I don’t listen to hi res downloads myself but I hear tell some of them are overly compressed. At least according to the Official Dynamic Range Database. Agree, disagree?
HD FILES which is best hi Bit Rates, or Hi Word lengths?
Greetings all,
It doesn’t take long to see 24/192 & 24/96 lossless files are the standard for High Def PCM audio, albeit, some hardware now up samples the bit rates to soaring levels for proprietary reasons.
Consequently, we’d all like to have both bit rate and Word lengths as tall as possible when originally cut, but now and then there is a definite disparity from several online resources wherein the words are long, but the bit rate is low, ie., 24/44.1K, or 24/88.2K.
… and we love the content! Which pretty much settles it for me, but being a picky sort I thought to see what some consensus was on this subject.
As such, it can be a bit costly to keep buying albums whose words and bits differ radically from the presumed standards. Especially if the supposed HD cuts are but marginally better or not perceived as better, at all than what one could rip . from CD
One EX would be the current HD Tracks download of The Life Songs of K Kristofferson a live Tribute album that is simply outstanding and releasedOct. 2017 . It is available as a 24/44.1K file.
Ripping off DVDs one usually can’t get beyond 16/48K when snatching 2 ch audio tracks. New options in current software enables artificial or just after the fact upsampling of the BRs.
So what should count most? Higher word lengths or higher Bit rates, when one or the other is not necessarily high or as significant?
Is this a black and white issue?
Wait for a higher set of numbers on the files you want, or dive on in, buy ‘em, play ‘em and see if they were worth it?
Lastly, does upsampling via software a true way to improve fidelity or sound Quality, or is it merely just one more placebo one can take to satiate themselves emmotionally?
I always felt if there were untoward issues in the present recording upsampling isn’t gonna improve things. But I’m always willing to learn new stuff or replace stuff that just ain’t so that’s already in my memory banks.
Thanks much for the insights.
It doesn’t take long to see 24/192 & 24/96 lossless files are the standard for High Def PCM audio, albeit, some hardware now up samples the bit rates to soaring levels for proprietary reasons.
Consequently, we’d all like to have both bit rate and Word lengths as tall as possible when originally cut, but now and then there is a definite disparity from several online resources wherein the words are long, but the bit rate is low, ie., 24/44.1K, or 24/88.2K.
… and we love the content! Which pretty much settles it for me, but being a picky sort I thought to see what some consensus was on this subject.
As such, it can be a bit costly to keep buying albums whose words and bits differ radically from the presumed standards. Especially if the supposed HD cuts are but marginally better or not perceived as better, at all than what one could rip . from CD
One EX would be the current HD Tracks download of The Life Songs of K Kristofferson a live Tribute album that is simply outstanding and releasedOct. 2017 . It is available as a 24/44.1K file.
Ripping off DVDs one usually can’t get beyond 16/48K when snatching 2 ch audio tracks. New options in current software enables artificial or just after the fact upsampling of the BRs.
So what should count most? Higher word lengths or higher Bit rates, when one or the other is not necessarily high or as significant?
Is this a black and white issue?
Wait for a higher set of numbers on the files you want, or dive on in, buy ‘em, play ‘em and see if they were worth it?
Lastly, does upsampling via software a true way to improve fidelity or sound Quality, or is it merely just one more placebo one can take to satiate themselves emmotionally?
I always felt if there were untoward issues in the present recording upsampling isn’t gonna improve things. But I’m always willing to learn new stuff or replace stuff that just ain’t so that’s already in my memory banks.
Thanks much for the insights.