Buying High Rez files and comparing them to the Cd version Ripped into Computer

mantis

Whats up?
I got a few High rez files in 24/96 and 24/192 and I'm comparing them to the Cd version ripped in Apple Lossless playing through Channel D Pure music in the back ground of iTunes.
I got "Tom Sawyer" From Rush and "Don't Know Why" From Norah Jones. I got a bunch more but I figured I could do some listening with these 2.
After listening to both cuts and comparing them to the Ripped Cd version , Norah's cut sounds exactly the same , no difference at all. I couldn't tell so that file isn't worth spending more on the high rez version.
The Rush cut is cleaner and seems to have better dynamics then my CD ripped version. I was pleasntly pleased with the differences.

From what I learned , you can purchase high rez files and they are no better then the cd version and in some cases depending where the master came from , worse then the Cd . Well that sucks and now before you buy a Album in high rez , you gotta go research it to find out if it's worth it or not.

Anyone have any experience with this? I'm learning as I go.

coolsax

yeah i've heard the same as well. Computeraudiophile.com has done a bit of research on some of it.. there some guys on there who go in and do measurements on the files.. most of the time the ones that are worse are the Rock/Pop genre, alot of the time the normal audiophile jazz and classical are supposed to be pretty good overall. At some point i'll go in and download some stuff from them but lately i've been satisfied finding used CDs at half price books and ripping them myself for 16/44.1.

thsmith

Same here, I have found some good stuff at Linn SOund Recording. As Coolsax stated computeraudiophile has some good reviews and ratings.

mantis

I'm also pretty happy with most of my files ripped from Cd but if I can get a higher rez file and of higher quality , I'm in. I'm also thinking about the DSD Ps3 ripping thing. I gotta explore that as well.

Ern Dog

Last week I bought my first HDTracks 24/96 download and it sounds pretty darn good. It was Melody Gardot's new release. I don't have her cd to compare it to, but you can easily tell it is hi-res material. Now the actual music was just ok. I didn't like the music as much as I liked her first two releases.


The Absolute Sounds reviews hi-res downloads in every issue, so that's another resource. It really is hit/miss, so it's worth it to do some homework.

mantis

I get Absolute Sound and see the reviews in the back but I have been glancing over them. Now I'm gonna go back and read my back issues and see whats available in music I enjoy.
I think that sucks by the way to have high rez files for sale and they are no better or in some cases worse then the CD version. It really takes a shot to the chin to learn that. I was pretty disappointed when I found that out.
You pay so much more for the cuts. It just makes this a more of an uphill battle.

Ern Dog

mantis wrote: »

I get Absolute Sound and see the reviews in the back but I have been glancing over them. Now I'm gonna go back and read my back issues and see whats available in music I enjoy.

Yep, me too.

Last night I had another listening session with the hi-res Melody Gardot download and the music has so much more texture and 3-D than redbook. Huge soundstage too. The music is starting to grow on me. Perhaps I judge it too soon.

tonyb

Thats one helluva rig you have there Ern Dog. Curious if you've tried Empirical's Off Ramp with their dac. Seems to gather some good reviews as an add on to most any dac. BTW....that Empirical Dac is awesome.

zingo

If find it has more to do with the recording label then anything else. Labels like Chesky and 2L seem to release very high quality music independent of the bit rate.

tonyb

zingo wrote: »

If find it has more to do with the recording label then anything else. Labels like Chesky and 2L seem to release very high quality music independent of the bit rate.

Bingo, can't stress this enough. With the buzz word all being about hi-rez bit rates these days, it still all comes down to the quality of the recording. Still a crapshoot too on what your buying online as no set standards means at times your paying for hi-rez but receiving junk. I have some redbook Mapleshade cd's I'd put up against any Sacd. Bit rate has little to do with it over the quality of the recording. Buying a hi-rez file of crap recorded music just makes that music more painfully obvious.

I know a guy who recently discovered "hi-rez" files. He wants me to listen because it supposedly sounds awesome. He throws on some obscure music I never heard of followed by a Lady Gaga tune.
I wasn't impressed with the first but it sounded ok, the second was just downright awfull. Doesn't this sound great ?.....he says. This sounds good to you ?.....was my reply. Now, Lady Gaga on a good day sounds terrible, played at higher bit rates it's just plain unlistenable.

Hi-rez files has potential, but if your going to take the original poorly recorded mix and just transfer to a higher bit rate and sell it as a hi-rez file, then you just threw your coin out the window. Obviously just my opinion.

Companies like Mapleshade and others who start from scratch with the recording are the gems of SQ. How can 16/44 sound so good ? It's not the bit rate thats inferior, as we are often told in this hobby, it's the recording. I often wonder if part of this hi-rez stuff isn't just hyped up to keep a fledging industry afloat.

gce

When I got started in SACD's a friend of mine loaned me the SACD version of Norah Jones "Come away with me" which has "Don't know why" on it. I already had the CD ripped on my NAS so I compared them side by side and found maybe a little differance but not worth buying the SACD version. Now I also have Steely Dan "Gaucho" ripped and he loaned me that SACD also. The SACD was so much better then the 44.1/16 ripped "Gaucho". So I agree with Tony, it all comes down to the quality of the recording. They can't make bad quality good just by putting the hi-res sticker on it.

Ern Dog

tonyb wrote: »

Thats one helluva rig you have there Ern Dog. Curious if you've tried Empirical's Off Ramp with their dac. Seems to gather some good reviews as an add on to most any dac. BTW....that Empirical Dac is awesome.

Thanks Tony. I understand that the Off Ramp 5 is built into the Overdrive SE dac. I read some threads that adding the Off Ramp 5 made even more improvements to the dac.

transmaster

Gimell
If you want to hear how good it can be go here http://www.gimell.com/
This is a independent label and their FLAC Studio Master 176, and Studio Master 96 5.1 Surround recordings are fantastic. This is the Label of the Thomas Tallis Scholars they offer samples of everything so enjoy!!!

Studio Master 176 FLAC 24bit 176.4kHz 2,679.0MB
Studio Master 96 FLAC 24bit 96kHz 3,196.2MB, 5.1 Surround

Lost240

I would start by spending money on a quality DAC to make my current files sound better than replace them with the so called hi-rez tracks.

dragon1952

Lost240 wrote: »

I would start by spending money on a quality DAC to make my current files sound better than replace them with the so called hi-rez tracks.

I believe most, if not all that are posting in this thread are already there DAC-wise.