# What is your preferred format?



## RocredRecords (Feb 13, 2019)

The most common music distribution formats today may be more or less compressed files streamed or downloads and CD format (44.1 kHz 16 bit) is still probably the most used non compressed distribution format. Vinyl seem to crawl back, but probably less so on the classical music scene.

We definitely prefer high resolution (not that picky about the actual resolution but >48 kHz and 24 bit).

What is your preferred format?

Compressed (MP3, AAC, OGG, ...)?

CD quality (44,1 or 48 kHz, 16 bit)?

High Resolution files (>48 kHz and 24 bit)? Please specify if you prefer high-res files!

The reason I ask is that we can adapt our format offer accordingly.

Thanks!


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2019)

Umm, there is actually quite a lot of interest for vinyl here. It isn't my preferred, but even I have a turntable and a a couple dozen vinyl albums.

I prefer CD quality, but most of my music is digital, and so the format that dominates my collection is compressed to maximize space. My ears aren't sensitive enough to justify the extra megabytes that come with high res.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

CD for me. Easily.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

FLAC or mp3 or streaming, I dislike CDs because of their bad storability and the need to physically organize large collections. I have some 100 CDs and that is more than enough for me.

when I buy music (and I bought some today - some Czech folk music, not classical), i go almost always for the FLAC option which is usually just slightly more expensive than the mp3, and it usually gets also shipped with mp3.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*What is your preferred format? *

Live performance.

I'm still searching for the format which duplicates that!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

*Standard Redbook CD*. SACD is nice, but the dearth of them and the scarcity of players makes them an afterthought. The best sound I ever had was the HDCD format by Reference Recordings. But try to find a player for that format nowadays! I have zero interest in downloading, streaming and such. I will never go back to LP. To me it's the worst possible sound - scratches, ticks, pops, wow, flutter, inner groove distortion - no thanks! I do use some mp3 encoded disks - they're great for taking in the car since I can put a lot of music on one, it won't take up too much space, and in a roadster convertible, there is no loss of quality over standard disks.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

................Analog...............


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

CD is my preferred format though I mostly listen off of ripped mp3. I don't know that I have a preferred electronic format but I have been using 128 kbps mp3 and it seems to work fine for my ears.


----------



## RocredRecords (Feb 13, 2019)

Interesting! The choise of format is quite diverse it seems. If there where a live format, that could be folded and packed away.
, I’d go for that any day (given that my economy could support it).

I’m also a bit surprised that some, also in the classical department use low bit rate MP3 as I find high resolution formats giving another level of insight into the music that, to mee, even the CD-format does not fully support.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

RocredRecords said:


> Interesting! The choise of format is quite diverse it seems. If there where a live format, that could be folded and packed away.
> , I'd go for that any day (given that my economy could support it).
> 
> I'm also a bit surprised that some, also in the classical department use* low bit rate MP3* as I find high resolution formats giving another level of insight into the music that, to mee, even the CD-format does not fully support.


Good enough for my ears. Perhaps if I were using a very high end system I would want better bit rate or just play off the CDs.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

SACD gives me the closest experience to live music but as I'm keen on performances from the past on 78s I like to hear these cleaned up on CD.


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

The format isn't important to me. I generally listen to high quality compressed digital audio for convenience and I can't tell the difference between that and CD. Maybe if I sat and did side by side comparisons I could tell, but I wouldn't class that as music listening. I'd class that as listening to the format or the gear, and I don't want to get into that quagmire. I have a small CD collection, but it rarely gets played. Nowadays I only buy a CD if I *really* like the album. Otherwise it's all streaming.


----------



## MrMeatScience (Feb 15, 2015)

If funds and space were no issue, my preferred format would easily be CD -- but as both ARE issues, I prefer to stream hi-res files. With good headphones/speakers, it does the job nicely. But nothing really beats the sound and energy of live music.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I prefer to listen to lossless files or CDs in the house but for the car mp3 vbr or anything >128k is fine. If pushed and if i cant get any other rip then i will take 128k.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

CD's & SACDS, 44.1kHz/16 bit downloads, 96/24 downloads 

I prefer the hi-rez download to standard CD quality but don't like paying extra for it.

