Nine Inch Nails Download latest album, enjoy Options

[alvaro84]

Thank you for making us aware of this issue.

The files provided to the public are the exact files provided by Brian Big Bass Gardener of Bernie Grundman Mastering Studios. As soon as the Mastering Studio has corrected this mistake we will repost the 24/96 version of the album.

I sincerely apologize for this mistake.

Another big thank you from here!

Please ask the mastering studio to create a considerably less compressed version and thus truly exploit the capabilities of the 24-bit format. It would also be good to keep the maximum peaks well below 0 dBfs because of the possible "intersample overload" problems that may be more severe when the sample rate is 96 kHz.

You could also consider releasing the fixed version in the FLAC format. It would be a lot smaller and make it easier to differentiate the two versions.

I second on both propositions. And feel a bit spoiled

[graue]

Please ask the mastering studio to create a considerably less compressed version and thus truly exploit the capabilities of the 24-bit format.

While that would be neat, I doubt it's going to happen, for a couple reasons:

1. That would be a totally different master, so they'd have to pay the mastering studio again.
2. Anyone comparing the 16-bit and 24-bit versions would get the immediate reaction that the 24-bit version sounds worse, since it would be quieter. (You and I know it's an issue of having to turn the speakers up for better sound, but that's a pretty hard sell. Even to 24-bit connoisseurs who think they're audiophiles.)

Since the multitracks were released, a fan remaster is possible, and might be a cool project. They're only 16/44, though.

[ningeneer]

We've discussing lossless formats for the 24/96 files. During testing found a lot of issues when converting the files for burning. Ultimately we decided that uncompressed would be better because those who wanted to archive the files could use their preferred format. If anyone can recommend a method of lossless encoding that decodes and converts reliable on mac and pc please let me know.

[Ron Jones]

The problem is being addressed as I type this. Thanks for the heads up

No, thank you!

As soon as the Mastering Studio has corrected this mistake we will repost the 24/96 version of the album.

Wonderful news. Thank you Alan/Atticus/Trent/imposter

1. That would be a totally different master, so they'd have to pay the mastering studio again.

Unless it should happen to be a "pro bono" effort on the part of Gardner, which isn't exactly entirely out of the realm of possibility, I suppose.

2. Anyone comparing the 16-bit and 24-bit versions would get the immediate reaction that the 24-bit version sounds worse, since it would be quieter.

I don't see this as being a particular problem.

Since the multitracks were released, a fan remaster is possible, and might be a cool project. They're only 16/44, though.

Maybe at some point in time, higher-resolution multitracks will be released. Now that remix.nin.com is distributing new multitracks via torrents, I don't see any particular reason why it couldn't happen, though some small time investment must be made to create stems, bounce those stems down to a manageable number of tracks (for those of us with pitiful Pro Tools LE rigs) and actually package the multitrack releases.

[alvaro84]

We've discussing lossless formats for the 24/96 files. During testing found a lot of issues when converting the files for burning. Ultimately we decided that uncompressed would be better because those who wanted to archive the files could use their preferred format. If anyone can recommend a method of lossless encoding that decodes and converts reliable on mac and pc please let me know.

Should you guys decide any format for the next release, please make it clear in the filenames and/or tags that it's 'another version' of The Slip to avoid confusion. And thanks again, I'm really impressed.

This post has been edited by alvaro84: May 9 2008, 03:44

[jcoalson]

We've discussing lossless formats for the 24/96 files. During testing found a lot of issues when converting the files for burning. Ultimately we decided that uncompressed would be better because those who wanted to archive the files could use their preferred format. If anyone can recommend a method of lossless encoding that decodes and converts reliable on mac and pc please let me know.

I don't think itunes supports apple lossless 24/96, so that pretty much leaves flac. there should be quite a few mac and pc tools that will handle flac 24/96, what did you try that didn't work?

[ningeneer]

We've discussing lossless formats for the 24/96 files. During testing found a lot of issues when converting the files for burning. Ultimately we decided that uncompressed would be better because those who wanted to archive the files could use their preferred format. If anyone can recommend a method of lossless encoding that decodes and converts reliable on mac and pc please let me know.

I don't think itunes supports apple lossless 24/96, so that pretty much leaves flac. there should be quite a few mac and pc tools that will handle flac 24/96, what did you try that didn't work?

Actually, iTunes does support apple lossless playback 24/96 within a computer (but not compatible with ipods). However, iTunes will not convert 24/96k files into an uncompressed files without downsampling (nor does it create 24/96 A.L.L. but I'm doing that else where).

Flac conversion is similarly hairy. Playback was usually fine with flac 24/96, the problem arose when trying to convert to other formats for burning. Pro-apps usually worked fine but freeware and shareware had more difficulties. Ultimately monkey's audio, wavpack and Ogg flac all seemed to work better for that resolution. After some trolling around, it seems other who choose to store high-def audio in a lossless compression format find flac to be unreliable. If someone knows of a flac converter/codec that works universally at 24/96 for playback and reconversion (mac and pc), please let me know what it is and I'll see about making those torrents available.

This post has been edited by ningeneer: May 9 2008, 14:21

[SoleBastard]

If someone knows of a flac converter/codec that works universally at 24/96 for playback and reconversion (mac and pc), please let me know what it is and I'll see about making those torrents available.

For maximum compatibility, use flac 1.2.0a. More recent FLAC versions do funky stuff with 24bit which is not yet supported by all FLAC decoding software. Ask jcoalson for more details about this.
FLAC 1.2.0a has been very reliable to me, I've worked with lots of DVD-A, True-HD (Like NIN's Beside You in Time HD-DVD), DTS-HD etc.

Regardless, thank you very much for this great release and support!

This post has been edited by SoleBastard: May 9 2008, 06:59

[Leto Atreides II]

Just wanted to add another "Thanks!" for being so responsive.

(And for releasing all this free in the first place!)

[Jebus]

Almost totally off topic, but i just got floor passes to the Calgary show thanks to the fantastic presale setup. Ningeneer - pass on my thanks to the man! (Or alternately; thanks Trent! You're a gentleman and a scholar. I'll be front and center!)

[tgoose]

In truth, it's no huge deal that the 24/96 files are only available in WAV.

If they were FLAC only, then as ningeneer points out people might have problems converting them to a playable format.

If there were both WAV and FLAC versions, then it's a whole other set of files that there could be problems with and that need tracking (and as we've seen, problems are possible in anything!) and it's another choice which might confuse people who don't know a lot about audio.

So while there are benefits to putting up a lossless compressed version, I think they've done the sensible thing by sticking to WAV.

Also I'd like to add my thanks to everyone involved in this for taking the time to discuss the technicalities and putting the effort in to improve things. It's nice to know that the technical side of things is being looked after as well as the creative and distribution aspects.

[Alex B]

I think the 16/44.1/FLAC and 24/96/wav format choices may give the wrong impression that wav somehow provides better hires quality.

IMO, using wav is simply waste of bandwidth. FLAC would also provide file tags.

Recarding to the FLAC problems on Mac I think the currect "Max" version should be able to handle conversions to/from 24/96 FLAC without any problems. I don't have a recent Mac nearby, but could someone verify this? http://sbooth.org/Max/

[CoyoteSmith]

after reading this WAV seems to be the best choice for 96/24, why cant the latest flac support those rates well?

[JunkieXL]

after reading this WAV seems to be the best choice for 96/24, why cant the latest flac support those rates well?

No one was implying that FLAC can't handle it...it was more of an issue with downsampling when converting.
JXL

[audioaficionado]

cause its NIN I thought I post it here:
http://theslip.nin.com/

its supposed to be super good as well... only listening to the first post.

Oh they also have a flac version!

I bought my copies from the NIN website to support their marketing model. I got a two CD set and downloaded flac files to listen to until the CDs were physically released. If everyone gets everything for free all the time, then this better source of music content will fade away.

If the giveaway of Ghosts I-IV is indeed sanctioned by NIN, then go ahead and grab your free copies. Otherwise do the right thing. The only free copies I found at the time were torrents and I wanted to bypass the RIAA but still support the artists.

This free latest album url seems to be legit and I'm going to grab it for free

NIN isn't my favorite but it's still listenable and worth the effort to aquire.

[krabapple]

... that said, that a 24/96 release was ever made is of course a good thing, and the production quality of the record overall is excellent. The real problem here is the risk that people will use the 24/96 release as a judge of quality for 24/96 as a format, and the differences that appear to exist could cause a plausible ABX success.

Well Hopefully when Neil Young's "Archive" 1963-1972 comes out this fall from Rhino/Warner with 10 discs (one for each year?) only available on Blu-ray with all files at 24/192 they'll have something else to judge the quality of high resolution PCM as a format with.

The audible utility of 96/24 delivery format is questionable at best, unless you factor in filtering concerns and downstream application of DSP. Either way, a better showcase of the format would be an all-digital release, not a transfer of ~40 year old analog tapes, where the 'resolution' is effectively limited by the tape noise.

It would also be good to keep the maximum peaks well below 0 dBfs because of the possible "intersample overload" problems that may be more severe when the sample rate is 96 kHz.

This can be (and should have been) monitored at all of the digital recording and production stages right through mastering. Intersample overs have been known about for years now, and the tools exist to prevent them.

This post has been edited by krabapple: May 10 2008, 06:25

[CoyoteSmith]

I bought my copies from the NIN website to support their marketing model. I got a two CD set and downloaded flac files to listen to until the CDs were physically released. If everyone gets everything for free all the time, then this better source of music content will fade away.

If the giveaway of Ghosts I-IV is indeed sanctioned by NIN, then go ahead and grab your free copies. Otherwise do the right thing. The only free copies I found at the time were torrents and I wanted to bypass the RIAA but still support the artists.

This free latest album url seems to be legit and I'm going to grab it for free

NIN isn't my favorite but it's still listenable and worth the effort to aquire.

i paid for the Flac download, however it is perfectly legal to download GHOSTS since it is published under the C.C. non-commercial sharealike liscense. furthermore trent is NOT releasing these new albums under a record company, he is releasing them independently and there is no sign of reznor supporting the RIAA with the required funding to be a member.

[randal1013]

since there are issues with the 24/96 version of the slip, i wonder if there are similar issues with the 24/96 version of ghosts? they made ghosts first and then the slip, if they followed ghosts as a guide for the slip, and the slip has issues, what does that mean for ghosts?

This post has been edited by randal1013: May 13 2008, 05:18

[bryant]

Flac conversion is similarly hairy. Playback was usually fine with flac 24/96, the problem arose when trying to convert to other formats for burning. Pro-apps usually worked fine but freeware and shareware had more difficulties. Ultimately monkey's audio, wavpack and Ogg flac all seemed to work better for that resolution. After some trolling around, it seems other who choose to store high-def audio in a lossless compression format find flac to be unreliable. If someone knows of a flac converter/codec that works universally at 24/96 for playback and reconversion (mac and pc), please let me know what it is and I'll see about making those torrents available.

I also think that lossless compression of 24/96 material is, in many circumstances, a losing proposition. Assuming that the source is truly 24-bit, then the compression ratio is generally much poorer than with 16-bit sources because the additional lower bits are uncompressable (if they're not all zeros, that is ). Combine that with the possibility that the user will have trouble playing or converting the files, and I can see uncompressed WAV being a logical solution.

However, there may be a better alternative. WavPack lossy used at around 1024 kbps preserves the dynamic range and audio bandwidth of the 24/96 source material while giving the approximate data size of losslessly compressed 16/44! I have been meaning to put together a white paper describing how this works exactly, but in the meantime it is easy to demonstrate by doing an invert paste operation in something like Audition and see that the difference between the original 24/96 source and the WavPack lossy encoded version is very low in level and mostly in the inaudible band (it uses noise shaping somewhat like DSD).

I realize that there will be resistance to any “lossy” format, but the fact is that the conversion from 24/96 to 16/44 is a far more destructive operation than what I am suggesting, but nobody ever calls that “lossy”!

WavPack is not as easy to play or convert as WAV, but it's getting pretty close. On Windows there's the DirectShow filter, the Winamp plugin and native Foobar2000 support. On Linux it's part of the gstreamer framework and so plays out-of-the-box on many Linux distros. It's not quite as straightforward on the Mac, and not having a Mac I haven't tried all these, but in addition to Max mentioned above there is Play and Cog and this program out of Japan.

Just an idea...

[skamp]

If transcoding from such files doesn't add the kind of artifacts one would get from psychoacoustic files, your idea sounds like a fair deal to me (for high-res files, at least, as far as distribution goes). I'm gonna try it with WavPack 4.50.0 beta on my DVD-Audio rips.

[Axon]

It's worth noting that the same advantages also apply to lossyWAV, IIRC, with the additional advantage that it is compatible with FLAC. (albeit not Apple Lossless.) But I'm not sure if it's ready for prime time yet.

[audioaficionado]

I ended up going with utorrent and that 24/96 wav wasn't too bad to snag in under an hour. Bittorrent kept erroring out so I gave up and have quit using it.

Is transcoding to lossless WavPack fairly strightforward? What's the best app? foobar2000?

I can't say I love the album but it's not bad either. The price was right

[alvaro84]

Is transcoding to lossless WavPack fairly strightforward? What's the best app? foobar2000?

It should be very simple using foobar, yes. At least I used foobar to convert the album to TAK and could also copy the tags from the FLAC version with it (the WAV files have the tags too in some kind of data chunk, but foobar can't use that).

[swurve]

This is another full length album entitled, "The Slip". As of today, the only way to obtain this album is downloading it from NIN's website or grabbing someone's torrent. NIN has not released information to purchase a physical copy yet but it did imply it will be available for purchase soon.

[kornchild2002]

This is another full length album entitled, "The Slip". As of today, the only way to obtain this album is downloading it from NIN's website or grabbing someone's torrent. NIN has not released information to purchase a physical copy yet but it did imply it will be available for purchase soon.

It will be available on CD in about 2 months. This is what the NIN website says: "for those of you interested in physical products, fear not. we plan to make a version of this release available on CD and vinyl in july. details coming soon."