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.

blindjim

Showing 8 responses by willemj

A bit of both is probably the best answer. How much that would be audible is a moot point, however. If you think it will be, make sure that the tracks are really HD. Also, don't waste money/disc space on HD versions of old analogue recordings.
MQA is just a marketing trick. Even Meridian admit they have no scientific data.
Well, Bob Stuart himself has said they have not published research results. Do you know of a scientific paper with results, or even a clear explanation of what it actually is? Archimago has at least published a blind test with quite a few participants. Statistically, people could not identify the MQA recordings reliably, nor did they have real a preference. The test is by no means perfect, but good enough to be highly sceptical.
In its most basic form, and from what I understand from the limited information, MQA sacrifices some bit depth to preserve some high frequency information in a lossy form. Is that the great breakthrough that we were waiting for? If we really believe that that information is important (I don’t necessarly), why not simply wait for a bit more bandwith?