Well, they were actually complaining about the mp3 format in general and all praised the 24/96 WAV release. I asked for blind ABX tests and they all told me those tests didn't work. So yeah, I now no longer visit those forums.
Quote from: DrazardX on 06 May, 2008, 03:14:57 AMAlso, something else I noticed is that the second image in the WAVs is a PSD while the rest are JPEGs.Yes, "Nine Inch Nails - The Slip - Wave 96-24 High Res\The Slip art\02-1000000.jpg" is 4.14MB, and is actually a PSD file, in the files I downloaded.
Also, something else I noticed is that the second image in the WAVs is a PSD while the rest are JPEGs.
With the exception of 07 Lights in the Sky.wav and 08 Corona Radiata.wav they're technically 16/96 files. These ones look true 24-bit ones though, and FLAC and TAK compresses them worse than the rest (they're over 2mbps).
Quote from: dobyblue on 06 May, 2008, 07:14:01 AMDoes this mean that these highrez files are more likely 16/96 or 16/48?With the exception of 07 Lights in the Sky.wav and 08 Corona Radiata.wav they're technically 16/96 files. These ones look true 24-bit ones though, and FLAC and TAK compresses them worse than the rest (they're over 2mbps). It seems that these lossless codecs can handle the rest quite well (though I thought that padded lower-resolution files are a very special case), e.g. TAK -p2m compressed the album to 561,537kiB from 1,491,127kiB.
Does this mean that these highrez files are more likely 16/96 or 16/48?
I would not be as keen to get these if they were all 16/48 sources, but if all but two are 16/96 and the other two are 24/96, it's well worth it in my book; particularly since it's free.I wonder if the Ghosts I-IV 24/96 versions released on Blu-ray as part of the deluxe package are true 24/96 files?
I wonder if the Ghosts I-IV 24/96 versions released on Blu-ray as part of the deluxe package are true 24/96 files?
This is not the first case of tracks released as "24-bit" being actually 16-bit padded up to 24-bit. A CD+DVD pack of some Depeche Mode album had "24-bit LPCM" tracks on the DVD with exactly same symptoms.
Surprisingly the 96/24 version appears to be more compressed and clipped.
Quote from: Alex B on 06 May, 2008, 04:25:06 PMSurprisingly the 96/24 version appears to be more compressed and clipped.At first I thought that too, but if you zoom in and compare individual peaks in each track they appear to be the same, at least to my eyes.The waveform just looks more horrible in 96/24 because of higher sampling rate, I guess.
I have found some clear evidence of clipping on specific waveforms on a 24/96 track that does not exist in the 16/44 track.
Whether or not the 24/96 version is truncated to 16 bits
An estimated count of clipped samples, along with specific examples of clipping
... that said, that a 24/96 release was ever made is of course a good thing, and the production quality of the record overall is excellent. The real problem here is the risk that people will use the 24/96 release as a judge of quality for 24/96 as a format, and the differences that appear to exist could cause a plausible ABX success.
once you are sure/have proof that the 24bit recording was made from 16bit recordings, you can tip off the admin of theninhotline.net whom operates the most popular nin site, he'll post the info on the front page and everyone will read it including trent. but i'd be careful that there is no mistake made and there is some tangible proof of the claim to show theninhotline admin.
Hi there! I forgot I had an account here. The problem is being addressed as I type this. Thanks for the heads up
Thank you for making us aware of this issue. The files provided to the public are the exact files provided by Brian Big Bass Gardener of Bernie Grundman Mastering Studios. As soon as the Mastering Studio has corrected this mistake we will repost the 24/96 version of the album.I sincerely apologize for this mistake.
Oh wow! Thank you.While you're here : Is the timebase difference (14ppm) between the two masters something that will be fixed? One would hope that the only difference between the two should be a downsampling, but that seems to imply a fundamental mastering difference between the two versions.
I noticed that each track has duration differences. In total the 24/96 version appears to be about 20 s longer.However, I think the differences are mostly caused by the differing amounts of silence in the beginnings and ends of the tracks. For example, when I removed these silent parts as accurately as I could from the track 9/10 (which I tested earlier) I got almost exactly the same duration, 4 m 54s 95 ms.
You could also consider releasing the fixed version in the FLAC format. It would be a lot smaller and make it easier to differentiate the two versions.