Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Where to get Audiophile music?

Adam Montville

Adam Montville

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
424
Reaction score
1
Points
16
I recently started to get into Audiophile type of equipment, and wow.... What I have been missing all these years!

My setup is currently:

DAC: Audio-GD NFB-11.28
Speakers: JBL LSR305
Sub: JBL LSR310

Everything is just 'separated', and you can hear EVERYTHING. Really wondering how the RED Hydrogen and the "Multichannel spatial sound" will work with it...

Now the question is how to find high end audio files to play on this. I have been getting 16bit/44kHz FLAC files from 7digital, but I'm reading that unless it's 24bit/96kHz, that FLAC doesn't do enough justice. I've also been seeing to look into DSD files. I'm looking online to try and find 24/96 FLAC/DSDs but the sites normally make you buy the entire album, which I'm not a fan of doing...

What sites let you pick individual tracks and download 24/96 FLAC, or DSD files?
 
There are a few websites that offer higher end sources, but I think most are album only. Neil Young was trying something, but I don't know if it went anywhere. Some of them offer samples to try.

But in my experience the difference is imperceptible past 320kbps MP3s. Sure, high res demo tracks sound amazing, but so do most good classical recordings. Granted, those with exceptional systems and golden ears can hear the difference between 320kbps and FLAC and I can't, but I understand it matters. The limit of human hearing, however, is pretty strictly 20khz or lower (really 15.4khz for most adults) and CDs are sampled at 44.1khz, so the nyquist theorem indicates that CDs can properly convey greater than the entire range of human hearing. (We can hear maybe 20hz-15.4khz; CDs can play anything up to 22khz, half of 44.1khz.)

I know a lot of audiophiles swear by higher end sources, and Tidal MQA is popular if you want to give it a try. But excluding the possibility that the pinna or something can receive inaudible spatial cues from overtones, or the very real possibility that you're getting a track that's mastered better, you might be wasting your money.

That said, my dream system upscales to something like 700khz... but uses CDs. :/

https://chordelectronics.co.uk/product/blu-mk-2/
 
Last edited:
Do the following....

1. Book a flight to Japan and book a room at a hotel with Internet in the rooms.

2. Get a laptop with the biggest SSD you can get your grubby paws on.

3. Set up an account with the Japanese digital music services like e-onkyo. They offer a ton of HQ music downloads of individual tracks in FLAC, PCM, and DSD, which you can pretty much only buy in Japan.

4. Buy! Buy! Buy!
 
L. Langer said:
Do the following....

1. Book a flight to Japan and book a room at a hotel with Internet in the rooms.

2. Get a laptop with the biggest SSD you can get your grubby paws on.

3. Set up an account with the Japanese digital music services like e-onkyo. They offer a ton of HQ music downloads of individual tracks in FLAC, PCM, and DSD, which you can pretty much only buy in Japan.

4. Buy! Buy! Buy!
Click to expand...

Might be worth it if I could save some coin on some Sigma CINE primes while I'm there...

Cheers - #19
 
There was a musician I think that set something up with lossless 96kh (uncompressed) sources. Might have been crowd funded, I don't remember. Maybe 4-11 years ago.

Indeed, people can derive benefits on sources above 20khz. The higher the frequency is the less the response (quieter) I find. Now, people say that the harmonics of those frequencies is what these other people are deriving, but I am pretty confident some people at least hear the frequencies themselves. As I said, it sounds very quiet, but I've heard it I believe. But my ears have been blocked a lot over the last decade or more, so I don't even hear the audible range ones properly.

There was a better quality found in blind trials of CD against records in the late 80's I think. I think it was put down to harmonics of th higher frequencies (but that was just a possible explanation). But look at the music industry they don't go 48khz and 96khz+, for no reason. Indeed, I found the glistering of higher frequencies rather enjoyable when I could hear them. So, worth exploring. But if a normal listener can hear them, it is probably more likely they can feel them more than recognise them. It's the same as color grading and various picture vales, the trained eye/ear can pick up things others only subconsciously feel. I beat the guys don't the paint counter regularly for color matching, even shades of white. Some of us here can see the grid between pixels in the cinema (Jeff is much better at this than me, I ussually have to get my eye health right on God glasses where I can go beyond 20/20 vision a few lines using pattern recognition. I had read books on improving eyesight without glasses, and training in locating the highest resolution spot, training yourself to recognise patterns and diet are big things in this. I could even do hand micro writing you wouldn't recognise as writing when younger).
 
I doubt this is the answer you are looking for, but you really need to get some brand new vinyl of your favorite albums, turntable and a new needle.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
There was a musician I think that set something up with lossless 96kh (uncompressed) sources. Might have been crowd funded, I don't remember. Maybe 4-11 years ago.

Indeed, people can derive benefits on sources above 20khz. The higher the frequency is the less the response (quieter) I find. Now, people say that the harmonics of those frequencies is what these other people are deriving, but I am pretty confident some people at least hear the frequencies themselves. As I said, it sounds very quiet, but I've heard it I believe. But my ears have been blocked a lot over the last decade or more, so I don't even hear the audible range ones properly.

There was a better quality found in blind trials of CD against records in the late 80's I think. I think it was put down to harmonics of th higher frequencies (but that was just a possible explanation). But look at the music industry they don't go 48khz and 96khz+, for no reason. Indeed, I found the glistering of higher frequencies rather enjoyable when I could hear them. So, worth exploring. But if a normal listener can hear them, it is probably more likely they can feel them more than recognise them. It's the same as color grading and various picture vales, the trained eye/ear can pick up things others only subconsciously feel. I beat the guys don't the paint counter regularly for color matching, even shades of white. Some of us here can see the grid between pixels in the cinema (Jeff is much better at this than me, I ussually have to get my eye health right on God glasses where I can go beyond 20/20 vision a few lines using pattern recognition. I had read books on improving eyesight without glasses, and training in locating the highest resolution spot, training yourself to recognise patterns and diet are big things in this. I could even do hand micro writing you wouldn't recognise as writing when younger).
Click to expand...

It's an interesting debate. If you can hear the overtones above 20khz, it follows that you can also hear the fundamental above 20khz, so no disagreement there. It's only because there's no music or audio for film recorded with (intentional) fundamental frequencies in the 20khz range that I mention overtones instead.

I've tried online hearing tests at high volumes and my range of hearing goes to 15.4khz, which is a common cut off for adults, and pretty good given that I used to go to a lot of concerts and am going a bit deaf. I do know adults who can hear higher than that, and have read that some children can hear to nearly 30khz, but they can also hear dog whistles and/or noise machines set up in public places to drive off children and animals. It's exceptionally rare that adults can hear above 15khz or so, and those I know who can wish they couldn't because they constantly hear electronics buzz (I hear them sometimes, they hear them constantly) as well as hearing noise machines set up to deter children.

To me, the crux of the debate isn't if we can hear above 20khz, because 99% of us can't. It's if we can subconsciously sense spatial cues at higher frequencies than we can hear. I don't believe there's any documented evidence of people hearing higher than 28khz, and no adults can hear frequencies that high, or at least there's no documented evidence that we can. But it's possible we can sense those frequencies without hearing them, and that it contributes to aural depth perception etc. I also think that a very high end DAC (discrete FGPA instead of delta-sigma) applied to a CD will beat out virtually any other format with a lesser DAC. Unfortunately, the cheapest such DAC I know of is $2400, and the more expensive ones $15k+. Fwiw, I like my delta-sigma DAC and with my meagre system I can already hear flaws in most recordings. The loudness wars make most music mastered in the past 20 years almost unlistenable through a good system, anyway. I had to sell off my most revealing system (a Stax Lambda electrostatic headphone) because it revealed the flaws in too much of the music I listen to. I still have an electrostatic system, but one with a lower treble response. And I am picky. I find my $500 Shure earbuds nasal and the HD650 far too veiled for my taste. I still think they both sound great but it's not like I'm an easy customer with audio. (That said, I can't reliably detect the difference between 320kpbs and FLAC double blind.)

I do believe vinyl can produce higher frequencies than CDs, but there's much more hiss and worse low frequency response as a trade off. I suspect the bad reputation CDs have among audiophiles is due to bad DACs and also due to vinyls being mastered with greater dynamic range simply to appear to audiophiles. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, not a matter of an inherently better format.

I can't speak to the vision stuff. It all depends on viewing distance.

Anyhow, my response to the original post would be to double blind test some MQA sources (compensating for volume, I heard Tidal will trick you by being mastered louder) and then spend the money on components instead if it doesn't pay off.

That said, I just downgraded my system. Would rather focus on the music than the DAC and above a certain level of fidelity most of what I heard were just extra flaws.
 
Last edited:
Lol. I had the greatest of Simon and Garfunkel, and when I put that through a descent system, it sounded like a screechy mess.

But yes, the bass and loudness wars. My old Logitech z5500, an exceptional system for the price for the day (though I regret getting rid of the previouse version with all the nice cable and bananna plugs I bought. It had a nice tone with that, and could hear every bit of a guitarist's fingers rubbing accross the strings on the maudio sampler cd. This one is hard wired). Unfortunately the z5500 has way too much bass and it becomes muddled the louder it goes). With my hearing now, I don't know where to put it. But with bassy music, you light as well turn bass to minimum. My car's have had similar issues, bas on-top of bad. Really annoying when the workshop resets the equaliser settings. But at least with the z5500, I had written in previously to suggest they could actively adjust the signal by frequency to compensate for the response curve drop off, which they did in that one. It was very flat for those days.

I've busted one of the satellites on the z5500, and after more than a decade and some electrical damage, I'm thinking of looking for something extremely good value again to replace it. Unfortunately that ultrasonic cross over beam technology is not out (maybe I should make one, they should be out of patent by now). But then again, if only I could set up a 10.2 system with 12 inch+ equator studio reference horn speakers as the subs. Ahh, the money, the money. Expensive Red camera setup or 10.2 pseudo home theatre.

Anyway. The issue with ultrasonic is it is so quiet you have to look for it. So, the trained ear might pick it up. Unfortunately "scientific" testing is often not so well done, as to demandingly train to detect it, then test best hearers, I would suspect. It is almost complete silence.

