McCartney & Harrison remasters in FLAC!
Printed From: Top 40 Music on CD
Category: Top 40 Music On Compact Disc
Forum Name: Chat Board
Forum Description: Chat away but please observe the chat board rules
URL: https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945
Printed Date: 13 May 2025 at 9:26am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: McCartney & Harrison remasters in FLAC!
Posted By: Brian W.
Subject: McCartney & Harrison remasters in FLAC!
Date 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. |
Replies:
Posted By: eriejwg
Date 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? |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 5:54pm
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. |
Brian W. wrote:Posted By: NightAire
Date 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.) ;-) ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 8:21pm
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? |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 8:47pm
What I meant to say was, isn't that the same bitrate as the digital master tape that is used for mastering CDs? |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 8:51pm
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.") |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 9:13pm
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. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 9:15pm
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. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 9:27pm
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. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 19 October 2010 at 9:36pm
| :D I certainly can't tell unless I'm listening on a good sound system and paying close attention, and even then, I'm sure I would fail the test on some of them. I think I might do better than 1 out of 100, though. |
Posted By: KentT
Date Posted: 25 October 2010 at 4:23pm
|
Original Master Quality is a good 15 IPS dub of the master on 1/2 track open reel. That is master quality. No digital extant short of 24/96 or DSD gets you even close! ------------- I turn up the good and turn down the bad! |
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 25 October 2010 at 10:18pm
|
...and ANY analog copy is going to lose some fidelity, so even THAT wouldn't be master quality.
You lose high frequency response, your wow & flutter go up, and your noise floor jumps up, too. Stereo separation drops slightly as well. Distortion would increase. (30 ips on 2" tape would be better.) ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 25 October 2010 at 11:21pm
As I said, I was referring to the digital master used to master CDs, not the original analog master. Furthermore, these McCartney/Harrison downloads ARE 24/96. |
Posted By: KentT
Date Posted: 26 October 2010 at 8:58am
|
These should be good as long as there is no obnoxious compression, boosted treble, or noise reduction misused. And 24/96 should be good. ------------- I turn up the good and turn down the bad! |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 02 November 2010 at 7:12am
|
Bought the 24/96 hi-rez download of the "Band on the Run" album. You had your choice of downloading it with some limiting or no limiting at all, so I opted for the "unlimited" version. They're all waves in a zip file. Yikes! 4608 kbps! (A standard 16-bit .wav file is 1411 kbps.) The title track alone is 172 mb large. The whole 18-song album was 2.43 gigabytes. Took 3 hrs and 40 minutes to download. Not bad for $9.99. (Though I hear they've now raised the price to $19.99. I got the preorder price.)
The surprising thing was that Apple Lossless will actually retain the 24/96 sampling, so I actually could put this on my iPod if I wanted. |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 05 November 2010 at 9:49pm
|
The 24-bit/96k files are in the wav format. Along with the
pdf, and the 320kbps mp3 version, the whole thing is a 2.60GB zip file, and it took me 20 minutes to download. ------------- |