Testing for Bit Depth and Sample Rate...aka Resolution

lightman1 wrote: »

pitdogg2 wrote: »

To be honest I think this whole HD thing has been somewhat of a scam from the get go. It meant to be a money grab. Why should extra bits cost more? I'm firmly in the camp that they are just upsampling 16/44 to whatever they can sell for more. Are the masters recorded at 24 bit 32 bit and 96khz or 192 khz? If they are does that really cost more to do? These days in digital all it takes it seems to me is for someone to include the code to trip a light. They are selling you 16/44 with a code to trip the 24/192 light.
Color me sceptical

Throw away all your silly fancypants cables, Ivan.

They make plain pants for cables, thankfully.
https://www.parts-express.com/cat/cable-pants/2120

mhardy6647 wrote: »

They make plain pants for cables, thankfully.
https://www.parts-express.com/cat/cable-pants/2120

I bought a pack of those thinking it was a good deal on tuning forks.
I was disappointed.

msg wrote: »

mhardy6647 wrote: »

They make plain pants for cables, thankfully.
https://www.parts-express.com/cat/cable-pants/2120

I bought a pack of those thinking it was a good deal on tuning forks.
I was disappointed.

Yeah, they make terrible tuning forks

msg wrote: »

They're not good for roasting marshmallows either. I'm 0 for 2 on these.
I made sure to try them all, just to rule out having a few bad ones in the pack.

A nice single-ended 300B stereo power amp will provide s'mores with great warmth and harmonic richness.

... I should add that all the digital media you listen to is upsampled
by definition....
not to take away from badly mixed and mastered garbage in, garbage out issue.

I've skipped a lot of the DL tracks for this reason. SACD and DVD-Audio usually have good backing information on the recordings. Somewhere on the web there are also listings for dynamic range for various releases, remasters etc. A higher dynamic range than 16/44 does not guarantee it is true hi-res. There are algorithms that can artificially boost the range.

Many of the studio remastered digital tracks that are called "hi-res" are remastered at hi or super hi resolution for mixing, equalization, and artifact removal. This in theory allows increased mixing and re-engineering capabilities and precision with less digital artifacts. Some of the source is 16/44 or 16/48, maybe higher for some recordings. With 16/44 source, there will be some gains, but IMO it would be hard to tell differences between the hi-res version and a new downsampled 16/44 version. For that matter, unless the mixing was very different, most listeners wouldn't really notice the differences of the higher res mixing equipment.

IMO if the source is analog, some of the technology to remove tape hiss and defects in the tape is well worth it. Still I am not sure if there is much difference between a 16/44 and a hi-res version. Tape has its limits. For early digital sources, I don't think there are many gains.

The hi-res files need full source and remastering history, plus some good reviews for me to be interested. As mentioned if the source isn't good, even if it is all hi-res DDD, the end won't be. I have yet to get a studio CD, other than from small budget bands, that sound like an mp3. I have gotten a number that are poorly mixed, or are otherwise underwhelming.

I had this issue back in 2010 when I bought a CD of Foreigner-Mr. Moonlight. I didn't realize at the time that Amazon was doing on-demand burning of the music to a CD. When I got it and opened it up, I was underwhelmed to say the least. No pamphlet (just the cover print) and the CD itself didn't have the printing like I would have hoped. But I figured at least I have the CD and the music. Upon listening, I was not all that enamored with the recording. As mentioned by others, it sounded like it was sourced from a high quality mp3. There was just something in the high frequencies that sounded "off". Well, I got an authentic pressing of the CD recently and it sounds way better to me than the one I got from Amazon. In my opinion, there is no way the two are the same source of the recording.

Now I'm not saying that Amazon is to blame here. There is some responsibility from the recording company as well who is providing the files for the CD-R. However, it is my opinion that there is a lack of oversight on the quality of files provided to Amazon. For that reason I will never purchase any on-demand discs again. When I do buy music on Amazon, I check every time to make sure it isn't an On-Demand burn to CD-R.

There is some music on Amazon that is out of print or was never available on CD that I would love to get. Amazon has them available for purchase as On-demand CD. What would be helpful is if they explicitly said the source of the files, original sample rate and bit depth. If they did something like that, I might return as a customer for these type of recordings on CD-R.