IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
"Band on the Run" unlimited remaster, "retains the dynamic range of the original master recording"
ron spencer
post Nov 12 2010, 15:49
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2-February 05
Member No.: 19539



I bought this...sounds nice. Price is good given that you have the freedom to convert to whatever you like, even 128 kps mp3 if you are so inclined (why I do not know). I really like the sound, and I think you can get an even better sounding redbook CD from the 96/24 with a good sample rate converter...I have r8brain pro, which is awesome.

HDTracks has a new double album (remaster) from Tom Petty in 96/24 as well. I really like not cringing when I hear music, and 96/24, the ones I have at least, fit that bill. I can burn to DVD-A and listen perfectly. I have a sonos, but it does not pass 96/24, at least not yet. So for me, I am in favour of this.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Nov 12 2010, 16:15
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 1011
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



I know this recording from back in the 70s and wonder why it needs 24bit at all? Jet sounds like recorded thru a telephone line, i doubt 24bit will change that. Besides that i was already unimpressed by the way EMI "remastered" The Beatles. I seldom hear critics about that and wonder why i donīt like their sound but i canīt help. I bet some japanese at Warner Japan would have conjured some more sparkle on these smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BearcatSandor
post Nov 12 2010, 17:21
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 149
Joined: 18-May 10
From: Montana, USA
Member No.: 80732



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 12 2010, 07:22) *
QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 11 2010, 10:52) *
There's something i don't get about this thread and something i don't get about the audiophile industry. It may be because i live out in the wood practically speaking and most of my neighbors are deer, but who are the "they" people are referring to? People who read Stereophle? I'm the only one i know that does. I live in a town of 2k people and i'd bet i'm the only one in town who knows what HDCD is.


Last time I saw an estimate, it was that the high end audiophile market in the US was composed of about 200,000 people. That is about 3/4 of one tenth of a percent of the population. That you are the only audiophile in a town of 2,000 seems about right. There might be one other in town that you don't know about.

*dramatic music plays as he grabs his cape* and i will not rest until i find them!

well, the more people that come to listen to my reasonable hi-fi system, the more of them i create. Of course i now consider myself a mid-end audiophile, or a sensible one at least. That's interesting to know. Thanks Arnold.

Yeah, i can see how much little work it woud be to just throw it up on a web page. I was not thinking of it that way. In fact since it's most likely mastered/edited in 24-bit anyhow it's actually an extra step to turn it into 16/44.1 isn't it? So they save money that way. (well since 24-bit didn't exist when this album was made perhaps not, but at this point i'm just gonna go quiet and silently admit that i know just enough to be confused)

This post has been edited by BearcatSandor: Nov 12 2010, 17:23


--------------------
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josh358
post Nov 12 2010, 19:48
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 85212



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 12 2010, 05:04) *
I agree.

All of which makes it surprising that this isn't common place.

But in a record company I suppose any new idea has to get past the very people who caused the loudness wars in the first place. It's probably taken them this long to "get it".

Cheers,
David.


My thoughts exactly. Nobody ever got fired for not making a mistake, and I think the fear of making may contribute to an aversion to risk that makes employees of established companies reluctant to look for new profit opportunities, even the ones that seem like sure deals. Or maybe they just aren't aware that some people still care about decent sound.

In any case, if a few of these ventures succeed, it could encourage the other labels to follow suit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josh358
post Nov 12 2010, 19:56
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 85212



QUOTE (Wombat @ Nov 12 2010, 10:15) *
I know this recording from back in the 70s and wonder why it needs 24bit at all? Jet sounds like recorded thru a telephone line, i doubt 24bit will change that. Besides that i was already unimpressed by the way EMI "remastered" The Beatles. I seldom hear critics about that and wonder why i donīt like their sound but i canīt help. I bet some japanese at Warner Japan would have conjured some more sparkle on these smile.gif


I suspect they were constrained by the expectations of listeners. I mean, messing with something as sacrosanct as the sound of the Beatles is a bit like messing with the formula of Coca-Cola, and we all know how that turned out. Also, let's face it, many of those recordings sounded pretty bad in the first place. George Martin wasn't known for favoring clean sound, and probably couldn't have achieved it if he'd wanted to in the more track bounced albums.

From my perspective, the sin on the remasters is that they limited the stereo version. Not terribly, but enough to interfere with the musical sense of some of the tracks I A/B'd. For some reason, the mono release wasn't limited, and I much preferred the mono tracks I compared (not just because of the absence of limiting, but because of the original Beatles-approved mixes, and perhaps because it's been so many years since I heard them they may be fresher to my ears). If anything, I'd like to hear stereo remasters that more closely follow the mono mixes, maybe get away from the primitive hard left/right mixing of the early three track recordings. But that would be opening a can of worms, or several . . .
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Nov 12 2010, 20:06
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 1011
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



QUOTE (Josh358 @ Nov 12 2010, 20:56) *
I suspect they were constrained by the expectations of listeners. I mean, messing with something as sacrosanct as the sound of the Beatles is a bit like messing with the formula of Coca-Cola, and we all know how that turned out. Also, let's face it, many of those recordings sounded pretty bad in the first place. George Martin wasn't known for favoring clean sound, and probably couldn't have achieved it if he'd wanted to in the more track bounced albums.


Most likely, yes. It is some kind of blasphemy for some if done to much to the sound. What makes me wonder is that i already read about how great this Band On The Run sounds in 24bit and how lousy 16bit compares on other places of the net. If that album was able to reveal any real benefits of 24bit my understanding of digital audio alltogether must be wrong. Most likely some even compare uncompresse 24 to 16 compressed and only make it depending on the bit-depth. I have to start to just ignore that talk.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Batman321
post Nov 12 2010, 20:25
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 28-December 09
Member No.: 76405



I bought it, very nice sound.

I converted these 24/96 files to 16/44.1 with dBPoweramp, and to be honest I can't hear difference....

If you ask me, I think the sound is good because of the careful remastering and not because of the 'high resolution'.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 13 2010, 00:33
Post #33





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



QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ Nov 12 2010, 08:21) *
In fact since it's most likely mastered/edited in 24-bit anyhow it's actually an extra step to turn it into 16/44.1 isn't it?

This step only needs to be done once and can be accomplished in a matter of minutes, literally. All processing is done at a higher resolution than 16-bits these days, and not just at professional studios.

This post has been edited by greynol: Nov 13 2010, 00:34


--------------------
Concern trolls: not a myth.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jimmanningjr
post Nov 13 2010, 04:19
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 5-August 10
From: Philly Pa USA
Member No.: 82832



I just got my hands on these 96/24 files of BOTR. They sound sweet No compression at all...wonderful but i agree they should have put out a 44.1/16 version...and thats what I want to have ...a16 bit version. i have foobar and I have Audacity...can someone give me a short step by step how to down convert these...I am not too sharp about the dithering aspect of this...Why or why not dithering etc. Thanks in advance...
Jim Da Jazz Cat
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brand
post Nov 13 2010, 21:06
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 75355



I got my hands on those as well (both limited and unlimited, both 24-96).

Unlimited:


Limited:


Unlimited Spek:


Limited Spek:



Uploaded samples here (converted to mp3 because of size limits).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Nov 13 2010, 21:08
Post #36





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3352
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (jimmanningjr @ Nov 12 2010, 23:19) *
I just got my hands on these 96/24 files of BOTR. They sound sweet No compression at all...wonderful but i agree they should have put out a 44.1/16 version...and thats what I want to have ...a16 bit version. i have foobar and I have Audacity...can someone give me a short step by step how to down convert these...I am not too sharp about the dithering aspect of this...Why or why not dithering etc. Thanks in advance...
fb2k, sox resampler, dither


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jimmanningjr
post Nov 13 2010, 21:27
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 5-August 10
From: Philly Pa USA
Member No.: 82832



Nice and Short Thanks

This post has been edited by Canar: Nov 13 2010, 21:41
Reason for edit: removed unnecessary fullquote
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Nov 13 2010, 21:41
Post #38





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3352
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (jimmanningjr @ Nov 13 2010, 16:27) *
Nice and Short Thanks
That's what she said. crying.gif

Edit: Just tried ABXing the two tracks posted in our uploads forum. When ReplayGained, I can't differentiate them! smile.gif Haven't found the key to telling them apart yet. Maybe after I find that I'll have some success, but I think it just goes to show you that even the limited version is pretty great.

Edit 2: I guess if they're just limited, this makes a lot of sense. The big differences, at least in the screenshots posted, appear to be in louder parts of the track. The only difference in the intro is probably just volume scaling, which RG is countering, rendering my ears useless.

This post has been edited by Canar: Nov 13 2010, 22:07


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jimmanningjr
post Nov 13 2010, 23:04
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 5-August 10
From: Philly Pa USA
Member No.: 82832



You know I have had my doubts...that 16 bit was gonna sound just as good as 24 bit...logically it seemed that with 24 bit you were just gonna have more sound info and it was gonna sound better.Warmer, More analog..you know all the audiophile claims. See I grew up with this Band on the Run and by far this uncompressed version is the best sounding 24bits that is. But I am a poor guy you know and all 2.2 Terabytes of my storage is stuffed to the gills with flac and 320 mp3 so I thought I would take a chance and compare the 16 and 24 bit sound and see if I could justify only keeping the 16 bit version. So I converted it to 16 bit w/dither....drum roll....There is no audible difference...none that I can tell thru abx testing( only ran one series of the tests with 12 different comparisons but...I see no need for further tests I AM CONVINCED THERE IS NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE. Which to me means that all the sacd and dvdaudio sound better because they have been mastered better that their Redbook counterparts. Not because of a larger bit rate. My 16 bit version sounds every bit as sweet as the 24 bit version. So I am now really starting to understand the limits of my hearing.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
emte
post Nov 13 2010, 23:43
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 11-February 10
Member No.: 78081



I, unfortunately, must agree with the post above. Any 24bit source that I converted to 16bit track plays the same with no difference. I wonder whether the 'high-end' equipment would change anything at all...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jimmanningjr
post Nov 14 2010, 06:48
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 5-August 10
From: Philly Pa USA
Member No.: 82832



Wondering if with the proper playback equipment if a child around the age of six could hear any difference .I understand that by the time you are my age (44) you hearing is not what it was when you were younger.Is there any studies like that ...that use people that they have tested their hearing and it is "Very good hearing for a human"..I am very happy with my 16 bit dither (Thanx to the poster of the short and concise instructions) but I am just wondering if the reason all our abx tests come out with showing no difference is because we are all a bunch of old farts...any young people out there want to comment...It starting to get very Zen to me ...like if a tree falls and no one hears it ..Does it make a sound?/?Maybe I am just bored but I can't believe how much $ and energy is put into sell High Rez stuff and 500$ cables when it really does not make on BIT of difference (pun Intended)
Jim From Philly
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Nov 14 2010, 08:52
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 2221
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



You shouldn't expect an audible difference due to 24 vs 24-to-16-with-dither for such a recording, unless maybe you blasted the 'silence' at beginning and ends of songs at absurd volume.

A more likely source of audible difference would be the limiting, but that appears pretty mild based on waveform view. I'm not surprised people are finding it hard to tell level-matched versions apart.





Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 14 2010, 09:19
Post #43





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



I am not so sure that sensitivity/acuity to bit-depth decreases as we get older like what happens with frequency response. With frequency response, high frequencies must be fairly strong in order to be made audible when lower frequencies are also present because of both masking and Fletcher-Munson.

In case you haven't already, jimmanningjr, have a look at the various "mustang" clips available here:
http://ff123.net/samples.html

It should basically demonstrates how much more difficult it is to hear high frequencies in the context of music than it is in the context of test tones. I can hear a 16kHz test tone, but I cannot ABX the mustang clip that has been low-passed at 16kHz.

This post has been edited by greynol: Nov 14 2010, 09:26


--------------------
Concern trolls: not a myth.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
emte
post Nov 14 2010, 10:41
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 11-February 10
Member No.: 78081



I'm 22 and I have never noticed any audible difference when converted any music I have in my 'HD' catalogue. That's why I start to wonder what's the reason for releasing stuff in high definition. From my experience, I can tell that better sound may only be an outcome of better mixing of the source, what's already been told aobe, I think.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brand
post Nov 14 2010, 11:48
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 75355



IMO there's no way there could be an audible difference between 16 bit and 24 bit for this album. The musical content simply doesn't have the required dynamic properties for normal people to hear the quietest and loudest parts within 16 bit. (Goes for pretty much all pop/rock music.)
Also the noise floor is probably too high, since it's a relatively old analog recording.

For 96k, I don't think it helps either. Although you can at least see that there is some content around 25-30k. Maybe it can be perceived somehow (with our skin?). It's just speculation, tho. I'd be surprised if anyone could tell them apart.

I'm wondering what that line at around 22k is. Maybe dithering noise?
Here's a bigger picture:


Regarding the limiting.. it seems reasonable by todays standards. But I'd still take the one without it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C.R.Helmrich
post Nov 14 2010, 16:39
Post #46





Group: Developer
Posts: 686
Joined: 6-December 08
From: Erlangen Germany
Member No.: 64012



I'd probably take the limited version, because that's limiting how it should be done: subtle. When you compare the spectrograms in this post, you can see that the spectral content is almost identical in the limited and unlimited versions. There is a tiny bit more high-frequency content in the limited version, which is probably distortion due to the limiter, and three clipped transients (vertical lines), but the purple color of these added spectral components tells us that they are of very high frequency, very low level, and thus most likely inaudible. For comparison I delay- and volume-aligned the two versions from the upload thread by removing the first 231 samples of the unlimited version and amplifying the limited version by 0.69. The waveforms and spectra of the two versions are then so similar that I didn't bother trying to ABX them.

Thanks a lot for uploading the samples! Gave me a lot of insight. If every label would master its songs like the limited version of BOTR, there would be no loudness war.

Chris

P.S.: The 22-kHz line is weird. Probably not dither since its frequency varies and doesn't make sense. Maybe interference during A/D conversion of the tape.

This post has been edited by C.R.Helmrich: Nov 14 2010, 16:47


--------------------
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josh358
post Nov 15 2010, 01:51
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 85212



QUOTE (jimmanningjr @ Nov 13 2010, 17:04) *
You know I have had my doubts...that 16 bit was gonna sound just as good as 24 bit...logically it seemed that with 24 bit you were just gonna have more sound info and it was gonna sound better.Warmer, More analog..you know all the audiophile claims. See I grew up with this Band on the Run and by far this uncompressed version is the best sounding 24bits that is. But I am a poor guy you know and all 2.2 Terabytes of my storage is stuffed to the gills with flac and 320 mp3 so I thought I would take a chance and compare the 16 and 24 bit sound and see if I could justify only keeping the 16 bit version. So I converted it to 16 bit w/dither....drum roll....There is no audible difference...none that I can tell thru abx testing( only ran one series of the tests with 12 different comparisons but...I see no need for further tests I AM CONVINCED THERE IS NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE. Which to me means that all the sacd and dvdaudio sound better because they have been mastered better that their Redbook counterparts. Not because of a larger bit rate. My 16 bit version sounds every bit as sweet as the 24 bit version. So I am now really starting to understand the limits of my hearing.


It's not your hearing, it's everybody's! There just isn't enough dynamic range in a recording of this sort to require 24 bits, in fact, it's a matter of debate whether any recordings now on the market really require 24 bits, although in the absence of noise shaped dither wide dynamic range acoustical music played back at realistic levels in a quiet room theoretically does require more than 16 bits.

OTOH, I know of three ABX tests that are supposed to have demonstrated an audible difference between 44.1 kHz sampling and 88.2 kHz sampling, one in the AES Journal, two on this forum. That doesn't necessarily mean that 44.1 kHz impairs sound quality on all equipment or algorithms, but, if the results aren't a consequence of experimental error, 44.1 kHz sampling does seem to be audible on some of it. It also doesn't mean that it would be audible on an old analog recording such as this one. I tried putting some analog disks through a digital loop and ABing them years ago, and couldn't hear any difference. But, of course, that doesn't mean others wouldn't, or I wouldn't have with different equipment or material.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 15 2010, 02:09
Post #48





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



It's quite possible that the differences heard are do to less than ideal sample-rate conversion.


--------------------
Concern trolls: not a myth.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Nov 15 2010, 05:03
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 10 2010, 23:08) *
I understand the concept, but I don't think it's a good idea to give them the impression that we're willing to pay more for recordings they haven't wrecked.


On the other hand, I think it is a good idea to give them the impression that we're willing to pay less for recordings they do wreck.

Still I think of this a bit as what is the null hypothesis, which maybe is your point in here. If you want to battle the loudness war, then release the Guitar Hero version of Death Magnetic.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 15 2010, 10:13
Post #50





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



QUOTE (Porcus @ Nov 14 2010, 20:03) *
On the other hand, I think it is a good idea to give them the impression that we're willing to pay less for recordings they do wreck.

Not paying a premium is a far cry from paying less.


--------------------
Concern trolls: not a myth.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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: 23rd August 2014 - 21:51