Native hi-rez and DSD recordings definitely sound better with my playback gear.


----------



## Zofia (Jan 24, 2019)

Much great topic! I prefer 24-bit/192kHz FLAC files I believe theat is “Studio Master” quality. Sadly does not work with my iPod but does work with my mp3 player and sound systems at home.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_What is your preferred format? Live performance. I'm still searching for the format which duplicates that! _

That would be the unlikely combination of something relatively low resolution combined with a 5.1 or 7.1 field of sound.

Just about all formats today are better than reality in terms of frequency response but less than reality in terms of field of sound.

If you listen to a Mahler symphony in a good hall the sound is somewhat homogenized and it fills every space naturally. Playback systems can't duplicate that while modern digital formats tend to compartmentalize sound and overdo the brilliance on top.

It's the difference between reality and Memorex, to cite an old ad line.

You'd think it probably easier to capture a song or solo instrumental recital but I've heard thousands of recordings that put you inside the piano or enhance the singer beyond possibility.

So good luck on this quest.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

FLAC, 192/24 or 96/24. I rip all my CDs to 44/16 FLAC.

If I were buying and had the option, I would always go for Hi-Res FLAC. But if my options were 44/16 FLAC or a lossy format, I would always take the CD-resolution FLAC.

Just say no to lossy formats!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I want to change my answer: my preferred format would be binaural recordings if only it was more widely supported. Some of the disks I have heard made in this method are startling in their realism and comes closer to what you hear in a good hall than any other process. Yes, it requires headphones - good ones, too. Last year the BBC made their Proms concerts available in binaural mp3 encoding - it was great! It's too bad that during the last 30 years of the cd era that binaural recordings weren't made of everything, but who knew back then that listening by earphone/headphone would become so dominant?


----------



## RocredRecords (Feb 13, 2019)

RESULT SO FAR:

Preference - Format
1 - Compressed (MP3, AAC, OGG, ...)

5 - CD quality (44,1 or 48 kHz, 16 bit)?

6 - High Resolution files (>48 kHz and 24 bit)?

2 - Vinyl

*

7 - Physical format (CD/SACD/Vinyl)

7 - File or download (MP3/FLAC/...)

The demand for quality is obvious, but also the acceptance for any format. It is the music that matter, which seem sensible. Most of you seem to be fine with any format or at least CD quality.


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Andolink said:


> CD's & SACDS, 44.1kHz/16 bit downloads, 96/24 downloads
> 
> I prefer the hi-rez download to standard CD quality but don't like paying extra for it.
> 
> Native hi-rez and DSD recordings definitely sound better with my playback gear.


I agree with you. Most of my collection is CD's, but with a good transport, DAC, etc. it amazes me how much musical info is on a CD. That said, native DSD files at the 512 DSD sample rate are incredible. The amount of spatial information recorded comes far closer to replicating the recording space than anything else I've ever heard.


----------



## RocredRecords (Feb 13, 2019)

Joe B said:


> I agree with you. Most of my collection is CD's, but with a good transport, DAC, etc. it amazes me how much musical info is on a CD. That said, native DSD files at the 512 DSD sample rate are incredible. The amount of spatial information recorded comes far closer to replicating the recording space than anything else I've ever heard.


Interesting! Are you specifically referring to DSD formats or to high resolution formats in general? I too regard high resolution formats to come out as better, but with reference to high resolution FLAC files 24 bit and 88.2, 96, 176.4 or 192 kHz. Obviously there will allways be recording flaws etc causing a specific recording not to sound any better that the CD quality version, but that has nothing to do with the format itself. It is a long times since I listened to DSD recordings so I only have a dated knowledge about what it actually sound like, but I think it is comparable to high resolution PCM, but as DSD does not lend itself to post production without passing it to PCM I it is in that sense a limited format as after having converted it to PCM it makes very little sense to convert it back to DSD again.


----------



## RocredRecords (Feb 13, 2019)

The associated question would be whether you choose format based convenience or quality and how aware you are about any qualitative differences?

