New Muse album to be available at 24bit, 96k

[acorneau]

Don't know if it's been posted up yet, but here's one way to avoid the whole sample/bit rate issues...

"Beck will release a new album in December, but it won't come in the form of MP3s, CD or vinyl – instead, Beck Hansen's Song Reader will be released by the publishing house McSweeney's as individual pieces of sheet music."

Beck to Release New Album as Book of Sheet Music | Music News | Rolling Stone

[Philosopher]

Originally Posted by fradoca

are you kidding??
the hd tracks version even if at 24 bit 96 khz sounds horrible.
All the dynamics crashed.You hear how much compression was used in the mastering process!!But if you compare a well recorded and mastered album at 24 bit 96 khz with the same album in cd format i totally agree that the high resolution version sounds much much better.Mastering engineers can certainly do bad mastering on many records but archiving those same tracks at high resolution won't help them to improve things.Quality issues rely on many factors.Not only from high resolution.

Well, there's no doubt that a bad sounding, crushed master will be even more evident in 24-96, but perhaps that is still a good thing. If people care enough about the quality of the music to purchase an HD version, but are not satisfied with the sound, it may make it necessary to either make the master cleaner for all versions, or release a separate, more dynamic master for the 24-96 release. Either result would be desirable and would be good strides against the loudness war.

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

@ adam and HU:
I agree with is often a higher resolution, not squashed to shit version of artist XXXX may not be available. That part is a shame. Bigger shame is even when it is somehow artists think it has to be with iTunes or similar large big companies only.

So in short:
I care and also am trying to work on a solution for my supporters for direct download of non-compressed music. I am not against other also selling but middle men often take too much for too little.

Let's hope in the future we will have high res/high quality music available.

Exactly, I just want higher quality music to become available for listening pleasure. Now, an album released in 24-96 does not necessarily entail that it will sound more pleasurable, but it does allow for the possibility; as a higher quality file could retain it's dynamics and low level resolution, and therefore would not have to be crushed to bits.

[Owen Gillett]

Originally Posted by wado1942

I might say that's good news except I can guarantee that it will be just as crushed, if not more crushed than the previous album. It really doesn't matter if there's no brick wall filter at 20KHz and an extra bit of detail in bottom few dB... IF THE TOP 10-12dB HAVE BEEN DESTROYED! So far, that's been the case for just about every 24/96K release I've heard. Most computers won't play back the full resolution any way. I'd much rather hear that the industry is going back to 1991 mastering standards.

This was exactly what I thought when I read the thread heading! I totally agree with everything said here. (Other than I haven't heard enough high res releases to know what they are like)

Originally Posted by wado1942

EXACTLY! It would be so much more worth while if they just put the audio in order, tweak the consistency & maybe do a little sweetening. But no, everybody has to play idiot numbers games, like -4dB RMS is somehow impressive to the layman. I don't doubt that the 96KHz version sounds better, less aliasing etc. but you can get MUCH better sound right now, with existing technology anybody could play by just giving up this stupid war.

I 100.00% agree!! I really hope with the advent of software like soundcheck that we can grow a brain and stop making music boring and small.

The new Jethro Tull/Ian Anderson album Thick as a brick 2 would be one to put on the list of high res mixes (48khz 24 bit) that make it worthwhile. No compression for "loudness" sake, Open and great music too!

Best,

Owen Gillett

[Electricalyce]

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

Sure you keep telling yourself this and making excuses.
Get a cheap CC that has 100 dollars on it. Use that for these transactions if you live in the fear factor age. Fact is I get more stupid ppl calling to try and make phone orders at work instead of use our secure system online. Americans seem to be the worst at this in that they will even tell your password with out being asked (we never do) then do the logical thing.

For the record I am not 100% against sites that bring artists together. There is a purpose to that. For me to think different would be silly.

That being said the excuses do not add up to what you have bought into. From pay gal or some other method there is a way. Fact is people are just lazy and dont give a flying hoot. Same can be said of the quality and squashing the shit of music (lazy-insecure).

I know this is slightly off topic, but what is wrong with striving for convenience in the digital realm? If I went into a record shop, browsed around, found a couple of records I wanted, brought them to the register and had to fill out a form with all my personal data I'd probably be more than a little aggrivated and look around for places where I could pick up music hassle-free.

[WBM]

Most of the indie bands they been requesting me 24B/ 96K.

They using it in bandcamp in formats like Flac, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, ALAC, MP3 320KB, so I have to use a limiter (PL-2- L2) before the DAW but I can't limit that much, have to be breathing for my second limiter Plug-in for PCM format, so It will be cool if you have to work for one format only.

People went for MP3 since is easy to send by email, listen on Ipod and any carry items, not because it sound better so when we get out there easy movil items working with 24B/ 96K may be the industry will take a big change !

[wado1942]

You know what's sad is a guy I know (non-musician, non-audio guy) just commented a couple of days ago that the cleanest sounding albums he has are on cassette.

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by Cheebs Goat

This is my problem with 24 bit. My good sound room has no computer. For me, it's records, cds, or else get stuck on crappy PC speakers.

I also wish these "high end" versions of albums came in a physical format. I can't wrap by head around the "standard" version being so much nicer and better built than the luxery version...due purely to being built at all vs not really existing.

Having a computer with a decent da hanging off it seems like it would be the modern way to go if people were going to listen to high rez audio.

Sonic Studio recently came out with Amarra which I think is aimed at the consumer: Sonic Studio Amarra High Resolution Music Players and Professional Audio Mastering Systems

I also have a dvd-a player but it never gets used..

[Cheebs Goat]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

Having a computer with a decent da hanging off it seems like it would be the modern way to go if people were going to listen to high rez audio.

Can bluetooth send audio at full resolution? Does anybody sell a bluetooth reciever bolted on to a killer D/A?

Right now I have a bluetooth reciever/DA with RCA outs that sold for about $30 a few years ago. It's connected to my stereo and I use it for 16 bit stuff played from the phone or Ipad. But I've never tried it with 24 bit and the D/A is mearly better than the jack on the phone.

Sonic Studio recently came out with Amarra which I think is aimed at the consumer: Sonic Studio Amarra High Resolution Music Players and Professional Audio Mastering Systems

I also have a dvd-a player but it never gets used..

I don't think I get it.

I would think it would be a bad thing if anything other than an exact bit for bit copy of the music hit the D/A. Computers off the shelf can already send bit perfect data to the D/A. Why would you ever spend $50 to $450 on hifi software when the only thing it could possibly do to the sound is either nothing,or something you don't want it to do?

[Realigion]

Most of my favorite artists are now deceased but it'd be nice to see some re-releases in 24 bit, 96k. I'd like to hear The Beatles in such quality. The Strokes first album, Tupac's discography and maybe someday I'll be able to bring one of my favorite independent artist's music to the masses in such quality. I'd have all of the material remixed and mastered by Bernie Grundman or Brian "Big Bass" Gardner

[Gans Ja]

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

Though I was misquoted the fact about ppl not giving a hoot is pretty darn obvious. If it wasn't then iTunes would not have the success it has seen and the clone of people lining up for the latest phone would not matter.

Anyways to the point for those who do care for music, likely they have already been out searching. I can not speak for everyone nor are my intentions to but I for one do research about who mastered albums, how it was done, etc. Funny thing is this whole new digital world of technology in many ways has made this easier. Check out youtube for how the record was made, online SOS articles how and who mastered, etc. Then simply type in google and look for this specific music. Honestly it takes all of 100 taps of the fingers or less and not endorsed by so called Apple.

Now the downside I agree with is often a higher resolution, not squashed to shit version of artist XXXX may not be available. That part is a shame. Bigger shame is even when it is somehow artists think it has to be with iTunes or similar large big companies only.

So in short:
I care and also am trying to work on a solution for my supporters for direct download of non-compressed music. I am not against other also selling but middle men often take too much for too little.

Let's hope in the future we will have high res/high quality music available.

Middle men take too much - they take soul of music.
Artist needs good impressario who is a MEMBER of the group.(and very important member) They need fanbase and thats basicly it. Then they can release all their music from official site. And more consumers will see all the benefits of hi res records. Technology is here but what about an artists mindset?

[Ciaccona]

I've attached a comparison of the MP3 and HD audio of 2 tracks.
The difference in sound is, as you woud expect, huge.
Much more detail and separation audible in the 96/24 one.

It has been mixed by CLA and mastered by Ted Jensen.

So, how does this work? I'm guessing the HD version is closer to the original CLA mix and Jensen basically did 2 Masters with different dynamics processing?

Is it probably just the 2-bus slammed much harder in the MP3 or do they go for a different processing chain for such a less compressed version?

[zoahk]

I honestly feel it's nothing but a marketing ploy and means of promotion and further bigging up a release. Listening to muse in it's standard quality, it is as good as it's going to get, why strive for the high quality format which has proven to not always be beneficial to the recording? The differences are tiny and are only imagined by consumers who do not work in sound or audio processing, people who can notice the minor differences, but to a consumer, all they know is they're being told that it is higher quality format therefore their brain feels that what they are listening to is better. They may be able to pick out tiny changes in quality, but a lot of this is imagined and what isn't, is not going to be relevant or interesting to the consumer. If there is any significant sonic qualities between the two I would put my 2 cents on it having being mastered differently for better playback on the higher quality format.

