No Code and Yield High Resolution Downloads Already available!

13

Comments

  • MedozK
    MedozK Tennessee Posts: 9,212
    Nick Namenone said:

    the high res files are the Bob Ludwig remasters.

    uh, not good
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,963
    MedozK said:

    Nick Namenone said:

    the high res files are the Bob Ludwig remasters.

    uh, not good
    Right. They sound great, just not special. Maybe someone else hear a difference. Maybe my ears are getting damaged from this awesome tour.
  • darthvedder
    darthvedder Posts: 2,683
    Nick Namenone said:

    the high res files are the Bob Ludwig remasters.

    How do you know this? Was it in the files' metadata?
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,963
    darthvedder said:

    Nick Namenone said:

    the high res files are the Bob Ludwig remasters.

    How do you know this? Was it in the files' metadata?
    No... in fact the copyright date in the meta is 96 and 98 respectively. You would usually see an updated release date I think.
  • Nick Namenone
    Nick Namenone Posts: 72
    Haven't seen the files but logic dictates. If the vinyl is being remastered then they had to go back to the original mix tapes to do that. Back in '96 it wasn't really an option to capture them at 192k so the digital files have to be from the remastering session.
  • MedozK
    MedozK Tennessee Posts: 9,212
    With mastering I have learned never to assume.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,963
    I agree. I expected to be as Nick said, I'm just telling you that I'm not hearing a difference.
  • Dennis
    Dennis Posts: 27
    I tested both albums in the last few days. My equipment was jRiver - Burson Conductor DAC - Sennheiser HD800S. No Code sounds better to my ears. The base comes with more punch and the soundstage is bigger than with the Original album Flacs. I don't hear any differences on yield.

    My Ponoplayer tells me that the release date is 08/05/2016. This was the release day for the vinyls. So I think this are the Ludwig remasters v
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,963
    Dennis said:

    I tested both albums in the last few days. My equipment was jRiver - Burson Conductor DAC - Sennheiser HD800S. No Code sounds better to my ears. The base comes with more punch and the soundstage is bigger than with the Original album Flacs. I don't hear any differences on yield.

    My Ponoplayer tells me that the release date is 08/05/2016. This was the release day for the vinyls. So I think this are the Ludwig remasters v

    Good to hear. Maybe it's more evident with headphones. I heard from someone else that they saw some improvement in NC but not in Yield. ...

    Wait, is this Dennis K?
  • Dennis
    Dennis Posts: 27
    mrussel1 said:

    Dennis said:

    I tested both albums in the last few days. My equipment was jRiver - Burson Conductor DAC - Sennheiser HD800S. No Code sounds better to my ears. The base comes with more punch and the soundstage is bigger than with the Original album Flacs. I don't hear any differences on yield.

    My Ponoplayer tells me that the release date is 08/05/2016. This was the release day for the vinyls. So I think this are the Ludwig remasters v

    Good to hear. Maybe it's more evident with headphones. I heard from someone else that they saw some improvement in NC but not in Yield. ...

    Wait, is this Dennis K?
    Yep. It's me!
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,963
    ^^Ha! Okay, down to one person who heard the difference, since it was Dennis on both.
  • Nick Namenone
    Nick Namenone Posts: 72
    Medozk. It isn't really an assumption. 192k wasn't an option in 1996. In order to create 192k files they had to go back to the original tapes and recapture them at that resolution. Those tapes would have to be mastered or in this case remastered. Bob Ludwig did the original mastering so he probably dialed in No Code to sound about as close to the original as he could with a few tweaks to, in his opinion, improve it. Or maybe he thought it was great and just got as close to the original as he could. The only real question is did they use the same signal path to create the CD, vinyl and high res files or did they treat them all separately or did they do one thing for the CD and another for the vinyl and high resolution files. Often for vinyl they will leave out a final stage of limiting that they might use for a CD or digital files.
    This is because vinyl doesn't have the same dynamic range and limiting can make it more difficult to cut or can make some things distort on sibilant parts. Vinyl has a real hard time dealing with sibilance and vocals compressed in the mix can distort a little bit more when they get vinyl. Vinyl can't handle as much low end either. Check out Peter Gabriel's box set re-issue of 'So'. In liner notes he talks about how they had to re sequence the original album pressing because a bass heavy song would have been at the end of the side. Since those grooves are smaller and narrow it couldn't handle the low end. They moved the song earlier on the side so they could get as much bass as the cutter could make. Also longer albums can't have as much dynamic range and frequency width as shorter albums because they grooves have to be cramped to fit on a record. 22 minutes is about as long as you want to go for a side but 17 would be preferable.
    Back to Peter Gabriel. He has re issued all of his albums at 45 rpm and is keeping everything to around 15 minutes or less per side. At 45 rpm and without jamming as much as he can on a side he is trying to get the best sound possible on vinyl.
    And lastly. Mastered For iTunes means that when they mastered it they checked the audio through and application that Apple gave them so they can hear what it is going to sound like in the final version sold in the Apple store. There are adjustments they make to get the most out of the file resolution. You have to (or should) create a separate master for iTunes. Just like they often create a separate master for vinyl and CD. This wasn't the case back in the early days of CD's and digital files but it is now.
  • 2-feign-reluctance
    2-feign-reluctance TigerTown, USA Posts: 23,462
    Nick Namenone said:

    Medozk. It isn't really an assumption. 192k wasn't an option in 1996. In order to create 192k files they had to go back to the original tapes and recapture them at that resolution. Those tapes would have to be mastered or in this case remastered. Bob Ludwig did the original mastering so he probably dialed in No Code to sound about as close to the original as he could with a few tweaks to, in his opinion, improve it. Or maybe he thought it was great and just got as close to the original as he could. The only real question is did they use the same signal path to create the CD, vinyl and high res files or did they treat them all separately or did they do one thing for the CD and another for the vinyl and high resolution files. Often for vinyl they will leave out a final stage of limiting that they might use for a CD or digital files.
    This is because vinyl doesn't have the same dynamic range and limiting can make it more difficult to cut or can make some things distort on sibilant parts. Vinyl has a real hard time dealing with sibilance and vocals compressed in the mix can distort a little bit more when they get vinyl. Vinyl can't handle as much low end either. Check out Peter Gabriel's box set re-issue of 'So'. In liner notes he talks about how they had to re sequence the original album pressing because a bass heavy song would have been at the end of the side. Since those grooves are smaller and narrow it couldn't handle the low end. They moved the song earlier on the side so they could get as much bass as the cutter could make. Also longer albums can't have as much dynamic range and frequency width as shorter albums because they grooves have to be cramped to fit on a record. 22 minutes is about as long as you want to go for a side but 17 would be preferable.
    Back to Peter Gabriel. He has re issued all of his albums at 45 rpm and is keeping everything to around 15 minutes or less per side. At 45 rpm and without jamming as much as he can on a side he is trying to get the best sound possible on vinyl.
    And lastly. Mastered For iTunes means that when they mastered it they checked the audio through and application that Apple gave them so they can hear what it is going to sound like in the final version sold in the Apple store. There are adjustments they make to get the most out of the file resolution. You have to (or should) create a separate master for iTunes. Just like they often create a separate master for vinyl and CD. This wasn't the case back in the early days of CD's and digital files but it is now.

    Thanks for sharing this
    www.cluthelee.com
  • darthvedder
    darthvedder Posts: 2,683
    edited September 2016
    These are up now at HDtracks. Same prices as acoustic sounds. There are 96khz/24 bit versions of both albums available, too.
    Post edited by darthvedder on
  • KV4053
    KV4053 Mike's side, crushed up against the stage Posts: 1,514
    Nick Namenone said:

    Medozk. It isn't really an assumption. 192k wasn't an option in 1996. In order to create 192k files they had to go back to the original tapes and recapture them at that resolution. Those tapes would have to be mastered or in this case remastered. Bob Ludwig did the original mastering so he probably dialed in No Code to sound about as close to the original as he could with a few tweaks to, in his opinion, improve it. Or maybe he thought it was great and just got as close to the original as he could. The only real question is did they use the same signal path to create the CD, vinyl and high res files or did they treat them all separately or did they do one thing for the CD and another for the vinyl and high resolution files. Often for vinyl they will leave out a final stage of limiting that they might use for a CD or digital files.
    This is because vinyl doesn't have the same dynamic range and limiting can make it more difficult to cut or can make some things distort on sibilant parts. Vinyl has a real hard time dealing with sibilance and vocals compressed in the mix can distort a little bit more when they get vinyl. Vinyl can't handle as much low end either. Check out Peter Gabriel's box set re-issue of 'So'. In liner notes he talks about how they had to re sequence the original album pressing because a bass heavy song would have been at the end of the side. Since those grooves are smaller and narrow it couldn't handle the low end. They moved the song earlier on the side so they could get as much bass as the cutter could make. Also longer albums can't have as much dynamic range and frequency width as shorter albums because they grooves have to be cramped to fit on a record. 22 minutes is about as long as you want to go for a side but 17 would be preferable.
    Back to Peter Gabriel. He has re issued all of his albums at 45 rpm and is keeping everything to around 15 minutes or less per side. At 45 rpm and without jamming as much as he can on a side he is trying to get the best sound possible on vinyl.
    And lastly. Mastered For iTunes means that when they mastered it they checked the audio through and application that Apple gave them so they can hear what it is going to sound like in the final version sold in the Apple store. There are adjustments they make to get the most out of the file resolution. You have to (or should) create a separate master for iTunes. Just like they often create a separate master for vinyl and CD. This wasn't the case back in the early days of CD's and digital files but it is now.

    Good stuff. Thanks for the education!
    I know I was born and I know that I'll die. The in between is mine.
  • Dr. Delight
    Dr. Delight Posts: 11,210
    I believe that Peter Gabriel song you reference is "In Your Eyes"
    And so you see, I have come to doubt
    All that I once held as true
    I stand alone without beliefs
    The only truth I know is you.
  • demetrios
    demetrios Posts: 98,220
    edited September 2016
    darthvedder said:

    These are up now at HDtracks. Same prices as acoustic sounds. There are 96khz/24 bit versions of both albums available, too.

    "This product is not currently available due to region restrictions."

    HDtracks blows. The last purchase I bought from there was Lightning Bolt. Back then it was available to all the first week, then they restricted it to USA customers only. :/

    I'm glad I found the 192 kHz tracks some where's else instead. :)
  • ikiT
    ikiT USA Posts: 11,059
    I still gotta listen to my 3rdman rips LPs are the top of the food chain. copying now with 15GB of other stuff That funky sound is going to make for an interesting transfer.

    I'm pretty psyched for both of these reissued LPs
    Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 06132018
  • Nick Namenone
    Nick Namenone Posts: 72
    Dr. Delight. You might be right. I would have to go back to the So Box set. I don't remember what song. I would have to go back to the liner notes. They might have resequenced before it was ever released.
  • Nick Namenone
    Nick Namenone Posts: 72
    Dr. Delight. You are correct. Wikipedia had the 2002 remaster sequence. They moved "In Your Eyes" to the end of Side B and put "Big Time" at the beginning.

Categories