Hi-Res Downloads - Would you repurchase your favourite music if it was released in this format?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by bherbert, Sep 5, 2017.

  1. PiratesFan

    PiratesFan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chambersburg, PA
    I've spent enough money on music over the years. I plan to spend more on future releases, but as far as buying the same music again as hi-res, uh, no.
     
  2. McLover

    McLover Forum Resident

    Location:
    East TN
    Universal Music is a major known offender. That Watermark is DRM, and it's audible. Listen to any classical with that ugly Watermark, and you'd be upset. I want Downloads to be buyable from any store, and play on any device, including NON Windows and NON Macs. Any file, any device, anywhere. No less! No Google Play in my way, no iTunes, no lossy formats, no MQA. Flac or Apple Lossless formats. Must play on Linux or BSD OS as well.
     
  3. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    I bought Pet Sounds HD and compared the wav form to the 192khz 24 bit transfer of my mint condition Pet Sounds 2fer to bluray.

    What I saw was evidence of a low pass filter and not what I expect from a good spectral analysis.

    The 2fer wins hands down and so much more pure.

    There is without question shriller sounds on the HD, but the chimes...chatter...all the sounds have an artificial quality. The analog record sounds more authentic...and this is from someone who boasted HD in theory.

    Things to consider. Limited dynamics of a record makes for a more pleasant listen.

    The rumble of a record gives the mind a place of comparison.

    Analog rules, and all HD mono seems to be in dual mono vs pure 1 channel.

    So no thanks for me. I have heard enough HD to say...a well mastered record that is pure analog (lathe cut, non digital source) blows it away.

    HD is often fake upsampled anyway. Beware of the source, from what I have heard.

    Also, records were mastered by original engineers/producers. Often "HD" is mucked with outside of people that were originally involved.
     
  4. Merrick

    Merrick The return of the Thin White Duke

    Location:
    Portland
    I didn't realize the watermarks are DRM. How do they prevent you from using files on Linux or BSD or any FLAC/ALAC capable player?

    And while UMG is a big distributor, they don't account for all the hi-res music out there.
     
  5. Bytor Snowdog

    Bytor Snowdog Forum Resident

    Location:
    Texas
    I want to have the best sounding version of all the music I like. If a hi-res release is the definitive version, then of course, I want it. But as many already know, this isn't always the case.

    What is time consuming, annoying and potentially expensive is the process to determine what a given track or album's definitive version is to begin with. I am sure making those discoveries is why some here come to this site to begin with. But even when just the album you are interested in has a lengthy thread dedicated to it with lots of input, discerning what the consensus is is rarely easy.

    Even so, when I am listening to something that really moves me, its hard to ignore the impulse to find a better sounding version of it.
     
  6. bare trees

    bare trees Forum Resident

    I voted Yes. However, the days of making a blind purchase just because a title has been remastered are over for me. For instance, I check here for opinions before I download a hi res version of a title that I already own on cd.
     
    TonyCzar likes this.
  7. onlyconnect

    onlyconnect The prose and the passion

    Location:
    Winchester, UK
    Of course I want "the best digital quality available" but "hi-res" is not a major factor IME. So the poll question makes no sense to me.

    Tim
     
    klockwerk likes this.
  8. mmars982

    mmars982 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Not only would I, but I have done so quite a few times. But only if the following is all true:

    1) It is really one of my favorite albums
    2) I have reason to believe from reviews here that the hires version does in fact sound better, or at least is a good sounding alternative
    3) The price is reasonable

    In a few cases it was also because a mix was available in the hires download that wasn't on the physical release I already had.

    I think I have about a dozen titles that I have purchased as hires downloads after already owning physical releases. I think just about all of them I got when there was a sale at the site.
     
    Quincy likes this.
  9. rnranimal

    rnranimal Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ohio
    Same as others have already stated. It's about the mastering. I'll re-buy music for a better mastering, regardless of whether it's hi-res. If the best mastering is in a hi-res download, I'll buy it. But I'm done buying them on the blind. It started out with excitement when I'd see a title I love being offered in hi-res. But then I'd buy it and 9 out of 10 times, I'd regret it. So now I mostly ignore hi-res releases until I can hear them myself. Hi-res should've been about showcasing well done masterings, but instead, the industry has turned a good thing into a gimmick yet again.
     
