Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Phil Leigh;603547 Wrote: Hmmm... thanks. As I said, it was just a quick listen :-) I was struck by certain instrumental sounds which were slightly louder, but that could have been achieved by frequency-dependant compression. Likewise the balance of vocals to backing track as the track builds. Mind you, there's not that much difference going back to the 4-track vs. the stereo master :-) To keep you up to date: 1. I have obtained loan copies of MMT and Abbey Road from 09. 2. I have a real lack of time at the moment! And as it happens a Benchmark DAC1 HDR turning up about the time I will have time - I can listen on that with my headphones (Sennheiser HD25-1 II). Regards, Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB3, SB Touch SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Phil Leigh;603389 Wrote: Clive - I'm talking about the track Hello Goodbye... RG track peak is 0.791992 for the 88 master and 0.958282 for the 2009 master... album peak of 1988 version is 0.958282 OK, understood. Track peak of Hello Goodbye on my MMT matches yours - 0.791992. However, I think you've misinterpreted these figures when you speak of 80dB and 95dB. Those replaygain peak levels are linear - respectively 79.1992% (which is about -2dB) and 95.8282% (which is about -0.4dB). Not such a huge disparity after all, would you agree? And this raises another point. Surely the relative loudness of the various tracks on the album ought to vary according to their mood. It seems very reasonable to me that the all-out rocking title track can be expected to peak a little higher than Hello Goodbye. If the 09 remaster has bumped the levels of the quieter tracks, then hasn't the artistic flow of the album has been (slightly) compromised? (I have no problem with them using a little DSP magic to tease a bit of extra life from the tapes, but messing with the relative loudness levels seems a bit heavy-handed). Actually, come to think of it, a more instructive comparison would be the various replaygain GAIN levels, as this is a better indicator of their relative perceived loudness. On the 88 master, the track gain for the title track is -5.1dB, while that for Hello Goodbye is -3.7dB. This suggests that the title track is intended to sound about 1.5dB louder than HG. What's the comparison on the 09 remaster? -- cliveb Transporter - ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Phil Leigh;603346 Wrote: I have finally retrieved the 88 version of MMT from the garage. A quick listen confirms a couple of things: 1) this isn't a simple remaster, mix levels have been changed too Phil, all the pub for the remasters from the engineers said that there was no remix (they worked only from the stereo masters, and not individual tracks). They did do selective limiting, EQ, editing, filtering, etc on the tracks. Especially noted that they boosted bass and drums this way, and compressed overall a few db (stereo only, not mono). -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
cliveb;603542 Wrote: OK, understood. Track peak of Hello Goodbye on my MMT matches yours - 0.791992. However, I think you've misinterpreted these figures when you speak of 80dB and 95dB. Those replaygain peak levels are linear - respectively 79.1992% (which is about -2dB) and 95.8282% (which is about -0.4dB). Not such a huge disparity after all, would you agree? And this raises another point. Surely the relative loudness of the various tracks on the album ought to vary according to their mood. It seems very reasonable to me that the all-out rocking title track can be expected to peak a little higher than Hello Goodbye. If the 09 remaster has bumped the levels of the quieter tracks, then hasn't the artistic flow of the album has been (slightly) compromised? (I have no problem with them using a little DSP magic to tease a bit of extra life from the tapes, but messing with the relative loudness levels seems a bit heavy-handed). Actually, come to think of it, a more instructive comparison would be the various replaygain GAIN levels, as this is a better indicator of their relative perceived loudness. On the 88 master, the track gain for the title track is -5.1dB, while that for Hello Goodbye is -3.7dB. This suggests that the title track is intended to sound about 1.5dB louder than HG. What's the comparison on the 09 remaster? Yes you are correct - I didn't mean dB! The level of all tracks has been raised slightly in the remaster. track gain for 2009 HG is -6.69dB and -7.45 for MMT. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;603544 Wrote: Phil, all the pub for the remasters from the engineers said that there was no remix (they worked only from the stereo masters, and not individual tracks). They did do selective limiting, EQ, editing, filtering, etc on the tracks. Especially noted that they compressed the stereo masters a few db (not the mono). All of this resulted in the bass and drums boost we hear. http://blog.bowers-wilkins.com/sound-lab/behind-the-recordings/abbey-road-and-the-beatles-the-story-behind-the-remasters/ http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/content/inside-making-beatles-remastered-catalog Hmmm... thanks. As I said, it was just a quick listen :-) I was struck by certain instrumental sounds which were slightly louder, but that could have been achieved by frequency-dependant compression. Likewise the balance of vocals to backing track as the track builds. Mind you, there's not that much difference going back to the 4-track vs. the stereo master :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
I have finally retrieved the 88 version of MMT from the garage. A quick listen confirms a couple of things: 1) this isn't a simple remaster, mix levels have been changed too 2) the track peak level of the 88 version is way too low (80dB) - the 09 version is 95dB 3) there is no limiting and only very mild (almost unnoticeable) compression on the 09 version - TRY playing both versions as 2-track album with replaygain tags set appropriately to level out the volume differences... 4) the 09 version is thankfully missing the slightly glassy or edgy upper-mid that the 88 version has 5) bass guitar and drums sound much better to me in the 09 version as do the lower register vocals. YMMV of course. For me the 2009 version wins handsomely. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Phil Leigh;603346 Wrote: I have finally retrieved the 88 version of MMT from the garage. 2) the track peak level of the 88 version is way too low (80dB) - the 09 version is 95dB That's strange. My 1988 MMT CD has an album peak level of -0.05dB (this happens to be the peak level of the title track). I don't really see how it could be any higher. What exactly do you mean when you say the track peak is 80dB? -- cliveb Transporter - ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
cliveb;603387 Wrote: That's strange. My 1988 MMT CD has an album peak level of -0.05dB (this happens to be the peak level of the title track). I don't really see how it could be any higher. What exactly do you mean when you say the track peak is 80dB? Clive - I'm talking about the track Hello Goodbye... RG track peak is 0.791992 for the 88 master and 0.958282 for the 2009 master... album peak of 1988 version is 0.958282 -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
It didnt take much listening for me on these. In some ways I didnt want them to be better - just to prove my skepticism about remasters and redbook in general. This remaster blows the doors open on what is possible in both regards. Like any mid 50 something year old who grew up with the Beatles - their music is engraved in our soul. This remaster was, for me, a rediscovery of Beatle music. My hearing and energy for music is not what it used to be. I have to be in the correct frame of mind to enjoy music like I used to. The memory is still intact. I am referring to many very good vinyl sessions burned into subconscious from years past. Many of those on old tube systems. Dynaco and the likes. Then the advent of good SS and horns and the like. How is the remaster better? The vocals are revealing. Lifelike. The voices are whole. As the vocal cords produced the sound. Its personal. The emotion is there. The bass is also very much there. Revealed. Like Paul would have wanted it to be heard (I'm sure he had his hand in this). And everything in between, dynamics and all. This is, I believe, what we all expected from redbook. The rawness of that time and that relative primitiveness of their technologies is preserved. I am bit in awe of how well these albums were produced considering it was the 60's. Well done George Martin! It might just be that my mind is comparing the 88 digital transfer and how crappy that was. Quite possible. I dont have the old vinyl to go back to or the ability to play it. That's over. Where I am today - I really dont miss it at all! -- earwaxer9 System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter, HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to 500 watt sub slave amp, JPS labs power cords, Silver audio interconnect, Audioquest Granite speaker cable. earwaxer9's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=39527 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
darrenyeats;601809 Wrote: But I can tell you the result, that most (not all) CD remasters in my experience are more dynamically compressed than the earlier CD master. For sure nearly all remasters are more compressed than the original releases, but that's not the only factor that affects sound quality. A lot of early CD releases were cut from Nth generation copy tapes. (Example: the original British CD release of Going for the One by Yes was excrutiatingly bad. It was the only CD I ever returned simply because the mastering job was so poor). Remasters are typically sourced from better analogue tapes, so provided the amount of added compression is modest, you can end up with a better overall sound. Regrettably all too many remasters go overboard on the compression. Of course there's no reason why the better analogue tape can't be transferred unmolested, but unfortunately it seems to be some kind of dogma these days that compression must be applied. I reckon there is a generation of so-called mastering engineers growing up who genuinely think that squashing the life out of everything is the right way to do it. I get the impression that a lot of them are jumped-up DJs. -- cliveb Transporter - ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
