Well, at least I didn't buy the $700 one: 30 trips around the sun, lots of upsampling and weirdness

[firedog]

I wonder what they think of number 1 and number 7 (the first two I posted)?

 

Still, this is a major step forward for them.

 

They have done it before. One example of several I know about:

Morning Phase

 

Available in Audiophile 96kHz/24bit

 

 

Title: Morning Phase Artist: Beck Genre: Rock, 2015 Grammy Winners, Best Pop Artists of the 90's Label: Capitol Records Release Date: 2014 Notes: Tracks 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 contain elements of 48k tracking, mastered in 96/24.

[firedog]

I understand pretty well what you said, you do not want to buy 96kHz track if it was processed from 44kHz. I guess I would not hear the difference between 44kHz and 96kHz. Not exactly the same case as with 128 kbps mp3 stamped as redbook.

 

then why pay for the 96? Just buy the CD. Bill's point is you shouldn't be told you are buying hi-res and paying a premium for it if you are getting upsampled 96.

[firedog]

Bill's point is very clear for me, I was trying to convey it as straight as I could. My point was: one shouldn't buy anything if he/she is not sure he/she wants to buy it; second: for 30 years GD has been providing their fans with lot of free opportunities, including free access to tape their concerts (in dedicated tapers zones), most of the tapes were and are in free access now, also those which are preserved in better quality, than redbook. Also, as a deadhead (I am) I do not care if some of the tracks in new compilation are processed, I accept the sound of this set all way through. Message which is still here is more important than kHz's.

 

I'm happy for you that you have that outlook. But I believe your characterization of others is baseless:

 

A lot of people like to get what they paid for. They know that corporations sometimes cheat them (Volkswagen, anyone?), so they check. They might very possibly be happy with the sound of the recordings, but not happy that they were charged for a premium product they didn't receive. It has nothing to do with the kHz or the sound per se,or "accepting the sound". If you are being sold CD quality, you should be charged the CD price, not the hi-res price.

I'm sure Bill would have had no complaint if the set had not been called hi-res, or described accurately.

Without that, he can't make a proper informed decision about whether the music is worth buying at the price it is being sold.

So your point about don't buy something if one isn't sure one wants to buy doesn't apply here. A proper sale is supposed to take place when the buyer knows what he is buying and at what price he is buying it.

In a case like this the seller is essentially cheating the buyer. If it doesn't bother you that's fine, but don't pontificate about others wanting to feel bad, hating the world, etc. It's an insulting and unfounded point, based on nothing than your prejudices.