Pink Floyd - The Early Years 1965-1972 Box Set - Realiz/ation (Content, tracks, etc. ONLY!)

The silence and repeated audio is gone, but so is some concert audio (tuning, audience IIRC). It's far from significant audio that is missing. More significant audio, song announcement, is missing completely from this version of the show (and is heard on the bootleg). They simply hacked off the beginning seconds of the track so that it starts after the error rather than cutting out the bad section. I'm personally glad I have the error version as I'd prefer to do a better fix.

 

I only have the 69 and 70 sets, but I don't feel let down at all. I already have a better copy of the BBC set used in the 1971 box so I opted not to buy it again. I did buy the RSD IO record. It was 15 bucks and is fun enough. A cuirio, I guess. I'm fairly easy to please though.

 

I'm still really confused by the Hdtracks releases. They're not only 44/24, but they are fake 24-bit. At least the tracks I checked are. They null out with the CD and only dither is left behind. Really odd since Creation has a 96/24 release and it is true hi-res (aside from a track or two).

 

Brilliant. So they bothered to fix it, except rather than fixing it properly, they took fifteen seconds to fudge it? The approach to detail, precision and audio quality for this set is remarkably different from previous approaches with Floyd material.

 

Wondering if the Meddle surround mixes get an official release sometime soon.

Well, at least there's a companion book for the museum project Their Mortal Remains around now.^^

 

If they are, that's probably how they were recorded. It's not a board mix, but a stereo direct feed from two microphones on the edge of the stage (probably not in a phase-coherent pattern). Any attempt to 'fix' this would have meant narrowing the stereo field substantially.

 

Alas, so far it is only a dream. :-(

 

Who knows. There was even talk about remixing the Animals album after the V&A exhibition (Nick Mason often mentioned that in interviews). So, basically everything is possible.

 

I watched La Vallée off the Continu/ation box a while ago and didn't notice any Obscured By Clouds songs except the title track, an alternate version of 'Burning Bridges' and 'Absolutely Curtains'.
The More film had more (no pun intended) tracks than its related soundtrack album... Kind of a mess here.^^

Just found your post here. Didn't know the book is available since a while. I bought it few weeks ago (german translated). Very recommendable book, a must-have!

The girl on the left reminds me on the one that is present in the Beatles' 'A Day In The Life' promo film somewhere. She probably IS the one in the promo film.

 

Yeah, I was pretty surprised to hear how they fixed it. The error is because the audio restarted and repeats a section. So the obvious way to fix it would've been to cutout the bad section and join it back together at the right moment so that nothing goes missing. They took the easy way and just cut everything up to the point where the error was over with. I shouldn't even call it the easy way. It would've been just as easy to do it right and not miss any audio.

 

No it was actually an error, the short clip of a direct tape transfer that circulated didn't have the phase issue. I'll double check it tomorrow.

 

Yep that's about it great Cinematography lousy story and with minimal floyd

 

I can't see how they shouldn't. Same sample rate, same sound. Not a bit of extra information.
Different bit depth determines different noise floor, that's why a null test gives noise.

I think that tells us they are real 24 bit. If they were fake ones, adding 8 extra bits of nothing, a null test would give silence.

 

I don't know what you mean. 24 bits is 8 bits more of extra information over 16 bit. Yes, it's lower noise floor, but it is also capturing more information.

Take a CD track from the set, expand to 32-bits and then dither to 24-bits. You won't have any empty bits (the dither filled them) and when you null it with the original CD track (expanded to 24-bit using empty bits), the only thing left over is going to be dither. Just like when nulling the Hdtracks with the CD.

 

As far as I know, that's not correct.
You have more information stored (numbers) but the captured useful information (frequency content) is the same. Still 44 kHz, same dynamic range but more numbers to encode it. If you take low level noise out of the picture, it's the same sound.
Bit depth alone, over 16 bit, is not influencing playback sound. 32 or 24 bits are useful when mixing and mastering but useless when listening. 44/24 is just a marketing trick. It's just that if you're producing a digital file from an original 24 bit and you don't need t put it on a CD, there's little point in reducing bit depth apart saving some little disk space.

You just have the overall dynamic range of the original track sampled using a "vertical" scale of 24 instead of 16 (more numerical information, because more "reference points" are taken). But 16 bits are more than enough to capture all you need.
Only extra sample rate will give extra perceivable sonic information. And we don't have it here.

So downsampling from 96/24 to 44/24 or 44/16 will give the same audible result, just with different noisefloor. If a 24 sounds different from a CD, something else happened during the mastering or conversion process in one of the two. but that's another story.

As for fake 24 bits: I referred to the ones I've seen where 16 bits were expanded via software with an added headroom of empty 8 bits. That can be revealed with simple software analysis and one can tell for sure they are a commercial trick.
But "up-sampled" (used improperly here since samplerate is the same - but I wouldn't know how to say it) files from 16 to 24 are virtually indistinguishable from downsampled files from the original 96/24, unless you can spot more dither (if used) in the upsampled 24 that is not in the original 96/24. And still, it will be something you won't hear in normal listening.

Second thing: if you add dither to the process and compare to an undithered source (same sample rate), it's obvious that dither will be the main/only difference in an null test because one has it and the other doesn't. So I would't see the point of the entire test.

 

You're right. I just tested it out on a Bowie 96/24 download. I down sampled to 44/32. Then truncated to 24-bit to give me a 24-bit test file. Then made truncated 16-bit and dithered 16-bit test files. Both nulled out with the 24-bit with just dither leftover. I knew the leftover would always be way down low in the signal, but I thought there should be some more original low level audio captured in higher bi-depths. Even if junk. But the leftover just looks like digital dither. I haven't messed around much with 44/24 files as I never found the value in them, but I didn't realize they were absolutely pointless. The only difference between the 44/24 and 44/16 in my test was dither below -115db.

I had read other reports that the Floyd HDtracks weren't true 24-bit because they nulled out with the CD tracks and only had dither left. I did the test myself and got the same result, so I thought that confirmed it. I understand the value in processing audio in higher bit-depths, but I also thought it would capture more of the original audio. Surely that's true of 8 vs 16. But that's not the case in 16 vs 24? So there is really no value in capturing to 24-bit instead of 16-bit?

The point in the other test I mentioned was just to show that I could take the CD track and create my own 44/24 which would look just like a "real" 44/24 download. My thinking was that if I can do that, what's the point in "real" 44/24. Which now I'm really wondering that after doing the Bowie test. I'm going to do this test on the Beatles USB 44/24 files to see if it comes out the same, because I recall reading about how some people claimed they could hear the advantage over the CDs. I never believed it, but I at least thought there would be more literal difference than very low level dither. If that's all there is, no one is hearing any difference.

I still wonder why they didn't release 96/24 for the Floyd set. Seems they must've mastered much of it in 96k to be able to put out the Creation in true hi-res.

 

Short answer: it's like using YouTube but with songs instead of videos.

 

And in the case of certain bands, like The Beatles or Pink Floyd, it's pretty much the only option.

 

And annoying ads that an adblocker can't stop (unless one subscribes to Premium)

 

Last quick answer because I don't want to derail the thread

16 is enough. Below, not so much.

There IS value, but just in recording and mixing. More headroom, more precision in software's calculations, etc. 32 bit floating point is even more awesome: it prevents accidental distortion in recording occasional higher volume peaks. But once mixed down to the final mix, 16 or 24 is irrelevant for the guy who listens, even though 16 is necessary only if you're mastering for CD: it's an extra passage not required if you sell digital files.

That's true, and that's why talking about real of fake 24 bits when all the bits are actually used is misleading. You just can't tell.

If it's not placebo and there's difference, it's certainly a mastering one or relates to the processing chain. They might sound better but not because of the bit-depth.

That's the question. An HD shop is supposed to be selling higher value and its customers (even if a small number compared to the mass market) are willing to pay for it. So deliberately NOT providing HD files is absurd.

 

That's interesting, something that I hadn't considered or figured out. If I understand correctly, you are claiming this is true for all files processed from 44.1/24 to 44.1/16 (for CD content) not just the Floyd files in this particular instance? I was thinking about this too when considering the Kraftwerk 3D Catalog set which is also available in 44.1/24 as an audio-only download.

 

Yes, the principle is the same.
Bit depth doesn't matter.
Sample rate or different masterings do (HD shops could sell unique masterings, done better - or less compressed - than the CD counterpart, even at 44 kHz).

Theoretically speaking, the 24 bits are better because of lower noisefloor. Practically, the difference is irrelevant.

 

I've read many posts from folks on this forum claiming that bit depth matters more than any extra resolution above, say, 48KHz. Supposedly this comes from their listening experience.

 

Or from placebo effect. Or maybe the HD file had a better mastering than the CD.

Personally, I don't trust the "listen to your ears" extremists. Eearing is one of the most deceptive senses we have. Aural illusions are always around the corner.
Sometimes, the "numbers are numbers" folks are excessive too (for example excluding the effect the system's analogue chain can have in reproducing a digital file).

BUT in this case, it's a no brainer. Everybody with a DAW or a software for conversion can do experiments (as @rnranimal did) and - if the software doesn't screw up - come to the same results. Every software downsamples differently but using the same software all 44khz files would be the same as far as frequency content is concerned. That's enough to convince me.

I've heard that some DACs work better at some sample rates in playback (for example, some do better conversions with 96 kHz files than with 192hz one, etc.) but never heard that abut bit depth. Maybe there is some combination between 24 bits and specific DAC that I don't know about and that makes a little difference (but how???). But saying that bit depth is more relevant than sample rate, above 44/16, is absurd.

(I was among those believing that higher bit depth is giving back more precise dynamics, but that was wrong too).

Anyway, back to Pink Floyd now!

 

She (Marijke Koger) is also present at the Our world TV broadcast dd 25-06-1967 of 'All you need is love'.
From left to right : John Lennon, Pattie Boyd's blond hairs, Marijke Koger, Simon Posthuma, Barry Finch (?), George Harrison
.
lost


-