ericschafer said:

HOLY SHIT!

IT'S REAL!

24/96 and 24/192!

Excuse me for not knowing, but can someone explain the difference between the two?

skywalker said:

ericschafer said:

HOLY SHIT!

IT'S REAL!

24/96 and 24/192!

Excuse me for not knowing, but can someone explain the difference between the two?

Well clearly one is 96 bigger than the other.

CD is 16bit 44.1khz, the other formats mentioned here are 24bit with 96 and 192 khz respectively. In very simple terms, the higher the bits, the more detail that can be picked out in the sounds being sampled. The frequency refers to the number of times per second that those bits are being recorded. So a CD samples 16bits about 44,000 times a second and 24/96 samples 24bits 96,000 times a second.

Another way to think about it is like with video. If you have 2 bits, you can only show two colours, on or off. With 16 bits, you can show 65,536 different colours, and with 24 bits 16,777,216 colours. The second number would be the frame rate, where higher numbers give a smoother viewing experience and lower numbers would seem more jerky.

So, the 24 is the depth of the detail and the 96 or 192 is the smoothness.

Did any of that make any sense?

I downloaded the 24/192 version. I haven't had time to do a sound comparison, and my digital setup is not great anyway, so I won't have much to say about the quality of this compared to the 180-gram vinyl reissue (which I love). But I can confirm that this appears to be a new analog-to-digital transfer. I converted the files to Apple Lossless and imported them to iTunes. The track running times are different from the original CD, from one to four seconds longer or shorter in length. By contrast, the Japanese SHM-CDs had exactly the same running times for each track as the original CD. If this is a new transfer, it's the first time that has been done since the original CD was issued in the early 1980s.

TheEnglishGent said:

CD is 16bit 44.1khz, the other formats mentioned here are 24bit with 96 and 192 khz respectively. In very simple terms, the higher the bits, the more detail that can be picked out in the sounds being sampled. The frequency refers to the number of times per second that those bits are being recorded. So a CD samples 16bits about 44,000 times a second and 24/96 samples 24bits 96,000 times a second.

Another way to think about it is like with video. If you have 2 bits, you can only show two colours, on or off. With 16 bits, you can show 65,536 different colours, and with 24 bits 16,777,216 colours. The second number would be the frame rate, where higher numbers give a smoother viewing experience and lower numbers would seem more jerky.

So, the 24 is the depth of the detail and the 96 or 192 is the smoothness.

Did any of that make any sense?

Mostly. Thanks.

unique said:

ericschafer said:

HOLY SHIT!

IT'S REAL!

24/96 and 24/192!

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=artistdetail&id=10774

where does it say 24/96 and/or 24/192 in relation to prince?

WTF!!

For the time being, HDtracks only sells to U.S. Residents

How silly is that?

Not trying to sound like an ass but why did they choose digital? Why not release the goddamn thing as a cd?!?!!! FUCK ME! I mean if it has something to do with legal issues, then I understand. If not then...?

[Edited 3/26/13 22:50pm]

purplemajesty23 said:

Not trying to sound like an ass but why did they choose digital? Why not release the goddamn thing as a cd?!?!!! FUCK ME! I mean if it has something to do with legal issues, then I understand. If not then...?

Media costs money.

And indeed there may be a separate market for physical media. Licensing, rentseeking and other reasons.

This website asks me to pollute my computer with windows or an emulation to be able to download that audio. Which genius thought that that was a good idea?

This is 2013, nit 2003 or 1993.

Why is this `innovantion` more often than not located in the former USA?

udo said:

unique said:

where does it say 24/96 and/or 24/192 in relation to prince?

WTF!!

For the time being, HDtracks only sells to U.S. Residents

How silly is that?

that will explain why nothing showed up for me then. i guess i need to spend 2 seconds using a free proxy site to access it

purplemajesty23 said:

Not trying to sound like an ass but why did they choose digital? Why not release the goddamn thing as a cd?!?!!! FUCK ME! I mean if it has something to do with legal issues, then I understand. If not then...?

a cd is digital

however the point of this release is it's high definition audio, which you can't get on a CD. it's not a remaster as far as anyone knows, so there would be little to no benefit of putting it out on cd even if there were no legalities around it, which there probably will be

think of it as making a new high def version of a movie and releasing on bluray and you are saying, why can't we have it on dvd when there is already a dvd out. you can't make the dvd as good as the bluray

Well fuck it... how do you rip vinyl into itunes?

Word of Warning: My depression is bad today so I may come off as being a huge prick. Also doesn't help when your only way of self medication (opiates for me;btw not addicted) tolerance is high (been taking for a day or two..fucking hate depression) and hardly works. So yeah, I don't mean anything I may say that is negative towards people...

[Edited 3/26/13 23:33pm]

purplemajesty23 said:

Well fuck it... how do you rip vinyl into itunes?

Word of Warning: My depression is bad today so I may come off as being a huge prick. Also doesn't help when your only way of self medication (opiates for me;btw not addicted) tolerance is high (been taking for a day or two..fucking hate depression) and hardly works. So yeah, I don't mean anything I may say that is negative towards people...

[Edited 3/26/13 23:33pm]

there are a number of ways to do it, but if the material is available online you can save yourself from hassle. why make a needle drop when someone did it already and put it online

my method was turntable - amp - cdrecorder (standalone) - rip cd to wav, edit in soundforge, save completed file, import to itunes. sometimes i i recorded to minidisc, edited, copied to cdrecorder and followed the rest

some people connect TT or amp to pc soundcard, play the record and record, then edit. if you do a bit of googling and ask the same question you will get loads more details on it. unless you have a record that's not out on cd or on the internet, if you have to ask how to do it then i suggest don't bother doing it

unique said:

purplemajesty23 said:

Well fuck it... how do you rip vinyl into itunes?

Word of Warning: My depression is bad today so I may come off as being a huge prick. Also doesn't help when your only way of self medication (opiates for me;btw not addicted) tolerance is high (been taking for a day or two..fucking hate depression) and hardly works. So yeah, I don't mean anything I may say that is negative towards people...

[Edited 3/26/13 23:33pm]

there are a number of ways to do it, but if the material is available online you can save yourself from hassle. why make a needle drop when someone did it already and put it online

my method was turntable - amp - cdrecorder (standalone) - rip cd to wav, edit in soundforge, save completed file, import to itunes. sometimes i i recorded to minidisc, edited, copied to cdrecorder and followed the rest

some people connect TT or amp to pc soundcard, play the record and record, then edit. if you do a bit of googling and ask the same question you will get loads more details on it. unless you have a record that's not out on cd or on the internet, if you have to ask how to do it then i suggest don't bother doing it

My only problem with this release is really just a problem on my end when I think about it. I just don't have a media player on my computer that plays flac (which I'm sure is the best way to enjoy this release). The only media player I use is Itunes (scared to try others).

Also of note: I only recently found out you could increase the quality of songs you put on Itunes to 24bit and 192 kHz, along with a sound enhancer slider. Is this the best way to listen or are there better media players that can do that and play flac and stuff?

Sorry if this hijacks the thread but could people help me find the best of the best (but free) media players for audiophiles? Or just give me a lesson or something cuz I'm so confused... Please help A pm is also welcom if no one wants to mess up the direction of this thread.

unique said:

udo said:

WTF!!

For the time being, HDtracks only sells to U.S. Residents

How silly is that?

that will explain why nothing showed up for me then. i guess i need to spend 2 seconds using a free proxy site to access it

I dunno if they filter IPs or Addresses or card numbers.

I don't like the extra software they require to download the FLACs. (what problem do they solve?)

I did pay and only then they mention this.

So this will be an interesting money back request.

I won't feel guilty to download this music elsewhere if they do not refund.

purplemajesty23 said:

unique said:

there are a number of ways to do it, but if the material is available online you can save yourself from hassle. why make a needle drop when someone did it already and put it online

my method was turntable - amp - cdrecorder (standalone) - rip cd to wav, edit in soundforge, save completed file, import to itunes. sometimes i i recorded to minidisc, edited, copied to cdrecorder and followed the rest

some people connect TT or amp to pc soundcard, play the record and record, then edit. if you do a bit of googling and ask the same question you will get loads more details on it. unless you have a record that's not out on cd or on the internet, if you have to ask how to do it then i suggest don't bother doing it

My only problem with this release is really just a problem on my end when I think about it. I just don't have a media player on my computer that plays flac (which I'm sure is the best way to enjoy this release). The only media player I use is Itunes (scared to try others).

Also of note: I only recently found out you could increase the quality of songs you put on Itunes to 24bit and 192 kHz, along with a sound enhancer slider. Is this the best way to listen or are there better media players that can do that and play flac and stuff?

Sorry if this hijacks the thread but could people help me find the best of the best (but free) media players for audiophiles? Or just give me a lesson or something cuz I'm so confused... Please help A pm is also welcom if no one wants to mess up the direction of this thread.

well on the basis you are using windows, winamp is what i have used since the 90s as it can play the most amount of audio files, you can get all sorts of plugins, it's small, it's free, free of bloat, and you can have a loooong playlist you can move around and change as you play, so great for dragging a load of songs into and clicking through them. you might need to google and download the flac plugin, i can't remember if it's included or not, but on a new install i add flac, ape, shn, and then for video divx and xvid, and then the CCCP (combined community codec pack), in that order, to get all the video codecs you should need, and that should install MPC (media player classic home cinema), which plays everything you can throw at it, although some prefer VLC which can do some of stuff too. it's just a matter of opinion really. others prefer foobar for audio playback, it can also convert files to different formats and i think plays flac natively without a plugin

so keep it simple, install winamp and foobar and the flac plugin and then play around and see what you prefer. they are free and small files. likewise with video, install VLC and MPC and see what you prefer

however if your soundcard and/or amp doesn't support HD audio then you aren't going to get much benefit from HD audio. it would be like playing bluray on an old CRT telly via scart lead

udo said:

unique said:

that will explain why nothing showed up for me then. i guess i need to spend 2 seconds using a free proxy site to access it

I dunno if they filter IPs or Addresses or card numbers.

I don't like the extra software they require to download the FLACs. (what problem do they solve?)

I did pay and only then they mention this.

So this will be an interesting money back request.

I won't feel guilty to download this music elsewhere if they do not refund.

the initial link to prince showed no albums available, but the direct link to the album did.

i presume the software, which amazon also has for mp3s, is so you don't get a link that you can share to other people. you just download it first then re-up if you want to illegally share - although with amazon it seems to add user ID info in the metadata (which can be easily removed), i presume they do the same with flac

unique said:

purplemajesty23 said:

My only problem with this release is really just a problem on my end when I think about it. I just don't have a media player on my computer that plays flac (which I'm sure is the best way to enjoy this release). The only media player I use is Itunes (scared to try others).

Also of note: I only recently found out you could increase the quality of songs you put on Itunes to 24bit and 192 kHz, along with a sound enhancer slider. Is this the best way to listen or are there better media players that can do that and play flac and stuff?

Sorry if this hijacks the thread but could people help me find the best of the best (but free) media players for audiophiles? Or just give me a lesson or something cuz I'm so confused... Please help A pm is also welcom if no one wants to mess up the direction of this thread.

well on the basis you are using windows, winamp is what i have used since the 90s as it can play the most amount of audio files, you can get all sorts of plugins, it's small, it's free, free of bloat, and you can have a loooong playlist you can move around and change as you play, so great for dragging a load of songs into and clicking through them. you might need to google and download the flac plugin, i can't remember if it's included or not, but on a new install i add flac, ape, shn, and then for video divx and xvid, and then the CCCP (combined community codec pack), in that order, to get all the video codecs you should need, and that should install MPC (media player classic home cinema), which plays everything you can throw at it, although some prefer VLC which can do some of stuff too. it's just a matter of opinion really. others prefer foobar for audio playback, it can also convert files to different formats and i think plays flac natively without a plugin

so keep it simple, install winamp and foobar and the flac plugin and then play around and see what you prefer. they are free and small files. likewise with video, install VLC and MPC and see what you prefer

however if your soundcard and/or amp doesn't support HD audio then you aren't going to get much benefit from HD audio. it would be like playing bluray on an old CRT telly via scart lead

Thanks! I will start downloading now! I know my computer can handle it though. When I bought my alienware I made sure everything was top notch. Plus I have some very good headphones too.

So will the songs sound even better than they do on Itunes' when you put itunes on the high quality settings? Plus listening with flac? I AM SO EXCITED!!!!!

purplemajesty23 said:

unique said:

well on the basis you are using windows, winamp is what i have used since the 90s as it can play the most amount of audio files, you can get all sorts of plugins, it's small, it's free, free of bloat, and you can have a loooong playlist you can move around and change as you play, so great for dragging a load of songs into and clicking through them. you might need to google and download the flac plugin, i can't remember if it's included or not, but on a new install i add flac, ape, shn, and then for video divx and xvid, and then the CCCP (combined community codec pack), in that order, to get all the video codecs you should need, and that should install MPC (media player classic home cinema), which plays everything you can throw at it, although some prefer VLC which can do some of stuff too. it's just a matter of opinion really. others prefer foobar for audio playback, it can also convert files to different formats and i think plays flac natively without a plugin

so keep it simple, install winamp and foobar and the flac plugin and then play around and see what you prefer. they are free and small files. likewise with video, install VLC and MPC and see what you prefer

however if your soundcard and/or amp doesn't support HD audio then you aren't going to get much benefit from HD audio. it would be like playing bluray on an old CRT telly via scart lead

Thanks! I will start downloading now! I know my computer can handle it though. When I bought my alienware I made sure everything was top notch. Plus I have some very good headphones too.

So will the songs sound even better than they do on Itunes' when you put itunes on the high quality settings? Plus listening with flac? I AM SO EXCITED!!!!!

The merit of Hi-Resolution 2-channel audio has consistently been dismissed in nurmerous double-blind tests. The simple truth is, Hi-Resolution 2-channel audio is a waste of time, money and hard drive space.

The overwhelming majority of people, when properly tested, cannot even distinguish between a flac file and an MP3 file encoded at 320 kbit/s CBR. This is not due to a lack of listener refinement or system sophistication but rather the fact that little, if any, audible difference exists between the two formats.

comperic2003 said:

purplemajesty23 said:

Thanks! I will start downloading now! I know my computer can handle it though. When I bought my alienware I made sure everything was top notch. Plus I have some very good headphones too.

So will the songs sound even better than they do on Itunes' when you put itunes on the high quality settings? Plus listening with flac? I AM SO EXCITED!!!!!

The merit of Hi-Resolution 2-channel audio has consistently been dismissed in nurmerous double-blind tests. The simple truth is, Hi-Resolution 2-channel audio is a waste of time, money and hard drive space.

The overwhelming majority of people, when properly tested, cannot even distinguish between a flac file and an MP3 file encoded at 320 kbit/s CBR. This is not due to a lack of listener refinement or system sophistication but rather the fact that little, if any, audible difference exists between the two formats.

Not trying to sound rude, but I truly do hear a difference. I am hearing stuff so clear now and hearing stuff I haven't even heard in songs before. I'm not lying either. I'm surprised myself.

purplemajesty23 said:

comperic2003 said:

The merit of Hi-Resolution 2-channel audio has consistently been dismissed in nurmerous double-blind tests. The simple truth is, Hi-Resolution 2-channel audio is a waste of time, money and hard drive space.

The overwhelming majority of people, when properly tested, cannot even distinguish between a flac file and an MP3 file encoded at 320 kbit/s CBR. This is not due to a lack of listener refinement or system sophistication but rather the fact that little, if any, audible difference exists between the two formats.

Not trying to sound rude, but I truly do hear a difference. I am hearing stuff so clear now and hearing stuff I haven't even heard in songs before. I'm not lying either. I'm surprised myself.

No offence taken. Yes, a lot of people will hear a difference under normal, sighted conditions. But the question remains, do these differences really exist? Placebo effect, confirmation bias and post-purchase are incredibly influential phenomena too powerful to simply will away. When these things are controlled for in double blind testing, the perceived differences one once heard vanish.

This is as close as you are going to get to vinyl sound. I think this sound so much better. I do have a pretty good stereo at home though. I would purchase these alone just for the better mastering quality than the cd. I bought the 96khz/24bit wav. I am going to archive this on a dvd-a and listen to it through that means. I did down convert the files on itunes to 320 vbr at 48khz/16bit and they sound far better than the cd rips that i had before. Highly recommended.

HD-tracks will refund, so that is OK.

The rest is open:

Does the audio sound better than on CD?

I mean: I don't need louder stuff. I need more detail, openness, etc.

Can someone purchase the 24/96 for me please?

We will issue a refund. You will receive an email confirmation later in the week once it is complete.

Please note, you are outside the US.We currently are not available internationally. This is due to record label restrictions on high res digital downloads. We are seeking to launch internationally soon. But at this moment I do not have an exact time period. So while you while you were able to order, you will not be available to purchase in the future due to the international restrictions.

WOn't work for me.

udo said:

HD-tracks will refund, so that is OK.

The rest is open:

Does the audio sound better than on CD?

I mean: I don't need louder stuff. I need more detail, openness, etc.

Can someone purchase the 24/96 for me please?

We will issue a refund. You will receive an email confirmation later in the week once it is complete.

Please note, you are outside the US.We currently are not available internationally. This is due to record label restrictions on high res digital downloads. We are seeking to launch internationally soon. But at this moment I do not have an exact time period. So while you while you were able to order, you will not be available to purchase in the future due to the international restrictions.

WOn't work for me.

I bought the 96/24 in wav. Imo the keyboards and drums sound more defined and punchy than on the cd release. I also noticed that I was able to distinctly hear more of the music going on deeper in the mix. I do think this has to do with the mastering as to the bits and sample frequency. I hope this answers some of your questions.

housequake82 said:

This is as close as you are going to get to vinyl sound. I think this sound so much better. I do have a pretty good stereo at home though. I would purchase these alone just for the better mastering quality than the cd. I bought the 96khz/24bit wav. I am going to archive this on a dvd-a and listen to it through that means. I did down convert the files on itunes to 320 vbr at 48khz/16bit and they sound far better than the cd rips that i had before. Highly recommended.

...and that's the point that most folks don't know.

The higher the sampling rate and bit depth, the closer one gets to analog (vinyl), which is the best. So this is better than CD (44.1KHz/16bit), as they have both 96KHz/24bit and 192KHz/24bit.

On that note, can anyone compare the 180 gram vinyl reissue to the original vinyl?

Also, I don't see that 180 gram vinyl reissue of 1999 anywhere... not even on Rhino's site, where Prince isn't even listed as an available artist.

~G

.

[Edited 3/27/13 9:19am]

Giovanni777 said:

housequake82 said:

This is as close as you are going to get to vinyl sound. I think this sound so much better. I do have a pretty good stereo at home though. I would purchase these alone just for the better mastering quality than the cd. I bought the 96khz/24bit wav. I am going to archive this on a dvd-a and listen to it through that means. I did down convert the files on itunes to 320 vbr at 48khz/16bit and they sound far better than the cd rips that i had before. Highly recommended.

...and that's the point that most folks don't know.

The higher the sampling rate and bit depth, the closer one gets to analog (vinyl), which is the best. So this is better than CD (44.1KHz/16bit), as they have both 96KHz/24bit and 192KHz/24bit.

On that note, can anyone compare the 180 gram vinyl reissue to the original vinyl?

Also, I don't see that 180 gram vinyl reissue of 1999 anywhere... not even on Rhino's site, where Prince isn't even listed as an available artist.

~G

.

[Edited 3/27/13 9:19am]

Check Best Buy. I got mine there.

Giovanni777 said:

housequake82 said:

This is as close as you are going to get to vinyl sound. I think this sound so much better. I do have a pretty good stereo at home though. I would purchase these alone just for the better mastering quality than the cd. I bought the 96khz/24bit wav. I am going to archive this on a dvd-a and listen to it through that means. I did down convert the files on itunes to 320 vbr at 48khz/16bit and they sound far better than the cd rips that i had before. Highly recommended.

...and that's the point that most folks don't know.

The higher the sampling rate and bit depth, the closer one gets to analog (vinyl), which is the best. So this is better than CD (44.1KHz/16bit), as they have both 96KHz/24bit and 192KHz/24bit.

On that note, can anyone compare the 180 gram vinyl reissue to the original vinyl?

Also, I don't see that 180 gram vinyl reissue of 1999 anywhere... not even on Rhino's site, where Prince isn't even listed as an available artist.

~G

.

[Edited 3/27/13 9:19am]

I did compare the 180 gram vinyl reissue of Dirty Mind to the original vinyl. I preferred the reissue. I didn't try it with 1999.

Giovanni777 said:

housequake82 said:

This is as close as you are going to get to vinyl sound. I think this sound so much better. I do have a pretty good stereo at home though. I would purchase these alone just for the better mastering quality than the cd. I bought the 96khz/24bit wav. I am going to archive this on a dvd-a and listen to it through that means. I did down convert the files on itunes to 320 vbr at 48khz/16bit and they sound far better than the cd rips that i had before. Highly recommended.

...and that's the point that most folks don't know.

The higher the sampling rate and bit depth, the closer one gets to analog (vinyl), which is the best. So this is better than CD (44.1KHz/16bit), as they have both 96KHz/24bit and 192KHz/24bit.

On that note, can anyone compare the 180 gram vinyl reissue to the original vinyl?

Also, I don't see that 180 gram vinyl reissue of 1999 anywhere... not even on Rhino's site, where Prince isn't even listed as an available artist.

~G

.

[Edited 3/27/13 9:19am]

Don't know where you live, but it's available in just about every record store here in Toronto.

Amazon has it in stock as well:

http://www.amazon.com/199...1999+vinyl

Rhino seems to have shut down their shop recently.

[Edited 3/27/13 9:50am]

Giovanni777 said:

...and that's the point that most folks don't know.

The higher the sampling rate and bit depth, the closer one gets to analog (vinyl), which is the best. So this is better than CD (44.1KHz/16bit), as they have both 96KHz/24bit and 192KHz/24bit.

~G

Most folks don't need to know that because it simply isn't true. Analog is not superior to digital.

And 96kHz/24bit or 192kHz/24bit is not audibly superior to 44.1kHz/16bit when double blind tested.

Thanks for commenting on the sound quality.

Now how to the those...

comperic2003 said:

Most folks don't need to know that because it simply isn't true. Analog is not superior to digital.

It depends on the context.

Analog signals do describe reality better than digital ones.

But analog signals are harder to keep in good health.

And 96kHz/24bit or 192kHz/24bit is not audibly superior to 44.1kHz/16bit when double blind tested.

Sure.

Depends on the content, the gear, the ears, the location, the person, etc.