Thanks for picking up on an unfortunate ambiguity in my comment when I used
the term "quality." I was not interested in flame wars & have no problem
with personal preferences. I suppose I was trying to figure out what the
term "high resolution" might actually mean. A transfer of a 1960s tape
marketed in a 24/96 wrapper is what? Doesn't the resolution of the tape
correspond to the equivalent of an 8- or 12-bit word? If so, what does the
Or put another way: I would like to know the ultimate source of the files I
am buying. Were the tapes digitized to 16 bit in the 1990s and then
repackaged as 24 bit? If so, my CD will be just as good. I guess we are now
in another flame war, one in which some claim that converting 44.1 or 48 to
higher multiples gives better sound. I have done this & have noticed no
difference whatsoever. I would like to hear from those who have an informed
opinion about this.
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It's called high-resolution if the transfers from analog to digital are
> done 24-bit, at least 44.1kHz. As you can see, most of these are 96/24 and
> some offer a 192/24 option.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "L. Hunter Kevil" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 2:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Hi-Rez symphony recordings, including some MLP, on
> sale at HDTracks
> Many of the offerings cannot possibly be of high-resolution quality or even
>> CD quality. E.g., Karl Boehm died in 1981. His DG recordings of Mozart
>> symphonies derive from analogue tapes, which in many respects cannot be
>> close to CD quality.
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>> A 30% discount brings prices down into CD territory, for hi-rez audio.
>>> -- Tom Fine