[Ciaccona]

Originally Posted by zoahk

I honestly feel it's nothing but a marketing ploy and means of promotion and further bigging up a release. Listening to muse in it's standard quality, it is as good as it's going to get, why strive for the high quality format which has proven to not always be beneficial to the recording? The differences are tiny and are only imagined by consumers who do not work in sound or audio processing, people who can notice the minor differences, but to a consumer, all they know is they're being told that it is higher quality format therefore their brain feels that what they are listening to is better. They may be able to pick out tiny changes in quality, but a lot of this is imagined and what isn't, is not going to be relevant or interesting to the consumer. If there is any significant sonic qualities between the two I would put my 2 cents on it having being mastered differently for better playback on the higher quality format.

Did you even bother to take a glimpse on the pic I attached?

Yes, they are obviously mastered differently.

Why not give those the possibility to better enjoy a record who don't like the super squashed competitive loudness masters?
It did cost 15 €, that's fine to me!

[zoahk]

Yes, but it bears very little relevance to my points, as a visual point, it tells very little, nobody is buying either of the albums just to view the waveform, and the picture is nowhere near accurate enough to be able to tell whether there is actually any perceived differences in the quality of the audio, the wave may seem slightly different but how radical are those changes audibly.

I have no doubt that there is a slight difference in the sound, but I put this down to separate mixes opposed to the same track with different levels of quality.

[Ciaccona]

Originally Posted by zoahk

I have no doubt that there is a slight difference in the sound, but I put this down to separate mixes opposed to the same track with different levels of quality.

I don't think these are separate mixes, but they are obviously mastered differently.

It's definately not a 16 bit vs 24 bit "night and day" kind of difference , there's a real difference in dynamics most people could point out.

[bkuijt]

Originally Posted by zoahk

I honestly feel it's nothing but a marketing ploy and means of promotion and further bigging up a release. Listening to muse in it's standard quality, it is as good as it's going to get, why strive for the high quality format which has proven to not always be beneficial to the recording? The differences are tiny .....

Since a while I am mastering in mono, after all stereo is just a tiny difference and why bother if it is proven that mono can convey the musical message just fine...
Yes it is a marketing ploy: I now charge 50% of my stereo rate and advise my clients to charge half for the downloads too

[weezul]

Well, I bought the CD version and now i have the HD tracks and the master is a lot clearer, a little less compressed. It allowed me to hear a mistake in the vocal editing... first track "Supremacy" go to 1.41 and the line "You Don't have Long", listen to the sound between "have" and "long". There's an abrupt change of take which is a little more smothered in the CD master. Now I've heard it, I can't unhear it :'(

[Ciaccona]

Originally Posted by weezul

Well, I bought the CD version and now i have the HD tracks and the master is a lot clearer, a little less compressed. It allowed me to hear a mistake in the vocal editing... first track "Supremacy" go to 1.41 and the line "You Don't have Long", listen to the sound between "have" and "long". There's an abrupt change of take which is a little more smothered in the CD master. Now I've heard it, I can't unhear it :'(

Also, lots of clicks and pops over the whole record.

Lazy editing bums!!

Lol, geek stuff.

[weezul]

can you hook me up with some timestamps? Not caught any more yet, and knowledge is power and all that

someone just told me about this one:
1:10, between "drowning in" and "denial", there's a little 'fzzzt' before denial (Save Me)

[marcan]

I compared both versions.
More dynamics on the HD version, around 4 db. At equal power, the difference is subtle except during the louder moments where the sound is squashed on the CD version.

I don't know if I could easily perceive the difference without a different mastering.
Normally, I can abx 16vs24 bit. Also my DA converter has a better sound at 96. So in the end it's audibly better at 24/96.

Regarding mixes and mastering, here are the names.
Tracks 1, 5, 7, 9 & 12 mixed by Chris Lord-Alge at Mix LA. Tracks 2, 8 & 10 mixed by Mark 'Spike' Stent. Tracks 3, 11 & 13 mixed by Rich Costey. Track 6 mixed by Nero with additional mixing by Matthew Bellamy and Tommaso Colliva. Track 4 mixed by Tommaso Colliva. Orchestral arrangements by Matthew Bellamy, conducted by David Campbell. Additional vocal production on 'Save Me' and 'Liquid State' by Paul Reeve. Additional synth engineering by Alessandro Cortini. Mastered by Ted Jensen at Sterling Sound.

