Giovanni777 said:

steakfinger said:

Same problem with TBO as everyone else. Sent an email and got some automated response that they'll get back to me later. This was days ago and still no response.

What is "TBO"?

The Beautiful Ones. (which other songs on PR match that letter combination?)

Giovanni777 said:

steakfinger said:

Same problem with TBO as everyone else. Sent an email and got some automated response that they'll get back to me later. This was days ago and still no response.

What is "TBO"?

"The Beautiful Ones"

udo said:

Giovanni777 said:

What is "TBO"?

The Beautiful Ones. (which other songs on PR match that letter combination?)

Ah... I just can't stand acronyms.

Giovanni777 said:

udo said:

The Beautiful Ones. (which other songs on PR match that letter combination?)

Ah... I just can't stand acronyms.

NP

Udo

chewymusic said:

Hell I thought just the samples on the 1999 page sounded really good.

Here's my question for the OP though. If you can download the HDT album in AIFF,

couldn't you put that on your iPod? I have tons of AIFF's on mine.

Thanks!

While an iPod/iPhone will play back an ALAC, AIFF or WAV file, the issue is that the sample rate for an HD audio track is higher than your iPod/iPhone can take. An iPod/iPhone device can play back 24bit, but the sample rate taps out at 48kHz... so if you want to play an HD audio track on your iPod, you need to downconvert the sample rate from 192kHz (or 96kHz if that is the version you purchase) to 48kHz. This is super easy to do. I bought the 192kHz/24bit ALAC version to listen to in my home studio, but like everyone else, I want those songs on a portable device (iPhone), so I used http://www.dbpoweramp.com/ to convert my 192kHz/24bit ALAC to 48kHz/24bit AIFF (took about 30 seconds to do the whole album) - that is still better than CD quality (which is 44kHz/16bit) and your iPod will play it back just fine. I am sure there are other applications that will convert it, but dBpoweramp is considered one of the best and I have used it for years. I hope that helps!

Good news. Just got word back from HDTracks support:

.

We have been in touch with the label. They are currently trying to correct the file. Once we receive it will let you know that you can re-download the new file.

.

Nice work Prince army!

.

EDIT: First Post and Title Updated

[Edited 5/31/13 8:29am]

BlackbeltJones said:

Good news. Just got word back from HDTracks support:

.

We have been in touch with the label. They are currently trying to correct the file. Once we receive it will let you know that you can re-download the new file.

.

Nice work Prince army!

.

EDIT: First Post and Title Updated

[Edited 5/31/13 8:29am]

Got the same note from them as well. Good work all.

I also got the

We have been in touch with the label. They are currently trying to correct the file. Once we receive it will let you know that you can re-download the new file.

So maybe things will be corrected!!

BlackbeltJones said:

192 is a higher sample rate so in theory it should sound better as it contains more audio information than 96 (they are bigger files and HDTracks charges more for them); you can read a lot of unproven theories about this or that as it relates to sample size, but in my experience recording and playing back digital audio, higher sample rates are at best better or at worst indistinguishable. In practice I doubt anyone can really hear a difference on all but the most high-end systems... all the same, I bought 192 because 1999 is my all time favorite Prince album, and I figured I would spring for the extra $5 to get it in the best possible format.

.

All the file formats @ HDTracks will sound the same - they are either uncompressed (WAV or AIFF) or lossless (FLAC, ALAC). Lossless files have the advantage of typically containing more metadata, they are smaller, and your media playback device can decode them on the fly (think of it as bit for bit the same as an uncompressed file but tightly packed in a smaller, fancier container) so they will sound the exact same as an uncompressed file. You can even use an app like dBpoweramp to covert FLAC or ALAC to an uncompressed file without loosing a single bit of audio information or degrading it in any way. FLAC is the standard, but I like ALAC because I use iTunes as my media server and ALAC is a native Apple format.

Thanks for your detailed response...really appreciate it! I'm gonna take the plunge and purchase now.

Really interesting stuff, thanks O.P.!

^^^No problem!

electricberet said:

So, has TBO been fixed?

I have not received notification yet. I was going to give it another week and then reach out to them.

I emailed again, asking about the status, and they said:

We are still awaiting new files from the label. We hope to hear back from next week.

[Edited 6/9/13 21:31pm]

bluegangsta said:

These are the masters used for the 180g vinyls.

Doubtful, since a vinyl master is done specifically for that medium.

BlackbeltJones said:

Now here is where it gets muddy and where I don't have any hard proof. It is widely speculated that the new masters created for those 180g vinyls were used for the "High Definition" audio format on HDTracks. I have not seen any place that actually confirms this to be true, but it is what people seem to believe and it is a reasonable assumption to make.

BartVanHemelen said:

bluegangsta said:

These are the masters used for the 180g vinyls.

Doubtful, since a vinyl master is done specifically for that medium.

100% correct. A mastering job for vinyl would sound like a bag full of smashed ass used fro any other format. You have to do a lot of work just to get a vinyl rip to sound decent. The mastering for vinyl is TOTALLY different than for tape, CD, download, etc...

Any update on whether the problem has been fixed?

steakfinger said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Doubtful, since a vinyl master is done specifically for that medium.

100% correct. A mastering job for vinyl would sound like a bag full of smashed ass used fro any other format. You have to do a lot of work just to get a vinyl rip to sound decent. The mastering for vinyl is TOTALLY different than for tape, CD, download, etc...

Why would it sound shitty? If you rip the vinyl with a good record player and recording device, it will sound about exactly the same as how you heard it on vinyl. It will only miss some bass information and in the very high frequencies, it will sound more "rounded off". And this is when you rip it. They don't have to rip it from the vinyl. They would just use the same masters with minor adjustments probably to get the right master levels from the source. But I gotta admit that it sounds a bit weird if they didn't care about frequencies that a computer or cd can produce with ease. So the chances are that they made two different masters with minor changes, just to fit the different mediums.

And soon there will be four: HD Tracks just announced on their Facebook page that this week they will have Around the World In a Day.

BWLD said:

And soon there will be four: HD Tracks just announced on their Facebook page that this week they will have Around the World In a Day.

Well, that's good news. I was hoping ATWIAD would get a vinyl remaster but a high-res digital remaster is the next best thing, I guess.

Still no word on whether the problem with Purple Rain has been fixed?

I'm excited about this-- They aren't stopping with Purple Rain, which means that Parade and SOTT might be coming next...

BWLD said:

And soon there will be four: HD Tracks just announced on their Facebook page that this week they will have Around the World In a Day.

Why isn't this promoted? And when will I have a remaster of Around The World In A Day in vinyl? That's what I want.

Agreed, Replica, I haven't heard anything about this anywhere. You think Warner'd want to promote one of their biggest selling albums ever. Very strange. Even 3rdEyeGirl should mention it, it's money in P's pocket as well.

Oh well, such is life in Prince-land.

Replica said:

steakfinger said:

100% correct. A mastering job for vinyl would sound like a bag full of smashed ass used fro any other format. You have to do a lot of work just to get a vinyl rip to sound decent. The mastering for vinyl is TOTALLY different than for tape, CD, download, etc...

Why would it sound shitty? If you rip the vinyl with a good record player and recording device, it will sound about exactly the same as how you heard it on vinyl.

Vinyl has specific issues/flaws, which means that mastering has to be done specifically to diminish those flaws. So the bass is altered and the stereo spectrum is altered etc. Imagine tooth paste with two colors: one color is the mastering, the other is the vinyl. Only by squeezing the tube you get the two to mix, if you only have one you can never get the mix.

BartVanHemelen said:

BlackbeltJones said:

Now here is where it gets muddy and where I don't have any hard proof. It is widely speculated that the new masters created for those 180g vinyls were used for the "High Definition" audio format on HDTracks. I have not seen any place that actually confirms this to be true, but it is what people seem to believe and it is a reasonable assumption to make.

.

No, it really isn't. Vinyl has specific technical limitations, and you master for that medium. Then again, some people claim that's overrated and you basically need to apply two filters (one for the low, one for the high) and if your mix still sounds good then you're okay.

If anyone is interested:http://productionadvice.c...mastering/ vs http://www.recordingmag.c...l/114.html vs http://www.gearslutz.com/...aster.html vs http://prairiecatmasterin...ering.html etcetera. No real consensus, as you can see.

Now, are these HD masters new masters? Almost certainly, since HD audio is a fairly new medium and I doubt the original CD masters were done in these high bitrates (I doubt the technology even existed at the time).

Yes, I know about SACD and DVD-A, but AFAIK there have never been any plans for Prince to release in either of those formats, so I highly doubt that WB ever invested in high definition masters "just in case". Even more so since those formats usually involved a multi-channel mix -- and for those you need the original multi-track tape and not the mixdown (aka the stereo master recording of the final mix). And those are stored in Prince's vault, and he isn't likely to hand these to WB.

So the real question is: were those (re)masters for the 180g vinyl re-releases done specifically for those vinyl releases, or were they hi-def remasters that were then tweaked for optimal vinyl results?

.

Thanks for chiming in Bart - I always enjoy reading and learn from your posts and was hopeing you would join this thread. And yes, you master to the format, certainly... a song mastered specifically for vinyl would sound less than ideal in another format (or downright terrible). But as this thread started out relating to fairly untechnical folks (hell, look at the first few posts), I didn't want to delve in to that deeper level as it would doom the thread (it's hard to get traction these days @ this place if it ain't about Prince's latest hairdo...). Honestly, to non-audiophiles and/or people not in the media production industry a lot of this is likely clear as mud, and I respect that totally.

.

What I do know is that in many cases if you are going through the work to master for one medium, you master for another and valut it OR you put it in a high resolution archival format until you figure out what you want to do with it. Best way to secure a return on the investment. So I was speculating that if they were expending the effort for the vinyl, they may have produced a version @ the time for a future HD audio release as well, not unlike film studios scanning their films in 4K for a blu-ray release and vault it for a future, unspecced format.

.

Though I have yet to take ATWIAD for a spin, the other versions all sound better (to degrees) on my system versus my Japanese releases, and I don't t belive it is soley due to the HD audio format itself. But if it was a legit remaster specifically for the HD Audio format, I have yet to find air tight proof (just a lot of fairly educated and reasonable speculation). You'd think HDTracks would advertise it to the moon if they were using a remaster, but they have yet to do so. But then again, HDTracks hardly has it's shit together when it comes to a modern website or modes of marketing their product, so it's not all together suprising their product info is fairly sparce. However, I have my studio monitors, DAC and ears to tell me that these are a better listening experience than what has come before; for me that justifies the price.

.

electricberet said:

Any update on whether the problem has been fixed?

.

I pinged them a few days ago and have not heard a thing. Bummer. I will be sure to update the moment I get something, I promise.

[Edited 7/11/13 21:23pm]

BlackbeltJones said:

What I do know is that in many cases if you are going through the work to master for one medium, you master for another and valut it OR you put it in a high resolution archival format until you figure out what you want to do with it. Best way to secure a return on the investment. So I was speculating that if they were expending the effort for the vinyl, they may have produced a version @ the time for a future HD audio release as well, not unlike film studios scanning their films in 4K for a blu-ray release and vault it for a future, unspecced format.

That is what I'm also thinking. Except that there is no info about this, of course, but it makes sense.

AFAIK the people at Grundman have only talked about the handful of vinyl remasters (was Purple Rain on 180g remastered? Did we ever get a definite answer on that?), so now the question is: if they did the high-def remasters first and then used those as the basis for the vinyl remasters, which other Prince albums have they tackled? I can imagine them not spilling the beans on other remasters at the time due to contract stipulations.

The lack of info on HDTracks is seriously ridiculous, you'd think that they'd also be anxious to included liner notes and additional info etc to sweeten the deal. Surely a "remastered in high def by <insert reputable name here>" tag would help justify the price they're asking for these releases.

I wonder what the chances are of ever seeing decent high-def remasters of say Jill Jones' record or The Family's, or all those 12" tracks and B-sides... Oh well, just getting a high-def SOTT will be a major event.

And maybe one day we'll see these on a physical release: http://www.vivendi.com/pr...in-france/ .

.Though I have yet to take ATWIAD for a spin, the other versions all sound better (to degrees) on my system versus my Japanese releases,

IIRC those SHM CDs were simply slightly louder, but otherwise identical to the original CDs.

You'd think HDTracks would advertise it to the moon if they were using a remaster, but they have yet to do so. But then again, HDTracks hardly has it's shit together when it comes to a modern website or modes of marketing their product, so it's not all together suprising their product info is fairly sparce.

Indeed. One wonders where they're spending all the money they earn.

BartVanHemelen said:

IIRC those SHM CDs were simply slightly louder, but otherwise identical to the original CDs.

.

That's about it; the same masters were used for those SHM releases without a doubt. The ONLY reason to buy the SHM versions is for the packaging, which is supurb and detailed to a fault (not sure what I will ever do with a mini Controversy poster, but it cracks me up every time it falls out of the Controvery SHM when I grab the disc). And the ONLY advantage to the SHM format is the discs themselves have a blu-ray like coating on them, making them very robust and scratch resistant. Any claims to the SHM format itself making the music sound better are highly suspect IMO.

.

BartVanHemelen said:

And maybe one day we'll see these on a physical release: http://www.vivendi.com/pr...in-france/ .

.

Wouldn't that be amazing? We can dream...

[Edited 7/12/13 5:39am]

OK, I had a chance to A-B compare the 192/24 "HD" ATWIAD versus my SHM Japanese ATWIAD 44/16 rip. While there is a difference, it's subtle at best. I'd put this in the "Controversy" category of HD upgrades... does it sound better on a decent system? Yeah... but it doesn't scream "upgrade" like 1999 did and you really have to listen hard to hear the differences. The HD version is smoother in the mid range and less brittle on the top end; instruments with high frequencies (finger cymbals) sound great. There is a bit more breathing room over all between the instruments on the sonically dense songs like AWTIAD, which helps things like hand percussion have a bit more space (which is good as I always thought the mix on the album was a somewhat muddy). Will it sound better than the current version after you resample it to 24/48 on your iPod? Well, I am going to down convert it and take it for a spin later, but I'd think "no".

.

Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind and update this post after a few more spins. Plus I'd love to hear other's take on this release if they have it. At the end of the day, it's only my two ears and my two cents so don't take it as gospel. What are other owners hearing?

.

PS I will continue to snap these HD releases up (at least through Lovesexy) and update the thread as I do, for those that care. Hugs and kisses, BBJ

[Edited 7/12/13 10:59am]

BlackbeltJones said:

OK, I had a chance to A-B compare the 192/24 "HD" ATWIAD versus my SHM Japanese ATWIAD 44/16 rip. While there is a difference, it's subtle at best. I'd put this in the "Controversy" category of HD upgrades... does it sound better on a decent system? Yeah... but it doesn't scream "upgrade" like 1999 did

I've always felt that 1999 was sonically not that great, but I had assumed that was due to the source, because the albums before and after did sound great on CD (except SOTT of course). But I'm now inclined to think that certainly the second mastering job for 1999 (the one for the full album; the first one was lacking "D.M.S.R.") has been a rush job.