Why are high resolution downloads so expensive?

Bingo. No idea what 20khz audible frequency has to do with his point. Totally different topics.

 

Depends. See the post above yours.

 

Not that I can resolve anything with my answer, but I feel both items are priced beyond my own inclination to buy. And regardless of the $5 differential, that doesn't mean that the various costs are accurately represented that pricing. I speculate small-batch SACDs are more expensive to manufacture than redbook CDs. And I have to think the files, despite care and pro effort, cost considerably less. But those numbers are known only to the content providers.

I'm not sure I've addressed your post. In any event, hi-res is too high-priced for me. Especially given that, whether via file or disc, the occasional improvements I hear in hi-res are typically too subtle (on my mid-fi gear-n-ears) to justify $25 or $30 albums.

I'd acknowledge that industry pros who work with this material every day at the highest level with top-shelf equipment hear greater differences. And could likely convince me it's greater than I perceive by sitting me down in front of it. But I still couldn't afford it at my level. Music certainly should be produced at hi-res whenever possible, but the experience is out of reach for WAY over 99% of the public. And the thread is about money and value.

Audiophiles should have access to hi-res if they can swing it. But I'm wary of an industry that would trumpet something – at a premium price – that's difficult for most regular people to discern.

More sizzle than steak.

 

I just made a nice haul at HDTracks. Their weekly specials at 96/24 were less than $14. I think that's pretty fair. I may start replacing some LPs as I run across them at that price. Pretty much out of space for vinyl and most of the hires I've bought is pretty darn good.

 

I think another reason why hi-res is more expensive is because record companies want to ensure that sales of CDs does not plummet faster than it is. The average consumer may not be able to discern sound differences but the "resolution numbers" will probably sway them if price parity is very small.

 

I understand how it works. But I guess I am coming at this from more of a "Nyquist" angle - where audio frequency IS a big part of this.

Specifically - how the sample rate of an audio file determines the frequency range that can be reproduced.

RE: Nyquist : Perfect fidelity reproduction is possible with a sample rate equal to twice the maximum frequency one wishes to reproduce. So a file with a 44.1kHz sample rate defines the possible audible spectrum range from say 20hz (low end) - to a max of 22.05kHz (high end). But the poster is saying that a sample rate of 48k (which now pushes the high end to a bat loving 24.00 kHz) is "better".

Assuming this part of the theorem cannot be disputed: Any increase in sample rate cannot increase fidelity within the audible spectrum. (20hz - say 22.05khz) - the extra data points from a 48K sample vs a 44K sample (the 4000 extra samples per second) yield no improvement whatsoever.

To simplify: If one second of a file @ 44.1 has 44,100 data points at a given frequency - having 48000 data points at the same frequency in the same track - does not make it "better". It will certainly make the file larger - and the overall high end audible spectrum of the file is now 1.95khz higher than the former level that still cannot be heard by humans (22.05khz) but the true fidelity at a given frequency of the file does not change.

However - if one has convinced themselves that a 16/48 file (or 24/96 or whatever) is noticeably better - then so be it. Whatever makes ya happy

VP

 

Sample precision affects dynamic range.

Sample rate affects frequency response.

Even CD quality is well specified in both respects - for humans, and for normal musical material at normal volume levels.

There may be some tiny advantage to be had from higher resolutions (for a delivery format) but as has been said, the evidence is inconclusive at best.

Tim

 

Marketing. Some people have convinced themselves that 24/192 is better than 16/44. Bean counters see an opportunity.

It's that simple.

 

What do I term as "noticeable" or "significant"? I am referring to detail. What one may not hear, still affects the overall sound.

 

As I said - if it floats your boat - rock on bro.

Me - I am in the other camp: Any increase in sample rate cannot increase fidelity within the audible spectrum using 44.1 as a guide. (20hz - 22.05khz).

VP

 

The market for hi-rez/lossless downloads must be gaining in popularity if people are complaining about the prices.

 

Why are hi-res down loads so expensive ? It's the old music business hose, find something people want and stick it to them.

 

I buy a lot of HD classical downloads and to be honest I don't see them as expensive, usually little different than the actual cd and with full PDF booklets so I'm getting the whole album package.
I understand where when it come to rock back catalogue some of you are coming from like I've never paid GBP £20+ for a HD download even on new recordings and I suspect it's targeted as a premium product to a demographic that has bought the same recording several times over and is seen as more willing to spend it.
That's not to say some HD downloads of rock can't be 'worth it' for you where the mastering is appreciably better but rock has more of a source provenance problem than classical imho.
As for how they sound I rely on my ears.

 

What gets me is when the regular lossless quality downloads are more than their mp3/aac counterparts especially when I can run out and buy the physical CD for less.

