Julf wrote: > The upside is that HDtracks provides us with a big double-blind test. Do > we hear people saying "oh yes, tracks 5 and 6 on that album don't sound > a bit less hi-res than the others"? No. It is just people who look at > spectrograms who notice any difference. Do we hear a lot of "Oh, the > hi-res version sounds so much better" until it turns out the "hi-res" is > only upsampled (or even despite it). Yep, we do. Conclusions left to the > reader... :)
I would really like to discount 24/96+ as pointless, indistinguishable from 16/44.1, except for one concern: the availability of "hi res" versions - however delivered, MQA or not - from better masters than the CD version, and with no way to get a 16/44.1 version of that master. But, as we've discussed elsewhere, without curation, there's no way to know what is what. Arse! The DR loudness database/site could have been a useful (similar) effort, but as most of its content is not detailed enough (e.g. only artist/title, no other details), it's not much use in identifying worthwhile masters. I would love to see - and contribute to - a wiki/database of available albums/tracks (with source info), which noted DR, and whether the mastering was noticeably better than CD. that could also include pointers to those tracks on the various streaming services. e.g "Deezer track 924493", etc. apols got getting a bit OT... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cdmackay's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=24816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102648 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
