Preferred download format poll

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

What is your preferred download format for surround music?

  • I download full HD quality lossless FLAC files only.

    Votes: 19 67.9%
  • I prefer HD reduced to SD for quicker download.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I download HD FLAC but I also want DVDA iso to burn for the car.

    Votes: 8 28.6%
  • I download DVDA iso to burn because my hardware system has no inputs and I have no choice.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I download bluray iso to burn because my hardware system has no inputs and I have no choice.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I bought into DSD converters (SACD format) instead of PCM. I need DSD downloads (dff files).

    Votes: 1 3.6%

  • Total voters
    28
I answered "I download full HD quality lossless FLAC files only," however, 1) given the choice between 192/24, 96/24, and 44.1/24, I choose 96/24, and 2) I also download DSD files from nativedsd.com.

I guess I say this because none of the choices is really accurate for me.
 
I answered "I download full HD quality lossless FLAC files only," however, 1) given the choice between 192/24, 96/24, and 44.1/24, I choose 96/24, and 2) I also download DSD files from nativedsd.com.

I guess I say this because none of the choices is really accurate for me.

Yep, I should have included that!

I also go for 96k (or sample rate convert 192k to 96k if given no choice). I agree that 192k has its place in production work (usually more restoration based work with already flawed sources) but the final results fit losslessly into a 96k container. (Sample rate convert something back and forth 100 times in succession yourself if you don't believe me.)

Yeah, should have mentioned that.
On the other hand, I don't typically record/mix/master at 192k so the highest you will see out of me is 96k. Hence the omission.
But you are not #2, so I got that half anyway.
 
I voted "I download full HD quality lossless FLAC files only.", however I would happily download Blu-ray iso or Dvd iso if there was some bonus video content, which there often is.
 
When I purchase an HD FLAC download it has to be 24-bit, I prefer 96kHz sample rate, but its the bit depth which counts. If I want to burn a DVD-A/BD-A I'll do that from the FLAC.
 
I answered "I download full HD quality lossless FLAC files only," however, 1) given the choice between 192/24, 96/24, and 44.1/24, I choose 96/24, and 2) I also download DSD files from nativedsd.com.

I guess I say this because none of the choices is really accurate for me.

Same here.

I can play everything, even a DVD-A iso would suit me fine.
Call me crazy or a fool, but I generally don't like the "44.1kHz sound" so the lowest acceptable sample rate would be 48kHz for me, 24bit or 16bit.
 
I voted "I download full HD quality lossless FLAC files only.", however I would happily download Blu-ray iso or Dvd iso if there was some bonus video content, which there often is.

I can tell you that's the one thing I would never consider doing and I strongly talk any clients out of it!
My aim is to see music sold as an "album" and being available in all formats possible/reasonable. (Video + audio content would be in mkv file format for example.) Directly opposed to the current model of selling different formats at different price points (which lead to 24 bit masters being intentionally reduced to CD quality to create the "cheap" version and surround mixes only being included in deluxe editions) as well as including unique bonus tracks on different formats to goad people into buying multiple versions.

What I'm after here is if there really is an audience out there that needs DVDA and/or bluray disc images to burn. (Because it takes time to produce the files and needs storage space to host them.) There are these budget home theater systems that literally have no inputs on the back for lossless surround (eg. HDMI inputs). Anyone get stuck buying one of those but you actually have a DVD or bluray burner in the computer and can burn yourself discs?

Same here.

I can play everything, even a DVD-A iso would suit me fine.
Call me crazy or a fool, but I generally don't like the "44.1kHz sound" so the lowest acceptable sample rate would be 48kHz for me, 24bit or 16bit.

Hey Plan9, you should name names on that system! My experience is that reducing the bitdepth to 16 bit is far more apparent than sample rate conversions from HD to SD. (I do completely agree that the more budget AD converters available sound better at HD than SD BTW. (That's with the bitdepth staying at 24 bit.) Even to the point that you could upsample 44.1k program to 96k and get better sound - ie. closer to what the master sounded like - than playing it natively at 44.1k on such a system.)

So, I'm curious what AD unit or receiver (with its converters) is doing that. I say name names as a PSA! :)
 
I voted HD FLAC only.

I stopped playing discs about 3 years ago. I convert everything I buy to FLAC (or MKV for video).

I usually limit my FLAC sampling to 96kHz and convert SACD to 88.2kHz.
 
None of the above for me. I want downloads in the original format in which they were recorded and mastered.

