HI Guys - I heard back from the 10C. I also checked the answer I received with another highly respected mastering engineer. I'm satisfied with the answer and will continue purchasing the FLAC HD downloads.
What is done for the FLAC HD files is this -> The digital files are originally recorded at 48 kHz, then transfered to analog for most of the processing, then converted back to digital at 96 kHz.
This is a common practice used by mastering engineers.
I accept this might be common practice, but is anything gained by having the final output at 96kHz I wonder? I can't see how. I wonder why they bother. Doesn't it just make the final product twice as big?
I accept this might be common practice, but is anything gained by having the final output at 96kHz I wonder? I can't see how. I wonder why they bother. Doesn't it just make the final product twice as big?
It adds the warmth and depth that you get from vinyl.
I accept this might be common practice, but is anything gained by having the final output at 96kHz I wonder? I can't see how. I wonder why they bother. Doesn't it just make the final product twice as big?
It adds the warmth and depth that you get from vinyl.
I accept this might be common practice, but is anything gained by having the final output at 96kHz I wonder? I can't see how. I wonder why they bother. Doesn't it just make the final product twice as big?
I understand what you're saying and I thought the same thing initially. Mastering the file in the analog domain and outputting that to 96 kHz digital can improve playback due to the use of gentler filtering in the playback device. There are other technical reasons for doing this that I agree with but would likely bore the audience.
HIgh resolution itself can be quite controversial. For me it all comes down to how the final product sounds. If the 96 kHz bootlegs sound better than the 44.1 kHz versions then I'm all for the FLAC HD at 96 kHz. Sure we could talk about outputting from analog to 48 kHz rather than 96 kHz to save space but space is a non-issue for those playing high resolution. Most portable players can't handle high resolution and they are the only space constrained devices. Regular hard drives are so cheap that the difference between FLAC and FLAC HD is inconsequential.
Thanks for following up and providing the explanation, Chris. I love Computer Audiophile, it's a great community and it's been super helpful confirming 24/96 playback on iPad for my app. I didn't realize you were a big Pearl Jam fan too.
I'd been buying the 24/96 boots from 2012/2013, trusting they would legitimately be full 24/96, but too lazy to confirm. When they released the '98 show as 24/96, I started to get suspicious and and checked the spectrum/frequency analysis of that one and the 2013 lolla shows...
The explanation makes sense - I just need to decide if it's worth the extra $5 .
Thanks for following up and providing the explanation, Chris. I love Computer Audiophile, it's a great community and it's been super helpful confirming 24/96 playback on iPad for my app. I didn't realize you were a big Pearl Jam fan too.
I'd been buying the 24/96 boots from 2012/2013, trusting they would legitimately be full 24/96, but too lazy to confirm. When they released the '98 show as 24/96, I started to get suspicious and and checked the spectrum/frequency analysis of that one and the 2013 lolla shows...
The explanation makes sense - I just need to decide if it's worth the extra $5 .
Hi DL40241 - Thanks for the kind words. PJ is the best band on Earth. When I saw high res I got goose bumps! I remember the days of collecting the PJ CD Singles imported from Europe. They were about $15 each yet I still purchased all of them. An extra $5 for the HD download seems like a steal :~)
Are you going to Chicago this weekend for the PJ show at Wrigley Field? I wouldn't miss it for anything!
I accept this might be common practice, but is anything gained by having the final output at 96kHz I wonder? I can't see how. I wonder why they bother. Doesn't it just make the final product twice as big?
I understand what you're saying and I thought the same thing initially. Mastering the file in the analog domain and outputting that to 96 kHz digital can improve playback due to the use of gentler filtering in the playback device. There are other technical reasons for doing this that I agree with but would likely bore the audience.
HIgh resolution itself can be quite controversial. For me it all comes down to how the final product sounds. If the 96 kHz bootlegs sound better than the 44.1 kHz versions then I'm all for the FLAC HD at 96 kHz. Sure we could talk about outputting from analog to 48 kHz rather than 96 kHz to save space but space is a non-issue for those playing high resolution. Most portable players can't handle high resolution and they are the only space constrained devices. Regular hard drives are so cheap that the difference between FLAC and FLAC HD is inconsequential.
Exactly, and there IS a big difference in how the FLAC HD sounds to my ears. Playback on a $300 pair of AT's though and through a proper stereo set up.
Hi DL40241 - Thanks for the kind words. PJ is the best band on Earth. When I saw high res I got goose bumps! I remember the days of collecting the PJ CD Singles imported from Europe. They were about $15 each yet I still purchased all of them. An extra $5 for the HD download seems like a steal :~)
Are you going to Chicago this weekend for the PJ show at Wrigley Field? I wouldn't miss it for anything!
No I'm not in Chicago - My wife and I are expecting our first child any day now, so we're staying home .
Yeah I'll probably continue buying the high-res FLAC boots since I'm in favor of the practice and I don't want them to back to MP3-only. Voting with dollars I guess. My listening setup is pretty modest (iPad 3rd Gen, nuForce uDAC-2 USB DAC/headphone amplifier, Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones) but I'm happy with it. The uDAC was $100 and the headphones were $150 or so.
I know Im late in the game.... Whats the process of putting these hd flacs on dvd for audio? Same as a normal flac? Convert to wav then burn to a dvd? Should be getting 5.1 doing this to a dvd????
05/11/2000, Vancouver, BC
05/30/2003, Vancouver, BC
09/01/2005, The Gorge
09/02/2005, Vancouver, BC
07/22/2006, The Gorge
09/25/2009, Vancouver, BC
09/25/2011, Vancouver, BC
12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC
12/06/2013, Seattle, WA
Comments
It adds the warmth and depth that you get from vinyl.
HIgh resolution itself can be quite controversial. For me it all comes down to how the final product sounds. If the 96 kHz bootlegs sound better than the 44.1 kHz versions then I'm all for the FLAC HD at 96 kHz. Sure we could talk about outputting from analog to 48 kHz rather than 96 kHz to save space but space is a non-issue for those playing high resolution. Most portable players can't handle high resolution and they are the only space constrained devices. Regular hard drives are so cheap that the difference between FLAC and FLAC HD is inconsequential.
Hi cp3iverson - Here's a link to my current system. I can play almost any PCM sample rate and DSD files.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/members/the-computer-audiophile/?tab=profile_cat2#profile_cat2
I'd been buying the 24/96 boots from 2012/2013, trusting they would legitimately be full 24/96, but too lazy to confirm. When they released the '98 show as 24/96, I started to get suspicious and and checked the spectrum/frequency analysis of that one and the 2013 lolla shows...
The explanation makes sense - I just need to decide if it's worth the extra $5
Are you going to Chicago this weekend for the PJ show at Wrigley Field? I wouldn't miss it for anything!
Exactly, and there IS a big difference in how the FLAC HD sounds to my ears. Playback on a $300 pair of AT's though and through a proper stereo set up.
No I'm not in Chicago - My wife and I are expecting our first child any day now, so we're staying home
Yeah I'll probably continue buying the high-res FLAC boots since I'm in favor of the practice and I don't want them to back to MP3-only. Voting with dollars I guess. My listening setup is pretty modest (iPad 3rd Gen, nuForce uDAC-2 USB DAC/headphone amplifier, Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones) but I'm happy with it. The uDAC was $100 and the headphones were $150 or so.
05/30/2003, Vancouver, BC
09/01/2005, The Gorge
09/02/2005, Vancouver, BC
07/22/2006, The Gorge
09/25/2009, Vancouver, BC
09/25/2011, Vancouver, BC
12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC
12/06/2013, Seattle, WA