Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Music' started by Steve Meskell, Sep 10, 2003.
Looking forward to this
You and me both Steve.
Only 24/48 on the high-res, but that may simply be the resolution of the production itself.
Some of my best-sounding rock discs (Fagen, Zappa) are from 24/48 so I've got no problem with that.
I'd love to see some albums or even a compilation like the
mini box released in high-res next.
Exactly what Michael said, hopefully this is just the start of many more Zeppelin high resolution releases!
I'm curious as to what the packaging will be like but even if it came wrapped in dog crap I'd buy it. Led Zeppelin was meant to be heard in surround!
This is great news Steve - thanks for posting. I'll definitely pick it up but I wish it were 24/96.
i'm all over this! Now if only Page'd go back and re-release the catalog in hi-rez...I'll be sound as a pound!
Going from 16 to 24 bits can have just as much effect on quality of the recording as increasing the sampling rate, plus if the mastering of the CD is any indication, this disc is going to be top notch.
I would have like to see 24/96, but we do not know when work on this release was actually started. Considering it was rumored for some time, I wouldn't be surprised if work first started at 24/48 before 24/96 rigs became more of the standard. Whoever mastered this disc could have also been more comfortable using a 24/48 rig. Either way, I will let my ears be the ultimate judge in this case, and there is no way I am passing on Zeppelin at any level of Hi-res.
At least with a DVD-A, we have some idea as to how the digital work was accomplished allowing us to even debate these fine points. Once again, kudos for truth in labeling and recording, as the powers in charge could easily mandate all discs be upsampled to 24/96 or 24/192, performing unessary upsampling which alters the original digital master.
I bought the HTWWW DVDs but purposely held off on the CDs because of the pending DVD-A. I thought I'd be getting it in the spring though. GREAT NEWS!
I think Lee's a closet "relativist", as he is quite fixated on the time domain (fs) as opposed to the amplitude domain (sampling depth).
What's the quantum partner for frequency anyway, amplitude as I said earlier? I'm wondering when we'll have a high enough fs for the Uncertainty Principle to kick in.
For those that don't realize it, this is some good natured kidding
I actually also believe that sampling freq is more important than bit length. But let me approach it this way:
First, most DVD-A and SACD players these days only get to about 18 bits of resolution. That's what S&V says in their eqp measurements. So 24 over 16 isn't as big an improvement as you'd think on modern gear.
Two, is that you're trying to model an analog waveform by taking timed chunks of that waveform, and putting a number to it in terms of amplitude of a specific freq. OK. Bit length is mainly for dynamic range. So if we consider modern mastering, which actually because of compression and limiting, doesn't even use the full 16 bit resolution of CD, going to a higher bit rate gets you absolutely nothing.
But, being able to apply a *finer* model of the digital representation of that analog waveform (smaller chunks), does seem to me to have a better potential of giving you better sound.
I.e., my biggest gripe with CD vs lp for example, is that the highs represented by PCM always seem too edgy, harsh, and grating. More bits won't do anything to fix that. But a higher sampling freq can go a long ways to smoothing the digital model of that wave.
Both are important, but I think sampling freq is more important.
That's my impression, anyways...
Were we talking about Led Zeppelin?