And while I do marginally prefer DSD to PCM, I prefer them in DSF, so I cannot choose "I bought into DSD converters (SACD format) instead of PCM. I need DSD downloads (dff files)."

No vote from me.
 
None of the above for me. I want downloads in the original format in which they were recorded and mastered.

And while I do marginally prefer DSD to PCM, I prefer them in DSF, so I cannot choose "I bought into DSD converters (SACD format) instead of PCM. I need DSD downloads (dff files)."

No vote from me.

Same here. Definitely prefer .DSF to .DFF files.

In fact, of the 30+ music download sites that sell DSD Downloads today, it's pretty rare to find any of them selling a .DFF file! :)
http://www.nativedsd.com/database
 
I voted dff 'cause it looked so lonely with no votes. But for me really it should be DSD, my preferred format. Truly the format is less important by far than the content. I can handle any of them. How it sounds is all that really matters.
 
I voted dff 'cause it looked so lonely with no votes. But for me really it should be DSD, my preferred format. Truly the format is less important by far than the content. I can handle any of them. How it sounds is all that really matters.

Yes, that poll choice needs rewording.
Similar to the first choice "I download full HD quality DSD (.DSF) files only."

I'm also wondering why there isn't a choice to select "I download full HD quality WAV files only."
For those who prefer WAV to FLAC.
 
None of the above for me. I want downloads in the original format in which they were recorded and mastered.

And while I do marginally prefer DSD to PCM, I prefer them in DSF, so I cannot choose "I bought into DSD converters (SACD format) instead of PCM. I need DSD downloads (dff files)."

No vote from me.

The recordings in question would be recorded, mixed, & mastered in 24/96 PCM from start to finish. Sorry for not making that detail clear! That is the main point in fact. Delivery of the master recordings from the artist in the original format in which they were recorded and mastered.

I did kind of take a poke at DSD there and in hindsight could have 1, done better and 2, not made a mistake or omission with a file format!
I believe DSD to be just as good as 24/96 or 24/192 PCM at minimum of course. I'm listening if someone wants to have a conversation about anything better but this format war was unfortunate. We're in the minority and after the same thing. In a world where most people claim mp3 sounds perfect and anything more is a waste of disc space, someone came along and made a format to compete with 24/96 PCM when no one was complaining about it. The high end DSD AD/DA converters are just as expensive and it's still all about the analog parts of that circuit. If you have a receiver, some of them have both (reflected in the price) but some have one or the other and convert on the fly. Just FYI. Converting between DSD & PCM is far less damaging than HD to SD PCM conversions or reductions to 16 bit too so that's nice. Just for perspective.

So anyway, for those affected by this. Most recordings and especially multitrack productions are going to be done using PCM systems. More hardware and software available if nothing else. The PCM master would be the original and the DSD would be a (very good) conversion. And of course there would be the opposite cases with some DSD masters.

Would you prefer to see a DSD file set that was a conversion (properly done with care) offered or would you prefer to accept PCM recordings as is and do those conversions yourself like you've been doing?
 
The recordings in question would be recorded, mixed, & mastered in 24/96 PCM from start to finish. Sorry for not making that detail clear! That is the main point in fact. Delivery of the master recordings from the artist in the original format in which they were recorded and mastered.
Yes, details about the context would change a lot.

Would you prefer to see a DSD file set that was a conversion (properly done with care) offered or would you prefer to accept PCM recordings as is and do those conversions yourself like you've been doing?
I would prefer the original in any case, if possible.
 
Hey Plan9, you should name names on that system! My experience is that reducing the bitdepth to 16 bit is far more apparent than sample rate conversions from HD to SD. (I do completely agree that the more budget AD converters available sound better at HD than SD BTW. (That's with the bitdepth staying at 24 bit.) Even to the point that you could upsample 44.1k program to 96k and get better sound - ie. closer to what the master sounded like - than playing it natively at 44.1k on such a system.)

So, I'm curious what AD unit or receiver (with its converters) is doing that. I say name names as a PSA! :)

I think that is just a personal quirk I have noticed, which may be related to my work as a mastering engineer... in that I modify, sometimes heavily, digital files, and 44.1 files always seem to lose something and be more limited at what you can extract from them.

The best current DACs tend to erase the differences between sample rates on playback to my ears. A>D conversion is always better at 24bit to my ears, whereas 24bit or 16bit D>A is often comparable if good dithering is applied.

But I don't think there are absolutes in this line of work/hobby: one thing I'm sure of is that everyone hears things differently, but sometimes you can mostly agree on something. :)
 
Back
Top