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

One of the versions of “If looks could kill” has a noticeable edit during the chorus’s where i can hear it’s a different drum track; the high hat cymbals sound different, enough that i have always noticed it and wondered

 

So in this case the "remix" was to remove the guitar fill?

 

For two-track mastering sure. For multi-track digital audio with a ton of plugins and such...you need a robust machine especially for 192. In all my years in the audio industry (20+) and all the engineers I have worked with and interviewed, exactly NONE of them work in 192kHz in the tracking or mixdown stage, 96k sure, but 192kHz seems to be the domain of mastering engineers and remix folks like a Giles Martin working from tape capture.

 

I think in some cases, these are significant factors. Even if, say, Elvis Costello has a rig set up to record at 192, the album was recorded, assembled, and produced entirely remotely. There just needs to be one weak 44.1 link in a pretty long chain to introduce the question of whether to upsample or downsample in the mix.

 

Very good point.

 

RE: "If Looks Could Kill" original vs. remix

I hear it now, thanks. So while the remix of the other two tracks (Never and Nothin' At All) added some vocal parts, the remix of this track took out that guitar fill. I like the extra guitar part, so would have to say I prefer the original mix.

 

I've just been revisiting Heart and Bad Animals, leading to a needle drop of both. I think I prefer all the album versions over the singles, though not sure why: they're two of the most commercial, sell-out albums ever so for me to say the singles sound 'too pop' is a bit ridiculous...but I think they do!

 

How is the Bad Animals HD version. I was never happy with the CD but the vinyl is slightly better.

For If Looks Could Kill there might be more differences than the guitar fill.
Nothing At All I think it’s a whole different vocal track. I listened to Essential than the U.K. Self Titled cd and on the cd the differences really stand out.
If you like the remixed versions get the HD version of the album or buy just the few tracks you like. As mentioned previously the DR is a little less but it’s not as thin sounding.

 

Personally, let’s say everything was recorded at 192 or more realistically 96. (I say that as someone with a 2o19 i7 Mac with 64 gigs of ram who just tracked only 8 tracks so far of an indie folk project at 192 and if I add just one or two plugins to each channel the computer is already choking, but I digress)…anyway, let’s say 75% of a project was done at 96 or 192 and 25% of the parts came in at 44.1 or 48, you would upsample those to the current project sample rate every time.

Once in the mix, it will not matter, nor be noticeable, and down sampling the other 75% would be more sonically degrading to the project as a whole.

Especially as tracks are processed either back out through analog gear or plugins which factually run better at 96 kHz.

Point is that in todays collaborative work flow, mixed sample rate and format projects are common. I once received an mp3 file for an overdub for a clients project and I had to work with it. So I used a bunch of restorative tools in iZotope RX to make it work. That’s the gig.

The big thing to remember is most artists do not care, nor even inquire what rate a project is being recorded at. Maybe they will start since even Apple is now offering hi-res streaming (of a fashion). But who knows.

Bottom line and sad fact that has been discussed multiple times here, people on this forum care more about sample rates than most artists and labels.

 

Anyone who has ever hung out with any musician, at any level, would quickly realize that most of them (not all) can barely handle going food shopping alone, much less discuss the sample-rate and workflow chain of the music they're recording with any clarity

We love you musicians, but, you know it's true!

 

Pono Revealer – Real HD-Audio

This neat feature was apparently added to Pono players in 2015. A seamless way to compare the jump in quality from mp3 to 44/16 to Hi-res while a song just keeps playing!

Did this ever show up elsewhere (independent software or maybe as a plug-in)?

Being able to "jump-cut" back and forth between two masterings of the same song would be an awesome variation of this idea.

 

Blue Coast often offers 10 different masterings in different formats of 1 song for free to run a similar test on any dac that can play the different formats. Doesn't include Mp3.

Test Your System with Free Downloads | Jenna Mammina, Matt Rollings

 

I imagine this has been discussed somewhere, but I didn't find it after taking a look at a few Phil Collins threads.

In the info at ProStudioMasters for Phil Collins "Hello, I Must Be Going" it reads:
Phil Collins, Hello, I Must Be Going (2016 Remaster) in High-Resolution Audio

"This 2016 edition comes as part of the Take a Look At Me Now series, with Steve Hoffman remastering and re-eleasing Collin's studio albums."
​

I know Steve remastered this album for a 24K gold disc by Audio Fidelity. I have that disc. Did he do a hi-rez transfer that then got released? Or is that info incorrect.

 

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect info. Though in my digital database, the 192/24 version actually has higher DR numbers (that doesn't speak to how they actually sound - both are excellent and I don't hear much difference).

 

and most older ones are deaf to some degree.

 

Rock/country/hiphop musicians more than average; those not frequently exposed to loud amplified music no more so than the general population

 

From HD Tracks,

"20% OFF HI-RES ALBUMS FOR HIGH-END AUDIO SYSTEM ANALYSIS

Discover the true possibilities of your high-end audio set up with these technologically-advanced Hi-Res albums. These audiophile albums were created by quality-obsessed musicians, engineers, and producers."

This sale includes Bowie's Blackstar....... EXCUSE ME???????!

 

...With its "full" dynamic range of what...maybe 5?!

 

For those like me, who bought the AWFUL DR8 version of Landing On Water in 192/24 on NYA, this week there's a new master on HDT & PSM which reverts to the original DR13. Thank Goodness. The DR8 was awful sounding.

Per PSM it's upsampled from 44/24. Wonder if the master was a casualty of the UNI fire? the DR 8 on NYA is also 192/24 with no mention of upsampling. Again, I also have the original cd; it is a DR13. Wonder how the DR8 version was even created?

Also, the 1st David Bowie releases in 24 bit I'm going to pass on; several remix digital ep's of songs from Earthquake. I do not like dance, house, etc remixes.

 

Does anyone know the DR for Landing On Water (192/24) on Qobuz?

 

I suspect they are all the same.

 

Anyone know for sure?

 

Has anybody re downloaded Landing on Water from the NYA download store to see if they’ve updated it with the new master?

 

I could do so. Give me a bit of time.

 

As of this moment, the version on NYA is DR8. I do not know if it's upsampled. I do not know if the original master was digital or analog.