Stunning sounding high res files

[Audiocrack]

Benjamin Britten, the young person's guide to orchestra, sinfonia da requiem, Peter Grimes:four sea interludes & passacaglia, Michael Stern, Kansas City Symphony, Reference Recordings, 24/176.4.

 

[Alpinist]

Gee, where do you get the WAV files? All I see on the various on line stores is AIFF or FLAC. Thanks.

Hi Joe,

You can purchase WAV files on HDTracks. WAV is one of the format choices. To purchase the best sounding files, the key is to choose an uncompressed format. WAV and AIFF are both uncompressed, while FLAC and ALAC are both compressed. I've purchased several albums in both WAV and FLAC format on HDTracks. The WAV format gives you significantly more soundstage depth and nuance than the FLAC format. I have not tried AIFF but I would expect sound quality to be similar to WAV as it is also uncompressed.

Best,
Ken

 

[Joe Whip]

Soundliason has a new recording, Impromtu, Live at the Rhapsody, offer in WAV 24/96 and DSD64 in addition to FLAC. The DSD file was recorded live so it is NOT the PCM feed fed through an analog board. The DSD file is more money so I asked them what sounded more like the live mic feed. Surprisingly, they emailed me the first track in DSD and WAV for free for me to compare. They both sound superb and I am not sure there is much of a difference between them other that the cost, 12 Euros vs. 16. If I had to pick one, I would say that the WAV file has just a tad more detail, which is heard in the crowd as it is a live recording. Given the price differential and very similar sonics. I will be adding the WAV file to my collection. THis will be my third Sound Liason recording. They are all sensational.

 

[Joe Whip]

Hi Joe,

You can purchase WAV files on HDTracks. WAV is one of the format choices. To purchase the best sounding files, the key is to choose an uncompressed format. WAV and AIFF are both uncompressed, while FLAC and ALAC are both compressed. I've purchased several albums in both WAV and FLAC format on HDTracks. The WAV format gives you significantly more soundstage depth and nuance than the FLAC format. I have not tried AIFF but I would expect sound quality to be similar to WAV as it is also uncompressed.

Best,
Ken

I will look again. All of the stuff I have purchased from HDTracks has been AIFF.

 

[Joe Whip]

You are correct. I will try a WAV and compare it to AIFF.

 

[Audiocrack]

Exotic dances, Eiji Oue, Minnesota orchestra, Reference recordings, 24/176.4. Compared to the Britten Reference recording I just listed this one is even better from an audiophile point of view: (even) more transparent and a larger soundstage. However, I clearly prefer the Britten recording from a musical point of view. Both recordings sound tremendous so you cannot go wrong with either of them if you purely concentrate on the sonics.

 

[rbbert]

Guys, when you buy from HDTracks or any of the hi-res download dealers you get FLAC if you order PCM (as opposed to DSD). The "Download Manager" (in all cases made by JRiver) will automatically convert the FLAC files to WAV or AIFF if that's what you ordered. There are also a number of free programs which can interconvert any and all PCM file formats (and now in the case of XLD - on Mac only - DSD as well). The advantages of ordering FLAC and converting it yourself are two: FLAC has better and more extensive tagging options than any of the other formats, and it's smaller for your (absolutely necessary) back-up files storage.

 

[Audiocrack]

JS Bach, St John passion, Richard Egarr conducting the Academy of ancient music, AAM, 24/96. This recording was produced and engineerd by Philip Hobbs who is also (as engineer) responsible for many Linn recordings. A pretty direct but also very fine recording by very fine musicians.

 

[Audiocrack]

Birth of the symphony, Handel to Haydn, Richard Egarr conducting the Academy of ancient music, AAM, 24/96. As the previous listing engineered and produced by Philip Hobbs.

 

[MadFloyd]

JS Bach, St John passion, Richard Egarr conducting the Academy of ancient music, AAM, 24/96. This recording was produced and engineerd by Philip Hobbs who is also (as engineer) responsible for many Linn recordings. A pretty direct but also very fine recording by very fine musicians.

Audiocrack, why can't you provide a link or something to make it easier to find these recordings?

 

[Audiocrack]

Audiocrack, why can't you provide a link or something to make it easier to find these recordings?

First of all it is nice to see that some members are paying attention to the records listed in this thread. However, overall I find the participation in this thread disappointing. So once again I ask our members to participate more so that we can learn from eachother what recordings are real treasures.

As regards your question MadFloyd: first of all I am no real wizard with computers (and links). Secondly every recording listed by me can be easily found on the internet. For example the latest two recordings that I listed: go to the website of the Academy of ancient music and you will find all their recordings that can be downloaded. Furthermore you will find some interesting 'clips' of some of the recordings.

