02-May-2020, 12:42
There did not seem to be much interest in this one, only three of us by the look of it, but maybe some other forums members had a go? (and if you didn't try the test, the original test files are still available for download - something to try whilst stuck at home?)
Anyway, the initial results have been released. As a brief summary, typically those that tried the test found little or no difference between the native 24/96 versions and the down sampled 16/44.1 versions.
I guess lovers of "hi res" will dispute the results and question the methodology, this is one issue that will never be agreed by all.
For me, I found performing the test both interesting and enlightening, and the initial results are an interesting read too. I have always been of the view that the quality of the mastering massively trumps the actual file delivery format, and my experience from this test tells me that anything above 16/44.1 is bordering on being irrelevant. Controversial I know!
Even with all that said, if I was buying a download I would still prefer to go for the higher resolution version (assuming it is not significantly more expensive). I think this is based on the idea that the format nearest to or identical to the final master format is best. Not that we often know what the original master format was anyway. But re-buying something just because it is "hi-res", rather than being a better master, has to be a complete waste of money.
Initial results here:
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6928
Anyway, the initial results have been released. As a brief summary, typically those that tried the test found little or no difference between the native 24/96 versions and the down sampled 16/44.1 versions.
I guess lovers of "hi res" will dispute the results and question the methodology, this is one issue that will never be agreed by all.
For me, I found performing the test both interesting and enlightening, and the initial results are an interesting read too. I have always been of the view that the quality of the mastering massively trumps the actual file delivery format, and my experience from this test tells me that anything above 16/44.1 is bordering on being irrelevant. Controversial I know!
Even with all that said, if I was buying a download I would still prefer to go for the higher resolution version (assuming it is not significantly more expensive). I think this is based on the idea that the format nearest to or identical to the final master format is best. Not that we often know what the original master format was anyway. But re-buying something just because it is "hi-res", rather than being a better master, has to be a complete waste of money.
Initial results here:
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6928
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - iFi Zen Stream - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
