SeanMiddleton wrote: > I have a massive collection of flacs derived from 44.1 Khz CD's. I also > have quite a number of HD tracks ranging from 24/48 up to 24/384. In > many case I have the same album in both HD and 44.1. Most of the time, > when comparing a HD track that was distilled from a HD master against > the 44.1 version of the same track, the HD variant is better. Sometimes > very much so. For HD tracks distilled from 44.1 or old analogue masters > there is sometimes and improvement and sometimes very little perceivable > difference. For tracks with wide dynamic range (typically orchestral > stuff) distilled from HD masters there is a very considerable difference > between the HD and 44.1. Anyone that doesn't hear that improvement > should probably not spend too much on their audio systems. > > Assuming the HD track is distilled form a HD master the most significant > factor affecting the HD quality improvement is the dynamic range of the > material. The physics behind the dynamic range improvement of HD > recordings are widely published. If you have the gear and the > inclination try comparing a standard 44.1 version of Cassandra Wilson's > 'New Moon Daughter' album with the 24/192 recording from HD tracks. The > improvement is astonishing. A number of other albums are similarly > improved. For orchestral/wide dynamic range HD is almost always better > when a HD master has been used
Define "same album" ? or better try this . Take the HD tracks 24/192 version downsample it yourself to 16/44.1 don't compare with a CD rip or other download source even if they claim to be the same . I've done this myself . yes HD versions vs bougth on CD can differ . But when you downsample yourself to CD rez the diffrence is not there . So in my opinion the diffrence is in the master the container is unimportant as long it is 16/44.1 or better . If had HD cabality for a decade and 100's of DVD-A and really did believe that bigger bit container did something , it does not. There really is no case at all for better 16/44.1 rez on consumer distrubeted formats (your studio should ofcourse operate on another level ). The real diffrence was discrete multichannel , an unbetable feature of SACD and DVDA that everyone forgets So thats marketting issue if have a better version and try to sell that they blown "remastered" as a moniker , it's usually interpretted uber compressed and worse . So selling it as "HD" in an impressive bit container of 24/192 or DSD or MQA does the trick . How to convince byers that our new CD or 16/44.1 has much better provence and more carefull mastering from better sources ? If you can slap an DSD or MQA sticker on it sells better. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
