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

[GoldMember]

Originally Posted by 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.

you are deaf. That's it.

[GoldMember]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

What kinds of systems are consumers listening to 24/96 res files on?

shure u dont know much about the bussiness.

[Cellotron]

One possible solution for those who wish to listen to 24/96kHz files on systems where there is no computer would be to burn the files to hybrid DVD-Audio/Video discs using the inexpensive Cirlinca HD Audio Solo software. These discs are then compatible with either standard DVD Players as well as players with DVD-Audio disc compatibility
Cirlinca | High-Definition audio software | FLAC, DVD, Blu-ray

As far as 24bit/96kHz files as a delivery format - honestly I think just playing 16bit/44.1kHz on systems with better monitors/amps/DAC's makes a heckuva lot more noticeable difference than playing the large file sizes on mediocre systems ever does- but in terms of the average system - the jump from 256kbps or less lossy compressed files in comparison to lossless at 1444kbps or greater is a really great way to restore some fidelity - so I greatly applaud any artists or labels that put - especially in a great open source license free taggable format like FLAC.

Anyway - http://www.hdtracks.com also has lots of hi-res files for tons of great releases available for purchase and download.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[echoRausch]

Originally Posted by 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)

The Emperor’s New Sampling Rate -- Are CDs Actually Good Enough?

Good point .

[Owen Gillett]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is only half the truth. Yes increased bit depth equates in greater dynamic range or lower noise floor whichever way you look at it...

But it is the encoding of this low level information which increases the sense of depth and (to use this word in context) resolution of the sound. Low level extended harmonics increase the sense of 'reality' and yes we are capable of noticing this as an improvement to the sound, particularly for 'natural' sounding music.

I would also guess that rounding errors in editing have more to do with the internal calculation math of the editor than the bit depth of the files being edited/processed. That said, who records in 16 bit anyway?

In short, taking away all the extra information (going from 24 to 16 bit) does change the sound and if everything has been done right, 24 bit SHOULD sound better.

OG

[6strings]

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

Low level extended harmonics increase the sense of 'reality' and yes we are capable of noticing this as an improvement to the sound, particularly for 'natural' sounding music.

Recording at 24 bit does not "extend" low-end harmonics or perform any like magic. The only thing it "extends" is the dynamic range (and the noise floor for recording).

The best, quickest way you can hear what 24 bit will do is crank the very end of a dying reverb tail as it fades out. And I mean you'll need to CRANK that mother up. Like... make damn sure you don't have anything after the track or your ears and monitors will be toast. Seriously! worried (I'm sure someone else must have a better way to reveal this artifact. This was just off the top-of-my-head as an example)

The best THING about 24 bit is that as recordists, we no longer need to keep tracking levels up near the "red", risking a digital over. But other than that, you shouldn't hear any audible difference between a 24 bit and properly mixed 16 bit recording.

[Cheebs Goat]

I am ecstatic that they are releasing a non-stupid master of this album. They dialed the clipping and limiting way back, thank God. I am sad that they are marketing it as something that is better because of the sampling rate rather than something that is better because it dodged a digital chainsaw. Masses will never know that there is no reason every version of the album can't sound great. They will never know that the solution is to not support crushed music.

[-tc-]

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

if everything has been done right, 24 bit SHOULD sound better.

If everything has been done right, a 16-bit pcm stream should sound exactly the same as its 24-bit predecessor, but with higher noise level ... really ... if you can even hear that the noise is higher, which is certainly not a given.

Originally Posted by Cheebs Goat

IMasses will never know that there is no reason every version of the album can't sound great.

qfe

[RichArien]

Dunno if this will work.. actually I must say I wouldn't buy it.. even if the quality is great I mean.. its muse .. lol.. and if I was crazy about muse and audio quality I would look for SACD or something I can actually hold in my hands if I was to pay more for it.

[24-96 Mastering]

I don't know if it's in relation to the recent Muse 24/96 (more) dynamic master release, but I had a label request for a re-release of a popular album just recently. I.e. a re-cut from the original master session, at 24/96 with unlimited dynamics. Maybe labels are starting to think that there's a viable market for these.

[jac]

I do not like Muse, they are too... much ... for me, too many of everything....Ok.

I'm listening to the HD version. It sounds amazing... it gives me chills all over. Bass is hitting hard, dynamics all over the place, music breaths.

It's not an old style mastering, I mean, there's a brickwall there just for avoiding overs, but no heavy limiting, no ad clipping. "Madness" has 4 db of dynamic more than the cd version.
I really enjoy the record, I enjoy less the band, but I support this kind of direction.

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering

I don't know if it's in relation to the recent Muse 24/96 (more) dynamic master release, but I had a label request for a re-release of a popular album just recently. I.e. a re-cut from the original master session, at 24/96 with unlimited dynamics. Maybe labels are starting to think that there's a viable market for these.

To follow this one up, said HiRes & fully dynamic master version was indeed ordered and released. Not quite the scale of Muse, but still a current platinum selling album that sees a dual release! (HIGHRESAUDIO - Ben Howard - Every Kingdom)

And by what I'm hearing, it seems Universal are looking to do more of these in the future. So the practice of releasing secondary, HiRes, dynamic album versions could indeed become common practice. Pretty exciting!

[Colin Leonard]

Regardless of what the format is (the consumer will end up deciding that) this is an interesting time for mastering. There is definitely a format change happening similar to when vinyl went to cassette and cassette went to CD. Now we are going from CD to downloads almost exclusively (at least for the majority of sales). I think this is a change that will make or break some mastering engineers. There are some mastering engineers that can't even solder an XLR, let alone calibrate and setup a room properly, and lacking the technical knowledge to be able to master into multiple formats and do the least damage possible will be essential. Even some of the major mastering engineers took a bit of a 'fly by the seat of your pants' approach to CD mastering, and that may not be entirely possible here.

This is going to be a big part of our jobs and it's not easy when the primary goal is to make the music sound as good as possible as well as keep the client happy. Not to mention the extra time it's taking for multiple versions. I think this multiple format practice is going to be very common for quite a while.