HIGH RESOLUTION HI-RES AND MASTER RECORDINGS

[Kal Rubinson]

 

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

I purchase music in the best available resolution. Ideally the resolution that it was produced at.

And that is why I prefer this:

 

 

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I do believe that higher than 192K is audible in recordings (regardless of theorems), but there is just so little of it in mainstream.

That's not the point.  If you are obsessed with this issue, buy from reliable sources that will tell you what the provenance of the recording is.  Otherwise, assume the worst.............................or just leave it alone.🎲

[Kal Rubinson]

1. I am not prepared to bother with testing files, so I cannot dispute your finding although I would appreciate if you would provide a more specific example.

2.  I see no reason to buy a 24/48 file from 2L as it has been processed (in some undefined way) from the original recording format.

3.  I rarely buy anything from Chesky because they do not support multichannel.

 

6 hours ago, Currawong said:

For me, personally, while I used to have a preference for high-res recordings, in more recent times, I've found DAC models that are sufficiently good with CD-quality material that I don't worry about it any longer.  

4. I try to buy recordings in the original recorded format/resolution, if possible, but do not obsess about it.  I do agree that a well-made recording at CD-quality played on good equipment can be sufficiently satisfying.