Why are high resolution downloads so expensive?

Lossy files are for the hammer and sickle crowd?

Kidding aside, I really don't understand how a sampling rate higher than 48kHz can offer any marginal benefit when one's speakers are limited to 24 kHz (to say nothing of one's hearing).

 

----------------------
It all depends upon the native recording format and the overall care of making the recording less the usual amount of over compression and limiting. When a recording is well made the differences from redbook to 2496 and 24192 are not subtle, but are harder from 2496 to 24192, I would agree, but they are there if started at native 24/192.

I feel for people who can't hear it. If they don't care that is a choice they make, but it doesn't mean the improvements don't exist. I have just taken some of my 24/96 downloads and recorded them back to redbook with my Tascam flash recorders, not just a bit change from my computer. They still sound excellent, but when I listen to the original recordings on my AKG 701s there is no mistake which is which. The native download of the 2496 Lyn Stanley: Potions has so much air and detail to expose what a great recording this is. The redbook version I made is about 85% of it, but not as clear nor is the space around her or the players as spotlit. For portable listening I will love the redbook version, but at home it is 2496 all the way. I would bet that the release of this recording in 24/192 or DSD is really something. BlueCoast has some great offerings.

If all recording sessions started at 24/192 we would all be hearing more even if they were ultimately just redbook releases. To send more to the mastering engineer is always a good thing.

 

I noticed this as well when I was listening to some 24/96 downloads that I made into DVD-A discs played through my APL 3910. The effects used in the recordings were more apparent. Also, instrument timbre is more natural with more separation than what I hear on 16/44.1. I don't know what this has to do with hearing above 20Khz but I notice plenty of benefits using 24/96 in the normal hearing range.

 

Because of pre-post digital ringing with brickwall filters at 44.1k sampling, that's why. Pono addresses that issue. It might become a non-issue in time. I'm finding that 24/192 capable gear does a better job with Redbook standard recordings. Enough better that on my cheap gear, CDs more than give LPs [the good ones] a run for the money. However, there's really no excuse to record in anything less than 24/192 or DSD these days, no economic or distribution issues to stop Hi-rez from becoming standard. The only real issue—are enough people willing to pay for it? Just note that the gear that musicians can get their hands on for home/studio recording is Hi-Rez. Hi-Rez downsampled to redbook will sound like the real deal to all but a few. Those few will probably still prefer the LP.

And so it goes.

 

The sad thing is we can never convince those people. They view us as audiophile crackpots imagining differences.

 

Lossy files are for the 99%.

 

-------------------
My Circlica software allows me to burn DVD-Vs for my Sony's at 2496 and also a DVD-A for my Yamaha S-1800 and they all sound so great through my affordable rigs. Hard to go back once you enjoy 2496. I'm surprised that more don't offer DVD-Vs of their music at 2496 as it can't cost much more than pressed CDs. But, I do know that the market for us is small, so I guess we can DIY it. The easiest way to improve the sound of our audio gear.

 

I too am done with Neil's lp pricing but there some great sounding lp's out there in the $25 range; Wilco's catalogue for example.

 

Yeah, there are very few DVD-V or DVD-A releases being offered. Basically the stuff that Steven Wilson is involved with. But we are getting more and more hi-res downloads and those can be made into DVDs. I guess, I would rather buy DVD-A's pre-made and with nice packaging, and the price would be about the same. The Steven Wilson DVD projects are selling for about what a download costs, including the cost of the DVD-R.

 

----------------------
Thanks. I will check them out. Well, his pages don't see to be active.

 

Yeah, what Robin said. Shannon's sampling theorem says you only need one sample per cycle, but that is a mathematical theory. To get real hardware and software to do it in real life is not perfect. You could say higher sampling frequencies give more "headroom" or "room to breathe" for the processes-like a tiny car can climb the mountain with a struggle, but a V-8 Mustang will just zoom up.

Plus, we don't hear just by frequency. It is still not completely understood, but we hear also by timing which is a problem for real-world digital implementations.

 

This is a major point when discussing hi-res. I am astounded by the number of folks that confuse this issue. Thank you for clarifying it in this discussion, as apparently it needs to be stated every time these kind of topics come up...

