Finally, music we can buy in 768 khz sampling rates.

[mhardy6647]

It is called "facepalm" Common all over the place.

But most facepalms are much more abstract. ASR's has so much bandwidth* that you can even hear the "D'oh!".

I just wish we had the "suspicious" "confused"** emojum (that's the singular, right?) that "we" have at hifihaven:

I love that one. It comes in very handy, IMO.
_________________
* Must be due to the sampling rate.
** looks more suspicious than confused to me... but maybe I am just confused.

 

[mansr]

emojum (that's the singular, right?)

Emojus is the singular.

 

[Dialectic]

Oddly, on the website where this 768 kHz music offered, the background image is a photograph of the Grimm LS1 - digital active loudspeakers that convert everything to 93 kHz (if I recall correctly).

 

[mhardy6647]

Emojus is the singular.

Of course! How foolish of me.

(OK, I'll stop now -- I am misappropriating others' IP, which is poor form and naughty, not to mention perhaps also unlawful)

 

[Sound Liaison]

Dear all
If the guy with the vintage measuring equipment is right in the video is right, we better start offering 48khz files. What do all of you prefer 16bit or 24 bit?

 

[BDWoody]

Dear all
If the guy with the vintage measuring equipment is right in the video is right, we better start offering 48khz files. What do all of you prefer 16bit or 24 bit?

The guy with the vintage equipment? Nice...

24/48 would be my choice.

 

[KSTR]

48kHz/24bit would my preferred format (and wrapped in FLACs). With the original being recorded at higher rate (integer multiple) and then being properly brickwall-filtered with a good sinc filter during down-sampling, to avoid any issues with less than perfect ADC standard filters.

OTOH, with 96/24 final format (and 2x or 4x during the recording) one could use the idea of incorporating the DAC digital anti-imaging filter into the playback file, allowing the use of whatever preferred filter, at for example, half the rate (48k). Again, a very good sinc approximation would the preferred choice as it is the most technically correct filter and any potential ringing from "illegal" transients is way above hearing range.

I would still always offer a 44.1/16 version for those that want to burn a CD etc.

 

[sarumbear]

Dear all
If the guy with the vintage measuring equipment is right in the video is right, we better start offering 48khz files. What do all of you prefer 16bit or 24 bit?

Just use the industry standard!

 

[xaviescacs]

Dear all
If the guy with the vintage measuring equipment is right in the video is right, we better start offering 48khz files. What do all of you prefer 16bit or 24 bit?

Alia Vox, which is quite prestigious in Europe, releases music up to 88.2 kHz and 24 bit.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I prefer no resampling so 48/24 or 96/24. Given the business I'd say 96/24.

 

[Sound Liaison]

Just use the industry standard!

Hi Sarumbear
You mean 16/44.1 ?

 

[Sound Liaison]

I prefer no resampling so 48/24 or 96/24. Given the business I'd say 96/24.

We already offer 96/24. The first albums are recorded in 96/24 with "After Silence" being the exception, that album is 88/24. We used
Grimm Audio LS for monitoring on those albums:

They are one to one copies of the master file.
The later albums are recorded in 352/24 and with Tad Compact Evolution 1 as monitors.
Those 96/24 files are generated from 352/24 masters. So not native 96/24.

 

[Sound Liaison]

Oddly, on the website where this 768 kHz music offered, the background image is a photograph of the Grimm LS1

Hi Dialetic
Please read the post above.
Greetings Peter

 

[mansr]

Dear all
If the guy with the vintage measuring equipment is right in the video is right, we better start offering 48khz files. What do all of you prefer 16bit or 24 bit?

I'm happy with the 96/24 you already provide, though I agree that 48/24 would be enough.

 

[sarumbear]

Hi Sarumbear
You mean 16/44.1 ?

That is the retail standard. Industry (i.e. professional) standard is 24/48kHz and had been for more than a decade.

 

[Sound Liaison]

48kHz/24bit would my preferred format (and wrapped in FLACs).

Hi KSTR
Thanks for your feedback.
Frans has made a 48/24 version of the album.
It's available here:

Carmen Gomes Inc. Ray!

Scroll down to the 10th downloadable item.
If it sells well we will of course create 48/24 version for all our albums.

 

[danadam]

Frans has made a 48/24 version of the album.
It's available here:

I was wondering, earlier you wrote:

Amazon are charging us per download.

and now the new version is available only in PCM instead of FLAC. Does the amount they charge does not depend on the download size?

 

[mansr]

the new version is available only in PCM instead of FLAC

That's a weird choice of nomenclature too.

 

[KSTR]

Hi KSTR
Thanks for your feedback.
Frans has made a 48/24 version of the album.
It's available here:

Carmen Gomes Inc. Ray!

Scroll down to the 10th downloadable item.
If it sells well we will of course create 48/24 version for all our albums.

I think you might want to rethink your strategy a little. Offering myriads of formats and having micro-granulated pricings with 4 digit precision feels awkward to me. The pricing in general seems fair, that is (assumed it contains also artwork, liner notes etc).
I would restrict it to a handful of formats (44.1/16, 48/24, 192/24 PCM versions and maybe one or two DSD formats), and streamline the pricing.

And you should probably fix the nomenclature: FLAC and (standard) WAV are both PCM and identical, except that FLAC is file-size compressed. I wouldn't offer WAVs except maybe for 44.1/16.

I did some preview listening of various albums you offer but no, not really my cup of tea from the musical content (the recording quality is excellent, of course) so I'm not likely to buy but of course this is just me.

 

[radix]

I think the vast majority of consumers do not really know what any of these numbers or names (flac, wav, pcm, dsd) mean. I'm pretty sure out of my extended family of 12 (all college educated), besides myself, maybe 1 or 2 would be able to pick an appropriate format. And even then, I expect they would pick a format beyond what their gear could reproduce well.

You might try coming up with a few marketing names (e.g. "cd quality lossless" or "sacd quality lossless" or "hirez lossless") and consistently use them. I just made up those examples, I'm sure a bit more thinking would yield better names. You can also publish a page that defines what each of those mean and provide more background to help someone choose.

Perhaps you know your customers and they want those technical names? It seems overly complicated to me.

A lot of people might not be able to play or see any benefit from anything beyond 48/24-bit, and it really just wastes their money and bandwidth and disk space downloading them.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.