In Reply to: RE: Red Book Riddle Solved posted by J. Phelan on July 14, 2009 at 13:04:24:
Sorry. This is wishful thinking that reflects the inadequacies of tests, commercial bias, and/or lack of familiarity with high resolution digital.
Mastering engineers who specialize in classical music know better, as does anyone who has played around with high quality recordings in resolutions at least 88.2 kHz and 24 bits. These can be downsampled to 44.1 kHz using the best pro-sample rate converters, and the results will not be as good as the original, as will be readily apparent to most listeners in a non-blind test. One explanation for this is poor playback capability at 44.1/16, but this can be countered by using the same SRC to convert the 44/16 back to its original format and played through the identical playback chain. The difference will be clear and can only be attributed to the sample rate conversions, not the playback gear.
With many recordings the differences are subtle, but it is a sad situation to have made a hi-res recording and listen to it degrade when it is shrunk into the obsolete 44/16 format.
It is true that these modern converters can produce better CDs and when 44/16 recordings are made with loving care they can sound good, better than previously. But you are fooling yourself if you believe they sound as good as they could have had they been released in a higher resolution format. IMO the problem is primarily with the 44 and not with the 16, at least not when the best dither techniques are used. Fitting hi-res into 44/16 is a two step process, e.g. 88/24 to 44/24 and then 44/24 to 44/16. The separate degradations at each stage can be observed.
I agree with your other comments about SACD. It deserves to go out of existence, if only because of its copy protection.
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
- NOT - Tony Lauck 07/14/0914:33:02 07/14/09 (23)
- RE: NOT - J. Phelan 18:01:53 07/14/09 (22)
- RE: NOT - Tony Lauck 18:51:59 07/14/09 (21)
- RE: NOT - J. Phelan 19:57:13 07/14/09 (20)
- RE: NOT - Tony Lauck 20:15:02 07/14/09 (1)
- RE: NOT - J. Phelan 20:20:22 07/14/09 (0)
- Who else is making minimum-phase filtering devices, besides Meridian? * - gme109 20:00:51 07/14/09 (17)
- RE: Who else is making minimum-phase filtering devices, besides Meridian? * - J. Phelan 21:02:41 07/14/09 (16)
- Where did you come up with that list??? - Charles Hansen 23:18:49 07/14/09 (12)
- RE: Where did you come up with that list??? - J. Phelan 23:50:12 07/14/09 (11)
- I think you need some new glasses. - Charles Hansen 00:14:10 07/16/09 (9)
- RE: I think you need some new glasses. - J. Phelan 00:47:34 07/16/09 (8)
- Not even close - Charles Hansen 19:09:07 07/16/09 (4)
- well ... - TBone 20:55:36 07/16/09 (1)
- This is probably the best explanation - Charles Hansen 19:47:10 07/17/09 (0)
- RE: Not even close - J. Phelan 19:35:33 07/16/09 (1)
- Spectral has never made any misleading claims - Charles Hansen 19:57:04 07/17/09 (0)
- RE: I think you need some new glasses. - Werner 10:50:41 07/16/09 (2)
- RE: I think you need some new glasses. - DaveK 18:58:23 07/16/09 (1)
- Not a lot of debate, actually - Charles Hansen 19:20:27 07/16/09 (0)
- RE: Where did you come up with that list??? - Tony Lauck 09:32:21 07/15/09 (0)
- Thanks - gme109 21:29:43 07/14/09 (2)
- RE: Thanks - J. Phelan 21:52:01 07/14/09 (1)
- RE: Thanks - gme109 21:57:03 07/14/09 (0)