So I presumed that our members - if they are really interested in the recordings that I have listed - are smart enough to find them. Or do I overestimate the qualities of our members?

Lastly, off course there are quite a number of different music download sites and I do not have the time nor the willingness to list all of them if a certain recording can be downloaded from various sites.

 

[cat6man]

Hi Joe,

You can purchase WAV files on HDTracks. WAV is one of the format choices. To purchase the best sounding files, the key is to choose an uncompressed format. WAV and AIFF are both uncompressed, while FLAC and ALAC are both compressed. I've purchased several albums in both WAV and FLAC format on HDTracks. The WAV format gives you significantly more soundstage depth and nuance than the FLAC format. I have not tried AIFF but I would expect sound quality to be similar to WAV as it is also uncompressed.

Best,
Ken

I have a similar experience to you regarding WAV vs. FLAC, and the difference was not subtle.
However, my WAV was decoded from the FLAC that I had purchased/downloaded.
Are you suggesting that WAV (losslessly decoded from FLAC) sounds different than a WAV original?

 

[RBFC]

First of all it is nice to see that some members are paying attention to the records listed in this thread. However, overall I find the participation in this thread disappointing. So once again I ask our members to participate more so that we can learn from eachother what recordings are real treasures.

As regards your question MadFloyd: first of all I am no real wizard with computers (and links). Secondly every recording listed by me can be easily found on the internet. For example the latest two recordings that I listed: go to the website of the Academy of ancient music and you will find all their recordings that can be downloaded. Furthermore you will find some interesting 'clips' of some of the recordings.

So I presumed that our members - if they are really interested in the recordings that I have listed - are smart enough to find them. Or do I overestimate the qualities of our members?

Lastly, off course there are quite a number of different music download sites and I do not have the time nor the willingness to list all of them if a certain recording can be downloaded from various sites.

It's unnecessary to make disparaging comments about WBF members (and against the Terms of Service). While the convenience of supplied links, etc. is undeniable, it's totally within your rights to post only what you wish. In the future, please simply tell members to search the web for any recordings you recommend. I've personally learned a great deal from the info in this thread, and still consider myself a rookie when it comes to hi-res file playback.

Thanks,

Lee

 

[Alpinist]

I have a similar experience to you regarding WAV vs. FLAC, and the difference was not subtle.
However, my WAV was decoded from the FLAC that I had purchased/downloaded.
Are you suggesting that WAV (losslessly decoded from FLAC) sounds different than a WAV original?

Hi Cat6man,

No, the WAV files that you losslessly decoded from FLAC should sound exactly the same as the original WAV files purchased from HDTracks. May I ask what software you are using to do the conversion?

Thanks,
Ken

 

[Audiocrack]

It's unnecessary to make disparaging comments about WBF members (and against the Terms of Service). While the convenience of supplied links, etc. is undeniable, it's totally within your rights to post only what you wish. In the future, please simply tell members to search the web for any recordings you recommend. I've personally learned a great deal from the info in this thread, and still consider myself a rookie when it comes to hi-res file playback.

Thanks,

Lee

Disparaging comments? Do not understand this comment so please explain.

 

[marslo]

Gentlemen,

Since I switched to files and computer based music a few years ago , my goal was to buy the best sounding music from providers with good download managers solutions.
After I tried many different audio and download options I am of the opinion that wav files betters flac so I ripp with dbpoweramp to wav instead of flac .I buy jazz and pop music in wav hires pcm from hdtracks or qobuz . My preference in classical music goes for native dsd : channelclassics and fone are both particulary good in dsd recordings imho.
For me the best ratio for SQ/price/download time have 24/96 wav files and dsd 64 fs.
I like very much HRX music from RR 24/176,4 but 24/96 files have enough resolution with better timbre to my ears, the same with dsd 64 fs against 128 fs .
As I use Aurender W20 in my setup I have no experiance with files converted with SW like JR or HQplayer.
I learned a lot about computer based music from our fellows audiophiles in CA forum.

And - last but not least - I use this opportunity to recommend two discs bought in last few month which combine beautiful music with sq :
a/ jazz reccording - http://www.hdtracks.com/beautiful-life 24/96 wav
b/ classical - Handel arias form CC dsd 64fs http://www.channelclassics.com/zomer-29209.html

 

[Audiocrack]

Gentlemen,

Since I switched to files and computer based music a few years ago , my goal was to buy the best sounding music from providers with good download managers solution.
After I tried many different audio and download options I am of the opinion that wav files betters flac so I ripp with dbpoweramp to wav instead of flac .I buy jazz and pop music in wav hires pcm from hdtracks or qobuz . My preference in classical music goes for native dsd : channelclassics and fone are both particulary good in dsd recordings imho.
For me the best ratio for SQ/price/download time have 24/96 wav files and dsd 64 fs.
I like very much HRX music from RR 24/176,4 but 24/96 files have enough resolution with better timbre to my ears, the same with dsd 64 fs against 128 fs .
As I use Aurender W20 in my setup I have no experiance with files converted with SW like JR or HQplayer.
I learned a lot about computer based music from our fellows audiophiles in CA forum.

