Read an interview with Neil Young where he had not a clue that his music was upsampled. Was recorded at 24/48 and being sold at 24/96. This got me to thinking, does John Q. Public really have a clue??
Let me back track here a bit. Several times I've had mixes in here that were purportedly recorded at 24/96, 24/192 or even DSD. Looking at spectrums and such was really confusing. My opinion is if a track was recorded at 24/192 and for some reason mixed at 24/44.1 and mastered at 24/96, the file will forever be at the lowest rate of 24/44.1
Now let's dig deeper. Let's say an album was recorded at 24/352.8 and during mixing they threw some plugins on the track. "Most" plugin's native sample rate is 24/96. Does this mean the track will forever be 24/96? There are some plugins that can operate as high as 32/384kHz but there are also some freebie plugs that only operate at 16/44.1 So is a "hi-rez" album that was recorded using 16/44.1 plugs forever 16/44.1? Most mastering engineers and even mix engineers use the Weiss EQ and Comp units and some use the Waves unit. These are digital hardware processors whose native sample rates is 24/96. No one will know, right?
I've seen several people want to know what the sample rate is during Recording/Mixing/Mastering... fine.. but that won't tell you Jack Sh*t. They could have gone through an analog console or crappy processors and into a cheap converter several times. We all know about the debacle when labels took their 24/44.1 material and upsampled it to DSD for SACD production.
What If something was recorded at DSD256fs but one little crossfade was needed for <2seconds. Does this mean that the recording will forever now be 24/352.8kHz... Hell no.. not if the engineer did it correctly. If the engineer rendered the whole piece from top to tail in DXD, then who would know?
Folks, we have bigger fish to fry. The Audacity Cowboys are getting a posse together and trying to take down the whole music industry. If we can't even trust someone who is a big proponent of High Rez music (Neil Young), then who can we trust?
Let me back track here a bit. Several times I've had mixes in here that were purportedly recorded at 24/96, 24/192 or even DSD. Looking at spectrums and such was really confusing. My opinion is if a track was recorded at 24/192 and for some reason mixed at 24/44.1 and mastered at 24/96, the file will forever be at the lowest rate of 24/44.1
Now let's dig deeper. Let's say an album was recorded at 24/352.8 and during mixing they threw some plugins on the track. "Most" plugin's native sample rate is 24/96. Does this mean the track will forever be 24/96? There are some plugins that can operate as high as 32/384kHz but there are also some freebie plugs that only operate at 16/44.1 So is a "hi-rez" album that was recorded using 16/44.1 plugs forever 16/44.1? Most mastering engineers and even mix engineers use the Weiss EQ and Comp units and some use the Waves unit. These are digital hardware processors whose native sample rates is 24/96. No one will know, right?
I've seen several people want to know what the sample rate is during Recording/Mixing/Mastering... fine.. but that won't tell you Jack Sh*t. They could have gone through an analog console or crappy processors and into a cheap converter several times. We all know about the debacle when labels took their 24/44.1 material and upsampled it to DSD for SACD production.
What If something was recorded at DSD256fs but one little crossfade was needed for <2seconds. Does this mean that the recording will forever now be 24/352.8kHz... Hell no.. not if the engineer did it correctly. If the engineer rendered the whole piece from top to tail in DXD, then who would know?
Folks, we have bigger fish to fry. The Audacity Cowboys are getting a posse together and trying to take down the whole music industry. If we can't even trust someone who is a big proponent of High Rez music (Neil Young), then who can we trust?