Paul, As my father lay dieing, your videos keep me company. Your my Audio/sound dad....sound dad, i like that. Thank you so so much for al;l of the content and effort in what you do. I love you brother.
It’s honestly hard to know nowadays what your *actually* getting for sure…for me I still pull the trigger on the “hi-res” purchase, just in the chance that it actually is. If it’s not, at least I’m still enjoying a CD quality album which is still better quality than streaming services and supporting the band/artist
I gave you your first thumbs up on this video. CDs are a fuking fantastic invention. The Japanese have done amazing work with high quality cd recordings. I listen to allot of High end cassette recordings and vinyl!! Alas, I can’t imagine a world without cds.
I love CDs on my Luxman CD player. When I first got it it I was hooked listening to my old CDs in their entirety.🎣 It rejuvenated and opened up the whole format for me. I'm buying 3-4+ CDs per month now💿♥️
Hi Paul and audience , l have had a passion for music for over 50 years , and like most chasing the best true sound quality. l have spent enough money over the years to pay off a second house and still not happy with what l have . l started this hobby because l love music and tell you the truth . We mostly all forget that; and chase so called perfection , a lot of my favorite music was ever recorded in hi quality . l have over 2000 LP and maybe there is handful of songs that highlight the system. After many years now l have had a just good system and still love listening to music . Music first the rest second . [ Hi end Audio is awesome ,but always chasing something supposable better . defeats the assumption of earlier better models . Sorry to sound negative, not my intention ? Love your show
Absolutely great comment. The first principle in data processing is “garbage in, garbage out” . That why we have to fix it from the source. Not trying to manipulate the information in between or even try to do it till end.
Having a high sample rate is especially important in the recording stage -- ie. in the A-to-D converter. This allows for a less steep anti-aliasing filter, which greatly reduces the likelihood any ringing artefacts appearing in the audible range. If you sampled at 44.1kHz (ie. low rez) in the studio, then any aliasing and ringing arising from the steep filter cannot be undone afterwards! No amount of subsequent upsampling will get rid of the 'burned-in' ringing that was induced by the original low-rez sampling process.
In comparison it’s like viewing a 720p-24fps movie on a 4K tv with up sampling and interpolation. Yeah at first glance it looks better but you quickly realize lips are out of sync, certain things look over processed, and just overall is off. Also worth noting that same file is better viewed with a tv to match it. I’ve noticed that viewing less than optimal resolution and fraimrate movies looks worse on new high end displays than they did on older tvs for this reason. Same goes for the music now, if we were to listen to that song that was never ever mastered to higher than CD quality (16/44.1-48) then upsampling it to “hi-res” will either A-change absolutely nothing given the right DAC, or B-add unwanted information and noise
A great video, Paul. It's easy to jump on the CD-bashing bandwagon, but for a 40 year old technology it still sounds fantastic. I too prefer to buy the highest resolution file of a recording that I can - after all, why limit yourself if it's available? - and then downsample as necessary for 48/24 in the kitchen on Sonos, or full fat 192kHz in the library or 44.1/16 for the car. CDs are a great way of owning a physical product - vinyl requires care and attention (and room!) and I love it, but CDs give you the booklet and a tactile experience of taking the time to select and insert a CD, which is something often missing when I simply stream from my NAS and end up changing albums halfway through just because I can. Long live the CD and the SACD!
I wouldn't say these are the same at all. When we're talking about audio, computers are more than capable of guessing voltages. Upscaling video is so much harder because every pixel has to be guessed based on the next frame, this is not a simple process.
I'm testing hires by using linear scale Spectrogram in foobar2000. Upsampling files wouldn't have super sonic frequency. For true hi-res files, you would saw frequency go pass 22.05khz. however, the song need to have instruments that producing super sonic frequency. Eg., violin viola and percussions.
Many years ago, I upgraded to Oppo CD player and streamer. There are much better today but costs are way to high.. so many electronic compromises, sorry I sold my VPI table with grade cartridge…but I am old and wanted simple sound..
