Thanks for the samples. A simple analysis showed that most don't even use over 20 dB dynamic range. There's one sample which uses ~31 dB dynamic range.As for sample rate conversion I suggest SoX. Dithering shouldn't be audible with those dynamic range numbers unless you use some aggressive noise shaping that adds a lot of HF noise .. which is only audible if you don't have HF hearing loss though.
I wouldn't worry about using SoX. Izotope's sample rate conversion is fine (except maybe Advanced RX 2's "intermediate phase"). See http://src.infinitewave.ca/
@Gretschguy,I also have several different copies of certain favourite albums - sometimes because finding a decent version is so elusive. One is enough if it sounds great. Five isn't enough if they're all flawed. Strange though that the most incompetent / couldn't-care-less record companies get to make the most money out of this racket.As for 24/96 vs 16/44.1, you're not doing any harm using the former (assuming storage is inconsequently cheap) - with a ADC and/or DAC that doesn't support 44.1kHz, you're probably doing some good.Only problem is, you can't come on HA and claim vinyl as a medium sounds better than CD, or 24/96 sounds better than 16/44.1, without double blind test results to back up those claims. Such results are rare, because the actual advantages are vanishingly small on well designed equipment, and inaudible.Cheers,David.
Sorry to reply a third time!I've been enjoying your samples in the other thread. Here are some thoughts...1) They're very good. I can come close, but not consistently. 2) They all have a slight smiley EQ (boosted bass + treble) compared with the digital copies I can find. It seems fairly consistent, which is remarkable given the various sources. The only conclusion I can draw (unless anyone has another one) is that either the vinyl mastering, or your playback, adds this smiley EQ - intentionally or not.3) There are examples where every digital copy I can find includes audibly reduced dynamics, while the vinyl copy you posted sounds fine. I wish the Romeo and Juliet sample had lasted longer - I suspect the loudest drum beat a few seconds later would have revealed an even greater difference.4) Even when apparently perfect, there's something about the sound of them that I associate with analogue. People say things like "more air" as a good thing, but my best guess is its down to small amounts of wow/flutter, distortion, noise, and reverb-like properties which add to the signal in a "nice" way. I may be imagining it (can ABX due to DRC+EQ differences, so that doesn't help!), but that's what I think I hear in your samples.This last point is interesting to me. I think it's what some people prefer about vinyl. Many people claim that the vinyl lets you hear more of the original, but having heard pure digital recordings have this "added" to them on vinyl, I'm convinced it's (almost?) all "nice" distortion, and not revealing "more" of the original.Take this as pure speculation if you wish. I'm as guilty of placebo as anyone. Can anyone think of a way us mortals can test it properly?Cheers,David.P.S. I can't hear a difference between the 16/44.1 and 24/48 versions.