Is there any advantage of remastered high-res files vs SACD?

I'm thinking perhaps the high-res files will sound "cleaner/better" because of advancements to mastering tech/techniques?

your thoughts? thanks

EDIT1: as an example, the SACD versions vs remastered/HD tracks of Miles Davis' stuff.

EDIT2: SACD link: https://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/833 | qobuz link: https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/four-more-miles-davis/0827969359525

23 minutes ago, CANcOnANDsoNVIL said:

I'm thinking perhaps the high-res files will sound "cleaner/better" because of advancements to mastering tech/techniques?

 

your thoughts? thanks

 

EDIT: as an example, the SACD versions vs remastered/HD tracks of Miles Davis' stuff.

 

The technology / format has nothing to do with sound quality. It’s all about the people doing it and the demands put on them by whoever hired them. 

32 minutes ago, CANcOnANDsoNVIL said:

I'm thinking perhaps the high-res files will sound "cleaner/better" because of advancements to mastering tech/techniques?

 

your thoughts? thanks

 

EDIT1: as an example, the SACD versions vs remastered/HD tracks of Miles Davis' stuff.

EDIT2: SACD link: https://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/833 | qobuz link: https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/four-more-miles-davis/0827969359525

Sometimes the SACD offers a different mastering from the CD mastering, which can be helpful, for example when you like Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells.  As Chris has mentioned. it's always about the intention of the people ordering the product.
Otoh, even there are some bad SACD masterings available, in many cases these are better than a good part of early digitital masters from analog tapes used for mid 80s - 90s CD re-issues /re-masterings. IMHO.

42 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The technology / format has nothing to do with sound quality. It’s all about the people doing it and the demands put on them by whoever hired them. 

 wouldn't the person (whatever effort they put in) be limited by the available technology the time?

31 minutes ago, CANcOnANDsoNVIL said:

 wouldn't the person (whatever effort they put in) be limited by the available technology the time?

In the scope of your question, high resolution PCM vs SACD remasters, I don’t believe so. Some of the best recordings ever were made in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Its all about people. 

2 hours ago, CANcOnANDsoNVIL said:

 wouldn't the person (whatever effort they put in) be limited by the available technology the time?

The limiting technology would be the transfer technology from the source. 
I would assume, the better the budget, the better the technolgy.

At a certain point in time (and far before MQA) the digital transfer arrived at a perceptually lossless level and above..
From then on, the budget and the business objectives became the limiting factor for the quallity.
Thus you can find many pre-digital recordings that sound exeptional well, but preserving that's not always the common goal of the stakeholder in the process of recording or re-mastering..

2 hours ago, DuckToller said:

The limiting technology would be the transfer technology from the source. 
I would assume, the better the budget, the better the technolgy.

At a certain point in time (and far before MQA) the digital transfer arrived at a perceptually lossless level and above..
From then on, the budget and the business objectives became the limiting factor for the quallity.
Thus you can find many pre-digital recordings that sound exeptional well, but preserving that's not always the common goal of the stakeholder in the process of recording or re-mastering..

Also, the master used. Was it a derivative one or from original tapes. That matters also.

I'd mostly agree with Chris, it's the skill and budget of the people involved. The more they have of both, the better the outcome will be.

The source matters also. You'd assume the original tape (if it is an old recording) would be preferable; of course that assumption may also not be true in some cases. A copy could be in better shape and be a better source. Or an digital copy of the master tape could today be a better source than the original, especially if it has deteriorated some.  Tapes don't keep their high end forever. Once hi-res or SACD copies of original tapes became common in the 2000's, those could possibly be at least as good as the original tapes. 

You asked about remasters, but nowadays we are getting more and more remixes of older material. Those can be great - again the skill and the budget of the people involved matters. 

So is there a general rule like maybe it’s more likely i can a properly mastered SACD vs a high-res recording? (I believe people in general only buy 1 copy of the same track)

thanks

21 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Unfortunately there isn’t. Sometimes the original CD version of something is the best. 

seems to me it does not really matter then if I get SACD or high-res then. since most people (including myself) would only get 1 version of a recording and not know a better mastering may exists... 😁

I'll rather spend money on getting a different recording than getting duplicates of the same recording.

Generalizations are dangerous.  Unfortunately the best way to know is to look for comments from others for suggestions but you have to try if for yourself on your set up.

For example I must have acquired over half a dozen discs or music files for Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue over the past 30 years.

So far this recently available download in DSD256 sounds the best by far to me https://www.highdeftapetransfers.ca/products/miles-davis-kind-of-blue-pure-dsd

I attribute the sound to the 15ips 2-track tape used, the process used to digitize, and the  DSD256 format generally sounds great on my sytem.

Another example of the importance of the recording engineer’s choice of microphones, placement and recording equipment are these two music files of a live performance of Rimsky Korsakov’s Scheherazade performed by Gianandrea Noseda and the Filarmonica Teatro Regio Torino

Version #1: https://www.nativedsd.com/product/sacd148sheherazade-suite-sinfonica-op-35/  was recorded in DSD64.  I got this recording a few years ago and it was unlistenable.  The soundstage is compressed and the music lifeless.  Uncharacteristicly bad for a DSD64 recording

Version #2: https://www.nativedsd.com/product/sacd193-korsakov-sheherazade-noseda/

recently became available.  The recording engineer had a 2nd recording setup recording simultaneously using less (only 2) microphones but was able to capture more hall ambiance and recorded it on analog tape.  Subsequently digitized this version 2 sounds wonderful, the music is alive, expressive and you have a much better sense of being in the concert hall.

I’ve read that one should only buy music downloads in the resolution it was originally recorded in.  Logically how could a higher resolution of the original recording sound any better?   This recoding available on the NativeDSD website of Brahms Symphony 3 & 4 performed by Blomstedt and the Gewandhausorchester Leipzig  was originally recorded in PCM 96kHz. https://www.nativedsd.com/product/ptc5186852-brahms-symphonies-3-4/

But higher resolution versions of this recording (DSD256) sound much better.  If you read thru this explanation on the NativeDSD web site it explains why higher resolution’s result in music with far improved phase response, a sound that is less aggressive, more spacious and airier, and less “digital” https://www.nativedsd.com/news/the-higher-rates-program/