Top 40 Music on CD Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Top 40 Music On Compact Disc > Chat Board
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - McCartney & Harrison remasters in FLAC!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

McCartney & Harrison remasters in FLAC!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
Brian W. View Drop Down
Music Fan
Music Fan


Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brian W. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: McCartney & Harrison remasters in FLAC!
    Posted: 19 October 2010 at 12:44pm
Interesting news. The upcoming remasters of Paul McCartney's "Band on the Run" and George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" will be available to download on the artists' websites... in 24-bit FLAC format! I believe that's full master tape quality, no?

Interestingly, "Band on the Run" will be available in two separate FLAC versions -- one with minor peak limiting applied, and one with no limiting at all.

Let's hope this is the start of a trend.
Back to Top
eriejwg View Drop Down
Music Fan
Music Fan
Avatar

Joined: 10 June 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 46
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eriejwg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 October 2010 at 4:57pm
I've read that "My Sweet Lord" is different on 45 than CD. Could this be the original mix of the entire album in FLAC?
Back to Top
aaronk View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 123
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aaronk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 October 2010 at 5:54pm
Originally posted by Brian W. Brian W. wrote:

I believe that's full
master tape quality, no?

It's definitely better sound than 16 bit CD
quality, but I'm not sure you can call it
"master tape quality." Analog tape isn't
measured in digital terms, so it's not really
apples to apples, right? The better question
is whether or not you can tell the difference
between CD and 24 bit flac, if you were to
convert the flac to wav and burn to cd. Since
many people have trouble telling the
difference between 320k mp3 and wav, I'm
inclined to think not; however, a lot probably
depends on the stereo system you're
listening on.
Back to Top
NightAire View Drop Down
Music Fan
Music Fan


Joined: 20 February 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NightAire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 October 2010 at 8:03pm
You will NOT be able to tell a difference between the FLAC files and a CD. If anything, the FLACs will sound better because they are 24 bit.

Many may claim to hear a difference between CD & 320 or 256 kbps mp3; if I could, I'd challenge them to a double-blind test.

My suspicion is that they'd lose that challenge.

You may hear differences... but which one is uncompressed? The "smoother" copy may sound "dull" to someone else, the "brighter" copy sound "harsh," the "detailed" copy sound "gritty" to someone else.

In other words, with modern pop recordings you may have to know what the original was supposed to sound like to tell which is the uncompressed copy.

(Orchestras are easier if you know what an instrument is supposed to sound like; even so, you may guess BOTH are compressed, when it may simply be the positioning of the mics in the original recording.)

A 24 bit FLAC file likely exceeds the capabilities of your current sound card unless you're using a pro card. It is higher detail than a CD, and as Aaron pointed out, burned to a CD it will be indistinguishable from certainly any professionally produced CD of the tapes, and likely from the tapes even if you had them side by side to compare.

Brief technical info: CDs, and most WAV files, are 16 bit. 24 bit gives more info to the digital to analog converter (another influencer of the final sound) to determine the exact rise and fall of each sound wave.

FLAC is a lossless compression system. In other words, unlike mp3s which throw some of the sound it doesn't think you'll miss away, the FLAC decompresses to a bit-for-bit identical copy of the original WAV file.

If you're unhappy with the FLAC files, I'll buy them from you! (Offer only good if you get the version WITHOUT limiting.) ;-)

Edited by NightAire
Back to Top
aaronk View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 123
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aaronk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 October 2010 at 8:21pm
Originally posted by NightAire NightAire wrote:

You will NOT be able to tell a difference between the FLAC files and a CD. If anything, the FLACs will sound better because they are 24 bit.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. The FLAC files should be better quality, but can you really tell the difference between a 16 bit "CD quality" file and a 24 bit file?
Back to Top
Brian W. View Drop Down
Music Fan
Music Fan


Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brian W. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 October 2010 at 8:47pm
Originally posted by aaronk aaronk wrote:


It's definitely better sound than 16 bit CD
quality, but I'm not sure you can call it
"master tape quality."

What I meant to say was, isn't that the same bitrate as the digital master tape that is used for mastering CDs?
Back to Top
Brian W. View Drop Down
Music Fan
Music Fan


Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brian W. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 October 2010 at 8:51pm
Originally posted by NightAire NightAire wrote:


Many may claim to hear a difference between CD & 320 or 256 kbps mp3; if I could, I'd challenge them to a double-blind test.

You can't 99% of the time, but I recently tested a "killer sample" that had clearly audible artifacts even at a flat 320kb encoded with LAME. (The artifact was a scratching sound, like sandpaper. The sample was the opening of Minstry's "Show Me Your Spine.")

Edited by Brian W.
Back to Top
aaronk View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 123
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aaronk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 October 2010 at 9:13pm
Originally posted by Brian W. Brian W. wrote:

What I meant to say was, isn't that the same bitrate as the digital master tape that is used for mastering CDs?

Yes, I think you might be right about that. I still wonder if I would be able to tell the difference, given the exact same mastering, just at different bit rates.
Back to Top
aaronk View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 123
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aaronk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 October 2010 at 9:15pm
Originally posted by Brian W. Brian W. wrote:

You can't 99% of the time, but I recently tested a "killer sample" that had clearly audible artifacts even at a flat 320kb encoded with LAME. (The artifact was a scratching sound, like sandpaper. The sample was the opening of Minstry's "Show Me Your Spine.")

I agree, although I think I'm able to tell more than 1% of the time. It's not so much the difference in the audio quality that my ear picks up; it's the audible artifacts that are left behind by the encoder.
Back to Top
Brian W. View Drop Down
Music Fan
Music Fan


Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brian W. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 October 2010 at 9:27pm
Originally posted by aaronk aaronk wrote:

I agree, although I think I'm able to tell more than 1% of the time. It's not so much the difference in the audio quality that my ear picks up; it's the audible artifacts that are left behind by the encoder.

I was going to say, "Aaron can tell the difference," but I didn't want to volunteer you, LOL.

But you should hear someting encoded with Quicktime's True Variable Bitrate AAC encoder. It's pretty impressive.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.07
Copyright ©2001-2024 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.049 seconds.