Moving from CDs to hi-res downloads

I bought an iBasso DX90 early this year and proceeded to fill a 64GB card with hi-res music from HDtracks and e-Onkyo. I am a headphone user with a variety of amps and DAC's and my main cans is an Audeze LCD-X. My impression is that like many have stated already: it is really about the recording and the mastering. Most of what I downloaded I already own on CD. Comparing what I already know with hi-res download I can't say if the download is superior is because of the hi-res. This is because I have downloaded some disappointing files so just because it is hi-res doesn't mean it is automatically good. Since it is too much of a crapshoot I have stopped with the downloads. Sorry I can't say it better than that.

 

Interesting. I thought the first 4 Eagles records were all significantly better in HDtrackes hi-res than redbook. I heard parts in songs that I had never heard before, I thought it was EQ'd musically, just generally very well done IMO. In fact, I'd put those on par with the recent Led Zep remasters. But I jump off the bus at Hotel California, so I can't comment on that or The Long Run. I guess that it just goes to show there's no end to subjective impressions about music.

This thread has got me thinking about all the hi-res I've purchased. I may spot check one track per album to see if frequency just shelves drastically where redbook would stop (44.1K/2). I wonder how many times I've been hoodwinked.

But I did want to add, that for me personally, to a certain extent it often doesn't matter that much. Sometimes a HDtrack download is the only way I can buy the music without dealing with physical media. I think their offerings generally sound pretty good. I haven't really encountered a bad sounding offering by any means. I always use 10-15% discounts, so often my cost for an entire album is within a dollar or two of buying a redbook CD. So yeah, I wouldn't be happy to find that I had been hoodwinked, but it wouldn't cause me to jump off a building either. If I find a lot of that in my collection, it might prompt me to download off torrents first, check it, and then only buy offerings that pass the smell test.

 

The Pono store will make it easier for us to avoid physical media.

 

From your lips to God's ears brudda!

I spot checked a handful of HDTracks releases. All have significant content above the 22.05KHz redbook threshold. I double-checked some redbook content just to be sure. Redbook does indeed roll off 100% above 22.05KHz.

It's interesting that The Band's "Northern Lights / Southern Cross" content does roll off steeply above about 28KHz. I've always felt that album sounded rolled off and nasally. Too bad because it's my favorite Band record. It was interesting to see the freq plot confirm why that might be. Many of the other HDtracks offerings have content well above 40KHz.

 

The advantage of higher sampling rates is that there's no need to use an anti-aliasing filter so low in the frequency spectrum so that the usable bands aren't affected. Even if the frequency spectrum is cut off at 22.05 kHz, the file is still 24-bit, which means a greater dynamic range. They are still winners.

I hope Pono is a success. It should force iTunes to provide higher-resolution files, or force the prices of their lossy files down. Ultimately, it for topple their dominance on the download market. It will also provide a way for people to bust out of the Apple bubble. At the very least, Apple could finally allow the use of FLAC in iTunes.

 

Before you start comparing make sure the CD and hi-res download are of the same mastering. Most are not, limiting one's ability to truly distinguish. Some masterings go through tube-stages, adding distortion, sweetening the sound, adding to misconceptions.

 

Just get a nice network player, or CD/network player. Thats the path I took a few months ago and couldnt be any happier.
Im using a Yamaha cdn-500. Its Awesome.

There are plenty to choose from though. I dont like using a computer for listening to my music, with a great DAC or not.
Get something specificallly built to reproduce music.

Good luck.

 

I don't really like using my computer for listening to music either, i think it complicates/chokes the path of least resistance. It does so much as it is, it slices, it dices, it even surfs! (the USB Jack of all trades is master of none)

That it CAN do audio, doesn't mean it's really the best at it. Play media on a machine dedicated to playing that media and i think you're already 15 steps ahead.

 

How do you think audio is played back in a modern recording studio as the music is being made? Don't you think if it were fraught with compromise that recording studios would do something differently? Surely, you can't believe that a consumer audio playback system is better than what is being used during mix down and mastering?

 

I would hope EVERYthing in a modern recording studio is of better quality than a desktop/laptop/tablet for goodness sakes!

