I just received the latest HD Tracks newsletter and Parade is available now in 24 bit and 192k or 96k. Haven't purchased it yet, but just spreading the news...

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

[Edited 8/22/13 19:08pm]

Ok I might have to check this one out. Is HD really worth it? Now here is hoping this means it will be released as a vinyl reissue like the others? One can only hope.

BWLD said:

I just received the latest HD Tracks newsletter and Parade is available now in 24 bit and 192k or 96k. Haven't purchased it yet, but just spreading the news...

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

[Edited 8/22/13 19:08pm]

Thanks for the heads up!

Funny, because these are the remastered albums that everyone has been hollerin about wanting, but then people don't seem to snatch em up. I'm guessing SOTT is next.

ufoclub said:

Funny, because these are the remastered albums that everyone has been hollerin about wanting, but then people don't seem to snatch em up. I'm guessing SOTT is next.

Still seems like I can buy them in the UK .

ufoclub said:

Funny, because these are the remastered albums that everyone has been hollerin about wanting, but then people don't seem to snatch em up. I'm guessing SOTT is next.

I'm no audiophile, but I'm sure HD tracks are different to a full remaster.

Does anyone know?

TheEnglishGent said:

ufoclub said:

Funny, because these are the remastered albums that everyone has been hollerin about wanting, but then people don't seem to snatch em up. I'm guessing SOTT is next.

Still seems like I can buy them in the UK .

huh?

the question is 96Khz or 192Khz?

Shafty said:

ufoclub said:

Funny, because these are the remastered albums that everyone has been hollerin about wanting, but then people don't seem to snatch em up. I'm guessing SOTT is next.

I'm no audiophile, but I'm sure HD tracks are different to a full remaster.

Does anyone know?

These Prince albums are "full" remasters (according to the mastering company) that, in addition, have been provided in higher than CD resolution by HD tracks. You can more clearly hear all the analog artifacts like tape hiss or a voice buzzing too loud... just as you should since the original mixdown was done with all of that. At the same time, the hihats and other details sound great. I could do a waveform comparison later on, of a portion of a song to see visually what the difference is.

But maybe you wanted a full remix/remaster? That's a different thing. For example The Beatles albums were all expertly remastered both stereo and mono versions, but the Yellow Submarine album was issued as a soundtrack that was remixed and remastered (as well as the song tracks on the Beatles show album "Love").

ufoclub said:

Shafty said:

I'm no audiophile, but I'm sure HD tracks are different to a full remaster.

Does anyone know?

These Prince albums are "full" remasters (according to the mastering company) that, in addition, have been provided in higher than CD resolution by HD tracks. You can more clearly hear all the analog artifacts like tape hiss or a voice buzzing too loud... just as you should since the original mixdown was done with all of that. At the same time, the hihats and other details sound great. I could do a waveform comparison later on, of a portion of a song to see visually what the difference is.

But maybe you wanted a full remix/remaster? That's a different thing. For example The Beatles albums were all expertly remastered both stereo and mono versions, but the Yellow Submarine album was issued as a soundtrack that was remixed and remastered (as well as the song tracks on the Beatles show album "Love").

But in essence all they've done is produced a higher quality digital file - yes?

So not a proper remaster in the sense of the word, but better sounding all the same?

Sorry if I sound a bit dumb.

Shafty said:

ufoclub said:

These Prince albums are "full" remasters (according to the mastering company) that, in addition, have been provided in higher than CD resolution by HD tracks. You can more clearly hear all the analog artifacts like tape hiss or a voice buzzing too loud... just as you should since the original mixdown was done with all of that. At the same time, the hihats and other details sound great. I could do a waveform comparison later on, of a portion of a song to see visually what the difference is.

But maybe you wanted a full remix/remaster? That's a different thing. For example The Beatles albums were all expertly remastered both stereo and mono versions, but the Yellow Submarine album was issued as a soundtrack that was remixed and remastered (as well as the song tracks on the Beatles show album "Love").

But in essence all they've done is produced a higher quality digital file - yes?

So not a proper remaster in the sense of the word, but better sounding all the same?

Sorry if I sound a bit dumb.

A remaster in 2013 is a digital file, not a cassette, but sometimes issued on vinyl. I'm not sure what you mean by all they've done is produced a higher quality digital file. That is what a remaster is issued as these days. They went to the two track tape master, this was re-transfered with processing to a new master digital file , and then this was converted into the different levels of file resolutions. CD is a 16 bit 44.1hz format of digital file. The difference here is that they are letting you have the master digital file, not just the CD quality file or vinyl transfer.

ufoclub said:

Shafty said:

But in essence all they've done is produced a higher quality digital file - yes?

So not a proper remaster in the sense of the word, but better sounding all the same?

Sorry if I sound a bit dumb.

A remaster in 2013 is a digital file, not a cassette, but sometimes issued on vinyl. I'm not sure what you mean by all they've done is produced a higher quality digital file. That is what a remaster is issued as these days. They went to the two track tape master, this was re-transfered with processing to a new master digital file , and then this was converted into the different levels of file resolutions. CD is a 16 bit 44.1hz format of digital file. The difference here is that they are letting you have the master digital file, not just the CD quality file or vinyl transfer.

Thanks for the explanation. As you probably guessed, I'm an ol' fart !!

I just cannot bring myself full to move into music held on a file and I need some persuading !!

I listen to my Parade LP on vinyl on my vintage Technics hi-fi and it still sounds good to me.

But maybe I'll try HD tracks and see for myself:-)

Shafty said:

ufoclub said:

A remaster in 2013 is a digital file, not a cassette, but sometimes issued on vinyl. I'm not sure what you mean by all they've done is produced a higher quality digital file. That is what a remaster is issued as these days. They went to the two track tape master, this was re-transfered with processing to a new master digital file , and then this was converted into the different levels of file resolutions. CD is a 16 bit 44.1hz format of digital file. The difference here is that they are letting you have the master digital file, not just the CD quality file or vinyl transfer.

Thanks for the explanation. As you probably guessed, I'm an ol' fart !!

I just cannot bring myself full to move into music held on a file and I need some persuading !!

I listen to my Parade LP on vinyl on my vintage Technics hi-fi and it still sounds good to me.

But maybe I'll try HD tracks and see for myself:-)

Vinyl sounds great on expensive systems, no doubt. But this will sound better on the same system, if you can pass through the file without your receiver mashing it down to a lower format.

I'm the same age as you!

ufoclub said:

TheEnglishGent said:

Still seems like I can buy them in the UK .

huh?

Huh?

TheEnglishGent said:

ufoclub said:

huh?

Huh?

Still seems like you can buy what in the UK? and why the unhappy face?

ufoclub said:

TheEnglishGent said:

Huh?

Still seems like you can buy what in the UK? and why the unhappy face?

Oh, D'oh!

Typo, should be can't buy them. That'swhy the unhappy face.

ufoclub said:

Funny, because these are the remastered albums that everyone has been hollerin about wanting, but then people don't seem to snatch em up. I'm guessing SOTT is next.

I think that many feel like if they pay high prices they want a physical product with artwork and bonuses. personally don't mind.

I wonder why don't they include bonuses like digital booklet and or some m4v clips etc. That would be really really nice.

I love that these rereleases are coming out in high quality. I never understood what everyone meant that they could hear everything going on in the background on Sometimes It Snows In April. This is probably the most improved sounding song of the bunch.

ufoclub said:

Funny, because these are the remastered albums that everyone has been hollerin about wanting, but then people don't seem to snatch em up. I'm guessing SOTT is next.

I don't think these are the remastered album many fans want. Many of us want a remastered physical CD/vinyl with B-Sides, demos and/or outtakes. Yeah, too much to ask, but if everybody else is doing it...

[Edited 8/23/13 12:55pm]

Just a reminder: these were the previous threads about HDTracks releases. Before asking any questions, READ THEM. Chances are your question has been asked and answered at least once.

• "FOR YOU" IS NOW ON HDTRACKS? Weird
• New HD TRACKS Album
• HDTracks Purple Rain fixed
• And now there are four: A...with "RB")
• ATWIAD Coming to HD Tracks this week
• 1999 in highres audio
• Prince coming to HD-Tracks?!?
• 1999 Now on HD Tracks! (9...kHz/24bit)
• Around the World in a Day... HD Tracks
• HD Tracks has "1999" reissue on SALE

IstenSzek said:

the question is 96Khz or 192Khz?

Why even ask this? They cost about the same, and one of them is twice as good. You can always conver the HQ version to a lower quality version, but not the other way around.

BartVanHemelen said:

IstenSzek said:

the question is 96Khz or 192Khz?

Why even ask this? They cost about the same, and one of them is twice as good. You can always conver the HQ version to a lower quality version, but not the other way around.

i asked because i remember someone saying on one of the other threads

that they are both such high quality that someone who doesn't really have

a very expensive set up won't notice the difference between the two.

but you're right, they cost about the same so why not just buy the best

possible one.

Javi said:

ufoclub said:

Funny, because these are the remastered albums that everyone has been hollerin about wanting, but then people don't seem to snatch em up. I'm guessing SOTT is next.

I don't think these are the remastered album many fans want. Many of us want a remastered physical CD/vinyl with B-Sides, demos and/or outtakes. Yeah, too much to ask, but if everybody else is doing it...

[Edited 8/23/13 12:55pm]

I guess most of you don't realize that CD's or vinyl are inferior in sound quality to 24 bit 192 hz sound files, but it would be nice to have packaging, books, and b-sides.

CD's are just 16 bit 44.1 hz files. These are 24bit 192hz.

New vinyl would be an analog pressing of the new digital master that is compressed in sound quality and also inherits the surface noise of the physics of the record and needle in addition to the music.

Here's a good article: http://blog.bowers-wilkin...-bit-flac/

If you want a disc of these new digital files, you could burn to blu-ray to play them full quality.

ufoclub said:

Javi said:

I don't think these are the remastered album many fans want. Many of us want a remastered physical CD/vinyl with B-Sides, demos and/or outtakes. Yeah, too much to ask, but if everybody else is doing it...

[Edited 8/23/13 12:55pm]

I guess most of you don't realize that CD's or vinyl are inferior in sound quality to 24 bit 192 hz sound files, but it would be nice to have packaging, books, and b-sides.

CD's are just 16 bit 44.1 hz files. These are 24bit 192hz.

New vinyl would be an analog pressing of the new digital master that is compressed in sound quality and also inherits the surface noise of the physics of the record and needle in addition to the music.

Here's a good article: http://blog.bowers-wilkin...-bit-flac/

If you want a disc of these new digital files, you could burn to blu-ray to play them full quality.

I see, but although a slightly bettered sound is fine, that's not what's most important for me. I may not be a big audophile, but I am a collector, and having a well packaged remaster with B-sides, outtakes... is what I'm really expecting. I can understand that people appreciate the sound subtleties, but that's not the main thing for me.

BartVanHemelen said:

IstenSzek said:

the question is 96Khz or 192Khz?

Why even ask this? They cost about the same, and one of them is twice as good. You can always conver the HQ version to a lower quality version, but not the other way around.

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont...young.html

24 bit/192khz/96khz/88 khz... is the way the music sounds in the studio after it's been mixed and mastered. When making a CD, it's downsampled to 16 bit/44.1 khz, so there is information (frequencies) lost in the process, although some people say this is undetectable anyway by the human ear, as shown in the article linked by KlyphIsBackAgain. 24 bit does influence the dynamics of the music and it's very noticeable in the hi-res files that I have, even at 48 khz.

Like ufoclub wrote, either burn them to blu-ray or a DVD disc (I have a home theater system that only plays DVD's, and I have to downsample to 48khz, but it still sounds great).

When playing these files on the computer, make sure that your computer soundcard can play these files; change the speaker format to studio quality 24 bit/192 khz to really appreciate the files. It also depends on having a really good stereo system or a great set of headphones.

I've got my finger on the button for all these releases, but I've continually heard in the prior threads on this subject that some (many?) of them just aren't a significant improvement over what we've got.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade here (no pun intended), but between the mixed reactions to these releases and their low-key promotion, I just can't help but feel that there's a bigger, better release right around the corner. Would love to be wrong though, 'cause I want 'em!

BWLD said:

KlyphIsBackAgain said:

BWLD said:

24 bit/192khz/96khz/88 khz... is the way the music sounds in the studio after it's been mixed and mastered. When making a CD, it's downsampled to 16 bit/44.1 khz, so there is information (frequencies) lost in the process, although some people say this is undetectable anyway by the human ear, as shown in the article linked by KlyphIsBackAgain. 24 bit does influence the dynamics of the music and it's very noticeable in the hi-res files that I have, even at 48 khz.

Like ufoclub wrote, either burn them to blu-ray or a DVD disc (I have a home theater system that only plays DVD's, and I have to downsample to 48khz, but it still sounds great).

When playing these files on the computer, make sure that your computer soundcard can play these files; change the speaker format to studio quality 24 bit/192 khz to really appreciate the files. It also depends on having a really good stereo system or a great set of headphones.

I think you should read the article again. Of course everyone has an opinion, but those dynamics that you speak of aren't because it's a 24-bit file. 16 bit files can have around 120db of dynamic range (with dither applied) which is WELL beyond the dynamic changes in most pop music, and definitely enough for Prince's music. If you say you can hear it, cool. But I think it's placebo.

I have switched back and forth between the DVD 5.1 Dolby Digital surround and the DVD-Audio 5.1 surround 24 bit 96khz of The Beatles Love album while both were playing the same song, and you can hear a lifelike presence to the higher resolution audio for sure. It really becomes more obvious on quiet moments. There's a reason movies are and concerts on blu-ray are coming out in higher resolution audio. But it is something you would could only enjoy on expensive headphones or an expensive sound system.

(I also think that added sound resolution creates more lifelike harmonics and artifacts once it comes out of the speakers, and that is part of what makes it seem to have more depth. But that's speculation on my part after listening. )