A Mark In Time
Previous Albums => Tracker (2015) => Topic started by: binone on March 18, 2015, 04:35:27 PM
-
As this record deserves, there is an audiophile edition with the highest resolution up to date 192/24. Audiophiles deserves this:
https://www.highresaudio.com/artist.php?abid=356423
Has anybody tried?
-
I listen Tracker for almost week now solely from this 192 kHz 24 bit files in my best headphones. And boy, it sounds good!
-
It's pricy, but worth every cent. Actually I think it's the best way of music distribution nowadays, everything with this release is just perfect. And it's a deluxe!
-
Here in Spain is restricted due to territorial constraints and also different releases dates in each country . :-\
-
I liked Tracker more.
LE
-
I have the 192/24 version, and it sounds glorious. Clearly a lot of effort has been put into the actual sound by Guy and MK. I know that a mixture of analog and digital methodologies has been used in the recording - but they've sure got it right.
Incidentally, it's been really interesting listening to Beryl, first back in January on an iPad from a low grade MP3, then a 320k through the hifi, now at real high res. There's so much more going in that song than I'd initially realised.
-
PS you can get it from Qobuz at £18.88.
Could someone correct the title of this thread? Not sure that 'Thacker' is a great name for an album!
-
PS you can get it from Qobuz at £18.88.
Could someone correct the title of this thread? Not sure that 'Thacker' is a great name for an album!
What? Maybe we called the album wrong all the time :lol
-
24/192 is a placebo resolution.
-
24/192 is a placebo resolution.
...when you're listening it on 15$ earbuds.
-
I'll grant you that I struggle to tell the difference between 192/24 and 96/24, but there's a clear improvement from 44/16 to either of these. And that improvement is especially worthwhile when the recording artists - as on 'Thacker' - take real trouble with the sound.
-
Is it worth it to buy? I have Shure SE315 so pretty good quality
-
Well it's a decision only you can make...but I'd have thought so. There a lot of variables contributing to the sound quality you achieve, not just the calibre of the 'phones.
-
24/192 is a placebo resolution.
...when you're listening it on 15$ earbuds.
Of course but not only, human psychology is so powerful to fool your own ears.
-
I'll grant you that I struggle to tell the difference between 192/24 and 96/24, but there's a clear improvement from 44/16 to either of these. And that improvement is especially worthwhile when the recording artists - as on 'Thacker' - take real trouble with the sound.
Complete BS.
192/24 is even worse than Placebo, the high horizontal résolution is even damageable to the quality of the sound.
Again, this excellent paper says it all:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
-
Even worse, blind audio test showed that even a good encoded MP3@320 can fool the human ear.
That means that our ear is so imperfect that it is really unable to hear some low levelled sound in the audible spectrum if this sound comes immediately after a quite louder one, like a shadows effect, just as human eye is unable to adapt without delay from complete dark to heavy light environment. This is perfectly known from F1 driver in Monaco that have to deal with a short blind time when entering and leaving the tunnel part.
-
Even worse, blind audio test showed that even a good encoded MP3@320 can fool the human ear.
That means that our ear is so imperfect that it is really unable to hear some low levelled sound in the audible spectrum if this sound comes immediately after a quite louder one, like a shadows effect, just as human eye is unable to adapt without delay from complete dark to heavy light environment. This is perfectly known from F1 driver in Monaco that have to deal with a short blind time when entering and leaving the tunnel part.
Absolutely.
I suggest that we do ABX testing, on the best possible audio hardware, between the FLAC (high-res) and 320 kbs MP3 on the future tracker your sticks (provided of course we get confirmation that they were encoded from the same source, so that we don't compare Apple to oranges).
I am ready to offer a full box of the best champagne to the one who will pass the test :)
-
Great to know almost everything is Marketing here. Very interesting if we can get into it.
-
I'll grant you that I struggle to tell the difference between 192/24 and 96/24, but there's a clear improvement from 44/16 to either of these. And that improvement is especially worthwhile when the recording artists - as on 'Thacker' - take real trouble with the sound.
Complete BS.
192/24 is even worse than Placebo, the high horizontal résolution is even damageable to the quality of the sound.
Again, this excellent paper says it all:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Oh dear, that 'excellent paper' has been comprehensively discredited in too many places to bother quoting. But if you're happy with low res MP3s, go ahead and enjoy them.
-
I'm fine with all that. Again, I listen this not because I actually want badly to differ it from mp3 or something.
It's just really maximum quality for digital music, and that basically means that it's a closest thing to the 'real deal', that is to hear it live.
With such a format, you can constantly upgrade your music equipment, getting more joy out of it. Vinyl is whole another story. It's all about music.
-
I'll grant you that I struggle to tell the difference between 192/24 and 96/24, but there's a clear improvement from 44/16 to either of these. And that improvement is especially worthwhile when the recording artists - as on 'Thacker' - take real trouble with the sound.
Complete BS.
192/24 is even worse than Placebo, the high horizontal résolution is even damageable to the quality of the sound.
Again, this excellent paper says it all:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Oh dear, that 'excellent paper' has been comprehensively discredited in too many places to bother quoting. But if you're happy with low res MP3s, go ahead and enjoy them.
Discredited? Where?
Since technology reached a level of achievement in the 70's and 80's, HiFi can not really improve anymore, it goes beyond our audible capacity. So to keep on selling material both hardware manufacturers and music editors are still in search to a way to sell us something "new". But when you have basic knowledge in electricity science you can easily understand that a wire that use good component will transport electric efficiently enough and that you don't need to spend 20 times the price to get better wire, the sound will be exactly the same. If you are NOT a pro working with high distortion source you don't need XLR connection nor cryo cable. But just that if you have spend 20 times the price of the other cable your brain won't easily admit that it isn't better otherwise you would never had bought it... Placebo effect is powerful.
And that funny to always treat mp3 as a shitty thing and denying the fact that the latest encoder have reach a level of quality that human ear nearly can't do the difference. If you still use a 15 years old generation and encode @128, yes degradation will be high but this is old story.
-
I'll grant you that I struggle to tell the difference between 192/24 and 96/24, but there's a clear improvement from 44/16 to either of these. And that improvement is especially worthwhile when the recording artists - as on 'Thacker' - take real trouble with the sound.
Complete BS.
192/24 is even worse than Placebo, the high horizontal résolution is even damageable to the quality of the sound.
Again, this excellent paper says it all:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Oh dear, that 'excellent paper' has been comprehensively discredited in too many places to bother quoting. But if you're happy with low res MP3s, go ahead and enjoy them.
Discredited? Where?
Since technology reached a level of achievement in the 70's and 80's, HiFi can not really improve anymore, it goes beyond our audible capacity. So to keep on selling material both hardware manufacturers and music editors are still in search to a way to sell us something "new". But when you have basic knowledge in electricity science you can easily understand that a wire that use good component will transport electric efficiently enough and that you don't need to spend 20 times the price to get better wire, the sound will be exactly the same. If you are NOT a pro working with high distortion source you don't need XLR connection nor cryo cable. But just that if you have spend 20 times the price of the other cable your brain won't easily admit that it isn't better otherwise you would never had bought it... Placebo effect is powerful.
And that funny to always treat mp3 as a shitty thing and denying the fact that the latest encoder have reach a level of quality that human ear nearly can't do the difference. If you still use a 15 years old generation and encode @128, yes degradation will be high but this is old story.
+1000 ds1984.
I'm glad to see that there are still people who can think about sound technically and not religiously.