"Spinning" my first high resolution audio download

[Ovation]

Finally figured out how to transform FLAC to ALAC so I can play high resolution audio downloads. Bought my first such album from Acoustic Sounds--Joe Henderson's Mode for Joe. Excellent album (so far listening via my B&W P5 headphones--will give it a whirl on the high resolution gear later).

Thank goodness I have unlimited downloads from my ISP (at a decent 30Mbps down/10Mbps up). :B

[mjb]

Edit: I was on the wrong page...

[madmac]

Finally figured out how to transform FLAC to ALAC so I can play high resolution audio downloads. Bought my first such album from Acoustic Sounds--Joe Henderson's Mode for Joe. Excellent album (so far listening via my B&W P5 headphones--will give it a whirl on the high resolution gear later).

Thank goodness I have unlimited downloads from my ISP (at a decent 30Mbps down/10Mbps up). :B

So Ovation, per our prior discussion on the Pono player, do you Hear a difference in this case? Also, and a little off topic, what is your opinion on the B&W P5 headphones? I have heard of these and would be interested on your thoughts on them.

[Ovation]

So Ovation, per our prior discussion on the Pono player, do you Hear a difference in this case? Also, and a little off topic, what is your opinion on the B&W P5 headphones? I have heard of these and would be interested on your thoughts on them.

In order to determine if I can hear a difference, I would have to make a 16/44.1 copy and a lossy copy (AAC 256kbps would be my preference for that--the equivalent mp3 would be 320kbps as it is a less efficient compression algorithm), level match them and compare. Fortunately, as I am starting with the 24/96 file, I can actually do that and it would be a valid comparison as it would be the exact same mix and mastering (only format would change--unlike comparing a store bought CD with a digital download--lossy or hi-res lossless--as there is no way to tell if you're getting the same mix and master; many SACD/CD hybrid discs use different mixes and masterings for each format, on the same disc, so that's not necessarily a useful comparison). I may well decide to conduct that experiment in the future. The main reason I got it was to get a version that is more likely to have a less compressed master than say a CD or a lossy AAC format--also because the price was reasonable (and the download was convenient--the wait was a few minutes, not a week or two). I would not have spent 4x the money for the 24/96 over a CD (unless I was sure the CD was particularly crappy--I tend not to buy lossy versions of jazz and classical albums, while I don't care to spend more money for CD or hi-res on narrow dynamic range pop/rock releases). It was, by and large, an experiment--one that will allow me to make the comparison you mention between formats.

As to my P5s, I've had them for 4 1/2 years and I'm very satisfied with them. My "dream" set of phones (among those I've actually heard) is the Sennheiser HD800/850 series (don't know the current exact model number). However, they are open-backed (needing a quiet environment to fully appreciate--and to avoid bothering my wife sleeping alongside me, as they leak a bit) and require more power than the portable/computer gear with which I use my P5s (iPhone, iPad, laptop=95% of my use). For that use, though, I could not be happier with the SQ, comfort and reliability (I use them 1-4 hours a day, almost every day). There is a v.2 out now, allegedly sounding even better (could be, but not likely enough to get me to upgrade). If they ever get damaged or lost, I'm going to buy another pair.

[madmac]

That would be cool if you could do that test mentioned above and let us know your results. Somehow, I just can't believe you won't hear any difference with low res versions!!??

You might want to add the new Oppo Planar headphones to your headphone wish list. They are supposed to be phenomenal! Pricey but Phenomenal !

[madmac]

That would be cool if you could do that test mentioned above and let us know your results. Somehow, I just can't believe you won't hear any difference with low res versions!!??

You might want to add the new Oppo Planar headphones to your headphone wish list. They are supposed to be phenomenal! Pricey but Phenomenal !

[Ovation]

That would be cool if you could do that test mentioned above and let us know your results. Somehow, I just can't believe you won't hear any difference with low res versions!!??

You might want to add the new Oppo Planar headphones to your headphone wish list. They are supposed to be phenomenal! Pricey but Phenomenal !

I expect that in this case I would hear differences because the higher-quality mastering process that I presume was part of the release includes a wide dynamic range. In my past experiences, recordings with a wide dynamic range are the easiest ones to differentiate formats lossy or lossless. Mostly, I have given up pursuing two channel high resolution audio recordings or releases of pop or rock albums made after 1990, maybe 1995. Too many of them have proven to have been released with such narrow dynamic range that the high-resolution format is wasted. So, for example, if I were to buy the latest Katy Perry album, I would be quite happy with the iTunes version because I doubt the mastering on that recording has the kind of wide dynamic range one would find on a very good classical or jazz release. As such the iTunes file will be fine and it will take a lot less space on my hard drive. If I think I will mostly listen to a particular recording in the car then I will also usually get the iTunes release because it is often less expensive and in the car I will definitely not notice a difference.

Ultimately, I purchase high-resolution audio for multichannel releases, two channel classical and jazz, and any other kind of recording of which I am certain there will be a benefit. Sometimes, I will buy the high resolution two channel release of any type of music if the cost is only slightly more than the regular release. I do have a lot of classical and jazz high resolution recordings on super audio cd and DVD audio, so it is not as if I never buy high resolution audio. It's just I have come to realize over the years after having compared across formats and types of music that high resolution releases are not always worth the cost. In an ideal world, where all the mastering is done with the widest possible dynamic range, then I would always seek out the highest resolution audio that I could afford. But sometimes, it's best to save some money on releases that will not benefit from the extra resolution so I still have more money to buy the ones that do benefit.

[madmac]

I hear ya Ovation. I once bought a CD after having listened to the MP3 version of one of the songs off it. Figuring I would be blown away at the better rez CD version I was very disappointed when I spun it. That was the first time this ever happened to me but the MP3 sounded better! I had to accept the possibility that it was originally mastered for that format, in that format!

However, in my millions and millions of years of music and concert listening in various formats, I have heard a difference in the below formats across the board listed from worse to best:

MP3
CD - some of these babies can sound really bad however!
HDCD - Across the board I have been impressed with these underrated gems!
DVD- Dolby Digital - There's really good and not so good DD stuff.
DVD- DTS - (For whatever reason, DTS just sounds better than DD and I've never been dissapointed with DTS)
SACD - I have limited experience with these but it kinda' sounds like HDCD stuff.
DVD audio - I have a Diana Krall disc that sounds really sweet!
BD (Especially music BD's) - An Audio benchmark as far as I'm concerned!

Now, put a blindfold on me and my millions of years of music listening knowledge 'could' come crashing down in humiliation! I am willing to accept that possibility humbly!

[Chris D]

Yeah, those Oppo headphones seem pretty sweet.

[Ovation]

I hear ya Ovation. I once bought a CD after having listened to the MP3 version of one of the songs off it. Figuring I would be blown away at the better rez CD version I was very disappointed when I spun it. That was the first time this ever happened to me but the MP3 sounded better! I had to accept the possibility that it was originally mastered for that format, in that format!

However, in my millions and millions of years of music and concert listening in various formats, I have heard a difference in the below formats across the board listed from worse to best:

MP3
CD - some of these babies can sound really bad however!
HDCD - Across the board I have been impressed with these underrated gems!
DVD- Dolby Digital - There's really good and not so good DD stuff.
DVD- DTS - (For whatever reason, DTS just sounds better than DD and I've never been dissapointed with DTS)
SACD - I have limited experience with these but it kinda' sounds like HDCD stuff.
DVD audio - I have a Diana Krall disc that sounds really sweet!
BD (Especially music BD's) - An Audio benchmark as far as I'm concerned!

Now, put a blindfold on me and my millions of years of music listening knowledge 'could' come crashing down in humiliation! I am willing to accept that possibility humbly!

MP3

Highest bit-rate mp3 (or AAC), to my ears, is sufficient for most pop/rock recordings of the past 20 years. If that's what I'm buying (unless the CD or other format is cheaper, or there is a MCH version out there), I buy the iTunes AAC. This is also the format to which I convert all my digital audio files to load on my iPhone--no need for lossless or hi-res in the car or anywhere "on the move" (plus it saves a lot of space on my phone's storage)

CD - some of these babies can sound really bad however!

If they sound bad, it's because the source material (on the technical side) is bad. Can something sound better than CD at its best? Yes, in the right conditions. But CD itself, with an excellent source material on hand, is more than capable of delivering an excellent sound.

HDCD - Across the board I have been impressed with these underrated gems!

Haven't experienced this as I've never had the gear for its playback (it simply plays as an ordinary CD otherwise). I will be able to try it out (I have a few such discs) when I install the Oppo I recently picked up.

DVD- Dolby Digital - There's really good and not so good DD stuff.

Same as CD--good or bad depends on the source material. Not that there are no better formats, but again, done properly, DD can be very good.

DVD- DTS - (For whatever reason, DTS just sounds better than DD and I've never been dissapointed with DTS)

DTS, as a default, is mastered "hotter" with the .1 channel. As the numerous studies I mentioned in an earlier post have demonstrated, louder is frequently perceived as better (and this is especially true with sub-100hz frequencies, where DTS is specifically mastered 4dB (I believe that's the amount, IIRC) "hotter" than DD. I've made the comparison on my friend's gear and, once we level matched the .1 channel, DD/DTS became, to us, indistinguishable. However, for movies especially, I like the effect of the "hotter" DTS mastering, so I will select that option when it's available.

SACD - I have limited experience with these but it kinda' sounds like HDCD stuff.

Most of my SACD collection (around 300 discs at last count) is MCH--it is the main reason I buy SACD. If I have a 2CH SACD, it's either because I was buying a lot of SACD when I first got a player (with no regard to MCH/2CH), the SACD was the only available release (a few of my classical discs, bought in Europe when I was travelling, are like that), the SACD was in the same price range (say, no more than 15% more expensive than the CD), the SACD layer has a different 2CH mix than the CD layer (while it is also MCH, that is the case with Dark Side of the Moon, and some others), I'm confident the SACD has a remastering that gives it a lot more dynamic range than the CD release (same reason I would buy hi-res audio download). Seems like a lot of reasons to buy a 2CH only SACD, but my list has actually cut down my overall SACD purchases. As to sound, like any digital format (or even analogue format), the original source material is the final arbiter of its sound quality--ahead of resolution, lossy, lossless, PCM, DSD, etc.

DVD audio - I have a Diana Krall disc that sounds really sweet!

I have a fair number of DVD-A discs (not as many as SACD, there haven't been as many released). I bought these (and continue when available) for the MCH mixes exclusively. There are almost no 2CH DVD-A releases (none in which I'm interested, apart from a few jazz releases, and I have a couple--those I don't have are OOP and way too expensive for my budget). Sound quality equals the best of any hi-res I've heard (with comparable source material quality). I have no preference for DSD over PCM or vice versa (though many people do, of course).

BD (Especially music BD's) - An Audio benchmark as far as I'm concerned!

This is, in the end, DVD-A for the masses. I don't mean "for the masses" in terms of popularity, but rather in terms of technology. Both DVD-A and BD audio are based on hi-res PCM. The difference is the number of people with DVD-A capable players is tiny and the number of people with BD players is in the tens of millions. IF the audio industry was truly interested in getting hi-res audio out to the general public, there would be many, many more BD audio releases (and, as far as I'm concerned, they should each include a MCH mix--but that's my own bias coming through ).

Overall, within the limits of my own equipment (and budgets devoted to gear and media), the bulk of my hi-res audio purchases are made to obtain MCH mixes. Obviously, my approach is not the only one out there (especially given the fact so many hi-res releases are NOT MCH). But, as far as I'm concerned, the music matters most. The formats are secondary (which is why I am equipped to play DVD-A, SACD, DD, DTS, their respective lossless audio on BD, now FLAC, ALAC, mp3, AAC, Mini-Disc, CD in the digital realm--my analogue playback is currently on "injured reserve" as my very fine (for its time) cassette deck needs repair and I am currently without a working turntable. I may never get around to the cassette deck but I plan to add a turntable at some point--I have too many 78s from the jazz era awaiting my listening attention, for one.)

[madmac]

MP3

Highest bit-rate mp3 (or AAC), to my ears, is sufficient for most pop/rock recordings of the past 20 years. If that's what I'm buying (unless the CD or other format is cheaper, or there is a MCH version out there), I buy the iTunes AAC. This is also the format to which I convert all my digital audio files to load on my iPhone--no need for lossless or hi-res in the car or anywhere "on the move" (plus it saves a lot of space on my phone's storage)

You are probably correct here but I have never heard an MP3 feed on my main system.....only on good headphones and it still sounds 'lossy' to me.

CD - some of these babies can sound really bad however!

If they sound bad, it's because the source material (on the technical side) is bad. Can something sound better than CD at its best? Yes, in the right conditions. But CD itself, with an excellent source material on hand, is more than capable of delivering an excellent sound.

I agree totally.

HDCD - Across the board I have been impressed with these underrated gems!

Haven't experienced this as I've never had the gear for its playback (it simply plays as an ordinary CD otherwise). I will be able to try it out (I have a few such discs) when I install the Oppo I recently picked up.

You'll find the lower end rolls out much sweeter and these discs produce better 'transparency' in the sound.

DVD- Dolby Digital - There's really good and not so good DD stuff.

Same as CD--good or bad depends on the source material. Not that there are no better formats, but again, done properly, DD can be very good.

Yes it can. Agreed!

