On 07/23/2010 05:48 PM, Leigh wrote: > How difficult would it be to simply upsample 24/44.1 material and the > mix in some supersonic noise to make it look like it's hirez?
As our rhetorical question asks, its trivial. > I presume these upsampled tracks were discovered when someone found > there was no energy above 44.1 (or 48) kHz. Long ago, Stereophile took a bunch of "high res" albums, SACD and DVD-A and most had no signal over 22 kHz > As far as I know there is no sure-fire test for whether a source is > hirez anyway. What do you mean by source? Most professional recording microphones, preamps, eq, reverb, and everything else in the chain is designed for 20-20kHz. They don't process/record much over 20kHz. When they do have some support for ultra-sonic frequencies, they have at least a 6dB per octave roll off. Synths and other non-acoustic sources can have high frequency stuff. I believe, that recording at 35kHz or so is worth while. So my studio records at 88.2kHz. 98kHz is also fine. And about 20 bits of sample width is fine. So I have no problems at all with 96/24 192/24 is simply for bragging rights because mine is bigger Pat -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ _______________________________________________ Touch mailing list Touch@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
