HD Tracks

That's where I always get my audio.... amazing stuff. The "Dark Knight Rises" in 192 is absolutely incredible.

Well, I've been listening to 24/192 and DSD transfers of tape recordings and 24/88-96 recordings for about 12 years now. Yeah. There's a difference.

I found it ironic that my spending $1300 on a universal player for the listening system yielded no noticeable improvement in SACD and DVDA and their respective file types--and made HUGE improvement in redbook and 48khz audio. As I've said all along--high sample rates (and DSD) are a working class upgrade--meaning, SACD on a $125 player sounds mostly like SACD on my $1300 one....or the $600 one it replaced. If I told you this:

Format A: This is a fine format if you buy a $1300 player. It's compromised from the studio master, but not enough that most people would notice.
Format B: This sounds better than "A on a $1300 player".....on a $125 unit.

Who in their right mind would choose format A? This is why I scratch my head so much...but, honestly--it all made more sense when they were discs. Once you have to download, backup, and maintain file systems? Now you literally ARE in a scenario where you need to balance size/performance. When it was all the same sized silver disc--it made since to have 6GB DSD discs. Why does anyone give a F how much data is on the disc? Now, you really have to ask "how much difference does 6gb make versus 600mb versus 60mb?" On the good side--it really doesn't cost much, if any, extra to make them available as file downloads, unlike discs. So, if the 1% of the audience who cares double buys.....maybe it ends up being worth it.

Which brings up my complaint with HDTracks (and every service like them--it's not THEM, it's the label feeds)---no liner notes. You're packaging a "premium" version with a PDF of the album cover? That's says if I'm a fan, I HAVE to buy the CD, then buy the high rez download to listen to while I read the CD liner notes? Fail. It's not like those liner notes aren't PDF files already at the label. They're literally withholding them hoping for double buys.

The FLAC player is free and works great.

This is the one I've always used, works great! 

download.cnet.com/VLC-Media-Player/3000-2139_4-10210434.html

iTunes uses CoreAudio, thus it's allow Apple to reclock the audio. I'm not sure I'd call it "bad sounding"--I use it for normal "play while you surf" music....but, Audiovana will lock down the hardware at HAL level--bypassing the reclocking of CoreAudio. I use that when I hook the MacBook up to the "big system" for music listening. It will play DSD files, too--and convert to PCM if your DAC doesn't support native DSD.

I'm going to say it....because it bares repeating--the MASTER matters more than the resolution. I can show you CD masters that best 24/192 masters. My point being--you need something mastered with care for the difference to matter much--and it DOES matter....but, only ASSuming the mastering itself is equal.

...or better--the new Tom Petty "only" at 24/48 sounds better than the CD by miles because they left the high rez dynamic and crushed teh CD. Where the first Maroon5 at HDTracks is DR6 or something--just like the 2002CD. The 96khz still sounds better, but not by enough to give too much of a shit. Certainly not enough to buy it AGAIN if you already own it. Unless you just, you know--it's your fave album ever.

No, you're hearing a 128kbps mp3. An irony I've pointed out many times--they should simply remove the clips. It's ALL "rebuying" anyway. Not like people are buying things they've never heard for $18-25 a pop. Yet--more than a few people I'm SURE turn their speakers up, click the mp3 preview and go "that sounds like my stolen mp3" and don't buy.

JK....since I know you liked the album, if you want to buy something-get the last Gregory Porter. It's stunning sounding. It's the only version I had....went home to visit and my mother had bought the CD...put it on and thought "shit...now, if that can't sell high rez"--cause the CD is "ehh sounding", IMO. Usually I go the other way--right? I've had the CD for decade(s) and maybe the vinyl if it's old enough....and I get the high rez....

Anyway--the modern jazz stuff like that is the best. Jane Monheit has been recording and releasing 96khz for many albums--maybe whole career.

The Eagles set sounds fabulous, as well. I love having a nice master of One of These Nights, which is my fave--I have had various nice masters of Hotel Cali, for example--the new one might be the best, but it's not night and day....but, having the whole catalog "evenly mastered" is nice. The Ronstadt stuff of the same era....isn't as good. They certainly don't suck, but the MFSL CD of Hasten Down the Wind is nicer sounding than the 24/192 remaster. Compared to the label released CDs....they're improved, but again-those were solid CD masters to start with, IMO. Only "Back in the USA" I sourced a good old vinyl which improves on the CD....and really is a draw between it and the 24/192.

But, then--I have had a DVD-Audio/SACD player for 12+ years....so....

nahhh, if it was the hi rez, you'd have known.

On pc's Winamp plays them , which is free .

But I have to say aren't most of the new 24bit 96khz releases from the original master tape ran through modern mastering converters ? Like if you compare your old cd to the new release I think the biggest difference is the latest mastering converters used compared with say the mastering converters in the 90's that made your CD .

I got the re-release of Nevermind and while it does sound clearer , it was slammed in mastering , the modern mastering converters made it too clear , I like the sound of the original CD much better .