DVD- DTS - (For whatever reason, DTS just sounds better than DD and I've never been dissapointed with DTS)

DTS, as a default, is mastered "hotter" with the .1 channel. As the numerous studies I mentioned in an earlier post have demonstrated, louder is frequently perceived as better (and this is especially true with sub-100hz frequencies, where DTS is specifically mastered 4dB (I believe that's the amount, IIRC) "hotter" than DD. I've made the comparison on my friend's gear and, once we level matched the .1 channel, DD/DTS became, to us, indistinguishable. However, for movies especially, I like the effect of the "hotter" DTS mastering, so I will select that option when it's available.

I agree about the higher( Louder) .1 area of the sound but once I adjust it down with music concerts, I still find DTS sounds better than DD typically.

SACD - I have limited experience with these but it kinda' sounds like HDCD stuff.

Most of my SACD collection (around 300 discs at last count) is MCH--it is the main reason I buy SACD. If I have a 2CH SACD, it's either because I was buying a lot of SACD when I first got a player (with no regard to MCH/2CH), the SACD was the only available release (a few of my classical discs, bought in Europe when I was travelling, are like that), the SACD was in the same price range (say, no more than 15% more expensive than the CD), the SACD layer has a different 2CH mix than the CD layer (while it is also MCH, that is the case with Dark Side of the Moon, and some others), I'm confident the SACD has a remastering that gives it a lot more dynamic range than the CD release (same reason I would buy hi-res audio download). Seems like a lot of reasons to buy a 2CH only SACD, but my list has actually cut down my overall SACD purchases. As to sound, like any digital format (or even analogue format), the original source material is the final arbiter of its sound quality--ahead of resolution, lossy, lossless, PCM, DSD, etc.

300 SACD's .......sheesh! I didn't even know that that many were pressed! Unlike you, I don't like the multi channel aspect of these discs and find the MC presentation over done and fake sounding.

DVD audio - I have a Diana Krall disc that sounds really sweet!

I have a fair number of DVD-A discs (not as many as SACD, there haven't been as many released). I bought these (and continue when available) for the MCH mixes exclusively. There are almost no 2CH DVD-A releases (none in which I'm interested, apart from a few jazz releases, and I have a couple--those I don't have are OOP and way too expensive for my budget). Sound quality equals the best of any hi-res I've heard (with comparable source material quality). I have no preference for DSD over PCM or vice versa (though many people do, of course).

Again, I like to listen to these in 2CH and have both the CD and DVD-A version of Diana Krall's "Love scenes". The DVD-A version in shockingly good! Another problem with these discs is the necessity to pull up the menus on your TV to navigate them. I like my TV off when I'm listening to music critically.

BD (Especially music BD's) - An Audio benchmark as far as I'm concerned!

This is, in the end, DVD-A for the masses. I don't mean "for the masses" in terms of popularity, but rather in terms of technology. Both DVD-A and BD audio are based on hi-res PCM. The difference is the number of people with DVD-A capable players is tiny and the number of people with BD players is in the tens of millions. IF the audio industry was truly interested in getting hi-res audio out to the general public, there would be many, many more BD audio releases (and, as far as I'm concerned, they should each include a MCH mix--but that's my own bias coming through ).

Overall, within the limits of my own equipment (and budgets devoted to gear and media), the bulk of my hi-res audio purchases are made to obtain MCH mixes. Obviously, my approach is not the only one out there (especially given the fact so many hi-res releases are NOT MCH). But, as far as I'm concerned, the music matters most. The formats are secondary (which is why I am equipped to play DVD-A, SACD, DD, DTS, their respective lossless audio on BD, now FLAC, ALAC, mp3, AAC, Mini-Disc, CD in the digital realm--my analogue playback is currently on "injured reserve" as my very fine (for its time) cassette deck needs repair and I am currently without a working turntable. I may never get around to the cassette deck but I plan to add a turntable at some point--I have too many 78s from the jazz era awaiting my listening attention, for one.)

I've seen a few hi rez, audio only BD's downtown that I'd be curious to spin!

[Ovation]

There are something like 10,000 SACDs, though maybe a third are OOP. If I had time and money I'd easily buy another 1000 (mainly jazz and classical). As for the MCH mixes, the bulk of the jazz and classical releases use MCH to enhance the sense of the space in which the recording was made (IMO, the best MCH SACDs I own are recordings of solo piano instrumentals). But the beauty of the hi-res audio formats is they offer the ability to present multiple mix options (MCH and 2 channel). Too bad the opportunity is too often wasted.

[Chris D]

Oop?

[Ovation]

Out Of Print. OOP

[Chris D]

Ah. Oops, I didn't know.