What is the highest file quality available for the official release of this? It looks like it might have been available on Tidal for a while...maybe in a lossless format? Now I'm just seeing it on Amazon and iTunes.

I'm out of the loop on digital download retail purchases and what the landscape is right now. My few purchases from Amazon in the past have always been 256kbps lossy mp3, iirc. I haven't dealt with iTunes in years.

Thanks for any info.

PurpleHigh said:

What is the highest file quality available for the official release of this? It looks like it might have been available on Tidal for a while...maybe in a lossless format? Now I'm just seeing it on Amazon and iTunes.

I'm out of the loop on digital download retail purchases and what the landscape is right now. My few purchases from Amazon in the past have always been 256kbps lossy mp3, iirc. I haven't dealt with iTunes in years.

Thanks for any info.

For Sign and 1999, I know there are 24bit/96k versions out. Same with Originals. Are they better than the 16 bit...? i can only speak for Originals as I have both versions...I feel Originals has a slight edge on the 24 bit.

JoeyCococo said:

PurpleHigh said:

What is the highest file quality available for the official release of this? It looks like it might have been available on Tidal for a while...maybe in a lossless format? Now I'm just seeing it on Amazon and iTunes.

I'm out of the loop on digital download retail purchases and what the landscape is right now. My few purchases from Amazon in the past have always been 256kbps lossy mp3, iirc. I haven't dealt with iTunes in years.

Thanks for any info.

For Sign and 1999, I know there are 24bit/96k versions out. Same with Originals. Are they better than the 16 bit...? i can only speak for Originals as I have both versions...I feel Originals has a slight edge on the 24 bit.

can I say again, how good the SOTT remaster is??????????? ::))

There's absolutely no difference to the human ear between 16 bit and 24 bit. Or 256kbps lossy (with a good codec) and lossless. Blind audio testing confirms that nobody has super ears!

You really are wasting your time trying to seek a higher bit rate version.

fortuneandserendipity said:

There's absolutely no difference to the human ear between 16 bit and 24 bit. Or 256kbps lossy (with a good codec) and lossless. Blind audio testing confirms that nobody has super ears!

You really are wasting your time trying to seek a higher bit rate version.

The tests I read were a little more nuanced (about 5/10% of the blindtested could hear the difference between lossless and lossy), but that was years ago and it's likely that new tests were made since.

.

Regardless, even with 90% or so people unable to hear the difference instead of 100%, I think it's funny people wouldn't blindtest themselves (it's pretty easy to organize with an accomplice) before swearing by lossless only (with what it implies in terms of digital storage space).

.

Many people told me they could hear the difference, but when I asked, nearly none of them had made a blintest, which is the only way to know for sure.

databank said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

There's absolutely no difference to the human ear between 16 bit and 24 bit. Or 256kbps lossy (with a good codec) and lossless. Blind audio testing confirms that nobody has super ears!

You really are wasting your time trying to seek a higher bit rate version.

The tests I read were a little more nuanced (about 5/10% of the blindtested could hear the difference between lossless and lossy), but that was years ago and it's likely that new tests were made since.

.

Regardless, even with 90% or so people unable to hear the difference instead of 100%, I think it's funny people wouldn't blindtest themselves (it's pretty easy to organize with an accomplice) before swearing by lossless only (with what it implies in terms of digital storage space).

.

Many people told me they could hear the difference, but when I asked, nearly none of them had made a blintest, which is the only way to know for sure.

A lot depends on the codec, encoder. The more recent, the better it filters out inaudible data.

I'll be bold and say all music would sound better if sounds above 10,000 hz or 10 khz were dropped out. And MP3s come nowhere close to eliminating those frequencies.

luv2tha99s said:

It's back on Tidal in Master quality.

Well, as it turns out MQA is some sort of hoax that adds a lot of unwanted artifacts to a file and is not better sounding than CD quality at all. In fact it is better to use non-MQA files if you have the option. People have been testing and analyzing MQA and apparently it is some sort of 'snake oil'. If I compare MQA to some of the high res flacs I own I always prefer the highres flacs.

fortuneandserendipity said:

There's absolutely no difference to the human ear between 16 bit and 24 bit. Or 256kbps lossy (with a good codec) and lossless. Blind audio testing confirms that nobody has super ears!

You really are wasting your time trying to seek a higher bit rate version.

I'd be interested in seeing what equipment was used for the blind test because on my £1k+ audio system I can absolutely tell the difference.

Yeah, this argument is waaaaaaaaay more complex than just 'you can't hear anything above 25kHz, lossless isn't worth it.'

I have a small amout of hearing loss, and a little bit of tinnitus, and I can still hear a difference in the quality.... it's not all just about sound, either, it's also about the space the sound has to exist in.

Anyway, the point is that saying that lossless is simply a waste of time/money is simply not true.

Rimshottbob said:

Anyway, the point is that saying that lossless is simply a waste of time/money is simply not true.

.

.

That is why I prefer FLAC.

fortuneandserendipity said:

There's absolutely no difference to the human ear between 16 bit and 24 bit. Or 256kbps lossy (with a good codec) and lossless. Blind audio testing confirms that nobody has super ears!

You really are wasting your time trying to seek a higher bit rate version.

You need to get your ears cleaned out or get a decent Hifi.

embmmusic said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

There's absolutely no difference to the human ear between 16 bit and 24 bit. Or 256kbps lossy (with a good codec) and lossless. Blind audio testing confirms that nobody has super ears!

You really are wasting your time trying to seek a higher bit rate version.

I'd be interested in seeing what equipment was used for the blind test because on my £1k+ audio system I can absolutely tell the difference.

The vast majority of people don't listen to music on high-end equipment, which is another reason (in addition to the limitations in the human ear) that high bit rate and lossless audio is a waste of time. It would be like people playing 4K video on an old CRT monitor.

PurpleHigh said:

What is the highest file quality available for the official release of this? It looks like it might have been available on Tidal for a while...maybe in a lossless format? Now I'm just seeing it on Amazon and iTunes.

I'm out of the loop on digital download retail purchases and what the landscape is right now. My few purchases from Amazon in the past have always been 256kbps lossy mp3, iirc. I haven't dealt with iTunes in years.

Thanks for any info.

iTunes purchases/downloads are 256kbps. I'm not sure about Apple's streaming music service.

The Placebo Effect proves that human beings are more driven by emotion than logic. Or put another way. Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much? Actually that last part is quote from Goethe. But yeah, people really are that stupid over audio quality.

fortuneandserendipity said:

The Placebo Effect proves that human beings are more driven by emotion than logic. Or put another way. Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much? Actually that last part is quote from Goethe. But yeah, people really are that stupid over audio quality.

Well now you're just being nasty and rude. Everyone's ears are different and just because a lot of people can hear the difference and you can't doesn't make us wrong and 'stupid'.

[Edited 5/24/21 19:20pm]

[Edited 5/24/21 19:20pm]

In many debates I've witnessed about lossless vs lossy (including at work), people say "lossy" without saying what they're talking about.

.

I can definitely tell the difference between a 96-kbps MP3 file and a FLAC file.

.

Can anybody tell the difference between a 320-kbps MP3 file and a FLAC file? I highly doubt it.

[Edited 5/24/21 23:41pm]

fortuneandserendipity said:

The Placebo Effect proves that human beings are more driven by emotion than logic. Or put another way. Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much? Actually that last part is quote from Goethe. But yeah, people really are that stupid over audio quality.

And once again, there's little point in talking to anyone on the org.

It's cool man. You enjoy your brittle mp3s, sucking as much quality out of the music as possible, and possibly damaging your hearing along the way.

I'll be over here enjoying lossless in all its glory.

Peace.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much?

.

Look at the twin towers falling and the only logical explanation is clear.

Look at the lack of real investigation by the authorities and the situation is clear.

Look at what happened afterwards and the context is clear.

.

Look at how Prince was and how his life ended.

Look at how PP now stands and who should be taking care. (i.e.: everyone is Prince)

Yes, that might be too deep for some.

.

And that Revolution release would be nice if only the stuff is 'new':

- Different renditions than we knew until now

- Unknown date

- Rehearsal

- Complete, unedited

- Perfect mastering

udo said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much?

.

Look at the twin towers falling and the only logical explanation is clear.

Look at the lack of real investigation by the authorities and the situation is clear.

Look at what happened afterwards and the context is clear.

.

Look at how Prince was and how his life ended.

Look at how PP now stands and who should be taking care. (i.e.: everyone is Prince)

Yes, that might be too deep for some.

.

And that Revolution release would be nice if only the stuff is 'new':

- Different renditions than we knew until now

- Unknown date

- Rehearsal

- Complete, unedited

- Perfect mastering

The logical explanation is Orange wiped the twins. https://www.youtube.com/w...wBJF-jm__c 0:40 is the proof! Conspiracies and all that.

^^^

.

1/ Everyone is free to listen to whatever they fancy, in any format they fancy. No one should be mocked because of it either way.

.

2/ Clearly, as noted above, it also depends on what people use to listen to music. Someone claiming they can hear the difference between @320 and Flac using a cheap smartphone and cheap earphones is probably more likely to be mistaken than someone using top notch material.

.

3/ The nature of the debate is more scientific than a matter of "tastes". If someone wishes to make a point of the fact they can hear something that others claim they can't, and make a consumer's decision based on that, they owe it to themselves to prove their own claim to themselves first. This is why a blind test is necessary. It's exactly like claiming a treatment helps you: people claiming to feel better is not evidence enough to decide whether a treatment should be considered medical or inefficient. As mentioned above, placebo and other cognitive biases may give someone the impression they feel better -or hear something- when they don't.

.

4/ Claims about people damaging their hearing with lossless should be sourced - it seems quite unlikely and a quick Google search reveals no such thing.

For those interested, here's a fun link to test your ears:

.

https://www.npr.org/secti...io-quality

.

Let us know if you can find the uncompressed WAV.

fortuneandserendipity said:

udo said:

.

Look at the twin towers falling and the only logical explanation is clear.

The logical explanation is Orange wiped the twins. https://www.youtube.com/w...wBJF-jm__c 0:40 is the proof! Conspiracies and all that.

.

I am trying to be serious and then some nut posts bullshit.

Know your physics man. Very basic stuff.

Then you'll see.

Same as that Prince and the Revolution Love offical audio release hits the ground when dropped from e.g. ~2 meters. (you can say 6 feet)

I'd like a 24 bit version at 48 KHz or better.

What was that thing a former band member of Prince said about "a lot of his fans seem really riveted", words to that effect, "and they should know he was not like that".

Just to be clear anyone claiming 24 bit has better sonics than 16, or 48 Khz is better than 44.1 Khz is quite the nut.

olb99 said:

For those interested, here's a fun link to test your ears:

.

https://www.npr.org/secti...io-quality

.

Let us know if you can find the uncompressed WAV.

I just took the test with my THX speakers through a DAC. I picked the 320 file on every one! That's lucky, as that's what my collection is ripped in.

The science as to why less can be more and why there is much audio room for overkill. Higher numbers don't give higher quality.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200310055211/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

SquirrelMeat said:

olb99 said:

For those interested, here's a fun link to test your ears:

.

https://www.npr.org/secti...io-quality

.

Let us know if you can find the uncompressed WAV.

I just took the test with my THX speakers through a DAC. I picked the 320 file on every one! That's lucky, as that's what my collection is ripped in.

.

Not surprising. Until proven otherwise (double-blind test), I don't think any human being can tell the difference between a 320-kbps MP3 encoded with a good encoder and a lossless 44.1 kHz/16-bit file. I would be surprised if anybody can tell the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit. Same with 44.1 kHz and higher sample rates.

.

Most of my collection is in FLAC and automatically transcoded to high quality MP3 files, which is what I usually stream from my personal server, but it has nothing to do with my ears being able to tell the difference between the two. It's just that I don't want to transcode files that are already lossy. The files that I currently stream are MP3 files, but I might want to switch to AAC or an even better format in the future. I can do that any time I want, since the source files are lossless.

[Edited 5/27/21 1:31am]

olb99 said:

Same with 44.1 kHz and higher sample rates.

.

I can hear that difference on my very very very basic and cheap computer speakers.

And yes, I was the guy with the portable CD-player back in the 90's.

So what hearing do I have left?

.

Most of my collection is in FLAC and automatically transcoded to high quality MP3 files

.

'High quality MP3' in a sentence with 'FLAC' is showing an oxymoron.

You guess which.

.

This means that your hearing loss is kinda big.

Or you are too poor to afford a little bit of storage.

I am inclinded to write 'quel sacrilege!' because it could imply that you do not like music.

Instead you like the data-reduced versions of the musical audio.

udo said:

.

I can hear that difference on my very very very basic and cheap computer speakers.

Just to be clear: you mean in a blind test?

If so, then OK, just makin' sure ^^