I think up-sampling needs to be indicated if a 192/24 product is being sold for a higher price than
a 96/24. HDTracks claims what they sell for 192/24 was delivered native 192/24, meaning it's not an
upsample of a 96/24 master. However, in some cases, their 192/24 PCM files are converted from DSD
sources used for original SACD releases.
Regarding Rob Poretti's comment about ABX tests, I'm not saying they are invalid in the
objective/scientific sence (although what exactly about music listening is objective or
scientific?). I'm saying they are irrelevant in the business sense because clients and customers are
demanding 192/24 and DSD whether or not "most people" can hear any difference from whatever previous
format would be compared in ABX testing. In the business of professional audio, especially in
today's cut-throat world, client and end-user desires are paramount. Those wishing to tell a client
or customer what they can and can't hear may find themselves with an un-viable business model!
By the way, a varient of this issue has appeared before. When doing large transfer projects of
low-fidelity material (for instance, most oral history archives), logic dictates that 44.1/24 or
48/24 should be a good working format, and will save quite a bit of hard drive space. However, many
organizations which provide grant money to fund such transfer projects want strict adherence to
NARAS recommendations (designed for professionally-recorded music master media), which dictates
96/24 minimum resolution. What I tell clients with grant-funded projects is that the grant will
easily cover the relatively low cost of the extra required hard drive space, and there is no sense
arguing with the resolution parameter. On my end of things, I could probably work a little faster
with the smaller file sizes, but it's irrelevant since 96/24 was required to get the funding to do
the project. This is another case where ABX testing might well "prove" that there is no advantage
and some (mostly economic) disadvantages to 96/24 vs a lower sampling rate, but it's irrelevant in
the business process.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Judson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] recording "cleanup" plugins and 192/24
>I appreciate your logic, but *I* feel upsampling does not give as much benefit as converting at the
>high rate. Delivering upsampled files claiming they are original transfers amounts to deception in
>my book. "… no one will know the difference" is the edge of a slippery slope ethically.
> Higher rates give better cleanup and processing for me, but I also feel 96k is good enough for
> anything... Agree with Lavry on that...
> Thanks for the article link!
> Lou Judson
> Intuitive Audio
> On Aug 29, 2014, at 8:12 AM, Rob Poretti - Cube-Tec wrote:
>> If ABX listening is irrelevant from a business standpoint, then I would suggest simply
>> up-sampling at the last delivery stage... no one will know the difference right? Why waste time
>> and money? ... and you can still tout it as 24/192.