 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.208.117.121
much better pricing than Presto, and option to sample tracks first. 24/96 resolution is clearly stated. It's available in surround as well. I listened to performance on youtube and I'm very impressed.
That said, I'm interested in some other titles as well, such as the Levine Daphnis, but its resolution isn't stated.
Other titles offered have download options described as either MP3 or "HD."
Follow Ups:
So, picked up the whole Nelsons disc on Presto, along with Fleming's Barber Knoxville, the latter kindly offered by the track.
I haven't heard the Tannhauser Overture in years.
I Googled BSO classics and got two results ; Boston Symphony Orchestra and Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra. Which one ? Or another?
Since the Bournemouth SO is my local orchestra in the UK, I should note that this orchestra's recordings are listed under bsolive.com whereas the Boston SO is listed at bso.org - and I second Kal's comments about the Sibelius recordings from the UK orchestra.
Dave
I don't think Nelsons has recorded with the Bournemouth team.FWIW, the Bournemouth Sibelius with Berglund is very good but not in modern sound like Nelsons or Vanska.
Edits: 01/04/17
Thanks Kal. I also should have noticed the OP's reference to the Levine Daphnis and Chloe which I have had on SACD since it became available. I shall investigate further.
and I'd say the folks in Boston have a keeper in Nelsons.
And, like MTT and SFO, having their own label seems to be working as well.
after listening to the 24/96 two-channel iteration.
Jim
http://jimtranr.com
as 5 channel.
Hmmm.
Dunno. I suspect that the HDs are all 24/96 but the resolutions are undefined for the surround offerings.
Dunno too. Looking through their offerings I see that a few are offered as HD but the majority are only in lossy formats; MP3 or standard and surround WMA. So my interpretation is that HD = 16/44.1. Going to 24/96 is too great a leap given that 16/44.1 is not specified as such yet is the most common lossless format and that they would be crazy to ignore it. NB, no I am not going to spend any money downloading a sample to find out.
After listening to samples of Levine's Daphnis, I'm a little hesitant because the pacing of his Sunrise seems a little hurried.
I guess I'll just fall back on the Munch.
Yes, that's one where the data rate is shown.
However, sometimes the data rate is shown, sometimes not. Sometimes titles are ony available in lossy formats, sometimes not. Sometimes the lossy formats are MP3, AIFF (rate unspecified)and WMA, sometimes only MP3. Sometimes HD is 24/96, sometimes 24/88.2, sometimes unknown. A couple of recordimgs come in 16/44.1. Sometimes AIFF attracts a premium, sometimes not. Sometimes the premium is $1, sometimes 50 cents.
Do I get any idea from this that they have a policy or that they even have a clear idea of what they are doing? Not really. It all looks like amateur time. It also gives me the opinion that if I buy an unspecified "HD" recording then what I get will be, MP3 aside, pot luck. And for some unlucky folk that HD may turn out to be 88.2 and not playable with their digital processor, especially if it is a few years old ( I recall JA complaining in several reviews that he couldn't replay his own 88.2 recordings).
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
