Grateful Dead

My infinitely small amount of knowledge of sound manipulation means I cannot really look at a plot of a song's spectrum and the the tale of where its been and how it got to be in this shape.

Since it appears that they were 24 bit to start with, that is a significant advantage over 16 bit.

So that is a significant point in their favor, they are not CD files that were ripped and then converted to 24/96.

The upsample tag is a bit more complicated. In reading online (That makes one an expert) indicate that there are various ways to do that and some DACs do that in order to improve the sound. They can just add "zero" samples to increase frequency or interpolate to guess what data should be there.

The 32K line might be a high pass filter, basically, if there is no "audible" info in that range, kill it.

A CD rip hard lines at 22K

Here is a my Dave's picks with dB power amp rip to FLAC using the HDCD plug in for 24 bit, and it shows "upscaled"

And as a test, the HD-Tracks download of "Horses" in 24/96 shows it is "clean"

Lossless Audio Checker 2.0.7 logfile from Sunday 21 August 2022 07:50:01 AM

File: \Grateful Dead\Dave's Picks, Vol. 43 Dallas, 12-26-69\01 Grateful Dead - Casey Jones (Dallas, 12-26-69).flac
Result: Upscaled

File: HD_Tracks\Patti Smith\Horses (Remastered)\01-Gloria (Remastered).flac
Result: Clean

Sooooooo

Whiles the files are not what would be expected as a direct FLAC conversion of 24/96 material, they are in true (AFAICT) 24 bit sourced

While the sampling rate shows "upsampled", they are most likely not 44.1 kHz originals, but may have been filtered and processed.

I don’t quite understand how these can be upsamples if there is a hard cut off at 32k. If they were upsampled from the CDs there would be a hard cut off at 22k.

For there to be information up to 32k the only 2 file resolutions could be 24/88 or 24/96 (I highly doubt these were mastered at 16/96 and then padded to 24 bit). I’m guessing at some point along the chain there has been a conversion from 24/88 to 24/96.

Nowadays Plangent transfer at 32/384 so I’m sure back in 2011they would have been transferring at 24/96 at least.

Basically if these files have info going up to 32k then you are not being ripped off if they are in a 24/96 container.

If someone could chime in without saying “this is a sham!” That would be useful.

Upsampled. That's all we need to know. We spoke of this earlier. Needless and frankly pointless bloat. Empty calories. So, we are left with the question: "WHY?"

I think they just put the widely and long available 4 16 bit digital shows together in a package and sold fans an upsampled bill of goods. I really think they wanted funding to produce the MSG box.

Do they need "funding"? That has to be a revenue machine.

What I mean is why spend THEIR money when they can throw some shows in a box they have already released and make people think they are getting something new? Spend tens or even hundreds of thousands for something the neophytes think is "new". Take that cash and pay their engineers and production costs.

Soon as I saw the ad and saw the word "remastered" I thought "This is a gyp." "Remastered" really means nothing. And NOwhere did they give any fresh lineage or production steps. "Remastered" is an ambiguous term, IMO. "Remixed" or "Remixed and Remastered" would have been awesome and I would have bought it myself.

You may agree with me that the surviving band members kinda sold their souls and along with that, the faith of the fans when they leased the vault. They never step in and try to right any of the many wrongs that have occurred over the years and we have seen them involved in some pretty heavy cash grabs.

You would think that if they cared all that much, this shit wouldn't happen at this late date. They pay someone to do their caring for them so they don't have to think about it.

But - you know. I have an "attitude" so I may be incorrect. But it's the fans slavish attitude that bothers me because they end up getting burnt a lot due to their endless faith and positivity and that isn't something they are prepared to deal with. The idea their counter-culture heroes are actually very much establishment and businessmen.

This outfit doesn't normally go back and re-release something. Sure, they digitize the back catalog and many of the releases have been legit. I don't remember when they have ever gone back and re-released a digital item or a package of items. Not like this one.

I am forced through empirical evidence to declare this a fraud and a fiasco at least AFAIC. My Trust-O-Meter just fell into the red with Rhino. I was wary when I 1st saw this release and now I will be doubly aware in the future. I will certainly avoid any future releases of any shows pertaining to E72. When I see the correct lineage claims and the bomb bursting back slapping ("Master tapes! New Remixes! Also Sprach Zarathustra!"), then I'll get on board the gravy train.

I listened to the CDs and compared to the 24/96 downloads on high quality headphones. Admittedly my hearing is somewhat degraded from years of loud music but I hear absolutely no difference. Only difference is where the tracks are cut - some are longer/shorter but otherwise no difference that I can hear.

I noticed a significant improvement in sound quality of my CD’s just by upgrading my stereo system from Onkyo to Cambridge Audio.

I’ve also read articles that say most people can’t tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit.
The only 24/96 download I have ever bought was when OSF released the unedited ABB files that were used for the Bear’s Sonic Journals CD (I bought the CD too).

I did buy Led Zep Song Remains The Same on Blu-ray audio which I think is 24/196. Sounded pretty good the first couple times I listened to it, but then my Onkyo Blu-ray player decided that it could no longer recognize the disc. It’s been a while since I tried to play the disc. I need to try again, maybe the player will now recognize it again (the error message is similar to when a PAL DVD is put into an NTSC player).

Lossless Audio Checker 2.0.7 logfile from Saturday 20 August 2022 05:59:59 PM

File: Q:\24-96\5-25-1972\01_Promised_Land_Live_at_the_Lyceum_Theatre_London_England_5_25_72_2022_Remaster_2022_Remaster.flac
Result: Upsampled

To add to the previous info, I downloaded "speck" audio analyzer and looked at what the files look like

They have a hard line at about 32K with no info above that. There is empty space to 48k (-120 dB). Comparatively, a remastered track from Patti Smith "Horses" uses the full 0-48K space.

The 5/23 Dark Star has a much more spread/varying spectrum while still hard lines at 32K

too bad I cannot post pics

The -60 dB info seems to max out around 5k on the GD, and 10k on horses.

So, it is possible the files were not 96 kHz to begin with although they now are in that container.

With out looking at something up sampled, I cannot judge how they expanded the files.

Randall, there is a large meta-analysis (published in 2016) of listening tests involving hi-res digital audio, with about 12,000 listeners; although differences may be small, there is a significant minority of listeners who consistently identify hi-res digital (compared to 16/44.1).

If you have or can find Ozone 8 or 9, the "match EQ" will clearly show the differences in EQ between the new files and the older, previously available ones.

Now, whether all that makes a difference to you, only you can tell.

The files are now encoded FLAC at 24/96

While they may be upsampled from 16 bit, they do say "remastered"

I do not have any of the previously released CD's to compared to or the digital copy of the "steamer trunk" to compare to.

I must say the dark star of 5/23/72 was very nice, there seems like lots of dynamics and clarity between instruments. It is not as "dense" as a rock n' roll style track, so the spaciousness of the sound may merely be how it was recorded rather than any remastering of a previous release.

I have not listened to it from from high quality DAC convertor and head phones yet. Typically on that I can better tell how well something had been recorded and encoded.

Obviously - having a credible response from the vendor on the chain which these produced from would be useful.

I did an A/B/C with one of the 16 bit shows a friend sent me. Pointless effort because both the available 16 bit downloads - available since forever - and the CD's are the same files. And comparing this 16 bit release to the former 2? Sounds the same to me. Because - you know - "remastered" isn't "remixed". It didn't even sound equalized at all. There is still the same bits of over-saturation in some spots as well.

24 bit isn't going to be some miracle sound design. 24 bit doesn't make things sound any better. The initial mixing and then mastering DOES. From the SOURCE TAPES.

The value in real 24/96 is simply having the best archival copy. That whole "I CAN hear a difference" thing has been put to bed long ago. No. We CAN'T hear the difference in any meaningful way beyond wishful thinking. You would have to be a dog or a bat.

Wanna do it right, Rhino? Take the master tapes and make a .dsf master copy of all the shows and EQ along the way. Then, release in true 24/192 (overkill) and 24/06. Ahhhh. That would hit the spot.

This package is a fraud and a fiasco.