Jump to content
IGNORED

HIGH RESOLUTION HI-RES AND MASTER RECORDINGS


Recommended Posts

On 6/7/2020 at 6:13 AM, Kal Rubinson said:

 

And that is why I prefer this:

 

NativeDSD page.JPG

 

 

 

 

I imagine it varies to a degree, but I've found that some high-res recordings, such as the 2L ones, are mostly ADC noise above 48 kHz. I.e.: If you buy above a 24/48 kHz file from them, you're paying for a lot of electrical noise.   I haven't tested this with other providers of high-res music, though a quick look at a recent Chesky recording shows notes from instruments extending right up to 90 kHz.  There seems to be a number of questions about the production of high-res music that need answering. 

 

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

I imagine it varies to a degree, but I've found that some high-res recordings, such as the 2L ones, are mostly ADC noise above 48 kHz. I.e.: If you buy above a 24/48 kHz file from them, you're paying for a lot of electrical noise.   I haven't tested this with other providers of high-res music, though a quick look at a recent Chesky recording shows notes from instruments extending right up to 90 kHz.  There seems to be a number of questions about the production of high-res music that need answering. 

 

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.  

I essentially agree, but don't have all lof the info -- so I admit that I don't know about all recordings.

 

However, one warning about it APPEARING that the instruments reach much above 20kHz -- it is possible for signal processing to make it look like the signals extend further up.

 

I am not claiming the processing excuse for natrually made recordings, where they would indeed be true & accurate.  I can take DolbyA material which never had significant signal above 20kHz, and make it seem like the signal extends further up, even without the intent to defraud.  Also, compressors and other kinds of signal processing can also create distortion splats, that are not normally audible, but are visible on a spectogram.

 

So, with signal processing, we can have the noise modulation from noise reduction (looks like signal), distortion splats, even without intent to defraud.  I would not dare to make a claim about mistaken excess spectrum on well made materials though.  This is just a beware.

 

John

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Currawong said:

 

I imagine it varies to a degree, but I've found that some high-res recordings, such as the 2L ones, are mostly ADC noise above 48 kHz. I.e.: If you buy above a 24/48 kHz file from them, you're paying for a lot of electrical noise.   I haven't tested this with other providers of high-res music, though a quick look at a recent Chesky recording shows notes from instruments extending right up to 90 kHz.  There seems to be a number of questions about the production of high-res music that need answering. 

 

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.  

 

AGREE---

 

5+ years ago, i swore by hi-res over dlna was "THE ANSWER" as i could hear it sounded much better than 44.1khz via usb, but i think dac engineering have finally progressed to where the 44.1k upsampled by the dac with proper isolation and reclocking is sufficient in itself.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

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. 

 

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 44.1k does fully encapsulate most peoples hearing spectrum, and that said, i think that 48K upsampled to 96K would be the sweetspot without having to do "too much" and without having to mess with very high DSD ratest than can cause their own issues.

 

A solid 96K or 192K USB PCM DAC with good isolation and reclocking should be satisfying to even the most demanding golden ears....i think the schiit mb w/unison does this...and there may be many others, but Moffat has been in the business and knows PCM probably as well as the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...