18 replies to this topic

[BladeRnR]

Quote

Sound+Image is delighted to join with Linn Records to offer a four-track EP of high-resolution downloads to our readers, in conjunction with our our Oct/Nov issues’s focus on the joys of Studio Master quality music.

The files are not small! So watch your download data limits. The four files total 350MB. Two tracks are at 24-bit 88.2kHz, one at 24-bit 96kHz, and one at 24-bit 44.1kHz.

4 Free Studio Master 24/96 Recordings (Download)

Blade

[com5984]

BladeRnR, on Oct 27 2011, 08:47 PM, said:

4 Free Studio Master 24/96 Recordings (Download)

Blade

I get all mine from hi res music, you can choose 24/96 or cd quality

[Audio Nirvana]

Thanks Mr.Blade

[sebbyr]

Thanks for the link BladeRnR.

[myrantz]

sebbyr, on Oct 28 2011, 07:21 PM, said:

Thanks for the link BladeRnR.

What he said: +1...

[:)]

2L audio also has some free downloads in various formats upto 24/192,

http://www.2l.no/

just look under 2L Brand store > Test Bench HD Audio files

and use the user name and pass word provided.

I've got one of their blu-rays and it is top notch

[Paul81]

Thanks for the link, I grabbed these last night.

Can anyone suggest the best method to play these tracks through my system? I don't beleive I have a device capable of playing flac other than on the computer, and I don't have a computer output other than a 3.5mm headphone jack or HDMI.

Is burning them to CD a better option, but obviously avoiding mp3 file conversion? I have done a couple of searches on this topic and it's a bit like the cable argument so I am wondering if getting files in studio master quality has benefits if I can't actually reprduce them in this format through my system.

The 2L audio site has a heap of variety and I would be keen on getting them too, but not going to worry about it until I sort out playback method. Also would a 5.1 dolby release from this site have any benefit over the other options available? Essentially, is it mixed like a movie utilising the 5.1 channels?

[myrantz]

Paul81, on Oct 29 2011, 07:35 AM, said:

Is burning them to CD a better option, but obviously avoiding mp3 file conversion? I have done a couple of searches on this topic and it's a bit like the cable argument so I am wondering if getting files in studio master quality has benefits if I can't actually reprduce them in this format through my system.

What equipment do you have?

If you have a universal BD player with USB input or something maybe it can just play the FLAC files straight off? Or burn it on a data CD/DVD and play it off there... Some AVRs like the Denon and the Marantz can play off the Network too, and FLAC 96kHz and below will work.

You will loose the "extra info" if you burn them into a conventional CD as it will turn it into 16/44.1 in theory (In practice I couldn't really hear a difference)...

[Paul81]

treblid, on Oct 29 2011, 10:44 AM, said:

What equipment do you have?

If you have a universal BD player with USB input or something maybe it can just play the FLAC files straight off? Or burn it on a data CD/DVD and play it off there... Some AVRs like the Denon and the Marantz can play off the Network too, and FLAC 96kHz and below will work.

You will loose the "extra info" if you burn them into a conventional CD as it will turn it into 16/44.1 in theory (In practice I couldn't really hear a difference)...

I have a Yamaha RX-A2000 receiver. I am building a house and I am moving in early in the new year, so currently have it sitting on the floor in a test environment as I couldn't wait any longer to play with my new toy   only have the front stage connected and no sub (as I haven't picked it up yet). I am getting in a little ealy hahaha, full system will be set up day 1 in the new house.

Thanks

[myrantz]

Paul81, on Oct 29 2011, 07:52 AM, said:

I have a Yamaha RX-A2000 receiver. I am building a house and I am moving in early in the new year, so currently have it sitting on the floor in a test environment as I couldn't wait any longer to play with my new toy   only have the front stage connected and no sub (as I haven't picked it up yet). I am getting in a little ealy hahaha, full system will be set up day 1 in the new house.

Just a few months to go... Congrats...  Anyway, look   here. If you want to use the USB option you have to use software (e.g. foobar2k) to convert the FLAC file to .wav first. Otherwise you can use the DLNA feature and stream it off a network (details on how to setup will hopefully be found in the manual, and you can start a new thread if you have problems setting this up).

All the best, I streaming..