[Ciaccona]

Originally Posted by weezul

can you hook me up with some timestamps? Not caught any more yet, and knowledge is power and all that

someone just told me about this one:
1:10, between "drowning in" and "denial", there's a little 'fzzzt' before denial (Save Me)

Yes, that's a bad edit, I think it's the "d" sound ringing after the cut.

I'll look out for them and let you know!
But as you mentioned, once you've heard them you can't unhear them.

Actually, when speaking about "lots" I was referring to the versions without vocals.
On the actual tracks most get covered by the vocals.

[julian.david]

Originally Posted by weezul

can you hook me up with some timestamps? Not caught any more yet, and knowledge is power and all that

someone just told me about this one:
1:10, between "drowning in" and "denial", there's a little 'fzzzt' before denial (Save Me)

Holy shit! This one is really bad!!
I watched the 30 min. making of video that comes with the deluxe edition and thought it was really cool to see them paying so much attention to detail when it comes to the choir and string sessions. It's a shame that this kind of editing mistakes would ruin all their hard work!

[johnnywellas]

If it were Tom Waits' he'd probably say that the bad edit was the best thing on the record.

[philip]

Maybe slightly OT but it is a nice article. 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

[bkuijt]

Originally Posted by philip

Maybe slightly OT but it is a nice article. 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

Sorry but I stopped reading after the "Spectrophiles" paragraph... that analogy is so cripple...

Discuss it here:
Interesting article. Thoughts?

[string6theory]

Originally Posted by philip

Maybe slightly OT but it is a nice article. 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

I thought this statement from that article was strange;

"It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate."


And this one... I added the bold;

"The BAS test I linked earlier mentions as an aside that the SACD version of a recording can sound substantially better than the CD release. It's not because of increased sample rate or depth but because the SACD used a higher-quality master. When bounced to a CD-R, the SACD version still sounds as good as the original SACD and better than the CD release because the original audio used to make the SACD was better. Good production and mastering obviously contribute to the final quality of the music [24]."


So, if, in a production setting, one strived for "original audio" that was "better" (e.g. DSD, DXD), and then also converted/captured the final master to a more widely available hi-res PCM playback rate of 192/24 or 96/24 (as opposed to only CD or mp3, etc), would that also "make no sense"?

_______________________________________________________________

Anyway, I happily utilize both PCM and DSD, and, LP's and CD's, and, of course, hi-rate mp3's, etc, for transportable convenience or previews.

But, the idea of pushing back on and deriding efforts of musicians, engineers & producers to maintain a very high quality production, front to back, and through to the final distribution medium to consumers, strikes me as the wrong approach.

One must also seriously consider the many negative aspects of most all music being listened to through supposedly "lossless" mp3's and the like.


I truly believe the younger (and current) generations deserve the "choice" and should be encouraged to investigate and experience (and pay) for these high quality formats for themselves. I don't mean specifically, only 96/24.

The entire music industry's valuable "content" has been co-opted and artificially re-valued to $0.00 mp3's to support the tech giants/billionaires at the expense of the past & present music creators and their IP. And, one could easily argue, at the expense of OUR cultures and THE music in general.

It's obviously a complex issue, but higher quality and value-added choices, expressed in real sonic results from artists/producers, and in real $'s and emotional connections from listeners/consumers, should be encouraged as much as possible. That's all...


But, I agree with the OP... hopefully it will become more common and more people will get behind it. I'd also personally like to see more widely available DSD/SACD streaming and playback options for consumers. It's a step forward in quality/experience, even if the market for it will always be smaller than the lowest common denominator, fast food/junk food.

BTW, it's not an argument about ultrasonic frequencies requiring bat ears.

[string6theory]

Originally Posted by bkuijt

Sorry but I stopped reading after the "Spectrophiles" paragraph... that analogy is so cripple...

Discuss it here:
Interesting article. Thoughts?

Oh, thanks... I didn't realize there was another thread discussing that article till after I posted.

Apologies to the OP if this was somewhat OT

[Brad Blackwood]

Bought it. Not even a big Muse fan, but any time a decent artist offers their art lossless I'm going to support it.

[6strings]

24 bit doesn't make it sound "better". It just increases dynamic range - though for record/editing purposes (leaves more headroom for rounding errors).

The difference between 16 bit and 24 bit recordings is not the "overall sound" or "fullness" or whatever, it allows for a lower noise floor. That's it.

(96db signal-to-noise ratio for 16 bit, 144db for 24 bit. For comparison, the S/N level of vinyl ranges from 60-70db.)

But marketing will likely (or has already) take control and demand 24/96 as the "best" format for audio, even if nobody can tell the difference between it and a good 16/44 CD. (see link)

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixin..._new_sampling/

[GoldMember]

HD is nice, but nothing like purchasing Vinyl.