For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Found some of these but being not an internet crack I have some security concerns and many of them need premium accounts don't they?Quote
ironbelly
Just two magic words - google and torrent.
Quote
ironbelly
Just two magic words - google and torrent.
Quote
glimmertwin1Quote
ironbelly
Just two magic words - google and torrent.
Don't use torrents for official content nowadays
SureQuote
Irix
StonedRambler - if you temporary unhide your eMail, there'll be a hint ....
Quote
999Quote
glimmertwin1Quote
ironbelly
Just two magic words - google and torrent.
Don't use torrents for official content nowadays
Unless you already bought an original of what you download...
I bought all the Japanese flat transfer SACD but was happy to be able to download a digital copy of them on a well-known site so I can also enjoy them on other devices than my SACD player...
Do you know how to buy it from there from outside Japan?Quote
kowalski
That's a good question. Why Universal can't release these excellent remasters/flat transfers (or whatever they call them) as downloads in PCM form. That would be fantastic.
Currently Onkyo has only EOMS, Sticky Fingers, Tattoo You, Goats Head Soup and Love You Live. [www.e-onkyo.com]
Quote
StonedRamblerDo you know how to buy it from there from outside Japan?Quote
kowalski
That's a good question. Why Universal can't release these excellent remasters/flat transfers (or whatever they call them) as downloads in PCM form. That would be fantastic.
Currently Onkyo has only EOMS, Sticky Fingers, Tattoo You, Goats Head Soup and Love You Live. [www.e-onkyo.com]
Quote
StonedRambler
They use the same flat transfer masters as the SA-CDs, just that they are 16bit/44KHz instead of 24bit/96KHz.
Quote
StonedRambler
Do you guys hear a definitive sound improvement from "HD" quality (more than 16bit/44.1khz) and CD Quality?
But why should it sound better? A 44.1 KHz Sample Rate is able to 100 percent accurately reconstruct an analog waveform to until 20KHz. And most of us will not hear frequencies over 17 KHz. There are anti-aliasing filters but they are working at around 20KHz which most of us do not hear. I would say that if people hear differences then either because their converters work better with higher sample rates or because the mastering is different. But I doubt there is a difference between a 2009 Remaster from a CD and a 2009 Remaster from HD Tracks. As for Bit Depth 16 bit gives 96db of dynamic range and that should be more than a symphonic orchestra takes, or not? But if someone can give reasonable arguments for HD audio being better, would be very interestingQuote
IrixQuote
StonedRambler
Do you guys hear a definitive sound improvement from "HD" quality (more than 16bit/44.1khz) and CD Quality?
Hi-Res as well as SACD sounds more detailed, more transparent and more spatially. CD-Quality on the other hand sounds more compact.
But the most important thing is the Recording-Quality as well as the Mastering ....
Well, the signal-to-noise ratio of 16bit is around 96dB, quantisation noise happens that low that if you would like to hear it during some super, super, super quite parts, you had to turn it up so loud that you would lose your hearing instantly (no joke)! If you could even find a system that could be turned up that much... Also the dithering noise which is used to smooth out quantisation errors is much quieter than the tape hiss you hear on most analogue recordings (if you turn the volume up), so even if you would turn it up that much that you would lose all your hearing - you still could not hear the quantisation noise 'cause the tape hiss would mask it. Just to show how overrated these "artifacts" are. The digital waveform is more similar to the original waveforms (in the range until 20Khz) of the masterbands (if a flat transfer is made) than any vinyl will beQuote
Winning Ugly VXII
There is no digital format which is able to 100 percent accurately reconstruct an analog waveform,in my opinion.
Quantization noise,errors,jitter.
Quote
StonedRamblerWell, the signal-to-noise ratio of 16bit is around 96dB, quantisation noise happens that low that if you would like to hear it during some super, super, super quite parts, you had to turn it up so loud that you would lose your hearing instantly (no joke)! If you could even find a system that could be turned up that much... Also the dithering noise which is used to smooth out quantisation errors is much quieter than the tape hiss you hear on most analogue recordings (if you turn the volume up), so even if you would turn it up that much that you would lose all your hearing - you still could not hear the quantisation noise 'cause the tape hiss would mask it. Just to show how overrated these "artifacts" are. The digital waveform is more similar to the original waveforms (in the range until 20Khz) of the masterbands (if a flat transfer is made) than any vinyl will beQuote
Winning Ugly VXII
There is no digital format which is able to 100 percent accurately reconstruct an analog waveform,in my opinion.
Quantization noise,errors,jitter.
As for DSD I read about a study where trained musicans should hear the differences to PCM on state of the art audio equipment in an optimised and sealed off room. And the biggest part could not hear any differences at all. So I would say, if you do, it has more to do with your audio system that works better with DSD files.
Here's a very interested article about DSD: [www.mojo-audio.com]
Unfortunately the reputation of digital audio still suffers from it's early days when the resolution was really low and it sounded cold and sterile. So peope think that is still the same, just that the sterility is less because the resolution is higher. And so it seems logical that with higher resolution the sterility gets less and less. And that's partly true, but people forget that the resolution increases exponentially bit every bit. It's clear that it sounded kind of sterile with 8 bit which has just 256 dynamic increments. But with 65,536 increments at 16 bit? C'mon guys..
I would recommend every audiophile to employ with the basics of digital audio.
I did because in the past I worried about digital audio as I thought of it as it is trying to simulate the converted analog signal, and that we just don't notice it being simulated as we don't notice the individual pictures of a film. But now as I know how it really works I just started to appreciate what a blessing digital audio actually is!
Anyway, I'm totally fine if these HD versions give people a better feeling and make them happier when they listen to them. But as I don't hear a difference and I also can not rationally explain why there should be any, I am fine with 16bits
Quote
StonedRambler
My post was not about my personal listening preferences but about some technological facts why 16bit audio is enough, about quantisation noise and dynamic range. Therefore my chain of equipment is irrelevant. These information are about digital audio in general. Early digital recordings were 12bit which technology was long used in sampling devices due to less storage. That the birds outside your window sound better than any recording does not have to do with digital/analog recording. There is just no microphone in this world which is able to record it the way we hear it.
Quote
Irix
StonedRambler - if you temporary unhide your eMail, there'll be a hint ....