Julf wrote: > Not so pure at all - probably DSD "noise shaping" from a bad resampling > from SACD. > > A lot of the "hi-res" stuff is pure fraud - upsampled 16/44.1 (CD/Red > book) material. Some is "genuine" 24/96 or 24/192, but from an analog > tape copy with only tape hiss and electrical noise above 20 kHz. And > every now and then, a decent, bona fide hi-res digital recording / but > those are all too rare. Even with those, the quality of the mastering is > much more significant than any possible difference in resolution that > you can possibly hear.
Mnyb wrote: > +1 > > I've been trying to say that 24/88.2 is much more suitable for SACD > re-sampling , you want to/must kill of that DSD noise . > > If you have a dedicated SACD player it is most likely designed with the > proper filtering and would not cause any issues . > > But there is no way that you pcm DAC would "know" that the signal is > full of garbage it will happily pass it on to your analog stuff and it > could react badly to this ? > In fact if i would design DAC's I would consider limiting the analog > bandwidth regardless . > > There is nothing inherently wrong with selling SACD resamples per se > this could in fact be a very good master and well worth having ,but HD > tracks could be more upfront and honest with what they are doing > charching more for the technically less desirable version just because > audiophiles want bigger numbers is not it. So some more research *couch* (google ) "Tthe Scarlett Book spec requires a -30db low-pass filter at 50KHz in playback devices (SACD players) to eliminate the ultrasonic noise." Are these specs public anywhere ? This also means that a lot of HD tracks SACD transfers are broken ,contains ultrasonic noise that was never meant to be a part of the signal out of the component playing DSD . Looking at Archimagos graph in the first post you can actually see that , noise start to increase after 50k . * So that means that actually in most cases the 24/96 version is actually the technically better option .* but would not 88.2 be better suited as the DSD frequency is a multiple of 44.1 , but maybe today's algorithms are so good that it does not really matter at all . Imo contact HD tracks about it and demand a correct version that confirms to spec "-30db low-pass filter at 50KHz" or better . Oh I'm sure that this noise can make some equipment sound -different-. Are these really professional people ? (HD tracks ,chesky ) there are so many "mistakes" in their release policies , on a cynical day i assume pro means you do it for a living and not always that your actually good at it . But in this case I think they simply moved over to the dark side to much $$ to be had, I do honestly think that chesky made some decent recordings . And also do they not have better connections with the labels to get real master files with documented pedigree "rip SACD" my *ss ? btw anyone else got the newsletter re Dire Straits brothers in arms on HD Tracks that was suddenly with drawn due to "technical difficulties" in reality it became common knowledge on the net that the available masters where of 16/48 pedigree :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97616 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
