Hi-Res Download News (HDTracks, ProStudioMasters, Pono, etc.) & Software/Mastering Part 12**

yes

 

The difference is likely that the 2002 (SACD) remastering was of plays live (highlights). So this is the first time we have hi-res of the whole thing. And no it wasn't part of the reissue campaign. Like Ovo, and Secret World Live...

 

83 FWIW - although none of us here are particularly hung up with accuracy, hey..? ;-)

 

The whole accuracy thing is kind of perverse... Many HD remasters are either highly compressed or undecoded DolbyA. No matter what, highly accurate representations of a compressed mess isn't helpful. Likewise, witihout proper facilities, the DolbyA material isn't very accurate either (think about 10-15dB of very active compression between 3k and 20+k -- not very accurate representation of the recording at all.) Currently, the most reliable way to get truly accurate copies of recordings is to start with an early CD that wasn't DolbyA decoded (much greater than 50% of them), and do the decoding yourself. By doing an accurate DolbyA decoding, you achieve about 1-1.5 additional bits of apparent accuracy.
A high res copy of a splat filled compressed mess seems to be somewhat weird to wish for. SACD is not immune to the problems.

 

I’m thinking of getting OVO since that hasn’t been released in higher-than-CD resolution before, IIRC. I think all the other studio albums have had a previous SACD or hi-res release. Am I correct?

 

THIS WEEK on HDtracks...


Coldplay - Everyday Life
Jimi Hendrix - Songs For Groovy Children: The Fillmore East Concerts
Beck - Hyperspace
Leonard Cohen - Thanks for the Dance

plus much much more...

 

Interested in the Jimi dl. Initial reviews of the cds are positive.

 

I haven't seen the USA editions yet, but I'm bummed: I was pretty excited about the new Hendrix & Dead. The Hendrix is 44/24 & the Dead is 48/24 in Europe. I don't think the Dead has ever gone below 96 before.

 

The Doors 1st album (stereo and mono) that I purchased from ProStudioMasters (24/192) sounds like the mono version came from a vinyl that was played with a nail.

 

I agree. None of the Doors Deluxe Editions are very good, & that one's the worst. If you want the best sounding Doors (stereo only) I recommend the APO SACD's.

 

The Dead isn't half bad. IMO, it is better than In The Dark & Built To Last (though the Dead were almost always better live).

 

That's how the mono mix always sounded for that album, unfortunately.

 

More on the Grateful Dead release: I found out why the European edition is 48/24 & the USA is 96/24. Per PSM, the 96/24 is upsampled:

"Tracks 1-4, 7, 9 – 44.1 kHz / 24-bit PCM, mastered in 96 kHz / 24-bit
Tracks 5, 6, 8 – 48 kHz / 24-bit PCM, mastered in 96 kHz / 24-bit"

I'm a bit curious why they didn't go 44/24 rather than 448 since more of the original recordings were in 44.

 

Has anyone heard the 44/24 BOG Songs For Groovy Children yet, that can comment on SQ vs. CD?

 

Unlike the Machine Gun SACD/CD, I can’t imagine much of a difference, if any, be willing to bet the DR values will be identical @ 44/24. For me, at roughly the same price, I think the CD set is the way to go.

 

Does it say if Glasser or Norman mastered them?

Actually I am wondering why the EU edition would down sample these? Meaning, that they were most likely not upsampled, they were mastered at 24/96.

Up sampling infers that all that was done was sample-rate conversion and nothing more. Mastered at 24/96 infers that they were ran through either A - Analog processes and then re-captured at 24/96 or B - Even if they stayed in the box most mastering engineers will up sample if they are going to be running through high end plug-ins which all function and sound better at 24/96.

Curious

 

It all depends how sensitive the download store is to customers that complain about something being 24/96 when the source could not have been that high resolution. So, blame the vocal customers who don't see things the same way you do. We've been through this with many releases over the years, the Rush 2015 remasters had quite a blowup over the same issue.

 

Thanks Steve.

Yeah I guess I’m in the camp that once a mastering engineer touches it leave it at the sample rate that they re-captured it at as I want all of the fidelity of the processes that they used. To then re-down sample it and introduce yet another process seems a bit pointless.

 

I totally agree. Once mastered at a rate, it should absolutely stay in that rate. Down sampling it makes no sense. Not even as an excuse to satisfy customers who complain about upsampling. All they have to do is mention in the info that the tracks(s) were originally sourced from 44.1khz or whatever and were mastered in 96khz or whatever. It's beyond silly to knock the file back down to 44.1khz which they will then have to point out is at 44.1khz anyway.

When HDtracks was selling Black Sabbath's Dehumanizer, there was one track on the album which had 90s digital effects and so was converted to 44.1khz when mixed. They did the right thing and left it at 192 & 96 for the respective downloads and simply mentioned this in the notes.

When HDtracks was selling The Doors at the Bowl which was mixed from 44.1khz digital multitracks and only the added reverb went above that, they sold it in 96khz but was not aware of the source being 44.1khz so it wasn't labeled as such. Then a lot of complaints started and the solution (whether HDtracks or the label, I don't know) was to knock it down to 44/24. Which is a terrible "solution". Don't blame those who complained about the signs of upsampling. Why shouldn't they want to know what's up? But all that had to be done was an explanation of the source and process. There was no need to alter the files.

 

Are you sure on that? I remember there was additional info in the details section on the release page that it was 24/44 upsampled to 24/96 for Pro Tools. Anyway, glad that I have it in 24/96.

//That's the quote from HDtracks page I was writing about:

 

I didn't notice a mastering engineer noted. PSM does tend to give the most info.

 

Due to the time frame, the original recordings could easily be 44/24 & 48/24 digital.

 

I've heard a bit of the dl; haven't heard the cd. It is a DR 11 (thank goodness after the ladyland debacle). My GUESS is 44/24 likely sounds a little better than cd. It usually does. Since this was obviously an analog based master, pretty sad that they didn't go 96/24 on such a majot artist.

 

I was keeping it simple as my main point was about how dumb it is to down sample these as a "solution" to customer complaints about non-truly HD audio. But you're right, there is question about what HDtracks knew. My recollection is foggy on how it exactly went down. I can't remember if the Botnick comment was included from the very beginning or if that was added soon after as an attempt to deal with the initial complaints/reports of a low res source. Which of course didn't work because Bruce's comment did not really make sense. Then they switched it to 44/24. The funny thing is, the listing still has the Bruce comment selling this as a truly 96khz HD mix while the files being sold are 44khz. So I think either HDtracks was initially unaware of the low res source or if the listing did always have the Bruce explanation, then I guess they felt it was good enough that the producer was explaining it.

Had the producer explained it in an accurate way like: The source material is 44khz but since this will be utilized for a modern video release, we did the mixing and mastering in 96k. So that 96k audio is also being offered rather than degrading it by reducing it back down to 44khz. But realize this is not truly HD audio as the source was in fact 44khz.

Then the option of a lower priced 44khz version could've been included and it all would've been much less messy.

 

Yeah - agree on all counts stated. I went ahead and ordered the DL files. I will do my own compare later and report back. CD box just showed up