 remastering (from HDTRacks). In real terms, the sound quality improvement is definitely audible - I’d say more of an enhancement rather than a night and day difference - if that makes sense.

Is it worth replacing a £5 ripped CD with an £18 HD variant? Mmm, not sure, only you can decide whether its worth spending the extra. In relative terms, I’d probably say not, unless its one of your all time fav albums, which these two are for me, hence I think it was worth the significant indulgence.

Monitor Audio R252’s and their bigger brother R352’s are in my humble opinion forgotten gems (although can be a little forward for some tastes), designed of course by Robin Marshall. All the plaudits went to his Epso ES14 & ES11 and HiFi history, it  seems has forgotten the 252 - unfairly I think. After extensive and exhaustive auditions, I chose them over their contemporaries of the time, Heybrook HB1 & 2 (more expensive and screechy), the Linn Kan (no bass), Mordaunt Short (can’t remember the model - but dull). The only thing for me that improved on the 252’s and the 352’s at the time of purchase (and despite their coloured shortcomings) were the Linn Sara and Isobariks, but at the time being a lowly poor stude, could not afford either, nor the amps sufficiently powerful enough to drive them. They can be picked up for pennies and their closed box design makes placement easy. Big boxes though! I’m looking to replace them with a pair of Guru QM10’s, but they rarely come up for sale.

Great that you still have the Nytech as well. Mine went long ago. Unfortunately I replaced it with a Linn Intek at the time (quickly swapped for a 62/140). The CA202 was a sweet sounding amp but I remember that it ran out of steam very quickly at high volume, even with the easy to drive 252’s. I would imagine the CA252 to have greater resistance to clipping at higher listening levels. Good amps.

Yetizone posted:

.................t seems the best practice is to stick to the highest 96kHz and 192 kHz files that are available online

So which stores are you buying from? I know about HDTracks and Qobuz, but are there other sites to investigate? 

Yes,  considering price etc ............. I have tried a few 96 vs 192 comparisons & whilst I can pick up the differences its really not significant.

I use both Qobuz & HDT,  but to me HDT have lost the plot on both pricing & available album's (labels)     My normal go to is HighResAudio,  they are invariably the most competitive but they do not have the portfolio of Qobuz.  They carry a small & growing selection of DSD which I am keen to develop as more become available in preference to PCM.   I also have this page bookmarked   http://www.findhdmusic.com/alb...ist=&srch_label=    as an easy search tool to check the web for availability,  they show European & US outlets.  Other small web-shops are around,  maybe too may to list but the link above "HD Music Sites" tab has most listed & usefully with a box with some words on the regional restrictions.   

Mike - thats absolutely brilliant, many thanks for sharing the Find HD Music website. I will now use that link as a starting point for buying new HD albums. 

OK, 96kHz & 192kHz albums it is from here on in.

Yetizone posted:

OK, 96kHz & 192kHz albums it is from here on in.

OK but don't too surprised with some new releases only available at 48kHz, nothing wrong with them either,  24-bit is the key & don't forget DSD   

 - OK and understood with regard to the 24-bit size being the main issue.

Ah, now, DSD? Mike, could you please expand a little on DSD's and what benefit the format holds over FLAC / WAV AIFF etc? And, can it be read properly by Naim streamers (through Asset)? Plus, the files adapted to AIFF / AAC by dBpoweramp Music Converter for use in iTunes (for iPod & iPhone)? Apologies for the (many) questions - i'm still on that steep learning curve!

Yezitone, there is very little available in DSD compared to FLAC, and it comes at a premium price, ($25 vs $18 for 96/24 FLAC). So far, I have bought 400 24 bit albums, but only 2 DSD. 

I agree with the general sentiment here that 24 Bit makes the big difference, and personally I don't spend the $7 extra for 192 vs 96 (63 year old ears maybe?), but rest assured, there are plenty (in my view, almost invariably) of 44.1/24 offerings which comfortably better their 44.1/16 CD Rips.  Probably 75% of what I have bought are already in my CD collection, but I will always choose to listen to the 24bit. 

Lastly, I listen to far more music than I did when I had to fetch and carry physical media. The major problem now is, TIME!!!

Agree David. I've only bought 3 DSD v around 100, 24 bit. As I posted a while ago, for me 24/44.1, 88.2 or 96 is sufficient, I don't find 192 to be noticeably better, and I generally will not pay the premium for DSD. As you say choice is very limited as well, particularly for 'true' DSD. 

I agree with David O'Higgins re DSD availability, it is limited and yes it does tend to be higher priced,  but not so all the time.  It depends on your genre preferences,  its worth checking out HRA where DSD can be found between £10 & £17,  I have some bought for less than £5.  But that said modern pop & rock is not catered for with DSD & IMO probably not well suited to DSD anyway.  