cliveb;601885 Wrote: For sure nearly all remasters are more compressed than the original releases, but that's not the only factor that affects sound quality. A lot of early CD releases were cut from Nth generation copy tapes. (Example: the original British CD release of Going for the One by Yes was excrutiatingly bad. It was the only CD I ever returned simply because the mastering job was so poor). Remasters are typically sourced from better analogue tapes, so provided the amount of added compression is modest, you can end up with a better overall sound. Regrettably all too many remasters go overboard on the compression. Of course there's no reason why the better analogue tape can't be transferred unmolested, but unfortunately it seems to be some kind of dogma these days that compression must be applied. I reckon there is a generation of so-called mastering engineers growing up who genuinely think that squashing the life out of everything is the right way to do it. I get the impression that a lot of them are jumped-up DJs. Can I just remind everyone that even in the pre-CD days it was normal to run the master mix through a final stage of compression (usually at least 3dB of level reduction+corresponding make up gain) - and on the vinyl master (the one that had the RIAA EQ on it) a hard limiter too, to protect the cutting head. There's nothing wrong with compression per se. All the great records have LOADS of it. All the rock audiophile classics have it in spades. You can't make a great sounding rock record without the judicious use of compression at both track, sub-mix (e.g. drums) and master mix level. If you've ever tried, you will know exactly what I mean. You can ruin a rock record with excessive limiting or hard-knee compression. Driving hard limiting into clipping is not good... The Beatles 88 mixes/masters are IMO compromised by inadequate ADC's AND embedded jitter. The 09 mixes/masters sound substantially better to me in every respect I can assess them by. Oh and the mono versions sound way better than the stereo ones :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Phil Leigh;601910 Wrote: Can I just remind everyone that even in the pre-CD days it was normal to run the master mix through a final stage of compression (usually at least 3dB of level reduction+corresponding make up gain) - and on the vinyl master (the one that had the RIAA EQ on it) a hard limiter too, to protect the cutting head. There's nothing wrong with compression per se. All the great records have LOADS of it. All the rock audiophile classics have it in spades. You can't make a great sounding rock record without the judicious use of compression at both track, sub-mix (e.g. drums) and master mix level. If you've ever tried, you will know exactly what I mean. You can ruin a rock record with excessive limiting or hard-knee compression. Driving hard limiting into clipping is not good... The Beatles 88 mixes/masters are IMO compromised by inadequate ADC's AND embedded jitter. The 09 mixes/masters sound substantially better to me in every respect I can assess them by. Oh and the mono versions sound way better than the stereo ones :-) Phil, can you recommend a particular album I can buy to hear this improvement? On Magical Mystery Tour, Hello Goodbye sounds better as EMI 88 to me. But I'm open to exploring this further if it's the price of one album! Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. (Inguz bass EQ'd) SB3 - (pre bypassed) Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (caps bass EQ'd) Desktop - Genius Slab SW-flat2.1 700 Sennheiser HD 25-1 II SB Touch SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
darrenyeats;601929 Wrote: Phil, can you recommend a particular album I can buy to hear this improvement? On Magical Mystery Tour, Hello Goodbye sounds better as EMI 88 to me. But I'm open to exploring this further if it's the price of one album! Darren White Album and Abbey Road are the biggest beneficiaries to me followed by SPLHCB, Let It Be and Revolver. If I had to nominate just one album it would be Abbey Road. I must admit, I haven't listened to MMT very much. I will check it out! -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Phil Leigh;601955 Wrote: White Album and Abbey Road are the biggest beneficiaries to me followed by SPLHCB, Let It Be and Revolver. If I had to nominate just one album it would be Abbey Road. I must admit, I haven't listened to MMT very much. I will check it out! My biggest shock/revelation while listening to the remastered Beatles was Yesterday. Now here is a song that I though I knew inside/out, but on this remaster it just comes to life. Paul's voice fills the room in such a holographic way, that I find it almost unreal. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
magiccarpetride;602009 Wrote: My biggest shock/revelation while listening to the remastered Beatles was Yesterday. Now here is a song that I though I knew inside/out, but on this remaster it just comes to life. Paul's voice fills the room in such a holographic way, that I find it almost unreal. Well it did sound good already. Have you done an A/B comparison like I did with 'Hello Goodbye'? Preferably blind, as Phil said. Also, Phil, I would appreciate you making a visit to your garage...! I'm trying to find a donor to lend me a copy of 2009 Abbey Road before I hit the buy button. Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. (Inguz bass EQ'd) SB3 - (pre bypassed) Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (caps bass EQ'd) Desktop - Genius Slab SW-flat2.1 700 Sennheiser HD 25-1 II SB Touch - [Awaiting delivery: Benchmark DAC1 HDR - ATC SCM50ASL + ATC C4 Sub] SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
darrenyeats;602051 Wrote: Well it did sound good already. Have you done an A/B comparison like I did with 'Hello Goodbye'? Preferably blind, as Phil said. Also, Phil, I would appreciate you making a visit to your garage...! I'm trying to find a donor to lend me a copy of 2009 Abbey Road before I hit the buy button. Darren Will try and get to the garage tomorrow... -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
cliveb;601345 Wrote: WTF should we have to buy so-called hi-res releases to get uncompressed versions? It's perfectly possible to make redbook versions without compression, and redbook is more than adequate as a final delivery format. Add to this the fact that all Beatles recordings were made on 60's analogue gear that doesn't come even remotely close to the capabilities of 16/44.1, what are they doing dicking around with hi-res at all? (Other than to extract more cash from the already sucked-dry consumer, of course) Sorry, you are just showing your ignorance or lack of hearing/lack of adequate sound system. Have you listened to many (or any) recent remasters of old recordings? Good 60's recordings have LOTS of information and detail that is rendered more audible in a quality digital transcription. The recent Beatles remasters are a good example - lots of detail that wasn't audible on previous CD's or LPs. In addition, the fact that the 24/44.1 versions of the same digital transcriptions reveal even more detail than the CD versions, gives us every reason to think that a hi-res version would sound even better. I'm not claiming it would sound dramatically better, but yes, noticeably better. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;601646 Wrote: Have you listened to many (or any) recent remasters of old recordings? Good 60's recordings have LOTS of information and detail that is rendered more audible in a quality digital transcription. I've heard plenty of remasters. Some of them are good, and some of them are dire. I don't deny the fact that a good remastering can reveal details missing on previous versions. But what has this got to do with redbook v hi-res? Nothing. A good mastering can be delivered in either format. You talk about 60's recordings with lots of information, but I respectfully suggest to you that the total number of these with more information than can be captured in 16/44.1 LPCM (ie. redbook format) is zero. -- cliveb Transporter - ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;601646 Wrote: The recent Beatles remasters are a good example - lots of detail that wasn't audible or wasn't clear on previous CD's or LPs. In addition, the fact that the 24/44.1 versions of the same digital transcriptions reveal even more detail than the CD versions, gives us every reason to think that a hi-res version would sound even better. You didn´t read what was written in that thread. The 24/44.1 is created different as the 16/44.1 Still no one can claim a correct dithered version of the sold 24/44.1 to 16/44.1 sounds better. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;601690 Wrote: You didn´t read what was written in that thread. The 24/44.1 is created different as the 16/44.1 Still no one can claim a correct dithered version of the sold 24/44.1 to 16/44.1 sounds better. Except that the engineers who worked on the two versions deny that. They specifically stated that the 16/44 is a downsample of the 24/44 master. Not to insult anyone in the other thread, but I believe them rather than amateur testers. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;601760 Wrote: Except that the engineers who worked on the two versions deny that. They specifically stated that the 16/44 is a downsample of the 24/44 master. Not to insult anyone in the other thread, but I believe them rather than amateur testers. Where would this end if everybody just believes what someone writes. Best is to educate yourself to come to own conclusions. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;601760 Wrote: Except that the engineers who worked on the two versions deny that. They specifically stated that the 16/44 is a downsample of the 24/44 master. Not to insult anyone in the other thread, but I believe them rather than amateur testers. They have exactly the same number of samples :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 01/11/2011 02:44 PM, Phil Leigh wrote: firedog;601760 Wrote: specifically stated that the 16/44 is a downsample of the 24/44 master. They have exactly the same number of samples :-) And as beloved as the ancient tape machines in the 60s were, its highly unlikely that there is actually any signficant bits in the last 8 bits of any 24 bit sample made from it. Those machines barely had 70 dB of SNR. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
pfarrell;601771 Wrote: On 01/11/2011 02:44 PM, Phil Leigh wrote: firedog;601760 Wrote: specifically stated that the 16/44 is a downsample of the 24/44 master. They have exactly the same number of samples :-) And as beloved as the ancient tape machines in the 60s were, its highly unlikely that there is actually any signficant bits in the last 8 bits of any 24 bit sample made from it. Those machines barely had 70 dB of SNR. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ A lot of these older CD masters are perfectly fine - I feel sometimes they are criticised for being too accurate! The EMI 88 Beatles recordings are a case in point. The earlier Beatles albums sound brash and some of the later ones sound great e.g. Abbey Road, most of Revolver etc. It sounds to me you get what went in. I don't know why things go wrong with most CD remasters. Maybe it's our desire these days to improve everything? Or maybe it goes like this. They do the transfer to red book with the more advanced technology. The geeks are happy with their work but maybe a marketing guy comes along and points out the new CD doesn't really sound much different to the original CD. And certainly not on his or her system at home. Can we do something to the sound so we don't get sued for releasing effectively the same recording? Well, some tasteful dynamic compression might do the trick? You might even hear hear more detail on the train or the radio. Who knows what happens really. But I can tell you the result, that most (not all) CD remasters in my experience are more dynamically compressed than the earlier CD master. If you want remasters that are focussed on fidelity to the original materials then, usually, that means specialist labels like Mobile Fidelity. Also perhaps remasters for SACD or hi-rez - their buyers are practically queuing up to describe all the differences they hear, even when they don't exist (I'm being wicked again). This is why usually I go for the very earliest CD master where a choice of CD masters exists. Where my definition of best is they have not messed much with it rather than my personal conception of what sounds good! (The old accuracy versus 'sounds good' debate.) What I have seen, heard and read so far indicates that EMI messed with it less in 88 than in 09. Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. (Inguz bass EQ'd) SB3 - (pre bypassed) Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (caps bass EQ'd) Desktop - Genius Slab SW-flat2.1 700 Sennheiser HD 25-1 II SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
darrenyeats;601809 Wrote: A lot of these older CD masters are perfectly fine - I feel sometimes they are criticised for being too accurate! The EMI 88 Beatles recordings are a case in point. The earlier Beatles albums sound brash and some of the later ones sound great e.g. Abbey Road, most of Revolver etc. It sounds to me you get what went in. I don't know why things go wrong with most CD remasters. Maybe it's our desire these days to improve everything? Or maybe it goes like this. They do the transfer to red book with the more advanced technology. The geeks are happy with their work but maybe a marketing guy comes along and points out the new CD doesn't really sound much different to the original CD. And certainly not on his or her system at home. Can we do something to the sound so we don't get sued for releasing effectively the same recording? Well, some tasteful dynamic compression might do the trick? You might even hear hear more detail on the train or the radio. Who knows what happens really. But I can tell you the result, that most (not all) CD remasters in my experience are more dynamically compressed than the earlier CD master. If you want remasters that are focussed on fidelity to the original materials then, usually, that means specialist labels like Mobile Fidelity. Also perhaps remasters for SACD or hi-rez - their buyers are practically queuing up to describe all the differences they hear, even when they don't exist (I'm being wicked again). This is why usually I go for the very earliest CD master where a choice of CD masters exists. Where my definition of best is they have not messed much with it rather than my personal conception of what sounds good! (The old accuracy versus 'sounds good' debate.) What I have seen, heard and read so far indicates that EMI messed with it less in 88 than in 09. Darren Case in point - The numerous Dark Side of the Moon remasters - I resisted most of them. I finally bought the 2003 SACD hybrid. Its 'ok'. Not great. Not as good as I remember the vinyl being. My ears were much better then. Who knows. What I do know, is the new Beatle remasters ARE an improvement. IMO. -- earwaxer9 System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter, HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to 500 watt sub slave amp, JPS labs power cords, Silver audio interconnect, Audioquest Granite speaker cable. earwaxer9's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=39527 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
The stereo remasters have what is called Light compression by the engineers, nothing like what is done in the loudness wars of today. To my ears it is not excessive, fatiguing, etc. The mono remasters have no added compression. Hopefully, together with the vinyl re-release(in progress, based on 24/192 digital transcription of original analogue) that is supposed to happen soon, we will get hi-res versions of the catalogue. Based on recent work at Abbey Road re-releasing Paul McCartney and George Harrison in hi-res, we can hope for uncompressed versions. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;601267 Wrote: Based on recent work at Abbey Road re-releasing Paul McCartney and George Harrison in hi-res, we can hope for uncompressed versions. WTF should we have to buy so-called hi-res releases to get uncompressed versions? It's perfectly possible to make redbook versions without compression, and redbook is more than adequate as a final delivery format. Add to this the fact that all Beatles recordings were made on 60's analogue gear that doesn't come even remotely close to the capabilities of 16/44.1, what are they doing dicking around with hi-res at all? (Other than to extract more cash from the already sucked-dry consumer, of course) -- cliveb Transporter - ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
cliveb;601345 Wrote: Add to this the fact that all Beatles recordings were made on 60's analogue gear that doesn't come even remotely close to the capabilities of 16/44.1, what are they doing dicking around with hi-res at all? (Other than to extract more cash from the already sucked-dry consumer, of course) As long as some audiophile educated report it sounds better they sell what the audience wants to buy. I bet we even have a few members around here that will hear the Beatles at 32bit/384kHz just that tiny foot-tipping bit beter as the 24bit/192kHz release ;) -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
of course - we are baby boomers. We set the controls for the heart of the sun. We want more. The highest peak. There was a time in our lives when we could not die. Now we can still hear (somewhat). We want to hear OUR music the best it can possibly be heard. Before we die. Whatever sample rate that may be. Is that too much to ask? -- earwaxer9 System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter, HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to 500 watt sub slave amp, JPS labs power cords, Silver audio interconnect, Audioquest Granite speaker cable. earwaxer9's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=39527 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
I've skim-read the entire thread so I know this is going to upset a few people! Hello Goodbye from Magical Mystery Tour. Top - original album version (1988) Bottom - remaster (2009) I came into possession of the bottom one because we had a music evening and one visitor provded it. Of course, out of curiosity I compared with my own copy (top). http://www.yeats.co.uk/public/Audio/hello-goodbye-waveform.jpg The remaster seems to have dynamic compression applied. This might explain why people hear the sound leaping from the speakers. It does leap alright, but not in a way I like. Standard comments about compression - initially impressive but soon tiresome. I did a sighted listening comparison on these two tracks shown and bizarrely I preferred the remaster - it sounded less compressed?! My world was in turmoil till I realised I had mixed up the play order. The old one does indeed sound less compressed (and better, to my ears). Just picked them out blind before writing this post - again preferred the original. If anyone wants to understand how dynamic compression is far more important than 16 versus 24 bit just google Loudness War. Now before you jump on me, know that THE BEATLES ARE MY FAVOURITE BAND. Think about that - you guys are talking about my heros so it matters to me. George Martin must be fuming and I am outraged, personally, that they would mess with these fine recordings. Looks like EMI have gone the way of countless other remasters on this one. Look, it's hardly a freakish thing is it, that the remaster of this track sounds worse? Most remasters do, and for the same reasons. THIS is just common sense. Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. (Inguz bass EQ'd) SB3 - (pre bypassed) Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (caps bass EQ'd) Desktop - Genius Slab SW-flat2.1 700 Sennheiser HD 25-1 II SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
PS: I believe the remaster is the 16 bit version. Depending on who you believe on this thread, this is mastered exactly the same as the 24 bit or it's not. PPS: We can look forward to the vinyl audiophile version. Perhaps they will remove the dynamic compression they've just added in 2009 and everyone will revel in how much better analogue sounds than digital... -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. (Inguz bass EQ'd) SB3 - (pre bypassed) Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (caps bass EQ'd) Desktop - Genius Slab SW-flat2.1 700 Sennheiser HD 25-1 II SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
darrenyeats;601083 Wrote: I've skim-read the entire thread so I know this is going to upset a few people! Hello Goodbye from Magical Mystery Tour. Top - original album version (1988) Bottom - remaster (2009) I came into possession of the bottom one because we had a music evening and one visitor provided it. Of course, out of curiosity I compared with my own copy (top). http://www.yeats.co.uk/public/Audio/hello-goodbye-waveform.jpg The remaster seems to have dynamic compression applied. This might explain why people hear the sound leaping from the speakers. It does leap alright, but not in a way I like. Standard comments about compression - initially impressive but soon tiresome. I did a sighted listening comparison on these two tracks shown and bizarrely I preferred the remaster - it sounded less compressed?! My world was in turmoil till I realised I had mixed up the play order. The old one does indeed sound less compressed (and better, to my ears). Just picked them out blind before writing this post - again preferred the original. If anyone wants to understand how dynamic compression is far more important than 16 versus 24 bit just google Loudness War. Now before you jump on me, know that THE BEATLES ARE MY FAVOURITE BAND. Think about that - you guys are talking about my heros so it matters to me. George Martin must be fuming and I am outraged, personally, that they would mess with these fine recordings. Looks like EMI have gone the way of countless other remasters on this one. Look, it's hardly a freakish thing is it, that the remaster of this track sounds worse? Most remasters do, and for the same reasons. The benefits of new fangled studio equipment are swamped by dynamic compression and it happens again and again. THIS is just common sense. Darren Darren - chill! - the compression is VERY mild by modern standards. It's not clipping and it's not limiting the effective dynamic range. The 2009 remasters sound better than the 87 versions in every way, and it isn't just about compression. After all, the 87 masters are compressed too! ... It really is not a good idea to look at the waveform displays because they can be somewhat misleading... Best to listen blind :-) The 87 masters are somewhat under-recorded - the level is too low IMO. They were also transferred using adc's which are not great by modern standards... I'm sure you were very careful to level balance before you compared the versions.. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Phil Leigh;601089 Wrote: It really is not a good idea to look at the waveform displays because they can be somewhat misleading... Best to listen blind :-) Phil, as I said I listened blind. Phil Leigh;601089 Wrote: The 87 masters are somewhat under-recorded - the level is too low IMO. They were also transferred using adc's which are not great by modern standards... Yeah the peak level of the older one is lower than the peak level of the remaster. But the remaster has some extra compression too, quite visible via Audacity. Phil Leigh;601089 Wrote: I'm sure you were very careful to level balance before you compared the versions.. I'm not aware of a sensible way to do this when comparing masters with different levels of compression. Perhaps using some Audacity processing? The average levels are different even when peaks are the same. Suffice to say, the remaster was louder on both counts, which should have conferred it an advantage. Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. (Inguz bass EQ'd) SB3 - (pre bypassed) Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (caps bass EQ'd) Desktop - Genius Slab SW-flat2.1 700 Sennheiser HD 25-1 II SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Darren, Nice detective work there. Only one minor quibble. What you labeled as original album version (1988) should read original CD version (1988) since the original album version is from 1967 and is pure analog all the way. darrenyeats;601083 Wrote: Hello Goodbye from Magical Mystery Tour. Top - original album version (1988) Bottom - remaster (2009) Darren -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter - Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
ralphpnj;601094 Wrote: Darren, Nice detective work there. Only one minor quibble. What you labeled as original album version (1988) should read original CD version (1988) since the original album version is from 1967 and is pure analog all the way. As I said The Beatles are my favourite band so I am aware they were active before the 80s! Ha ha. Quite right. If I thought these remasters were better I would buy them in a heartbeat, I can tell you that! Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. (Inguz bass EQ'd) SB3 - (pre bypassed) Krell KAV-300i - PMC AB-1 (caps bass EQ'd) Desktop - Genius Slab SW-flat2.1 700 Sennheiser HD 25-1 II SqueezeControl for Android darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
darrenyeats;601099 Wrote: As I said The Beatles are my favourite band so I am aware they were active before the 80s! Ha ha. Quite right. If I thought these remasters were better I would buy them in a heartbeat, I can tell you that! Darren I'm glad that you understood my comment in the tongue in cheek way it was intended. Luckily in the case of the Beatles the music is good that it is able to transcend just about any sonic malfeasance applied to it. Analog, digital, lossy compression, dynamic range compression, etc. The Beatles music is always enjoyable. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter - Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Darren - as I said, the 2009 masters have very little additional compression and what there is is transparent - no sign/sound of any dramating hard limiting and the compression curves used are very soft-knee, with maybe only a couple of dB of level reduction. We are a million miles away from loudness wars here! You can use replaygain to get a reasonable leveling across the 2 masters. I only have the 09 masters on disk at the moment (mono + stereo) and can't get to the garage to retrieve the 87 discs. Side note: (forgetting loudness wars and just talking about good mastering/production practice.) Compression is generally used for 2 reasons: 1) to get even, smooth levels through a performance, avoiding excessive peaks or dips in level - in this respect it is applied to the individual component sub-tracks prior to mixing down. This compression can be quite heavy... especially on vocals, guitars and drums. EVERY mu 2) as an effect to add punchiness - either at a track level or across the whole mix. Usually this will be a milder treatment, to avoid unnatural squashing of dynamics (cf L wars!). -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
A quick follow-up on this... the 24-bit and 16-bit released versions are definitely the same master. Diffmaker shows a 0 (ZERO!) sample rate offset which is only possible if the samples are the same - any remastering or EQ except for level changes / addition of dither would generate significant sample offset errors. So this remains one of the few authentic commercially released 16 vs 24 bit test cases. Diffmaker says these files are identical in the loudest 14 bits, with the remaining (10) bits holding low level sounds and (of course) plenty of noise in the lowest bits... which you can never hear because it is completely masked by the louder parts of the music at all times in normal listening. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Phil Leigh;583970 Wrote: A quick follow-up on this... the 24-bit and 16-bit released versions are definitely the same master. Diffmaker shows a 0 (ZERO!) sample rate offset which is only possible if the samples are the same - any remastering or EQ except for level changes / addition of dither would generate significant sample offset errors. So this remains one of the few authentic commercially released 16 vs 24 bit test cases. Diffmaker says these files are identical in the loudest 14 bits, with the remaining (10) bits holding the lower level tail of the upper level sounds, very low level sounds and (of course) plenty of noise in the lowest bits... which you can never hear because it is completely masked by the louder parts of the music at all times in normal listening. My guess is that is is of cause from the same hires data but with a slight kick in the settings. I imagine they used some compressor/limiter that had these 0.2dB more headroom. You earlier reported to hear some music in the noise that diffmaker puts out. It shouldn´t if only dither was applied. Edit: If you dither down these 24bit masters to 16 with sox, do you hear a difference? -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
earwaxer9;583382 Wrote: From my experience, with the Transporter at least, The DAC seems to like 24/96 files. I have experienced less noise, better staging, and more musicality to everything I have upsampled from 16/44.1. Even the 24 bit 48khz stuff sounds better upsampled to 96khz. A very welcome and exciting discovery to say the least. The Beatles new remasters sound great by the way. Even better upsampled. Listening to one now! - in general I find the new remasters to be more musical. Bigger sound for sure. More there, especially more details in the thought behind the mix. I would say that Transporter DISLIKES red-book, and these ones I upsample.. I never touch 24-bit files.. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;583012 Wrote: I quotet firedog cause he once mentioned hearing differences on a Coltrane fromn HDtracks. Hdtracks only sells the 24/96 version of a new transfer, no 16bit version to buy and he said he never tried to downsample it. So where´s the point? A spectrum plot leads to nothing. This diffmaker is nice if you could handle it. And if you could try to bitreduce the 24bit version with sox and compare again. But this discussion leads to nothing cause no one can prove anything here. I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit Beatles version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) Re: Coltrane. Yes, compared it to the 16 bit release, bit perfect ripped to same HD as the 24bit version. Again, record producer says they are from the same master, in interview I read with him. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
From my experience, with the Transporter at least, The DAC seems to like 24/96 files. I have experienced less noise, better staging, and more musicality to everything I have upsampled from 16/44.1. Even the 24 bit 48khz stuff sounds better upsampled to 96khz. A very welcome and exciting discovery to say the least. The Beatles new remasters sound great by the way. Even better upsampled. Listening to one now! - in general I find the new remasters to be more musical. Bigger sound for sure. More there, especially more details in the thought behind the mix. -- earwaxer9 System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter, HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to 500 watt sub slave amp, JPS labs power cords, Silver audio interconnect, Audioquest Granite speaker cable. earwaxer9's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=39527 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;512627 Wrote: Guys- As far as I understand from extensive reading I've done about how the Beatles remasters were made, all the existing tapes were transferred into 24/192 digital files. As noted previously, the preparation for CD and remastering was done on files downsampled to lower frequencies. EMI has already confirmed that there will be a new audiophile vinyl release of the Beatles catalogue - but they haven't said when or from what source they will make the masters (original master tapes, new master tapes, new mix of 24/192 tracks, etc). Sorry I don't have the link handy to reference this, but bit of work with your favorite SE will probably find the info in the same places I read it. My guess: they will milk the present CD's and 24 bit digital files release for a year or two, and then release audiophile LPs. Again, after a wait of a couple of years to milk the last dollar out of this market segment, they will see if the slowly developing market for hi-res music has gotten big enough for them to invest in a hi-res release. Then it will happen. The only question is what will be the source and will they do a remix for hi-res. Based on the approach so far (no remixing) it seems they won't, which is a shame in my opinion (anyone who doesn't think so, listen to the songs on the DVD of Yellow Submarine - the remix is way better sounding than the originals or the new remaster). So don't waste your money on these 24 bit files - wait for the LPs if you like vinyl, or the future hi-res release. And yes, it will happen, because it's another way to separate us baby boomers from a nice wad of cash. BTW, anyone of you who think hi-res recordings can't sound better than standard 16/44, just get a few good 24/96 recordings and compare them to their conventional counterparts: on a good playback system the difference is very noticeable and significant. I have not bitten on the 24bit stuff and probably will not until they up the sample rate. By then 192 will probably be the norm. -- earwaxer9 System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter, HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to 500 watt sub slave amp, JPS labs power cords, Silver audio interconnect, Audioquest Granite speaker cable. earwaxer9's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=39527 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
p-cubed;582945 Wrote: Any indication of when a 24-96 release of the Beatles catalog will happen? None. The next release is a vinyl box, mastered from the digital. And before you ask, they haven't released any details of exactly how they are making the master. Since no announcement has been made yet, you can bet the release won't be till next year, after the coming Christmas season. No word on hi-res (maybe even 24/192?)digital release, but since the vinyl is coming first, they will wait for that marketing gambit to maximize cash flow before they make another release. It may take quite a while, perhaps they want to see some more growth in the digital hi-res market before release. The market for hi-res files is still tiny (even smaller than the tiny vinyl market). Ironic, by the way, that the first release of a high-res based Beatles catalogue will be on vinyl. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
opaqueice;582922 Wrote: Apart from that, as I said I'm willing to bet that no one can tell them (i.e. the 24 bit version and its 16 bit dithered counterpart) apart blind. I've done it multiple times, even when sitting in an adjoining room. Instead of just being a knee-jerk skeptic, why don't you listen and then decide? -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
the USB release is high-rez IMO, I'm not convinced a 96 or 192 would have any real audible benefit over those. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
opaqueice;582922 Wrote: 1) Master the hi-res version to sound better 2) everyone will (incorrectly) assume it's the extra bits 3) profit. BS high-res is very close to master if not the master itself. 44.1/16 is downsampled, filtered and tortured version of it -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
I've just run the 24-bit USB version of Come Together vs the 16-bit remaster (ripped as 44.1/24 with DBP). The diff is -81dB (or about 13.5 bits) The difference file boosted by 50dB is full of random noise as you'd expect but the track is still there within the noise - words and music clearly discernible. I'd say that equates to a potentially audible difference for some people. The 24-bit version sure sounds better to me too and no it's not the 0.203dB of gain that makes me feel that :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 09:27, Phil Leigh wrote: I've just run the 24-bit USB version of Come Together vs the 16-bit remaster (ripped as 44.1/24 with DBP). The diff is -81dB (or about 13.5 bits) The difference file boosted by 50dB is full of random noise as you'd expect but the track is still there within the noise - words and music clearly discernible. I'd say that equates to a potentially audible difference for some people. The 24-bit version sure sounds better to me too and no it's not the 0.203dB of gain that makes me feel that :-) Phil, I think some folk are suggesting that the 16-bit version is not a simple down-sample of the 24-bit version. Can you try down-sampling the 24-bit to 16-bit and re-doing the test? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;582960 Wrote: I've done it multiple times, even when sitting in an adjoining room. Instead of just being a knee-jerk skeptic, why don't you listen and then decide? And i ask again: Did you try the 24bit version against the 16bit version done from the same files and how were the 16bit files created? It is NOT woth anything if you listened some fuzzy feeling 24bit version against some other version coming from a completely other source and you think hearing differences cause of the bits. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;583004 Wrote: And i ask again: Did you try the 24bit version against the 16bit version done from the same files and how were the 16bit files created? It is NOT woth anything if you listened some fuzzy feeling 24bit version against some other version coming from a completely other source and you think hearing differences cause of the bits. Take -Jasmine- by Keith Jarrett, they released it simultaneously in RB and in 24bit. I just listened today to both, 24bit version is more 'delicate' with more precise bass, and overall more enjoyable and relaxed. Do you want me to post the spectrum of the same song? -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
I quotet firedog cause he once mentioned hearing differences on a Coltrane fromn HDtracks. Hdtracks only sells the 24/96 version of a new transfer, no 16bit version to buy. A spectrum plot leads to nothing. This diffmaker is nice iy ou could handle it. And if you could try to bitreduse the 24bit version with sox and compare again. But this discussion leads to nothing cause no one can prove anything here. I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;583012 Wrote: I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit Beatles version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. There are million ways you can downsample 24bit album, I once downsampled few of my high-res albums with r8brain to bring with me to audition some speakers, but it turned to be that my host had CD version of the same album and it (CD) was better.. You can make 16bit version better (if you have the skills and equipment) than most commercial albums as these are not targeted for audiophiles.. But..I do not understand your point. There are less (destroying music) steps in 24bit mastering.. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 13:17, Wombat wrote: I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) No time just now - I have asked Phil to try with diffmaker. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 13:41, Robin Bowes wrote: On 15/10/10 13:17, Wombat wrote: I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) No time just now - I have asked Phil to try with diffmaker. The main issue is I'm not confident in my understanding of sox, ie. I'd want to read up on what it does to make sure I use the right dither process. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
http://src.infinitewave.ca/ -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Robin Bowes;583018 Wrote: On 15/10/10 13:41, Robin Bowes wrote: On 15/10/10 13:17, Wombat wrote: I just wonder why still no one has tried the 24bit version directly with a 16bit version from these files, not the cd release. I Hope Robin Bowes now does :) No time just now - I have asked Phil to try with diffmaker. The main issue is I'm not confident in my understanding of sox, ie. I'd want to read up on what it does to make sure I use the right dither process. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ You don´t have to wait for Phil. I already wrote: sox input24.wav --bits 16 output16.wav dither -a -f low-shibata works! noise shaped dither with a not to high amplitude. Diffmaker shows ~ -120dB at ear sensitive frequencies. And Michael. Sox with some 90% and allow alias should give you a similar or even better impulse as the Weiss. Weiss allows alias falling back in. Since that happens above 20kHz Weiss thinks it can´t be heard. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
michael123;583015 Wrote: But..I do not understand your point. There are less (destroying music) steps in 24bit mastering.. My point is that i am fed up with reading about how much superior 24bit material is. I listen gear since a while now. I listen some very expensive Avantgarde Trio systems for example. I hear different OP Amps and electrolyts. I hear different caps in my speakers pretty clearly and so on. But i really have problems hearing differences in a good downsampled version of a 24bit file. Most often people just use a 24bit recording they got hold of and listen it against some 16bit version they have without even thinking about it may be more due to the different mastering and not the bits. I myself think to hear some more relaxed playing on music with higher samplerate. Downsampling just adds that tiny bit of hardness but not like day and night. Dithering back 24bit to 16 without resampling, as with HDCD for example didn´t show me any disadvantage at all but i don´t listen at +120dB loudness at home :) -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;583025 Wrote: You don´t have to wait for Phil. I already wrote: sox input24.wav --bits 16 output16.wav dither -a -f low-shibata works! noise shaped dither with a not to high amplitude. Diffmaker shows ~ -120dB at ear sensitive frequencies. And Michael. Sox with some 90% and allow alias should give you a similar or even better impulse as the Weiss. Weiss allows alias falling back in. Since that happens above 20kHz Weiss thinks it can´t be heard. Do not know what you consider as 'works'. Resulted 16bit is essentially the same as Jarrett's version on CD, which I already listened today.. Ear Sensitive is below 15KHz? For which age? And there are clear differences in the low-freq area (which my ear distinguish as well) +---+ |Filename: 24bit.png| |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10759| +---+ -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;583030 Wrote: I myself think to hear some more relaxed playing on music with higher samplerate. Downsampling just adds that tiny bit of hardness but not like day and night. Dithering back 24bit to 16 without resampling, as with HDCD for example didn´t show me any disadvantage at all but i don´t listen at +120dB loudness at home :) Right! But HDCD still sounds to me a bit harsh.. comparing to *good* high-rez recordings.. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
michael123;583029 Wrote: Do not know what you consider as 'works'. Ear Sensitive is below 15KHz? For which age? This sox line works with the Beatles files Robin Bowes wants to try. Ear sensitive is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour In the ear sensitive mids this sox shaped dither is below -120dB -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 14:54, Wombat wrote: michael123;583029 Wrote: Do not know what you consider as 'works'. Ear Sensitive is below 15KHz? For which age? This sox line works with the Beatles files Robin Bowes wants to try. Correction: with the Beatles files *Wombat* wants Robin Bowes to try ;) R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/10/10 13:54, michael123 wrote: http://src.infinitewave.ca/ See, that's what I mean. I don't have the time at the moment to read through what that all means and how to interpret it. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Robin Bowes;583033 Wrote: On 15/10/10 14:54, Wombat wrote: michael123;583029 Wrote: Do not know what you consider as 'works'. Ear Sensitive is below 15KHz? For which age? This sox line works with the Beatles files Robin Bowes wants to try. Correction: with the Beatles files *Wombat* wants Robin Bowes to try ;) ;) The graphs at infinitewave are of no use for the Beatles material cause we don´t do any resampling. We only add dither. So no need to go much deeper atm. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;582960 Wrote: I've done it multiple times, even when sitting in an adjoining room. Instead of just being a knee-jerk skeptic, why don't you listen and then decide? You made a dithered 16 bit version from the 24 bit, and could tell them apart blind? Again, telling the CD version from the 24 bit version is potentially much easier, since they are probably mastered differently. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
michael123;582962 Wrote: BS high-res is very close to master if not the master itself. 44.1/16 is downsampled, filtered and tortured version of it Did you ever compare CD vs 24bit? Audacity, else? No. Again, CD versus 24 bit is not a meaningful test of whether 24 bit does any good, because there is no reason to think that the CD version is simply a lower res version of the 24 bit version. (In fact there are reasons to think the opposite.) The only way to test this is to do the truncation yourself, using e.g. sox. And yes, I have done this (once), and yes, I -could- hear the difference - but only in the noise floor on silent passages. michael123;583006 Wrote: Take -Jasmine- by Keith Jarrett, they released it simultaneously in RB and in 24bit. I just listened today to both, 24bit version is more 'delicate' with more precise bass, and overall more enjoyable and relaxed. See above. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Did anyone love these 40 or so years ago? How about 20 years ago. Really think that it's going to change? Man it's sad to think we are always going to think it's going to be better. There really is something to be said about the time period and the sound of that period. I really don't think perfection has anything to do with the Beatles. They put the sound out with what they had and what they knew they had. We get too caught up sometimes in the quest. -- Nonreality -IF THE RULE YOU FOLLOWED BROUGHT YOU TO THIS, OF WHAT USE IS THE RULE.- HTTP://www.last.fm/user/nonreality Nonreality's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15723 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;582643 Wrote: You may want to know that the 24bit version is 0.2dB louder. No one knows if both versions were treaten exactly the same but +0.2dB alone can make you prefer it. Again, a while back I did a web search and one of the engineers on the project described the process in detail. According to him, the 16bit version is simply the 24bit version downsampled. No other difference. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; KRK Ergo, MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Like mentioned, the +.0.2dB are a fact. Doesn´t matter what the engineer says. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 14/10/10 02:40, Wombat wrote: I sadly don´t have these files to compare. I read several people playing with these. It looks like EMI didn´t do the 24/192 to 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 with treating it as equal as possible. The dithernoise is some strongly noise shaped dither and the 24bit files are 0.2dB louder for whatever reason. Good dithering alone may excuse some 0.02db but not 0.2db. I just used sox to convert Here Comes The Sun from 24-bit to 16-bit and re-calculated replaygain (using metaflac). Convert command: sox 24-bit.flac --bits 16 16-bit.flac Results: Original 16-bit file (ripped from CD): comment[10]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-3.93 dB comment[11]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.95849609 24-bit file from USB stick: comment[13]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-4.14 dB comment[14]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.98062515 16-bit file converted from 24-bit file: comment[13]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-5.34 dB comment[14]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.98117065 So, either my convert command is wrong, or it's reasonable to expect a converted 16-bit file to have a different peak level than the 24-bit source. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Don´t know what sox does exactly there. Maybe force a special dither like dither -a -f shibata Someone who uses sox for that may it explain to you. But yes, if you add dither it may get louder for replaygain. Track peak makes sense and doesn´t change much. That makes the whole thing even more curious. Normaly the 16bit file of the releases should be louder as the 24bit file. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Nonreality;582707 Wrote: Did anyone love these 40 or so years ago? How about 20 years ago. Really think that it's going to change? Man it's sad to think we are always going to think it's going to be better. There really is something to be said about the time period and the sound of that period. I really don't think perfection has anything to do with the Beatles. They put the sound out with what they had and what they knew they had. We get too caught up sometimes in the quest. I never enjoyed the white album as much as when I bought it at the local record store the first day it was available, and played it over and over and over on my cheap record player or my buddy's cheap record player. Context is indeed important and one of the things I enjoy about music is its ability to instantly transport me to a different time and place. -- garym garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Robin Bowes;582718 Wrote: On 14/10/10 02:40, Wombat wrote: I sadly don´t have these files to compare. I read several people playing with these. It looks like EMI didn´t do the 24/192 to 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 with treating it as equal as possible. The dithernoise is some strongly noise shaped dither and the 24bit files are 0.2dB louder for whatever reason. Good dithering alone may excuse some 0.02db but not 0.2db. I just used sox to convert Here Comes The Sun from 24-bit to 16-bit and re-calculated replaygain (using metaflac). Convert command: sox 24-bit.flac --bits 16 16-bit.flac Results: Original 16-bit file (ripped from CD): comment[10]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-3.93 dB comment[11]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.95849609 24-bit file from USB stick: comment[13]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-4.14 dB comment[14]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.98062515 16-bit file converted from 24-bit file: comment[13]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-5.34 dB comment[14]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.98117065 So, either my convert command is wrong, or it's reasonable to expect a converted 16-bit file to have a different peak level than the 24-bit source. R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ According to the man page you can see what options sox is using with -V, turn off dithering entirely with -D, as well as manually choose various dithering options (e.g. dither -s). You can also adjust the gain manually, so you could force the two files to have the same peak level. http://sox.sourceforge.net/sox.html -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
garym;582733 Wrote: I never enjoyed the white album as much as when I bought it at the local record store the first day it was available, and played it over and over and over on my cheap record player or my buddy's cheap record player. Context is indeed important and one of the things I enjoy about music is its ability to instantly transport me to a different time and place. I prefer to live in the hear and now. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Robin Bowes;582718 Wrote: Convert command: sox 24-bit.flac --bits 16 16-bit.flac Results: Original 16-bit file (ripped from CD): comment[10]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-3.93 dB comment[11]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.95849609 24-bit file from USB stick: comment[13]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-4.14 dB comment[14]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.98062515 16-bit file converted from 24-bit file: comment[13]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-5.34 dB comment[14]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=0.98117065 So, either my convert command is wrong, or it's reasonable to expect a converted 16-bit file to have a different peak level than the 24-bit source. I tried to replicate your findings and can´t. I use sox 14.3.1 and: sox input24.wav --bits 16 output16.wav dither -a -f shibata The resulting file has exactly the Replagain value as the 24bit file. How do you use Replaygain? I scanned for Replaygain with foobar 1.1 Throwing it into diffmaker gives really only pure dithernoise at over -100dB in the critical audioband as it should be. Good luck on abxing! -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
TiredLegs;582627 Wrote: Two questions for you magiccarpetride: 1. At what HMV store did you buy The Beatles USB? http://www.hmv.ca/Search.aspx?keyword=beatles+usbfilter=music TiredLegs;582627 Wrote: 2. What DAC and other system components are you using for the 24-bit vs. 16-bit comparison? Logitech Squeezebox Duet (also, Squeezebox Touch borrowed from a friend) = Beresford Caiman DAC = DSP 200 pre-amp = DPA 200S amp = pair of Magneplanar MG1 IMP speakers. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;582842 Wrote: Throwing it into diffmaker gives really only pure dithernoise at way over -100dB in the critical audioband as it should be. Good luck on abxing! There's one way - listen to that dither noise! Just pick a completely silent section and press your ear to the tweeter with the system set at high volume. Be careful :). Apart from that, as I said I'm willing to bet that no one can tell them (i.e. the 24 bit version and its 16 bit dithered counterpart) apart blind. Edit: If EMI had really tried to make them equal down to the dithernoise they could have done if even we wackos can with freeware. I imagine the music industry is planning their next step in selling us the old music in higher bitrate very clever. They prepare that with fine tactical steps. If everyone knows even The Beatles sound better in 24bit and more audiophiles can hear it, selling the other stuff gets more easy. Yep. 1) Master the hi-res version to sound better 2) everyone will (incorrectly) assume it's the extra bits 3) profit. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
opaqueice;582922 Wrote: There's one way - listen to that dither noise! Just pick a completely silent section and press your ear to the tweeter with the system set at high volume. Be careful :). I know how dither sounds. On Hydrogen once someone showed how to form a dithercurve for everyones own hearing :) I think the Geseman dither in sox was named after him. I settled with using the Shibata curves when possible. I heard that noise often enough while playing with this! And yes, sox does a nice job with dither. Should be strange if someone can hear that on the Beatles songs. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Any indication of when a 24-96 release of the Beatles catalog will happen? -- p-cubed p-cubed's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15028 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Archimago;497345 Wrote: Just got my Beatles USB stick. Anyone done ABX testing of 24 bit FLAC vs CD? I'm thinking of upsampling a track from remastered 16-bit CD to 24-bits and doing some ABXing myself, any Beatle audiophile can recommend which track is considered of high enough quality that 24 bits can make a difference??? OK, I got intrigued by this thread and went out last night and bought me the USB (I got a really good price at my local HMV -- $149.00). My god, quel difference! I don't believe this. Is it really possible that a 8 bit longer word can make such an audible difference? My first shock -- Here Comes The Sun. The opening guitar arpeggios are leaping out of the left speaker, followed by the light tapping on the guitar. When doing the A/B comparison with the 2009 stereo 16-bit remaster, I hear that the same guitar intro is somehow a bit muddled, the strings are not resonating as brightly as on the 24-bit remaster. And the light tapping on the guitar is audible on the 16-bit remaster, but not nearly as clear and prominent as on the 24-bit remaster. The bass -- much firmer on the 24-bit. It seems to resound deeper, and sounds less colored. It really offers a true foundation for the song. Also, Paul's pick is more clearly audible on certain passages, as he plucks the bass strings. Quick A/B comparison with the 16-bit reveals that the bass is muddier, and sounds somehow wobbly next to the firmer 24-bit rendition. Also, the pick-on-the-strings is much less audible. The vocals -- more present. I can plainly see George standing in front of the right speaker. and the angelic vocals behind him (John and Paul) are sweet as honey. Switching back to the 16-bit, the voices are more pushed to the back of the sound stage. The strings -- more present in the right speaker on the 24-bit. Firmer, with longer decay, not to mention more naturally sounding. The Moog synth in the left speaker -- sweeter than ever. Finally, the crowning achievement -- Ringo's cymbals. Good god, they sound awesome! Much, much better than on the 16-bit. Especially his quieter hits on the splash cymbal; while still discernible on the 16-bit, on the 24-bit they truly blossom to full life. Pay attention to his cymbal work during the transition from verse to the bridge (right before the first Sun, sun, sun, here it comes!) -- the cymbals, even though they're very quiet and buried in the mix, shimmer with such beauty. They carve their own prominent niche in the sound stage, a niche that is pleasantly pushed slightly to the back. The heart aching decay of the quiet splash cymbal is super long and sweet. That part of magic is all but lost on the 16-bit. Also, Ringo's drums have more real body on the 24-bit, especially his toms. Next thing that blew me away is Words Of Love. The jangling guitars that open the song are so much janglier than on the 16-bit. They leap out of the mix and hit you straight in the heart. Then, on the fourth repeat of the opening lick, when the band behind the guitars stops, you can hear Ringo quietly counting off on his high-hat cymbal. It's uncanny. Yes, you can hear this quiet counting off on the 16-bit too, but it's way muddier, inarticulate, and messy. On the 24-bit, this count off is crystal clear, very sharply imaged in the sound stage. The final proof for anyone who is skeptical about the audible differences between the two remasters -- during the guitar solo in the middle, we hear very subdued hands clapping in the background. On the 24-bit, these are clearly and obviously hands clapping, each clearly separated form the next one. On the 16-bit, we hear SOMETHING, but it is not at all clear that these are hands clapping. It could very well be wood black clapping, or some such percussive, dull sound. The percussive sounds are not clearly delineated, as they seem to overlap and step on each others' toes. The differences are very easily perceptible, it's almost like a completely different mix. And yet, both masters come from the same mix. Interestingly, on my vinyl Beatles For Sale, I hear hands clapping the same way they sound on the 24-bit. It would appear that the 16-bit, even when remastered very carefully, still is inferior to the good vinyl. H... I have many more observations that I was able to cull from my comparative listening, but I won't bore you with those here... -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