If you have a recording that was sampled at 44.1 kHz (CD quality), and upsample it to 172.4 kHz, it will neither be the same, nor sound the same, compared to if the recording was done naively at 176.4 kHz. Upsampleing / Oversampling creates samples, out of thin air, based on each pair of existing, adjacent samples, using a mathematical formula. It would be like giving an expert artist two connected frames of a video, and asking that artist to draw what she conceives would be between those two frames, had the recording been made at a higher frame rate. The artist would get it very close to what would have been there. But there is no substitute for having your equipment make the recording with those additional samples in the first place. And so it is with upsampling / oversampling. They use mathematical formulas to make very accurate guesses at what would have been there, and create samples based on the math. But it is never spot-on. But sampling rates are mostly a sales gimmick. When people that have a 44.1 kHz album learn that it has been released at a higher sampling rate, and they go out and buy the album, again. With rare exceptions, the higher res album will sound exactly the same as the 44.1 kHz album. Why? The most important parts of sound quality are the initial capture, and the mixing and mastering processes. And since the studios screw it up on nearly every recording, there is no point in the higher res versions. Those higher res versions will, if anything, allow you to hear their mess more clearly. For example: If you use your video camera and record a scene, and discover that your filming was out of focus... then what purpose would it serve to have a high res version of your out of focus recording? Most albums simply have poor to decent sound quality. Having more frames of that level of sound quality simply offers nothing. It will not sound better. If you have an album that sounds amazing, then a high res version has a fighting chance of sounding even better. For recordings that were done right, the higher res versions make sense. But if you are buying a high res version of an album, because the one you have does not sound so good, then you are wasting your time and money on a high res version.
Key point to remember .. a digital player that decodes only 44.1 will always be better than a digital player that plays various sampling rates. So best to keep it at cd quality for optimum cd music.
You can have a 192 flaq file that sounds like crap. That is running through my Rossini APEX DAC with separate master clock. I can then have 48/24 or 96/24 files that sound incredible. So higher flaq file playing on qbuz to Roon isn't a guarantee of quality. You have to listen and build your library over time. Some songs that are older that I really love I tolerate listening to them. Still enjoy but not as much as higher quality files. Diana Krall has some 96/24 on Qbuz along with Kenny G 96/24 that sound amazing.
I find that a well recorded HiRes file sounds marginally better than the same file downsized to cd format. Not sure I could pick it out in a double blind test. But what does sound better is a DAC with a low phase noise clock. Most DACs use a middle of the road clock such as a Crystek CCHD-975. They cost about $40 each which is a lot for a single component in a DAC. But it is far from SOTA. With a better clock all recordings cd or hires sound better. So I optimize my system for 44.1 sample rate and buy well recorded music at that sample rate.
Yeah it's easy to pick it in a blind test, however "hi-res" PCM is still way too low, you surely need PCM in the megahertz range to approach analogue quality.
@@nicksnowbuildings lol, we know some of them got tricked with MoFi, but they used 4xDSD which can sound pretty good and is 11.2 megahertz. Also I tried my best to record in 4xDSD, analog is still way better.
@@CastingCelebrity-> Up-sampling .... I prefer to be safe at the source material, otherwise it's pointless anyway. Usually I don't care unless my ears tell me.
@@Projacked1 its confusing because Paul said in previous video... 24bits/96khz the sound resolution between a very tiny atom hit our ears >> we stand very close to engine jet of plane... So unnecessary to do up sampling... Another reviewers said we are human not bats :)
Paul, please consider releasing a recording that you have at 176.4 kHz, and also a downsampled version at 44.1 kHz. Please make those two recordings available on your web site, for free. This will allow your audience to hear, for themselves, how a higher res file matters (assuming the recording was done right in the first place -- which Octave does). It is hard to find recordings that have amazing sound quality. Paul, you are in a position to create such a recording, and make it available at both 176.4 and 44.1. It does not have to be a "must have" melody, that you would normally sell. It should simply be a minute's worth of some instruments, so that your audience can download and hear for themselves. Thank you.
@@Wizardofgosz "We already know what the result of this will be. It's been done by now thousands of times. And as long as it's done in a double blind test where the listener doesn't know which is which they won't be able to tell the difference." We would need to know the make up of the stereo that was used for the blind test. We would need to know every component in those stereos (speakers, amps, pre-amp, DAC, transport, interconnects, power conditioning, and room treatments). We would have to know the source material used in those tests. We would need to know who chose the location of the speakers, and why. What qualifies them to expertly set up such a stereo? I am not aware of any tests being conducted on such a stereo. The people performing such tests have likely never heard a professionally set-up, high-end stereo in a treated room. Without the right stereo, it is not proper to perform A/B tests. The lab has to be up to the job, and the stereo is the lab. You do not have to have a dream stereo to do this. But the person conducting the test has to know what such a stereo sounds like. If they are going by what they hear at Best Buy, or in their car, etc, then they are no qualified to conduct such a test.
@@Wizardofgosz "That's just your audiophile mumbo jumbo to try to justify this nonsense." That's your ignorance of sound quality, for that statement. I am now certain that you never heard a stereo that throws a wide, realistic soundstage. I am now certain that you never heard a band sound like they were really there (not close, or sort of like they were there -- but convincingly so that the band is there). You are not alone. Few people have heard startling real sound quality. "We wouldn't need to know any of those things as long as it's the same system." If you think that using a stereo from Radio Shack, or Walmart, or Best Buy, or Target, etc, is capable of revealing differences between the exact same song at different sampling rates, then I repeat: "That's your ignorance of sound quality". That would be like expecting a Toyota Corolla to reveal the difference between 87 octane gasoline and 93 octane gasoline. It is a fine car. But it is simply incapable at performing such a test. Do you believe that all CD players sound the same?
@@Wizardofgosz "I've been a professional recording engineer for 25 years..." Based on what the studios release, and based on your "We wouldn't need to know any of those things as long as it's the same system", I believe you. You are one of the cogs in the system that results in all of the sub-standard sound quality releases. "It just has to be a properly conducted test..." Correct. But you claimed "We wouldn't need to know any of those things as long as it's the same system", which is absurd. Your idea of a "properly conducted test" is useless. It is your flawed testing which led you to your wrong conclusions. "SCIENCE. Try it sometime." Quote anything you wrote that includes science. Your double-blind testing is done with equipment that is incapable of revealing differences in sound quality. From that, you have drawn conclusions that are wrong. And then you put a check mark in the "Science" column, and another check mark in the "Case closed" column. "I've been a professional recording engineer for 25 years..." Name the equipment in your test stereo. List everything. You will not. You are part of the problem. Since you are a proponent of double-blind testing, then make sure that when you go speaker shopping, that you do not know which speakers are playing. Based on your mantra, you cannot trust your ears. So when you are choosing between speakers "A" and speakers "B", make sure you do a double-blind test, to make sure you are not fooling yourself.
I'm not trying to fool myself or impress anyone else. I desire a very high level of audio capture, reproduction & playback - "musical" : full, complete, accurate, having fine resolution. Ultimately, I couldn't care less about double blind tests or other methodologies for testing various human's perception. I just want access to that which satisfies my own qualitative standards for musicality. As a 2nd order consequence of those arguing / competing to get my attention, I get there.
I just wish all digital music could make my DAC happy with the exact bit-perfect data that came out of the studio with zero post processing of any kind (no compression, no sample rate conversion etc.). Oversampling or transcoding are generally lossy processes incl. PCM in the studio to DSD distribution, PCM in the studio to Spotify compressed, 44.1kHz up-sampling to 48kHz etc.
There people go again with this MOFI thing. It sounded good until you found out how it was processed right? Like enjoying a good southern fried chicken sandwich until you found out the meat was actually rabbit. Well, that's the problem when you are treating these records as museum pieces instead of what they were originally intended for and that is to listen to them. I'm sure they sound great and that should be the main objective.
So true. But when you do get a audiophile DAC you can defiantly hear a difference even on a lower grade equipment to a certain point. Especially when you get better preamps and amps etc down the line all the way to the speakers. I was blown away on how much better my system sounded when I got a Directstream DAC even with my 20 year old amps.
The fellow from Madrid is asking the question to the wrong person. Paul listens to highly revealing gear that are very expensive and he promotes Octave Records recordings so of course his answer is a definitive Yes. The correct answer is a string of questions to that fellow : What does your system consist of ?, What music do you listen to ? How good is your hearing ? How low is the noise floor in your room ?. Few people belong in the same category as Paul does. He has access to what most of us consider unaffordable and excessive and for most of us in the middle class the answer is most likely a definitive No.
But, Paul’s answer is correct, meaning it’s accurate technically. Whether Person A can hear the difference is irrelevant in that sense. Whether Person A can hear the difference is relevant in that the listener can decide if he or she wants to spend another $X on a higher-resolution file. So Paul provided the right answer, and now Madrid can decide how to proceed. You or I might make a different decision.
I know who I'm using for downloading high-resolution files, but I don't know for sure if they are truly hi-res. I use HDtracks and Prostudiomasters. HDTracks says that they make sure that the files are not upsampled. Does anyone know about these two places?
How do we know that source material was not upsampled? Most of the music up to 80’s was recorded in analog and now these classic rock albums are sold in 96/24 or even higher.
Please remember best sound you will get out of a 44.1/16 is via a CD player that strictly has a cd clock only. so if most of the music one owns is cd quality then best to get a cd player. I would highly suggest get a separate dac that plays high res.
@@Harald_Reindl "Bullshit - why would one use a lossy source" 1) They don't care. You would think that sound quality would matter to a business that produces music. Based on the sub-par sound quality of most of their releases, their standards are low. And I suspect that a fair number of the engineers think that mp3's sound the same as flac files. 2) It is simple for them to open an existing mp3 file, and upsample it. The engineers figure that no one will know the difference. In every business, there are people that are incompetent, lazy, and cut corners. The music business is no exception. I have no evidence that they are using mp3 files for CD compilations. But I would not be surprised if they did, because most people play mp3's. Few play flac file. So even the studio personnel probably use mp3 files in their personal collections, and that is what they would use to create a CD compilation. But I cannot know for certain. I am looking forward to @steve austin providing the name of software that would confirm his claim.
@@NoEgg4u you have proven that you have no clue about music production often enough and with your "why don't you let the singer just repeat to fix dynamics" sometime ago you have also proven that you never had a microphone in your hands
Wel, what I understand is, that it’s not the physical limitations that matters. My wife isn’t capable to hear the difference between, let’s say my Wilsons and a Ghetto-Blaster. Because she has an hearing problem. But take a colour. We all see this coulour different. And this colour is formed by millions of frequencies/tones. Take a lot of them away, the colour looses for everybody depht and warmth. Spite our eyes are not capable of seeing all colours. Because they are out of the “seeing-range”. The same for sound-frequencies. I, for example hear the difference of a Guitar tuned in 432 Hz and 444 Hz. Very clearly.
if the filter that removes everything above 20khz is the problem in a dac, maybe it is better to upsample on your computer to send out a 44.1 khz quality as 96khz? or will most dacs still take away everything above 20khz? Does anyone know anything about this?
If your gear is resolute enough, you notice when it's fake HiRes, and you realize that the original disc file will sound better than fake HiRes, and unfortunately the market is full of it. But if it's a true HiRes, the definition, specialty, timbre are wonderful.
They did tests and "audiophiles" like this guy couldn't tell the difference between the most expensive speaker wiring and a makeshift coat hanger wire. Seriously, look it up. I seriously doubt he would be able to identify one of his machines from a Cambridge or whatever. To prove his point, he should participate in a test to see if he could pick his machine out from a lineup of reasonably priced DACS. Don't let the pretention of these "audiophiles" scare you away from the hobby. People like this make my blood boil. Human hearing has limitations. I believe he has even said before that any high res above 24/96 can't be perceived by the human ear. Get some good speakers, don't waste your money on $X,XXX components. They just take advantage of people that are both dumb and have money. He should do a test! Prove his point! Double-blind baby!!!
A recording of a live event will sound better to everyone who was at said event, because the brain is able to recall the finer details from memory to smooth out differences. With ABX testing you're essentially trying to work against your on mind, which quickly becomes flustrating, confusing and fatiguing. The analog mind can easily track a smooth increase in volume, but switching back and forth between different volume levels in a 'digital' manner will leave you feeling numb. I wouldn't be surprised if some people have managed to convince themselves that a cd even sounds better than live music, because they don't want to have their finer senses stimulated and instead prefer to bring down people to their level of negativity.
Yep. It was a live event. You can look the video up online. They brought about a dozen people in and couldn't tell the difference. I made no claim that a recording of an event will sound better live than vs a recording of it. I'm guessing you meant to reply to another's comment?
No I think you are willfully misreading me and deflecting. And indirectly calling me dumb as well, because that's what you're all about. It's people who have been willing to generously spend, who've made the great and affordable options of today possible. You just want to denegrate these people though, with your blood boiling 'objective' emotions.
Yes, I’m going to be that guy…Sure, it does matter some of the time to some people who hope they can tell the difference…If the gear is even good enough to reveal this. Some good points here but not worth the hand wringing IMO as most and I mean most people at all ages wouldn’t be able to spot the high quality file amongst other music that is very well recorded/engineered and put on CD. The MOFI debacle just spent 10 years shedding light on this to a degree. Many say they could hear the higher resolution and perhaps some could but most could not. You’d be wiser to make improvements in other areas where the gains are easily recognized. Audio has always been and still is about trade-offs. Sad I know but true nonetheless
IMHO...much ado about nothing...an excuse to buy more gear, pay more for source material etc...and for what?? Very few people have systems, or ears, that can reveal this kind of resolution. As much noise as the audiophile community makes about all of this, it comes down to how much money you are willing to invest for this "upgrade" in the digital space. I'm very willing to admit that at 64 years old, after a lifetime of playing drums live in a rock band,and being an avid hunter and shooting sports enthusiast, I have difficulty in higher frequency hearing. I have a fairly good system, but nothing compared to customers of PS audio and the like. I listen to mostly vinyl and open reel tape as my sources and also do have an SACD player run through a topping DAC. There is no way that I would be able to detect a difference in these new hi-rez files. So, for me and many like me this is all just mumbo jumbo. I appreciate the information, but I would never even consider throwing my hard earned money at something like this.
It's very easy to spot differences in quality. And please don't make the mistake of misinforming music creators to use low rates. After all, they deserve the best.
Kinda just like our eyes and fraimrates on tv’s and monitors. In use if I heard someone say they could tell the difference between a 144 vs 240fps/hz (like 24/48 vs 24/96) monitor I’ll roll my eyes. But between 60 and 120fps/hz (like 16/44.1 vs 24/48) hell yeah there’s a difference
@@natskar Yes, exactly, check blurbusters, we need at least 1000 Hz/fps to saturate our eyes. Nvidia has demonstrated a 1700 Hz prototype in the past. You can roll your eyes all you want, Nvidia knows what's up, this will be the future.
@@booom4849 still you get my point. I guess think of it this way, the game is 60fps capped, but you think using a 240hz display will be better when it really just displaying a 60hz signal in 240fraims. Ironic.
And that is precisely why records and tapes played on good, clean, well adjusted hifi equipment will always sound better. No piss farting around with brick walling frequencies, passing signals through a sieve of electronics.to get music.
Ask any mastering engineer about the compromises required to get a modern recording onto a vinyl record - like rolled-off bass and sometimes treble. Great sounding hi fi comes in at a much lower price with Streaming or CD too.
Totally agree with you, you never had this with vinyl, just pay and play. Digital is such a confusing mess now what with all the different sample rates etc to try and make it sound good, which will never happen, millions of cd/dac conversion options, technologies blah blah Go stick a record on and dance!
@@geddylee501The humble cassette tape is also very good if the cassette has been well kept, of good quality and fully analogue played on angood vintage deck with clean heads, demagnetized tape path, lubed with head lube, alignment checked and with Dolby OFF. Cassette tape has not got a reputation because Dolby NR kills the sound. And there's reel to reel for the well heeeled.
Jeez, to take time out of your day to watch a video by someone you don’t respect and then add a negative comment… do you actually feel better now? Do you think you changed anyone else’s opinion? You might be happier in life if you start spending more time focusing on what you want instead focusing on negative cynical thoughts.
@@chriswhalley How do you know I watched the video. My comment has nothing to do with respect. How I feel is none of your concern, but writing that comment had no impact on my feelings. I don't think anyone changed nor do I care if anyone did change their opinion. How do you know that writing comments doesn't make me happier. Would you like to buy some physics altering directional cables? They have cute little arrows on them.
@@chriswhalley I'm not being negative. I'm being realistic and sarcastic. And why would I be ill-informed? I assume you're a US citizen. The way your government destroys the lives of countless around the world gives you no qualifications to talk about peace. And for accusing me of being disturbed... Well... Again as a US citizen you have no right to judge me on that regard because your country is full of them.
It doesn't seem to matter what the subject title is on each video, the same old argument just keeps cropping up,,,, recording quality and can anyone hear it lol time and time again ... let's talk about the best pizza topping instead please
You made a mistake. 44.1kHz for CD quality is 2x22.05kHz as it is 2 channel - so ONLY 22.05/channel so does not conform to the nyquist rule. CD was a terrible compromise when it was create to fit 60 minutes or at most 72 mins on a CD. It uses a poor error correction standard and has no digital timing encoded which is why femto second timing chips are an expensive part of digital decoders. This means it was always difficult to create a filter to remove the "carrier"- or sample frequency so close to the 20K desirable upper limit for hifi. With up sampling you gain no more information (information theory) so no better core audio signal - but allows a softer band pass filters to be applied which is the main benefit of up-sampling so reducing BPF artefacts at lower harmonics (remember you cannot hear the higher harmonics). I worked/developed visual fourier analysis (protein crystallography and visual/sound sampling) and the band pass filtering etc were very "visual". Brick wall BPF are hash and give a metallic roughness so often criticised of digital recording. With higher sampled master recording there is the same advantage of the softer band pass filter - but does contain "more information" at higher frequency. Does that improvement help ?. Well, since the CD does not conform to the nyquist rule, then higher bit rate recordings will be inherently better and more true to the original since you can apply the nyquist rule; many early CD players resulted in a generic high frequency (ie >12kHz) so all cymbols sounded the same because of this. There were many engineering articles in the early days of CD with engineers crying into the beer due to the terrible compromises made with this format that should never have been made. The people (non-engineers) that set the standard should be shot - they were morons.
Tom - you're entitled to your opinion, but to call the Sony/Philips engineers that came up with CD "morons" and suggest they should be shot is just plain wrong. Is the CD perfect? No. But CD is a 40 year old technology, and it is a far better medium than you give it credit for. In the earliest days the engineers didn't know how to master for CD, which is why early CDs quite often sounded awful (cue the Loudness Wars), but in the past 25 years mastering for CD has become the norm, and so the quality has massively increased. Those engineers "crying into their beer" - as apocryphal as it is, as I've never worked with any engineer who has wept over any technology - the engineers who didn't like CDs were those who didn't know how to master for it, and that changed quickly enough. It's common sense - do you think vinyl sounded as good on the very earliest pressings as those made 10 years later? CDs remain a great format - native high resolution formats often sound better (though not always), but in the real world you are very, very unlikely to be able to tell the difference between a CD and a 96kHz/24bit recording.
@@richardt3371 The format went against the recommendations of the engineers , and that information is recorded at the time. Sorry, but it is a compromised format, not as bad as DAB, but still could have been better. We do have steaming now, and we have available bit rates better that the CD format. For most people it does not make a difference, but for this channel and the viewers of this channel, it makes a big difference. It is unfortunate that CD format is considered gold standard for digital - it is not - the premise is flawed from the outset as the prime requirement was the time required for an album. I strongly recommend you look into the peer review engineering discussion of the CD format bit rate for a longer discussion.
