Quote:
...ALL well recorded dross by 3rd rate artists.

Just like the great and powerful HP's Super Disk List!!!

You picked out 3rd-rate dross and you're blaming the recording format for that??? I can't think of too many types of music where some GOOD music isn't (or wasn't) available on SACD. For example: Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, Sam Cooke, Vienna Philharmonic, Cleveland Orchestra, Concertgebouw of Amsterdam, London Symphony, Artur Rubinstein, Julian Bream, nearly every classical composer you can think of, Hank Jones, Nat King Cole, Miles Davis, Black Sabbath, Wes montgomery, Kenny Burrell, Coltrane, Gil Evans, Mingus...

I could go on indefinitely, but perhaps take a look at this website and see what you CAN'T find there:
http://www.sa-cd.net/home

A 149 original DSD Jazz titles?

LINK

Break me a friggin' give!

I list some good stuff. Now you complain there are only 149 jazz titles, or that there are only 149 jazz titles in DSD? I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. If someone WANTS to buy crap, there have always been plenty of junky titles in every recorded format. AND...there have been plenty of great performances in every format, too (even 8-track<g>). But the fact remains that you could have purchased great music on SACD instead of junk. And you still can.

There's a lot of good content available from Analogue Productions, including the newly Steve Hoffman-remastered Nat Cole series.

I may be wrong about what Robert said, but like me, I think he is bemoaning the opporunity lost for the last 8-10 years of what COULD have been offered on a hirez format. 6550 SA-CD discs is not to be sneezed at, but most of the new music is NOT on SACD, or any other hirez format, and those of us who want to hear more just feel bad about what could have been. What is even worse it that most of it was recorded at 24/88.2 or 24/96 at least and then brought back to redbook.

We all might be surprised at what masters are being made at 24/192. Shoot, I'm thinking about going 24/192 and I'm not even in "THE BUSINESS".

I do get the irony of a 1080P BluRay disc touting Hirez audio at 24/48. That is laughable for sure. (I am laughing as I write this, but it almost at the same time brings a tear.) It just tells you that this is the land of videophiles, not audiophiles. Since the videophiles have mostly been listening to MP3s all week, I guess it is.

Very true, but what can we use such an attitude for? What might have been is (pardon me) useless thinking. Think about that ALL music could have been 128 bit mp3 already. Then what would have become of us?

Some of my students call me "fossil" already.

Time will tell if it was foolish or not. I myself have a couple of handfuls of DVD-A's that will most likely end up as decor.

I did that with my ex-wife, but the bitch teamed up with the magpies!

It was not competing formats or the cost of of the hardware, at least initially, that doomed SACD and DVDA.

It failed because they were hyped as multichannel formats surround sound; surround sound was going to be the future of audio; everybody was waiting for SACD 5 channels before commiting to a player: audio is a two channel affair. It made no sense whatsoever trying to listen to Jascha Heifetz in surround sound, and people understood that.

What I cannot understand to this day is why Stereophile and JA pushed and hyped SACD so much, undermining the CD format which was getting better by the day. When they were done killing the CD they had only one way to go: hyping vinyl again
which they do aplenty. They always have to hipe something to sell their magazine. The same idiots that bought a high resolution surround sound audio player after ditching their CD player are now buying their first turntable. You can't stop progress. Thank you Stereophile!

Quote:
It was not competing formats or the cost of of the hardware, at least initially, that doomed SACD and DVDA....What I cannot understand to this day is why Stereophile and JA pushed and hiped SACD so much, undermining the CD format which was getting better by the day.

Yet if you talk to the people involved in promoting SACD, part of the problem the medium had was that magazines like Stereophile didn't hype it _enough_.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

The magazines are here because some of us wants to pay for them; there's a "need". I don't see many audiophile magazines hyping anything, as they just serve our needs and keep us informed of what's new, controversial or groundbreaking in the market.

A few magazines (no names) may be more or less spineless in their reviews, and I am aware that the word out there is that "they walk the advertisers road". But that is more often not the case than the case.

CD's or any other media certainly don't get hyped in SP if you ask me. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is my honest opinion.

They have to blame themselves for the failure of high res formats, also maybe listening too much to people like Meridian's Bob Stuart instead of audiophiles. Funny thing is I remember Bob Stuart saying somehere that if you wanted surround sound audio there was no need for a new format, it was already available with Meridian's surround sound processors, albeit at lower res. They wanted to emulate the success DVD, sell their players in video showrooms that were striving, put their players in home cinemas surround sound set up and they failed. They wanted to ride the DVD coattail. Now everybody is back to stereo. Manufacturers are back making CD players again while Stereophile is promoting heavily vinyl.

Quote:

I have to disagree with this...what the magazine 'hypes' is cutting edge technology and the trickle down effect of that technology. SACD was at least a decade ahead of where CD was. It was not their fault that the folk selling the format overpriced it, got into a format war, and refused to use the best of available performers and performances on that new format. As to phono, despite my constant carping as to the quasi religious ritual needed to get the miserable thing to sound right and the absurd costs of good gear (as well as the literal quantity needed to get that great sound), today's vinyl world is light years away from the horror that was vinyl in 1981, even at prices one can afford.

I have more problems with hyping computer based hi res as there does not appear to be anything like a standard and the complexity of the idea makes vinyl look easy. That said, I suspect there will be a standard, a recognized ritual and list of gear used in a few years. I figure the magazine is speaking of what is possible, not what is reasonable, so far.

Great post, man.

A format war is harmful for audiophiles and other living things.

You nailed it, JIMV.

I'm gonna miss you after Obama's death panel takes you to Rainbow Bridge.

.. today's vinyl world is light years away from the horror that was vinyl in 1981, even at prices one can afford.

So is CD
Then you have CDR
Good 2 CD drives broadcast quality changers that Stereophile never dare to review
You could start having fun with CDs, shrinck your medias, relax, keep your hands on the wheel, your girl friend for hours, instead of having to stand up every 3 minutes to change a track or a disc and she would say she has to go

Leave it to the likes of Sony to think it was an audio magazines' fault to not properly market Sony's new format. If Sony had made the correct marketing decision to put the SACD chip set in every disc spinner they made the issue would have been only software related.

On that front if they made all discs dual discs with ample presseing facilities we would not be nearly waving goodbye to a great format. DVD-A has had it's funeral.

But, now I can buy Sony Sound Forge Audio Studio for $65 and record at 2496, add in a M-Audio 2496 audiophile sound card at $99 and make some very nice needledrops in pcm. For another $40 Audio DVD creator will make me 2496 DVDs of any music I own or want to record.

By the way, the new version of Sony Sound Forge (10) does 24/192. By an appropriate sound card and keep your PCM music in your computer and record and play it back in super resolution.

For $200-$300 and a desktop computer, hirez is there for the taking. We are close to perfect sound forever.

You should try the BlueCoast downloads in WAV format and you will see that other than a little time, you don't need FLAC or anything else to enjoy hirez. This should be the hirez future. At least IMHO. It may not be an Ayre C5-XE/MP, but it is pretty darn good.

I was an early SACD adopter, only to be let down by Sony. What will keep BluRay going is 1080P video, not the audio.

If some of you think I'm still kicking a dead horse, I am sorry. I am dug-in!

It is SACD gogos' fault, not Sony.

DVD was a huge improvment on video, especially when you were able to scale it to 1080p for nothing
I remember putting all my laserdiscs for sale after watching my first DVD (The Fugitive) on a computer at high res. At lower res, 480i or p on a big screen or an old NTSC television screen, DVD was just a small improvment but I had seen the future on a computer (Tom Norton and Gordon Holt were wrong in their lukewarm reception of DVD, initially)

High res audio, SACD was not such a watershed improvment, and many times it was worst than CD

As for vinyl a majority of reviewers actually use CD, not vinyl, JA, Martin Colloms, Ken Kessler, Robert Harley, the late Gordon Holt, etc
So why are their magazines continuously hyping vinyl?

Downloading audio is fun and practical: when was the last time we read that CD and CDR and 2 CD drives changers could actually be fun and practical, too, a lot more fun and practical than vinyl? One had to read pro audio magazines to read anything interesting about CD while they were busy hipping SACD and vinyl and talking about a revival of cutting edge casettes. High end CD manufacturers stopped making CD players during that time.

I keep beating the same dead horse but high resolution digital audio is available for a mere $300 via logitech's Squeezebox Touch and fully legal, non DRM'ed downloads from HDTracks, Linn Records and several others.

For the record, Stereophile most definitely hypes the now out dated CD format by continually reviewing high priced CD and SACD players from the various high end manufacturers. All of these players have at least two things in common: ridiculously high prices and high end name recognition. But the fact remains that at best all these players offer are marginal improvements for playback of a medium at the very end of its life cycle.

What Stereophile should be doing, both for its existing base of readers and in order to attract new younger readers, is providing extensive coverage of computer based digital audio. Yes I know that Stereophile continually reviews computer based products, such as USB based DACs and computer sound cards, but more often than not these reviews include the caveat that computer based audio is great for background music but offers little of value for the serious audiophile. And yes I am also aware should Stereophile decide to take a more proactive approach to computer based digital audio they would be fighting an uphill battle since most listeners equate computer based digital audio with poor sounding mp3s and low bit rate streaming audio. But computer based digital audio does have the potential and ability to become a true high end and high resolution source provided that those involved in the high end start to take it seriously and truly get behind it.

In order to do this Stereophile should stop treating computer based digital audio as just an interesting side path and start focusing on the high end abilities of many of the current devices on the market. Here's a quick list of things which can be done right now to get the ball rollog:

1) When reviewing these products don't be afraid to compare them against the best that CD/SACD playback has to offer.

2) Review some of the high resolution digital downloads currently available and compare them to their CD, SACD and VINYL counterparts.

3) Stop promoting the use of lossy compression and call it out for the all the harm this format has done to the advancement of high quality sound reproduction. This includes actively calling for the internet streaming of losslessly compressed music. Hell they can stream high quality video so why not high quality audio.

So please let's not make the same mistakes with high resolution computer based digital audio that were made with DVD-Audio and SACD.

Jazzfan,

I think you are right that the price of the Squeezebox is too cheap to be taken seriously. I will be buying one this fall once my recording rig is upgraded.

2496 and more requires more than my Behringer B-5 mics can offer, but they are surprisingly good for no money. My Echo Indigo card may be getting long in the tooth anyway.

I also have my eye on the new DAC from Arcam. I am hoping that the reviews are great as the price of under $500 sure is.

Are you using an outboard DAC wlith your Squeezebox? There seems to be many good ones these days for under $1K.

Quote:
Stop promoting the use of lossy compression and call it out for the all the harm this format has done to the advancement of high quality sound reproduction.

I will respond to your other points later, Jazzfan. But this one needs an answer right away:

"Stop promoting the use of lossy compression..."

Stereophile has _never_ promoted the use of lossy compression. We have been actively against its use for >15 years. See, for example, my article on the subject at http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/ .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I have a squeezebox
I find it genial
You forget once and for all about the hardware
You get so excited about the possibilities
You hop from Classical to Jazz to Latin music to African music (not enough of it) to Rock
You just cannot put it down
It is music and then it is also like a game
Only a retard would buy a turntable today
I am not even sure that we need a computer at all
Streaming is better than downloading
Streaming is exhilarating
You get high on streaming
Like when you were listening to a radio station in the sixties with a bonus: no advertising

IMO it's not "us" making mistakes. It's about a simple market mechanism; the sales go where the money is, and it's the youngsters who don't care for quality who are the real customers, and audiophiles are viewed as a smaller thing.

No doubt is hi-rez download the future, and it is our job to make demands on the quality - so far we agree. I believe there will be much more of the bad stuff downloadable, and the hi-rez will go very slow and be rather expensive. None the less we should stay hopeful, and actually BUY the hi-rez music, so they can see an actual interest building. This is the only way we will get more good stuff from the web.

Otherwise I do agree with what you're saying.

I may be retarted, but I will tell you that my needledrops at 2496 sound better than any stream I have heard to date, and I do listen often. I will be buying one more very good TT before I kick for sure because I have so much very good sofware to play.

It does not seem that much harder for me to place an LP on one of my tables then to seatch, wait and click, but I would agree that the streaming possibilities are endless and worth pursuing.I do that now to preview new music from various record labels.

Once 2496 downloads become the norm rather than the exception then the net will have more importance to me. I am not really up on the technology, but I do remember how good my Yamaha CD burner was which had a huge 8 meg ram buffer and maybe that is what it will take for streaming hirez to us.

