Which format do you prefer?

CD if I have the reproduction medium available, if I'm on the PC definitely FLAC.

CD

Hi-res 24-bit either DVD Audio or 1 bit SACD discs yet it's not there. I'd probably include blu ray audio but do not have this yet - it may be the best anyone will get before the neural upload standard (c. 2050)

FLAC for downloads, APE and others such as shn are just as fine, mp3 320kbps for cheap uploads / conversions but not serious listening. I'd count WAV and CD as the same at 16 bit rate although a non remastered CD is probably as good as a record, sometimes worse. Last is vinyl (although. the digitally remastered recordings should sound fine - now; all the old stuff is subject to tape generation rather than common source digital conversions or new recordings. Way too inconsistent for pre 2000 recordings. Content is more likely to be more interesting and extensive on non LP releases.

What format would you honestly advise someone to spend their hard earned?


Edited by uduwudu - September 19 2014 at 17:54

I guess I'll update.  I have most of my collection in FLAC which gets trancoded on the fly to MP3 when I stream it.  The rest is stuff I've bought from Amazon or the like which is probably 256 kbps MP3.  I doubt I'll ever buy vinyl.  Just not interested.

As I often listen to my music through headphones I wouldn't be too happy with vinyls for a number of reasons. I am a CD big fan right from the beginning. CDs are affordable, popular and accurate. Great medium. I do prefer paper case rather than plastic-y one, though

Had to vote for other. I've heard all types of music (except mainstream pop bootlegs) under every format (except blu ray audio). FLAC and other loss formats are great storage / torrent formats but we are still talking CD 16 bit quality. Still, plugins enable their playability.

Just wondering if 24 bit is the highest resolution does that mean 16 bit and vinyl options are actually lossy formats after all?

Catcher10 wrote: uduwudu wrote: Had to vote for other. I've heard all types of music (except mainstream pop bootlegs) under every format (except blu ray audio). FLAC and other loss formats are great storage / torrent formats but we are still talking CD 16 bit quality. Still, plugins enable their playability. Just wondering if 24 bit is the highest resolution does that mean 16 bit and vinyl options are actually lossy formats after all? 16bit, assuming you are talking about redbook standard 16/44, is not a lossy format, neither is vinyl. A lot of vinyl is pressed from 24/96 or 24/192 digital files. This is a big reason why you have people that say vinyl sounds better than CD....and please dear Lord do not go down that path as that is a personal choice.  Then you have DSD files which require a DSD capable DAC..DSD128 for example has a sampling rate of 128x more than standard CD. Studio recordings are usually 24bit and remasters/remix from original tapes are usually done to 24bit, but then are converted to 16bit so CDs can be pressed. Do listening tests if you can to determine what you think of all these formats. I have done some listening to DSD128 files on a very high end revealing digital system and the sound was absolutely magnificent, problem is for the common man those systems are out of reach, financially. Other problem with these high-resolution files is there is not much being released that you or I listen to, and the files are not cheap either. I have also listened to analog (vinyl) systems that are incredibly insane sounding, again the gear can be expensive. But it is fun to hear what music can actually sound like...then I come home and listen to my stuff and hope one day to win the lottery

I do not have a high end system but's not too bad at least it's 21st Century (except for my temporarily defunct turntable).

The thing is that the idea one needs a hi end system to hear the difference is something of a misnomer. I hear the difference easily on my MOR system. I think a high end system will allow for an even greater appreciation of the audio quality available - you have too get some value for your high end dollars! But the difference is evident on working class hi fi as well. (I have an old universal playing Pioneer player) that does the necessary.

Yes everything 16 bit or remastered for CD / vinyl exists in 24 bit or 1 bit SACD but not necessarily available as such. The wars between the music companies playing monopoly (giving hi res a reputation for dead format) has not benefited anyone at all.

If everything was available as SACD / hybridor DVD A rather than red book this would have reduced the piracy problem (not eliminated it). But hi res is the best audio quality and we don't get that consumer choice (downloadsonly if we're lucky for those that have that equipment - a ridiculous situation). Amazing to think that we have to settle for lesser quality (16 bit) because of some CEO contest. (Sony v Philips / EMI). Hybrid is a fine standard for digital formats. The classical hi res I pick up is a delight to hear in this respect alone.

I'd be interested to compare the released formats of the same material e.g. Deep Purple Concerto for Group and Orchestra has a DVD, DVD Audio (I have a copy of both),the old vinyl and the new 3 LP vinyl. I assume it's on CD somewhere...? Anyway, comparing vinyl to vinyl could be interesting.

CD. Aside from all the technical flummery (sorry, Dean), I prefer a hard copy over clouds or fragile tape and vinyl. I can download to mp3 format but still have back up in case my PC explodes or if Russian or Chinese pirates hack the cloud.

Since I listen to music mostly on commutes, the utmost clarity is unnecessary; particularly since I drive a Jeep. So hearing Robert Fripp farting in the background of Starless is unlikely.

uduwudu wrote: Catcher10 wrote: uduwudu wrote: Had to vote for other. I've heard all types of music (except mainstream pop bootlegs) under every format (except blu ray audio). FLAC and other loss formats are great storage / torrent formats but we are still talking CD 16 bit quality. Still, plugins enable their playability.Just wondering if 24 bit is the highest resolution does that mean 16 bit and vinyl options are actually lossy formats after all? <div style="line-height: 14.3999996185303px;">16bit, assuming you are talking about redbook standard 16/44, is not a lossy format, neither is vinyl. A lot of vinyl is pressed from 24/96 or 24/192 digital files. This is a big reason why you have people that say vinyl sounds better than CD....and please dear Lord do not go down that path as that is a personal choice.  <div style="line-height: 14.3999996185303px;"><div style="line-height: 14.3999996185303px;">Then you have DSD files which require a DSD capable DAC..DSD128 for example has a sampling rate of 128x more than standard CD.<div style="line-height: 14.3999996185303px;">Studio recordings are usually 24bit and remasters/remix from original tapes are usually done to 24bit, but then are converted to 16bit so CDs can be pressed.<div style="line-height: 14.3999996185303px;"><div style="line-height: 14.3999996185303px;">Do listening tests if you can to determine what you think of all these formats. I have done some listening to DSD128 files on a very high end revealing digital system and the sound was absolutely magnificent, problem is for the common man those systems are out of reach, financially. Other problem with these high-resolution files is there is not much being released that you or I listen to, and the files are not cheap either.<div style="line-height: 14.3999996185303px;"><div style="line-height: 14.3999996185303px;">I have also listened to analog (vinyl) systems that are incredibly insane sounding, again the gear can be expensive.<div style="line-height: 14.3999996185303px;"><div style="line-height: 14.3999996185303px;">But it is fun to hear what music can actually sound like...then I come home and listen to my stuff and hope one day to win the lottery  I do not have a high end system but's not too bad at least it's 21st Century (except for my temporarily defunct turntable).The thing is that the idea one needs a hi end system to hear the difference is something of a misnomer. I hear the difference easily on my MOR system. I think a high end system will allow for an even greater appreciation of the audio quality available - you have too get some value for your high end dollars! But the difference is evident on working class hi fi as well. (I have an old universal playing Pioneer player) that does the necessary.Yes everything 16 bit or remastered for CD / vinyl exists in 24 bit or 1 bit SACD but not necessarily available as such. The wars between the music companies playing monopoly (giving hi res a reputation for dead format) has not benefited anyone at all.If everything was available as SACD / hybridor DVD A rather than red book this would have reduced the piracy problem (not eliminated it). But hi res is the best audio quality and we don't get that consumer choice (downloadsonly if we're lucky for those that have that equipment - a ridiculous situation). Amazing to think that we have to settle for lesser quality (16 bit) because of some CEO contest. (Sony v Philips / EMI). Hybrid is a fine standard for digital formats. The classical hi res I pick up is a delight to hear in this respect alone.I'd be interested to compare the released formats of the same material e.g. Deep Purple Concerto for Group and Orchestra has a DVD, DVD Audio (I have a copy of both),the old vinyl and the new 3 LP vinyl. I assume it's on CD somewhere...? Anyway, comparing vinyl to vinyl could be interesting.

That would be fun to do........

infocat wrote: Dean wrote: I know this is not what some people want to read so will dismiss what I have written as being overly "technical" and not what they "hear" on their hi-end equipment, but that is the reality of the situation. Stephen Colbert might say "I hear with my gut, not with my head."