garym wrote:
only slightlysee other thread on myth of louder being better in
listening comparisons for why.
Wow, I didn't know that. That's pretty crafty, I must say. If true, it
could mean that we've been most likely manipulated by many audio
sheisters. For example, I remember attending
darrenyeats wrote:
Hmm, the slightly louder 24 bit is heard as slightly better if compared
A/B, yet the difference might not be enough to be consciously noticed.
Yes, you've sold the conspiracy theory to me now!
Darren
Is the trick to winning to make them only slightly louder, or to make
heisenberg wrote:
Is the trick to winning to make them only slightly louder, or to make
them noticeably louder?
only slightlysee other thread on myth of louder being better in
listening comparisons for why.
garym's
mlsstl wrote:
I'd disagree. The modern fad of having the peaks at 0 dB has nothing to
do with maximizing dynamic range. It's simply to make the CD sound as
loud as possible.
True. However I'm not referring to extreme compression and limiting...
If they did that to the 2009 remasters, there
Archimago wrote:
True. However I'm not referring to extreme compression and limiting...
If they did that to the 2009 remasters, there would have been massive
outcry I suspect.
The fact that they did not utilize the full potential on the CD release
for such a high profile remaster (not
Me, I wait for the mono release...or is the stereo proper stereo, not
the Beatles stereo with bass and handclap in one speaker and the rest in
the other?
Zombie's Profile:
In general my working assumption is that different resolution releases
are mastered (perhaps slightly) differently until I have concrete
information.
Darren
darrenyeats's Profile:
darrenyeats wrote:
My working assumption is that different resolution releases are mastered
(perhaps slightly) differently until I have concrete information.
Darren
You could be right, Darren. Who knows other than the folks who worked
on this.
But one wonders though - why would they do
Archimago wrote:
I know... Conspiracy theories ;-)
Paul is dead and I am the walrus! Miss him, miss him, miss him
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread:
Archimago wrote:
But one wonders though - why would they do that?
they just made the 24-bit version louder by 0.2dB's to show a
difference.
A 0.2 dB gain increase does two things - it makes the louder version
sound slightly better, but it also fills in any zero padding from a
Julf wrote:
fills in any zero padding from a 16-bit-to-24-bit conversion...
Let's say my standard assumption that this was a different master
doesn't apply ... then such a conversion would have been from 24 bit to
16 bit, I think.
Darren
darrenyeats wrote:
Let's say my standard assumption that this was a different master
doesn't apply; then such a conversion would have been from 24 bit to 16
bit, I think ... or, conspiracy theory!
Darren
That's why my suspicion is that they *purposely* did a decrease in
volume from 24-bit
Archimago wrote:
Modern mastering technique would have actually tried to push the peak up
to 0 so you would maximize the dynamic range of the 16-bit version.
I'd disagree. The modern fad of having the peaks at 0 dB has nothing to
do with maximizing dynamic range. It's simply to make the CD
heisenberg wrote:
Anyone had a chance to listen to the newest Beatles reissues on vinyl?
I've read a few mutually contradictory reports and was wondering whether
it was worth buying some of those LPs?
The ones that were mastered digitally?
A promo interview on these vinyl releases:
http://www.examiner.com/article/interview-beatles-mastering-engineer-says-vinyl-set-closer-to-original-sound
They were sourced from the 24-bit digital but says nothing about the
sample rate. Some speculate that they were 192kHz digital source.
In any
mlsstl wrote:
Maybe the tape hiss sounds better? ;-)
I can tell the exact height and room placement of the tape machine. I
can almost smell George Martins aftershave lotion. If you can't, then
your equipment is simply not good enough. ;-)
garym wrote:
I can tell the exact height and room placement of the tape machine. I
can almost smell George Martins aftershave lotion. If you can't, then
your equipment is simply not good enough. ;-)
The Listening Environment Stabilizer can help with this. Not only will
it sound better, but
P Nelson wrote:
The Listening Environment Stabilizer can help with this. Not only will
it sound better, but the smell will be more accurate!
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?98432-Listening-Environment-Stabilizer-(LES)-has-brought-new-enjoyment-to-music
yes! ;-)
Archimago wrote:
Since there was little if any difference between the 16 and 24-bit 44kHz
releases in 2009, one should not expect any meaningful improvement even
if 192kHz IMO.
Little if any difference between the 16 and 24 bit releases? I disagree.
Listen to Words of Love from Beatles for
heisenberg wrote:
Little if any difference between the 16 and 24 bit releases? I disagree.
Listen to Words of Love from Beatles for Sale, for example. On the
CD version (16 bit), the hand clapping sounds like two wooden blocks
hitting each other. On the 24 bit version, the hand clapping
garym wrote:
are you talking about the CD version (16bit) from the Stereo Box release
(or the older CD version)
and of course, the mastering could be different between the 16 and 24
releases. To compare the value of 16 and 24bit differences, one would
need to downsample the 24bit track
heisenberg wrote:
Little if any difference between the 16 and 24 bit releases? I disagree.
Listen to Words of Love from Beatles for Sale, for example. On the
CD version (16 bit), the hand clapping sounds like two wooden blocks
hitting each other. On the 24 bit version, the hand clapping
heisenberg wrote:
Not sure. According to the lore, the Apple crew went back to the
original master tapes, digitized them at the highest available bit
rate/resolution, and then cleaned the digitized format, effectively
removing pops and clicks and drops etc. Once that was accomplished, the
garym wrote:
yeah, not clear myself on all the different versions. But to do any
actual testing, you'd have to create the mp3 and 16bit from the same
source (the 24bit). Otherwise, too many confounding variables. Note I'm
not suggesting that you *need* to do thisjust that your
heisenberg wrote:
That's because the mono masters have not been tempered with -- no bass
boost, no let's show them what a great drummer Ringo actually was by
boosting his presence in the mix, just an honest-to-god transfer, which
preserved the original vibe, warts and all.
And I take it
heisenberg wrote:
Not sure. According to the lore, the Apple crew went back to the
original master tapes, digitized them at the highest available bit
rate/resolution, and then cleaned the digitized format, effectively
removing pops and clicks and drops etc
I don't believe that there
mc heisenberg wrote:
So in my mind, all three formats were cut from the same cloth, by the
process of dithering down from the original 24 bit/192 khz.
I often see here re-sampling and dithering used a bit confusing. If you
lower the samplerate from lets say 192kHz to 44.1kHz you do resampling.
Wombat wrote:
I often see here re-sampling and dithering used a bit confusing. If you
lower the samplerate from lets say 192kHz to 44.1kHz you do resampling.
If you go from 24/44.1 to 16/44.1 you don´t resample, you only reduce
bit-depth. Both actions should involve dithering.
Btw. Did you
garym wrote:
And I take it based on what I've read, that for the early albums, the
Mono mix was the one George Martin and the Beatles cared about and
worked hard on. The stereo mix was done as an after thought.
(plus, I originally heard these songs on a transistor radio tuned to the
AM
heisenberg wrote:
Sadly, I'm on the Mac so I don't have dbpoweramp.
There are many ways to reduce bit-depth, must be even possible on a MAC
:)
SoX should work fine.
Don´t worry about correct dither to much with this Beatles stuff the
noise in the lower bits must be already high enough to
Wombat wrote:
There are many ways to reduce bit-depth, must be even possible on a MAC
:)
SoX should work fine.
Don´t worry about correct dither to much with this Beatles stuff the
noise in the lower bits must be already high enough to self-dither for
the most parts.
And what exactly is
Wombat wrote:
There are many ways to reduce bit-depth, must be even possible on a MAC
:)
SoX should work fine.
Don´t worry about correct dither to much with this Beatles stuff the
noise in the lower bits must be already high enough to self-dither for
the most parts.
Just reading
ralphpnj wrote:
And what exactly is self-dithering and should we even be discussing it
on an open, public forum?
Self-dither is a term often used when adding much dither is not
necassary. If enough noise is already existing at the bit-depth you cut
the data it doesn´t need additional dither
heisenberg wrote:
Just reading instructions about this SoX thing gives me headache.
You may try:
sox.exe input.flac -b 16 output.flac dither -a
Dither -a is only there to tell sox not to add dither on silent parts.
heisenberg wrote:
Little if any difference between the 16 and 24 bit releases? I disagree.
Listen to Words of Love from Beatles for Sale, for example. On the
CD version (16 bit), the hand clapping sounds like two wooden blocks
hitting each other. On the 24 bit version, the hand clapping
Anyone had a chance to listen to the newest Beatles reissues on vinyl?
I've read a few mutually contradictory reports and was wondering whether
it was worth buying some of those LPs?
heisenberg's Profile:
36 matches
Mail list logo
