new Beatles mixes to be available soon in hi(ish) resolution and novel form

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 4356 times.

Russell Dawkins

on Dec 9th 2009 for a price similar to the CD set, on 16GB USB drive, 24 bit 44.1k FLAC:

http://tinyurl.com/yjfscoh

ted_b

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Seems a waste to do 24 bit and only 44.1k.   :scratch:  (although 24/96 would be like 100+ gig) They have the damn digital tapes at 24/192k!!  Well, let's assume we'll see those on some anniversary date in the future.

Russell Dawkins

I think 24/192 would be less than 65GB, given that part of the total is the video component.
If 24/44 is 16 GB, 24/88 would be 32GB and 24/176 would be 64GB even if the 16Gb was all audio. Not much more for 24/192. I hope the masters are at 24/176.4, but they probably are at 24/192 for DVD compatibility.

Doubling the sample rate should double the amount of data.

I'll bet the limiting factor was the availability of affordable and reliable large capacity USB drives.

ted_b

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Sorry, didn't do the math correctly...I was thinking 16/44 to 24/96, which is 3.5x, then doubling that......forget what i said...you're right.   :duh:

Anyway, it's a fact that the remasters are done and archived in 24/192.  The question remains: will we have access to them someday?

Russell Dawkins

This all works out very well for yet another re-release when larger USB drives become common, say two years from now when 64GB flash drives are routine. I think it's inevitable.

firedog

Re: new Beatles mixes to be available soon in vinyl
« Reply #5 on: 4 Nov 2009, 11:19 am »
Hi-

  http://Http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1311023934&play=1

Same page has a link to the usb/digital story, if the tinyurl link above didn't work for you.

rydenfan

Forget about USB drives and just give us the high-rez in downloads!!!  :D

mikel51

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 128
Lots of comments flying around on the net that 24 bits makes more difference than the higher sampling rate.  B&W music club makes their music available as 48/24...and it does sound good, and uses about twice the disk space as 44.1/16.

I preordered on Amazon.com this evening for ~$239, which is supposedly $60 off of list price of $299.





ted_b

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
It would be a possible advantage at 24 bits but ONLY if they are sourced from the 24/192 masters.  If, however, they are simply upconverted from the redbook files, then we have no advantage, and a possible mess during up conversion.  Personally, I think there is a small possibility that the press release is a typo (meaning they are sourced from 24 bit, just like the redbook cd's) and that the FLAC files will be 16/44.  Why?  Cuz they limit their audience to folks who have 24 bit DACs only to play normal 44k files, otherwise.  This limitation would also be there for 24/96 or 24/192 releases, of course, but those would truly be hirez and for the niche computer audiophile.
« Last Edit: 6 Nov 2009, 04:00 pm by ted_b »

mikel51

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 128
I agree about the possibility of this being a typo....will watch carefully and reconsider my order if they aren't 24 bit

mikel51

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 128
I received it today and can confirm that the files are 24 bit.  There is minimal documentation that says the files are even higher quality than the CDs. 

I don't have any of the remastered CDs for comparison...sounds OK but not the most audiophile of recordings.

SqueezeCenter reports bit rates of 1600 to >1800 kbps vbr, more than double my typical 16/44.1 flac files.

ted_b

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Mike, the 24 bit confirmation is good news, as is the streaming rate.  It would be nice to somehow a/b them. 

Larkston Zinaspic

I wonder if those 24-bit files have less audible limiting than their 16-bit offspring....

http://www.audioprointernational.com/features/146/Remastering-The-Beatles

It was an analog process from that point on, Rooke comments. The tracks came out of Pro Tools through the Prism AD8s into the analog domain and were then injected into the studios 1972 EMI TG mastering console. We then eq'd and transferred them to a Sadie Series 5 PCM 8 DAW at 24-bit/441kHz. The main carrier was going to be CD so we kept it at 44:1 to avoid the extra process of sample rate conversion, therefore keeping the signal as pure as possible. Once each album was compiled we did a digital capture through a Junger DO1 digital limiter, the limiting was done afterwards to give us more flexibility. We didn't want to limit as we eq'd because it would have been difficult to change at a later date. The team listened to them post limiter.

When we were capturing the final mastered version, we played the songs out of Sadie in the digital domain through the DO 1 limiter into a Prism AD-124 AD converter for noise shaping. All the songs were noise shaped and dithered back into 16-bit and then captured back into the Sadie at 16-bit/441kHz, which is what we made the masters from. During the mastering process we listened to each track and decided where we wanted to go with it, if we wanted to add or remove eq to help instruments or vocals. We went through each track, made the adjustments and then recorded into Sadie."

firedog

I wonder if those 24-bit files have less audible limiting than their 16-bit offspring....

http://www.audioprointernational.com/features/146/Remastering-The-Beatles

It was an analog process from that point on, Rooke comments. The tracks came out of Pro Tools through the Prism AD8s into the analog domain and were then injected into the studios 1972 EMI TG mastering console. We then eq'd and transferred them to a Sadie Series 5 PCM 8 DAW at 24-bit/441kHz. The main carrier was going to be CD so we kept it at 44:1 to avoid the extra process of sample rate conversion, therefore keeping the signal as pure as possible. Once each album was compiled we did a digital capture through a Junger DO1 digital limiter, the limiting was done afterwards to give us more flexibility. We didn't want to limit as we eq'd because it would have been difficult to change at a later date. The team listened to them post limiter.

When we were capturing the final mastered version, we played the songs out of Sadie in the digital domain through the DO 1 limiter into a Prism AD-124 AD converter for noise shaping. All the songs were noise shaped and dithered back into 16-bit and then captured back into the Sadie at 16-bit/441kHz, which is what we made the masters from. During the mastering process we listened to each track and decided where we wanted to go with it, if we wanted to add or remove eq to help instruments or vocals. We went through each track, made the adjustments and then recorded into Sadie."


Just to be clear, what you're quote refers to are the tracks that became the CD remasters, and what is apparently also the source of the recently released 24/44.1 files.  But there's also this part which preceded your quote:


"After trying out several machines, the team chose a Studer A80 tape machine with a 1972 test tape. Each song was then loaded from the original analog tapes through Prism Sound’s ADA-8XR multi-channel modular ADA converters into Pro Tools. Massey states: “Pro Tools was treated as a master machine and we didn’t use any plugins. The songs were formatted to 24 bit/192kHz and video referenced. The speed of the tape machine was always watched to make sure it was running at the right speed. "

“The tapes are still in great condition – nevertheless we loaded everything track-by-track, cleaning the tape machine heads and rollers between each song. "

“The original transfers were done in 1986 when digital was in its infancy. I am not knocking the original transfers, but I think from the point where we re-transferred and archived the master tapes, we were already a step ahead because the technology has come on in leaps and bounds. What some people may perceive as an added eq is actually the result of better transfers, especially in the low end and the high top. Upwards of twenty tracks were not eq’d at all because we didn’t think we could improve them in any way.”

The 24/44.1 process you quoted above was later on, after some minor editing of noises etc was done. So the remastered CD's have the limiting etc, not the original tranfers from master tape to digital 24/192. The possibility for a very high quality 24/192 release still exists.