Metallica - Black Album (96khz.24bit)
- Thread starter wishtheend
- Start date
Jarkko Mattheiszen
The FU guy.
Wait... They're selling 96kHz/24bit albums, and they still suggest "To really get the most benefit of an HDtracks music file you could burn a CD-R and play it on your home Hi-Fi system."
Am I the only one who finds this a bit odd?
Am I the only one who finds this a bit odd?
Skinny Viking
¯\(°_o)/¯ How do Lydian?
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
Why on earth would you be tempted to get this? There's no way those files are any higher quality than the CD. I really, really doubt that they dug up the master tapes and fed them into a set of 96khz/24bit converters.
AudioPhile777
Mathew Cohen
They are trolling teh webz. You'll get a hi-def copy of St. Anger instead... it'll sounds you're inside the snare drum.
Jarkko Mattheiszen
The FU guy.
Actually I think this is exactly what they're doing, but burning the awesome, hi-fi album to a cd-r will be almost as ass-backwards as buying a golf cart, ripping out the engine and towing it around the course looking smug as fuck.
Mattayus
Sir Groove-A-Lot
TimPio
Member
aramism
Member
the "which format should i download?" totally confused me...
i have the dvd-a of this album and it sounds great. i'm pretty sure it has a PCM stereo uncompressed version also i think @ 48khz i'm not sure to be honest. some of the dvd-a i have also have a stereo version at higher quality (48-96) but that can only be played on dvd-a or dvd players.
i don't understand how this is supposed to work though.
i have the dvd-a of this album and it sounds great. i'm pretty sure it has a PCM stereo uncompressed version also i think @ 48khz i'm not sure to be honest. some of the dvd-a i have also have a stereo version at higher quality (48-96) but that can only be played on dvd-a or dvd players.
i don't understand how this is supposed to work though.
This is only being offered in 96khz 24bit FLAC but I think their format disclaimer is because they'll carry tracks in multiple formats. As for "getting the most" I think they mean that "most uses" rather than highest quality when saying burn to CD - because yeah, that's a pointless conversion.
The little samples seem to sound a bit different than my CD copy (although I don't know which pressing I own), but not enough to make me through down. If it's legit though, I do want. Still a favorite mix of mine.
The little samples seem to sound a bit different than my CD copy (although I don't know which pressing I own), but not enough to make me through down. If it's legit though, I do want. Still a favorite mix of mine.
Virgil.
¯\(°_o)/¯
Why don't they sell stem packs for Clipping Death for young aspiring producers to mix? It's not like we can claim it as our own work.... everyone on the damn earth knows metallica riffs. lol. Or hold a "mixing contest" for a prize of... whatever. Oh wait, that won't happen... that would mean Lars and James and Rick all have to first agree on and sign-off on admitting the production was an utter fail.
Bit of discussion here in case anyone is interested.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Metallica-Black-Album-HDTracks-Download
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Metallica-Black-Album-HDTracks-Download
ha ha ha up-sampled... what a surprise, 99% of the people out there don't have speakers and amps that can even come close to a 50k upper ceiling that's needed to take advantage of 96k. Shit DunLavys are $24,000 for a pair and only extend flat up to 32k... how many people have $30,000 in audio equipment in a non studio environment?
Jarkko Mattheiszen
The FU guy.
That's not quite how it works, since the human hearing only goes up to around 20kHz. It's the interaction between the frequencies that causes changes in how we hear the lower frequencies. It's an on-going debate on whether the difference is noticeable enough to justify 96kHz, though. Personally, I don't really care
That's not quite how it works, since the human hearing only goes up to around 20kHz. It's the interaction between the frequencies that causes changes in how we hear the lower frequencies. It's an on-going debate on whether the difference is noticeable enough to justify 96kHz, though. Personally, I don't really care
I know you might not care but, I'm gonna tell you anyway, I'm such a nice guy like that... Its not just about how high it goes up, were just talking overall bandwidth. By moving the filter in the converter higher up into the frequency rage that we cant hear (50k vs 22K when comparing 96k to 44.1k ), then your getting much more accurate converter performance in the high end area that we can hear, the 18-22k range. If your anti alising filter is set lower, in the area that you can actually hear at, you get lesser quality converter performance, and less accurate reproduction. In real life there is no such thing as a 40db/oct filter at 22k...
There is no on-going debate. Either you can tell the difference or not, its not like were taking voodoo here. That's like saying tape has no appreciable sonic benefits to having a 51,000hz bandwidth... come on. If you have a lower end monitoring chain, then chances are your getting sonic degradation at 20K+ anyway, so yeah there is no way in hell your going to hear shit, but in the case that you do have real, professional gear, then the difference between 44.1k and 96k is defiantly noticeable, to say the least.
Still, the above site is duping people and up sampling from the 16bit 44.1k master.
Jarkko Mattheiszen
The FU guy.
Looks like you completely missed my point. I never said there isn't audible difference between different sample rates above 44.1kHz. And yes, case depending, I can tell the difference. People are debating (and have been for ages) whether the difference is noticeable enough to justify the need for 96kHz. Not whether there is a difference in the first place.
Trust me, you don't need to argue this with me. I'm not opposing the facts here.
TheWinterSnow
Den Mørke Natt
96K does make a difference on certain sources, guitar for example. I have done it myself with high gain guitars in which I found out there wasn't much need for a low pass filter at 12K, or even the need for a low pas at all because the 12-20K area was still musical where in 44.1K it was a distorted mess. And regarding the upper ceiling, it doesn't really matter, the only thing that really matters is how good is the LPF above 22K in the converter, if its a good filter than having a better resolution in the 12-22K region would provide for a better listen in most semi decent and better systems. Regardless you need semi decent system to hear such difference, and car stereos and earbuds really aren't going to give you the sonic capability. However the few of us that do have nice hifi systems or mixing monitors, its nice to hear a more hifi mix.
Honestly I fully understood your, point I just think that If you have ever actually recorded and mix in 96k then you would know what I'm talking about, if you haven't then your not really going to get it until you try it!
my other issue is that anyone trying to denounce the issue either 1. Has yet to record a full production in the higher sample rates, 2. Doesnt work with analog gear.
The biggest differences come from people, like me, that record to digital but send 24ch out to a console for summing, compression, EQ, reverb, ect. 24 channels of conversion where the converters are killing anything over 20k and adding distortion in the 12-20k range is never going to sound as good as running at 96k and keeping the distortion out of the audible range, and letting the analog gear work its magic on a much cleaner top end. But even if your stuck in plug-in land, most plugs do work better and can sound better in 96k but in the end 1's and 0's are still 1's and 0's...
All I'm trying to say is that, IT DOES make a difference... Yes I have read damn near every discussion on GearSlutz since converters started getting higher then 48k and it took me a long time to even try it, but seriously, with today's computers and the fact that just about every professional and semi-professional Audio Interface goes as high as 96k at the least, why the fuck would you not do it??? It took me all of 5 min of comparing two drum tracking sessions, in which the only thing changed was the sample rate before my jaw hit the floor and I felt like an idiot for not doing it sooner. It wont kill people to try it...
Similar threads
