I personally don't think the issue is with Hires formats rather accountability of the record labels producing them. Whether you are looking at master tape transfers from the 60s or more recent direct to digital format recordings it has been proven that formats such as DSD and FLAC can sound great (and considered hi res) the nature of hi res shouldn't be discussed only in terms of a all hi res signal path from studio to digital file, but also what is the best medium to transfer the frequency range of analogue to a digital format holding the characteristics in which people like in analogue, direct to DSD is great for that!! the biggest issue is record companies rebadging an old recording/master from a unknown reissue (who knows 3rd /4th gen transfer )and then the consumer buying it before they find out its sheet! If I want to buy a SACD, LP, or CD for that matter it's far easier for me to work out the mastering engineer, quality of press and process followed for that release on physical medium. Sure some Digital HD providers are getting better at providing source information but it's far from ideal. If you do not place transparency in the process of digital you create a process whereby there is no accountability being placed on the record companies themselves, I think the first step would be to hold record companies to standards relating to disclosure of information relating to the process of a release, mastering engineer, mastering lab, source of transfer (including what gen the source was) simple things like that would help immensely I think. Could you imagine if they had to disclose it was a cadet engineer, done of an ADAT on a 6 gen copy ? Sure that's an extreme but it shows it might change the mindset of companies to look at quality of the process as a value prop for increasing sales..
The formats are not the problem it's the process of getting it there
The formats are not the problem it's the process of getting it there