Right now I have other fish to fry in the hirez game, but a Squeezebox is in my near future. It is just another toy for big kids.

Quote:
We have been actively against its use for >15 years.

See also Robert Harley's 1991 essay at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/digital_data_compression_musics_procrustean_bed/ , my 1994 thoughts at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/56/ , and my 1998 thoufghts at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/727/ , i in which stated that " MP3 (MPEG 1 or 2, Layer 3) encoding is such an aggressive data-reduction algorithm that it does not produce sonic results that could be defined as high fidelity. . . . If it isn't high fidelity, then an industry that strives for the highest fidelity shouldn't bother with it."

Want more? See http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/ in which I report on a blind listening test in which I took part that convincingly demonstrated the audible flaws of lossy compression. I even repeated that test at the 2008 RMAF and in dealer seminars in Colorado in May 2009. So no, I don't think Stereophile has been promoting the use of lossy compression. Loss_less_, yes. But lossy, no.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Sony killed SACD, no baloney. They did not support it by releasing current pop on it, then they stopped releasing it, then they basically stopped pressing it. Sony, all the way.

Having said that, I really enjoy my sacd discs as well as my dvd-a discs. High res is the stuff, no matter how it gets to our ears. But I have recorded most of my sacds at 24/96 and now mostly listen to them on the computer. They do not sound quite as good, but they are easy to access.

Trey

Quote:

Quote:
We have been actively against its use for >15 years.

See also Robert Harley's 1991 essay at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/digital_data_compression_musics_procrustean_bed/ , my 1994 thoughts at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/56/ , and my 1998 thoufghts at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/727/ , i in which stated that " MP3 (MPEG 1 or 2, Layer 3) encoding is such an aggressive data-reduction algorithm that it does not produce sonic results that could be defined as high fidelity. . . . If it isn't high fidelity, then an industry that strives for the highest fidelity shouldn't bother with it."

Want more? See http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/ in which I report on a blind listening test in which I took part that convincingly demonstrated the audible flaws of lossy compression. I even repeated that test in dealer seminars in Colorado in May 2008 and at the 2008 RMAF. So no, I don't think Stereophile has been promoting the use of lossy compression. Loss_less_, yes. But lossy, no.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Okay, okay I stand corrected: Stereophile does not like lossy compression. In fact I did one better and reread both the Transporter and Squeezebox reviews and I found that neither review dwelled on using the devices to play internet music streams, which all use lossy compression and usually at very low bit rates.

And now that I have your attention: what about some of my other points?

Quote:
Jazzfan, how can one do as you propose when there is simply no standard, system, or agreed upon protocol to do Hi Rez?..until everyone is working from the same page, we have a hobby media for elites with time and money.

While you are correct that there is no official "standard, system, or agreed upon protocol to do Hi Rez" there is, merely by default, a "standard, system, or agreed upon protocol to do Hi Rez" coming into play. I'm talking about the use of high resolution digital files (usually 24bit/96kHz) losslessly compressed using the flac codec becoming the "standard". Many of the online sources for legal downloads (and many of the sources for illegal downloads as well) of hi-rez music are using this format (HDTracks and Linn Records to name a few). Unfortunately the ubiquitous Apple iTunes does not work with flac files (that would go against Mr. Jobs' anti-open source world view) and this not only leaves most iTunes users out in the cold but confuses them as well.

But that is just what I am talking about when I say that Stereophile is not very pro-active when it comes to computer based digital audio - the fact that someone like yourself and many other Stereophile readers are unaware that a defacto hi-rez "standard" exists. And not only does it exist but it is more than functional and usable in its present state with a wide variety of software and hardware support. Stereophile needs to do much more to make issues such as this along with many other issues regarding computer based digital audio widely known by its readers interested in this topic.

Quote:
I do not believe I was clear...24/96 exists BUT, what one does with it is a massive muddle. If Apple allowed 24/96 on their iPOD, then the format would be clear and a path to the files would exist that all understand and can use...today we have a wealth of formats, sampling rates, and ways to turn them into actual music. No standardization at all...Imagine if vinyl was produced not at 33 rpm but at whatever the cutter felt sounded good and then expected all users to have gear that played his whim. What if that old CD Redbook standard did not exist and every digital disk had to be played o a different player depending on the label on the disk...that is where we stand today...no standard and no universal way to get to it. It is all computer tinkering...