 

A USB interface is a USB interface. You can certainly attach a decent quality DAC to your computer and have near pro level playback quality. There's just no way the DACs in the average consumer level CD player can compete with a decent quality standalone DAC.

 

In terms of sound quality alone, not necessarily the case. What a studio can give you is a great environment, a great sounding room, and generally better mics and doo dads as well as a much easier to use (for me that is) mixing board.

If you record in a studio to get the great sounds, you should be able to mix or do post production a computer with excellent sonics if you know what you're doing. It's now how I'd go about working but sonically it can be done with excellent sounding results.

 

I'm talking level for level here, i'm thinking commercial level desktop/laptop vs. commercial level CD player.

...and could you not attach a DAC to you CD player as well?!?!?

(my big thing is i don't think a lot of people (not necessarily on this board for certain) but a lot of people have really heard redbook on a really nice player is all)

I just don't wanna buy or fall for the Hi-res marketing label, which is all it really is. If your initial source is poor, i don't care how much you magnify it, it's still gonna be bad. Like i said in a earlier post, i've downloaded a few and have nothing at all bad to say about Hi Res, but that it solves everything...nah, life don't get that easy.

For instance there's a Hi-Res from Arista of Jackson Browne's Late For The Sky out there, but i'm betting that if Steve's DCC mastering was up there too....there's a difference!!

 

You made some sweeping statements about how poor computer playback is. Yes, internal DACs are crap. But if you attach even a decent quality DAC to a computer, it's still computer playback, which you show disdain for. My point is simply that computer playback can more than satisfy the most demanding ears on the planet, people who record, mix and master music in the first place.

Furthermore, dollar for dollar, you'll get better sound by spending your money on a DAC rather than a CD player simply because you aren't paying for the physical transport. Every dollar spent buys better handling of the actual bits.

 

That's fine. But, what too many people do is try to justify their choice with technical explanations that don't hold up.

 

My guess is you have never heard a really good CD player.Something with a fully discrete output stage.
I have put a lot of effort into trying to get good sound from a computer.I have a 1500 albums on a hard drive all uncompressed and many Hi Rez files.I have tried about 12 DACS including full discrete valve and SS output stage DACs,Multi Bit NOS DACS ,the latest Sabre DACS ,USB/SPDIFF converters etc etc.None of them sound as good as a range of good CD players I have tried.Players like an Accuphase DP77.DP700 and my Krell KAV 300 CD [all use fully discrete output stages -no crappy op amps].But even an old Sony 715 which was a mid priced CD player from 1995 still sounds better.

 

Ya know, i made A statement, MY statement, from MY OPINION....

sorry YOU can't comprehend what i'm writing!

From you-"more than satisfy the most"...

that's about as definitive as:

"almost better than the very very best"

"Not quite there but leading the way"



As Mr Holly said- Well...All Right

 

Well, I haven't tried any of the players you listed. Hey, I believe you. You got better results with your particular mix of equipment using a standalone redbook player.

I don't know how much more discussion is fruitful. But I'm inclined to ask when comparing various DACs with your various CD players if:
1. You hooked the outputs up to exactly the same equipment.
2. Did you measure the relative outputs? Even a small difference in output volume is known to be perceived as "better quality" by listeners.

Those are just two variables that immediately come to mind. I'm sure there are others. But I suppose it doesn't matter much. You seem very happy with your set up and I am happy for you. Truly.

In the interest of discovering truth, it's probably not a good idea to extrapolate either or our personal experiences into some universal truth. I believe I made that error when I suggested dollar for dollar money spent on a DAC will yield better results than the same amount of money spent on a standalone CD player. I was wrong to state that. I was imagining a hypothetical $300-$500 expenditure on new equipment. But there are just too many variables. $nnn spent on a used high end CD player might well yield better results than $nnn spent on a new mid-low level DAC. Or it might not.

I apologize for my part in this misunderstanding. I also appreciate you pointing that out to me.

 

I wonder how many forum members making claims that component/technology X sounds better than Y have conducted the tests in a way that is consistent with at least a reasonable, minimum standard for the methodology.

 

The internet is full of “audiophile” claims.

The only reliable information is component manufacturer’s specifications.

I wonder how many “audiophiles” can read manufacturer electrical and electronic specifications, circuit diagrams, use a soldering iron and build amplifiers from scratch.

Issue 1:

If you want a reliable computer use reliable components and power supply.

Motherboard soundcards derive their power supply from same regulated power line as the CPU.
The power supply for good quality soundcards is also filtered on the sound card and the computer bus noise is isolated with filtering.
The signal to noise ratio is equivalent to, or better than, in many cases “audiophile” amplifiers, CD players, interconnects, etc, etc.

Issue 2:

The D to A and analogue chips used in the Asus Xonar Essence STX sound card are far superior to the chips used in the majority of “audiophile” CD players.

The cost of the card in Australia is $179. An equivalent “audiophile” CD player, if you can if one, is upwards of $2000.

In Australia, for $500 one can build a decent I3 audio video computer. Add the cost of the sound card, total cost $679.
According to the chip manufacturer’s, the sound card chipset intermodulation and harmonic distortion is inaudible.

I will put my $679 computer against any discrete $2000 “audiophile” CD player. On a double blind audio comparison test using the same source material, no-one will tell the difference.

Issue 3:

Ripping a CD to computer.

The CD rip is a loss-less digital rip. The computer processes the digital signal loss-less. The digital processing on the Asus Xonar Essence STX audio card is by the onboard electronics.

Summary:

The majority of “audiophile” claims are emotional because many spend large sums of money.
I have built “audiophile” amplifiers and owned an “audiophile” CD player.
Those days are in the past. I cannot justify purchasing a $2000 “audiophile” CD player when my computer achieves the same results.

 

I understand that optical disks aren't perfect, but they're relatively reliable and an easy, efficient way to have a backup. Remote backup works too, but that adds to the expense.

A network CD player might be just what I need. Thanks for recommending it. As much fun as the whole FLAC and Foobar thing has been, I'll probably be happier popping a CD into a component system like the old-school guy that I am. For the occasional downloaded album, keeping a working copy on my computer and playing it via wifi should do the job. I like the vTuner too . I'll look into it.

 

If you go the network player route check to see if they player you want can do gapless if gapless playback is important for you. It's an important feature for me since I like music like classical and Pink Floyd and Grateful Dead. Players that rely on DLNA for the network playing typically won't do gapless. There are some solutions that can.

I prefer the computer for that sort of playback. Because the computer gives me more flexibility with more software choices and more options. With the computer I can find software that will stream and do gapless (JRiver will, as will some others).

 

I do, to the extent I can do reasonably. I use the ABX comparitor in Foobar when it is suitable. My methods would still not pass scientific peer review muster. But it's good enough for me for making the general gear choices and purchase choices I make. I've use the Foobar ABX tool to verify that I do hear a difference between the 24/88.2 and 16/44.1 version of Daft Punk's "Random Access Memories". Mostly what I've learned with ABX testing is that I fatigue very quickly and thus suck at that sort of attentive listening test.

 

There is a DS within my system though I mostly use and buy vinyl LP's. Have found great 24bit recordings and great 16bit recordings. If it's produced and mastered to a high quality both formats will sound good . The best advice given here is try for yourself.

 

Hi,

I have got the Yamaha N500, too. The price is OK and it is a good CD and Network player. I can't tell anything bad about it. It has a nice app for Android and IOS and very easy to handle. You can't fastforward through the songs (if coming through the network) anyway, for me this is not important.

The optical files discussion: I am not happy buying songs and having just a file for over 20$ but beside this a backup isn't really expensive. I have always two HDDs for all my mp3 - flac - and other music files.

If you use it just for music and not video, 2 TB is a lot (If you don't own a record company)
I don't know the exact price, but a 2 TB HDD should be about 100$ to 120$ - I think cheap enough.

I listen to vinyl for the "act of listening" and holding the cover, drinking a beer or coffee. The Hires flac files are for closing eyes and 100% concentrating on music. It's all ok and has got all it rights to exist.
I hope the price for Hires file will go 50% low and I will buy more than ONE CD until today...

All the best
1973_2fk4