Grateful Dead

dead.net the official site

I feel I should post about this one last time. Let me preface this by saying that anyone who wants to pay more for the HD files over standard CD quality (16/44.1) downloads is obviously totally free to do so, and if it makes them happier, than more power to them. However, for those of you unsure, I post this. I am NOT attacking anyone for their preference. Just stating certain facts and opinions. I have posted other links in the past about this: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195 This link is the abstract to yet another scientifically done study - this one by the Audio Engineering Society. It goes into the methodology in detail (you have to pay for the detail, though). I feel the need to basically point out that although lots of facts and opinions abound about this topic, I am personally unaware of ANY study done using accepted scientific methodology and accepted by the scientific community (and there are at least over a hundred by now done by institutions like the above, as well as many universities - with a little googling you can find many of them online) that shows that humans can reliably detect the difference between CD quality audio files (16/44.1) and higher resolution audio files (usually 24/96 or 24/192). There have been LOTS of unscientific tests done by individuals where they swear they can hear the difference. Many of the scientific studies point out the MANY pitfalls in doing these tests yourself - everything from using files mastered from different sources to not doing the tests double-blind and many others. Again, I have read the detailed results of dozens of scientific studies and in NOT ONE of them were test subjects able to tell the difference between the HD files and CD quality files at anything over random chance. Also, there has been quite a bit of confusion on this site, with some people confusing the lossy compressed (i.e. mp3) vs lossless (flac, alac, etc) issue with the issue at hand which has nothing to do with lossy vs lossless files. There has also been some confusion about the difference between 24-track vs 2 track, and the debate at hand which refers to the 24-bits vs 16 bits used in HD vs CD quality audio files. The fact that the number 24 comes up in both issues is coincidence as they don't have anything to do with each other. If anyone finds a study which shows people being able to tell the difference between CD quality files and hi-res (HD) audio files I am more than willing to check them out. I would actually be excited to do so, and if it pans out would look forward to investing in whatever I can afford to enable me to take advantage of the fact. However, even if one does not accept the results of ALL of the studies that I am aware of to date, it is clear that the difference to human ears, if not zero (which it looks like it is to me) is at least small enough that if you haven't already invested VERY significantly in higher and higher end audio equipment (speakers, amps, phones, quality of DAC, cabling, etc.) I submit that doing so has FAR MORE immediate impact on the experienced audio quality then HD vs CD audio files. While it is COMPLETELY clear that upgrading your speakers or phones to higher end ones that sound better to your ears (exact choices obviously subjective) - no one disputes that almost everyone can IMMEDIATELY tell the difference in sound quality as they move to better speaker systems - why on earth would you bother with HD vs CD audio files unless you already have the highest level of audio equipment available? And, if you already have the best you can afford, why are you paying more for HD files instead of saving the difference so you can afford better audio equipment with an IMMEDIATELY recognizable improvement in audio quality. While I submit that it IS significant that EVERY scientific study (that I have found) has come to the same conclusion (the test subjects can't tell the difference between HD and CD quality files), even if you don't agree (for whatever reason), isn't the fact that other factors clearly matter so much more an almost CRITICAL consideration into where you are putting your hard earned money - better audio equipment vs hi res files? One last thing - I notice that on EVERY site where people DO hear a difference (I'll include a link for one of those below also), the testing is NEVER done scientifically with double-blind testing, massive number of listens spread over large variety of equipment and environments, various control sets to offset variables like age, type of music, and a million other factors). Here is a link to one of the many of those: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/mp3-cd-24-bit-audio-m… You will notice that (as usual) in this "test", the participants were aware of which files they were listening to as they were judging them (one of the most glaring errors in methodology) allowing expectations to influence the results. It appears they used a VERY few number of audio samples, very few people involved, and it would also appear that they used commercial CD's vs 24-bit studio masters apparently without any verification that the CD's were from the very same masters. This is typical of EVERY "study" I have seen where people swear they hear the difference. Usually they swear a VAST improvement in warmth, depth, clarity, etc. I find the vast improvement idea particularly unbelievable, or there would be at least SOME ability to discern the difference in a scientific setting. In my opinion, it seems reasonable that if the differences are VAST then SOMETHING should register in the scientific studies however small those difference might be. This has not been the case.

Those of you thinking TPTB may remix the first box set using the 24 track tapes ($$$$$) and send new discs to all 9000 buyers of that box for free ($$$) are dreaming. Hey, maybe the next box set of slightly different Bob Marley tracks or Beatles re-re-re-releases will be given away on iTunes like the new U2 album! ;-)

I finally made it through all 8 shows from this box. Besides the extremely magical night with Branford, my favorite shows are 3/14 & 4/1. I think all of the shows from this tour are great but 3/14 & 4/1 are both really strong shows from beginning to end. Some of the shows lose some energy post drums/space, in my opinion. Who couldn't love the post drums/space Truckin>Stella Blue from 4/1? I also really enjoy the Victim>To lay me down. On 3/14 they start the tour coming out of a cannon...really high energy in the 1st set and flawless, beautiful jamming in the 2nd set. And the excellent Black Muddy River encore, nice. Thank you for a real good time...24 years later!

These FLAC HD's are 24 Bit, 192 kHz sample rate. CD is 16 bit, 44.1 kHz sample rate. If you have an HDCD player/decoder, it will "decode" the CD at 20 bits, 44.1 kHz. The Apple lossless files are 16 bit, 44.1 kHz (CD quality). The bit depth refers to exactly that, more depth in the music. Bit depth that is 24 bit sounds a lot better in my opinion regardless of sample rate on a system that supports it. Added sample rate is a huge bonus in my opinion, sounds more realistic/less edgy. I prefer 96 (typical BluRay or DVD-A) or 192 even though most live recordings are done in 48kHz (typical DVD sound quality). And last but not least, equipment plays a big part in all this, a good DAC will blow away a top of the line CD player any day.

Don't know for sure about this second box, but I downloaded the first and it's 24/88.2.

Ripping from the discs will yield 16 bit FLAC or 20 bit 48khz FLAC at best. The downloads are 24-192khz, something you won't NEVER get from the discs. Uber HD. The download files are from the remastered tapes w/o a disc gen in them.

If you have the physical box you don't need the downloads. You can rip the CDs to Apple lossless in iTunes, or rip to FLAC using another program such as EAC or foobar.

...TOO does sound better. TPTB could release another set of cd's for the heads that purchased the first box set. Some people made a lot of money from these two boxes, and cd's are inexpensive in regards to the physical media. Ship another set of 24-track discs to the fans......that would be uber-cool...

You guys are comparing and looking at 2 entirely different things. The 24/96 is just the resolution of the download files, whether they be high definition (which is I think24/96) or ALAC (16/44.1) or mp 3 which I think is lower, all that tells you is the bit rate and the sample rate of the files. But at this point all the spring 90 files from either box are the same in that regard. The difference in sound has to do with the mixing process. For whatever reason, TPTB decided to use John Cutler's live 2 track recordings as the source for Spring 90 box #1. For those to sound like the second box set, they would have to hire Geoff Norman ( I think) to come back, take out the 24-track masters, and re-mix them. That is not cheap and I doubt they are doing it. And given that there are 9000 copies of a beautiful, well-done, limited edition boxed set out there, redoing them to make them sound alot better opens a gigantic can of worms that they are not opening. I would look at it like this: they could have just decided that remastering THIS second box set would open said can of worms and so instead opted to go with the 2 tracks again. Lesson learned. Also no way are there free downloads if you bought the set and if there were they would just be mp3 anyway which is lossy quality and who wants that?

If the first box is made into downloads from the multi track. I would hope dead.net could give a download voucher with proof of purchase provided. I'm not sure what can of worms that would open with logistics, but it would make a nice gesture. Since it seems to me the shows from the first box have better moments of playing. But the 2nd box sounds way better. Is that too much to ask for ? Personally I would feel a bit cheated if they offered the first 6 shows from Spring 90 box in multi track after paying for the original box. Seems to me it would be sort of an audio upgrade.