|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.220.25.80
In Reply to: RE: I have it on LP... posted by ahendler on August 19, 2015 at 22:15:08
Seems the way most of this stuff is tagged on the big data bases was set up for 'pop' music. Drives me crazy. Plus TIDAL only gives you 30 or so choices for each search as opposed to QOBUZ which seems infinite (10,000+ for 'Beethoven').
That said, this the the DECCA 2009 release not the Mercury 2015 release that's on QOBUZ. Are they different?
My aged ears and limited audiophile streaming equipment can't tell as on first glance but will keep switching back and forth and report back.
I currently subscribe to TIDAL, DEEZER Elite, QOBUZ and Spotify. Need to cut back a bit. ;-)
Follow Ups:
"That said, this the the DECCA 2009 release not the Mercury 2015 release that's on QOBUZ. Are they different?"
The "Decca Music Group Limited" has really muddied the waters with its reissues of music from other labels under its own name. In fact, the 24/96 file I was discussing is shown on the download site I used (HD Tracks) as being on the Decca label, even though the cover art is from the original Mercury LP's (including the Mercury logo). The accompanying booklet for this download shows the following information: "Remastering - 2014 Decca Music Group Limited", so this certainly appears to be different from the 2009 remastering (which I haven't heard), although I do find it strange to have two remasterings so close together in time. The Tchaikovsky Suites appeared as part of a group of downloads associated with the new Mercury mega-box (released in March of this year), which contained such items at the Dorati Beethoven 3, the Copland 3 (mono only), etc., which had never before been released on CD. So again, I'm pretty sure that the Tchaikovsky Suites downloaded from HD Tracks is a new (2014) remastering, rather than the 2009 remastering. No question, it's confusing.
Try Classicsonline. It is only classical and very good. They stream a lot of 24/96 and 24/192 files
Alan
As soon as I drop Spotify and one of the other three (DEEZER, TIDAL and QOBUZ).
And if I like hi-rez better I'm screwed, right?
I really don't feel the Hi-Rez files to sound any better then the 16/44 files. I am not a fan of Hi-Rez
Alan
I'm with you, amigo.
Why would anyone want high resolution digital, when one may have low resolution digital?
Hell, 16/44 is already way too high.
I'd go for mp3. Even better bring it down to 8 bits, or even 4 or 2. How many bits do you really need, anyway? Total waste, and just another example of how they're trying to take away our rights and send us off to their training camps.
I strongly prefer cassettes to LP's, and mini-cassettes to regular ones. I prefer 78's to those, and acoustic 78's are way better than electric ones.
But, WAY WAY WAY better are Edison wax cylinders.
The ultimate, as we know, are 2 cans attached by a string. The only question that remains is: wet string or dry?
The very worst sound is the actual, "live" sound of a musical instrument --- or anything at all.
N. Thelman, SSI
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: