I think I bought a 24/192kHz container

[wanta911]

I noticed that e-Onkyo Japan had 24/192kHz downloads of (3) Dire Straits albums, which was intriguing as I'd never heard them being in that format before? So I decided to download Love Over Gold and test it on MusicScope, which confirmed my suspicions.

 

The album sounds great but I suspect it is a rip of the SHM Platinum CD? Any thoughts?

[mkrzych]

I noticed that e-Onkyo Japan had 24/192kHz downloads of (3) Dire Straits albums, which was intriguing as I'd never heard them being in that format before? So I decided to download Love Over Gold and test it on MusicScope, which confirmed my suspicions.

 

The album sounds great but I suspect it is a rip of the SHM Platinum CD? Any thoughts?

 

Well, it could be hard to judge what is the source based on the graphs, but taking into account that this is rock album and Dire Straits record it quite long time ago, I don't think it's real high resolution capture. Generally, I've found it also on my case, that 24/192 is indeed kind of container and above 30-35kHz range you have only quantization noise, nothing else! True 24/96 recording in my opinion may be much, much better and taking less space on your HDD.

[wanta911]

Well, it could be hard to judge what is the source based on the graphs, but taking into account that this is rock album and Dire Straits record it quite long time ago, I don't think it's real high resolution capture. Generally, I've found it also on my case, that 24/192 is indeed kind of container and above 30-35kHz range you have only quantization noise, nothing else! True 24/96 recording in my opinion may be much, much better and taking less space on your HDD.

 

You are certainly right about it taking a lot of space - just a waste. I might rip it to 24/96 and give it a play. Even at 96kHz there will be a lot of space as there seems to be very little over 60kHz.

 

I have also ordered the SHM Platinum CD from Japan to compare the actual listening and see if I notice a difference - all in good fun.

[HiResSteve]

You need to know more about the original. Love Over Gold was mastered to digital so all they can do now is transfer that digital to tape, and then record the tape at 24/192. (That process is described/used on several 1980s albums on HDTracks, like the Emmylou Harris 1980s albums.) This process doesn't produce any musical information above 22K, 24K or 25K, or whatever digital resolution was used in the original digital. (ie, 44, 48 or 50 kHz.)

 

If you were to buy the 24-192 of first or second Dire Straits albums which were mastered to tape, you would see info above 20K.

[Boris75]

Even at 96kHz there will be a lot of space as there seems to be very little over 60kHz.

 

Beware, downsampling to 96kHz eliminates all information above 48kHz (half the sampling frequency) not 96kHz.

[mkrzych]

Beware, downsampling to 96kHz eliminates all information above 48kHz (half the sampling frequency) not 96kHz.

 

What information you have above 48KHz :-)

[astrotoy]

While there may not be useful information about 24/96, in terms of cost, an album stored at 24/192 is about 3GB for 45 minutes stereo, or about 9 cents (USD) where we can buy 4 TB external hard drives for US$120. The 10,000 albums I have ripped from vinyl and R2R tapes can be stored on hard drives that cost less than US$1000 at 24/192. Since it has taken me about five years to do the rips (more than 10,000 hours) I have invested in a triple back up system, (one master set and three backups).

 

There is some debate about whether albums recorded at more than 24/96 have useful information. Keith Johnson at Reference Recordings does his recording and mastering at 24/176 and even sells copies of those masters at 24/176 (through his HRx series and, I believe, HD Tracks may also sell them).

 

Larry

[Isaacc7]

I was under the impression that recording at higher rez was more useful for editing purposes more so sound quality. In other words, fewer artifacts result in the audible range when editing 24/176 files than with 24/96. I think of it kind of like working with 14 bit vs. 8 bit files in Photoshop.

[astrotoy]

I was under the impression that recording at higher rez was more useful for editing purposes more so sound quality. In other words, fewer artifacts result in the audible range when editing 24/176 files than with 24/96. I think of it kind of like working with 14 bit vs. 8 bit files in Photoshop.

 

I know that is true at least in some cases. For my Decca book (published by FIM) the 4 redbook CD's were first edited at 192/32 by Mssrs. Bishop and Friedrich before being released at 44/16. FIM's releases over the past few years have been mastered at 32 bits (their UHD mastering), usually at 192, though some were mastered at 176 or 96, if the source material was at lower rates.

 

As far as sound quality, one very easy, not too expensive test would be to buy one of Reference Recordings HRx releases of their 176/24 masters and the same release that they do at 44/16 CD (I don't buy HD Tracks, but I think they may offer both formats and you could buy an individual track for a few bucks.) You could then see whether in your system you can tell the difference and whether the extra cost is worth it. They have a fair number of HRx releases which are relatively recent and have parallel CD releases that should be HDCD encoded.

 

Larry

[wanta911]

Well, I ripped a 24/96 copy and did some comparisons. Surprisingly (LOL) I couldn't hear a difference.

 

I'll just keep the 24/192, it's not as if I'm struggling for disc space and it does sound great. The interesting comparison will be when I compare to the SHM Platinum CD when it arrives, I am not sure if they are the same masterings?