Thanks for your help/insight guys. For the time being I am going to stick with 24/96 FLAC. I will download Kind Of Blue tonight and report back soon. BTW, my system is a MacBook Air (running Audirvana Plus) USB to an Oppo 105 for decoding then analog out (via XLR stereo) to a Krell HTS 7.1 (just a glorified volume control in this application (no decoding) to a Krell TAS and eventually B&W N801s. Sound great to me.
24/192 Big Improvement Over 24/96????
Just saw that HD Tracks have released Miles Davis Kind of Blue in both 24/96 and 24/192 formats; which one do I get? Is it worth the extra expense to go to the higher resolution format, have you noticed any improvements with this recording, or any other, when stepping up from 24/96 to 24/192?
Second question; the remastered CD of Kind Of Blue sounds very good to me; is the HD Tracks digital download noticeably superior?
Second question; the remastered CD of Kind Of Blue sounds very good to me; is the HD Tracks digital download noticeably superior?
- ...
- 9 posts total
Sorry to throw water on this OP, but please read the article which can be found by clicking on the link below. http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html The author maintains that the recording, engineering and mastering process are the most important aspects of high quality anything, not format. Bruce |
I agree the recording/mastering is the biggest factor. That said, I think what Chord Electronics has to say about hires is interesting .. 1st four paragraphs in particular: http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/chord-dac-technology.asp |
- 9 posts total