"All Things Must Pass" to be re-released on 3LP vinyl and 96Khz/24 bit digital part 2

I've been waiting YEARS to hear you say that!

 

Yes. This is the key. All original dynamics, no NR, and less heavy handed EQ would cause me to buy the Beatles catalog again.

Having said, I still love the '09 remasters. They were a good compromise for the masses.

 

I nominate Apple Scruffs as the best sounding song on the new release.

 

It's really the combination. CD's data rate is 1411 kbps, a 24/96 file runs at about 2390 kbps (or something close to that), the 24/44.1 files somewhere in between.

 

But the kbps doesn't have a linear effect on sound quality. If you take 44.1/16-bit audio stream, every sample representing a frequency between 20Hz and 20,000Hz has a possibility of 65535 (2 to 16th power) values. If you increase the word length to 24 bits, each sample between 20Hz and 20,000Hz has a possibility of 2 to the 24th power or 16,777,216 values, an increase of 256 times. If you then increase the sampling rate to 96kHz, you still only have 16,777,216 values between 20Hz and 20,000Hz because adding more samples doesn't increase the resolution between 20Hz and 20,000Hz, it just raises the highest frequency that can be represented to 48kHz.

 

I've got to burn my files to DVD today and hear this thing. Will an 8.5 GB dual-layered DVD+R handle the entire set?

 

A single layer DVD can. I put everything besides the jams on a single layer DVD along with the hi-res BOTR album and it fit fine.

 

Should do, I got it all on a DVD-R 4.7 with room to spare.

 

+1.

Let me add that increasing the bit depth is what provides for greater dynamic range (144 dB for 24 bit vs. 96 dB for 16 bit) and higher signal to noise ratio. Increasing the sampling rate does not in rease the dynamic range or s/n ratio. What are people hearing when they talk about "increased resolution" of hi-res files? Increased dynamic range and increased signal to noise ratio!

 

Nope. The versions on the USB where 44.1/24 files of the same masterings as on the stereo CDs.

 

Welcome to the HiRez way of life.

 

So, does this mean that listening to a 24-bit file once is the equivalent to listening to a CD 256 times?

 

Apparently with 2-channel, 24-bit, 96kHz files, you can fit four hours of music on a single layer dvd-r.

The new hi-res mastering is a tremendous improvement over the old masterings. Something that has life to it, unlike the first cd. Good bottom end with a smooth but still very open top end, unlike the 2001 remaster, which grates like hell. It's still no sonic masterpiece, echo heavy and muddy, but it really breathes and isn't the least bit fatiguing.

However considering the time it took me to burn this on to a dvd-r (getting and learning the software, successfully burning one that'll play on everything), I would've been okay with paying an extra $15-20 for them to ship a real dvd-a to me.

 

Steve, I think you might be missing something in this text. If you have the music at 96kHz, the file contains more of the transients and musical information that fall within the human hearing range than on a CD (44.1kHz). This means that changes over time are being better captured. Thus, the amplitude data stored in the bits is being assigned to more subtle changes in the time domain. This should result in clearer sound with richer instrument texture.

 

A normal single-layer DVD is enough and you'll be left with about 30% of the space on it still free.

 

Has anyone compared the 96/24 version with the famous (and now expensive) japanese no-NR CD?

 

Nope. That's not how PCM audio works. Increasing the sample rate adds nothing to the information between 20Hz and 20kHz. It only allows the reproduction of frequencies higher than 20kHz. The only thing that increases the resolution of the audio between 20-20k is increased bit depth. I used to think that more samples per second must mean better time resolution, but that's because I was looking at the whole thing in a linear fashion, but that's not how it works. I still believe higher sampling rates add something, but it's all to do with the gentler filtering of high frequencies and nothing to do with timing.

 

Stefan is right.

Transients last tens of milliseconds. One 64th note played at 180 BPM would last 46.876 milliseconds (Over 45 thousand microseconds).

44.1 KHz produces one sample per 22.7 microseconds. This is more than adequate to reproduce any transient that I know of.

All IMO, of course.

 

I just went by the George Harrison website and it says that their 2 vinyl bundles are sold out: http://www.georgeharrison.com/#/all-things-must-pass-40th-anniversary

 

Could be, but think of it like this. If you are doing 96,000 samples per second each of those samples is accompanied by 24-word length amplitude information.

 

Well, there's something that the CDs of All Things Must Pass aren't reproducing that the new 24/96 All Things Must Pass is reproducing. I may not understand exactly why the longer word length and higher sampling rate create the dramatic leap in sound quality that I hear from this reissue, but the leap in sound quality is there nonetheless. This high resolution download reproduces reverb and the decay of notes and reverb better than any CD I've ever heard. Whatever the theories about CD's ability to reproduce transients say, CDs are clearly not throwing enough data at the problem of reproducing analog sound waves.

 

Better mastering.

 

That's such a wrong answer. Mastering isn't a magic wand that can overcome the reality that a 24/96 file is taking more accurate samples, and more of them, of the sound waves on the original All Things Must Pass master tape than a 16/44.1 CD possibly can. Just like an analog tape recording at 15 ips is going to capture a musical performance more accurately than the same tape deck recording the same musical event, but running at only 7 1/2 ips. If everything else is equal, throwing more data, analog or digital, at the problem is going to yield a better result. If mastering could overcome that reality, than a well-mastered mp3 could sound just as good as a CD, yet, as several recent threads here indicate, no one here thinks that that is possible. I know that redbook CD is not technically a "lossy" medium, as mp3 is, but, compared to 24/96, it clearly is lossy. Or, to put another way, all other factors including mastering, being equal, a CD-quality digital sampling of the All Things Must Pass master tape is going to be inherently inferior to a 24/96 sampling of the same master tape. How could it not be? It is taking a cruder digital snapshot of the original analog sound wave.

 

OK, now I'm listening to this through AyreWave with my new Grado SR80s plugged into the headphone jack of my MacBook.

 

If by that crack you mean the CP28 then yes, briefly. I am not sure which I prefer at this point which is high praise, for both items in question. Will need to do blind compare at future date, which won't be any time soon.