Audiophile Technical Question...

[Raskolnikov]

After watching that video from the SPRC Meetup in Washington DC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIZ6D3tLLc8) I got to thinking that I just might want to throw down and buy the 96/24 high def audio of all of these albums as they get released.

Questions:

1.) If I was to take those files and convert them to Apple Lossless, would I be losing quality?

2.) If I was to take those files and burn them to CD, I would be losing quality, correct?

3.) Just how much better will these files sound than the remastered CD through a nice pair of headphones (like a pair of Bowers and Wilkins) or through a nice pair of computer speakers (like a Bose 2.1 set)?

Any audiophile input would be much appreciated.

[Dogfighter28]

not offering a download with the purchase of the vinyl is such bullshit

[Raskolnikov]

Originally Posted by Dogfighter28

not offering a download with the purchase of the vinyl is such bullshit

Totally. And $27 for the premium digital is STEEP.

If they gave the premium digital out with the vinyl purchase, then I'd gladly buy both the CD and the vinyl. At this rate, I'm not buying any of the vinyl reissues, as ultimately I'd rather have the other side of things.

[soniclovenoize]

There's more tech-minded people on this board than me, so they can correct me if I'm wrong...

Originally Posted by Raskolnikov

1.) If I was to take those files and convert them to Apple Lossless, would I be losing quality?

No.

2.) If I was to take those files and burn them to CD, I would be losing quality, correct?

Yes.

3.) Just how much better will these files sound than the remastered CD through a nice pair of headphones (like a pair of Bowers and Wilkins) or through a nice pair of computer speakers (like a Bose 2.1 set)?

Much better because when you down-sample from 24 bit to 16 bit you are losing audio information. The name of the game is to capture the original sound and reproduce it as close to the orignal sound as possible, and 24 bit will do that better than 16. Furthermore, Corgan wasn't clear in that meet-up, but his orignal promise is that it would be a 96/24 of the premastered album. If that is true, then he is essentially selling the very closest possible reproduction of the master mixes, of what him and Butch are hearing in the studio monitors before anything is done with it.

That's pretty fucking cool.

[redbreegull]

Mastering generally makes an album sound better, or at least it should, so I don't know why you would want to buy that...

If I buy the high end digital, would I notice a discernible difference on $100 headphones (Grado SR-80s)? How does this premium digital compare to the sound quality of a vinyl record?

[Shallowed]

I'm not sure if Apple Lossless can be 24-bit. I'm happy to be proven wrong but I know that iPods can't play 24-bit audio, if that's why you wanted ALAC.

Also I didn't know that those 24/96 versions would be premasters. That's fucking cool.

[soniclovenoize]

Originally Posted by Pasta of Muppet

I'm not sure if Apple Lossless can be 24-bit. I'm happy to be proven wrong but I know that iPods can't play 24-bit audio, if that's why you wanted ALAC.

Oh, I missed that part about alac, not flac. Well, then I have no idea. :/

Also I didn't know that those 24/96 versions would be premasters. That's fucking cool.

Yeah, and again that's based on what Corgan said a few months ago, NOT on what he just said at that meet-up. You know how it goes, his mind changes on a whim or forgets about ti completely. But it would be cool.

[Shallowed]

Is the 24/96 download only or what?

[soniclovenoize]

I hope so, because otherwise he'd have to sell it on a USB drive like the Flaming Lips have been doing, so that means it'll be encased in the mummified remains of King Balderkazahn and Corgan'll charge friggin $100,000 for it.

Originally Posted by Dogfighter28

not offering a download with the purchase of the vinyl is such bullshit

your own rip of the vinyl will likely sound better than the shitty mp3s you ever get with a download code

*snort*

[redbreegull]

graveflower you are really oblivious

Most people who smoke dope are not motivated to begin with. They don't care and don't appreciate the fabulous world and universe we live in. They aren't really trying from the get go - so they throw away something they never cared about. I'm not saying all, but I am saying most. Others give up caring, I've seen that, even when I was young -- it hasn't gotten any better. Some however, it has no effect on. Far fewer than I would prefer. I know far too many potheads my own age (I'm at the 40 year old mark) who have literally never accomplished anything -- but its THEIR choice, not mine.

Pot does kill some brain cells -- and it shoots short term memory ( I have a friend who forgot three years of our friendship he smoked so much dope -- he stopped completely though.) It does not make someone stupid, the lack of caring I already mentioned does that.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'd rather put a bullet through my own head than take anything that reduces my awareness of one moment of life. In another 30 years I will start to fade away, even with luck -- maybe before then; and 99% of all the things I wanted to do, learn, see, will fade away too, forever undone -- I would NEVER do ANYTHING that reduces my ability to live life even further, that reduces my ability, as well, to do good for others -- those are the things that make all reality worth it. I've always felt this way. I have never been drunk, stoned, nor high. Neither did I ever touch tobacco in any form. Life is far too precious as far as I'm concerned. I don't need to feel better due to a drug, I feel good about myself, life, and reality - as it is, and any feeling that you are discussing I can get better from meditation.

You must do what you will however, as long as it harms no one else, but please minimize what harm you do to yourself as well.

[redbreegull]

I can see why you have 40,000 posts.

[Luke de Spa]

seminal technical audiophile question

[Luke de Spa]

Muse, anyone?

[Rairun]

How are we expected to hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/96 if people can't even tell the difference between 16/44 and a v0 vbr mp3 file? Serious question. Assuming a good quality mp3 keeps most (if not all) audible information, and a CD keeps that same information + some stuff we can't hear, how is adding even more inaudible data going to make the recording any better?

(I know some people claim that inaudible waves still affect our reaction to the music, but are there any scientific studies to back this up?)

[soniclovenoize]

That's a valid point, but it all depends on the individuals' hearing. I personally can tell the difference between a wav and a V0 if it's an album I'm familiar with. But I will admit to you that so far I have not been able to tell the difference between a 24/96 and A 16/44. But that's just me, and some people can. But most people, not so sure. But it's still a cool option for those people who do care about it. It's like not offering a flac/lossless option just because "Most people can't hear the difference anyways." You know what I mean?

[redbreegull]

so how does the 24/96 digital stack up to a vinyl record?

[Rider]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

so how does the 24/96 digital stack up to a vinyl record?

There is no real way to compare. You start to get into where humans can't perceive sound.

Your own personal setup will have more to do with the sound of these then any real technical difference. You might prefer the way your turntable and it's audio chain sound or you might prefer the way you DAC sounds.

There have been literally tens thousands maybe even hundreds of thousands of posts on various forums arguing about this. Your getting so high end and so much detail that it really just gets silly fighting about it. Some will say a bunch of crap about how vinyl captures sound some will say a bunch of crap about how digital captures sound.

In the end it's what you prefer it what sound better on your setup. Not to mention the majority of stuff coming out comes from these digital masters so the arguments are all just hot air.

[slunken]

real answer: vinyl has no sampling rate

[PkPhuoko]

technically converting any vinyl to any digital format will result in some loss... however the sampling rate and methods in 2011 are indistinguishable to the human ear. For the intentions of you listening to it and enjoying the piece you will not notice.... if you analyzed the wavform and, very thuroughly examined it, you would be able to determine that it wasn't a 100% 1:1.

[Rider]

Like I said people will argue about this for years.

Unless you are going to spend thousands on audio gear, and spend ton of money making the perfect listening room it won't make a difference.

Even then it won't mater because everything that the audio is passing through will change the sound.

At this level it's all dependent on the equipment.

[Shallowed]

I wonder, seeing as audiophiles want to reproduce the sound that the artist/mixer/mastering engineer intended you to hear, wouldn't the best possible listening environment be whatever control room it was mixed/mastered in?

[mxzombie]

Originally Posted by Rairun

How are we expected to hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/96 if people can't even tell the difference between 16/44 and a v0 vbr mp3 file? Serious question. Assuming a good quality mp3 keeps most (if not all) audible information, and a CD keeps that same information + some stuff we can't hear, how is adding even more inaudible data going to make the recording any better?

(I know some people claim that inaudible waves still affect our reaction to the music, but are there any scientific studies to back this up?)

wrt your first question, the mp3 codec removes information that it predicts to be inaudible to the average ear (to put it simply). obviously, some ears or more or less sensitive to the changes that compression introduces. some people don't notice the difference, and it's not too farfetched to imagine that some people do notice (since most of the changes occur within the audible frequency band).

as to your second question, yes some studies have concluded that ultrasonic information affects the listening experience, but contradictory results have also been found, so it's still a contentious point in the audio world.

anecdotal experience: i can hear a difference in an a/b comparison between lossless and mp3-compressed audio.

[mxzombie]

Originally Posted by slunken

real answer: vinyl has no sampling rate

true, but its ability to reproduce very high frequencies is eventually limited by the inertia of the needle and the speed with which it can respond mechanically to a bump in a record groove

[Dogfighter28]

Originally Posted by mxzombie

true, but its ability to reproduce very high frequencies is eventually limited by the inertia of the needle and the speed with which it can respond mechanically to a bump in a record groove

Is this why my MMJ 45 rpm vinyl sounds so much better than my other ones

[mellon_c0llie]

ok here's a question... if the original Siamese is 2 vinyl disks why is new one only going to be one? Even if the mastering is at a higher bit rate doesn't that make the single disk version more compressed?

[soniclovenoize]

No, because it's a 24" record.

[Shallowed]

I thought the vinyl remaster was a double LP.