So perhaps I misread the question, thinking you were asking if such a file would look different from a *native* 24/96 (or 24/192) file.
If you take a 16-bit, 44.1 kHz recording and place it in a 24-bit, 92 kHz container (file), will it look any different from one that has actively been upsampled?Įdit: WAIT! I don't know how to place a 16/44 file into a high res "package" without converting its word length and sample rate. For me, the question becomes, does the vendor want to spend the seconds involved - or more likely, instruct the mastering house they hire that verifying the real resolution is part of the job? I don't understand anything but an affirmative answer to this. I've seen non-high-res sold in high-res "packages" from several sources.
To be absolutely clear, I have no particular vendor in mind. (In my experience, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they won't have any idea of the provenance.) However, in my opinion, the vendor is responsible for what they sell. The labels are responsible for what they supply. In my experience, this would take several *seconds* per file.
If they make it a PITA for the labels, so the choice for the labels is carefully (at some expense) check provenance or turn off the tap, what will the labels do? I would assume the download companies are not anxious to find out.īut it is relatively trivial for the companies selling the files (or the mastering houses they employ to prepare them) to check them. The download sites are beholden to the labels for supply. If such a list is compiled, I would think the download sites would have to be more mindful of how they market certain files. I thought the 24/96 download sounded good but not any better, compared to vinyl, than a CD. I 'spose there could be a good technical reason why there's precious little content >22kHz (what a coincidence!), but the reason hardly matters from the perspective of SQ (again, it may well be worth paying more for the greater bit depth - assuming it's real).īTW, thanks for your work re: Ladies of the Canyon. This is still offered on HDT (I recently bought a single track, ignorant of this spectrogram). I suppose that's accurate but, for a lot of this stuff, does it practically matter whether it was nefariously upsampled or merely a recording for which it makes little sense to release as a hi-res title (leaving aside the benefits of greater bit depth)? For example, take a look at this one: *-and-now-re-release*-albert-king-and-stevie-ray-vaughan-s-session-24-96-album-7782/#post104834 as long as we remember that in most cases there is no 100% irrefutable proof either way. One way to handle it in a way that doesn't cause any legal issues is to let people answer, for each track, the question "could you, please, based on the indications shown and your personal opinion, take a guess - do you think this is a genuine hi-res recording or not" and present the "thumbs up / thumbs down" numbers. OK, with something as silly and obvious as aero-padding a 16-bit file to 24 bit, the proof is pretty irrefutable, but looking at a spectrogram, the best we probably can conclude is that "often a graph like that is the result of upsampling" or "often a frequency peak at this frequency is a sign of source material from tape, with content above 22 kHz, but somebody could just have added that as part of the editing". I think that is a good suggestion - as long as we remember that in most cases there is no 100% irrefutable proof either way.
That could also work as a living document wherein people could update new information. I 'spose an alternative would be for Chris Connaker to split the Music Analysis forum into good egg-bad egg fora. Still, it would be very helpful to know which to avoid. Based on the titles that I've bought and checked in audacity, that would be >90% of them.
It would be equally useful to list titles for which there is evidence that they are the real deal. I think what would be useful is a living spreadsheet that could list the dubious titles, cite the evidence of faux hi-res, the remedy (if any) provided by the seller, and updates such as pulled from the catalog or replaced with a new version.