oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Apr 26, 2016 18:13:32 GMT
i am interested in downloading some albums from the above, but before i do something is bugging me.
i own the eagles hotel California cd taken from the original 1976 master. i also downloaded the album from hdtracks a couple of years back (24/192), this being re-mastered sometime in the 2000's (cant remember the date). the 24/192 sound far better. what i cant work out is ...... does it sound better because its 24/192 or re-mastered or both? on playback the original 1976 mastered files improve if i crank the volume up and the difference becomes less noticeable. i dont know if i have been kidding myself and really the only difference is the recorded volume level.
when playing the files back on foobar, how significant is the info displayed by the spectrum analyser? there is much more activity when playing the downloaded re-mastered files.
reason i am asking is , there is a few more albums available now which i fancy trying, but they are around £20-25 / album.
|
|
oldson
extremely active
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by oldson on Apr 28, 2016 16:40:24 GMT
took a chance and downloaded one album. very little difference between it and my 16/44 rips. i would conclude the mastering is the most important factor over hi-res.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Apr 28, 2016 17:10:23 GMT
Sorry Simon, I didn't see this post.
I have the same feeling. One thing that I noticed with dsd files especially for some reason was that the dynamic range was different. The dsd range was greater on one particular album and I think it was Javier who checked and indeed did find that a certain master went out less compressed than others of the same recording.
So it also left me wondering whether we're hearing the results of mastering more than the files themselves.
Frans put out a test with bit rates a while back and I had a very hard time with it. In fact, differentiation was nigh on impossible for me.
So my feelings are also the same as yours; I think the mastering may be better on some recordings, which we put down to hi res but unfortunately, I'm not sure.
The price of them is a real pain and I can't quite work out why a hi res recording should cost that much more if it comes from the same master. That means no more actual studio time but just a computer job in order to get a different format.
I no longer get all wound up about hi or low res files. I just listen to the music and an awful lot of mine is just 320 mp3. I also feel that it is the cause of a mew level of audio snobbery. Some people get so uppity about it, let alone the headphone you're listening on.
|
|