When is Hi-Res not really Hi-Res?

[Julf]

Yes, forgot to add that:

A PCM 24/96 file upsampled to DSD with steep filtering above 32k

Not *from* DSD to PCM?

 

[Bruce B]

Not *from* DSD to PCM?

Well you would have to go to PCM to do an FFT. So either way. At some point it was a DSD file.

 

[Julf]

Well you would have to go to PCM to do an FFT. So either way. At some point it was a DSD file.

Indeed - so we seem to be in agreement here. But just to clarify, what do you think of this one - I would think it was something that was originally a 48 kHz sample rate file, that got upconverted to DSD, and then reconverted to PCM?

 

[Bruce B]

I would think it was something that was originally a 48 kHz sample rate file, that got upconverted to DSD, and then reconverted to PCM?

You would be correct.

 

[Julf]

You would be correct.

Thanks for confirming that - so occasionally we Audacity Cowboys do get things right. I am just a bit confused as to your earlier comment on the same file, where you stated "I would not write it off as some upsampled file... IMO...". I am wondering if it is a semantic issue - do you consider taking a 48 kHz sample rate PCM file, upconverting it to DSD, and then reconverting it to 96 kHz PCM as not being an upsampling?

 

[Julf]

The new Otis Redding - Dock of the Bay

Bruce, was that one of your projects too? If so, kudos! Would love to know which of the HD albums on HDtracks have been processed by you - but I understand that you might be tongue-tied by non-disclosure agreements. Not that I understand why HDtracks wouldn't want to let us know who did the work - as having your name attached to a project would be beneficial to removing doubts about the quality.

 

[Bruce B]

Bruce, was that one of your projects too? If so, kudos! Would love to know which of the HD albums on HDtracks have been processed by you - but I understand that you might be tongue-tied by non-disclosure agreements. Not that I understand why HDtracks wouldn't want to let us know who did the work - as having your name attached to a project would be beneficial to removing doubts about the quality.

Sure wish I could. I've had my hand slapped a few times.

 

[Julf]

Sure wish I could. I've had my hand slapped a few times.

A real shame, but I guess that is how the music business works

 

[Thomas.Dennehy]

Dolby Gets Into the Act

This week Dolby® announced that it now offers upsampling to 96 KHz as an option in its Media Producer tools for mastering audio for Blu-ray Disc™. Apparently, for our own good.

From the press release: "Blu-ray Discs premastered using Dolby® TrueHD with advanced 96k upsampling can now deliver to consumers a full-range high-definition surround sound experience ensuring optimum performance from today's advanced A/V receivers and Blu-ray Disc players. The new Dolby TrueHD coding solution enables facilities to integrate the benefits of 96 kHz playback quality audio into the final master while simultaneously reducing the incidence of digital artifacts introduced during the content-creation process."

The enabling technology was developed by Meridian.

Press Release. (via Engadget)
White Paper.

 

[Julf]

This week Dolby® announced that it now offers upsampling to 96 KHz as an option in its Media Producer tools for mastering audio for Blu-ray Disc™. Apparently, for our own good.

Yes, apparently they have decided we want out 48 kHz content upsampled to 96 kHz.

 

[Bruce B]

To stop another rumor from HERE..... I'm showing the FFT of the Beach Boys - Pet Sounds which are NOT upsampled files.

 

[rbbert]

OTOH, Bruce, take a look at the SACD of Dire Straits "Alchemy"

 

[Julf]

I'm showing the FFT of the Beach Boys - Pet Sounds which are NOT upsampled files.

But doesn't it look like a conversion from DSD/SACD?

 

[Bruce B]

But doesn't it look like a conversion from DSD/SACD?

If this was from SACD, you would not see a dip at 45k. You would instead see a steady rise starting at 25k and getting larger from there, with no dips.

 

[Julf]

If this was from SACD, you would not see a dip at 45k. You would instead see a steady rise starting at 25k and getting larger from there, with no dips.

Ah, yes. Good point. But doesn't that 45k (or 48k) dip then suggest possible 48k source material?

 

[Bruce B]

Ah, yes. Good point. But doesn't that 45k (or 48k) dip then suggest possible 48k source material?

According to Nyquist, you would assume a 96k source, correct? But even with that, the signal would dip down below the -124dB threshold of 24bit.

I would say it's suspicious at best. I'd certainly would need to do more forensics to rule out everything else.

 

[Julf]

According to Nyquist, you would assume a 96k souce, correct?

Duh, yes. I clearly shouldn't post anything more tonight. Just got home from a long trip, and sleep deprivation and travel fatigue have evidently paid their toll...

 

[Bruce B]

Duh, yes. I clearly shouldn't post anything more tonight. Just got home from a long trip, and sleep deprivation and travel fatigue have evidently paid their toll...

Get some rest... I know what you mean....

 

[Bruce B]

Stevie Wonder - Talking Book...

Someone wanted me to post the FFT so they can "see" how it sounds!!

 

[Andre Marc]

Stevie Wonder - Talking Book...

Someone wanted me to post the FFT so they can "see" how it sounds!!

View attachment 4921View attachment 4922View attachment 4923View attachment 4924

Cool.

When were these (all the Stevie Wonder) digital transfers done? I read some where they were done around 2000.

Can you provide any information?