IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Upload forum rules

- No over 30 sec clips of copyrighted music. Cite properly and never more than necessary for the discussion.


- No copyrighted software without permission.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
A Beatles sample, the new box sets vs the old cd release
Alex B
post Jan 13 2010, 20:12
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



A visited a friend who has a huge Beatles collection including the new releases. I had my work laptop with me and I created some samples. I chose "A Day in the Life" because it was mentioned in one of the related threads.

A sample from Sgt. Pepper's... / A Day in the Life. Exactly 30 seconds from 2:10 to 2:40. Four different releases and a mono file that contains the left channel from the 2009 mono version.

[attachment=5643:1987_stereo.flac]
[attachment=5644:2009_mono.flac]
[attachment=5649:2009_mono_left_ch.flac]
[attachment=5647:2009_stereo.flac]
[attachment=5650:2009_24_bit.flac]


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Jan 13 2010, 22:42
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



"A visited" -- I meant to write "I visited". I don't know where the A came from. Unfortunately it can't be edited anymore. rolleyes.gif

Regarding the samples, I didn't try to adjust the alignments. The different releases may have slightly different starting points, track durations, and possibly also tempo & pitch if they are from separate digitizing sessions or even from different copies of the master tapes. This must be taken into consideration before trying to compare the samples in an ABX test.

This post has been edited by Alex B: Jan 13 2010, 22:51


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post Jan 13 2010, 23:15
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



I didn't listen to the samples, but I know that there are original CD releases and rare MFSL releases as well of all albums.

I managed to get a hold on a few samples from the MFSL to compare with the new releases. To me the mastering of MFSL vs. 2009 remaster are almost identical, while compared to the original releases, the difference are night/day.


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jan 13 2010, 23:39
Post #4





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



What do you mean by MFSL? From what I understand those are just digitized vinyl. To my knowledge MFSL never created any Beatles CDs, though it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. smile.gif

This post has been edited by greynol: Jan 13 2010, 23:48


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
a3aan
post Jan 14 2010, 00:16
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 23-December 06
Member No.: 38930



QUOTE (odyssey @ Jan 13 2010, 23:15) *
I didn't listen to the samples, but I know that there are original CD releases and rare MFSL releases as well of all albums.

I managed to get a hold on a few samples from the MFSL to compare with the new releases. To me the mastering of MFSL vs. 2009 remaster are almost identical, while compared to the original releases, the difference are night/day.


The MFSL releases are HDCDs with peak extension. Did you decode them properly?

This post has been edited by a3aan: Jan 14 2010, 00:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jan 14 2010, 00:22
Post #6





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Again, these are bootlegs, correct?


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
a3aan
post Jan 14 2010, 00:30
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 23-December 06
Member No.: 38930



QUOTE (greynol @ Jan 14 2010, 00:22) *
Again, these are bootlegs, correct?


I dont think so. Maybe you confuse them with the Purple Chick edtions?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
a3aan
post Jan 14 2010, 00:34
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 23-December 06
Member No.: 38930



Hmm. I'm confusing the Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab and the Fabulous Sound Labs... huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jan 14 2010, 00:34
Post #9





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Do you have a link or something?

My google search only seems to reinforce what I've already stated.

EDIT: ...those Fabulous Sound Labs "releases" are unauthorized bootlegs as well, btw. emot-cop.gif

This post has been edited by greynol: Jan 14 2010, 00:37


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Goratrix
post Jan 14 2010, 00:42
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 5-August 08
Member No.: 56722



There are no official CD releases of the Beatles apart from the 1987 ones and the 2009 remasters. Everything else is just bootlegs from various sources.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
a3aan
post Jan 14 2010, 00:42
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 23-December 06
Member No.: 38930



QUOTE (greynol @ Jan 14 2010, 00:34) *
EDIT: ...those Fabulous Sound Labs "releases" are unauthorized bootlegs as well, btw. emot-cop.gif


Indeed. I understand the MFSL LP's were genuine and the (various) MFSL and FSL CD releases are bootlegs from these LPs.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jan 14 2010, 00:44
Post #12





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



The reason why I even brought it up is that I find it odd that the vinyl rips would be so similar to the 2009 releases.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post Jan 14 2010, 08:53
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



Well I only know rumours about those "MFSL" releases. You are probably right, since that would make them "rare" and as i stated, I just got the samples smile.gif Still they sound great compared to the original CD's and on par with the 2009.


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Jan 14 2010, 12:33
Post #14


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



When you synchronise the 2009 16-bit with the 2009 24-bit (there's only a 6 sample shift between the two extracts), decrease the 24-bit amplitude by 0.2dB (because it's 0.2dB louder!), and subtract one file from the other, the files null "perfectly" leaving only the noise shaped dither. No discrepancies at all.

So there's absolutely no benefit to the 24-bit version at all, unless you believe the 16-bit noise floor is audible (above the music and original tape hiss!).

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Jan 14 2010, 12:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post Jan 14 2010, 12:57
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jan 14 2010, 12:33) *
When you synchronise the 2009 16-bit with the 2009 24-bit (there's only a 6 sample shift between the two extracts), decrease the 24-bit amplitude by 0.2dB (because it's 0.2dB louder!), and subtract one file from the other, the files null "perfectly" leaving only the noise shaped dither. No discrepancies at all.

Does that mean that the 24bit-versions in theory could even be the 16bit, upscaled?


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Jan 14 2010, 13:43
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



That would be unlikely. Probably the mastering engineer(-s?) has saved and archived the finished mix in a usual, recommended format of the studio gear and that is likely to be a 32-bit float format.

Since the source material really doesn't have a dynamic range that would even occupy the full 16-bit range the actual audio content does not practically differ if nothing was changed when the final mix was converted to two different bit depths. Possibly the two versions were created in separate sessions and the 0.2 dB volume level difference may just be caused by a slightly different position of a volume slider.

This post has been edited by Alex B: Jan 14 2010, 14:13


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spoon
post Jan 14 2010, 14:43
Post #17


dBpowerAMP developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2741
Joined: 24-March 02
Member No.: 1615



What is the saying? "you cannot polish a turd?" smile.gif audio from the 60's is possibly not the best showcase for 24 bit.


--------------------
Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Jan 14 2010, 18:07
Post #18


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (odyssey @ Jan 14 2010, 11:57) *
Does that mean that the 24bit-versions in theory could even be the 16bit, upscaled?
Not in this case - the 16-bit noise shaped dither is quite aggressive, so above 20kHz it's slightly higher in amplitude than the quieter parts of the content itself. This is visibly absent from the 24-bit version.


Otherwise, you make a good point - flat dither at 16-bits would be uniformly below the analogue tape noise floor. So if you
1. start with 24-bits, dither to 16-bits.
2. start with 24-bits, truncate to 16-bits.
3. start with 16-bits, add 8-bits of noise to give 24-bits.
...and then subtract the 16-bit version from the 24-bit version, the difference would look the same in all three cases!

If you started with the same content, and did each, you might find a subtle RMS difference in noise level that betrayed the fake - but if (for a given piece of content) you only have one or the other, there's no way of knowing whether the 24-bit version is real or fake.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post Jul 11 2011, 21:25
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



QUOTE (Alex B @ Jan 13 2010, 22:12) *
1987_stereo.flac ( 2.82MB ) Number of downloads: 249

2009_mono.flac ( 1.94MB ) Number of downloads: 231

2009_mono_left_ch.flac ( 1.58MB ) Number of downloads: 198

2009_stereo.flac ( 3.09MB ) Number of downloads: 256

2009_24_bit.flac ( 5.61MB ) Number of downloads: 257

I removed these samples from the first post to make room for other attachments. I still have them in my archive. Send me a PM if you would like to have them.


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th July 2014 - 05:58