RE: ......  expand a little on DSD's and what benefit the format holds over FLAC / WAV  .......  On my system & with my recordings DSD sounds different to PCM, its very clear to the point its not really debatable.  I have found I prefer its sonics to simpler recordings like small ensemble acoustic folk & jazz,  coral can be exceptional but I am not convinced by larger orchestral works.  This opens up a heavy discussion on recording techniques & am not going there,  search the forum & www for info on that.

How does it differ,  with light acoustic folk (as I'm listening to at the mo)  It has more of a feeling of analogue sound than anything I've heard from other digital & (depending on the recording) it has a very high level of realism & "being there".  The sound stage has a tangible three dimensional presentation with instruments & voices in clear fixed positions & you can feel the space between.   One thing most noticeable is the dynamic peaks can be very startling, this is coupled to the volume level on DSD is lower than with PCM because DSD has no compression meaning the dynamic range between maximum peaks & the low volume parts is more pronounced,  so you raise the volume to play at your normal listening levels & then the dynamics hit you hard.    But don't take my word for it, try it yourself.   

Mike, I enjoyed your descriptions and experiences on DSD, one point to note is that PCM does not necessarily have compression either just as with Delta sigma encoding.. Of course conversion implementations might vary between (linear) PCM and DSD for a given DAC device.

i must admit when I was studying such things, I seem to remember one of the key differences between delta sigma and PCM was that Delta sigma decoders tended to have  better linearity than PCM for a given price, but PCM decoders have hugely evolved since then.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Mike, I enjoyed your descriptions and experiences on DSD, one point to note is that PCM does not necessarily have compression either 

Point taken Simon,  the point is DSD has high dynamic peaks compared to the mid range volume levels than is normal with PCM. 

Mike, thanks again for a clear and detailed explanation of the capabilities of a DSD file during playback. Very helpful indeed. From the explanation it seems DSD would be rewarding to pursue and seek out albums in this rarer format. OK, time to read up a little more on the new acronyms and then investigate the HD sites. 

Yetizone - just remember that DSD makes sense if an album was actually recorded in a DSD format. Not that popular though.

Most of the recording in a digital domain is now done either as a WAW or AIFF, certianly 24 bits. Sampling rate depends on the studio equipment used.

Interesting discussion this.  I agree that, usually, it isn't worth paying extra for a 192 Flac album, however, on occasion it can be.  I have a Louis Armstrong album in 24/192 that is stunningly good and so lifelike that it is spooky but generally I stick to 24/96.  On DSD there are a number of places on the net who offer free tester downloads and that is a good place to start.  Some of the DSD I have heard has been incredibly good and, as Mike says, has a feel of realism unlike other copies.  I found David Elias albums to be a good example of how DSD can sound, he records specifically for DSD and usually in a live session, and the realism is uncanny.  The main problem I have found is actually finding DSD recordings of the music that I like

Daylay - what you describe above is actually down to mixing and mastering (well mostly... ).
Sampling rate or a bit depth is just a medium.
It's the same principle as 'garbage in, garbage out' - bad mix and poor mastering will sound exactly that, irrespective of the resolution and bit depth.

I've been disappointed with the HD stuff I've bought in recent years, but this is more likely to do with the styles of music I lean towards as true-HD titles are hard to come by.

I try and check the provenance of the file/s as much as I can. Often times the HD version is just a remaster of the original brick-walled master. Except it'll sound a bit more shiny (even sterile)...and often, less musical.

But a proper Hi-res recording is a real treat.

Adam Zielinski posted:

Daylay - what you describe above is actually down to mixing and mastering (well mostly... ).
Sampling rate or a bit depth is just a medium.
It's the same principle as 'garbage in, garbage out' - bad mix and poor mastering will sound exactly that, irrespective of the resolution and bit depth.

I'm not so sure that it is Adam.  Obviously the quality of production and mastering is super important but from what I have heard the medium can also make a difference and, in my experience, the best DSD I have heard is more realistic and has better SQ, than the best flac etc that I have heard.

Adam Zielinski posted:

Yetizone - just remember that DSD makes sense if an album was actually recorded in a DSD format. Not that popular though.

A point worth noting,  however if engineered, mixed & mastered well,  a PCM original transferred to DSD can be very good indeed,  check out Sound Liaison who produce all their DSD from PCM.     +1 x100 for DayJay's recommendation of David Elias & that he records specifically for DSD.   Also take a look at Blue Coast Records, they specialise & record much of their material to DSD,  but they are selective & opt for PCM as the best recording medium for large orchestral works & actually recommend to select 24/192 as (in their opinion) the best SQ for these albums.   But but a warning !!!  they are ridiculously expensive compared to other outlets,  but don't diss them as they do have exceptionally well recorded material.  They have BCR Club sign up offers & a selection of free sample downloads.    If you pick just one whole album (maybe get it as a special sign up offer) from them & you like americana folk ....... a must have is  Blue Coast Collection - The E.S.E. Sessions.          

From a friend of mine who does live concert recording, there is almost impossible to have all-the-way-DSD being commercially produced, even if the concert is recorded live in DSD. Because all recorded materials are converted to PCM for editing, mixing and mastering.