IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nine Inch Nails Download latest album, enjoy
Fandango
post May 6 2008, 14:58
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 1546
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353



QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ May 6 2008, 05:09) *
Well, they were actually complaining about the mp3 format in general and all praised the 24/96 WAV release. I asked for blind ABX tests and they all told me those tests didn't work. So yeah, I now no longer visit those forums.

You should tell them that the 24bit WAVEs are 99% identical to the 16bit files first... laugh.gif

QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ May 6 2008, 12:35) *
QUOTE (DrazardX @ May 6 2008, 08:14) *
Also, something else I noticed is that the second image in the WAVs is a PSD while the rest are JPEGs.
Yes, "Nine Inch Nails - The Slip - Wave 96-24 High Res\The Slip art\02-1000000.jpg" is 4.14MB, and is actually a PSD file, in the files I downloaded.

...created with Photoshop CS3 Mac. tongue.gif

QUOTE (alvaro84 @ May 6 2008, 15:12) *
With the exception of 07 Lights in the Sky.wav and 08 Corona Radiata.wav they're technically 16/96 files. These ones look true 24-bit ones though, and FLAC and TAK compresses them worse than the rest (they're over 2mbps).

Thanks for pointing that out. I had already canceled and deleted the partial 24bit download. Now I'll fetch those two tracks anyway.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dobyblue
post May 6 2008, 16:32
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 13-July 06
From: Gilead
Member No.: 32892



QUOTE (alvaro84 @ May 6 2008, 09:12) *
QUOTE (dobyblue @ May 6 2008, 13:14) *

Does this mean that these highrez files are more likely 16/96 or 16/48?


With the exception of 07 Lights in the Sky.wav and 08 Corona Radiata.wav they're technically 16/96 files. These ones look true 24-bit ones though, and FLAC and TAK compresses them worse than the rest (they're over 2mbps). It seems that these lossless codecs can handle the rest quite well (though I thought that padded lower-resolution files are a very special case), e.g. TAK -p2m compressed the album to 561,537kiB from 1,491,127kiB.


Thanks for the updates Alvaro.
I would not be as keen to get these if they were all 16/48 sources, but if all but two are 16/96 and the other two are 24/96, it's well worth it in my book; particularly since it's free.

I wonder if the Ghosts I-IV 24/96 versions released on Blu-ray as part of the deluxe package are true 24/96 files?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter
post May 6 2008, 16:56
Post #53





Group: Admin
Posts: 3269
Joined: 30-September 01
Member No.: 84



This is not the first case of tracks released as "24-bit" being actually 16-bit padded up to 24-bit. A CD+DVD pack of some Depeche Mode album had "24-bit LPCM" tracks on the DVD with exactly same symptoms.


--------------------
This job would be great if it wasn't for the users.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alvaro84
post May 6 2008, 17:26
Post #54





Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 9-August 06
Member No.: 33830



QUOTE (dobyblue @ May 6 2008, 17:32) *
I would not be as keen to get these if they were all 16/48 sources, but if all but two are 16/96 and the other two are 24/96, it's well worth it in my book; particularly since it's free.

I wonder if the Ghosts I-IV 24/96 versions released on Blu-ray as part of the deluxe package are true 24/96 files?


To tell the truth, I don't know it they were lower sample rate before. By default I wouldn't think but I can't say it for sure after we all have seen that many of them were converted to 16 bits and back. What if they have also been resampled? I can't tell it for sure. I hope some more qualified person can unsure.gif

BTW I like the music better than Ghosts I-IV. I'll keep it. Still thinking about this "24/96" version. Compressed with TAK it may not be THAT much waste of space smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CoyoteSmith
post May 6 2008, 18:46
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 22-January 08
Member No.: 50696



once you are sure/have proof that the 24bit recording was made from 16bit recordings, you can tip off the admin of theninhotline.net whom operates the most popular nin site, he'll post the info on the front page and everyone will read it including trent. but i'd be careful that there is no mistake made and there is some tangible proof of the claim to show theninhotline admin.