You couldn't have proved my point better even if you tried! I'm sorry to have to break the news to you but when it comes to high resolution computer based digital audio Apple has done much more harm than good. A standard does exist: 24bit flac encoded files at either 96kHz or 88.2kHz. Apple would have you believe otherwise.

Since I can put redbook wav files in my IPod, it would be a nice extension if they would update their chip set to accomodate 2496 wav pcm and leave the rest of it alone. People who wanted to listen to MP3 could still go on their merry way.

What I don't get is why I need a $750 portable player to do that? Then Windows Media could get their act together and allow 2496 files to be played in WMP.

I was just curious: A Phile Class A computer based music system:

Class A or A+ digtial processors: Under $3K: Ayre QB-9, Bel Canto EOne DAC 3, Benchmark DAC1, Grace Design M902, Meridian HD621. Class A amps: under $5K: Marantz SM-11S1, Ayre V-5XE, McIntosh MC-275, Music Reference RM-200; Speakers under $5k: Acoustic Energy AE-1, PSB Synchrony One.

Still a serious amount of money to appraoch Class A. With the BenchMark I don't need a preamp. Easy enough to add a Squeezebox to that.

Quote:
I was just curious: A Phile Class A computer based music system

Impossible since there are no Class A:

Wireless routers
Cat 5 cable
USB cable
Hard drives
Motherboards
Computer cases and power supplies
Monitors (computer)
Music playback and music library management software
Optical disk drives (for ripping CDs)
CD ripping software

Quote:
24 bit flac not supported by the biggest portable digital music systems is hardly a standard...When you can buy an iPOD that supports the format, then you have enough of a market to say a format has been chosen.

Wow, now we have Apple, a computer hardware and software manufacturer, determining the standard to be used for high resolution digital audio files. No, your dead wrong - 24bit flac encoded files at either 96kHz or 88.2kHz are quickly becoming the high resolution digital audio standard in spite of the lack of iPod (and Windows Media Player) support. There are more than enough devices and software that support flac playback to make it a "standard".

Quote:
A 'standard' is a conceit in which all hardware and software supports the idea...we are not even on the same page there. I use WAV files in Redbook Standard when I play non CD digital music. Others play with other files...

As long as folk are making gear and programs that support a score of formats and playback schemes and no single standard exists, then the idea is not ready for prime time.

"WAV files in Redbook Standard"? Exactly what does that mean? The redbook standard is for CDs and CDs are not high resolution. The CD or redbook standard calls for 16bit depth and 44.1kHz sampling rate whereas high resolution is usually taken to be 24bit depth with sampling rates at 88.2kHz and above. And I do believe that we were discussing high resolution digital audio and not CD or redbook resolution digital audio.

An iPod is a piece of gear that supports a variety of formats (mp3, acc, alc, plus several video formats) and which is most definitely ready for prime time. And using your logic, Apple's refusal to support the playback of flash content means that flash is also not ready for prime time. I believe that Adobe would object to that line of reasoning.

Quote:

Quote:
I was just curious: A Phile Class A computer based music system

Impossible since there are no Class A:

Wireless routers
Cat 5 cable
USB cable
Hard drives
Motherboards
Computer cases and power supplies
Monitors (computer)
Music playback and music library management software
Optical disk drives (for ripping CDs)
CD ripping software

We don't KNOW that, they just haven't been tested. Plus, if you have a full Class A system and you use some other interconnects NOT recommended, does that kill your whole system? Not for me.

I thought that the whole point of a product like a Benchmark DAC or the Ayre QB-9 was that with many sources not listed in Stereophile class A, the overall performance was Class A.

To me FLAC is just another file extension that muddles up the mix. I can't do HD racks unless I choose to use Winamp(or other) and and The FLAC download. Plus, aren't many of their files merely upsampled? I thought I recall someone calling them out on that?

That is normal for me.

This is my two cents but what does it matter if you have a Stereophile Class A recommended system? We don't even recommend systems, merely components. It is up to individuals to put together a system that satisfies thier own personal tastes and uses.

