HI-Rez downloads for classic Rock only 24/96 Why?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by boogieman, Dec 21, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. boogieman

    boogieman Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Does anyone know why the majority of Hi-Rez downloads for classic rock are only 24/96 instead of 24/192?
     
  2. kevin

    kevin Senior Member

    Location:
    Evanston IL
    The people doing the downloads must think there's no real difference between 24/96 and 24/192 especially when some of the 24/192 tracks are upconverts from 24/96[the Neil Young Archives Volume 1 tracks are just that btw].
     
  3. Shak Cohen

    Shak Cohen Forum Resident

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    24/96 is way more than you would ever need. IM O/E.
     
  4. ReggieTheVaper

    ReggieTheVaper Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    Is it because 99.99% of the listeners can't tell the difference between 24/192 & 16/44.1 ?

    I must admit I can't and I have "the ears"
     
  5. Schoolmaster Bones

    Schoolmaster Bones Poe's Lawyer

    Location:
    ‎The Midwest
    Maybe so they can sell you the higher res versions later on.

    Fool me once...
     
  6. Robin L

    Robin L Musical Omnivore

    Location:
    Fresno, California
    It's because the vast majority of lovers of "Classic Rock" have a hard time hearing anything over 10k, not to mention that the masters are probably bandwidth limited as well.
     
  7. jlc76

    jlc76 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin, TX, U.S.A.
    For me it's about what my systems will playback. My car has DVD-A which is limited to 24-96, my laptop system which consists of a Dragonfly only goes up to 24-96, my home PC system has an ADL GT40 which maxes out at 24-96, and up until recently my Peachtree Nova integrated amp could only handle 24-96 max. I now run my Squeezebox Touch through my Oppo 105D instead of the Nova, but since I'm using an RCA and not a USB cable the Squeezebox will still only handle 24-96. If I had started out having all 192 capable gear I might have gone that route, but 96khz sounds good to me and the cost savings helps too.
     
  8. JamieLang

    JamieLang Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    The end game for files here is double rate.
     
  9. jcarr73729

    jcarr73729 Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    I can't prove it, but I believe that the majority of hi-res playback equipment (other than top-end audiophile) has 24/96 as the upper limit.
    Disregarding the arguments between 96 and 192, most people would be wasting their money on premium 192 downloads for playback at 96.
    Equally I can't prove it, but it appeared to me reading around over the years that 96 was the most common re-mastering medium, with 192 and 44.1 becoming more common.
    Supply and Demand seemed to favour 24/96.
     
  10. Lucidae

    Lucidae AAD

    Location:
    Australia
    If that were true HDTracks would be out of business.
    I could make a case for hi-res audio in general, but IMHO anything over 24/96 is overkill and not worth paying extra for.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine