<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Hi-res audio worth of it?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Hey there guys, it's two years since i deleted all my MP3 files and became a FLAC fan, mostly of my music is standard CD quality (16 bits 44.1KHz sampling rate) i have like 44 albums that are in the so-called HRA (Hi-resolution audio) which is 24-bit and from 44.1 to 192KHz, most stores sell 88.2 or 96KHz.</p>
<p dir="auto">I do hear a small difference with small works f.e piano solo or a sonata with viola da gamba and Harpsichord, but on a big-scale work like a symphonic or a choral work yes is pretty noticiable, but i think that a well recorded and mastered Compact disc sounds as good as 24-bit music.</p>
<p dir="auto">So personally i think is worth with big works but the file size of 1.40GB approximate is like what happened with wave nad mp3 in the 90's, i have a 2TB hard drive which are cheaper than flash storage. But overall i am torn if HRA is worth or not</p>
<p dir="auto">I am not an audiophile, more of a music lover, so i like my music sounds as close to reality and witha  sony walkman A10-series it does even with standard CD files.</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.gaytor.rent/topic/17774/hi-res-audio-worth-of-it</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 14:01:55 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://community.gaytor.rent/topic/17774.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2015 03:16:22 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>