24 Bit Stereo Remasters

This is why we're here, right?

24 Bit Stereo Remasters

mikesmike
Newbie
Joined: 28 Oct 2015, 03:40

28 Oct 2015, 03:43 #1

Does anyone know if Paddy or anyone connected with the band has considered any 24 bit stereo/recording masters releases similar to those available at hdtracks?

Would love to see every album re released in high res audio.
Reply
Like

rock smith
Advanced Member
rock smith
Advanced Member
Joined: 07 Jul 2007, 03:15

30 Oct 2015, 17:21 #2

mikesmike @ Oct 28 2015, 03:43 AM wrote: Does anyone know if Paddy or anyone connected with the band has considered any 24 bit stereo/recording masters releases similar to those available at hdtracks?

Would love to see every album re released in high res audio.
The last two releases have been demo or home recordings-hardly audiophile quality really.If you are into getting a hi fi experience I would think having a desent system and turntable,cartridge etc would give you better listening experience than any 24 bit recording would.It all depends on the circumstances of the recording,using a 'standard'
good listening system and using your ears. I have just invested in a pair of AKG K702 headphones which sound great but have a flat response that some might not like.What do you listen through?
Reply
Like

cock smith
Newbie
Joined: 24 Nov 2015, 07:21

24 Nov 2015, 13:38 #3

rock smith @ Oct 30 2015, 05:21 PM wrote: I have just invested in a pair of AKG K702 headphones which sound great but have a flat response that some might not like.
Because you were told to "Get a good pair of cans and listen carefully"? Good for you, son.
On Sproutnet even a very moderate capacity can contribute to a supreme achievement. Or maybe not. — Bertrand Russell.
Reply
Like

rock smith
Advanced Member
rock smith
Advanced Member
Joined: 07 Jul 2007, 03:15

24 Nov 2015, 14:46 #4

cock smith @ Nov 24 2015, 01:38 PM wrote:
rock smith @ Oct 30 2015, 05:21 PM wrote: I have just invested in a pair of  AKG K702 headphones which sound great but have a flat response that some might not like.
Because you were told to "Get a good pair of cans and listen carefully"? Good for you, son.
Whats wrong Dave?
Reply
Like

cock smith
Newbie
Joined: 24 Nov 2015, 07:21

24 Nov 2015, 16:00 #5

rock smith @ Nov 24 2015, 02:46 PM wrote:
cock smith @ Nov 24 2015, 01:38 PM wrote:
rock smith @ Oct 30 2015, 05:21 PM wrote: I have just invested in a pair of  AKG K702 headphones which sound great but have a flat response that some might not like.
Because you were told to "Get a good pair of cans and listen carefully"? Good for you, son.
Whats wrong Dave?
Dave can't hear you.
On Sproutnet even a very moderate capacity can contribute to a supreme achievement. Or maybe not. — Bertrand Russell.
Reply
Like

rock smith
Advanced Member
rock smith
Advanced Member
Joined: 07 Jul 2007, 03:15

13 Dec 2015, 16:34 #6

cock smith @ Nov 24 2015, 04:00 PM wrote:
rock smith @ Nov 24 2015, 02:46 PM wrote:
cock smith @ Nov 24 2015, 01:38 PM wrote: Because you were told to "Get a good pair of cans and listen carefully"? Good for you, son.
Whats wrong Dave?
Dave can't hear you.
Ok Dave ;)
Reply
Like

sprout1000
Newbie
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 00:25

26 Feb 2016, 00:46 #7

Rock Smith: With total respect, I think your information may be a little off. Even if Paddy's last two albums are home recordings, they then (generally) get digitally remastered at a studio, generally at a 24 Bit depth at 96 KHZ, (and sometimes 48 - 192) which is considered the finished product.

The general public never get to see/hear that product (until now) because that final version is then compressed so it will fit on a cd at 16 Bits and to do that certain aspects of the music and recording are removed during the compression process to make it fit. The digital master version simply does not fit on a CD, which has a maximum capacity of 700mb. So if the master weighs in at 1.1GB, 400 mb has to be lost to make it fit and as soon as 1mb is removed the the recording is then different to how it was recorded. Then multiply that by the other 299 mb.

For a much better explanation than I could ever give take a quick look here, it's very informative in very simple terms: http://tweakheadz.com/16-bit-vs-24-bit-audio/

Until recently the original master gets stored away and is forgotten about, but a company called HD Tracks and a few others ( http://www.hdtracks.com/ ) now sell the music as is, in a lossless (uncompressed) format (FLAC or WAV) that is deigned to be downloaded to a hard drive/thumb drive and then played back through a decent USB capable receiver in crystal clear 24 bit stereo, as it was recorded.

In simple terms you are hearing the track with the extra 100MB or so (amount for example purposes) put back in, and in simple terms that version is no different than if you were sat in the studio during the recording/remastering process.

There are arguments back and forth as to whether the human ear can tell the difference between 16 Bit MP3's and 24 Bit digital stereo but there's no doubt it's as good a copy of music as you will ever get, and when played on a decent receiver is mind blowingly good. The people that say there is no difference are completely entitled to that view, but as someone who owns over 150 24/96 recordings I can tell you I personally feel there is a big difference, with The Eagles/Hotel California being a perfect example, the audio quality of that in 24/96 is unmatched by anything released on MP3/CD, and I would defy anyone to listen to Paul McCartney's Band On The Run album in 24/96 and not be totally blown away. In my opinion of course. But my point is, the argument of not better/better is probably for another day in another thread.

Given the amount of money artists now lose because of the digital revolution, a great many now see the release of their 24 Bit masters as a legitimate income stream and over time the number of really big artists making these releases has exploded, to include Paul McCartney, The Eagles, Yes, Eric Clapton and many many others.

In almost all cases there is little to zero work to be done because the master already exists and there is no packaging, so to release an entire back catologue to someone like HD Tracks is very attractive because your average album will cost 25 dollars/pounds and the plain fact is the real committed fans are happy to pay for an entire collection of albums again because the product they are buying is the product that was recorded, and not the product released to the general public that they originally purchased and still own and play.

Trying to explain what Appetite or Moving The River would sound like in 24 Bit Stereo is impossible, but please believe me when I say - outside of a live performance - it would be the best Sprout listening experience you could ever achieve.

From Paddy's point of view he could release his whole back catologue in glorious 24 Bit and create an alternative revenue stream that he currently does not have, whilst giving the die-hard fans the product he always wanted them to hear.

I think that's known as Win/Win.

Again - Rock Smith - no disrespect intended, just trying to put more meat on the bones of the original posters initial question, and just trying to make Paddy aware (should he occasionally peruse this forum) there are more royalty options out there from people like me who would give their right arm to be able to buy his whole back catologue at $30-a-pop in glorious 24/96 and consider it a fine investment.
Reply
Like

rock smith
Advanced Member
rock smith
Advanced Member
Joined: 07 Jul 2007, 03:15

27 Feb 2016, 18:57 #8

Hi sprout1000-thanks for the input..If you read my post I am not knocking 24/96 bit mastering but only mentioning that it is essentially relative to the source quality.
I currently have all the Sprout B sides in 24/96 that I have recorded from my vinyl and they sound great-but so do the converted 320 mp3 files.
The quality of the hardware is vastly more important to the final sound quality than listening in 24 bit.Back in the 70's audiophiles could buy 8 track or even 1/4 inch reels of albums that would destroy any good vinyl pressing.With digital even 24 bits is nowhere near the sound spectrum of vinyl (again only if the vinyl is played on a decent system) we have swapped quality for connivence.I also distrust the 'Remaster' tag as 99 times it usually means a louder and brighter sound that has less dynamics and a brittle harsh tone.
I would like to hear 'Andromeda Heights' and 'I Trawl' on 24 bit.Both are superbly recorded but as I have already mentioned both LCTWWM & CR are basically 'crap' recordings that have only been released because someone at the record company has shrugged and said 'nobody knows the difference anyway' ;)
Reply
Like

sprout1000
Newbie
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 00:25

03 Mar 2016, 07:43 #9

Great post Rock:

Great points about ripping from vinyl. The problem I have with that is it's not cheap, especially if you haven't got near mint vinyl to start with. As you know, you need a good quality turntable with a good quality stylus, cartridge etc. With that said, it's a great way of doing it when it works.

The reason I posted was because I was wondering if Paddy had ever considered it, or even knew about it. He strikes me as the kind of guy who would - being the perfectionist he is - love to release old material that was either remastered or better still 24/96.

Would I be right in thinking they never released anything that was remastered? I feel sure they didn't.

I'm assuming you don't know him, correct me if I'm wrong, but if anyone is reading this (maybe even Paddy himself?) that knows Paddy it would be great if the subject of remastering the back catologue could be mentioned to him, it seems like the perfect project for a semi-retired workaholic, or on the flip-side, a great project to hand off to a trusted producer if Paddy didn't want to get his hands dirty.

With that said, knowing Paddy in the very limited way I do, I can't imagine him agreeing to a project like that and not throwing himself into it 24/7.
Reply
Like

rock smith
Advanced Member
rock smith
Advanced Member
Joined: 07 Jul 2007, 03:15

03 Mar 2016, 19:00 #10

sprout1000 @ Mar 3 2016, 07:43 AM wrote:

Would I be right in thinking they never released anything that was remastered? I feel sure they didn't.
There was a superb series of Japanese remasters of all the PS albums that came out about 10 years ago.They are probably the 'definative' re-issues imo before the 'loudness wars' rendered everything over cooked.
I think it is taken as a given that Paddy is not arsed about re- releasing any PS material,
he seems to have washed his hands of it years ago.
But there is nearly 3 CD's worth of vinyl only B-Sides and unreleased killer demos that are still well worth hearing (they were once available on this site) in fact,for me they are probably the most enjoyable part of PS.
Reply
Like

bisonrav
Advanced Member
bisonrav
Advanced Member
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 18:00

13 Mar 2016, 19:57 #11

Good piece on "hi res" audio here.

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Reply
Like

lonegroover
Advanced Member
lonegroover
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 Mar 2008, 17:11

11 May 2016, 20:54 #12

bisonrav @ Mar 13 2016, 07:57 PM wrote: Good piece on "hi res" audio here.

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Yes, so-called "high resolution" audio is pure snake oil.
Reply
Like

mikesmike
Newbie
Joined: 28 Oct 2015, 03:40

08 Aug 2017, 23:06 #13

As an update, I got all the blu spec discs from various places (mainly via Japan on EBay) and I have to say they are an upgrade to the originals, but not by as much as you might think and certainly not for the money. The upside is you can copy them and resell.
Reply
Like