In Reply to: RE: "35 years old and totally obsolete" posted by genungo on September 4, 2015 at 19:49:40:
How much better depends on the quality of the original recording. I'm not prepared to put a percentage on sound quality. When down converting my studio master analog transfers to 44/16 I no longer waste any time "optimizing" the resampling to this format, because it is so clearly inferior, regardless of the settings. Given the choice, I would never listen to a 44/16 recording if a higher resolution format was available. Given that there is no extra cost associated with distributing the higher resolution format there is no excuse for new recordings being issued in 44/16 format and not higher resolution.
I'm more interested in music than in sound quality, so I am not inclined to repurchase remasters of recordings that I already have on CD unless they are quite special. However, I am quite happy to pay a 25 percent premium for high resolution new releases, especially if this supports record labels and artists that I like, and in some cases I have paid up to a 100% premium when I was pretty certain of the musical and sonic quality. However, I listen to acoustic music, mostly classical and jazz. With heavy studio production there may not be much benefit from higher resolution formats since it is likely that the heavy post-processing involved has already destroyed any hope of good quality sound.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: "35 years old and totally obsolete" - Tony Lauck 09/4/1520:50:34 09/4/15 (1)
- Right on! (NT) - HiFiOd 19:56:45 09/5/15 (0)