Obviously many of you already have stated your opinion on this, but as a general question it might be of some interest too.


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

RocredRecords said:


> Interesting! Are you specifically referring to DSD formats or to high resolution formats in general? I too regard high resolution formats to come out as better, but with reference to high resolution FLAC files 24 bit and 88.2, 96, 176.4 or 192 kHz. Obviously there will allways be recording flaws etc causing a specific recording not to sound any better that the CD quality version, but that has nothing to do with the format itself. It is a long times since I listened to DSD recordings so I only have a dated knowledge about what it actually sound like, but I think it is comparable to high resolution PCM, but as DSD does not lend itself to post production without passing it to PCM I it is in that sense a limited format as after having converted it to PCM it makes very little sense to convert it back to DSD again.





RocredRecords said:


> The associated question would be whether you choose format based convenience or quality and how aware you are about any qualitative differences?
> 
> Obviously many of you already have stated your opinion on this, but as a general question it might be of some interest too.


By native DSD files I meant recordings where DSD was used at the recording session and post production OR, more likely, the recording, mixing, editing were done in DXD (352/24 or 352/32) and then converted to DSD [my DAC converts PCM up to 192/24 and DSD up to 5.6M, so I've never experience DXD directly]. The high sample rate of DXD captures more than other PCM formats. This is just my opinion (I have no sources/evidence/objective data to support this), but on my office headphone rig I can tell the difference between 192/24 and DSD 5.6M, with the later being better. This is all subjective on my part, but here is how I rank audio formats which I have had direct experience of in A/B comparisons:
#1 - DSD 5.6M Provides more information to my ears for a better sound stage (more holographic?)
#2 - 192/24 PCM & DSD 2.8M I find these very similar, but prefer 192/24 
#3 - 96/24 PCM
#4 - 44.1/16 PCM
Red Book CD is a marvelous format, and I prefer my music in this medium. Transports/players capable of retrieving the maximum amount of information from the disc with the least amount of error correction and good equipment down stream can reveal just how wonderful CD's can sound. I have no desire to begin a new collection in FLAC format, though the hi-res FLAC files I have downloaded onto my NAS are marvelous.


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> I want to change my answer: my preferred format would be binaural recordings if only it was more widely supported. Some of the disks I have heard made in this method are startling in their realism and comes closer to what you hear in a good hall than any other process. Yes, it requires headphones - good ones, too. Last year the BBC made their Proms concerts available in binaural mp3 encoding - it was great! It's too bad that during the last 30 years of the cd era that binaural recordings weren't made of everything, but who knew back then that listening by earphone/headphone would become so dominant?


I only have a few binaural CD's, but they are fabulous when listened to on my headphone rig. They put you right in the location of the recording head. Sound stage and image are awesome!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I am not picky about digital bit rates and found my music nirvana by listening to digital content over analog equipment. I’ve never been interested in more than stereo sound whether through speakers or headphones.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

CD. On most systems, they were a clear audio upgrade over albums and cassettes and remain generally satisfactory to my ears. I occasionally download or stream, but I prefer to own my music.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

My preferred format for sound quality is hi-res files. DSD (128 or 256) followed by 24/96 or 24/192 FLAC. DSD is preferred.

As stated above, DSD has the best retrieval of soundstage, imaging and ambience of any format I've heard. There is a reason for that, that probably has to do with the human auditory system, and its ability to hear very small inter-aural time differences. 

My preferred format by numbers in my collection, is CD.

I also own a log of vinyl, and it gets a lot of play in my system.


----------



## Bill Cooke (May 20, 2017)

CD for me. The quality on my sound system is great, and a tactile library brings me much joy.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

There's a lot of love for CD here, and rightfully so. The CD is certainly the backbone of my collection as well, and 44/16 FLAC is a joy to listen to. So I would hope that would be the minimum of any serious store.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

CDs for me. Convenient. And with liner notes and / or a booklet. The sound quality is fine for me and my stereo system. I like having a physical medium.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I just listened to a cassette while driving, mainly because that vehicle has a cassette player. It was weird playing a tape after so many years, but it sounded fine.


----------