As for the seeing. Some people see a lot more finer detail than others. It has, as far as I know, a lot to do with eye health. So with the right nutrients you can see finer. A lot of people don't get to 2400dpi vision (I think the third line below 20/20). With training, you can recognise familiar fonts faster, and likely finer. You can see where the gaps (and missing bits, and shapes) in the letters are to estimate the letter. Nothing science defying.

Re-edit: Got my model numbers mixed up. Also, trying to locate a better quality replacement, I realised I'm up for more than I expected. The z906 currently is available on discount (I wonder if a new Atmos version will be coming). But something I've spotted that explaims what reviewers are hearing, is that the new model doesn't have active sound level adjustments. I only found one review with some sort of chart (foreign language) showing a big wobbly in the highest end. It goes down towards 20khz then recovers bounces around before crashing again above supposed human hearing. This would be what the better reviewers are picking up as a lack of definition etc. Most reviewers are equating it as like the z5500 except the sub-woofer getting better comments (definition and by the looks of it, more balanced, but still a little bassy) than the z5500. Which would be great for the price if the rest was balanced with a flat sound response curve. So, with the 8 inch sub, less nice satellite features and functional but light console with the inputs hidden on the sub instead, even at the cheap price it is not really worth it except as a desktop games/media speakers.
 
Wayne Morellini;1780804Anyway. The issue with ultrasonic is it is so quiet you have to look for it. So said:
The rest of your post is a little over my head, but I agree with this. Double blind, I couldn't identify high resolution audio formats compared with CDs and in hearing tests I can't hear above 15.4kz (maybe you can, it's very rare but definitely possible).

But double blind tests are why we got New Coke. There's possibly a lot that we notice intuitively over time that our conscious brains simply can't nail down in an A/B comparison.

Still, I think high quality audio sources are by far the least important part of the chain. A TOTL DAC playing a CD-quality source will consistently beat out both vinyl and MQA from a lesser system, even if those systems are measurably more resolving past the known limits of human hearing. I think if there are any returns on MQA audio past CD quality, which no one has proven there are, they're at best the least important part of the chain or are simply due to material being mastered differently for audiophiles and not due to the format. But I can't speak for others, only myself.

I definitely can't see the third line below 20/20, but I don't really care that much about video quality past a certain point.
Click to expand...
 
Wayne Morellini said:
There was a musician I think that set something up with lossless 96kh (uncompressed) sources. Might have been crowd funded, I don't remember. Maybe 4-11 years ago.
Click to expand...

Neil Young, Pono?
 
Erich Roland said:
Neil Young, Pono?
Click to expand...

Thanks Erich.

Matt, I have problems with certain frequency ranges, but noticed I could pickup higher. I'm curious if women can too. They can see extra colours. There is a fourth colirvreceorir, but I am unfamiliar with what part of the female population has it. It focuses around some stranger color from memory.

Anyway, if you train yourself, you should be able to recognise more of what the subconscious mind does (then always notice it annoyingly).
 
Ahh, I suggest it maybe possible that we can pickup higher frequencies, it's just that our minds are blind to it. So, the hypothesis is, that you can train your mind to pick it out. Now, I've got a phycholigist student freind I'm suposed to collaborate with to do an article I've wanted to for years. They might ghtnge interested in exploring this.

By the way. I forgot. We can, most of us, definitely hear in the ultrasonic. I'm forgetring 80's or 90's (I think) research that identifies a primitive ear behind your ear, which heard in the ultrasonic, they could put a special hearing aid on profoundly deaf people to hear. It sounded like a whisper from the Beyond 2000 (or previouse show) report I believe. Which lines up with how I used to hear things. Being wanting to get one of those things for decades. Maybe I am sensing through this. But if you have clean dry skin and rub behind the ear, it does sound interesting.
 
Btw. ultrasonic means above audible. "Hearing" the ultrasonics or infrasonics is like..."seeing" the invisible. :smile5:
 
Technically above any sound. But they got that wrong. They made an old estimate on human audible range, which has proven wrong. This is a discussion on the real range in what is now known as ultrasonic.
 
Have you come across Hi Def Tracks, set up by the Chesky Brothers. HDTracks.
http://www.hdtracks.com They have sampler tracks online.

Also here is an interesting article that discusses bit of this stuff.
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/hd-tracks-hi-res-audio

In that article there is an interesting section about Chesky Records "Binaural Project" which is all about recording the real performance in the space, including all the ambience etc of that space. For me, far more interesting than a bunch of studio musicians laying down separate tracks and then mastered together. Reminds me of the great movie SoundCity. Check it out if you don't know it!

My understanding is that we can get caught up in a discussion of our hearing range frequencies. But what shouldn't be disputed is that a higher sampling rate is better. (This is not to be confused with the frequency range recorded but the sampling frequency). We know about benefits of recording at lower compression settings in our cameras!. I think this is why vinyl is still held in high regard, as it is not limited by sampling rate or frequency cut off decisions. But of course this is not to say it is better than a digital file treated right.
 
When you really want to hear it as it was intendid (warning it might not be your taste) use a program like sonarworks or diraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top