[Paul81]

Thanks, I was streaming mp3 tracks last night from my PC successfully. Also managed to use the web interface from my laptop and also the ipad app. I just wish I could stream pictures or videos but doesn't go that far unfortunately.

I will check out the links and give it ago.

Appreciate the advice and apologies for hijacking this thread slightly, but hopefully a couple of other people who wanted to play these files will have got something from it too  

[Audio Nirvana]

:), on Oct 28 2011, 10:30 PM, said:

2L audio also has some free downloads in various formats upto 24/192,

I've got one of their blu-rays and it is top notch

+1 I use their SACD and Bluray as a reference disc

[myrantz]

More 24/96 content, this time from lessloss (website that sells powercables!   ): linky

May or may not be good as I havn't downloaded them yet (still @ work)... The good thing about these files (at least on paper):

1/ original 24/96, and 16/44.1 to compare against
2/ Live recording
3/ Get to see pictures of the room they record in.
4/ FRREEEEEEE!!!
5/ Learn to count to 100

Unfortunately, like most free highres downloads, the music is more geared towards the artsy fartsy types... But meh, it's free.. Maybe I will get some kick from the drums...

[MLXXX]

myrantz, on 14 February 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

1/ original 24/96, and 16/44.1 to compare against

Distributors of such files have been known not to match amplitudes exactly, or to use unusual filtering for the 16/44.1 version.  To ensure exactness of amplitude matching, and timing, it can be better to create a 16/44.1 version oneself from the 24/96 version, using high quality software for the resampling. [The freeware Audacity, with noise shaped dither, is fine.] Then load the 16/44.1 version and resample it back to 24/96 and save.  Then play the two 24/96 versions (the original, and the twice resampled version) with a double blind player [e.g. foobar2000 with ABX add-on].  Use of the same sample bit depth and sample rate for playback ensures that whatever DAC is used operates in an identical way for the two test files.

Normally the sound will be identical to the human ear, unless listening at an abnormally high volume, loud enough to hear the dither noise in the resampled version. Many audiophiles find this result very hard to accept as they take it as a given that a 24/96 source must not only be distinguishable from a 16/44.1 source, but obviously distinguishable.  Marketing of high resolution formats encourages such beliefs. The reality is that 16/44.1 is an extremely high standard already.

Edited by MLXXX, 15 February 2012 - 08:33 AM.

[myrantz]

MLXXX, on 15 February 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

...

For some reason you remind of this: Linky

It's free dude... Freeeeeee!!!

[MLXXX]

Hold on, you're the one who raised the subject of doing a 16/44.1 vs 24/96 comparison!

[Chill]

Quote MLXXX  " The reality is that 16/44.1 is an extremely high standard already. "

Sorry I must disagree - 16/44.1 is not a high standard !

never was and nevre will be it is the best that could be done for a price in 1980 -!!!! and that all

[MLXXX]

Chill, on 17 February 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Quote MLXXX  " The reality is that 16/44.1 is an extremely high standard already. "

Sorry I must disagree - 16/44.1 is not a high standard !

never was and nevre will be it is the best that could be done for a price in 1980 -!!!! and that all

That is a commonly held belief. The proof of the pudding is doing the double blind test I described in my post above.

Record and mix at a high sample rate and bit depth: yes.  But distribute in the 16/44.1 format:  perfectly adequate.

Today's oversampling ADCs and DACs give the full audible range for human adults. And dither effectively extends bit depth beyond 16 bits.

I personally would opt for 48kHz as a less critical to implement SR than 44.1kHz, but with care 44.1kHz gives negligible group delay etc problems.

Our real problems are with microphones and their placement in the auditorium, and loudspeakers and their placement in the listening room.

If you actually take the trouble to convert a file from 96/24 down to 44/16, and back, you may be staggered at you inability to detect a difference in the sound.

High resolution is one of the many emperor's clothes situations that confront the audiophile. But it is one that can actually be tested relatively easily with today's pc software.

Edited by MLXXX, 17 February 2012 - 08:52 PM.

[myrantz]

MLXXX, on 17 February 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Today's oversampling ADCs and DACs give the full audible range for human adults. And dither effectively extends bit depth betyond 16 bits.

That is a commonly held belief. The proof of the pudding is doing the double blind test you described in your post above.

Meh.. Not going to waste time on this.... For now if anybody can tell me any more source of free 24/96 downloads, do post (here or in another thread) as I would like to get more high res to test...