 

There's good, long, subjective and with plenty of measurements reviews of the Pono in InnerFidelity and Stereophile:


http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/pono-player-and-promises-fulfilled

http://www.stereophile.com/content/pono-ponoplayer-portable-music-player

This was my big takaway:


That's an impulse test, for ringing, the Pono with redbook. Most of the time pre/post digital ringing looks like this:



To lose the ringing, the Pono rolls off the top octave and has some additional distortion artifacts by virtue of less filtering of ultrasonic material. With higher sampling, these issues go away.

 

If your house burns down or is similarly destroyed, you might indeed be WhatHappenedToMyMusic?Rob. Sounds far fetched? Happened to several folks right here on the forum.

Fortunately all my music (save vinyl) is replicated several times over, so nothing short of an atom bomb will stop me from enjoying my music, forever.

Just something to keep in mind

 

Theoretical Probability and Experimental Probability. Quite a difference in practice...even for just rolling a pair of die, as in music.

As a side note, not a one of my math students had ever heard why 7 is a lucky number. I guess kids don't play board-games anymore.

 

I think if the end result comes from the same mastering and same set of Hi-Rez files the final selling price for all download resolutions should be the same price. I think they would sell a lot more downloads.

Pat

 

High-res audio = only of interest to audiophiles.
Audiophiles = spend more $$$.

Funny how Bandcamp sells lossy and lossless (including hi-res) for the same price...

 

I think I said this elsewhere, but I've been wondering what would happen if you simply DIDN'T lowpass filter. In *theory* ultrasonic frequencies would wrap down into the audio range, creating frequencies unrelated musically, thus creating havoc with the sound. Cats would start sleeping with dogs, and the world would drown in a sea of fire.

But...is there that much ultrasonics to really cause such problems? Especially if you start sampling at 48 kHz, 96 kHz, 192 kHz-heck, the microphones can't even pass those frequencies I don't generally believe.

So what would REALLY happen?

 

Going up in sampling rates, the problems do go away. A lot of analog "classic audiophile" recordings are naturally bandwidth limited. There's only so much a Neumann U-47 can do, after all. And if you don't bandpass, use an insanely high sampling rate and operate as a one bit recorder, you've got DSD, right?

 

The short and sweet of it.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question620.htm

 

Which, by the way, is almost certainly where Sony got the idea for DSD/SACD: Why convert to high-bit to 1-bit with noise-shaping inside the DAC chip, when you can just make the entire format 1-bit with a super-high sample rate and aggressive noise shaping?

It sounds like a hare-brained idea, but based on how SACDs sound, it seems like it was a really good idea!

 

I am so thoroughly pleased with my little Steinberg UR-22 24/192 usb interface ($150) and my AKG 701s ($229 from their online store) that downloads will be more a part of my new music purchases, but I still will buy some vinyl now and again if a good price. I just bought Robben Ford's new album (Into The Sun from Amazon) on 180 gram vinyl for under $20 including shipping, so that was good and it is very enjoyable. I will needle drop it at 2496 this week as it will be way better than their 320kbps download that in my Sony Sound Forge was compressed and peak limited to death. Sony CD Architect also detected digital overs, not a good thing, but I could not sonically pick them out due to the mp3 nature of it. I hope the vinyl was not sourced from THIS mastering, and it appears not to be, but I will see after I needle drop.

Hard to imagine so much enjoyment can come from so little money. No one can complain that super high quality audio is just a rich man's game. It just isn't so anymore. 24/192 is about as good as it can get if recorded properly.

 

Because they can be.

 

Well... Looks like you guys might be candidates to try the "Digital Filters Test"! Have a listen for yourself and tell me which samples have the nasty pre-ringing:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/04/internet-blind-test-linear-vs-minimum.html

Much appreciated!

 

Wouldn't be able to tell you anything via the link with my gear. An overhaul of the I-Mac is overdue. Do think there's something—maybe a lot— to pre-post ringing with digital and am glad to see it can be dealt with these days. Reality is, as D/A converters improve, the older all-digital productions sound better, and the really new and really good get really close to really good analog.