https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Sun, 12 Apr 2026 15:14:43 +0000 Fri, 05 Nov 2010 21:49:37 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.07 360 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=5945 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum//images/Top-40-Music-on-CD-Forum-Logo.png https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28240&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28240 Author: The Hits Man
Subject: 5945
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.

Edited by The Hits Man]]> Fri, 05 Nov 2010 21:49:37 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28240&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28240 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28217&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28217 Author: Brian W.
Subject: 5945
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.

Edited by Brian W.]]> Tue, 02 Nov 2010 07:12:16 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28217&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28217 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28192&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28192 Author: KentT
Subject: 5945
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. ]]> Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:58:15 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28192&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28192 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28190&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28190 Author: Brian W.
Subject: 5945
Posted: 25 October 2010 at 11:21pm

KentT wrote: 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!

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.

Edited by Brian W.]]> Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:21:02 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28190&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28190 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28189&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28189 Author: NightAire
Subject: 5945
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.)]]> Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:18:05 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28189&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28189 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28188&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28188 Author: KentT
Subject: 5945
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! ]]> Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:23:20 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28188&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28188 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28130&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28130 Author: aaronk
Subject: 5945
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.]]> Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:36:41 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28130&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28130 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28128&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28128 Author: Brian W.
Subject: 5945
Posted: 19 October 2010 at 9:27pm

aaronk wrote: 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.

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. ]]> Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:27:08 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28128&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28128 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28127&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28127 Author: aaronk
Subject: 5945
Posted: 19 October 2010 at 9:15pm

Brian W. wrote: 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.")

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.]]> Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:15:15 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28127&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28127 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28126&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28126 Author: aaronk
Subject: 5945
Posted: 19 October 2010 at 9:13pm

Brian W. wrote: What I meant to say was, isn't that the same bitrate as the digital master tape that is used for mastering CDs?

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.]]> Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:13:37 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5945&PID=28126&title=mccartney-harrison-remasters-in-flac#28126