Recorded or Upsampled?

[mtan002]

I have always wondered about this: how can I tell if a piece of music is recorded originally at highres or it was just upsampled?

 

Cheers

M Tan

[chriss71]

One indication is a spectralanalysis. If there is content above 22kHz then normally it is "real" High-Res. But if the company resample it, then it is not so clear. So you don't know it for sure....

[PewterTA]

If it sounds good.... does it really matter?!?!?!?

[Robert Hutton]

If it sounds good.... does it really matter?!?!?!?

 

Exactly.

 

But some people don't know the difference, so the validation makes them believe that they have the best sounding version. THEN they can hear a difference.

[chriss71]

If it sounds good.... does it really matter?!?!?!?

 

YES, because our perception fool us....

Robert, I know we are here in BELIEVE not science....

[chriss71]

Complete off topic: It scares me, where to you go to school? There are people who thinks, that WAV does sound different then FLAC? There are people who think a upsample 24/192 sound different then from it`s source 24/96.

 

Please, learn physics and then discuss here....

 

OK, I know I simplify here, but you know what I mean.....

[Robert Hutton]

Complete off topic: It scares me, where to you go to school? There are people who thinks, that WAV does sound different then FLAC? There are people who think a upsample 24/192 sound different then from it`s source 24/96.

 

Please, learn physics and then discuss here....

 

OK, I know I simplify here, but you know what I mean.....

 

(a) I do not find that wav sounds different from Flac. I have no problem with anyone who does, though.

 

(b) upsampled to 192 will usually sound different from the native 96. Not necessarily better, though.

 

© a 192 transfer otherwise identical will sound better than a 96 transfer.

 

I continue to be disappointed by those who fail to understand that tone is a totally different matter than frequency extension, and that even frequencies well above the audible range have tonal impact of great significance throughout the audible spectrum.

 

It is even more disappointing that these notions are passed around by some as absolute truths, supported by their little graphs, to the detriment of enjoyment of music and advancing the quality of sound reproduction.

[chriss71]

I continue to be disappointed by those who fail to understand that tone is a totally different matter than frequency extension, and that even frequencies well above the audible range have tonal impact of great significance throughout the audible spectrum.

 

It is even more disappointing that these notions are passed around by some as absolute truths, supported by their little graphs, to the detriment of enjoyment of music and advancing the quality of sound reproduction.

 

OK, Mr. President...

 

(Please learn that we are here in a digital domain.... but it senseless.... (everybody who can look at the Wikipedia knows that this is b***shit)

 

OK, Robert, you are right...