Poll: hi-rez download or redbook CD

I confronted this head-on with the recent Springsteen releases.

It seems to me that the number of major artists whose work is available in whole or in part as hi-rez downloads has increased enormously this year. I have no idea as to whether HDTracks and its competitors are profitable, but I do get the sense that, given the apparent failure of Blu-Ray as an audio medium, the future of hi-rez may be in this format (except for classical where SACDs still appear to me to dominate).

And just to be provocative, if you had to choose between a hi-rez download or redbook (each with the same 96/24 mastering). Assume also that the hi-rez cost more than the redbook and that no physical hi-rez is available.

Edit - I should have included "Both" as a choice. If that is your answer you can choose "Depends."

 

If a hi-rez download is available i go for that. But for example with Steven Wilsons cover version compilation i ended up buying all formats when they were released because there was vinyl first then a redbook cd (with beautiful packaging an well mastered) and at last HdTracks made a 24/96 download available so of course i had to have that too. If the download had come out first i would probably just bought that.

 

redbook CD, easily. The trouble I've had downloading the HD files of McCartney's Venus And Mars has just reinforced that for me.

Just give me a disc I can put in a player and press 'play'.

 

CD. If I want hi-rez, I buy other discs.

 

That's where I am. I only have free downloads (e.g., MP3s from Amazon or with a box set or the occasional free hi-rez download). It seems like every time there is a download for purchase, folks here have some sort of issue. They can't get the download to work due to some software or web site glitch, they can't access the download because it isn't available in their region, they don't know the resolution or the resolution isn't what it was supposed to be, the source tape and/or mix isn't known, etc. Besides all of that, I simply prefer discs.

 

I have a CD player that up samples, so if the high rez is only 24/96, I choose redbook CD.

 

I voted "Hi-rez download". Many recent releases are offered in that format and usually the price isn't that much higher (at least on qobuz and HighresAudio). Since every CD I buy gets ripped to my hard drive anyway, I don't really need a physical format anymore. If it's cheaper than the CD, I often go for the lossless download as well (if no hi-res is available).

 

I voted "It Depends" - it has to be a favorite album or artist for me to shell out more for thes best sound available. If not, I could be satisfied with a CD (or lossy download. Or Spotify for that matter). Having a physical product is less important to me than it was even a year ago.

 

I'd say that's much more the exception than the rule. I have downloaded lots of albums and never had a problem. Most download vendors offer a download tool and if you use that, you usually won't have any problems at all.

 

I voted red book. Unfortunately I don't have the ears to hear the improvement in sound and CDs do the job fine for me

 

If a Gort could fix the spelling of redboook in the title, I will feel much less foolish.

 

Depends. Hi-rez downloads can sound great but the artwork - usually just a PDF of the front cover - is utter shïte. At least CDs still come with real artwork and booklets. SACD is my preferred format as it has the best of both, sound-wise and artwork, too

 

Unless it's the only way i can get what i want, i don't do downloads.

 

Good question.

Hi res beats CD for sound quality. Vinyl beats CD for artwork. So, if there's a hi res download and vinyl I'll get them both and pass on the CD. If there's no vinyl, I'll probably stick with the CD. But it also depends on the artist.

 

CD. High res might sound better. But to be honest, I don't care enough to even A/B the difference. To me, it's the mastering that's more important, and has a much greater effect on the sound quality of a release.

I do have a few high res downloads that have a better mastering than any CD (or lp ND) I have. But I down res them, burn them to a CD-R, and put them in the CD case along with the regular CD.

 

CD.....the extra cost for hi-res is not worth it to me. I can't hear the difference anyway assuming it is the same mastering.

 

CD over downloads, even high-res ones. Cost related, but mainly that I prefer to have something tangible that I own.

 

Cd, I can't tell the difference between redbook and hi-res anyway, and I almost never pay for downloads in any case.

 

I've been primarily a cd guy for years but I am beginning to lean toward HiRez downloads as far as future purchases are concerned.

 

CD all the way.

 

CD, last thing I need is to spend more time on a computer to download and organize my music. There is something nice and simple (and more organic) about playing physical media (for me of course).

 

I doubt I will ever just buy a digital version of any album. I would definitely by a cd over a download (what do you own?), but frankly I'd choose SACD over both.

 

Depends = Reserving the right to change my mind.

Today it's CD, but if the Pono player is reasonably priced and easily adaptable for car use, I may rethink this.

 

CD.