CounterintuitiveBody | 36 points
"I got techniques drippin' out my butt cheeks, sleep on my stomach so I don't fuck up my sheets"
The Notorious B.I.G. - Ready to Die (1994)
Tracklist:
Enjoy, and as always PLAY IT LOUD!
[-] TheAmnesiacKid | 2 points
Hell YES. Original samples in place. Nice.
[-] CounterintuitiveBody | 2 points
YES. I was really bummed when I went to stream this album on Apple Music in the car one day and noticed there are a ton of samples missing. But no worries, in this version the samples live on!
Thanks, always playing it loud for the neighbors!
In music, the 24bit/96kHz quality is only useful before the master, and maybe after for sampling in new songs.
However, except for specially developed vinyl, LP caps at ~20kHz. Thus I don't understand the rational of sampling it at 96kHz when 44/48kHz would more than cover the information present on the vinyl. Moreover, since the dynamic range of a LP is far lower than that of a 16 bit CD (60dB vs 95dB), I'm at a loss as to why this was given a bit depth of 24 bits.
Also, for information, the 2004 CD remaster contains a 19th track, Just playing (Dreams).
[-] CounterintuitiveBody | 1 points
Yeah, I agree that the bitrate and high quality of some of these releases is total overkill. I personally have not ripped any of these myself and am just sharing what I have in my collection. A few people mentioned being interested in these HQ releases so that is what I have placed priority on uploading first.
Frankly, I cannot tell the difference listening to a 16bit-48khz recording vs the same in 24bit-96khz. And also the version of this rip that I got online did not have the 19th track, but I do know that the 18th track is also a bonus not included in the original CD release.
All that said, I'm glad that you are enjoying the music! I just wanted to pass along some of the things in my collection that I have never seen on this sub, and I have a lot more regular CD rips in FLAC that I plan on uploading in the near future. Keep playing it loud! If the music's good the neighbors will forgive you :D
Yes, I'll just have to convert it to 16bit/48kHz (the sound will be identical, and it's still overkill but at least all my players will understand it).
I enjoy your previous releases (Black Sabbath especially) but will always prefer the FLACs from audio CDs (if you have them) since the dynamic range is miles better than on the LP.
I understand some might prefer the old school feel of LP sound, but in that case 24/96 defeats the purpose.
As for 24/96 from digital source there actually is no difference at all in the bit depth (see http://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/) and only the possibly of distortions with 96/192kHz files (see https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html).
So if you can't hear the difference it's not your ears, there is just no difference.
[-] CounterintuitiveBody | 1 points
Thank you for all the info, this is great stuff! While I do like that "old school feel of LP sound" I agree that it makes more sense from an audiophile standpoint to have the source from CD.
Ironically, almost the only releases that I have in 24/96 are all vinyl rips rather than CD.
Well, CD is 16/44kHz so it would be as useful to encode them in 24/96 as LP (that is, completely useless); however:
-- audio CDs don't have audio snobs since they're not as expensive as LP, nor is the hardware required to play them;
-- LP are analog, and credulous people tend to believe analog means no limits in resolution or dynamic range, thus oblivious to the fact that in both LP are the lowest denominator (even Dobly audio tapes have better dynamic range, with far less noise).
[-] CounterintuitiveBody | 1 points
So true. I can't say I've ever heard of someone being a CD snob!
Haha, maybe it's time to change that. From now on I will only listen to MFSL remasters and/or Japanese gold-plated CD imports!
Japanese media is expensive, but as a result they also have some of the best masters & care about their music where it counts, so Japanese imports do make sense.
Recording, editing & mastering is where the quality difference is, so that kind of snobism has value (and thus is hardly snobism). Once the master is done though, 16/44 will sound as well as 24/192.
24/192 makes more money to the studio though.
[-] CounterintuitiveBody | 1 points
Yeah, I know they have a reputation for producing high quality versions on CD. I was being facetious in my comment, but if I am scouring the internet for FLAC rips of albums and come across somebody who ripped from a Japanese source it's usually a sign of super high quality.
[-] anotherforgottenpw | 1 points
See my post responding to the other guy - I am not 100% sure on all the details but I believe there are issues with some CDs out there, mainly for classic stuff that existed on vinyl first. Playing the CD itself will reproduce in perfect quality what is on the CD, it is just that the mixing and mastering of what they put on there was shit in some cases.
That can be the case for early CD that were not properly made (and that's not due to the fact they lost the original tapes).
For the rest of CDs, the main problem is compression (reducing the dynamic range to play ok on portable players), however that also affects LPs, which have a very low dynamic range by design.
[-] anotherforgottenpw | 1 points
Yeah, it was a problem for a good number of albums in the early years of the CD format. Pretty notorious (sorry, couldn't resist) issue in fact if I remember correctly.
[-] anotherforgottenpw | 1 points
Aren't there two separate issues - bit rate and then vinyl vs. CD? A lot of stuff (not necessarily this Biggie album) was mastered differently for CD than it was originally for vinyl. Also I could be wrong but I think I remember hearing for some old albums when it came time to make the CD they couldn't even get access to the original masters and ending up using inferior sources.
[-] CounterintuitiveBody | 1 points
Maybe, but I think it could be argued that the difference in bitrate is something inherent to the vinyl vs. CD debate. And that is a good point about mastering albums for vinyl vs CD, there are lots of old albums that the first CD versions of sounded pretty horrible and is part of why so many album are being remastered (think the 2009 Beatles box set).
But also I have seen quite a few vinyl re-releases that are sourced from the CD master and those sometimes sound inferior. Or at least that's what a lot of folks over at forums.stevehoffman might say.
[-] anotherforgottenpw | 1 points
Yeah what a mess. I don't get all that into it, almost all of what I own and listen to sounds great to me but there are problems out there for sure. For example as far as I know Tool doesn't even have a proper vinyl release of some of their albums.
But the important thing is all the good music that you uploaded so thanks again. I am still trying to get caught up, it seems like you posted about 25 albums I am going to have to grab. Muchas gracias.
Yes, different mastering can have a huge effect on the end result, although you'd need to be well versed in the individual history to be able to decide.
Usually though when people prefer the LP sound it's because they like that reduced dynamic range that makes low sounds louder than they are in reality, giving a warmer (proximity) feeling and even the idea that there's more "detail", even though in real life you wouldn't be able to hear those low volume sounds. That 'LP sound' can easily be reproduced by compressing the audio CD sound during playback though.
As far as losing the original masters between LP and CD releases, that wouldn't in itself make the CD worse than the LP - if you lost the originals, you at least have the LP and thus the CD will have at least as good a quality as the LP (and in practice better since very few people would have access to the hardware editing companies have).
[-] anotherforgottenpw | 1 points
Aww yes, thanks for the upload... gotta have that classic version with all the original samples
[-] [deleted] | 3 points | Dec 10 2017 04:55:04
keep it up you are my hero
permalink