• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

High Definition Releases - Reviews

A few years ago, I bought the MFSL release of I Robot by The Alan Parsons Project on SACD. The mastering is excellent. This version has the most dynamic range of any release of this album.

MFSL releases come in these cardboard gatefold sleeves with a pocket in the front and a pocket in the back. The front pocket has the bookslet, and the back pocket the SACD.

After listening to the SACD for about a week, I go to pull the booklet out, and find this:

nbf3Dxt.jpg


I called MFSL. They sent me a replacement booklet, and I gave the SACD away to a fellow Alan Parsons Project fan.
 
Carol King "Tapestry"
96/24 HD tracks
Side by with an early pressing of the LP from the early 70's, in excellent condition.
The LP was 'brighter' sounding than the download, with a bit of rasp to Carol King's vocals that did not stick out so much on the download.
Midrange was more solid on the download, or, perhaps, it just seemed that way because of the brightness of the LP.
Bass notes, drums pretty much were equal.
Download had at least as much detail as the LP.
Equipment note: Turntable is a modest level Technics SL-Q312 (circa early 80's) with the standard P-mount cartridge but upgraded with a shibata stylus, phono stage was through a Sansui 5000A via its tape monitor to my NAD integrated. DAC is a Schitt Modius direct to the NAD.
 
The Shocker said:
A few years ago, I bought the MFSL release of I Robot by The Alan Parsons Project on SACD. The mastering is excellent. This version has the most dynamic range of any release of this album.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find the 192/24 PCM version is not lacking either.
 
I mean this sincerely as I'm not in that world that cares about compression - I just don't (but I did).
Does anyone care anymore wit downloads, Qobuz, Amazon HD and others? Bandwidth increase to support this is typically < $20/month. I get if you are on a diet of beans and rice, that matters, or are supporting a bunch of people with their own demands.

Is there any reason to compress at all?
 
BirdOnAWire said:
I mean this sincerely as I'm not in that world that cares about compression - I just don't (but I did).
Does anyone care anymore wit downloads, Qobuz, Amazon HD and others? Bandwidth increase to support this is typically < $20/month. I get if you are on a diet of beans and rice, that matters, or are supporting a bunch of people with their own demands.

Is there any reason to compress at all?
Click to expand...

Compression went out with the command line.
 
amely said:
High definition releases are more better than old cd releases. High definition gives good sound quality as well more picture quality.
Click to expand...

Don't know why this made me laugh....but it did.

I've been working on replacing my favorite albums with the "HD" versions where possible. I know there is a lot of talk whether it really makes a difference or not. I've definitely heard some icky sounding 24bit tracks. But as others have said....the mastering is far more important than bit depth. But in a lot of cases....these new releases of older tracks are remastered. While the sampling rate is still only 44.1......the 'Rage Against The Machine' self-titled album sounds fantastic. Definitely one example of a record that I can tell a difference....in a good way.
 
I am currently looking at Reference Recordings HRx releases which are 176.4 MHz/24 bit PCM. The sampler I just bought sounded fantastic and I will have to compare to the few SACD equivalents I have. The PCM versions should sound better.

I recently invested in a serious, but vintage, Turntable and stumbled across a decent vintage cartridge from the heyday of vinyl. My initial impression is vinyl is superior to SACD (DSD64) (and definitely CD), everything else being equal. The only advantage of SACD is the absence of "snap, crackle, pop" on vintage vinyl. I suspect perhaps hi-rez PCM or DSD 128/256/512 will prove a serious challenge to vinyl.
 
oscarinovp said:
I am currently looking at Reference Recordings HRx releases which are 176.4 MHz/24 bit PCM. The sampler I just bought sounded fantastic and I will have to compare to the few SACD equivalents I have. The PCM versions should sound better.

I recently invested in a serious, but vintage, Turntable and stumbled across a decent vintage cartridge from the heyday of vinyl. My initial impression is vinyl is superior to SACD (DSD64) (and definitely CD), everything else being equal. The only advantage of SACD is the absence of "snap, crackle, pop" on vintage vinyl. I suspect perhaps hi-rez PCM or DSD 128/256/512 will prove a serious challenge to vinyl.
Click to expand...
My experimentation with all contemporary recorded music media, Apple Music Lossless Streams, LPs, CDs, stereo and multi-channel SACDs reveals I have a preference for vinyl, perhaps it's the lifelikeness of it; however, having been disappointed with about 80% of my new vinyl purchases in the last few years due to manufacturing defect, I am now mostly streaming Apple Music these days, which overall is more compelling than vinyl.
 
I have over 30k hours of digital music. Over 5,000 little shiny CDs and the rest is in flac or. Shin files on servers. Only a fraction of that is in hd. And I will agree with all previous post that some are really good and others can be downright bad. On the bad side was ZZ tops Tres Hombres. On the best side are the Steven Wilson remasters of the first four yes and the first three Jethro Tull albums. I asked the sound engineer friend of mine about this phenomenon and he said that most of the streaming HD material is just upsamples of lower bit rate files. And in his opinion is a lower quality final file then the original, due to software happen to extrapolate and fill in the info between known points. He's further said if it's been remastered from an analog source to a higher bitrate and Sample then this will generally sound better depending upon who's doing the remastering. He said it was best to get the sample rate that it was remastered in and nothing higher. I asked about lower and he said that down sampling a file is generally just as good or very very close, and always better than an upsampled file.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom