[simon wagstaff]

If they are going to re-release the Beatles stuff in a higher resolution they will have to go back and RE-DO all of the work they did previously. I don't see that happening.  I am sure they think it is "good enough" Sure, Blu-ray surround would be nice but I REALLY don't see that happening.

I have them and they do sound quite good. Maybe good enough, but they could be better.

[ted_b]

Simon, rbbert, et al,
Please point us to where you read/heard/saw that the 24/192 masters that the Beatles Abbey Road remasters team worked with were dumb'd down to 24/44/1 for the actual remastering/tweaking.  Everything I've read says the analog tapes were played and then captured via Prism on 24/192, and the remastering was done there using Pro Tools (no one would use pro tools if to simply capture).  The 24/44.1 USB, as well as cd etc was simply the final commercial releases.  I'm open to your knowledge of something else, but not what I've read, that's all.

From Spin magazine, for example:
The transfers were done on a 1972 Studer A-80. From there, they went into a high-resolution Prism Sound ADA-8XR into Pro Tools at 24 bits/192 kHz. “When we put on the masters and compared them with the original CDs, we all felt, in general, that what we were hearing on the masters was immediately more transparent than the original CDs,” states Massey, who worked on the stereo re-masters with mastering engineer Steve Rooke and Paul Hicks.

[Mike Nomad]

If they are going to re-release the Beatles stuff in a higher resolution they will have to go back and RE-DO all of the work they did previously. I don't see that happening.  I am sure they think it is "good enough" Sure, Blu-ray surround would be nice but I REALLY don't see that happening.

I have them and they do sound quite good. Maybe good enough, but they could be better.

Actually, they won't: The digital copy of the analog masters has been done. As someone who prefers the mono versions, I am (potentially) their easiest customer to cater to. They elected to do what I can only describe as either greedy or stupid.

It's one thing to not have pressing masters at full resolution because the consumer won't have the kit to play it back, or that there aren't enough consumers that have the kit to make it worth the manufacturing hassles to do multiple releases.

This time around, neither is the case. To answer the age-old question, "Are you a Beatle or a Stone," this latest round of remasters definitely makes me a Stone.

[firedog]

Unfortunately for all the mixing and editing and processing, whatever it was that was done for the Beatles remasters, was all done at 24.44.1.  If they are ever going to release a higher res version they will need to go back and re-do all that was done.

I don't see that happening.

I don't know if this was short-sighted or done on purpose.

If you read what the team who worked on it said in interviews, it was definitely on purpose. Their explanation of why they took the 24/192 "master" copy and did the editing etc in 24/44.1 and then used that as the basis for 16/44.1:  it was the best way to do their work at a quality resolution and then also get a CD master with the least amount of manipulation of the original digital transfer.

I definitely DO see the 24/192 being worked on again for further releases:

a) they are already doing it for the LP remasters  that they've publicly admitted to be working on, and they've already said those are going to be made from the 24/192 digital transfers.

b) they've already done the chore of transferring each song  one at a time to 24/192 and done the basic edits so they have the 24/192 version as they want it.  It's clearly the basis for anything they may do in the future. See: http://www.audioprointernational.com/features/146/Remastering-The-Beatles

They also  clearly have extensive notes from all the work they did on the recent remasters, and making the necessary changes for an additional high-res digital release will be very easy in comparison to what they did for the CD's - it will require few new decisions and deliberations. Much easier than what they did the first time around.

c) Apple will make money from a hi-res release. The Beatles marketing machine won't pass up the opportunity. They'll just wait till the time seems ripe for the most successful marketing of it, and release it.

[firedog]

Simon, rbbert, et al,
Please point us to where you read/heard/saw that the 24/192 masters that the Beatles Abbey Road remasters team worked with were dumb'd down to 24/44/1 for the actual remastering/tweaking.  Everything I've read says the analog tapes were played and then captured via Prism on 24/192, and the remastering was done there using Pro Tools (no one would use pro tools if to simply capture).  The 24/44.1 USB, as well as cd etc was simply the final commercial releases.  I'm open to your knowledge of something else, but not what I've read, that's all.

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

Where the process is described in detail by the team that did it. In short, after the 24/192 transfer, they did some basic edits in 24/192. Then made a 24/44.1 copy of the edited 24/192. After that all the work was done in 24/44.1. When that master was finished, they dithered it down to 16.44.1 for CD release. 

I think they were well aware of what they were doing, and if you read the article, it implies that they see the "master edit" of the 24/192 as the reference copy of the Beatles catalog for all future releases. We are talking about the Beatles here, guys. The big decisions about the Beatles' catgalog are made by Paul, Ringo, and the 2 Beatle widows. They also have to approve all the results before release. They clearly are very concerned with their musical and sonic legacy.

So I don't think Apple is very worried that they won't make their money back if they make a relatively small investment in working on specialized master versions for LP and/or hi-res digital.

[ted_b]

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

Where the process is described in detail by the team that did it. In short, after the 24/192 transfer, they did some basic edits in 24/192. Then made a 24/44.1 copy of the edited 24/192. After that all the work was done in 24/44.1. When that master was finished, they dithered it down to 16.44.1 for CD release.

Thank you!  I stand corrected.      Well, it seems some work would need to be done again, yes, although I assume the notes, presets and settings are all there.  Wow, what a digital ride those songs went through.

[Atlplasma]

Well, I had Big Hits already loaded on the Mac Mini. So I decided to download the 176.4/24 version for comparison. After some listening, I thought the higher rez version sounded more detailed. As I was considering buying some of the other recordings, I browsed to iTrax and read Mark Waldrep's analysis of one of the recordings (http://www.itrax.com/Community/content.php?133-Stones-in-HD). Now, I'm wondering if I was a little too quick on the trigger with my $30. What do you guys think?

[Mike Nomad]

Well, I had Big Hits already loaded on the Mac Mini. So I decided to download the 176.4/24 version for comparison. After some listening, I thought the higher rez version sounded more detailed. As I was considering buying some of the other recordings, I browsed to iTrax and read Mark Waldrep's analysis of one of the recordings (http://www.itrax.com/Community/content.php?133-Stones-in-HD). Now, I'm wondering if I was a little too quick on the trigger with my $30. What do you guys think?

The top fading out before 14K does not necessarily have anything to do with HDtracks and their remastering process. I too am skeptical on some of this stuff, and have jabbered on a bit here:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=91193.0

If you like the tracks, the HD transfer is going to at least have the detail. It all comes down to how much you like the tracks...

[werd]

Picked up Through the past Darkly on 176khz. I would be very surprised if the redbook sounded like this. I am getting really nice weighted tones, especially in Jumpin Jack Flash. Think i will search out a redbook and see what the difference is. But the recording is a lot better than what i can recall. I am happy with it. 

[bdiament]

Hi ted_b,

Mike, I'm not sure what you mean by "it's all math".  Sample rate conversions that are NOT based on integer multiples (DSD is 64 x 44k) can have artifacts in the conversion that show up as image smearing, ringing, etc.  The conversion (AARC) would have to use different clock timings, etc.  Yes, SRC's like Weiss and Izotope can do a great job, but why do the extra work and risk it?  And also...why do you care?  If your DAC does 96k it'll do 88.2k just fine, and same for a 24/192k DAC doing 24/176.4k.  In fact, one would argue that a 24/192k DAC might even play better at the slightly lower sample rate, as 24/192 may be pushing it.

There seems to be a widespread and quite erroneous belief that non-integer conversion engenders artifacts that are not *equally* engendered by integer conversion.

The artifacts generated by an SRC algorithm are a function of the design of the algorithm much more than they are a function of the math said algorithm is asked to perform.  For example, those algorithms that generate a lot of spurious harmonics, will do so with both integer and non-integer conversion.  The "extra work" involved in non-integer math is a non-issue provided the algorithm is "smart" enough to do the math properly. 

I would suggest trying something like iZotope's 64-bit SRC doing non-integer conversion and other algorithms doing the "easier" integer conversion.  Then compare the results from all of them with the unconverted original and see which has the fewest artifacts.

It is the same with DACs.  If there is a difference in how easily a DAC does, say 192k and 176.4k, I would submit that the design is faulty.  A DAC, like an SRC algorithm, is either up to the job or it isn't.

In my experience, there are so many other much more significant factors affecting the sound of our recordings, this continuing mythology about non-integer conversion being "worse" (or higher sampling rates "stressing" the DAC) needs (in my opinion) to be put to rest unless we're specifically talking about inferior algorithms or inferior DAC designs. 

Just my perspective, of course.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[ted_b]

Barry,
We've chatted about this on CA, too.  You are, of course, right about the best SRC's.  As I said there, I simply wanted to point out that, other than the big two or three (Izotope, Weiss Saracon, etc) that many SRC's are not great at doing non-integer conversion, espcially those in players or DACs that do hardware conversion.  Also, I would say one of my pet peeevs in this whole discussion is "sweetspot".  I firmly believe that certain DACs have certain sweetspots where they perform their best, and often not at the highest sample rate in their spec....and yes, I'd also call that a faulty design..but it seems they are all over the market.  Two that seem to handle anything are the Metric Halos and the Antelopes.  i haven't swum in any deeper $$ water though (DAD, etc).

[DSD_Mastering]

In our experience a DAC or even an ADC does have a "sweet spot". It's either a 44.1 or 48k base... we have never had a converter in here that did both equally.

Unfortunately Izotope doesn't do DSD. We worked with HDtracks for months trying to get the best transfers. They were adamant about having 24/96 from DSD, but every time we tried it, either software or hardware, it just didn't sound right. We used SARACON, AudioGate and DiscWelder. H/W we used Meitner, DAD and dCS.

[bdiament]

Hi ted_b,

Barry,
We've chatted about this on CA, too.  You are, of course, right about the best SRC's.  As I said there, I simply wanted to point out that, other than the big two or three (Izotope, Weiss Saracon, etc) that many SRC's are not great at doing non-integer conversion, espcially those in players or DACs that do hardware conversion...

The point I'm trying to make is that the ones that are not great at doing non-integer conversion are only marginally less not great (I won't say "better") at integer conversion, if at all.  I've tested a good number of SRC algorithms and most just harm the music.  Integer, non-integer, it just doesn't matter.  There was a time when I preferred going through analog and re-digitizing to arrive at a different sample rate.  The additional conversions did less damage than the SRC available at the time.  (Apparently, some folks might still be doing this, though in my experience making direct comparisons to unconverted originals, Alexey Lukin's marvelous iZotope 64-bit SRC makes this entirely unnecessary and in fact, at this point, arguably a compromise.)

Alexey's work with dither/noise shaping is equally outstanding.  From all I've heard of his work, he's giving many of the "name" designers reason to lose sleep.  (A number of the pro units sound "broken" compared to his algorithms, so obvious is the brightening and hardening they engender vs. the originals -- even with the "dumber" integer conversion.)

Also, I would say one of my pet peeevs in this whole discussion is "sweetspot".  I firmly believe that certain DACs have certain sweetspots where they perform their best, and often not at the highest sample rate in their spec....and yes, I'd also call that a faulty design..but it seems they are all over the market.  Two that seem to handle anything are the Metric Halos and the Antelopes.  i haven't swum in any deeper $$ water though (DAD, etc).

The DACs I've heard that do not suffer from faulty design (and chip of the week internals) don't seem to have that problem; their "sweet spot" is wherever they are asked to work.  While I find the Metric Halo units outstanding in this regard, I would say it is true of the Pacific Microsonics gear and other top shelf converters too.

Just my perspective of course.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[ted_b]

Yeah Barry, the Pacific Microsonics, like the Model 2, do a good job.     ...oh, folks, they are $25k used, and quite rare in the market.      The PM folks who did the Berkeley BADA is one where I'd say does 24/176 way better than 24/192, for example.  My $.02

[bdiament]

Hi ted_b,

Yeah Barry, the Pacific Microsonics, like the Model 2, do a good job.     ...oh, folks, they are $25k used, and quite rare in the market.      The PM folks who did the Berkeley BADA is one where I'd say does 24/176 way better than 24/192, for example.  My $.02

Having heard both, in my view, the Berkeley is most definitely NOT the Pacific Microsonics.  To my ears, not by a long, long shot.  In short, the PM does not put a treble "zing" on everything that passes through it.  It is also better at soundstage delineation.

Just my perspective of course.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[DSD_Mastering]

Yeah Barry, the Pacific Microsonics, like the Model 2, do a good job.   

We have a Model 2 for sale if anyone is interested. I know where there is another as well. It's not the greatest like everyone thinks it was back 10 years ago.

[Atlplasma]

I just did a comparison of Big Hits in CD and HDtracks (highest rez) with my better half. She has compromised hearing but could clearly hear the difference between the two recording. The CD version sounded like it was at the bottom of a well. The 192 khz version played like they were in the room (from someone who knows what it sounds like!).

[jamesg11]

Anyone tried "Let It Bleed" at 24/192?  Quality?  & where does that /192 come from, given other Stones' HDTracks /176-derived from sacd mastering?

[firedog]

Don't own the SACDs but Let it Bleed in 24/88 sounds better in every way than the LP and CD I own. More detail, more extended frequency respone (high and low), better soundstage, clearer and cleaner.

[firedog]

Anyone tried "Let It Bleed" at 24/192?  Quality?  & where does that /192 come from, given other Stones' HDTracks /176-derived from sacd mastering?

I assume the poster who mentioned 192 meant 176, AFAIK there is no 192 version