shadorne > It makes no sense to restrict yourself to 16 bit if a 24 bit version is available.
Blindjim > @shadorne > for this question then, merely look at the apparent Word lengths as indications of better sound quality and resolution? Not necessarily the bit rates?
BTW… what’s happening to those other three words from 24 to 21, if you don’t mind mentioning it?
Willemj > > ake sure that the tracks are really HD.
Blindjim > @Willemj what methodology do you use to ensure tracks you’re considering buying are in fact High Definition?
Willemj > don't waste money/disc space on HD versions of old analogue recordings.
Blindjim > this one I sort of get. Old master tapes by their nature seem either hit or miss as to their orig integrity, so deriving greater fidelity off of them simply by now converting to higher rates doesn’t seem to add up.
= = ==
In spite of that last sentence, I mentioned to a friend the other day that folks are re-issuing supposed HD digital files taken from the orig Master Tapes and as well providing reputedly better quality audio onto 15 ips Reel to reel tapes too and both formats are a lot more expensive.
The question he posed then was “how do you get better sound quality . from a decades old orig master tape than what it already possesses?
The debate then hinged on if it was analog to begin with, how did it improve migrating into digital, than back into analog as with LPs and reel to reel tapes?
Trying to answer, I said, “digital trickery.’
It was the best I could come up with then, I’d like a better more qualified answer if possible from folks around here.
As Willemj said, ensure its HD at the oneset. OK. How?
Some of the prices I’ve read about on these forums for RTR dupes of master’s can bring hundreds of bucks. Seems to me it’s a pretty easy place for someone to lose a fair chunk of money, as there seems no possible way to validate the product beforehand.
Ditto, HD retail files quality from archived masters of years gone by.
