I want LG5 in Hi-Res Audio. PLEASE READ.

[Tove Lo 2,481]

@Justinn Can you tell me if this program from here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/442888/how-to-tell-between-a-real-flac-and-a-fake-flac actually shows if something is true lossless and also if this CD rip from Allie X's CD is actual lossless?

I haven't actual tried listening to my WAV rips with headphones (I have good sounding ones I think ) but I have listened to them kind of with my pretty good speakers but didn't listen to the quality.

[Tove Lo 2,481]

33 minutes ago, Justinn said:

 I think you might be listening to an upscaled version of TIHTY because I haven't found a true lossless FLAC of that song yet. Where did you find it? 

Go here and listen to the samples.

http://hdtracks.com/.. 

 

Also, you've been telling everyone to listen to the samples to hear the difference and well sorry to burst your bubble but the samples they have on the site are only MP3 320kbps.

[Born Brave 2,072]

3 hours ago, Tove Lo said:

Also, you've been telling everyone to listen to the samples to hear the difference and well sorry to burst your bubble but the samples they have on the site are only MP3 320kbps.

I was talking about the sample pack that you download, not the previews 

[Dark Anatomy 2,284]

Putting it on HD tracks would be nice, but honestly just some great mixing and mastering is good enough for me. 

[Born Brave 2,072]

4 hours ago, Tove Lo said:

@Justinn Can you tell me if this program from here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/442888/how-to-tell-between-a-real-flac-and-a-fake-flac actually shows if something is true lossless and also if this CD rip from Allie X's CD is actual lossless?

I haven't actual tried listening to my WAV rips with headphones (I have good sounding ones I think ) but I have listened to them kind of with my pretty good speakers but didn't listen to the quality.

It's only 16bit, 24 bit is quite a bit better than 16. 44khz is standard for CD quality. That's not true lossless. 

[Bradley 59,023]

8 hours ago, Emigrante said:

The album is loud. I did show you the example. Maybe BTW was louder, idk but that doesn't change the fact that AP is noisy too. 

 

@Justinn sorry I din't read the whole thread. 

You can't compare Lady Gaga to Lana Del Rey. Every Lana Del Rey song sounds like Dope (silent and gentle) so of course MANiCURE is going to show those frequencies.

[Gardevoir 9,822]

@AmericanHSlave It's not really about that. 

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

On January 13, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Emigrante said:

These are the waveforms.The register made by PopRunTheWorld. The upper one is Dark Paradise by Lana Del Rey, and the bottom one is MANiCURE by Lady Gaga.

 

1 hour ago, AmericanHSlave said:

You can't compare Lady Gaga to Lana Del Rey. Every Lana Del Rey song sounds like Dope (silent and gentle) so of course MANiCURE is going to show those frequencies.

No track should ever look like that lol, regardless of genre. It's embarrassingly bad

[Bradley 59,023]

4 hours ago, CoCo1 said:

 

No track should ever look like that lol, regardless of genre. It's embarrassingly bad

sorry but said who?

[Born Brave 2,072]

5 hours ago, CoCo1 said:

 

No track should ever look like that lol, regardless of genre. It's embarrassingly bad

Right, a 8 year old with Garage Band on his iPad could have done a better job than this crap. 

[Born Brave 2,072]

1 hour ago, AmericanHSlave said:

sorry but said who?

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about music. Stop defending this garbage just because it's Gaga, and don't act informed when you're really not. You just made yourself look completely clueless. 

[Bradley 59,023]

1 hour ago, Justinn said:

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about music. Stop defending this garbage just because it's Gaga, and don't act informed when you're really not. You just made yourself look completely clueless. 

Sorry I didn't know you knew more about music than Gaga and DJ White Shadow do. Perhaps you should be her producer next.

MANiCURE is not my favorite song but oh nvm I don't know about music. You do. 

[Born Brave 2,072]

23 minutes ago, AmericanHSlave said:

Sorry I didn't know you knew more about music than Gaga and DJ White Shadow do. Perhaps you should be her producer next.

MANiCURE is not my favorite song but oh nvm I don't know about music. You do. 

As much as it pains me to say it, the image clearly shows that whoever mastered the recording clearly had no clue what they were doing. This doesn't fall on DJWS or Gaga, it falls directly on the sound engineer that handled the audio after it was recorded . I don't care what your favorite song is, because frankly it's irrelevant to this discussion, just like Gaga and DJWS are irellevant to the mastering and mixing process post recording. Producing has literally nothing to do with the mastering aspect, so now that you have proven that you have no clue what you're talking about you may either reply with some other ignorant misplaced rebuttal or you can go discuss charts and sales like most other mindless people who have no clue what goes into the creation of an album. Ugh. 

[Born Brave 2,072]

9 hours ago, AmericanHSlave said:

You can't compare Lady Gaga to Lana Del Rey. Every Lana Del Rey song sounds like Dope (silent and gentle) so of course MANiCURE is going to show those frequencies.

No song, should EVER be maxed out on frequencies like that. It ruins the dynamic range of the song and leaves no space for the sound to flow or mesh with the MANY sounds happening at each time marker. This is a perfect explanation of why the song sounds like it was recorded on a cellphone. 

[8847759385 160]

@Justinn

I reread your thread thoroughly and I'm pretty sure you have some things mixed up. Hi-Fi audio isn't just 24bit.

(Just to preface I've been an audiophile for over 7 years)

 

You could beg Interscope to release all of Gaga's albums in 24bit / 96 kHz and the sound would be nearly identical to what we have now. More bit depth =\= better sound quality. The only difference between 16 and 24bit-depths is the capability to achieve higher sample rates. To get the highest sound quality you will first need the original instruments and/or electronic sounds to have a sample rate of 96 kHz (which rarely happens). Judging from the spectrograms on most of Gaga's songs, the cutoff for the music is in the 44.1 kHz range. So for most of her work, 24bit is pointless and a waste of time and money to release.

 

Another mistake you made is assuming that if we were to get the 24bit / 96 kHz masters of BTW or other poorly mastered albums, you would notice a difference in quality, which is completely false. To @Nino's point, it really depends on the recording equipment used along with the instruments used. If you recall, the majority of Born This Way was produced and recorded on her tour bus. The fact that the vocals were recorded on a bus limits the space for top-of-the-line recording equipment that you would normally see at permanent studios. In no way did her "rushing" her albums have anything to do with the sound quality. It's a mixture of the instruments/sounds used, the recording equipment used, the way the producers arranged and printed the records, and of course the mastering techniques used.

 

To make a song or album crisp and achieve the best sound possible, you need to have the proper mastering done to the tracks. The compression on the lossless versions have nothing to do with sound quality (unless it's a record like Daft Punk's RAM or Björk's Vulnicura where the original instruments had high sample rates). And even with proper mastering you can't make a track sound good because the production equipment and instruments were never crisp sounding in the first place (i.e. studio bus). If you check some of the Hi-Fi websites (Qobuz, Tidal, etc), you can see they actually released TF, TFM, and BTW in late 2014 remastered. Those albums were sent to iTunes in their "Mastered for iTunes" format also. This was around the same time Cheek to Cheek was released on HDTracks. So clearly Bobby understands there are fans that crave the highest quality and has been trying to accommodate accordingly.

 

So the takeaway here is that it all comes down to what equipment was used creating the original track. You could get the most uncompressed version of a song with the highest bit-depth and sample rate but if high quality equipment wasn't used to make it, it's going to sound like ****. Mastering is also an important role, but it can't rescue a song if it's a terrible recording in the first place.

 

Also beware of some of the 24bit masters you are purchasing. In many cases you're not getting any extra sample rate data, maybe some dithering, a kHz or two, and/or random artifacts from the printing process. All of which is not audible to the human ear. This is of course in MOST cases, there are some 24bit masters that have more sample rate data than 16bit files because the original instruments/sounds had those higher sample rates. You can verify this by checking the spectrogram of a track (more here & here). So in 90% of situations, your so called "CD quality" is still lossless, since most instruments used making records have a sample rate of around 44.1 kHz (22 kHz per channel). Although what you said to me earlier in this thread about the CD capacity is somewhat true (a standard retail CD holds around 800MB), it doesn't have anything to do with the bit-depth or sample rates used on those CDs. There simply aren't enough audiophiles that would buy CDs with 24bit masters to print them and sell them in stores. It's just more economical to sell them online. There is however, some exceptions when the songs are printed on Blu-ray (see: BEYONCÉ on Blu-ray). Those are almost always 24bit masters.

 

Grimes' Art Angels is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There is no extra data in the 24bit versions that sites are selling.

16bit / 44.1 kHz: http://i.imgur.com/etgYPUS.jpg

24bit / 96 kHz: http://i.imgur.com/XM1YOj7.png

Notice that in both versions the data stops at 21 kHz (42 kHz if you inspected both audio channels). The random bits of data in the 24bit version are just artifacts that were made during mastering, it's impossible to actually hear it.

 

Just be cautious when purchasing your 24bit files because often times you're not getting much more than your standard 16bit lossless.

 

Let me know if you have any questions. I'm not trying to put you down, I just wish you would do more research before trying to convince everyone you know exactly how this works. Your attitude to a few people in this thread was definitely uncalled for and came off as elitism.