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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ;)
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/
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
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
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,
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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]:
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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;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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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:
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