And - last but not least - I use this opportunity to recommend two discs bought in last few month which combine beautiful music with sq :
a/ jazz reccording - http://www.hdtracks.com/beautiful-life 24/96 wav
b/ classical - Handel arias form CC dsd 64fs http://www.channelclassics.com/zomer-29209.html

Thanks for your interesting contribution. Do I understand you correctly that you (most of the time) prefer 24/96 files to 24/192 files and dsd 64 to dsd 128? My experience with dsd is limited but the few hours I listened to it my impression was that dsd 128 sounded more fluid and smooth than dsd 64, that is as if you were listening less to reproduced music and more to a live performance. I have much more experience with pcm and clearly prefer 24/192 to 24/96 in the instances I have been able to compare the same recordings. The RR 24/176.4 files that I own are awesome, with a huge soundstage (in particular the depth is phenomenal) and a very transparent presentation (the (micro) info retrieval is so impressive).

 

[marslo]

Thanks for your interesting contribution. Do I understand you correctly that you (most of the time) prefer 24/96 files to 24/192 files and dsd 64 to dsd 128? My experience with dsd is limited but the few hours I listened to it my impression was that dsd 128 sounded more fluid and smooth than dsd 64, that is as if you were listening less to reproduced music and more to a live permance. I have much more experience with pcm and clearly prefer 24/192 to 24/96 in the instances I have been able to compare the same recordings. The RR 24/176.4 files that I own are awesome, with a huge soundstage (in particular the depth is phenomenal) and a very transparent presentation (the (micro) info retrieval is so impressive).

Yes , that's what I mean - I do not buy 24/192 or 128 fs on regular base.
Let's have files from Dick Hyman music from RR as an example . When I compare "Thinking about Bix" from HRX 24/176,4 RR to the same music from the disc " Recital " , track no 8, wav 16/44,1 http://www.hdtracks.com/in-recital ,
I prefer the timbre of 9 feet Bosendorfer registered in redbook resolution ( the recording is 24 bit hdcd by RR) . Sure, the resolution and space are better from hires, but my 2 main preferences in audio are timbre and dynamics, it's a matter of personal taste.
I agree with you that 128 fs can be realy smooth ( may I recommend https://eudora.nativedsd.com/albums/mozart-chopin-dialogue as a very good example) but the file is over 5GB .
I am a "tube guy" and very hires are sometimes too dry for my and lack of timbre and emotional impact. I appreciate the soundstage and depth of recordings like Benjamin Britten's "The young persons's guide" HRX 24/176,4 RR - one of my favourite, but I am happy with 24/96 and dsd 64 fs.

 

[Audiocrack]

Yes , that's what I mean - I do not buy 24/192 or 128 fs on regular base.
Let's have files from Dick Hyman music from RR as an example . When I compare "Thinking about Bix" from HRX 24/176,4 RR to the same music from the disc " Recital " , track no 8, wav 16/44,1 http://www.hdtracks.com/in-recital ,
I prefer the timbre of 9 feets Bosendorfer registered in redbook resolution ( the recording is 24 bit hdcd by RR) . Sure, the resolution and space are better from hires, but my 2 main preferences in audio are timbre and dynamic, it's a matter of personal taste.
I agree with you that 128 fs can be realy smooth ( may I recommend https://eudora.nativedsd.com/albums/mozart-chopin-dialogue as a very good example) but the file is over 5GB .
I am a "tube guy" and very hires are sometimes too dry for my and lack of timbre and emotional impact. I appreciate the soundstage and depth of recordings like Benjamin Britten's "The young persons's guide" HRX 24/176,4 RR - one of my favourite, but I am happy with 24/96 and dsd 64 fs.

Well, offcourse the only thing that matters is that you are happy listening to your system.

BTW, I am tube guy as well but I clearly prefer (good pcm) high res files to (good) red book. The two most important reasons are:
a. Tonality. Red book sounds clearly less smooth and fluid in my system than high res.
b. Dimensionality. Red book always sounds - to say it crudely - more two dimensional while high res sounds more three dimensional in my system.

 

[rbbert]

Hi Cat6man,

No, the WAV files that you losslessly decoded from FLAC should sound exactly the same as the original WAV files purchased from HDTracks. May I ask what software you are using to do the conversion?

Thanks,
Ken

I refer you to post #187. At this time one cannot buy "original WAV" files from HDTracks or any other on-line retailer.