StephenJK Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 For anyone remotely interested, and particularly if you're a Neil Young fan take a wander over to the Neil Young Archives. https://neilyoungarchives.com/menu You can join for $10 a year and have access to 24/192 files of everything he's ever released - if you have the bandwith to be able to play it. Rexp 1 Link to comment
Currawong Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 On 6/7/2020 at 6:13 AM, Kal Rubinson said: And that is why I prefer this: I imagine it varies to a degree, but I've found that some high-res recordings, such as the 2L ones, are mostly ADC noise above 48 kHz. I.e.: If you buy above a 24/48 kHz file from them, you're paying for a lot of electrical noise. I haven't tested this with other providers of high-res music, though a quick look at a recent Chesky recording shows notes from instruments extending right up to 90 kHz. There seems to be a number of questions about the production of high-res music that need answering. For me, personally, while I used to have a preference for high-res recordings, in more recent times, I've found DAC models that are sufficiently good with CD-quality material that I don't worry about it any longer. Link to comment
Kal Rubinson Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 1. I am not prepared to bother with testing files, so I cannot dispute your finding although I would appreciate if you would provide a more specific example. 2. I see no reason to buy a 24/48 file from 2L as it has been processed (in some undefined way) from the original recording format. 3. I rarely buy anything from Chesky because they do not support multichannel. 6 hours ago, Currawong said: For me, personally, while I used to have a preference for high-res recordings, in more recent times, I've found DAC models that are sufficiently good with CD-quality material that I don't worry about it any longer. 4. I try to buy recordings in the original recorded format/resolution, if possible, but do not obsess about it. I do agree that a well-made recording at CD-quality played on good equipment can be sufficiently satisfying. Currawong 1 Kal Rubinson Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted June 9, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 9, 2020 On 6/7/2020 at 12:25 AM, Kal Rubinson said: or just leave it alone is not what beerandmusic does... kumakuma and The Computer Audiophile 2 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
John Dyson Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 7 hours ago, Currawong said: I imagine it varies to a degree, but I've found that some high-res recordings, such as the 2L ones, are mostly ADC noise above 48 kHz. I.e.: If you buy above a 24/48 kHz file from them, you're paying for a lot of electrical noise. I haven't tested this with other providers of high-res music, though a quick look at a recent Chesky recording shows notes from instruments extending right up to 90 kHz. There seems to be a number of questions about the production of high-res music that need answering. For me, personally, while I used to have a preference for high-res recordings, in more recent times, I've found DAC models that are sufficiently good with CD-quality material that I don't worry about it any longer. I essentially agree, but don't have all lof the info -- so I admit that I don't know about all recordings. However, one warning about it APPEARING that the instruments reach much above 20kHz -- it is possible for signal processing to make it look like the signals extend further up. I am not claiming the processing excuse for natrually made recordings, where they would indeed be true & accurate. I can take DolbyA material which never had significant signal above 20kHz, and make it seem like the signal extends further up, even without the intent to defraud. Also, compressors and other kinds of signal processing can also create distortion splats, that are not normally audible, but are visible on a spectogram. So, with signal processing, we can have the noise modulation from noise reduction (looks like signal), distortion splats, even without intent to defraud. I would not dare to make a claim about mistaken excess spectrum on well made materials though. This is just a beware. John Currawong 1 Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted June 9, 2020 Author Share Posted June 9, 2020 9 hours ago, Currawong said: I imagine it varies to a degree, but I've found that some high-res recordings, such as the 2L ones, are mostly ADC noise above 48 kHz. I.e.: If you buy above a 24/48 kHz file from them, you're paying for a lot of electrical noise. I haven't tested this with other providers of high-res music, though a quick look at a recent Chesky recording shows notes from instruments extending right up to 90 kHz. There seems to be a number of questions about the production of high-res music that need answering. For me, personally, while I used to have a preference for high-res recordings, in more recent times, I've found DAC models that are sufficiently good with CD-quality material that I don't worry about it any longer. AGREE--- 5+ years ago, i swore by hi-res over dlna was "THE ANSWER" as i could hear it sounded much better than 44.1khz via usb, but i think dac engineering have finally progressed to where the 44.1k upsampled by the dac with proper isolation and reclocking is sufficient in itself..... Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted June 9, 2020 Author Share Posted June 9, 2020 2 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said: 4. I try to buy recordings in the original recorded format/resolution, if possible, but do not obsess about it. I do agree that a well-made recording at CD-quality played on good equipment can be sufficiently satisfying. +1 Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted June 9, 2020 Author Share Posted June 9, 2020 I think 44.1k does fully encapsulate most peoples hearing spectrum, and that said, i think that 48K upsampled to 96K would be the sweetspot without having to do "too much" and without having to mess with very high DSD ratest than can cause their own issues. A solid 96K or 192K USB PCM DAC with good isolation and reclocking should be satisfying to even the most demanding golden ears....i think the schiit mb w/unison does this...and there may be many others, but Moffat has been in the business and knows PCM probably as well as the best. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now