Hi-def tracks from Qobuz - really hi-def?

This undoubtedly is a worry about hi-res downloads, there really is no way to be sure of what you're getting - what's are the returns polices like?

I accidentally set an asset configuration to expand to 24 bit and didn't notice it for a few days of my ripping. So if you look at some of my ripped Cds they are 24 bit but the extra size is just 0s.

SJB

I guess every now and then there is something wrong. Preference for the cd version can just be about the mastering being different. While I know things can be wrong I buy standard high res when available. I have seen some wonderful material and some crap. Examples of good ones are very often older jazz recordings.

I just listen don't care so much if one out of x versions is a bit of questionable.

Well the hidef files are provided by the record label... But a hidef file at 96kHz sample rate benefits from timing resolution as well as  frequency spectrum content.. So I wouldn't neccessarily always expect to see very much in the way of higher frequencies above around 24 kHz  in fact there is a school of thought that says these should be filtered anyway as they can potentially degrade the material through intermodulation .. And given the nature of the material that Moby creates i can't see how ambient ultrasonic info is really going to be present.

With Moby its also debatable whether you will see the benefit of higher resolution timing.. But perhaps the main benefit is the 24 bit definition? Perhaps if you subtract the left channel from the right and then do a FFT on the difference it would be interesting to see if any other higher frequency content appears..

Simon

I would state that virtually every high res recording (at least those made before  the last 5 years) would show no frequency response above the 22kHz redbook level.

Not many master recordings were made at 88/96 kHz or higher and analogue tapes can't match it anyhow.

It is for a large part a hype taken advantage of by record companies For rerealing old records which don't have the required frequency response to begin with.

Most improvements on high res I would say come from the remastering, thus creating a different recording.

You should follow the blog of Mark Waldrep from AIX Records to see how the high res interest is abused and twisted by the music industry. Very interesting read.

Aleg,

I'm confused.  How do you get (effectively or otherwise) a "different recording" from a remaster ?  Surely you just get a new master (which may be subjectively better or worse than the existing one) - no ? 

I would have thought, and you allude to this, one of the issues with the whole hi-res thing is whether, or how, older (eg analogue) recordings can actually benefit from it.  Where the recording/mixing was done at eg 24 bit/ 96 khz, then it seems more logical to expect mastering at that level will yield benefits.

But maybe its not that simple.....

(Re)Mastering (also) involves changing the tonal balance and thereby on instrumental and vocal balance of a recording.

So I should have said you get a new release and not a new recording (as nothing is newly recorded of course), but the effects of mastering are/can be so big that two releases of the same recording can sound vastly different.

Got you, understood.

And I certainly agree mastering can make a huge difference.  One only need look at the stream of often dreadful CD remasters, which can squash the dynamic range, or create a bright & tinny sound devoid of proper bass, or both..... :-(

At least with hi-res there appears to be a purpose & justification for the remaster.  But perhaps it is the quality of that process which counts for more than the hi-res itself, and this seems to be a hard thing to establish with any certainty.....