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

[huejahfink]

Radiohead, Kate Bush and Tori Amos have also released recent albums at Hi Res. It's becoming increasingly common, particularly amongst the more 'mature' end of the rock market.

[807Recordings]

I wish I would see more artists do this from their own pages instead of this middle man that no one needs. More profit directly to the artist and less power for companies like Apple, Beatport, etc that do not give any option for even an uncompressed version of the music. Beatport allows wave downloads so thats the exception, but does not have other popular music.

[huejahfink]

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

I wish I would see more artists do this from their own pages instead of this middle man that no one needs. More profit directly to the artist and less power for companies like Apple, Beatport, etc that do not give any option for even an uncompressed version of the music. Beatport allows wave downloads so thats the exception, but does not have other popular music.

Bandcamp is a pretty great compromise on that front. True, they do take a cut - but it's amazingly fair compared to just about any other system plus of course you get the bonus of having someone else write all the code, pay for server space, run the shop system etc. Plus I think generally people are more likely to feel trust in a store like Bandcamp than some pop-up shop on an indie-band's site.

You get sales paid directly from the customer straight to your Paypal, where Bandcamp will keep the occasional sale in order to make its 15%.

I made more money in a week on Bandcamp with a FREE (or donation if you wish) download than I did over three years going through the distro / regular store route.

Oh - and Bandcamp will sell hi-res versions too.

[cheu78]

Originally Posted by Philosopher

The new Muse album 2nd Law, set to be released on October 2nd will have a "HD quality" version available for download as 24bit, 96k, FLAC.

pretty good news.. finally we will have 24bits files to listen to..

Let's hope that the mp3 craziness will end soon..



Cheu

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by huejahfink

Bandcamp is a pretty great compromise on that front. True, they do take a cut - but it's amazingly fair compared to just about any other system plus of course you get the bonus of having someone else write all the code, pay for server space, run the shop system etc. Plus I think generally people are more likely to feel trust in a store like Bandcamp than some pop-up shop on an indie-band's site.

You get sales paid directly from the customer straight to your Paypal, where Bandcamp will keep the occasional sale in order to make its 15%.

I made more money in a week on Bandcamp with a FREE (or donation if you wish) download than I did over three years going through the distro / regular store route.

Oh - and Bandcamp will sell hi-res versions too.

Then that just shows consumers are stupid. Trust? Come on now there is Vari sign and other legit sources to make sure a site is secure.

A big part of what killed the music industry is that we need some old grandpa to take us by the hand to a online record store. Reality is there is search engines that can do the same thing and find a song/album easier.

When people start to think for themselves again and not be told everything they must do then it will start to reverse the music industry.

Either way I applaud any artist who is out there producing quality products and trying to be independent. If you want to be a real artist you need that freedom.

[Joe_caithness]

All things aside I LOVE Bandcamp. As an independent artist and a mastering engineer. The search function is a great way to find new music and go direct to the artist or label or purchase. Cuts out about 600 middle men.

[jrod9900]

This would be a great thing. I wish we could have some changes with the mastering world. I just got a mix back from mastering that I spent a lot of time on and had a bunch of dynamic range... It was a brick wall when I got it back. It's a double edged sword because it is modern rock, I told the engineer that it was going to try to get on radio, and so he was just doing what every other rock song does, but it just sucks because why can't we find a compromise???

JROD

[Joe_caithness]

Originally Posted by jrod9900

This would be a great thing. I wish we could have some changes with the mastering world. I just got a mix back from mastering that I spent a lot of time on and had a bunch of dynamic range... It was a brick wall when I got it back. It's a double edged sword because it is modern rock, I told the engineer that it was going to try to get on radio, and so he was just doing what every other rock song does, but it just sucks because why can't we find a compromise???

JROD

Radio loudness is a myth, it's upto YOU as the client how you want the music to sound when it comes back from mastering, sounds like you need to get it re-mastered!

[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.

[Huntley Miller]

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.

I couldn't disagree more. There's a substantial difference between 96/24 and 44/16 even with heavy handed processing.

[huejahfink]

Wado - even in those few examples I mentioned, both the Kate Bush and Tori Amos albums are pretty open sounding, with just a shade of limiting in the busiest sections. That applies to both the regular CDs and the high-res downloads.

While I agree with what you are saying about a nice master being more important than the depth/rate, I've found almost all of the hi-res albums I've purchased to have been conservatively mastered in that regard. I guess it just depends on the artists and mastering in the first place - and I suppose it's the slightly more delicate areas of my musical taste that drive me to look out for the hi-res versions if available.

[huejahfink]

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

Then that just shows consumers are stupid. Trust? Come on now there is Vari sign and other legit sources to make sure a site is secure.

Ouch.

I don't believe that's stupid - that's cautious, not just because of the financial transactions themselves but also because of the personal information involved in registration to yet another site, plus the time involved etc.

Besides, systems like Verisign work on a subscription basis and can be quite cost prohibitive for the smaller independent label or band to implement, so Bandcamp provides a safe, fair, quick and easy to use alternative to the major stores and uses Paypal for it's transactions.

[fradoca]

Nirvana's Nevermind 20th anniversary edition sold by hdtracks at 24 bit 96 khz sounds like crap.Loud as hell and crashed to -5 dB rms. even if it has been mastered by Bob Ludwig.You can have all the bits and the khzs you want but if crap goes in crap goes out.Stick with your original cd.You won't regret it...

[Huntley Miller]

Originally Posted by fradoca

Nirvana's Nevermind 20th anniversary edition sold by hdtracks at 24 bit 96 khz sounds like crap.Loud as hell and crashed to -5 dB rms. even if it has been mastered by Bob Ludwig.You can have all the bits and the khzs you want but if crap goes in crap goes out.Stick with your original cd.You won't regret it...

Bad mastering is bad mastering. The HD Tracks 96/24 version sounds better than the 44/16 version. The thread is about higher quality audio becoming available to the public. I would love it if more people could hear music the way that I get to every day.

[wado1942]

Originally Posted by Huntley Miller

The thread is about higher quality audio becoming available to the public. I would love it if more people could hear music the way that I get to every day.

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.

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by jrod9900

This would be a great thing. I wish we could have some changes with the mastering world. I just got a mix back from mastering that I spent a lot of time on and had a bunch of dynamic range... It was a brick wall when I got it back. It's a double edged sword because it is modern rock, I told the engineer that it was going to try to get on radio, and so he was just doing what every other rock song does, but it just sucks because why can't we find a compromise???

JROD

I guess you just went to the wrong ME?

There's a sweet spot for modern rock N it's definitely not brick wall!

You don't need it to be uber loud for radio because they will squash the living f**k out of it when they play it.

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by Huntley Miller

I couldn't disagree more. There's a substantial difference between 96/24 and 44/16 even with heavy handed processing.

That all depends on how the album was recorded.

If it was tracked up at 44.1 or 48 and not mixed through a console (with nice stuff on the side) into a high end, two channel ADC, then there's no benefit in upsampling it to 96 for consumer use.
It will probably sound worse because of the extra SRC!

On the other hand, if the album has been 96/24 all the way through, then it's always gonna be best to keep it that way.

[fradoca]

Originally Posted by Huntley Miller

Bad mastering is bad mastering. The HD Tracks 96/24 version sounds better than the 44/16 version. The thread is about higher quality audio becoming available to the public. I would love it if more people could hear music the way that I get to every day.

are you kidding??
have you accurately listened to both versions??
i don't think so! 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.

[fradoca]

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.

sorry who is the layman here??

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by huejahfink

Ouch.

I don't believe that's stupid - that's cautious, not just because of the financial transactions themselves but also because of the personal information involved in registration to yet another site, plus the time involved etc.

Besides, systems like Verisign work on a subscription basis and can be quite cost prohibitive for the smaller independent label or band to implement, so Bandcamp provides a safe, fair, quick and easy to use alternative to the major stores and uses Paypal for it's transactions.

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).

[Huntley Miller]

Originally Posted by fradoca

are you kidding??
have you accurately listened to both versions??
i don't think so! 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.

Again, I'm not talking about the mastering. Shitty mastering is just that. The 96/24 version sounds better than 44/16. More analog, less flat and PCM'y for lack of a better description. Perhaps there's a language barrier getting in the way here.

[Ben F]

Apple leave the process of creating a hi-res file up to the discretion of the mastering engineer. There is no exact process for creating a hi-res master. This is the major flaw, and I feel that artists and consumers are already being ripped off.

[joecandy]

24 96 sounds amazing, maybe for Steely Dan, or Jon Brion. But Muse?? What's the point?

I dont think his whining will sound any better in hi res.

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

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).

But some people do give a hoot. And for many artists, that matters.

Mastering processing aside, HD music (or lossless from HD sources) is more often likely to be closer to the artists' intended vision of their work than CD or lossy versions. Especially when compounded by lossy DAB+ and web streaming.

If catering only for the lowest common denominator when it comes to quality then surely the absence of choice becomes arguably the greater issue.

[huejahfink]

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

Sure you keep telling yourself this and making excuses. (...) stupid ppl (...) lazy-insecure

I think more damage is being done by those who just assume that "everyone else" is stupid / insecure or whatever derogatory terminology they want to use.
It's this assumption that is blocking progress more than anything else in my opinion, because it breeds the idea that it is not worth offering a choice of digital formats, and that it is not worth deviating from the status quo as far as content and mastering goes. I am in favour of crediting the music buying public with the intelligence to make informed choices instead.

I know lots of people that care about music, care about supporting the artists they enjoy as well as discovering new ones, they care about quality across the board and they make special efforts to get it.

It seems your experience is different and I can appreciate what you are saying about lazyness to a certain extent, and I attribute a lot of that to the convenience culture popularised by the rise of iDevices/mobile consumption et al. But I don't think we can afford to tar everyone with the same brush because there ARE people that care and it is a significant growing market share as more and more people realise that their 'convenience' came at a cost.
I'm not sure why you seem to have a 'bee in your bonnet' over Bandcamp (or the suggestion that a lot of people prefer to buy from recognised outlets) but for me and a lot of other people I talk to, it's the best online platform for independent music there has been in years.

[Joe_caithness]

Originally Posted by Ben F

Apple leave the process of creating a hi-res file up to the discretion of the mastering engineer. There is no exact process for creating a hi-res master. This is the major flaw, and I feel that artists and consumers are already being ripped off.

Full Dynamic Range High Definition | FDRHD

A friend of mine an local ME is trying to do just that. I can't vouch for whether it will work or not but worth a read..

[807Recordings]

@ adam and HU:

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.

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by Philosopher

The new Muse album 2nd Law, set to be released on October 2nd will have a "HD quality" version available for download as 24bit, 96k, FLAC.

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

[Cheebs Goat]

Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering

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

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.