"Accidental" Sample Rate Listening "Blind Test"

[Ricardus]

A friend of mine is an audio engineer and he worked on some chamber music recordings for a friend who recorded them live. They were recorded at 44.1. My friend sent some 16/44.1 files to a classical reviewer who had asked the artist if he could review them. I suspect the artist doesn't know or care that the sessions were captured at 44.1 Khz.

SO... the reviewer asked for the original hi-res 96K files unaware they were recorded at 44.1.

My friend didn't tell him, but sent the up-sampled 96K files to him.

I can't wait to hear how much better they sound, from the reviewer.

 

[Mnyb]

A friend of mine is an audio engineer and he worked on some chamber music recordings for a friend who recorded them live. They were recorded at 44.1. My friend sent some 16/44.1 files to a classical reviewer who had asked the artist if he could review them. I suspect the artist doesn't know or care that the sessions were captured at 44.1 Khz.

SO... the reviewer asked for the original hi-res 96K files unaware they were recorded at 44.1.

My friend didn't tell him, but sent the up-sampled 96K files to him.

I can't wait to hear how much better they sound, from the reviewer.

Is not that how most hirez releases are made

 

[Mnyb]

Maybe from an analog tape but it's an equivalent mo ( lorez magically transformed to hirez )

 

[Trell]

My friend didn't tell him, but sent the up-sampled 96K files to him.

A complete waste of space and bandwidth. Sigh.

 

[DonR]

The lyrical waxing should be something to behold.

 

[Ricardus]

A complete waste of space and bandwidth. Sigh.

Oh for sure. But he was just doing what he was told by the artist.

 

[Ricardus]

The lyrical waxing should be something to behold.

I'm sure hoping for one. We shall see.