This post has been edited by CoyoteSmith: May 6 2008, 18:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ron Jones
post May 6 2008, 18:52
Post #56





Group: Members
Posts: 412
Joined: 9-August 07
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 46048



QUOTE (dobyblue @ May 6 2008, 08:32) *
I wonder if the Ghosts I-IV 24/96 versions released on Blu-ray as part of the deluxe package are true 24/96 files?

A good question. I have the Blu-ray, but no Blu-ray drive (currently) and no time to really go through and check into it. If anyone in the L.A. area has the capacity and the interest to look into this, I'd be willing to donate the Blu-ray for a bit.

I should hope that they are true 24-bit files as opposed to padded 16-bit files, of course. I paid $75 for the package, and while I'm not disappointed in what I got for that price, padding 16-bit files and advertising them as 24-bit is unacceptable even if there are no audible differences. There's no potential excuse for that given that Pro Tools HD fully supports up to 24-bit/192kHz throughout the pipeline, and it's more than likely that Reznor's recording and mixing at 24/96 or beyond. Surely Tom Baker received real 24/96 bounces when he mastered it, one would think.

For a free release, is naturally makes no difference, and there's certainly nothing to complain about. I'd be happy with 16/22.05 smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tgoose
post May 6 2008, 19:59
Post #57





Group: Members
Posts: 407
Joined: 12-April 05
Member No.: 21399



QUOTE (Peter @ May 6 2008, 15:56) *
This is not the first case of tracks released as "24-bit" being actually 16-bit padded up to 24-bit. A CD+DVD pack of some Depeche Mode album had "24-bit LPCM" tracks on the DVD with exactly same symptoms.

That's probably because the master tapes were 1630s.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post May 6 2008, 21:25
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



Surprisingly the 96/24 version appears to be more compressed and clipped. Something must have gone terribly wrong.

Here is an example - Amplitude statistics and waveform screenshots from Adobe Audition:

44.1 kHz 16-bit, Track: 10 Demon Seed, passage: 3 min 50 s - 4 min 00 s

Left Right
Min Sample Value: -32766 -32766
Max Sample Value: 32765 32765
Peak Amplitude: 0 dB 0 dB
Possibly Clipped: 0 0
DC Offset: -.037 .013
Minimum RMS Power: -8.42 dB -5.46 dB
Maximum RMS Power: -5.15 dB -2.08 dB
Average RMS Power: -6.41 dB -4.15 dB
Total RMS Power: -6.38 dB -4.06 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits

Using RMS Window of 10000 ms




96 kHz 24-bit, Track: 09 The Four of Us are Dying, passage: 3 min 50 s - 4 min 00 s

Left Right
Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768
Max Sample Value: 32768 32768
Peak Amplitude: .01 dB 0 dB
Possibly Clipped: 75 439
DC Offset: -.099 .038
Minimum RMS Power: -7.64 dB -4.06 dB
Maximum RMS Power: -3.39 dB -.61 dB
Average RMS Power: -4.83 dB -2.76 dB
Total RMS Power: -4.8 dB -2.7 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 24 Bits 24 Bits

Using RMS Window of 10000 ms




(Both songs are the same. As said before, there appears to be a naming error.)


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post May 6 2008, 23:17
Post #59





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



But wait - it gets better. The 24/96 version of 1,000,000 is 14.5ppm faster than the 16/44 version. Can you say "analog bounce in one master but not the other"?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Slipstreem
post May 6 2008, 23:38
Post #60





Group: Members
Posts: 966
Joined: 7-July 06
Member No.: 32660



Looking at those waveforms confirms what my ears have been telling me. Trent really needs to be told about this! blink.gif

Cheers, Slipstreem. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tot
post May 6 2008, 23:52
Post #61





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 13-September 07
Member No.: 47005



QUOTE (Alex B @ May 6 2008, 22:25) *
Surprisingly the 96/24 version appears to be more compressed and clipped.


At first I thought that too, but if you zoom in and compare individual peaks in each track they appear to be the same, at least to my eyes.

The waveform just looks more horrible in 96/24 because of higher sampling rate, I guess.


--------------------
Teemu
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post May 6 2008, 23:59
Post #62





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



I agree with CoyoteSmith, we need to get our story straight first.

Here's the information that should be compared, for each track on the album, between the 24/96 wav and 16/44 flac versions:
  1. Whether or not the 24/96 version is truncated to 16 bits
  2. An estimated count of clipped samples, along with specific examples of clipping
  3. ReplayGain and RMS values - but only on the timebase-corrected versions of the 24/96 tracks
  4. The estimated timebase difference
#4 is evidence of an additional mastering stage between the two releases that might be a good idea to know about, as it may result in an ABXable difference that could throw people off when comparing the two formats. #1 if found just means that the format quality has degraded to 16/96. #2 and #4 if found is a clear-cut quality degredation relative to the FLACs.

I'll volunteer to do #4, and by extension #3.

Once this is all hammered out I say we dump all the info on the wiki and scream our guts out at TR.


QUOTE (tot @ May 6 2008, 17:52) *
QUOTE (Alex B @ May 6 2008, 22:25) *

Surprisingly the 96/24 version appears to be more compressed and clipped.


At first I thought that too, but if you zoom in and compare individual peaks in each track they appear to be the same, at least to my eyes.

The waveform just looks more horrible in 96/24 because of higher sampling rate, I guess.


I have found some clear evidence of clipping on specific waveforms on a 24/96 track that does not exist in the 16/44 track. However, besides that, mastering differences appear pretty slight so far, at least from a visual comparison.

This post has been edited by Axon: May 6 2008, 23:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post May 7 2008, 00:09
Post #63





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



... 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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tot
post May 7 2008, 00:10
Post #64





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 13-September 07
Member No.: 47005



QUOTE (Axon @ May 7 2008, 00:59) *
I have found some clear evidence of clipping on specific waveforms on a 24/96 track that does not exist in the 16/44 track.


Sure, 96 clips slightly which disappears in 44.1 downsampling, but the level appears to be the same.


--------------------
Teemu
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ron Jones
post May 7 2008, 05:36
Post #65





Group: Members
Posts: 412
Joined: 9-August 07
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 46048



Note that I don't have the 16/44.1 FLACs currently, so I'm not making any comparisons to that specific release, but...

QUOTE (Axon @ May 6 2008, 15:59) *
Whether or not the 24/96 version is truncated to 16 bits

All but "Lights in the Sky" and "Corona Radiata" are padded 16-bit files. Apparent bit depth is 16 bits per sample. Some tracks seem to have no musically-related content beyond 23kHz, and spectral meters commonly show intermittent narrowband, non-musically-related spikes at around 31.5kHz at up to -65dB. This would be uncharacteristic behavior of any dither algorithm I'm familiar with. Other tracks seem to have musically-related content well beyond 30kHz at high levels (around -70dBFS). It could be noise produced by some of the synths, I suppose (many of Reznor's synths are vintage modular synths like ARPs and Moogs, and noise is an expected byproduct of that deteriorating circuitry, but this is really narrowband stuff here).

"Head Down" has a few instances of three or more clipped samples, but many instances of what looks like a sort of soft clipping, in which peaks appear to exhibit a "cut off" continuous or near-continuous downward- or upward-sloping trend. The waveform is very unusual-looking at these sections.

QUOTE (Axon @ May 6 2008, 15:59) *
An estimated count of clipped samples, along with specific examples of clipping

Clipping appears to be frequent on all tracks except the two listed above. "Demon Seed" (actually "The Four of Us Are Dying"), for instance, has numerous instances of 25+ clipped samples at 0dbFS. Not exactly atypical of a Nine Inch Nails record.

EDIT: Removed unnecessary comment re: Tom Baker

This post has been edited by Ron Jones: May 9 2008, 03:09
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bug80
post May 7 2008, 09:25
Post #66





Group: Members
Posts: 397
Joined: 23-January 05
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 19254



This sounds like an unfortunate mistake (maybe an effect plugin in his sequencer operating at 16 bits per sample only).

And maybe he did not use that plugin on the two tracks that seem to be really 24 bits.

This post has been edited by bug80: May 7 2008, 09:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dobyblue
post May 7 2008, 12:41
Post #67





Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 13-July 06
From: Gilead
Member No.: 32892



QUOTE (Axon @ May 6 2008, 19:09) *
... 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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DigitalMan
post May 7 2008, 15:36
Post #68





Group: Members
Posts: 481
Joined: 27-March 02
From: California, USA
Member No.: 1631



If anyone contacts NIN admin they should also mention that including ReplayGain data in the tags would be a really good way to support its benefits.


