Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Rolling Stone Hi-res releases (Read 5322 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rolling Stone Hi-res releases

Roll up, roll up, get your Rolling Stones 24-bit 88.2kHz downloads here...

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=cat...D00018771886723

...what? Quality not good enough for you sir? Pay an extra $10 for the 24-bit 176.4kHZ version here...

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=cat...X00018771886723

...and hear those 1964 recordings in all their, er, glory. (Play the previews if you don't understand why this is so funny).

Cheers,
David.

P.S. No flames please. I think some of the music is great, and this may well be the best digital release of it - but 176.4kHz for this?!

Rolling Stone Hi-res releases

Reply #1 –
I demand a high enough sample rate to be able to hear the tape-bias signal!

Rolling Stone Hi-res releases

Reply #2 –
That's an interestinmg point. Shouldn't you be able to detect the tape bias frequency in these files?

Rolling Stone Hi-res releases

Reply #3 –
Well if it makes Neil Young's ears happy...
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Rolling Stone Hi-res releases

Reply #4 –
Quote from: pdq on
That's an interestinmg point. Shouldn't you be able to detect the tape bias frequency in these files?

That may be what's happening at 28797Hz here:

"Ruby Tuesday" 24/88.2 (from "Through The Past Darkly, Vol.2")


"Paint It Black" 24/88.2 (from "Through The Past Darkly, Vol.2")


Or maybe it's an artifact from the DSD transfer/conversion?

Rolling Stone Hi-res releases

Reply #5 –
Nearly 110 db down at 20kHz. Those images really tell the tale. Thanks!
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Rolling Stone Hi-res releases

Reply #6 –
I didn't do so before, but now I added HDTracks to my personal axis of evil.
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

Rolling Stone Hi-res releases

Reply #7 –
I wouldn't have bought it if they hadn't used cryogenically frozen interconnects. Now that I know that they have, I'm sold!

Rolling Stone Hi-res releases

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Kohlrabi on
I didn't do so before, but now I added HDTracks to my personal axis of evil.
You'll love this page then...
https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=sta...name=which_kind

but if people use all this as an excuse to dig out the master tapes, and present an album sounding better than it ever has on CD (even though, of course, it could sound just as good on CD!) then it's nice that they have an excuse to do so, and it's nice to hear classic albums sounding better than ever.

(and in any cases where this is the only release of the better master, I'll just have to downsample it to 44.1kHz and encode it to mp3 myself  )

Cheers,
David.

Rolling Stone Hi-res releases

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Nah, look at where the 0 dB is

Even still, ~70 dB down from peak says enough.

EDIT: I had originally said something about the music being incapable of having a peak at 0dB, but that doesn't excuse my mistake.  My thinking was more along the question as to whether it's possible to capture the high frequency garbage along with the music (the complete spectrum) using only 16 bits.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?
 

Rolling Stone Hi-res releases

Reply #11 –
Quote from: pdq on
That's an interestinmg point. Shouldn't you be able to detect the tape bias frequency in these files?


Hard to tell. Tape bias could be over 100 KHz. 50 Khz is more likely, but that's over the Nyquist for 88 amd 96 KHz sampling.
 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019