The anti "loudness race" trend continues...
HIGH RESOLUTION DETAILS
The audio industry has seen many technical innovations since Band on the Run was first released on vinyl in 1973, the most notable being digital recording. However, with the introduction of CD came two advances, “de-noising” and “peak limiting” which have become increasingly unpopular within certain areas of the music industry and amongst audiophiles.
De-noising was introduced to remove the inherent sound, or hiss, associated with analogue tape. The amount of processing used to remove tape noise can be varied, but when used excessively, many believe that it also has a detrimental effect on elements of the musical sound.
Peak limiting is a process that increases the loudness of music. It is achieved by holding the loudest peaks down and raising the overall level of the music. Much depends on the amount of limiting applied, but at its most extreme the result can be a serious reduction in the dynamic range and often audible distortion.
The release of The Beatles’ remasters in 2009 saw a marked change in attitudes towards these issues, where both noise reduction and limiting were used sparingly with the aim of representing the master tapes more accurately. Such is the case with the newly remastered CD of Band on the Run: tape noise reduction has scarcely been used and the degree of limiting is subtle. In addition digital technology has advanced with the ability now to offer recordings in 24 bit/96kHz. The high resolution version is being made available via download and is being offered in two formats: limited, which is comparable in volume to the remastered CD, and un-limited, which in comparison with the limited version will sound quieter, but retain the dynamic range of the original master recording.
Allan Rouse Abbey Road Studios
They're "only" charging an extra £3 / $5 above the comparable "CD" download, though you have no option but to pay for the 9 extra bonus tracks if you want hi-res.
If you just want the normal album, you're paying double to get hi-res (limited or unlimited version).
9-track "CD" download: £6 / $9
18-track "CD" download: £10 / $15
Hi-Res download: £13 / $20
Both Hi-Res downloads: £23 / $36
From here:
http://www.paulmccartney.com/bandontherun/ (http://www.paulmccartney.com/bandontherun/)
Cheers,
David.
P.S. I haven't heard it. It's a shame it's not on Spotify! (The recent John Lennon releases are).
I don't see this as something to complain about. They're charging a premium price for dynamic range. This sends the message that dynamic range is valuable and loudness is not. I think it is a promising development.
It's hard to see how the selling prices are related to production costs.
It's hard to see how the selling prices are related to production costs.
What price art?
More specifically, what kind of financial margin on top of strictly offsetting production costs would be reasonable to you?
It's hard to see how the selling prices are related to production costs.
Outside commodity items and high school economics when are they ever?
Selling prices are set to what the market will bear.
I don't question a sellers right to price his product as he sees fit. Value is always personal. My question is rather is there any possibility that less processing, with no physical media, can somehow be more expensive to offer? It isn't exactly the same as a guady cables at $500/foot but it isn't exactly that different either.
While your point is very valid, Andy, Notat's view that this is placing these "unlimited" masters as a premium, valuable good is the more important message this sends, IMO. I am seriously considering shelling out cash for this on principle. I figure that maybe by supporting this, we'll help turn the tide? I don't know if that'll actually pan out, but sure can't hurt to support movement towards more dynamic range.
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.
Also, if I'm reading the website correctly, only the "high-res" (24/96) tracks are available in an "unlimited" version, further perpetuating the myth that you "need" higher bitrate/samplerates to get "better" sound.
I have to agree with greynol, this simply re-enforces intentionally providing crap-mastering by default and paying extra for pre-crap-mastering.
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.
That's funny! But... If I were buying this album (which I'm not) I'd probably pay more and choose the unwrecked version. The uncompressed version has more value to someone who values good sound quality.
Switching it around... I certainly wouldn't pay more for the wrecked version, even if a lot of time & effort went into wrecking it!
I'm wondering how this can actually turn the tide towards sane mastering. The target audience for Band on the Run especially for 24 bit/96kHz material is completely different from the audience that makes up the big majority of music consumers. Don't get me wrong there are probably a lot of people who would prefer non-CD downloaded music that isn't extensively mastered, but those people are happy with CD audio resolution or lossy formats and especially happy (happier) with CD prices.
