bilditup1 said:

7FN said:

P.S. have occasionally seen my old 2008 versions floating around in netsville - how people can still call a transfer 'high res' when it's been turned into an MP3 and is the 16-bit version is beyond me.

So I have uploaded these as part of ABC's old Soundtracks Salvage set to the spleen, but they are FLACs, and don't sound bad at all, even if they aren't 24-bit, of which there are many skeptics, including this guy.

Those files were from my 2008 version 1 transfers. Different turntable setup, LPs, not professionally cleaned etc etc. Leaving the issue of high-res vs. standard-res audio to one side, the version 2s are wayyyy better in every respect. I'd delete the version 1s...

And as I said - and without wishing to appear like some audio-snob - you need a decent Hi-Fi seperates system to appreciate high-res files. I'm a very firm believer in the less digital processing you do to a file, the better. Converting from 24/96 to 16/44.1 is yet more processing/changing of the original signal... If you want the 'purist' version of my LP transfers, 24/96 is it. Though the Izotope SRC did do a very good job of converting these to 16 bit files, I must say.

Interesting article, but many points I don't agree on. There are far more convincing articles for high-res out there too.

Still it's a moot point; both 24 and 16 bit versions are in this new set. Choose your poison, and enjoy ;)