Anyone know why the digital HiRes releases have been generally gone from 192/24 (2013 releases) to 96/24 and more recently: 44.1/24?

We know that for the SDE, SOTT was transfered from tape at 192/24.

Is it that they may be setting up for Audiophile releases? Maybe because the overall quality of the individual vault tracks in sets would be too apparent if kbps were increased? Or, are they just satisfied to produce a minimum HiRes version for both of us that buy em?

I am a dork that thinks the difference can be heard. What do you folks think?

That's being discussed here: https://prince.org/msg/7/464494

TrivialPursuit said:

From what I gather there is a rights issue with regards to the 192 releases across the entire catalogue.

This was the case (pre-2016) as a deal with regards to Hi Res was done before / by 2014.

Is there a SQ difference?

Yes.

It is worth it?

It depends - always try to do an A vs B before you buy.

From the 192 versions that I have, a difference can be heard but even with great kit, its so marginal.

This, however, is not the case across the board for all 192 releases. I have Stevie Wonder's Songs In The Key Of Life 192 version and the difference between that and the original 16bit / CD version is phenomenal. The 192 version is sublime and was approved by Stevie himself.

Years ago I hoped for audiophile quality Prince stuff, but sadly I don't think it's going to happen. And that's due to the quality of the masters that are around.

Reading the liner notes from SOTT:SDE one can see the repeated mantra of he gets it recorded rather than getting the audio profile as perfect as possible.

I guess in retrospect one may view it as he either spent three days completing three songs or he (could have) got one track done with a fantastic audiophile profile done in three days.

I know which one I'd prefer.

Judging by the catch-all job done on remastering SOTT I genuinely don't think that there is anything better we can hope for in terms of audiophile quality.

[Edited 9/27/20 13:37pm]

[Edited 9/27/20 13:39pm]

Judging by the catch-all job done on remastering SOTT I genuinely don't think that there is anything better we can hope for in terms of audiophile quality.

[Edited 9/27/20 13:37pm]

[Edited 9/27/20 13:39pm]

It's funny, i too believed Prince's releases would never approach true audiophile status. He'd never have anything sound as wonderful as Dire Straits or Steely Dan's stuff. Of course, he didn't obsess on ensuring the original recording was perfectly mic'd etc. He didn't care. However, this SOTT remaster is just fantastic. His vocals are so so clear...the backgrounds during Forever In mY Life are totally thrilling to hear....you hear the multiple voices making up these backgrounds.

I realize you (The Persion) had issues with there being too much bass....but I really am not folllowing. I too have some fairly revealing equipment and this album has become a total joy to listen to. Despite all the amazing vault material, I find myself returning to the album repeatedly.

btw, only Original's 24 bit version sounded better then the CD. I have a few diff Prince releases in 24bit and none sound diff from the CD versions. Originals sounded more open...something was better.

ElectricThighs said:

TrivialPursuit said:

That's being discussed here: https://prince.org/msg/7/464494

That's a different topic. The question here is about the high resolution digital format for recent releases being at lower sampling rates than on older releases. The other thread is about the source files used for all formats of SOTT vault tracks being lossy, ie from mp3s and not from the master tapes.

But if the source files for some tracks are MP3 how could they possibly ever be 24/96?