This product is targeted at "audiophiles", and the thing with audiophile hypes is that they only become popular in the mainstream, when they are 1) free, 2) without or 3) with only little extra cost. Like salvaging old LPs or paying a few dollars more for the 999gram vinyl edition, which was secretly sourced from the CD master anyway.
PS: I know that a different way of mastering is "free" but if it's really done, is not to be decided by majority of the consumers, not with products like the above at least.
I'm wondering how this can actually turn the tide towards sane mastering. The target audience for Band on the Run especially for 24 bit/96kHz material is completely different from the audience that makes up the big majority of music consumers. Don't get me wrong there are probably a lot of people who would prefer non-CD downloaded music that isn't extensively mastered, but those people are happy with CD audio resolution or lossy formats and especially happy (happier) with CD prices.
This product is targeted at "audiophiles", and the thing with audiophile hypes is that they only become popular in the mainstream, when they are 1) free, 2) without or 3) with only little extra cost. Like salvaging old LPs or paying a few dollars more for the 999gram vinyl edition, which was secretly sourced from the CD master anyway.
PS: I know that a different way of mastering is "free" but if it's really done, is not to be decided by majority of the consumers, not with products like the above at least.
I don't know if at can turn the tide, but if it can move them in the direction of offering uncompressed releases as an option I'm all for it. The $30 price is ridiculous, though. I'm afraid it will dissuade too many potential purchasers, making the venture look like a commercial failure.
Also, the $30 price will further encourage people to post it on-line for free. That whole allofmp3 fiasco was interesting to me in that you paid a price based on the size of the file. So low bit-rate mp3 were cheapest and flac ect was the most expensive.
I do love the new music distribution systems where you pay what you want from say $6-12, artist gets half and the files are lossless. I wish that were more popular but places like Magnatune are showing up more and more (or i'm just late to the party and no one tells me about these places)
I actually did pay $20 for the 24/96 "unlimited" download, even though this isn't the kind of music that I usually listen to. I am extremely satisfied with the sound quality of this download, and I don't even really care whether it sounds better than the best possible 16/44.1 mastering. I figure they did well to find a way to reissue a classic rock album in a state-of-the-art mastering without dynamic range compression. The price? I think it's reasonable. It isn't clear how many copies of either 24/96 version will sell, and they have to set a price that will make the effort of setting up and hosting these rather large downloads worthwhile even with rather moderate expected sales. Certainly it would not have been commercially viable to issue the CD in double-inventory with and without peak limiting, and since many people prefer the sound with peak limiting, why not take advantage of the new trend in the audiophile market to offer a better product than would have been marketable otherwise? There is no way that sales figures for this version will be interpreted as support for DRC.
What I find surprising is that there are people choosing pay the same premium price for a 24/96 version with compressed dynamic range. What are they thinking?
I don't see this as something to complain about.
I wasn't complaining.
As for whether it's a good thing or a bad thing - well, certainly compared with just releasing a smashed CD master, it's a good thing. No argument.
I'm guessing that most people here would like the standard version of all releases to have reasonable dynamic range. Back to the early/mid 1990s in that respect I suppose.
I'm also guessing that having to pay extra, and having it targeted at the ill-informed audiophile market, makes most people here uncomfortable. Audiophile reviewers say some criminally stupid things - they could kill the commercial viability of a worthy release in a single phrase, and (even more likely) praise a "claimed" superior release which wasn't superior at all - making record companies realise that they can just release the same thing twice. Like the Beatles USB apple. And make lots of money for zero effort, while giving nothing of actual benefit.
For an album that I really wanted to buy, I'd probably buy the complete package (limited and unlimited). Certainly there are plenty of CDs in my collection from the last decade that I would re-buy if they were made available without the clipression. The price can't get stupid though. We can all use Spotify in our house (OK, my four year old daughter needs a little help, but my six year old son is perfectly capable) so even the idea of paying money for a CD seems a little strange to the rest of the family - £24 for a digital copy of some music we already own?! That's hard to justify when I can think of at least 10 CDs (which probably cost £5.99 from CDwow when new) which I'd replace.
I guess what I'm saying is that since most of the intended audience have already paid for the music once or even twice, they should probably find a cheaper way of letting this stuff out in its new glory.
There's an obvious way IMO: The expensive 24/96 unlimited FLAC for the audiophiles, and the far less expensive 44.1/16 unlimited FLAC or mp3 for people who know about good sound, but don't use oxygen-free listening rooms.
Cheers,
David.
P.S. I would love to start a legal discussion about whether copying release X of something you already own in release Y counts as copyright infringement, if there is no copyrightable difference between the two releases. Copyright only applies to
creative endeavours, not
technical ones. Pressing play on a 2" tape deck and record in Pro Tools does not create a new copyright, whatever most record companies would want to you believe. (No noise probably doesn't count either, but EQ may, reverb probably does, and remixing from a multi-track certainly does). However, under UK law
any copying counts as copyright infringement (even copy from "my CD" to "my mp3" and from "my mp3" to "my iPod"), so it's impossible to have a sane discussion about this here.
P.P.S. I've gone all negative again now - but I'm really pleased that these releases are coming out - and whatever the price, I'd like to see more. At least if they're available, we can have an intelligent discussion about their merits!
I actually did pay $20 for the 24/96 "unlimited" download, even though this isn't the kind of music that I usually listen to.
I can't bring myself to part with the money for this - I have it on vinyl and never listen to it. Would you be willing to share a 30 second sample here on HA?
What I find surprising is that there are people choosing pay the same premium price for a 24/96 version with compressed dynamic range. What are they thinking?
They're thinking that 24/96 offers an obvious night-and-day audible advantage over nasty CD quality 16/44.1 - because that's what the magazines they read (and the record producers who post on-line!) tell them. In their minds, in their world, it's exactly the same difference as we would expect between 256kbps mp3 and an 80kbps mp3. Reality doesn't come into it.
They choose the standard version, rather than the version without limiting, because the artist approved the limiting in the first place, and the artist must be right.
(Think this is mad? There's a thread on the Steve Hoffman forums complaining about some Beatles mono tracks on the Capitol versions. On the original US LPs, they took the stereo master, summed the two channels to mono, recorded that to tape, and then cut the vinyl from that tape. On the CD versions, they took the stereo master, summed the two channels to mono, and made the CD from this. People on the SH forums complained that the mono CD version wasn't faithful to the original LP because it lacked that extra generation of tape. It sounded too good. It didn't sound like the original LPs.)
There's also the possibility that the limited version sounds punchier, and hence nicer, than the unlimited version - especially in some listening situations. So it actually makes sense to prefer it. Buying it as 24/96 makes no sense to anyone here, but see above!
Best reason: it lets people buy two otherwise identical versions and compare. The recording geek in me wants to do that, even when I have no interest in the music itself. If I did, it would let me choose which I preferred (because it seems you can't listen before you buy!). So I'd have to buy both, if I didn't own the album already.
Cheers,
David.
P.S. That's why I like Spotify - I could listen to those new John Lennon albums and decide I preferred the originals - mostly.
Wow...talk about choices. I'm not positive anyone would hear a difference given the fact the source material. Ideally, why not just master it like it ought to be for a general release and not bother with the "unlimited" versions? At first glance, the differences between the choices were actually confusing because it was not specifically clear what you would be downloading with each package.
Is this good for the future? I think it could be if a lot of people are interested in the higher resolution downloads...might show if the market exists--or doesn't. Maybe downloadable formats would work. Clearly the physical discs (SACD, DVD audio) didn't.
What a confusing mess of a page that is! I wonder if 'casual' listeners can makes sense of it all?
I procured the unlimited version. Sounds nice. It's too bad that people will pay more for something that is mastered better regardless of the format. That doesn't show promise that CD mastering/production will become better, just an indication that the music industry will learn people will pay MORE for something mastered better, so they can just charge more for a better master and still have the regular CD for everyone else. Just like when gas spiked up to like $5 a gallon a few years ago. Now OPEC knows people WILL pay that much for gas so it will never be cheap again.
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.
How many people are you worried are gonna be suckered by this? We..uh..audioph...i mean music recreating hardware enthusiasts are very rare in my experiance.
Or perhaps i've just been hanging out with the coyotes too much.
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.
How many people are you worried are gonna be suckered by this? We..uh..audioph...i mean music recreating hardware enthusiasts are very rare in my experiance.
Or perhaps i've just been hanging out with the coyotes too much.
Well, Stereophile has a circulation of something like 60,000 (I'm too lazy to look) and The Absolute Sound of something like 30,000. And not all audio buffs subscribe. It doesn't take much extra time to run off an uncompressed master. So if only a small percentage of audiophiles buy it . . . I read somewhere that 2.1 million vinyl disks were sold in 2009, presumably to people who think they sound better than CD's. Some of the sales of the uncompressed version will presumably parasitize sales of the compressed version, but they're charging more and they'll presumably gain some sales from people who wouldn't be interested in the compressed remaster. So it's kind of hard to see where they could go wrong from an economic perspective.
It isn't like the days of CD's, when you had to invest in mastering the CD, a run of booklets, dealer stock, etc. Unless I'm missing something, the overhead isn't much more than adding an item to a web site and a few hours of production/studio time.
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.
I really like seeing major labels openly mention the loudness race and its bad effects.
I wish they also offered the album in a CD quality FLAC, instead of just packing it in a "premium" 24/96, but overall it's still a positive move, IMO.
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.
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.
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 don´t like their sound but i can´t help. I bet some japanese at Warner Japan would have conjured some more sparkle on these
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)
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.
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 don´t like their sound but i can´t help. I bet some japanese at Warner Japan would have conjured some more sparkle on these
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 . . .
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.
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'.
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.
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
I got my hands on those as well (both limited and unlimited, both 24-96).
Unlimited:
(http://i54.tinypic.com/igeu5l.jpg)
Limited:
(http://i54.tinypic.com/2lkp3cn.jpg)
Unlimited Spek:
(http://i55.tinypic.com/f2karo.jpg)
Limited Spek:
(http://i56.tinypic.com/kxc9s.jpg)
Uploaded samples here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=84945) (converted to mp3 because of size limits).
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
Nice and Short Thanks
Nice and Short Thanks
That's what she said.
Edit: Just tried ABXing the two tracks posted in our uploads forum. When ReplayGained, I can't differentiate them! 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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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 (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.
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.
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:
(http://i51.tinypic.com/9jio11.jpg)
Regarding the limiting.. it seems reasonable by todays standards. But I'd still take the one without it.
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 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=84869&view=findpost&p=731248), 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.
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.
It's quite possible that the differences heard are do to less than ideal sample-rate conversion.
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.
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.
The waveforms and spectra of the two versions are then so similar that I didn't bother trying to ABX them.
As far as I can see, in the samples here...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=84945&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=84945&hl=)
...there's 1 peak of a few (12?) samples that's been reduced by about 0.5dB (sample 966828), and everything else is virtually identical. Even concentrating on that peak, I can't hear the difference. I wouldn't expect to be able to!
If only more "limiting" was like this!
I assume in the loudest parts of the album there are more squashed the peaks, and so it might become audible.
btw, it's interesting just A/B-ing the tracks
without level matching. The level difference is obvious, but I bet 90% of people would also claim the louder track is brighter - probably better over all, as well as louder. Whereas once they're level matched, they sound identical. I wonder how many people have done listening tests biassed in this way?
Cheers,
David.
btw, it's interesting just A/B-ing the tracks without level matching. The level difference is obvious, but I bet 90% of people would also claim the louder track is brighter - probably better over all, as well as louder. Whereas once they're level matched, they sound identical. I wonder how many people have done listening tests biassed in this way?
This is one of the secrets to how to sell audio gear. Match levels by ear, which results in a random mismatch of about a dB or a few dB. Then present both alternatives along with a aales pitch about why one is obviously better.
Works just about every time!
People go into audio stores, whether brick-and-motar or web, with money to spend. To them, success is defined as actually making a decision and spending their money. All the sales people have to do is play along with them and help them complete their agenda. It seems almost cruel to confuse them with the relevant facts. ;-)
It's quite possible that the differences heard are do to less than ideal sample-rate conversion.
I think you're right. Though the argument can then be made that in an imperfect world, it's better to go with the format that's relatively immune to poor implementation, not just of standards converters but of DAC's and ADC's.
Certainly, which is why have foobar2000 configured with a resampler to convert 44.1kHz to 48kHz for playback with my soundcard.