In a Silent Way, Miles Davis

[fritzg]

HDtracks has it in 24-88 and 24-176 at the usual price.

OnkyoUSA has it in 24-96 for $12.99.

 

 

Anyone know the provenance of these and why the different resolutions?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Frustratingly, no.

[kumakuma]

HDtracks has it in 24-88 and 24-176 at the usual price.

OnkyoUSA has it in 24-96 for $12.99.

 

 

Anyone know the provenance of these and why the different resolutions?

 

In my experience, 24/88.2 and 24/176.4 often means that it came from an SACD release.

[EuroChamp]

Another 24/96 version:

http://www.qobuz.com/fr-fr/album/in-a-silent-way-miles-davis/0696998655621

 

And I agree, the 24/88 and the 24/176 could be from a DSD master. But don't know, where the 96ers are from.

MFSL had a SACD too, don't know if still available.

[oneway23]

I was under the impression that DSD files could be converted to any PCM-based bit/sample rate?

[The Computer Audiophile]

I was under the impression that DSD files could be converted to any PCM-based bit/sample rate?

Your impression is correct in that they can be converted to anything. However, people like to convert them to a multiple of 44.1 such as 88.2 or 176.4. DSD is 64x44.1 = 2.8224 mHz.

[fritzg]

Frustratingly, no.

 

OnkyoUSA says it is the "LP mix". That might give a clue. This is such an important album, frustrating to see these different hi-res versions with no explanation.

[firedog]

I have the HDT 24.88 and it is very good sounding. An album offered in both 24.88 and 176 at HDT means either it was converted from SACD or mastered in 176.

 

The liner notes with the download come from the CD remaster and say the CD remaster was a conversion from the Sony DSD master, mixed and mastered by Mark Wilder in 24 bit. I assume this means the DSD master is the source for the download, and it was converted to 88 and 176. Sony archived its analog catalog in DSD.

 

The above would lead me to believe the Qobuz 24/96 is a different version entirely; the HDT is clearly not the LP mix.

[fritzg]

I have the HDT 24.88 and it is very good sounding. An album offered in both 24.88 and 176 at HDT means either it was converted from SACD or mastered in 176.

 

The liner notes with the download come from the CD remaster and say the CD remaster was a conversion from the Sony DSD master, mixed and mastered by Mark Wilder in 24 bit. I assume this means the DSD master is the source for the download, and it was converted to 88 and 176. Sony archived its analog catalog in DSD.

 

The above would lead me to believe the Qobuz 24/96 is a different version entirely; the HDT is clearly not the LP mix.

 

Very helpful. Thanks. Curious why you went with the 88 and not the 176. Is it because of suspected conversion from DSD?

[firedog]

I went for the 88 because: a) I didn't at the time know the source of the remaster and didn't want to waste money on some pointless "higher resolution" version (i.e., not "real" 176); (b) I generally buy the 176 or the 192 only if I know the album is well recorded and I trust the source of the remaster - and if it's one of my favorite records; © I can't always clearly hear the difference - depending on the recording and the type of music involved; (d) sometimes I'm cheap. I spend an insane proportion of my disposable income on this hobby and like to cut back a bit here and there.

 

I bought the 192 multi disc remaster of the Allman Brothers at Fillmore East last year b/c it IS one of my favourite albums, I knew the recording was good, and the remaster team were serious people.

 

About a week after I bought it, it was revealed that the analog was transcripted only to 24/96 and the "remix and remaster" was done from the 24/96 up converted to 192. Then down converted again to make the 24/96 release. So extremely doubtful that buying the 192 gave me any sonic advantage.

 

In other words, I paid extra for something that was basically 24/96. I can covert 24/96 to 192 myself if I want to - without paying extra bucks for a record label upsample.

[fritzg]

I went for the 88 because: a) I didn't at the time know the source of the remaster and didn't want to waste money on some pointless "higher resolution" version (i.e., not "real" 176); (b) I generally buy the 176 or the 192 only if I know the album is well recorded and I trust the source of the remaster - and if it's one of my favorite records; © I can't always clearly hear the difference - depending on the recording and the type of music involved; (d) sometimes I'm cheap. I spend an insane proportion of my disposable income on this hobby and like to cut back a bit here and there.

 

I bought the 192 multi disc remaster of the Allman Brothers at Fillmore East last year b/c it IS one of my favourite albums, I knew the recording was good, and the remaster team were serious people.

 

About a week after I bought it, it was revealed that the analog was transcripted only to 24/96 and the "remix and remaster" was done from the 24/96 up converted to 192. Then down converted again to make the 24/96 release. So extremely doubtful that buying the 192 gave me any sonic advantage.

 

In other words, I paid extra for something that was basically 24/96. I can covert 24/96 to 192 myself if I want to - without paying extra bucks for a record label upsample.

 

Yeah, this echoes a lot of my thinking. Only it's hard to get all that info, good recording, provenance, "real" higher resolution, etc. Like you, I don't think twice (well, maybe thrice <grin>) when it is my favorite band unless I know something about the process that would dissuade me.