@@richardt3371 Even with my modest hi-fi (only about £10K) which is at the low end of the spectrum for viewers of this channel I can easily blind test the difference between CD and higher bit rates, and of course, compressed at better than 3 sigma. Clearly, for a hifi below £1000 then the discussion is a moot point as the artefacts are not discernible. This discussion is not relevant to the mass market of listeners of course, but for this video channel it is important.
I think Paul’s oft-cited “engineering is compromise” is applicable here. Imagine it’s 1982 and you’re working at Sony or Philips and part of the CD development team. There’s a meeting to settle on format. Someone says, “Hey Tom, you want us to hold out for a bigger disc/more discs/whatever. I think what we have is ready to go.” There’s always somebody who wants his tweak to win, just as somebody else is putting dollars or schedule before some other priority. It’s life. Doesn’t (necessarily) make anybody a moron.
@@tomooo2637 The arrogance in your reply, the completely unconnected and specious statements you make, just reinforce my conclusion that you’re unable to understand the basic premise of what a CD is for, was designed to do, and how exceptional and important a development it was 40 years ago. Saying it was a compromise is bloody obvious - everything is, otherwise we’d have a full concert orchestra in our living rooms at night rather than a recording of a concert orchestra. And no, I’m not impressed by the size of your equipment.
Sorry, I have heard the same microphone feed sent to two different recorders of the exact same model at different bit/sample rates. The difference was easily heard. Now, if your playback gear is low resolution, sure you won't hear a difference.
@@vinylrules4838 I highly doubt he wants to hear the differences for himself. All you have to do is get a high res file, transcode it to 16/44, and compare them. Anyone can do it if they want. For a lot of people, this isn't about audio equipment.
Please don't spread the bs. Musicians deserve to record and mix with the highest possible resolutions, which btw. currently still are not at analogue-like quality. We need 20 more years of technology improvements for digital to catch up with analog.
upsampling cannot produce accurate musical information where none was originally recorded anymore than one can reconstruct a drop-out on analog tape. So what is the value of upsampling? Not much. The extra sampling needed to produce a sliver of bandwidth for the anti-aliasing filter is only 4.1 KHz wide and requires that a digital "brick wall" filter be used at 96 dB/octave. This conserves data space on the CD. Some audiophiles believe that such a steep filter degrades the sound -- even though the filter operates in the supersonic range, which is well above those frequencies that humans can hear. They believe that a more gradual, analog filter will sound better. By upsampling the data stream, they can add all the bandwidth they want and by doing so, they can use analog filters. Obviously, anything that does not produce frequencies in the range of human hearing cannot be heard. But that doesn't keep some audiophiles from believing that they can hear the effects of supersonic filters. So some CD player manufacturers add upsampling to please audiophiles.
Audiophiles and CD"s? Isn't that like oil and water? No audiophile should listen to music that has been digitized anywhere in the process. Analog to analog is music.
@Jeff Walter: I disagree. I’ve had much fewer problems with CD as opposed to vinyl and tape. BUT, the BIG thing is that the quality of the recording is heavily at the hands of what the recording engineers did. CD is still my main listening format.
@@bikdav Regular listening to CD's is fine. I recently put my turntable back together and was astonished at the sound from some of my vinyl that was pressed back in the 1960's. None of my CD's sound as good. But I'm not going down the DAC wormhole.
@Douglas Blake You do not understand the MoFi controversy. It is about them releasing older recordings from the original analog master tapes and advertising that they is no digital in their process of the production of the vinyl. It is about false advertising. If they used a digital source, they lied. If they used an analog master tape an added a digital step in the process, they lied.
@Douglas Blake Maybe its a misunderstanding. But what did the web site say before the shit hit the fan? Also the youTube videos I have seen, that show what is written on the vinyl covers, makes me believe that there is deception. So what is more likely, a large number of customer mistakenly bought a product based on something unknown or a company uses deceptive advertising and product description to increase their sells?
