44.1kHz/24bit worth the extra $???

rooftop59

I finally got a little dac that can do hi rez files, so I am wanting to download an album from hdtracks. The truth is I am not a huge fun of much classic rock (I know blasphemy) or classical, and while I love jazz (I played tenor sax in college) I mainly listen to it as background music while I am working, so I don't wanna spend the extra coin on that. So I am mainly looking at more recent folk albums. Several that I know I would like are in 44.1kHz/24bit. ls this worth the extra money? I am also looking at the new Alison Krauss album, and it is in a higher format. Thoughts???

strider

I dont have anything in 24/44.1, but the jump from redbook rates to 24/96 is definitely worth it IMO. How much more is the 24 bit vs the 16 bit?

heiney9

Nope not worth extra $$$ unless you know 100% it's a hi-rez rip and not just upsampled.

HDTracks has been caught selling hi-rez files that are simply upsampled with software. That's not true hi-rez and certainly isn't worth the $$$.

H9

BlueFox

heiney9 wrote: »

Nope not worth extra $$$ unless you know 100% it's a hi-rez rip and not just upsampled.

HDTracks has been caught selling hi-rez files that are simply upsampled with software. That's not true hi-rez and certainly isn't worth the $$$.

They have been "caught" selling what the record companies have given them to sell. They don't create the music.

vc69

Bluefox and H9 are both correct in their respective statements. Upsampled files (say 16/44.1 to 24/96) can't gain any fidelity by virtue of being upsampled. Some would argue that there is a potential loss of fidelity. Native Hi-Res files are always superior, IMHO to a lower res format. Good luck figuring out which those are on HD track though.

Also, I have not seen any 24/44.1 files, but I would be really surprised if those were not native 16bit files that had been converted to 24bit word length.

heiney9

BlueFox wrote: »

They have been "caught" selling what the record companies have given them to sell. They don't create the music.

While I'm sure it was mostly unintentional it's their responsibility to make sure about what they're selling. Especially since they specialize in HD type recordings and charge a premium for them.

Just because they "didn't know" doesn't mean they aren't partially responsible. It can be a mine field to navigate. But again, if you are specializing in it and charging a premium for it, you better be 1000% damn sure.

H9

rooftop59

Thanks for the feedback folks. The specific albums that I am looking at are the new Mumford and Sons, the new Cassandra Wilson (which actually says 48kHz/24bit) and the new Tristan Prettyman (no making fun!).

So is the a way to tell if they were simply upsampled? If they are authentic then is it worth the premium? I understand this is very subjective, but does any one have one at the rate and think that it sounds better than the redbook?

rooftop59

oops double post...

heiney9

All I can say is to do your research on the original recording to see how it was recorded before spending EXTRA $$$ on a down load. Or just take your chances. I am completely against charging extra for a higher quality recording. It just seems like gouging so I am a little pissy when it comes to the subject.

Didn't mean any offence to HD Tracks, but as always Caveat Emptor.

H9

vc69

I regularly pay a premium price for hi-res formats, but those are most often in the form of SACD's. More often than not, they are worth it to me. Your milage may vary. Native hi-res files/formats (DVD-A, SACD, BR-AUDIO) are just plain superior formats to redbook CD and HDCD.

heiney9

I'm talking about paying more for a DL, not the actual pressed discs. I realize SACD's at retail cost more. Not sure why, but then that's what makes the world go around. If people are willing to pay it, then they will charge it.

H9

vc69

I wasn't direct that toward you Heiney9, so much as I was trying to give the OP an idea whether or not he should take the leap. Some of us deem the price "sufferable". I would much prefer to pay less. :cheesygrin:

rooftop59

All I think H9 is saying is that if an album is recorded at a certain quality, that should be the standard, and less should be charged for inferior standards, to which I agree. As for me, I won't be buying many because at this point in my life most of my listening happens while I am working or my kids are screaming and is therefore not critical or focused. But I would like a couple albums to enjoy and be able to show off, and I will not own another dinosaur disk player in the near future (if ever) so sacds are out

vc69

Hey rooftop,

Here is what I recommend:
Find a Hi-Res copy of a CD you already own and have a close listen. If you can hear the difference, then Hi-Res is for you. Just beware that everything H9 has said is true. It's a "buyer beware" minefield of misrepresented products.

I would also add that the way the recording was made originally, if digital, is 24/96 tracking and 24/196 mixdown or in some cases, direct to DSD (88.2). Those are the professional standards of the day.
If analog originally, then the transfer/mastering is key and that often takes place at 24/96 or 24/192 these days. However, Many 16/44.1 digital masters are in the vault for older material and those are ones that get upsampled and thus, are not worth the money. An exception to that is that the Sony catalog is archived in DSD (88.2) format for the most part.

rooftop59

Yea I downloaded a track from Raising Sand (killing the blues) and I can hear a subtle difference, but I am not going to buy an album I already have and that already sounds really good. That's why I was looking at albums that I want but don't yet have.

I will probably just pick up the new Alison Krauss since surely its legit right???

steveinaz

I have 3 or 4 24/96 albums, I believe it's worth the extra expense. I think the 24 bit depth is far more important that the sampling freq, IMO.

rooftop59

We ll I took the plunge and bought Cassandra Wilson's Another Country listed as 48kHz/24bit (and it is just a couple bucks more than the cd). I had been streaming it off mog.com and was impressed with the tunes and the sound quality at 320 mbps MP3, so I figured I would try it. It sounds really, really good. The tone and clarity of the acoustic guitar and upright bass are extraordinary, and of course Wilson's voice is great. I don't have lots of recordings I would consider reference, so YMMV, but this is definitely one of my best recordings.

Thanks for the advice.

steveinaz

Glad you're enjoying it. I think 24/44 or 24/96 is digital perfection.

rooftop59

Yea Steve, its pretty sweet. I think its definitely on par with the lifescapes just relax mexico album you recommended (I have 4-5 of those lifescapes albums now - thanks for the heads up). I haven't had enough time to really compare though...

gigbyt

Cant go wrong with Allisin krause, IMO

Lost240

You can download a sampler from HD tracks for free to try it out.