Finally got my ears on some 24/96 material

steveinaz

Outstanding. Never had a source that could do 24/96 before the Touch, so I finally downloaded a flac concerto ala Mozart. Wow. It's nice to see what the Benchmark DAC is truly capable of with this hi-res content. Most significant improvement? Dynamic range struck me first--from whispering violins, to huge crescendos; never heard this much range. Of course the realism is off the charts.

heiney9

So you compared the exact same version of the std Mozart file?

H9

steveinaz

No, I just downloaded the 24/96 version from a site that had some free hi-res downloads available. It's about a 5 minute piece (violin concerto #9 or some-such?), 175MB in flac form.

heiney9

Not to be an a$$, but how do you know it's better than the original non hi-rez version? If you don't compare the two to each other I am not sure you really know. Not trying to bust your balls.

H9

tonyb

Broch, Steve never said it was better or worse than a non hi-rez version, he's just commenting on what he likes about the 24/96 file is all.

Face

And I agree with Brock, it's not a real comparison.

heiney9

tonyb wrote: »

Broch, Steve never said it was better or worse than a non hi-rez version, he's just commenting on what he likes about the 24/96 file is all.

Read between the lines.

Again, not trying to bust Steve's balls. He has always been very persnickety about listening and comparing so that's why I asked. I am considering hi-rez but I'm not entirely sold on it being night and day different. To be fair I haven't listened to a lot of hi-rez files.

H9

FTGV

heiney9 wrote: »

Not to be an a$$, but how do you know it's better than the original non hi-rez version?

H9

If it's from someone like 2L it may be natively 24/96 with no 16/44 equivalent?.In fact if it were merely upsampled 16/44 then it would not be true hi rez.

heiney9

FTGV wrote: »

If it's from someone like 2L it may be natively 24/96 with no 16/44 equivalent?.In fact if it were merely upsampled 16/44 then it would not be true hi rez.

That is true and I am trying to be a catalyst for discussion, not busting Steve's nads as we are mostly on the same page.

I am just trying to figure out what the "constant" is from which he based his post. Steve, typically is very thorough about comparative listening.

H9

markmarc

Steve, name the site please.

AsSiMiLaTeD

If he's hearing things that he's never heard before in any recording then I'd say the conclusion is still valid

heiney9

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

If he's hearing things that he's never heard before in any recording then I'd say the conclusion is still valid

Lol..........that makes no sense at all. Every single recording made sounds different.

H9

falconcry72

heiney9 wrote: »

Lol..........that makes no sense at all. Every single recording made sounds different.

H9

Agreed.

For the record, I'm with H9 on this one.

jonicont

Figured I'd give 24/96 a try and bought some things from HD Tracks on Thanksgiving.

First up Allmans Fillmore East. This one had the most dramatic improvement from the cd. Really, it was like taking foam earplugs out. It's an old cd and not any type of audiophile copy. The separation between and clarity of the instruments was what was most noticeable. Guitars were bright and up front, seemed buried on the cd.

Next was Talking Heads--Remain in Light. Again a significant difference from the cd. Very clear separation of the voices. The bass was cleaner and deeper and jumped out of the speakers on the A-B switch ( volumes were equal)

Finally Dark Side of the Moon. 30th anniversary remastered vinyl and 24/96 Flac. The 24/96 had great bass, separation, soundstage. It sounded fantastic. Still ain't vinyl though, sorry folks.

24/96 from the Squeezebox. Cd's were in a Sony 5 cd carousel. Both hooked to the dac with optical

CoolJazz

I've been doing 24/96 type stuff, mostly from HDTracks, for a while now. And I do have direct comparison stuff. I love it very much and it is a pretty big step as far as I'm concerned! Chicago II is something a lot of people should be familar with for instance. Wow...very good at high rez! Going back to redbook makes the music kind of coarse sounding after you've been listening to high rez for a while.

A good clean vinyl can still be better in some ways, but the high rez in other. You can hear the difference when you go to vinyl or tape, even out of the sweet spot. Best I could put it in words would be more relaxed or natural. But I think high rez is narrowing the gap by a big step!

