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

I think the existing hi-res albums sound pretty good, I wonder if they will still be available?

 

Almost all are from the flat transfer series. I hope they continue to be available, & I hope I don't have to buy this DR9 junk for 1 or 2 "bonus tracks".

 

DR9? Seriously? It sounds pretty good, and the waveform is not compressed at all. Not one bit.

 

foobar2000 1.6.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2021-04-19 18:45:49

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 01-A Case Of You (2021 Remaster)
Number of samples: 50611944
Duration: 4:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Left Right

Peak Value: -3.10 dB --- -4.49 dB
Avg RMS: -16.89 dB --- -17.21 dB
DR channel: 9.00 dB --- 9.13 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official DR Value: DR9

Samplerate: 192000 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 4911 kbps
Codec: FLAC
================================================================================

 

Thankfully it doesn’t sound like crap and junk.

 

That looks to be in-line with the DR values listed for the original CD release, the HDCD release and the 2013 high-res release for that particular cut.

Album list - Dynamic Range Database

I'd be curious what the rest of the album looks like, since it ranged from 10-12 in the past.

 

I hadn't checked my flat transfer for DR in a long time. I would have never guessed...... I'm still curious/concerned but we'll see!

 

By the way, most of her early albums seem to have been surprisingly compressed, sporting tracks with DRs down to 8. Even Court And Spark on vinyl lists a min DR of 10, as does the 2013 download and even the widely-praised DCC version released in the '90s.

It looks like she and Henry didn't lay off the compressors until The Hissing Of Summer Lawns, which has a min DR of 11. Don Juan has a min DR of 12(!) on the decoded HDCD and 2013 download. The max is 16/17 depending on the release (a CD from the '80s shows a max of 19). They really let their freak flag fly on those two! Mingus takes it beyond even that, with a max of 20(!!!) on several releases, although a min of 4-9 varying across the releases (I'm assuming those are the spoken-word passages between tracks).

 

I also ways liked the sound of her classic period, so didn't pay much attention to the DR's. My bad.

 

High resolution has it relates to PCM. DSD is a recognized high resolution format.

 

60s (pop/rock) recordings were not terribly dynamic. I don't think it's the reasons being stated but the opposite--in the 70s lots of VCA compressors allowed hyper dynamics to happen. By the 80s, everything was being mixed on SSLs with VCA dynamics on ever single channel...you started with the DR15-16...what's The Wall to usher in that era?

Joni's early work was likely slammed through a limiter to up the SNR of a quiet guitar on every single mic on the way to god's best limiter: old tube tape machines...plus so many of those early ones don't have drums and bass, right? Certainly not big boomy ones...so....it doesn't surprise me.

 

Thank you for your reply.

Technically the terms high definition and high resoution are different. You are correct.

The record companies use the terms interchangeable. Not my idea. Anything above Red Book is high resoution/high definition. As incorrect as it may sound. Is it ?

But yes HR meaning high resolution. My mistake. When we use these terms it means anything above Red Book.

The MADI converters are essential for getting true 24 bit performance out of the 3348 HR. I have been using them for years. In my line of work you are either competent or you are not.

If I was to send a 20 bit, 44.1 khz off to a client the record company would put it up to download as a "high definition file" or "high resoution file."
Whatever suits the marketing department.. I just master the things and send them off. I don't decide what terms mean. Unfortunately.

24/44.1 file is a high resoution/definition file. This is my point. Many feel it has to be 24/88.2 PCM. to be high resolution / high definition. Both are incorrect. According to the record companies anyway.

I just work here.......


Edit: I have clients ask, "We want to do a high resoution catalog for our albums." And then they will say, "I guess the ones before 1992 can't be high definition." Bizzare mmmm?

 

Makes sense to me. I suspect they were fighting noise as well. Her first record is really noisy and grungy, and I'll bet she didn't want a repeat of that, either.

 

I don't think there have been hi res versions of the 1st 2 until the about to be released batch.

 

I'm pretty sure this is true, at least I've never seen them

 

This is true for downloads, but they are available on Tidal in their high res streaming interface.

 

MQA or real hi-res?

 

Pretty much true. But the VCA chips were in the automated SSL boards. For example the current SSL 4064 G / G + we use at the studio has loads of VCA chips in them.

Back in the 1970's all the boards were full of hundreds of transformers. This gave the mixers of the period a unique sound. While the SSL boards were transformer-less. They had a clean sound.

But many engineers still continued using their old boards. They had character. No automation. LOL but charter. And many paid millions for Sony's maybe-a-clasic digital boards.

Yep. The 80's clean sound was do to the SSL boards. And the VCA chips had a lot to do with the sound.

 

I remember using one of the earliest digital mixers in the studio at my college. No clue what the brand was, just that it could be set to "remember" fader moves with a synch track. I was the main musician on the session I participated a little on the mix. The engineer managed to erase one awesome solo from Rick Ruskin (nationally known blues guitarist who was a good acquaintance of mine at the time)& the beginning of another song that we than had to start with a fade in............... not the best of memories. And then I had to have a fight (not fists) with the ******* staff member who ran the studio & felt it was against the rules to release a 7" 45 recorded on college gear (I won, though the record sucked).

 

I assume your super-duper digital board was synchronized to a analog multitrack?
What 24 track machine were you using? If you had a DASH or Prodigi recorder you wouldn't have need the synchronization track. Those digital boards were $250 and above back then.
A nice Sony 3324 was only $125 000 USD. Why didn't you chip in to buy one?

 

A DR of 9 is vile. Sober up and listen again. No way a DR9 could sound good. Who got to you?
Fight the drugs they have given you.
Fight!!

 

Why did the record suck? Bad song or badly mixed or what?

 

I don't know if it was 100% digital, or just analog with digital striping track which recorded fader movements. This was around 1977 or 1978 & that's all I remember. I didn't own it, my college did. It was considered new tech at the time. I honestly don't even remember synch tracks for sequencers (keyboards & drum machines) being available until several years later.

 

"Why did the record suck? Bad song or badly mixed or what?"

Bad sound, bad performance by a put together on the spot acoustic band. The A side should have been the song where the guitar solo was erased (Rick had already flown back to California at this time). I was able to reconstruct the solo from a rough mixed cassette, but since we couldn't isolate the guitar other than by EQ, it wasn't deemed by me to be releasable.

Man was I pissed when the idiot engineer erased the solo. He pushed the wrong track button (there was a lot of over dubbing).

 

I can't speak for the new version, but I would never have guessed that the flat transfer was DR9 (he's right, it is). Sound is excellent on the 2013.