24 bit release?

[thegr8brian]

What does everyone thing the chances are that new album being released in some digital format of higher quality than cd such as 24bit FLACs. Warp has released 24bit versions of Autechre's latest LP and EP as well as the latest Brian Eno LP. I believe both are 24/48.

Of course I will pick up the vinyl, but it would be nice to see some high quality digital releases.

[polar sky]

What does everyone thing the chances are that new album being released in some digital format of higher quality than cd such as 24bit FLACs. Warp has released 24bit versions of Autechre's latest LP and EP as well as the latest Brian Eno LP. I believe both are 24/48.

Of course I will pick up the vinyl, but it would be nice to see some high quality digital releases.

I think they would, unless BoC didn't want them to be released.

[Twoism-ist]

do they require 24-bit sound hardware? I'm pretty sure my creative card has 24-bit support.

[Saakki]

Audigy 2 and above should support ture 24/96. Hefty fine. And yeah why wouldn't they release it 24 bit since they it did with Autechre's and Eno's releases.

[A Balloon]

No, not BoC...

[radiateme]

No, not BoC...

More like 128 kbps mp3s sourced from cassettes, eh?

[Jonse]

It could be an option, but not really necessary at all. Most of us don't have speakers and audio equipment that'll get too much of a difference from an already lossless CD rip, or the flac equivalent, and considering so much of BoC is sampled and/or uses filters and lo-fi elements, there wouldn't be too much difference in the first place. Maybe newly recorded samples and synths, that's about it.


I love my music at a high quality though, so I'm not going to say no to this. Typically, I settle fine with 320kbps MP3's on the go, and 16 bit .wav rips for my good speakers at home, but I have some extra memory space and would love to see how it sounds. I'm sure anyone with above average equipment of any kind will hear at least a slight improvement.

[thegr8brian]

It could be an option, but not really necessary at all. Most of us don't have speakers and audio equipment that'll get too much of a difference from an already lossless CD rip, or the flac equivalent, and considering so much of BoC is sampled and/or uses filters and lo-fi elements, there wouldn't be too much difference in the first place. Maybe newly recorded samples and synths, that's about it.


I love my music at a high quality though, so I'm not going to say no to this. Typically, I settle fine with 320kbps MP3's on the go, and 16 bit .wav rips for my good speakers at home, but I have some extra memory space and would love to see how it sounds. I'm sure anyone with above average equipment of any kind will hear at least a slight improvement.

I agree for the most part but just because they are using lo-fi equipment doesn't mean a higher resolution master won't pick up some subtle differences.

I only asked this question because I've recently been upgrading some of my audio gear and downloading 24/96 to test it out.

Also why not use V0 mp3's instead of 320's and FLAC instead of .wav? Both are variable bit rate and provide the same quality with less space consumption when a track isn't using the fully dynamic range.

[Jonse]

It could be an option, but not really necessary at all. Most of us don't have speakers and audio equipment that'll get too much of a difference from an already lossless CD rip, or the flac equivalent, and considering so much of BoC is sampled and/or uses filters and lo-fi elements, there wouldn't be too much difference in the first place. Maybe newly recorded samples and synths, that's about it.


I love my music at a high quality though, so I'm not going to say no to this. Typically, I settle fine with 320kbps MP3's on the go, and 16 bit .wav rips for my good speakers at home, but I have some extra memory space and would love to see how it sounds. I'm sure anyone with above average equipment of any kind will hear at least a slight improvement.

I agree for the most part but just because they are using lo-fi equipment doesn't mean a higher resolution master won't pick up some subtle differences.

I only asked this question because I've recently been upgrading some of my audio gear and downloading 24/96 to test it out.

Also why not use V0 mp3's instead of 320's and FLAC instead of .wav? Both are variable bit rate and provide the same quality with less space consumption when a track isn't using the fully dynamic range.

I have nothing against FLAC, only that I use a lot of software/hardware that has compatibility issues with FLAC and not WAV. If I'm downloading something something to burn it to a CD, a lot of the time I will download FLAC rips.


Also, I absolutely cannot stand variable bit rate mp3s and would much rather use constant. I've heard so many variable rips that sound like shit in one or more places.