|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
190.160.31.180
In Reply to: RE: right but does that (using manufactured CDs) validate hi-rez recording? posted by Goober58 on April 09, 2014 at 13:27:19
Quote: "My point here is the value of HD has to be that it's better than CD quality. Comparisons to vinyl make no sense."Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. I was making a comparison between vinyl and CD because with the equipment that I have it's all that I can do. I can't use an HD download file because I can't be sure of it's provenance.
If I had HD digital recordings that I knew had been recorded and mastered at 24/96 or 24/192 then that could have been the basis for comparison.
We do seem to be in agreement that there is definitely a difference between HD and CD, which is what started all of this - too many claims that CD "perfect sound forever" is the pinnacle of achievement that can't be surpassed.
Edits: 04/09/14Follow Ups:
"Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. I was making a comparison between vinyl and CD because with the equipment that I have it's all that I can do. I can't use an HD download file because I can't be sure of it's provenance."
That hardly makes your comparison reasonable or worthwhile in justifying high definition recording.
"We do seem to be in agreement that there is definitely a difference between HD and CD, which is what started all of this - too many claims that CD "perfect sound forever" is the pinnacle of achievement that can't be surpassed."
What we agree upon is there's definitely a difference between vinyl and CDs. IMO this has more to do with manufacturing than analog v. digital.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
I'm asking if you hear a difference between HD and CD.
I do hear a difference, and believe that an HD recording with suitable provenance will have sonic attributes and qualities that are not apparent on your average CD.
My comparison is with an HD track that just happened to come from a recorded LP. It doesn't negate the logic of the argument.
Where else could that HD track have come from, with provenance that could not be disputed?
I suppose I could do the MFSL thing, and go out with a portable reel to reel to record trains or thunderstorms and then make digital files of that.
But the question was for you to answer, not me.
"I do hear a difference, and believe that an HD recording with suitable provenance will have sonic attributes and qualities that are not apparent on your average CD."
And I'm saying you don't need to do an HD recording for that - a CD quality recording of vinyl will do that.
"My comparison is with an HD track that just happened to come from a recorded LP. It doesn't negate the logic of the argument."
You seem to want to insist that your results have something to do with the fact the recording is HD. I'm saying you can get the same results without HD. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest recording to some of the better lossy formats would give the same results.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
a CD of the same performance taken from the same master (as was used in the LP)?
Adding another entire process of recording IMPROVES the sound?
I apologize if I've misunderstood. If, however, I haven't, your statement is daft.
Edits: 04/11/14
Depends on the condition of the master - some didn't age so well you know.
IME - digital recordings of old vinyl usually sounds better than later CD reissues and later vinyl reissues as well.
With newer music, say after 1995, it's a wash.
There are plenty of exceptions.
But assuming everything is equal which would be preferable? LOL - when is everything really equal?
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: