Tom Petty Download At 24 bit / 48 kHz Plus CA Recommendation

24/48 is what they recorded it at, according to Ryan. This is what they hear (the band). So this is what they wanted you to hear.<br />

<br />

The more important thing is the lack of compression compared to other major releases and the high quality FLAC download for PC playback. This is what we should all rejoice for.<br />

<br />

FWIW: Tom Petty & the Heartbreaker's Live Anthology (60+ tracks) can be found on Blu-ray 24/96. It sounds amazing too.<br />

<br />

FWIW: If you have a good DAC then it will sound just as good in 24/48 KHz as it will with a higher sample rate. 24 bits is quite an improvement over 16 bits. Although 16 bits is actually adequate if carefully mastered - as most setups cannot exploit the full dynamic range of 16 bits anyway.<br />

<br />

<br />

<i><br />

"24/48 is what they recorded it at, according to Ryan."<br />

</i><br />

<br />

This is surprising since Tom Petty was an analog hold out for a long time. Who would record at 48 khz anyway with the low cost of good equipment. Are audiophiles buying better converters than someone like Tom Petty would record with? <br />

<br />

<i><br />

"If you have a good DAC then it will sound just as good in 24/48 KHz as it will with a higher sample rate. 24 bits is quite an improvement over 16 bits. Although 16 bits is actually adequate if carefully mastered - as most setups cannot exploit the full dynamic range of 16 bits anyway."<br />

</i><br />

<br />

What about high frequency detail? 48 Khz is Hardly different than CD.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

@Eloise - the simple answer would be use a Mac via toslink but then you know that ...and i'm being flippant ..sorry my dear...<br />

<br />

@Chris - the Mojo album is pretty good at redbook basic - I gather most of the tracks were one or two take with minimal overdubs...<br />

<br />

<br />

yours, rockin, tog

Agreed but it is good enough to get to 20 Khz. CD format was actually very good and well thought out and with a good DAC you are not gaining much if anything by going to higher sample rates.<br />

<br />

Since we cannot hear much above 16 to 18 KHz in most cases, the main advantage of "audiophile type high definition tracks" is the much greater dynamic range of 24 bit audio and the much higher quality mastering behind them (produced for a different and more discerning target market). The other high resolution benefits of higher sample rates are a bit over rated IMHO - of course one can brick wall filter more easily/less aggressively but, alternatively, one can also upsample the data before D to A to help with filtering anyway.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<i><br />

"but it is good enough to get to 20 Khz.<br />

</i><br />

Not really. Dataflow for higher frequency information has always been a problem with CD format. It needs to go much higher than 20 khz.<br />

<i><br />

"CD format was actually very good and well thought out and with a good DAC you are not gaining much if anything by going to higher sample rates."<br />

</i><br />

<br />

The CD format was conceived 30 years ago based on theory like you seem to be basing your opinion on. I can hear the difference on my computer speakers. <br />

<br />

<br />

<em>The CD format was conceived 30 years ago based on theory like you seem to be basing your opinion on. I can hear the difference on my computer speakers.</em><br />

The theorm you at referring to actually pre-dates CD (launch) by over 20 years. Afaik, it's not been shown invalid so 48khz IS adequate to express the frequency range audible by humans. Real world performance indicate there may be difference with 96 or 192 rates and 24bit vs 16bit - for some people the increase to 24bit is most important!<br />

<br />

Eloise

What Tom Petty and I really need to do is sit down and work through Nyquist, because although we get the general premise, we don't really understand why it should be. So now, a question which is most probably borne of this misunderstanding...<br />

<br />

Ignoring the max frequency issue, doesn't a higher resolution sampling rate allow more accuracy in the shape of a waveform? Does that extra resolution represent only higher frequency information, or does it also provide more accurate timing information about lower frequencies? (or are they the same thing?) Is that what Nyquist says? I.e. the same sound wave recorded at lower resolution will have identical information as a higher resolution recording, but only up to a lower high-frequency limit?<br />

<br />

I've heard it said that while human hearing may be limited to around the 20K mark for sine waves, that high frequency content in real music may be perceived differently, and more readily, which appeals to the vague model I have in my head.<br />

<br />

If anyone has a clue about what we're getting at, please help! How does this stuff work?

It's probably best to discuss Nyquist, and issues related, in a separate forum thread. Not every discussion dealing with sample rates over 44.1 needs to go over this information.<br />

<br />

Thanks guys.

Agreed. <br />

<br />

Lets focus on how fantastic it is to have Hi-Res downloadable FLAC files from a major mainstream rock artist (a legend) and a hat tip to Computer Audiophile from his Producer to boot!!!<br />

<br />

Wow - that is something worth celebrating. I can't see any reason to be negative. If you are negative then "please don't rain on our parade!"<br />

<br />

but Tom insisted. No probs. New thread here we come, first let me download that album... <br />

<br />

edit: darn, I don't really want the bluray anyway, but the site wants to charge $10 shipping to the UK - I want to download now, and I don't want the plastic. Not paying $32.95 to wait.<br />

<br />

I'm sitting here ready with my credit card and looking to pay for quality, but I can't justify that. Just give us a straight download!

who are interested in discussing high resolution audio, sampling rates and bit depths, there is a very interesting discussion on this topic here:<br />

<br />

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/2496-Above<br />

<br />

Save some carbon and some trees.<br />

<br />

Dear Tom, sir, we won't back down. For the next album, just put a banner ad on Computer Audiophile and link it to your download page that accepts credit cards from anywhere on the planet. <br />

<br />

Respectfully, Bottlerocket<br />

<br />

I think you're on to something, although in theory, the Nyquist frequency (as I know you all know) is the maximum frequency that can be encoded without aliasing of the original. You only need two points to render a sine curve mathematically (length and height, or period time and amplitude).<br />

<br />

So this is just theory. In practice, as I said, you're probably on to something, as more points to render the curve will statistically give you less of a deviation from the original.<br />

<br />

Now, my brain must go to sleep (and never speak of this again).

Excellent question to post where the objectivists dwell (HA)<br />

<br />

<cite>Ignoring the max frequency issue, doesn't a higher resolution sampling rate allow more accuracy in the shape of a waveform? Does that extra resolution represent only higher frequency information, or does it also provide more accurate timing information about lower frequencies?</cite>

Thanks hifitubes. I did start another thread on this, and have had satisfaction <br />

<br />

see here, I think it's a goody:<br />

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Nyquist-confusion<br />

<br />

At least the subjectivists can know <i>where</i> they diverge

Thank you Tom Petty for breaking the mold.

be happy they recorded at 48khz (as many artists have been for quite some time) and that you can get a better-sounding release here! You're expecting the music industry to sell "everything" on high res digital when their average user/consumer could care less about the actual sampling/bit rate of their music files? It's a business, and this will always be the argument. When I was at Atlantic Records I was BLOWN away at first, at the seeming lack of concern for sonic integrity. After being there for years (and I had come from workin for TAS, so I thought EVERYBODY was into high fidelity) I realize they were only catering to demands of their consumers. IF the demand increases, then the business model responds (Warner got behind DVD-A years ago, look what happened to that)<br />

<br />

One step at a time. It's encouraging to see Petty's engineer acknowledge Chris for his invaluable role in educating the interested, with regard to the possibilities of high fidelity through computer audio. It's also nice to see artists like Petty and Peter Gabriel release pop records in better sounding digital formats.<br />

<br />

This is how we make change; action - NOT by making blanket statements aimed at a business that has always been slow to change.

it will be ripped and torrented.<br />

<br />

I subscribe to the idea that people like itunes because it's easy. They don't want to download illegally, they want to support the artist, they don't want to pay too much.<br />

<br />

I pay for HQ downloads, I do not want a blu ray collection, I do not want to subsidise the blu ray production, I do not want the wasted plastic and fuel on my conscience, I do not want to wait for delivery.<br />

<br />

I am not alone. The way I could get most of what I want is from illegal downloads - the only downer is I don't get to pay Tom. If I could get a certified HQ download from p2p and chuck Tom $15, everyone should be happy - but there's no way to do that. Legal HQ downloads need to happen.<br />

<br />

This is not a small step in the right direction, there's been HQ material around for ages on disc. Hence my disappointment. Yes, it's good to have a new rock release in HQ, and it's good that there is a relationship between this ever more popular site and a major, quality artist. However, I don't buy the idea that buying this bluray is helping the business get on the path to hq downloads. They are sticking to the value-add of bluray to maintain margin, and I say the value-add of bluray is at best nil. Pass. Reluctant, disappointed pass.<br />

<br />

(last para edited a bit to give Chris due credit)

Congrats Chris! What a cool way for your site to be recommended!<br />

<br />

Got the CD as a gift from my better half on the day it was released. A few nights before we watched their Soundstage concert on hdtv (Palladia?). Am enjoying Mojo a lot, but now you've given me the perfect excuse to run over to the Electric Fetus and pick up the vinyl!<br />

<br />

Hook

Thanks Hook! I bet Cheapo in Uptown has the vinyl if Electric Fetus doesn't. <br />

<br />

Many musicians (or artists) and producers are very concerned about recording quality. Unfortunately, the record companies do not often share these interests. Musicians and producers who have some clout can influence the business to support higher quality-as we see from Neil Young, Peter Gabriel, T-Bone Burnett and now Tom Petty. Or, the musicians can choose to do it themselves, as we have seen with free 24/96 downloads from NIN from their own website.<br />

We can only hope that the availability of higher resolution recordings continues to grow: it is really not more expensive these days to produce something in 24/96, downloading might take a little more bandwidth, but big deal, movies are getting downloaded all the time. Maybe the record companies will realize that even a niche market of audiophiles is worth catering too if they can charge a little more for high res. Record companies should also realize it is likely that audients who prefer high res music are likely to pay for it, respecting the rights of the musicians, and are less likely to steal music from free download sites.

Kudos to Tom and Warners for this one, but its not the first time for pop music ( Peter Gabriel, Walter Becker ) and this isnt the most convenient form to do it in. I cheerfully buy CDs to rip them, knowing that everyone is getting reimbursed and I also have a physical copy so that in the event of a HD and backup HD crash, I can actually rerip the material. In this case, it appears that I get an Audio BluRay that I can only play the audio on my Home theatre system, cant rip easily to HD and which contains a code that enables me to access the high-resolution download. I get sceptical about whether the codes will still be available when the HD dies. Its not the money....$20 for a high res download isnt bad ....so lets save the planet, the plastic and the postage by enabling paypal direct purchase with some future repeat download provision. Actually from the Petty website the better deal seems to be getting the download code when you buy a concert ticket........

I agree that this is a roundabout, and rather inconvenient way to distribute high res, especially for those who have no interest in BluRay. On the other hand it is better than 16/44.1 only. I would love to see music distributed by download, and as wav/aiff files on DVD discs. Record companies could promote the sale of the physical media by offering extras on the DVD (video, artwork, interviews, etc). And charge more for the physical media.<br />

Of course, it is very easy to make your physical backup of downloaded hi res files, just burn wav files to DVD for your own physical backup.

Given the low cost of hard drives, I'd suggest that it is a no brainer to have a hard drive back up of your music. I spent several weeks/months every evening dedicated to ripping (about 1000 CD's overall) - I'd rather not go through that again and for very little cost anyone can backup to a spare external drive.

Sorry....I didnt intend my comments to mean that i had no hard drive backup...after an unpleasant experience last year when the RAID backup i was using suffered a dead power supply ( so the discs were OK but I just couldnt access them ) and other circumstances meant that I was down to one copy of my laboriously ripped music library on a cheap hard drive enclosure....I formulated a better strategy to avoid the prospect of re-ripping all my music....most of it still comes from ripped CDs, rather than downloads. I now backup to spare HDs kept off-site, and try to update backups every week or so. One lesson that taught me, other than all hard drives can die, is that a lot of computer audio is not about music, its about handling large amounts of data in computer files and the consequences of getting that wrong are way more severe than reductions in sound quality from using the wrong USB cable. For computer audiophile newbies whose past life has not involved extensive experience with IT on computers, this is a significant issue. I could free a lot of domestic storage space by selling the CDs after I ripped them but its not just nostalgia that prevents me from doing that......