| Author
|
24/96 music downloads..where?
|
Disciple
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
85
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 00:45:27
|
Is there any artists that release their creations in anything above CD quality? I have seen some download sites for high res audio (eg http://www.naimlabel.com/ )but not one that has goa/psy trance, am I just looking for something that doesn't exist?
Ive seen that Suntrip have flac downloads but are they just cd quality? |
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 04:08
|
|
TimeTraveller
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
80
Posts :
3207
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 06:39
|
maybe check some psytrance dvd's some tracks might be in 24/48 and not just converted from 16 to 24 bit but not sure about it. However - you wont hear the difference. you could hear the difference beteween wav and mp3 but not if its 192 kHz or 44.1 kHz. Or you have some alien monitors and ears. Don't know of any monitors that goes above 50 kHz.. .. if you have some monitors that goes up to 50 kHz all above it wouldnt make any sense. With ears its even worse.
 https://soundcloud.com/shivagarden |
|
|
|
demoniac
Demoniac Insomniac
Started Topics :
85
Posts :
1281
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 12:28
|
|
monno
Grapes Of Wrath
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
454
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 12:55
|
The difference is obvious with higher resolution audio. The question is if it means a lot to consumers that bar none use sub standard playback systems.
Anybody who cannot spot a difference needs better ears and or speakers. Again cd´s sound ok and this type of music is for the most part not at all what i would call hi-fi. Try comparing classical recordings or jazz in high res vs. cd quality and the difference is much more obvious. The lack of supply has to do with the general dumbing down of consumer audio.
+1 on on hearing a major difference on big systems btw. This is where we get the most out of working in and playing back high res. I would love to get my stuff out in the resolution it was made, but there really is no market for it in general as most people couldn´t care less. For now i settle for playing my stuff in high res when out on gigs and not using cd´s
Mastering available here:
http://www.bimmelim-soundlabs.com
http://soundcloud.com/onkeldunkel
http://www.myspace.com/onkeldunkelownz
http://www.parvati-records.com |
|
|
|
Medea
Aedem/Medea
Started Topics :
127
Posts :
1132
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 15:27
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 15:51
|
if it s for converting some track made at 44,1 khz there is not point,now if it s made at 88,2 or 96 khz its different..
with electronic music the difference is there too as our tools often sound better at higher resolution, from converters to plugins.. still a 1 or 2 db boost/cut of eq at mastering will probably make more difference,it s just for saying the difference is not huge and that some stuff will matter a lot more than what sample rate is used for the final quality of a production.. but it still make perfect sense to use higher resolution for producing and releasing for highest quality possible ,the less compromise .. |
|
|
|
Shiranui
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
116
Posts :
1219
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 17:52
|
The difference with higher sampling rates is questionable
The advantage to a higher bits per sample is that you don't have to go as crazy with the limiting when you're mastering the track, as long as the DAC you're going to be playing it through has enough gain. |
|
|
|
TimeTraveller
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
80
Posts :
3207
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 19:35
|
I can remember well, I never questioned the difference between wav and mp3. With the dynamic range also definetly yes - the classical recording example is a great proove - on good monitors. I mean 24 bit and 16 bit .. some instruments go way above 96 db spl (limit of 16bit) therefor a real trumpet that may be at the range of 140 db spl would be squashed , 24 bit makes big sense. It is questionable in psytrance though. Producing at 24 bit makes always sense, audio files before mastering the same and is enough.
A sample rate of 192 may make sense in some cases but sureley only before dithering not as a final product file for listening.
https://soundcloud.com/shivagarden |
|
|
|
demoniac
Demoniac Insomniac
Started Topics :
85
Posts :
1281
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 20:55
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 21:22
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-16 12:55, monno wrote:
The difference is obvious with higher resolution audio.
|
|
He was talking about 16 bit wav and higher bitrate , not about mp3 and wav...
ok more bitrate = more volume possible until you hit 0, but that's about it really...
@Time traveller : Yes, I do like to record sound in 24 bit, the reason why? It does not go into the red that fast. But I fail to see why anyone would release 24 bit files... they won't play in your cdj's (or do they now? It's been a while  )
A sample rate of 192khz per second however makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, 44.1khz sampling rate is enough, all you need to do is set a lowpass filter at 20khz, to prevent aliasing, and your file will sound the same, excactly the same...
Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
demoniac
Demoniac Insomniac
Started Topics :
85
Posts :
1281
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 22:11
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-16 21:22, Upavas wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-16 12:55, monno wrote:
The difference is obvious with higher resolution audio.
|
|
He was talking about 16 bit wav and higher bitrate , not about mp3 and wav...
ok more bitrate = more volume possible until you hit 0, but that's about it really...
@Time traveller : Yes, I do like to record sound in 24 bit, the reason why? It does not go into the red that fast. But I fail to see why anyone would release 24 bit files... they won't play in your cdj's (or do they now? It's been a while )
A sample rate of 192khz per second however makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, 44.1khz sampling rate is enough, all you need to do is set a lowpass filter at 20khz, to prevent aliasing, and your file will sound the same, excactly the same...
|
|
Some Cdj play 24 bit files, but i think it's a trend this day to be a Laptop Dj with software and a controller, i see less and less people playing cds,and less and less people buying cds
VA - Spiritual Science out now!
http://www.activemeditationmusic.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=703&category_id=6&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=7 |
|
|
|
Disciple
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
85
Posted : Nov 16, 2011 23:33
|
This exactly why I brought the topic up, as you may or may not know, the end of the commercial CD is upon us, with all major labels ramping down production in 2012, worldwide. Everyone downloads and so access to 24/96 files is abundant, just not everyone is producing them, with the switch away from CD the door has been opened for a higher quality format to take over. The CD format has been holding music back for many years now, and as you dont have to buy a SACD player now to experience 24/96, only a half descent DAC and a computer, the options are multiplying all the time.
http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-features/59478-report-cds-are-officially-over
|
|
|
|
monno
Grapes Of Wrath
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
454
Posted : Nov 17, 2011 02:02
|
quote]
On 2011-11-16 21:22, Upavas wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-16 12:55, monno wrote:
The difference is obvious with higher resolution audio.
|
|
He was talking about 16 bit wav and higher bitrate , not about mp3 and wav...
ok more bitrate = more volume possible until you hit 0, but that's about it really...
@Time traveller : Yes, I do like to record sound in 24 bit, the reason why? It does not go into the red that fast. But I fail to see why anyone would release 24 bit files... they won't play in your cdj's (or do they now? It's been a while )
A sample rate of 192khz per second however makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, 44.1khz sampling rate is enough, all you need to do is set a lowpass filter at 20khz, to prevent aliasing, and your file will sound the same, excactly the same...
[/quote]
I can quote stuff too but i prefer to do it in context and not in small snippets. I was talking about the difference between 16bit and higher res. I don´t see where mp3´s came into play except in your mind. Now i can tell you there is a very definite and audible difference with both higher bit rate (Dynamics, yeah i know who uses that anymore) but also samplerate ( one could call it the degree of precision of the waveform you sample at any one given time). This is not theory but has been proven. It does however demand that all other things be equal. A crap mix will not sound better because it was made in X super high exploding rates and if you have a sub par playback system (speakers mainly) then how can you hear an improvement . If you want to know more about digital audio in detail i´d be happy to fill in the blanks. You seem to have misunderstood some basic things when it comes to samplerates.
Super audio cd never took off, but dvd audio could be a way around that particular problem (and correct me if i´m wrong but did pioneer not put out some fiendish device that can play dvd´s, hence making dvd audio possible?. After all dvd players are in every home in some form or the other by now, so it´s not like we lack the means to play. What is lacking is for labels to step up (fat chance) or artists doing it on their own ( a more real possibility)
Mastering available here:
http://www.bimmelim-soundlabs.com
http://soundcloud.com/onkeldunkel
http://www.myspace.com/onkeldunkelownz
http://www.parvati-records.com |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Nov 17, 2011 02:43
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-17 02:02, monno wrote:
quote]
On 2011-11-16 21:22, Upavas wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-11-16 12:55, monno wrote:
The difference is obvious with higher resolution audio.
|
|
He was talking about 16 bit wav and higher bitrate , not about mp3 and wav...
ok more bitrate = more volume possible until you hit 0, but that's about it really...
@Time traveller : Yes, I do like to record sound in 24 bit, the reason why? It does not go into the red that fast. But I fail to see why anyone would release 24 bit files... they won't play in your cdj's (or do they now? It's been a while )
A sample rate of 192khz per second however makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, 44.1khz sampling rate is enough, all you need to do is set a lowpass filter at 20khz, to prevent aliasing, and your file will sound the same, excactly the same...
|
|
I can quote stuff too but i prefer to do it in context and not in small snippets. I was talking about the difference between 16bit and higher res. I don´t see where mp3´s came into play except in your mind. Now i can tell you there is a very definite and audible difference with both higher bit rate (Dynamics, yeah i know who uses that anymore) but also samplerate ( one could call it the degree of precision of the waveform you sample at any one given time). This is not theory but has been proven. It does however demand that all other things be equal. A crap mix will not sound better because it was made in X super high exploding rates and if you have a sub par playback system (speakers mainly) then how can you hear an improvement . If you want to know more about digital audio in detail i´d be happy to fill in the blanks. You seem to have misunderstood some basic things when it comes to samplerates.
Super audio cd never took off, but dvd audio could be a way around that particular problem (and correct me if i´m wrong but did pioneer not put out some fiendish device that can play dvd´s, hence making dvd audio possible?. After all dvd players are in every home in some form or the other by now, so it´s not like we lack the means to play. What is lacking is for labels to step up (fat chance) or artists doing it on their own ( a more real possibility)
[/quote]
Except in the mastering process or when recording, where a higher bitrate allows for more precise processing, I fail to see why a higher bit rate in todays over compressed music really makes a difference, it's louder, ok.
where I do have my basics straight is as far as sample rate is concerned. A higher sample rate allows you to get unaliased sound at higher frequencies, that's all. Since we cannot hear above 20khz, and 44.1 hz samling rate allows you to hear unaliased frequencies of up to 22.05 khz, there is absolutely no reason to bother with higher sampling rates, provided you set an lp filter at 20khz. High sampling rate capability is marketing, nothing more.
In film we tend to use a sample rate of 48khz, for solely one reason, sync issues when converting film from cinema format to tv formats, such as Ntsc.
If a higher sampling rate would make sense, it would be used in the best studios around the globe. Yet they still use sampling rates not higher than 48khz... why would they? Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
|
