Pink Floyd - The Early Years - 1965 > 1972

[zabble]

A few days later Warner customer service informed me that they were mistaken and could not provide me with my missing CD.! :yikes

Same thing happened to me, except I ordered from importcds.com. I emailed them the following:

"I do not want to return this order. However, there is a disc missing that was supposed to go with it. This is a 28 disc set and I only received 27 discs. One disc was supposed to be included outside the sealed box but it was not. Please advise."

Their reply?
"We apologize you received a incomplete item. We've attached a prepaid postage label to this email. Upon receipt of the returned merchandise, we will process your new order. You should receive your replacement order 5 to 10 business days after we receive your return."

The mind boggles @: You would think it would be in interests of amazon UK and importcds.com to simply send out replacements of the missing Obscured by Clouds disc and save the hassle and expense of shipping the whole box back. When I do send it back, there's no guarantee that the new one they send will contain the missing disc.

 

[César]

Gents, did you realise that in the blurays you can listen to quite a few of the first two records in high resolution? Some of the videos are overdubbed with the original songs in 48/24 and I must say they sound great. Hopefully some day they will release all the records in 96/24...

 

[OdysseyMusik]

Gents, did you realise that in the blurays you can listen to quite a few of the first two records in high resolution? Some of the videos are overdubbed with the original songs in 48/24 and I must say they sound great. Hopefully some day they will release all the records in 96/24...

Yaeh nice! Found some tracks on the 1966-1967 & 1968 disc!
But can we be sure it's not just 44/16 upmix from the CD's?

 

[OdysseyMusik]

Yaeh nice! Found some tracks on the 1966-1967 & 1968 disc!
But can we be sure it's not just 44/16 upmix from the CD's?

OK found them only on the 1968 disc... But I can hear it sounds different/better than the CD!

 

[OdysseyMusik]

On the 1968 disc (track 2-9 on playlist 0) I found in 48/24:
Astronomy Dominé
The Scarecrow
Corporal Clegg (Edit)
Paint Box
Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun
See Emily Play
Bike
Apples And Oranges

Some of you found others?

 

[rontoon]

Gents, did you realise that in the blurays you can listen to quite a few of the first two records in high resolution? Some of the videos are overdubbed with the original songs in 48/24 and I must say they sound great. Hopefully some day they will release all the records in 96/24...

I don't really consider 48/24 as high resolution. I personally can't tell the difference between that and the CDs.

 

[jimfisheye]

I don't really consider 48/24 as high resolution. I personally can't tell the difference between that and the CDs.

I wonder if that isn't more a comment on the mastering? Or even evidence suggesting 24-48 is merely the container of choice for the video format and these might be upsampled from the CD files?

There are always a number of variables.

For me, 24 bit vs. 16 bit at any sample rate is the bigger factor. HD vs. SD sample rates is more a conversation on how well the hardware (AD & DA converters) runs at one vs. the other. 24 bit word size (sample size) gives you 256 times the discreet volume steps you can define vs. 16 bit at any sample rate. That I hear this first follows the theory.

My Apogee converters actually sound pretty much identical at SD sample rates as HD. Within perception bias for sure. The MOTU units sound noticeably better at HD sample rates than SD. (Both comparing same unit to same unit.) Most consumer grade devices are similar (receivers, DVD players, etc). So HD sample rate releases can be a big deal for some people!

Even with all that the mixing and mastering are by far the bigger factors. You could do a straight conversion from 24-96 to 16-44.1 and have a heck of a time hearing a difference depending on the dynamics of the original. You could go to the other extreme and put a volume war mastered program into 24-96 on a bluray disc and - for the opposite reason - not be able to tell the difference between it and the CD. I've seen both extremes.

 

[Frogmort]

Not talking specifically about this particular Pink Floyd sound quality wise, but just in very general terms, almost all blu-ray movies have 48kHz 24bit audio, such as Avatar, the new Star Trek Beyond, Captain America Civil War, etc. and even quite a few live concerts like Porcupine Tree - Anesthetize, David Gilmour - Remember That Night, Jeff Beck - Live at Ronnie Scott's, etc. To me, every one of these sounds absolutely amazing.

 

[OdysseyMusik]

I don't really consider 48/24 as high resolution. I personally can't tell the difference between that and the CDs.

