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

[Born Brave 2,072]

2 hours ago, blake7912 said:

@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.

I understand what you are saying. So for all intensive purposes you are backing up the argument a lot of fan's complaints about Gaga's recent albums being terribly produced. With respect to your points of bit depth, I've noticed that I can play my 24bit audio louder without distortion, even the 44.1khz and to me that can make a big difference than the Apple AAC files you get on iTunes. 

I'm glad you joined this discussion. 

So for example then, like ARTPOP and Born This Way- they weren't recorded to the potential of 96 khz, but Cheek to Cheek was. Don't you think they should do the next album in 96?

[High King 640]

I'm definitely not a huge audiophile like you, but I'm really particular about music quality. I have some great headphones and a system in my car, so I always want the best possibly quality recordings.

I think all music with great production should be recorded in 96khz, so I expect it from LG5.

tbh I didn't know about that hdtracks website, but it costs money, what would I search for if I just wanted to download HQ albums?

[8847759385 160]

2 hours ago, Justinn said:

I understand what you are saying. So for all intensive purposes you are backing up the argument a lot of fan's complaints about Gaga's recent albums being terribly produced. With respect to your points of bit depth, I've noticed that I can play my 24bit audio louder without distortion, even the 44.1khz and to me that can make a big difference than the Apple AAC files you get on iTunes. 

I'm glad you joined this discussion. 

So for example then, like ARTPOP and Born This Way- they weren't recorded to the potential of 96 khz, but Cheek to Cheek was. Don't you think they should do the next album in 96?

Well honestly it doesn't really matter. I'd rather them focus on making good music instead of focusing on using only the highest quality of instruments. But if it the option is there then I'm sure they'll take it.

 

Also, its literally impossible to hear a difference if your 24bit tracks only go up to 44.1 kHz, it's literally the 16bit track with empty high dynamic ranges. I think you're experiencing the placebo effect since you know it's 24bit.

[Deviant 85]

What is it when people go on about sound quality.

ARTPOP may have been an underwhelming release conceptually but the production quality itself was her slickest only behind The Fame Monster.