Phil and everyone,
The reason they sound better upsampled to 24bit is because your DA converter
works natively at 24bit, actually 24bit/192k.
It is well known by recording engineers like myself (actually more of the better
mastering engineers and not most others).
Converting the number base, or bit depth only makes the converter run in native
mode which actually does sound much better.
Posting them without saying they were upsampled is annoying.
Leaving them at 44.1k is the more correct thing to do as changing the sample
rate is very problematic. Changing the bit depth is not if it is higher.
In addition I can add that there are only a few software packages that should be
used in doing any of this. SoX in VHQ mode and Audition at highest quality would
be the only 2 packages I would use.
Look here to see why.
http://src.infinitewave.ca/
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:40:32 -0500, philnation@(do not post)att.net wrote:
>
>This is Uncle Phil replying to several indivisuals who have asked
>about my 24/192 post over the past few days. Gosh gentlemen,
>I really didn't know that I was interupting the recording industry.
>One individual actually seemed to be ready to comit to a convent if I
>didn't fess up about my post and admit that I had 'done him wrong' by
>trying to share a few songs. Are my post 24 bits = YES Are my khz
>192 = YES Are my post taken from CDs = YES Have I tried to trick
>and/or confuse anyone = NO My upsampling of the CDs sound very good
>on my computer system - they sound very good on my large system in the
>living room - they sound great in my car. Sooooo - what have I done
>wrong? I thought I would share some songs at hirez which would be an
>improvement over 16/44.1. You know, it's really about the music and
>not about being able to hear sounds that are more that 30khz on up
>into the upper index of harmonics. Here again, I'm sorry if you were
>offended by my posting these few songs and upsetting you day. From
>now on, I will identify any of my post with one of two words: upgrade
>and/or upsampled.
>
>Again gentlemen, I'm sorry you were offended - I'm going to go for a
>walk in the woods to releave the pressure on my pounding head and
>breath the frest air of common sense. Remember - from my point of
>view, this newsgroup is not real life - these are just digital
>computer files. They come and they go.
>
>By the way, just so you know, there's one individual who has been
>knocking around with analysis of my post and reports that he knows
>everything because he has run 'test' and 'checked out' my posts. For
>this individual (who shall remain nameless), why don't you post
>something if you're so perfect. I notice you havn't posted anything
>to this newsgroup AT ALL. Where are your 'perfect post' and where are
>your 'great sounds'???
>
>Till next time..............Uncle Phil
>On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 13:48:13 -0600, trilobyte5@theyahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Are ALL of his posts this way??
>>I don't have the experience or expertise you fellas have and don't
>>know how to check them.
>>
>>Thanks....
>>
>>~BA
>>
>>On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 09:37:18 -0500, Puffer Belly
>><anonymous@anonymous.org> wrote:
>>
>>>There are no known hi-res sources for many of Uncle Phil's posts. I've
>>>downloaded a few dozen of his posts (various files, not whole albums)
>>>and checked the frequency spectrums with Audacity. All show a
>>>brickwall filter was used at 20 kHz, which means these posts are
>>>upconverted CDs (16 bits/44.1 kHz). There's nothing wrong with that
>>>as long as you know what you are getting, which are very large files
>>>of CD resolution music.
>>>
>>>If these posts had been ripped from analog sources (vinyl or tape), in
>>>case you were wondering, then there would be frequency content out to
>>>30 kHz or higher and the roll off would be gradual, not a brickwall
>>>shape.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>PB
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|