U2Joshua

Longtime music lover / audiophile - first-time post, here. Having a relatively large Hi-Res audio collection, but playback chain that only allows a maximum 24-bit / 48.0kHz, I have used multiple tools over the years to Resample higher resolution files down to 24-bit / 48.0kHz for playback. I've used many tools and each have particular features and characteristics that may prove more or less user-friendly, but ultimately I'm after the absolute "best" result. I have searched online in various ways, but have been unsuccessful, to date, in phrasing/framing my searches in a manner that has answered the following question: When Resampling, is it best practice to retain full frequency spectrum information within the file, up to the maximum sample rate of the resultant, resampled file? Or, is there some reason, scientific / objective / subjective, or otherwise, to strategically filter out frequencies in the upper range for a superior finished product? Example/Case in point: Here is a High Resolution audio track (see uploaded image/attachment #1), originally available in 24-bit / 96.0kHz. From the Spek spectrogram analysis of the track, you can see that there is audio information present up into the ~43 - 44kHz range. Using two different tools, dBpoweramp and Isotope RX 10, dBpoweramp (free software) resamples the 24-bit / 96.0kHz files to 24-bit / 48.0kHz audio file, and retains audio information all the way to the maximum 24kHz "ceiling" (apologies for lack of proper term, I assume) - see uploaded image attachment #2. Whereas, the $299, highly-touted Isotope RX 10 (I'm in a 10-day free trial period) "cuts off" / (strategically?) filters out frequencies in the upper couple of kHz, leaving "room" (empty space) in that upper ceiling of the frequency spectrum - see uploaded image attachment #3. I asked this question on another audiophile forum, years ago, and was shocked that no qualified opinions or viewpoints were shared. My intuition screams that the full retention of audio information up to the maximum frequency range would be best, no? I mean, after all, it's leaving in sound information that audiophiles seek after and cherish, right? However, having used countless other tools, like RX 10, which "cut off" / "filter out" information in the upper frequency spectrum, I can't imagine it is simply due to inferior Resampling technology. I assume there are reasons/purported "benefits" for this. p.s. I'm not interested in anyone's rhetorical, soapbox rant about how you can't hear the difference, so it doesn't matter; or, "which one sounds better to you?" responses. 😄 Thanks in advance!

My question was already satisfactorily answered before you piped in. ...by someone who had no trouble interpreting my thread title, mind you... ...just sayin’.

Great! Thanks, @mansr.

That makes sense / sounds plausible. If that’s true, does it make sense then to let iso2dsd do it’s thing and “uncompress” / “decompress” them to 1-bit / 2.8224 MHz? And, if that’s the best approach is it safe to assume that these resultant files are not merely “up-converted” files? thanks, @mansr

Newbie here with a question I've not been able to find addressed elsewhere, yet. I've come across a couple of SACDs whose ISOs are much smaller than average. It seems most SACDs are 2GBs, give or take (2.0ch, of course, with 5.1 mixes being much larger, still), but a couple I've seen are closer to 700MB (average size of a CD). That said, when I open the ISO the tracks are still in SACD format with .2CH files averaging 70MB or so per track (see attached screenshot). When I use iso2dsd, the resultant .DSF files are much larger (150 - 200MB). In other words, the program itself appears to assume the files' original bitrate and bit depth to be that of most all other SACDs - 1-bit / 2.8224 MHz, and in due course of converting to DSD it is upconverting to higher resolution than the source files. Does anyone know what to make of this anomoly? Are there some SACDs whose native resolution is something different than the 1-bit / 2.8224 Mhz standard? Does anyone know a way to create DSD files at the same bit depth / bitrate as these smaller SACD ISO files? Thanks in advance~