magiccarpetride;582557 Wrote: OK, I got intrigued by this thread and went out last night and bought me the USB (I got a really good price at my local HMV -- $149.00). My god, quel difference! I don't believe this. Is it really possible that a 8 bit longer word can make such an audible difference?... Two questions for you magiccarpetride: 1. At what HMV store did you buy The Beatles USB? 2. What DAC and other system components are you using for the 24-bit vs. 16-bit comparison? -- TiredLegs TiredLegs's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6201 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 13/10/10 18:22, magiccarpetride wrote: Archimago;497345 Wrote: Just got my Beatles USB stick. Anyone done ABX testing of 24 bit FLAC vs CD? I'm thinking of upsampling a track from remastered 16-bit CD to 24-bits and doing some ABXing myself, any Beatle audiophile can recommend which track is considered of high enough quality that 24 bits can make a difference??? OK, I got intrigued by this thread and went out last night and bought me the USB (I got a really good price at my local HMV -- $149.00). My god, quel difference! I don't believe this. Is it really possible that a 8 bit longer word can make such an audible difference? I'm listening on a Transporter, and I just did a small experiment. I put both the 16- and 24-bit versions of Here Comes The Sun into the Transporter playlist and shuffled them so I didn't know which one was playing. I then listened to them both, mainly the intro, several times. I chose the one I preferred - it was the 24-bit. So, non-blind, sample size of one, 50% chance of being right anyway - doesn't prove anything. But I think you're right - 24-bit makes quite a lot of difference. Good, isn't it? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Robin Bowes;582638 Wrote: On 13/10/10 18:22, magiccarpetride wrote: Archimago;497345 Wrote: Just got my Beatles USB stick. Anyone done ABX testing of 24 bit FLAC vs CD? I'm thinking of upsampling a track from remastered 16-bit CD to 24-bits and doing some ABXing myself, any Beatle audiophile can recommend which track is considered of high enough quality that 24 bits can make a difference??? OK, I got intrigued by this thread and went out last night and bought me the USB (I got a really good price at my local HMV -- $149.00). My god, quel difference! I don't believe this. Is it really possible that a 8 bit longer word can make such an audible difference? I'm listening on a Transporter, and I just did a small experiment. I put both the 16- and 24-bit versions of Here Comes The Sun into the Transporter playlist and shuffled them so I didn't know which one was playing. I then listened to them both, mainly the intro, several times. I chose the one I preferred - it was the 24-bit. So, non-blind, sample size of one, 50% chance of being right anyway - doesn't prove anything. But I think you're right - 24-bit makes quite a lot of difference. Good, isn't it? R. -- Feed that ego and you starve the soul - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ Tell me about it! I can furthermore tell you one other thing. My wife was out last night when I first started auditioning the 24-bit Beatles. As I was going through the Words Of Love track, she entered the house, and then came into the room. She immediately asked: What are these new percussive sounds I'm hearing in there? She was referring to the crystal clear hands clapping (she knows the Beatles catalog inside out and backwards too). She had no idea that I was listening to the new remaster, but she spotted the change right on. Goes to show that the difference is quite monumental. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
You may want to know that the 24bit version is 0.2dB louder. No one knows if both versions were treaten exactly the same but +0.2dB alone can make you prefer it. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Wombat;582643 Wrote: You may want to know that the 24bit version is 0.2dB louder. No one knows if both versions were treaten exactly the same but +0.2dB alone can make you prefer it. After doing quite an extensive A/B listening, both versions sound at exact same loudness level to me. But hey, this wouldn't be the first time that subtlety is lost on me. Whichever the case, loudness does not explain it away. We've (my wife and I) been listening to these 16-bit tracks for a long time now, at various volumes, but have never before noticed this improvement in the sound quality. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
It may well be that the 24bit version was mastered differently than the 16bit version. The true test would be to take the 24 bit version, cut it down to 16 bit (with proper dithering etc.), and then run a blind comparison between that and the unmodified 24 bit version. I'm willing to bet money that no one will be able to tell the difference (except possibly by cranking the volume on a silent part and listening to the noise). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
I sadly don´t have these files to compare. I read several people playing with these. It looks like EMI didn´t do the 24/192 to 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 with treating it as equal as possible. The dithernoise is some strongly noise shaped dither and the 24bit files are 0.2dB louder for whatever reason. Good dithering alone may excuse some 0.02db but not 0.2db. I think that was done by purpose. Abxing these easily only being different due to dithernoise would be highly curious cause the music material itself has a to high noisefloor. Here Level Matched playes a big role maybe. -- Wombat Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
firedog;512805 Wrote: I just did some web searches, and the process described above was exactly what the engineers who worked on the remasters described: transfer of original analogue tapes to 24/192; then a downsample to 24/44.1. The 24/44.1 was edited, EQ'd etc for the final CD masters, and then a 16/44.1 master for the CD's was produced. Engineers chose this method as it involved the least amount of times re-sampling the files, yet enabling them to work in 24 bit. So the USB stick files are the same master source as the CD's, just produced from the same master files before the final down sample to 16 bit. They should sound somewhat better than the standard CD's. My personal experience is that 24 bit files do have some advantage over 16 bit files, even at 44.1. In other words, poster ralphpnj above had it right: the unadulterated 24/192 files are still available for making another remaster. I also agree with him about the marketing. I'm not buying the 24/44.1 version, I'll wait till the inevitable hi-res version is released. I think that will happen as soon as the sales of the lower res version fall off and EMI feels there's enough of a market for hi-res to make an investment in making new hi-res remasters. The hi-res market is growing, so I'm sure it will happen in a year or two...or threeor as soon as EMI thinks they can separate us boomers from another $250 for the hi-res set. I am enjoying 24bit version, it is so great! Very silent, detailed and dynamic. As 24-bit recording should be. I listened for few hours yesterday night, could not stop. -- michael123 michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
ralphpnj;502594 Wrote: Throwing my 2¢ in I can tell you that I spoke with my daughter's boyfriend, who happens to be a digital mastering engineer, and he told me the following: When music is prepared for issuing on a CD all the mixing and editing is done at 24 bit and whatever sampling rate the engineer is comfortable with, be it 44.1, 88.2, 48, 96, etc., Then a 24 bit / 44.1 kHz digital master is produced, in other words, whatever the working sampling rate may have been, it is down sampled to 44.1 kHz. And finally this 24 bit / 44.1 kHz digital master is dithered down to the 16 bit /44.1 kHz digital master used to actually make the CD. This goes a long way in explaining why they chose to release 24 bit / 44.1 kHz versions - while it's still a higher resolution than the 16 bit /44.1 kHz CD version, it is still not a true high resolution version. Therefore the potential cash cow of a true high resolution digital, i.e. 24 bit with a 88.1 or 96 kHz sampling rate, release still remains for yet another round of Beatles re-re-re-re-re-re-issues. So my advice is keep your wallets ready. I just did some web searches, and the process described above was exactly what the engineers who worked on the remasters described: transfer of original analogue tapes to 24/192; then a downsample to 24/44.1. The 24/44.1 was edited, EQ'd etc for the final CD masters, and then a 16/44.1 master for the CD's was produced. Engineers chose this method as it involved the least amount of times re-sampling the files, yet enabling them to work in 24 bit. So the USB stick files are the same master source as the CD's, just produced from the same master files before the final down sample to 16 bit. They should sound somewhat better than the standard CD's. My personal experience is that 24 bit files do have some advantage over 16 bit files, even at 44.1. In other words, poster ralphpnj above had it right: the unadulterated 24/192 files are still available for making another remaster. I also agree with him about the marketing. I'm not buying the 24/44.1 version, I'll wait till the inevitable hi-res version is released. I think that will happen as soon as the sales of the lower res version fall off and EMI feels there's enough of a market for hi-res to make an investment in making new hi-res remasters. The hi-res market is growing, so I'm sure it will happen in a year or two...or threeor as soon as EMI thinks they can separate us boomers from another $250 for the hi-res set. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeCenter; SB Duet through Empirical Audio Pace Car; TACT 2.2XP; MF X-150 amp, Sonus Faber Concerto; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Guys- As far as I understand from extensive reading I've done about how the Beatles remasters were made, all the existing tapes were transferred into 24/192 digital files. As noted previously, the mixing etc was done at lower frequencies. EMI has already confirmed that there will be a new audiophile vinyl release of the Beatles catalogue - but they haven't said when or from what source they will make the masters (original master tapes, new mix of 24/192 tracks, etc). Sorry I don't have the link handy, but bit of work with your favorite SE will probably find the info. My guess: they will milk the present CD's and 24 bit digital files release for a year or two, and then release audiophile LPs. Again, after a wait of a couple of years to milk the last dollar out of this market segment, they will see if the slowly developing market for hi-res music has gotten big enough for them to invest in a hi-res release. Then it will happen. The only question is what will be the source and will they do a remix for hi-res. Based on the approach so far (no remixing) it seems they won't, which is a shame in my opinion (anyone who doesn't think so, listen to the songs on the DVD of Yellow Submarine - the remix is way better sounding than the originals or the new remaster). So don't waste your money on these 24 bit files - wait for the LPs if you like vinyl, or the future hi-res release. And yes, it will happen, because it's another way to separate us baby boomers from a nice wad of cash. BTW, anyone of you who think hi-res recordings can't sound better than standard 16/44, just get a few good 24/96 recordings and compare them to their conventional counterparts: on a good playback system the difference is very noticeable and significant. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeCenter; SB Duet through Empirical Audio Pace Car; TACT 2.2XP; MF X-150 amp, Sonus Faber Concerto; Mirage MS-12 sub; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Stratmangler;499634 Wrote: EMI did future proof the Beatles remastering project as far as was possible - see this article http://www.theinsider.com/news/2102658_Re_Mastering_the_BEATLES_Catalog_The_Process I agree that the sample rate seems to be the key to improved audio - most of the music DVD's that I have are AC3 on the stereo tracks, which transcodes to 16/48 files. The audio on these discs is better than CD with no exceptions - perhaps I've been lucky in this respect. That said, I've also noted the improvements brought by HDCD when the files have been ripped using dBPoweramp with the DSP plugins installed. The resultant files are 24/44.1 . The audio improvements are worth pursuing. Chris:) It's really not necessary to have anything above 44.1Khz (resolution) and 24bit (dynamic range), unless you can hear sounds over 22Khz. Check the Nyquist theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem -- dcolak dcolak's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5864 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
On 15/01/10 12:23, dcolak wrote: It's really not necessary to have anything above 44.1Khz (resolution) and 24bit (dynamic range), unless you can hear sounds over 22Khz. This is true *only* in theory and when specific assumptions are made. Check the Nyquist theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem If you read that article, it states that: The theorem assumes an idealization of any real-world situation, as it only applies to signals that are sampled for infinite time; any time-limited x(t) cannot be perfectly bandlimited. Perfect reconstruction is mathematically possible for the idealized model but only an approximation for real-world signals and sampling techniques, albeit in practice often a very good one. One of the problems caused by real-world conditions is aliasing [1], and one way to reduce the effects of aliasing is to increase the sample rate. Bottom line: you may get better quality with an increased sample rate. R. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
dcolak;506624 Wrote: It's really not necessary to have anything above 44.1Khz (resolution) and 24bit (dynamic range), unless you can hear sounds over 22Khz. Check the Nyquist theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem The 24 bit issue is still over the top, nothing actually achieves that degree of dynamic range. But in the real world significantly more bits are required to allow digital filtering, volume adjustments etc, in order not to compromise a final 24 bit value for distribution. Typically 32 or more bits is used. The sampling rate, is marginal for easy anti-aliasing filters. To achieve up to 20khz signal and not get sampling aliasing requires phenomenally steep cut-off filters. These themselves will create in-band audio artifacts, particularly around transients. So again higher sampling rates, even if down converted later, actually produce a better signal. Actually I think virtually all 24bit DACs will upsample to 192 or 384 khz anyway, to utilise a low bit final DAC (easy to achieve linearity with 4 bits, virtually impossible with 24bits). So the end customer might get the lower values, but the processing chain is eased with significantly higher numbers. Dave -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
I was digging around on the BW Society of Sound website and found this http://blog.bowers-wilkins.com/lab/?p=561 , should anyone be interested. Chris :) -- Stratmangler There is no element of personal attack in my response. Stratmangler's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20387 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
DCtoDaylight;504429 Wrote: Of course anybody who has used a lot of cassette tapes knows how fragile and easily ruined those can be, I still have cassettes 30 years old. The still play the same. I wouldn't describe them as fragile. ;) -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Cyrus 8xp - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
ralphpnj;502594 Wrote: Since once the true high resolution digital versions are released the cash cow will be dead No, wait, there still may be some life left in that beast since they can still release the individual tracks of the multi-track masters so that people can make their own remasters, first at CD resolution and then re-release them in a high resolution version. Sure the cow may end up on life support but it still won't be quite dead, at least not until the last baby-boomer dies. There is a good story on the BBC News site in the Business section about this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8411741.stm In particular a quote from Guy Hands (the boss of EMI): New music had not been profitable ever since the digital age arrived. means that you're exactly right. EMI need to keep milking their back catalogue to make any money. Given the above statement it seems likely they'll need keep coming up with more ways to raid your wallet until it stops paying anymore. -- Browny http://www.last.fm/user/BrownySV/ Browny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2295 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Browny;504208 Wrote: There is a good story on the BBC News site in the Business section about this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8411741.stm In particular a quote from Guy Hands (the boss of EMI): means that you're exactly right. EMI need to keep milking their back catalogue to make any money. Given the above statement it seems likely they'll need keep coming up with more ways to raid your wallet until it stops paying anymore. I think that the major difference between new music and 40 year old music or baby boomer music, as I like to call it, is not the music but the listeners. The people who are listening to the new music are mostly younger and have grown up with computers and digital music, including things like ripping a CD, buy a download and acquiring the music they want in many different ways, most of which do not put their money into the record companies hands (think file sharing and other forms of downloading). On the other hand, the listeners of the baby boomer music tend to be, surprise, baby boomers, most of whom did not grow up with computers and still think of their music as albums and need physical media, whether CDs or LPs, to be able to play these recordings. So it's really no surprise that recordings by The Beatles, reissued onto physical media yet again, should sell like hotcakes when compared to most new music. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter - Transporter 2 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
ralphpnj;504228 Wrote: (think file sharing and other forms of downloading). snip still think of their music as albums and need physical media, whether CDs or LPs, to be able to play these recordings. I dunno about that... Back in the day, ripping would have been the technological equivalent of recording your friends album onto cassette. We did this all the time. And in those day's the RIAA used to moan and bitch about that as well. Of course anybody who has used a lot of cassette tapes knows how fragile and easily ruined those can be, and of course there was some loss in fidelity as well, so the record companies didn't push as hard against these things as they might have. It wasn't until it became cheaper to rip and burn a full resolution CD in your basement, that was just as good as their product, but at a tenth the price that they became really upset! Somewhere however, things have since gone wrong, with people intentionally downgrading to Cassette Tape/MP3 sound quality for convenience -- DCtoDaylight Audiophile wish list: Zero Distortion, Infinite Signal to Noise Ratio, and a Bandwidth from DC to Daylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Stratmangler;499634 Wrote: I agree that the sample rate seems to be the key to improved audio - most of the music DVD's that I have are AC3 on the stereo tracks, which transcodes to 16/48 files. The audio on these discs is better than CD with no exceptions - perhaps I've been lucky in this respect. Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, it appears you're saying you believe that 16/48 AC3 sounds better than 16/44.1 CD because of the higher sampling rate. That's an interesting statement, given that AC3 is a lossy codec with a significantly lower bitrate than redbook CD. Do you think perhaps the audible differences might have something to do with the different mastering practices? The audio tracks on Video DVDs often have less dynamic range compression than you find on audio CDs. I respectfully suggest that this is a more plausible reason for your preferences than the slightly higher sampling rate. -- cliveb Transporter - ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Beatles 24 vs 16 bits...
Throwing my 2¢ in I can tell you that I spoke with my daughter's boyfriend, who happens to be a digital mastering engineer, and he told me the following: When music is prepared for issuing on a CD all the mixing and editing is done at 24 bit and whatever sampling rate the engineer is comfortable with, be it 44.1, 88.2, 48, 96, etc., Then a 24 bit / 44.1 kHz digital master is produced, in other words, whatever the working sampling rate may have been, it is down sampled to 44.1 kHz. And finally this 24 bit / 44.1 kHz digital master is dithered down to the 16 bit /44.1 kHz digital master used to actually make the CD. This goes a long way in explaining why they chose to release 24 bit / 44.1 kHz versions - while it's still a higher resolution than the 16 bit /44.1 kHz CD version, it is still not a true high resolution version. Therefore the potential cash cow of a true high resolution digital, i.e. 24 bit with a 88.1 or 96 kHz sampling rate, release still remains for yet another round of Beatles re-re-re-re-re-re-issues. So my advice is keep your wallets ready. I completely agree with what Chris stated: Back to The Beatles - it is perfectly feasible for EMI to release the albums at 24/192, all that is required is the will (on EMI's part) to do it. I can't imagine that this will happen anytime soon, for reasons of copyright security if nothing else. The potential of hi-res release does still remain. Since once the true high resolution digital versions are released the cash cow will be dead No, wait, there still may be some life left in that beast since they can still release the individual tracks of the multi-track masters so that people can make their own remasters, first at CD resolution and then re-release them in a high resolution version. Sure the cow may end up on life support but it still won't be quite dead, at least not until the last baby-boomer dies. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter - Transporter 2 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
