Band on the Run 24 bit vs 16 bit

[magiccarpetride]

I was comparing 24 bit remaster of Macca's "Band on the Run" with the 16 bit remaster of the same album. The 24 bit format is so superior to the 16 bit format of the same source material, that it's way pass the point where it could be even remotely funny.

The glaring differences in the sound quality are impossible to deny, even by the most hardened skeptics. So, assuming that I'm right in understanding that both formats have been dithered down from the exact same source (i.e. the 32 bit/192 kHz digitized master tape -- same procedure they used at the Apple studios for the Beatles remasters), it is now getting harder and harder for the high definition skeptics to claim that any perceived improvements over the red book standard are nothing more than an old wives' tale.

Or is my starting assumption wrong? Have these two formats been sourced from different digital source? And if so, why?

[The Vinyl Adventure]

I think the point of the sceptic is that unless you can guarantee that a high res version was made by the same person from the same mix then the comparison is flawed...
I'm not sure there is any doubt that a high res version should by rights sound better ... But trying to prove it without any knowledge of the facts of production is a little futile...

On tw weekend I was given a data stick thing with a Claire Martin album on it... It has a 160kbps version, a cd quality Flac version and a 24/88 version ... Now one assumes they were all made at the same time, after all they were made with the intention of becoming downloads from linn records web site ... Claire Martin her self said she was stunned at the quality of linns studio masters through her brand spanking new klimax ds based hifi... And one would assume she was there when they recorded her singing etc... But, who is to say that there isn't some kind of dulling of the cd version to make the high res version shine... I personally doubt it very much... In fact, I'm with you all the way, high res does sound better, on my system, it's as bloody blatantly obvious ... But the sceptics argument will always be "you don't know what has gone on behind the scenes, so you can't prove shite"

[magiccarpetride]

I think the point of the sceptic is that unless you can guarantee that a high res version was made by the same person from the same mix then the comparison is flawed...
I'm not sure there is any doubt that a high res version should by rights sound better ... But trying to prove it without any knowledge of the facts of production is a little futile...

On tw weekend I was given a data stick thing with a Claire Martin album on it... It has a 160kbps version, a cd quality Flac version and a 24/88 version ... Now one assumes they were all made at the same time, after all they were made with the intention of becoming downloads from linn records web site ... Claire Martin her self said she was stunned at the quality of linns studio masters through her brand spanking new klimax ds based hifi... And one would assume she was there when they recorded her singing etc... But, who is to say that there isn't some kind of dulling of the cd version to make the high res version shine... I personally doubt it very much... In fact, I'm with you all the way, high res does sound better, on my system, it's as bloody blatantly obvious ... But the sceptics argument will always be "you don't know what has gone on behind the scenes, so you can't prove shite"

Be that as it may (and I perfectly agree with what you said), the counter arguments I'm hearing from the skeptics boil down to this:

Take your 24/96 track, downsample it to 44.1 kHz and dither it down to 16 bit format, and you'll end up with identically sounding track. And, to the best of my knowledge, that's exactly what Allan Rouse did at the Abbey Road Studios. He took the high definition digitized source (rendered at 32 bit/192 kHz), and produced two formats: the red book format (16 bit/44.1 kHz) and the high definition format (24 bit/96 kHz). Both formats should've been dithered from the same digital source.

If that's the case (and I don't see any reason why it should've been otherwise), we're now definitely and absolutely comparing apples to apples. No one could now make an argument contrary wise. And it's clear as a day that the high definition format beats the red book format and takes its lunch money.

[Reid Malenfant]

I watched a blu ray of Billy Idol (In Super Overdrive - live) the other evening & as i happen to only have two channel stereo connections to my main hifi system right now i selected the stereo LPCM track to listen to it while watching.

To say i was stunned by the audio quality would be a bit of an understatement :eyebrows: Now i'm not sure of the bit depth but i'd imagine it was 24 bit as that is certainly available on blu rays ;) I happen to have one of his CDs & frankly the blu ray covering the same tracks but in a live performance totally trounced the CD quality wise. There was simply no comparison, in every way the blu ray was better & that's before you even factor in the 1080P picture quality, which was also outstanding :lol:

£300 blu ray player eats £10,000 Krell transport, + another couple of thousand worth of DAC :doh:

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Be that as it may (and I perfectly agree with what you said), the counter arguments I'm hearing from the skeptics boil down to this:

Take your 24/96 track, downsample it to 44.1 kHz and dither it down to 16 bit format, and you'll end up with identically sounding track. And, to the best of my knowledge, that's exactly what Allan Rouse did at the Abbey Road Studios. He took the high definition digitized source (rendered at 32 bit/192 kHz), and produced two formats: the red book format (16 bit/44.1 kHz) and the high definition format (24 bit/96 kHz). Both formats should've been dithered from the same digital source.

If that's the case (and I don't see any reason why it should've been otherwise), we're now definitely and absolutely comparing apples to apples. No one could now make an argument contrary wise. And it's clear as a day that the high definition format beats the red book format and takes its lunch money.

Problems in bold...

You know what they say about assumption ...

... Even taking a track and downsampling it your self is fraught with issues... Who's to say you pedestrian kit is up to the job to the same standard as kit in a studio....

I'm just playing devils advocate here, you just have to realise, you can't prove anything when you don't know all of the variables... There are too many here to say for certain that you are right...

[magiccarpetride]

Problems in bold...

You know what they say about assumption ...

... Even taking a track and downsampling it your self is fraught with issues... Who's to say you pedestrian kit is up to the job to the same standard as kit in a studio....

I'm just playing devils advocate here, you just have to realise, you can't prove anything when you don't know all of the variables... There are too many here to say for certain that you are right...

All fine and dandy. But the naysayers claim that even on a shitty pedestrian consumer grade kit that's fraught with issues, if you downsample/dither, you won't be able to tell the two formats apart. So how come when the same is done of a high grade professional equipment, we hear drastic differences in sound quality?

[pabbab]

It's not necessarily apples vs apples here...

on hdtracks two hi-res versions are on offer:

HDtracks give you two choices:
1) [Compressed] The original album mastering in 96/24

2) [Uncompressed] The newly remastered BAND ON THE RUN in 96/24 with NO dynamic range compression.

Audiophiles will appreciate that both 96-kHz/24-bit HDtracks downloads of BAND ON THE RUN sound dramatically cleaner and far more transparent than any previous version of the album!


The cd is from the compressed version, but is likely even more compressed, 'loudness wars' and all...

[pabbab]

Further information here, with statement from Allan Rouse of Abbey Road: https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=artistdetail&id=9433

[magiccarpetride]

It's not necessarily apples vs apples here...

on hdtracks two hi-res versions are on offer:

HDtracks give you two choices:
1) [Compressed] The original album mastering in 96/24

2) [Uncompressed] The newly remastered BAND ON THE RUN in 96/24 with NO dynamic range compression.

Audiophiles will appreciate that both 96-kHz/24-bit HDtracks downloads of BAND ON THE RUN sound dramatically cleaner and far more transparent than any previous version of the album!


The cd is from the compressed version, but is likely even more compressed, 'loudness wars' and all...

I was expecting the uncompressed HD format to sound quieter than the CD format (as they warned us on the site), but was kind of surprised to not notice any difference in terms of volume. The only glaring differences that I was able to hear were in terms of the smoothness/silkiness/warmness of the sound. The HD format is light years ahead in that area.

[Ali Tait]

I have the uncompressed version.Only had a chance for a quick listen as yet,sounds very good. I don't have the original to compare.Doubt it gets anywhere near though!

[magiccarpetride]

I have the uncompressed version.Only had a chance for a quick listen as yet,sounds very good. I don't have the original to compare.Doubt it gets anywhere near though!

Isn't the deep, deep bass and the tiny little percussive bells and triangles on "Bluebird" just to die for? And then the way the lush tenor sax casually walks in... Yummy!!!

If only we could somehow airbrush the annoying backing vocals out of the picture...

[Ali Tait]

Yes,sounds great. I'll be able to have a proper listen tomorrow,along with a few beers!

[Stratmangler]

Isn't the deep, deep bass and the tiny little percussive bells and triangles on "Bluebird" just to die for? And then the way the lush tenor sax casually walks in... Yummy!!!

If only we could somehow airbrush the annoying backing vocals out of the picture...

Are we talking about Linda's backing vocals now ?
For all their imperfection I think it's wrong to pick on just one aspect of a recorded work.
In fact nit picking about suchlike is missing the point.

LINDA WAS THERE BECAUSE PAUL WANTED HER TO BE THERE !!!

Just accept the fact.
It's the past, and it can't be changed.

I like the unlimited (no audio limiting) version.
It reminds me of when I first heard Band On The Run, way, way back in 1974, when I was all of 12 years old.
I don't think limiters had been invented then.

It's a great album, warts and all :ner:

[lovejoy]

I was looking at getting this the other day. I'm not familiar with the album although I've always loved the title track. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll make the purchase.

I still find it rather sad that we're scraping around for decent (i.e. mainstream releases) to buy in high resolution and now I have the bug after buying the Stan Getz/Joao Gilberto album in 24/96 (which is stunningly effortlessly musical), it's even more frustrating.

[Haselsh1]

I shall be getting the new release of Band On The Run just as soon as funds allow but I also adore the early Genesis remasters as well. Things have indeed come a long way since '74.

[gramofone]

Hi Alex,

As you know, I share your conviction that the HR sound is so much better than anything else around that it's even not funny. :bulb:

I was tempted by the 24/96 Band on the Run re-release, but now after reading your listening impressions, I've gotta have it!

Also if you haven't already, download those Sophie Milman tracks from HDTracks ... sorry to keep banging on about it, but they are simply stunning.

[magiccarpetride]

Hi Alex,

As you know, I share your conviction that the HR sound is so much better than anything else around that it's even not funny. :bulb:

I was tempted by the 24/96 Band on the Run re-release, but now after reading your listening impressions, I've gotta have it!

Also if you haven't already, download those Sophie Milman tracks from HDTracks ... sorry to keep banging on about it, but they are simply stunning.

Hi Malcolm, will do. The thing that bothers me about HDTracks is their moronic Java downloader. I've tried it, but had to bail out. It feels so dirty to have it operate on my computer, I feel violated watching it do its nasty thing. It's the equivalent of undergoing a full rectal examination.

Why can't they allow subscribers to download music in a normal, civilized fashion, like all the other sites do?

You MUST hear Band On The Run, uncompressed/unlimited. It'll change your perspective on digital music. The sound is indeed eye-poppingly, jaw-droppingly brilliant!

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Ha! Your not a man of understatement are you Alex ;)

[lovejoy]

You MUST hear Band On The Run, uncompressed/unlimited. It'll change your perspective on digital music. The sound is indeed eye-poppingly, jaw-droppingly brilliant!

Hmmm, gonna have to pick me up a vinyl copy for comparison then ;-).

[gramofone]

Hi Alex,

Yes, it has taken me a long time to get used to the HDT downloader.:doh:

BTW are there any other Hi-Res sites that I should know about ? ...

[magiccarpetride]

Hi Alex,

Yes, it has taken me a long time to get used to the HDT downloader.:doh:

BTW are there any other Hi-Res sites that I should know about ? ...

Try this one, for starters. Some yummy morsels, even some great free smorgasbord!

http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

[Ken Moreland]

If you don't have any copyright qualms try this one http://24bit96khz.org/ plenty of 24bit96khz studio masters also some 24bit192khz

If you like it join filefactory and pay a few $ for ease of use download filefactory turbo.

KM

[Welder]

Thanks for the link Ken.

I haven’t used a free download site for music before, as in free music rather than free download.
I’ve always purchased my music, bar the stuff me and a few friends tend to share, albeit often second hand from Amazon.
I’m really not sure what I think about the moral/legal aspects of this, I’ll let those with definite opinions take up the debate as they are doing elsewhere on this forum.

What does interest me is where do these 24/96 versions of music come from?
To the best of my knowledge some of the tracks I see on offer weren’t recorded at 24/96 for CD format at least. I realize some are vinyl rips, but what about the others? Are these just up sampled?

Anyway, I’m downloading a few tracks as I type and I shall be interested to see what a frequency analysis makes of them.

[gramofone]

Hi Malcolm, will do. The thing that bothers me about HDTracks is their moronic Java downloader.

You MUST hear Band On The Run, uncompressed/unlimited. It'll change your perspective on digital music. The sound is indeed eye-poppingly, jaw-droppingly brilliant!

Alex,

Downloaded it last night ... kicked it off before I went to bed and it had crawled it's way to the finish by the time I got up this morning.:rolleyes:

First impression is that it is indeed higher quality than any 'Beatles' music I have heard previously. There are parts of it which sound completely 'real' on my system: first section of Band on the Run before chorus, Bluebird etc. but some of the recording/ mixing dates the music destroys the illusion, for example, Band on the Run chorus.

Still better than anything from Abbey Road I have heard before. I am now tempted to get the Beatles' catalog on the Apple USB stick ... should I ? ...:scratch:

[gramofone]

If you don't have any copyright qualms try this one http://24bit96khz.org/ plenty of 24bit96khz studio masters also some 24bit192khz

If you like it join filefactory and pay a few $ for ease of use download filefactory turbo.

KM

Ken
Thanks a lot for the link. I suppose as with any file sharing site there will be the good (genuine studio master images), the bad (vinyl rips) and the ugly (CD upsamples) !!! ...:eyebrows:

If you do find any good recordings when trawling there, perhaps you could post what you find? ...

[Ken Moreland]

I enjoyed this one from Kent Poon http://www.24bit96khz.org/viewlisting.php?id=1374

KM

[Welder]

Re; File Factory.
Well, that was an enlightening experience.
I know why I buy my music now :rolleyes:
I tried a few vinyl rips; conclusion, don’t bother, all the problems associated with vinyl made worse, hum, clicks, pops, rumble, all faithfully transferred :eek:

SACD, better, but the one album I was interested in, Norah Jones had corrupted files. Given it was acquired with the free download and rather a long wait; disappointing to say the least. Glad I resisted the temptation to pay for a premium account.

Studio Master, Tom Petty, Mojo. This sounds decent in both formats. Worth a visit just for this :)

Interestingly the tracks from The Beatles St Peppers which were ripped from cassette sound a whole lot better than the vinyl rips.

The site itself is very good imo and HD tracks to name but one of the worst could learn a lot about site layout and access from these people.
As seems to be the trend unfortunately the well recorded “hi res” music isn’t the sort of music I have the slightest interest in listening too.
Wouldn’t it be great if someone could batter some sense into the likes of Linn and get them to sort out something apart from obscure Celtic folk and a bit of jazz?

[SteveW]

Mentioned it before, but if your willing to gamble £34/year, the Society of Sound from B&W is well worth it.
You now get two downloads a month, one classical and the other an eclectic mix of world/jazz type stuff.
You can also download 16 or 24 bit flac, or Apple Lossless.. or do what I do, a 24 bit for my external hard drive that I will access later when I've got a digital streamer and the apple file ..of each album.
The new one this month is a live album by Cara Dillion, and it sounds wonderful on the ipod played in the car, so looking forward to being able to properly play 24 bit files.

[SteveW]

http://www.bowers-wilkins.co.uk/Society_of_Sound/Society_of_Sound

[magiccarpetride]

Still better than anything from Abbey Road I have heard before. I am now tempted to get the Beatles' catalog on the Apple USB stick ... should I ? ...:scratch:

Run, don't walk, to get the Beatles in high def! You haven't lived until you've heard them in 24 bit! It's a life changing experience (and I'm trying to not overstate things here;)

The difference between their catalog in 24 bit and in 16 bit is nothing short of staggering. I was extremely skeptical last year that there could be any noticeable differences between the two, so I've ignored the Apple USB. Then, one day, I walked into my local HMV and saw the green Apple USB on sale for $149.99; bought it on the spot. The rest is history...

You can still get it at this ridiculous price! Go here and order: http://www.hmv.ca/Products/Detail/546726.aspx

Believe me, you will thank me profusely. After hearing them in high definition, you will notice that food tastes better, the sky is bluer, and women have larger breasts:)

[Ken Moreland]

I'd agree the vinyl rips are not worth the download. For me the studio masters and dvd and dvd-a are best. In most cases it's necessary to download all parts in rar format otherwise there is an error message saying file corrupted. For something like 10$ you can get a month of premium Filefactory downloads and this is a much smoother downloading operation. If you download Filefactory Turbo you can submit all the downloads at once so you don't need to keep coming back for the next part.
KM:cool:

[magiccarpetride]

SACD, better, but the one album I was interested in, Norah Jones had corrupted files. Given it was acquired with the free download and rather a long wait; disappointing to say the least. Glad I resisted the temptation to pay for a premium account.

What's your guys' opinion on the analog rips of SACDs/DVD-Audios? Isn't that equivalent to ripping CDs by capturing the signal from the analog outputs? Don't you lose some (read: lots) of the clarity of the source signal that way?

Of course, the only way to rip CDs is to do it digitally, in a super paranoid mode. But my understanding is that SACDs were built to resist such attempts.

Anyone managed to crack that nut?

[Ken Moreland]

In the case of SACD's I understand it has to be an analogue rip as you describe but in the case of DVD-A's the recording is as per the original DVD-A recording. See John Coltrane's Blue Train http://www.24bit96khz.org/viewlisting.php?id=561

[gramofone]

I'd agree the vinyl rips are not worth the download. For me the studio masters and dvd and dvd-a are best. I
KM:cool:

Ken,

I agree with this analysis. A mate recently bought round a CD of some obscure (to me) French pop singer, which contained a short bonus video in the package.

The studio recorded CD itself sounded absolutely terrible ... but the bonus video of part of a live performance sounded great! ...:lolsign:

[gramofone]

Alex,

Ok, you have convinced me that my life is a complete sham if I don't get the Beatles on USB stick ..

Actually it is the type of thing that would make a good present ... maybe i'll start dropping some hints (and save a few bucks). It's not long 'til Xmas ... ;)

[Batty]

I have just ordered the new release on vinyl allegedly it comes with a free download of the digital version, but I'll have to wait to see how that goes.