As I see it, the Stereophile class system merely gives a snapshot on how components stack up against each other in terms of performance. It also allows readers to see, in one place, a condensed version of each review, prices and features of all the products we are keeping current tabs on.

I just don't see this rating system as a sacred cow - and I even help create this list!

I use the rec comp for two purposes: audio porn (things that will never happen to me like $160,000 speakers) and looking for bargains that sound great. Both are fun, but the former is free!

And I have four kids, so buying the Bellari phono preamp was a big deal for me! I am saving up for the special edition oppo blu-ray player, and that $899 spent will be a year of rejoicing. This is not to poor mouth, but just to say that you don't have to have a killer system to love Stereophile and be an audiophile. Stereophile has shown me how to get more from the system I have, encouraged me to upgrade, and turned me on to great music. That is plenty of value!

Trey

Quote:
I use the rec comp for two purposes: audio porn (things that will never happen to me like $160,000 speakers) and looking for bargains that sound great. Both are fun, but the former is free!

Two other great uses for the list!

Cheers!

Quote:
To me FLAC is just another file extension that muddles up the mix. I can't do HD racks unless I choose to use Winamp(or other) and and The FLAC download. Plus, aren't many of their files merely upsampled? I thought I recall someone calling them out on that?

You are correct that some of the hi-res content from HDTracks was detected as being upsampled redbook. Once this was brought to the Chesky brothers attention, they quickly corrected the circumstances which caused this error and pro-actively repaired damaged customer relations. I received an unsolicited email from them indicating that I had likely downloaded one of the compromised albums, offered me a free replacement as well as a discount to be applied to a future purchase. That's great customer service.

Quote:
I am saving up for the special edition oppo blu-ray player, and that $899 spent will be a year of rejoicing.

Trey

I have the regular Oppo blu-ray player and I absolutely love it. One of my all time best audio/video purchases. The special edition version must truly be a giant killer and is a must for anyone with an older A/V receiver that does not have an hdmi input and does not decode the latest high resolution audio signals.

I use the 5.1 channel analog outputs of the Oppo when watching a blu-ray with either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio sound and the movies sound fantastic. I have an older Marantz home theater receiver and the Oppo goes a long way in extending the useful life of this very nice sounding receiver.

Plus there's the fact that the Oppo plays just about any type of disc or file format one throws at it. So keep on squirreling away the money since you'll rarely spend $900 and be happy that you did.

Quote:
You are correct that some of the hi-res content from HDTracks was detected as being upsampled redbook. Once this was brought to the Chesky brothers attention, they quickly corrected the circumstances which caused this error and pro-actively repaired damaged customer relations.

In short, this is pure pap! The year long fiasco is well documented on the net via numerous assorted forum postings. The deception continues today.

I don't doubt your experience. By all indications it's the rare exception brought on only by continued pressure from a very unhappy hi-res customer base. HdTracks has severely damaged the public trust of high res downloads.

Perhaps Art could turn his attentions to the hucksters within the industry he writes about who continue to fleece the 'simple' audiophile!

Quote:
In short, this is pure pap! The year long fiasco is well documented on the net via numerous assorted forum postings. The deception continues today.

I don't doubt your experience. By all indications it's the rare exception brought on only by continued pressure from a very unhappy hi-res customer base. HdTracks has severely damaged the public trust of high res downloads.

Perhaps Art could turn his attentions to the hucksters within the industry he writes about who continue to fleece the 'simple' audiophile!

"HdTracks has severely damaged the public trust of high res downloads." No, it's more like HdTracks has severely damaged the public trust of HdTracks. Along with the upsampled redbook fiasco there is also HDTracks ridiculous price increase for hi-rez downloads which HDTracks conveniently blamed on the record companies. Great business model: build up a costumer base by increasing prices during a recession. What business school did these people go to?

To be fair, the cost of hi-rez downloads is way over priced regardless of vendor. Compared to Linn Records average $24 per hi-rez album HDTracks $18 per hi-rez album seems like a bargain. However that doesn't change the fact that both prices are way too high for a download. Save your money and make your own high resolution files with a good turntable and a decent computer sound card. And in the case of music not available on LP either pay their ransom or live with CD resolution until the prices come down to more reasonable levels.