24 bit have 50% more information than 16 bit. so for me it's most important!!
Electronic music seldom have overtones as acustic instrunents especialy cymbals. Our ears can't hear them but our scull should sense them.
So for me 96 kHz samples or 48 or even 44 for electronic music as Depeche Mode are the same.

When it comes to the old tapes of Pink Floyd I don't know overtones still are on the tapes and if the mics supported that.... But I'll guess the cymbals should sound better; a more natural sound than squared in the high frequenses

 

[DuncanS]

24-bits (2^24 = 16777216) has 256x the resolution of 16-bits (2^16 = 65536)!

24 bit have 50% more information than 16 bit. so for me it's most important!!
Electronic music seldom have overtones as acustic instrunents especialy cymbals. Our ears can't hear them but our scull should sense them.
So for me 96 kHz samples or 48 or even 44 for electronic music as Depeche Mode are the same.

When it comes to the old tapes of Pink Floyd I don't know overtones still are on the tapes and if the mics supported that.... But I'll guess the cymbals should sound better; a more natural sound than squared in the high frequenses

 

[jimfisheye]

24 bit have 50% more information than 16 bit. so for me it's most important!!
Electronic music seldom have overtones as acustic instrunents especialy cymbals. Our ears can't hear them but our scull should sense them.
So for me 96 kHz samples or 48 or even 44 for electronic music as Depeche Mode are the same.

When it comes to the old tapes of Pink Floyd I don't know overtones still are on the tapes and if the mics supported that.... But I'll guess the cymbals should sound better; a more natural sound than squared in the high frequenses

FYI, there's absolutely no difference or compromise in frequency spectrum capture between SD and HD sample rates. Nor are there any "squaring off" of waveforms in SD sample rates! (That one is a very silly misconception as it would sound like loud grating distortion and eclipse any program content!)

It's simply that the machines we build (AD and DA converters in this case) run better with a wide margin for the audio band and specifically with the sampling frequency nowhere near the data. Higher quality converters will have less distortions introduced at SD sample rates than consumer grade units. Having the sampling frequency right at the edge of the data band as with SD sample rates makes for a more difficult device to build. The audio band however is not limited in any way shape or form.

Reducing 24 bit to 16 bit at any sample rate now starts to limit the audio band (dynamically in this case).

 

[onthewall2983]

I Love it.
Don't get me wrong, Andy outdid himself with the new one....but the original mix was REALLY late 60's-early70's...moving all the time.../QUOTE]

Is the AHM mix bouncy?

 

[Fourplay]

Nor are there any "squaring off" of waveforms in SD sample rates! (That one is a very silly misconception as it would sound like loud grating distortion and eclipse any program content!)

Redacted due to incorrect information.

 

[Fourplay]

Concerning this thread, I GOT MY BOX YESTERDAY!

 

[jimfisheye]

Just a quick clarification of this point. The "squaring off" of waveforms can occur in either HD or SD digital recording. This is called "clipping," and occurs when the input signal is excessively loud. The waveform then flattens at the 0 db limit of the recorder (to use a metaphor: think of the digital recording as a physical window, and a loud sound as an object that is larger than the opening of the window - in order to "fit" in the window the tops and bottoms must be clipped off), which causes unpleasant noise when being reproduced.

The difference between SD & HD is the "smoothness of the waveform." In digital recording an analog sine wave (or blend of waves) is captured almost like a photograph. The wave becomes represented by digital data which takes "a photo" of the wave. It's not really a photo, although when looking at pictorial displays such as in audio editing software you are essentially looking at a photo of the wave. As with all digital, the greater the sampling, the more detail of the sine wave you will capture. A waveform captured at a lower sample rate - when examined extremely closely - may exhibit some "stair stepping." Just like a digital photo, when zoomed in, may begin to look like a series of blocks. The higher the sampling, the more you would have to zoom in before you would notice the steps between one sample and the next one.

Now as to whether these differences are audible on playback, that is a matter of great debate. I would simply state that higher resolution is more archival, because once you capture at a given resolution, you cannot regain lost resolution from the original (unless you resample the original source directly).

This is a huge topic with lots of nuance and caveats that maybe belongs in another thread.

Clipping is one thing. Straightforward digital distortion. The 'stair step' thing for SD audio is an internet myth. SD sample rates do not introduce gross distortion into waveforms that looks like stair steps! Someone one day misinterpreted a digital display (showing data points as steps). Really truly. Hook up a scope to the reconstructed analog signal coming out of the DA converter and there will be no 'stair steps'. It would be LOUD grinding distortion if there were!

HD sample rates are easier to build machines for and perform better with a wide margin for the audio band. No more, no less. SD sample rates still define the entire audio band with no gross distortions.

If you're hearing a little distortion in SD vs. HD, then your converters run better at HD (as most consumer models do). Apogee or Prism users will have no complaints about SD sample rates. Fun experiment: Take an SD file and upsample it to 96k. Now listen to that through your converters that perform better at HD. Sounds just like your other HD content doesn't it.

If the audio data were truly corrupted to the point of seeing visible stair steps in the waveforms, it would sound like you were running your audio through an electric guitar Tube Screamer distortion box pedal!

Believe me that I'm all about HD formats! Probably more than most folks. SD (and worse - 16 bit word length) is obsolete and there's really no reason to use anything but 24-96 anymore. But SD doesn't just crudely distort the audio. Not even the lowly mp3 does that kind of damage!

 

[ssully]

Just a quick clarification of this point. The "squaring off" of waveforms can occur in either HD or SD digital recording. This is called "clipping," and occurs when the input signal is excessively loud. The waveform then flattens at the 0 db limit of the recorder (to use a metaphor: think of the digital recording as a physical window, and a loud sound as an object that is larger than the opening of the window - in order to "fit" in the window the tops and bottoms must be clipped off), which causes unpleasant noise when being reproduced.

Clipping is not what was being talked about.

The difference between SD & HD is the "smoothness of the waveform." In digital recording an analog sine wave (or blend of waves) is captured almost like a photograph. The wave becomes represented by digital data which takes "a photo" of the wave. It's not really a photo, although when looking at pictorial displays such as in audio editing software you are essentially looking at a photo of the wave. As with all digital, the greater the sampling, the more detail of the sine wave you will capture. A waveform captured at a lower sample rate - when examined extremely closely - may exhibit some "stair stepping." Just like a digital photo, when zoomed in, may begin to look like a series of blocks. The higher the sampling, the more you would have to zoom in before you would notice the steps between one sample and the next one.

Simply not true. I would hope this 'stair stepping' nonsense had been debunked again and again, but it hasn't I guess.


Here, watch this:

Digital Show & Tell

https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

 

[sukothai]

"In general, the higher bitrate the ‘smoother’ the sound will be. 8-bit sounds rather grainy and harsh whereas 16-bit sound sounds quite a bit better."

This statement doesn't make sense. They mention bit-rate, but then talk about sample size. The small 8-bit sample size causes more quantization noise (similar to tape hiss) and has nothing to do with bit-rate. The excellent link Sully provided explains this.

 

[Fourplay]

The excellent link Sully provided explains.

I should kindly like to redact my incorrect statements. I apologize for populating this thread with incorrect information. I am a technician, but not an engineer. I have always struggled with math and physics, and obviously my poor grasp of the topic at hand has shown.

There are plenty of real engineers around here who should be able to clarify this discussion. Perhaps someone qualified could start a separate thread which could be stickied, so that any time the topic comes up on the forum there is a simple and definitive place to clear up the mythologies. Again, I apologize if I have perpetuated bad information.

 

[Snood]

Sorry Fourplay, Snood no could resist :banana:


[video=youtube;MULMbqQ9LJ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MULMbqQ9LJ8[/video]

 

[ssully]

Actually I think we are both kind of correct.

The point is that you are "sampling" a curved wave, which represents data in terms of ones and zeros - on or off. The greater the sampling, the higher the resolution of the slope of the curve. Perhaps I am not being clear enough, but I am suggesting that a square wave would be easier to sample perfectly than a curved wave. Or maybe a better way to say it would be "a square wave would require less resolution to sample perfectly."

The other possibility is that my understanding of the process is totally wrong!

Yup.

Here is a place to do more reading:

http://thestereobus.com/2008/01/12/sample-rate-and-bitrate-the-guts-of-digital-audio/

Note the following phrase; this is what the so called "stair stepping" is referring to:

"In general, the higher bitrate the ‘smoother’ the sound will be. 8-bit sounds rather grainy and harsh whereas 16-bit sound sounds quite a bit better."

Nope.