Originally Posted by ratinox
Originally Posted by miceblue
In words, they took a SACD/DVD-A disc player and down-sampled its audio to 16-bit/44.1 kHz in order to represent their "CD-equivalent" audio. Most people in the real world won't do that when comparing the two.
I've nothing against preferring to pay for better masters. What I'm on about is that the FOTM "high definition" format is no assurance of getting those better masters. A poorly mastered track will sound bad regardless of the medium and encoding. Slapping a "high definition" sticker and price tag on it won't change a thing.
Ah I see. From your wording in previous posts, you made it sound like buying HD or DSD albums was a waste of money. I was saying no they're not a complete waste of money since the masters can be different, and the differences are very real indeed.
But yes, the format itself makes no difference on the audio quality, the master does.
One has to be careful about finding out where the files are from though. There are a lot of scams out there that are no better than the CD-equivalent.Edited by miceblue - 1/29/14 at 9:55am