--------------------
Was that a 1 or a 0?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Leviathant
post May 8 2008, 23:05
Post #69





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 25-December 07
Member No.: 49843



QUOTE (CoyoteSmith @ May 6 2008, 11:46) *
once you are sure/have proof that the 24bit recording was made from 16bit recordings, you can tip off the admin of theninhotline.net whom operates the most popular nin site, he'll post the info on the front page and everyone will read it including trent. but i'd be careful that there is no mistake made and there is some tangible proof of the claim to show theninhotline admin.


Hi there! I forgot I had an account here. The problem is being addressed as I type this. Thanks for the heads up smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ningeneer
post May 8 2008, 23:56
Post #70





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 8-May 08
Member No.: 53384



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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post May 9 2008, 00:09
Post #71





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



Oh wow! Thank you.

While you're here smile.gif : Is the timebase difference (14ppm) between the two masters something that will be fixed? One would hope that the only difference between the two should be a downsampling, but that seems to imply a fundamental mastering difference between the two versions.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Slipstreem
post May 9 2008, 00:11
Post #72





Group: Members
Posts: 966
Joined: 7-July 06
Member No.: 32660



Now that's what I call customer service! Thankyou very much! biggrin.gif

Cheers, Slipstreem. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex B
post May 9 2008, 01:12
Post #73





Group: Members
Posts: 1303
Joined: 14-September 05
From: Helsinki, Finland
Member No.: 24472



QUOTE (Leviathant @ May 9 2008, 01:05) *
Hi there! I forgot I had an account here. The problem is being addressed as I type this. Thanks for the heads up smile.gif

QUOTE (ningeneer @ May 9 2008, 01:56) *
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.

I can only quess who you guys are, but welcome to the forum and thank you for the excellent news.

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.


QUOTE (Axon @ May 9 2008, 02:09) *
Oh wow! Thank you.

While you're here smile.gif : Is the timebase difference (14ppm) between the two masters something that will be fixed? One would hope that the only difference between the two should be a downsampling, but that seems to imply a fundamental mastering difference between the two versions.

I noticed that each track has duration differences. In total the 24/96 version appears to be about 20 s longer.

However, I think the differences are mostly caused by the differing amounts of silence in the beginnings and ends of the tracks. For example, when I removed these silent parts as accurately as I could from the track 9/10 (which I tested earlier) I got almost exactly the same duration, 4 m 54s 95 ms.


--------------------
http://listening-tests.freetzi.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post May 9 2008, 01:26
Post #74





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



QUOTE (Alex B @ May 8 2008, 19:12) *
I noticed that each track has duration differences. In total the 24/96 version appears to be about 20 s longer.

However, I think the differences are mostly caused by the differing amounts of silence in the beginnings and ends of the tracks. For example, when I removed these silent parts as accurately as I could from the track 9/10 (which I tested earlier) I got almost exactly the same duration, 4 m 54s 95 ms.
Look closer. Take 1,000,000 and remove all the starting silence - get the tracks sample-synchronized. Then take a transient in one format and find it in the other. You'll find that the two transients are about 334/22627357 =14ppm off in time.

You'll find this exact variation in at least tracks 2-5, which are the ones I've looked at so far. For those tracks the 24/96 version always runs about 0.0014% fast.

This will generally only come about if one of the two formats was subjected to an additional analog bounce (digital -> analog -> digital) that the other was not subjected to.

It's ultimately a somewhat trivial issue, but it could generate an audible difference between the two formats that could falsely be attributed to the quality of the formats themselves.

This post has been edited by Axon: May 9 2008, 01:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CoyoteSmith
post May 9 2008, 01:52
Post #75





Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 22-January 08
Member No.: 50696



QUOTE (Alex B @ May 8 2008, 20:12) *
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.


it would be cool if the 24bit version was in flac but idk how they would go about this, just in case anyone is listening can someone give instruction?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th April 2014 - 15:28