I've purchased Cirlinca, and only burn to DVD-A, never play from a PC. I've found this software to be pretty straight forward and not fiddly...

http://www.cirlinca.com/

CJ

steveinaz

Correct, not meant be a a vs b comment, just commenting on how nice the 24/96 sounds.

steveinaz

markmarc wrote: »

Steve, name the site please.

Here you go Mark: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

I downloaded the very first one.

steveinaz

Brock
The only comparison I can make would against my existing CD library--only my finest DDD 24bit dirived classical CD's come close, and they still don't have the Dynamic Range swing, nor the air or overall smoothness. Download it and check it out--it's pretty awesome.

steveinaz

You guys are intense. Should I have made a video of the moment?...LOL relax and enjoy the music.

audiocr381ve

CoolJazz wrote: »

I've been doing 24/96 type stuff, mostly from HDTracks, for a while now. And I do have direct comparison stuff. I love it very much and it is a pretty big step as far as I'm concerned! Chicago II is something a lot of people should be familar with for instance. Wow...very good at high rez! Going back to redbook makes the music kind of coarse sounding after you've been listening to high rez for a while.

A good clean vinyl can still be better in some ways, but the high rez in other. You can hear the difference when you go to vinyl or tape, even out of the sweet spot. Best I could put it in words would be more relaxed or natural. But I think high rez is narrowing the gap by a big step!

I've purchased Cirlinca, and only burn to DVD-A, never play from a PC. I've found this software to be pretty straight forward and not fiddly...

http://www.cirlinca.com/

CJ

My experience is the same. Hi-rez sounded better in my system.

AsSiMiLaTeD

heiney9 wrote: »

Lol..........that makes no sense at all. Every single recording made sounds different.

H9

LOL, uh yes it makes perfect sense, which is also why his statement below of "The only comparison I can make would against my existing CD library--only my finest DDD 24bit dirived classical CD's come close, and they still don't have the Dynamic Range swing, nor the air or overall smoothness" is also valid.

Yes every recording ever made sounds different, but if I'm hearing something like better dynamic range in a hi-rez recording that I've never heard in another recording, then it's probably safe to attribute that to the technology. Sure, it 'could' be something specific to the recording, but given steve's history and good selection of music, if he's hearing something in this first hi-rez recording that he's not heard before, then it's safe to say it's the tech, not the specific recording.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Steve, check out hdtracks then. I know you're familiar with the Steely Dan material, the high rez version of Gaucho is outstanding.

steveinaz

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

Steve, check out hdtracks then. I know you're familiar with the Steely Dan material, the high rez version of Gaucho is outstanding.

Oh yes, definitely--as soon as I get this ripping chore done. I'm about 70% finished. I'm also looking at "Rumors" and "Frampton comes alive" in 24/96. I'll be a regular customer there, soon.

xsmi

Are SACD's in this format?

audiocr381ve

xsmi wrote: »

Are SACD's in this format?

Not necessarily, although SACD's have more dynamic and frequency range than red book. I'm sure someone can explain it better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

BlueFox

xsmi wrote: »

Are SACD's in this format?

Mostly no, as they are a different animal. However, I believe the files that were used to create the SACD Rolling Stones CDs are the ones offered on HD Tracks for download in 192/24 format.

unc2701

BlueFox wrote: »

Mostly no, as they are a different animal. However, I believe the files that were used to create the SACD Rolling Stones CDs are the ones offered on HD Tracks for download in 192/24 format.

Almost all old recordings offered on SACD have passed through some form of PCM. If a recording is available on DVD-A and SACD, buy the DVD-A, because it's gone through one less conversion.

For new recordings, and not classical, odds are it's gone through PCM, too. Editing DSD is a ****, so unless they're pretty much going straight to disc, it'll be high-rez PCM, then get dumped to SACD.

I have done a 1:1 comparison of CD vs High-rez DVD-A and SACD; I was pretty shocked at the difference. First high-rez disc I got was NIN's Downward Spiral. On the radio, you can't hear this at, but during the 8 measures of drum beat before the vocals start on "Closer", there's a faint melody going in the background. On the CD, this breaks up slightly with each loud drumbeat; on high-rez, there's no breakup at all. If you ever want to sell someone on the importance of the higher sample rate, that's one recording anyone can hear it immediately.