    TonyCzar, Bern and klockwerk like this.
  10. Sevoflurane

    Sevoflurane Forum Resident

    Location:
    West Yorkshire
    I voted yes, but buyer beware at all times. Before shelling out cash on a new version of something I already have I would want to see reviews / reports of a genuine improvement. I've been stung by bad remasters too many times to think that HD reissues will be immune from similar bad decisions.
     
    bherbert likes this.
  11. McLover

    McLover Forum Resident

    Location:
    East TN
    That Watermark is Audible. You can hear it. It's very noticeable on some music. On Classical music, It's audible to the point of UNLISTENABLE by a trained ear.
     
    vivresavie likes this.
  12. bherbert

    bherbert Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    South Africa
    This poll is really even now. Very interesting indeed.
     
  13. spencer1

    spencer1 Great Western Forum Resident

    Good lord no.
    For some reason I get very little joy clicking through playlists.

    Weird, I know. I have a feeling it might be generational.

    I have been a sound designer/sound FX editor for over thirty years and it might also be that I click through enough sounds at work 8 to 12 hours a day. I might have click-fatigue.
     
  14. Merrick

    Merrick The return of the Thin White Duke

    Location:
    Portland
    I'm not suggesting the watermark is a good thing. I'm just asking whether it actually acts as DRM in the traditional sense of limiting what devices the files can be played on, or preventing proper replication.
     
  15. pig bodine

    pig bodine God’s Consolation Prize

    Location:
    Syracuse, NY USA
    No, one copy is enough for me. If anything, I'm downsizing. As for having the "best" sounding version available, I've been to countlesd loud concerts and have worked construction. My ears are far from perfect.
     
  16. Quincy

    Quincy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Willamette Valley
    I voted yes with these conditions. I'm patient and there are plenty of albums that I would like to improve upon (and based on reviews the hi-res appears like it will), so for many albums I'm willing to wait for the artist birthday sale and that kind of thing. If the mood strikes me I might just use a regular coupon if I'm in a phase where I'm into that artist again.

    It doesn't happen often enough but a great situation is something like Bobby Hutcherson's Total Eclipse, where I had had several of his albums but not that one, so I got the benefit of new (to me) music plus great sound. Btw, they should have put that one on sale a few weeks ago.
     
    mmars982 likes this.
  17. SquishySounds

    SquishySounds Yo mama so fat Thanos had to snap twice.

    Location:
    New York
    When Apple iTunes supports hi-res I'll consider it. But I'm not getting rid of my iPhone just to listen to six or seven albums I'd buy on hi-res instead of normal-res.

    I'd really love for iTunes to carry the MFSL remasters.

    The Holy grail would be one store that sold every available mastering for every album
     
  18. Mr. Bill

    Mr. Bill Well-Known Member

    I still do not understand why Apple cannot update iTunes to handle 96 or 192!!! They could even sell the HiRez downloads to get a few more bucks in their coffers.
     
    dbucki likes this.
  19. Damien DiAngelo

    Damien DiAngelo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    My vote is no.
    Mostly because I'm a cheapskate.
    I listen to my music digitally about 95% of the time, I'll bust out the vinyl when the mood strikes me.
    Even though I mostly listen digitally, I like getting physical product for my money.
     
  20. LEONPROFF

    LEONPROFF Forum Resident

    If I was guaranteed true hi-Res versions I would. The roughly 60 hi-res albums left me shaking my head too many times. When they are great the are revalatory. When they aren't it's a kick in the ass, spending $20 bucks on the something I already had.
     
  21. Bern

    Bern JC4Me

    Location:
    Michigan
    Voted no...like others I have been toasted several times in regards to remasters. The last one was Petra's "More Power to Ya".....(3oth anniversary).....brickwalled and distorted.

    Bern
     
  22. neil

    neil Forum Resident

    Location:
    Culver City
    I voted yes but with a condition. . . Remastered from original analog tapes. I try and wait for reviews because some of the HD remasters I have heard are TERRIBLE HORRIBLE NO GOOD BAD REMASTERS. Sometimes they don't have the option to go back to the originals, and sometimes they do a great job. I thought Fleetwood Mac Kiln House was a huge improvement over the cd. But I lost most of my hearing playing bass in a rock and roll band, so what do I know.
     
  23. SquishySounds

    SquishySounds Yo mama so fat Thanos had to snap twice.

    Location:
    New York
    While I'd like them to, I understand why they don't. They don't need to. They are the worlds largest music store. Why mess with success? They have nowhere to go but down
     
  24. ltonkin

    ltonkin Well-Known Member

    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    I've been using iTunes with all sample rates for years. What Apple needs to fix is iTunes being able to auto change the sample rate like HQplayer and Audirvana do.
     
  25. MikeManaic61

    MikeManaic61 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Virginia
    For $15-$20 with chances of it being the same or no different than the others? No way, waste of time and money.
     

Share This Page