 

I would love to buy more hi-rez downloads, but why bother when I can go to a record store and buy a shiny new CD for $4 or $5, and rip it?

 

Well for me, some of the hi-res downloads are unique masterings that I can copy to disc and playback 24/96. For instance, the Tom Petty downloads are sonically superior to the cds. IMO

I do think that downloads are too expensive. I would purchase many more if they were ten bucks.

 

This.

 

I would by more hi-rez too, but, as I don't have a lot of money, the Cds will have to do. But, I don't pretend that they are just as good.

 

I think high-res files have a higher cost of mastering than a normal CD session. And if they sell 1/100th as many copies, then technically it's not a huge money-making proposition. When you get down to it, the entire audiophile recording business is actually pretty small in terms of profits.

 

Why would cost of mastering be more expensive, once the mastering room has the proper setup? I get the lower sales volume.

 

I believe if you walk in and demand 192kHz/24-bit in a mastering session, more equipment has to be used, more storage, longer file copying, and so on. 44.1/16-bit rooms are simple and easy, once you get past physically building the room and installing the speakers. And there's a lot of software that just plain won't work at 192kHz, or will require a drastically different setup.

I've done extensive location recording at 48kHz, 96kHz, and done tests at 192kHz. There ain't a lot of difference, but I did hear a difference between 16-bit and 24-bit. The reality is that there aren't enough microphones and preamps out there that can get anywhere close to even 40kHz these days. Even if they could, I don't think there's that much harmonic content in an average music signal. I do believe there's a teeny difference between 48kHz and 96kHz, but it's extremely subtle; I heard zero difference between 96kHz and 192kHz.

To me, a lot of this stuff is obsessing on pulling the wings of fleas. I think there are bigger problems that are more worthy of our time. I think the best thing about high-res downloads is that they're lossless, and I think that's a big deal that does make a lot of sense. I really like the idea of giving consumers the chance to get away from low-res lossy files and towards something that's as good or a little better than CDs.

 

Nor very many speakers that can reproduce it.

 

------------------------
And I thought that you were going to talk about the nutty prices of new vinyl. I will gladly pay more for a well recorded 24/192 or 24/96 file left in its native format. Barry Diament's new release: Work of Art/Winds of Change is a great buy. Neil Young's new 2 lp album can sit on the self at $70. I am glad vinyl is back so I can use my 3 TTs, but I feel there is some excessive pricing as audiophiles do want to hear the most their gear can provide, and many of you have little to gain with gear upgrades, so you must upgrade your music software or discs. The market will be what it will as sales will dictate pricing. I search harder and fine some great vinyl at $20 or less.

 

---------------------------
It is not just that, but being able to accurately reproduce wonderful acoustic music reverb tales that fall into black are great at 2496 and 24/192, but one has to care about such things. I love vinyl for the fullness it CAN provide, but I have some awful vinyl as well that gets played less and less. I buy discs from SoundKeeper Recordings in the formats that suit me, usually 2496 and higher and from Linn, ecclassical, and Bluecoast.

I don't have what any of you would call high end systems, but I can tell you that once you hear native 24/192 file form Linn you know what you are missing in the rest. I prefer 2496 because it sounds excellent and I can burn them to play in my DVD players and not be tied to my computer. Any vinyl I needle-drop is 2496 and I have not tried 24/192, but I know it would be a slight improvement. To me 2496 and 24/192 give anyone all that tape can provide with less distortion and the background noise will only be a function of the recording venue and their HVAC noise level. It is not the HF ability, but the ability to capture all the details. High sample rates do that very easily. It is why tape speed goes from 7.5, to 15, to 30ips. No one really cares about the theoretical noise floor for 24 bit of -144db as most who record are happy to get a -80 db noise floor of the room. That is a costly room to build for sure. It is amazing that what we often think is quiet, really isn't.

I am really enjoying and can hear the subtleties of 2496 and 24192 even through my affordable Steinberg UR22 which does up to 24/192 by usb with no playback issues. I have now solved the problems with usb playback with my Yamaha MG16/XU mixer with ASIO4all which also goes to 24/192 and sounds excellent, but slightly brighter than my UR-22. If my old ears can hear it I know you younger folks can as well. The Steinberg UR-22 is remakable for all of $149 at Sweetwater.com . I am now so glad I bought both my Yamaha and Steinberg pieces and can really experience how good high-rez can be, and I know that many of you with much better USB dacs enjoy even more. The improvement over my computer sound card was not subtle. I just bought my wife an outboard 1TB drive for her computer to back up her photos and doc.s for all of $79. Disc space is crazy cheap these days. I don't worry if I need to buy a new reissue of these files and they are as good as they will ever be. Buy right, buy once.

 

Because Capitalism. Duh!