Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

Digital Drive

if that's what you believe

24.179.58.245

Joe Murphy Jr

In Reply to: RE: 2 better questions posted by dave789 on May 13, 2012 at 01:01:36

Have you asked the website in question?
Sometimes the best one to answer the question is the one in question.

What website are you referring to and is there a reason you are omitting that information from your posts?
It's not easy to give you a more specific answer, at least one based on personal experience -- and that pretty much is what you're asking -- if you keep protecting the identity of the entity you are accusing.

Now, if you have downloaded anything they say are DG recordings, you can easily verify (via free software) if there is any musical content (ie, not just noise) above 22kHz. If there is musical content, then they are indeed High Resolution recordings. If not, then they are upsampled recordings.

Both of my questions posed specifically to you, and not answered, are valid:

#1 Is "We do not offer..." the same as "We do not record..."?

#2 Do you really believe a label such as Deutsche Grammophon still records at 16/44?

The reason that I asked is because of the following 3 facts:
The great majority of music recorded from the early '90s on has been done at a sampling rate >44.1kHz. The great majority of music recorded today (and started nearly a decade ago) is done on workstations at 24-bit. What format is still the most common? 16/44 by far and nothing else comes close.

"A common sense way of understanding this is the following. The web site's high res files are not from Deutsche Grammophon.

If they are not from Deutsche Grammophon, they should be upsampled from 44.1kHz/16bit lossless file or a lossy compressed file."

So you've basically answered your own question based on what you believe to be the case. Other than a "lossy compressed file" having nothing to do with High Resolution content and the fact that what the download company is offerring could be converted from analog tapes or DG recordings that DG doesn't specifically sell from their website, my only reaction to this statement is to ask why you posted in the first place.

Follow Ups:

free software? - dave789 19:14:12 05/13/12 (3)
Common sense is that it is easy to make a high res file from a low res file in a way that it can cheat the free software that checks whether the file has music content (ie, not just noise) above 22kHz.
- please explain - Joe Murphy Jr 19:29:46 05/13/12 (2)
  If "common sense" suggests that it would be easy to cheat software programs, then why are there still downloads that are obviously from upsampled content?
  - RE: please explain - dave789 19:39:12 05/13/12 (1)
    I understood that you believe there are still downloads that are obviously from upsampled content. Thanks.
    
    Seeing my question specifically mentioning an asserted higher res DG album, DG replied that they did not offer high res files.
    
    Then you tried to prove that the asserted higher res DG album file must be indeed from DG based on the fact that DG took the recording at higher res since many years ago, which is a logical flaw.
    - nope - Joe Murphy Jr 20:17:27 05/13/12 (0)
      "DG replied that they did not offer high res files."
      
      "they" -- That could mean that they do not offer High Resolution files from their site. There are many reasons for this: budget, servers not up to the task, etc. Thus the files that other sites may offer, because they are more equipped to manage High Resolution file downloads, could be files from actual High Resolution DG recordings. And that's a possibility that shouldn't be overlooked.
      
      "Then you tried to prove that the asserted higher res DG album file must be indeed from DG based on the fact that DG took the recording at higher res since many years ago, which is a logical flaw."
      
      Only a flaw if that's what I tried to do, which I did not. Instead, I gave examples of what "could" be the reason High Resolution files were being offered by a site other than one owned by DG.
      
      For the record, I couldn't care less about HD Tracks. Nor could I care less about your post that started this thread (poor in so many ways) and your subsequent responses (though "non-responses" may be the better way to describe them).
RE: if that's what you believe - dave789 19:09:28 05/13/12 (0)
You question #1 and #2 are irrelevant to this issue.

The fact that DG took the recording in higher res format does not automatically mean that DG released higher res maser for sale. In case of that DG album I asked, DG clearly said they did not offer it yet.

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: