Phil Leigh;572890 Wrote: > Not at all. I never said that. I was simply pointing out that a high-rez > (>16/4) recording should by definition NOT have a brickwall filter > killing everything above 22K. > On a few older recordings and most modern ones (but not for almost > anything digitally multi-tracked in the 80's!) there would be some > musical information above 22k - not much, but some. > > > > I don't disagree and never said otherwise. > > > I don't disagree and never said otherwise. That's why you would need to > pitch-shift it to make sense of it. > > I don't disagree and never said otherwise. > > > > The point is what most people think, not what you or I think. > > Most people who cared/were interested would look at the frequency > spectrum as it is extremely simple to do - they would see high > frequencies and be satisfied (or deceived, depending on what is up > there). I was just pointing out that such a tempting method of > deception can be uncovered. > > So, does a 16/44.1 file converted to 24/44.1 sound different to you? - > could you tell it from a 24/44.1 original? > > > The real benefit of hi-rez is in the recording and mastering. > Everything is keep to the highest "quality" possible until the very > last moment prior to release of the final product. This means that all > of the tracking/mixing/production/post-production is done in such a way > that the potentially deleterious impact of the many DSP algorithms that > will be applied is minimised. Even if finally downsampled to 16/44, > some of that benefit is retained. Downsampling to 24-bit retains even > more of it. > > To prove your point - which I have never disagreed with! - try > listening to the Beatles 24-bit USB releases (24/44.1) compared to the > DIRECT equivalent 16/44.1 versions on CD. The 24-bit versions sound > slightly "better" (assuming you have a 24-bit DAC...). > > So here is the conundrum: If a studio takes a 16/44 master, simply > converts it to (say) 24/48 and sells it as "high rez" then they are > cheating. Not only that, but it will sound identical to the 16/44 > version. Audiodiffmaker can spot the difference (or rather the lack of > difference!) easily. There's no way to hide it. However, a true hi-rez > comparison (such as the Beatles example) will show a different result > in ADM and will sound different.
All right, we agree about what is important in a real "high rez" file. But I still disagree on some points. Here, people were only talking about the point of view of someone buying a (probably more expensive) high rez file. >From that point of view, what's happening at recording and mastering doesn't count. The only questions are : 1/ Does the buyer hear a difference ? Well that's his problem after all. 2/ Most important : Is it a real high rez file, or is the buyer cheated with an upsampled file ? No matter if this is a simple upsampling easy to detect, or a very smart one. I was simply saying that in my opinion, it is not that hard to process a "low rez" file, to make it a "high rez". Of course with simple upsampling process easy to detect, but also with much smarter methods. In that case, you won't detect the trick as easily as you say ... You seem to forget that the main part of the discussion is to know if buying a specific high rez file is a rip off because it was cheated. And if, in that case, how easily can you check if you are cheated ? I understand that remastering of the Beatles is a real improvement, since I guess that the original recordings are probably analog. But nowadays, the "master file" usually coming out from the mastering is a 24 bits file, which is downsample to 16/44.1 for CD. The one and only question for the buyer is - do I buy the real 24 bits file of high quality ? - do I buy a cheated file rebuild from the degraded 16/44.1 CD data ? -- nicolas75 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ nicolas75's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15823 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74688 _______________________________________________ Touch mailing list Touch@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
