Page 210 of 219 FirstFirst ... 110160200208209210211212 ... LastLast
Results 2,091 to 2,100 of 2189

Thread: Pink floyd the early years 1965-1972

  1. #2091
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    621
    Thanks
    143
    Thanked 1,133 Times in 15 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roscoe59 View Post
    He did. That's where all my info is coming from. We're in touch fairly regularly.
    The problem that JFE highlighted is that first HDTracks sample, Creation at 24-96k, showed some differences vs. CD content (and consequently latest 24-44.1k FLACs). Some tracks were equivalent, besides resolution, some not. So, while I am sure that we all trust your information and your knowledge of what has been done for TEY, it seems that there is a small contraddiction somewhere. I didn't do this check personally, just recalling what Jim reported. I wait for these two trusted sources to finally agree.

  2. #2092
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2,485
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked 993 Times in 11 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falbrav View Post
    The problem that JFE highlighted is that first HDTracks sample, Creation at 24-96k, showed some differences vs. CD content (and consequently latest 24-44.1k FLACs). Some tracks were equivalent, besides resolution, some not. So, while I am sure that we all trust your information and your knowledge of what has been done for TEY, it seems that there is a small contraddiction somewhere. I didn't do this check personally, just recalling what Jim reported. I wait for these two trusted sources to finally agree.
    I disagree. Especially with the new HD Tracks which are identical to the CDs.

  3. #2093
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    621
    Thanks
    143
    Thanked 1,133 Times in 15 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roscoe59 View Post
    I disagree. Especially with the new HD Tracks which are identical to the CDs.
    About these new ones you and JFE are in perfect agreement. The misalignment concerns the 24-96k set. Oh, well, I wait for Jimfisheye to detail.

  4. #2094
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2,485
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked 993 Times in 11 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falbrav View Post
    About these new ones you and JFE are in perfect agreement. The misalignment concerns the 24-96k set. Oh, well, I wait for Jimfisheye to detail.
    Andy gave me a detailed breakdown of the CRE/ACTION tracks when it was released which I posted here at the time.

  5. #2095
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    931
    Thanks
    129
    Thanked 543 Times in 14 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falbrav View Post
    About these new ones you and JFE are in perfect agreement. The misalignment concerns the 24-96k set. Oh, well, I wait for Jimfisheye to detail.
    I'd like to think that someone with decent tools could compare the 96/24, 44.1/24, and 44.1/16 versions pretty quickly. By my count there are 25 tracks that have been released in each format. I'd do it myself but my tools have been sadly lacking ever since my desktop PC failed.
    Seeking the following:
    • PIL
    • Arcade Fire
    • My Bloody Valentine

  6. #2096
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    621
    Thanks
    143
    Thanked 1,133 Times in 15 Posts

    Default

    I think that Jim did it. No way to find it in this extralarge thread, but I am nearly sure he compared the 96/24 with CD and found difference. He mentioned this in a recent post, but it would be good to find his original analysis. And surely then he compared 44.1/24 with CD and found that they were the same, besides numerical noise.
    Anyway I think that this is not too difficult indeed and does not require professional tools. Even Audacity could do the job.

    Quote Originally Posted by movement View Post
    I'd like to think that someone with decent tools could compare the 96/24, 44.1/24, and 44.1/16 versions pretty quickly. By my count there are 25 tracks that have been released in each format. I'd do it myself but my tools have been sadly lacking ever since my desktop PC failed.

  7. #2097
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2,485
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked 993 Times in 11 Posts

    Default

    Reposting the lineage for CRE/ATION from HD Tracks.

    Arnold Layne 2.57
    See Emily Play 2.55
    Matilda Mother (2010 remix)
    Jugband Blues† (2010 remix)
    Paintbox 3.47

    Flaming† (BBC Radio Session, 25 September 1967) 2.42
    In The Beechwoods† (2010 mix) 4.43
    Point Me At The Sky) 3.41
    Careful With That Axe, Eugene (single ‘B’ Side version) 5.48
    Embryo (from Harvest Records sampler ‘Picnic’) 4.42

    US Radio ad for Ummagumma 0.22
    Grantchester Meadows† (BBC Radio Session, 12 May 1969) 3.46
    Cymbaline† (BBC Radio Session, 12 May 1969) 3.39
    Interstellar Overdrive† (Live, Paradiso, Amsterdam, August 1969) 4.24
    Green Is The Colour† (BBC Radio Session, 12 May 1969)/ 3.21
    Careful With That Axe, Eugene† (BBC Radio Session, 12 May 1969) 3.28

    On The Highway† (Zabriskie Point remix) 1.17
    Auto Scene Version 2† (Zabriskie Point remix) 1.13
    The Riot Scene† (Zabriskie Point Remix) 1.40
    Looking At Map† (Zabriskie Point remix) 1.56 Take Off† (Zabriskie Point remix) 1.19

    Embryo (alternative version)† (BBC Radio Session, 16 July 1970) 10.13
    Atom Heart Mother† (Live Montreux, 21 Nov 1970) (Band only) 18.01
    Nothing Part 14† 7.01

    Childhood’s End† (2016 remix) 4.33
    Free Four† (2016 remix) 4.16
    Stay† (2016 remix) 4.08



    straight from analogue tape
    from 44k transfer
    from 96k transfer
    from 96k mix master

  8. #2098
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    wasted & can't find my way home
    Posts
    137
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 641 Times in 45 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falbrav View Post
    Anyway I think that this is not too difficult indeed and does not require professional tools. Even Audacity could do the job.
    Don't know about Audacity specifically, but here's one quick analysis---an easy thing to do in any DAW, I imagine.

    Import both sources (of the same song!) along the same time line in different tracks.

    You'll have source A on a stereo track starting at time 0
    and source B on a stereo track also starting at time 0

    invert the phase on both channels of one source only
    You're essentially turning one source's waveform "upside-down"

    Then sum the tracks ("bounce them down") and listen to the result, or just listen to all 4 channels at the same time.

    If the audio is identical from both sources, there will be only silence since they will have cancelled each other out (the resulting wave will now be flat).

    There's loads of other fun stuff to do with phase inversion, like stripping vocals or bass from songs. Google and freeware are your friends :-)

  9. #2099
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    middle of nowhere
    Posts
    2,793
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 10,697 Times in 129 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falbrav View Post
    I think that Jim did it. No way to find it in this extralarge thread, but I am nearly sure he compared the 96/24 with CD and found difference. He mentioned this in a recent post, but it would be good to find his original analysis. And surely then he compared 44.1/24 with CD and found that they were the same, besides numerical noise.
    Anyway I think that this is not too difficult indeed and does not require professional tools. Even Audacity could do the job.
    That's correct. The Creation sampler is an upgrade for a number of the tracks. I stand by my statements.

    This makes me sad and I'm sorry I opened the can of worms at this point!
    It's fun to play audio detective sometimes, what can I say. No one gave me the memo that I wasn't supposed to let the cat out of the bag on this one. (I would have respected that too!)

    This is a stupid distraction in a way. All the audio on this set (minus the remixes) is cause for celebration.
    I think Andy is an absolute monster behind the mixing board!

    But we have this HD sampler release with a number of tracks that are a generation cleaner than the CD versions or the 24/44.1 downloads (and the CD and the 24/44.1 are clearly the exact same sources). Everyone is well aware of the major label SOP of selling different levels of audio quality for different prices (like they do for different concert seats). We've seen how that leads to doing intentional stuff to recordings to facilitate that (because it turns out that the differences between formats - even CD vs. HD - aren't big enough for that to play out naturally). I think it's fair to mention that in a discussion of the big expensive purportedly deluxe edition that seems intended to be sold as the most pristine copy of the audio in these days of pristine perfect HD audio delivery.

    This is stupid because you could knock all this program down to 96k mp3's and it would STILL sound shockingly better than the bootleg copies we were putting with before because we were so hungry to hear it!

    I don't know...
    Usually when you say something like "Hey this is almost perfect. I just noticed this one little thing that was a little off." someone might be annoyed that they missed it but ultimately thankful for the opportunity to get closer to perfection. I feel like I'm getting a "Hey, shut up about that! We're trying to parse this out and make some sales here!". Again, no one gave me the memo.

    We were also discussing the omissions in this set as evidence it was to end up being a retrospective edition after (or even if) they follow up with full releases for some of the parts. Pompeii not including Mademoiselle Nobs in this set, for example. You'll need to buy the full edition when they release that bluray to get the whole program. So is someone going to try to claim that Mademoiselle Nobs was never part of Pompeii now?


    Anyway, I'm just going to stop discussing the official releases after this.
    I have a lot of respect for all the people involved and this is just shitty!

  10. #2100
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    1,257
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roscoe59 View Post
    While mastering for different formats (CD, MP3, digital devices, etc.) may be commonplace these days this is NOT what was done for the audio for TEY. Andy remastered all the audio as you previously described -



    In the case of the audio for TEY, the HD master straight from the mastering desk was only down-sampled for the various formats and was not EQed/remastered for the various formats. They're all the same. So the only things to legitimately complain about are Andy's remastering choices (too bright?) and that some files are still being withheld at their mastered HD resolution (48/24 and 96/24).
    I'm a few posts behind, so this may have already been addressed, but in the case of the TEY Sampler that was released online on HDTracks several months ago, it is clear that there absolutely was a separate mastering pass done with less NR and better EQ choices for some of the material released there (and at 24/96, no less). My complaint, (and I think jimfisheye's) is this: why this was not done for the individual volumes released on HDTracks? Releasing material on HDTracks would imply that sound quality would be the main concern, and would implicitly eliminate overuse of NR and overly bright EQ choices and/or excessive dynamic compression. Some of the material on the HDTracks Sampler seems to have mastered with these ideals in mind. Why not do that for all of TEY sets? (Time and money, I'm guessing, but still, we're talking less EQ/NR/etc, not more work. A separate mastering pass could be as simple as bypassing the NR/EQ and just re-rendering. Not that time-intensive, IMHO.)

    And yes, I would rather have this material "as-is" rather than not at all, but the HDTracks release baffles me - it seems like a bit of missed opportunity, especially given Floyd's history of careful attention to sound quality.

    Just my two cents, I know...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •