Creedence Clearwater Revival - Chronicle 24bit / 96kHz HD Tracks DR #s

[yetibike]

foobar2000 1.1.10 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1

log date: 2011-12-15 21:27:51

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analyzed: Creedence Clearwater Revival / Chronicle: 20 Greatest Hits

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

DR Peak RMS Duration Track

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR10 0.00 dB -12.04 dB 4:34 01-Susie Q

DR9 0.00 dB -9.99 dB 4:32 02-I Put A Spell On You

DR9 0.00 dB -10.63 dB 3:07 03-Proud Mary

DR9 0.00 dB -9.42 dB 2:20 04-Bad Moon Rising

DR11 0.00 dB -12.00 dB 3:11 05-Lodi

DR10 0.00 dB -11.44 dB 2:33 06-Green River

DR9 0.00 dB -10.52 dB 2:43 07-Commotion

DR9 0.00 dB -10.98 dB 2:46 08-Down On The Corner

DR9 0.00 dB -10.25 dB 2:19 09-Fortunate Son

DR9 0.00 dB -10.21 dB 2:07 10-Travelin' Band

DR9 0.00 dB -10.15 dB 2:28 11-Who'll Stop The Rain

DR8 0.00 dB -9.54 dB 2:41 12-Up Around The Bend

DR9 0.00 dB -10.06 dB 3:05 13-Run Through The Jungle

DR8 0.00 dB -9.82 dB 2:33 14-Lookin' Out My Back Door

DR9 0.00 dB -11.05 dB 3:31 15-Long As I Can See The Light

DR8 0.00 dB -9.46 dB 11:03 16-I Heard It Through The Grapevine

DR9 0.00 dB -10.52 dB 2:40 17-Have You Ever Seen The Rain?

DR8 0.00 dB -9.43 dB 2:43 18-Hey Tonight

DR9 0.00 dB -9.88 dB 2:53 19-Sweet Hitch-Hiker

DR9 0.00 dB -11.30 dB 4:02 20-Someday Never Comes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Number of tracks: 20

Official DR value: DR9

 

Samplerate: 96000 Hz

Channels: 2

Bits per sample: 24

Bitrate: 2743 kbps

Codec: FLAC

================================================================================

 

 

[jmdesignz2]

good to get or no?

 

[REShaman]

Good to get or no? I got, but not terribly impressed, and, in truth and in fairness for my sensibilities, I am underwhelmed (a lot). Sounds shallow, compressed, tinny compared to other downloads of better SQ. Still having the collection of classic Creedance Clearwater Revival tracks on that download, makes the downside acceptable. To sum up, I leave the decision to the buyer with the caveat I have just articulated. Wish it were better (much better). How's that for walking the fence?

Best,

Richard

 

[Julf]

Would love to see a spectrogram of one or more of the tracks...

 

[lemonato]

Here's the one for proud mary http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/CCR-Chronicle-HD-Tracks#comment-110832

 

[Julf]

Sigh, another case of 48 (or 44) Khz material being passed off as 96...

 

[MetalNuts]

I won't expect too much from this album and it might be the first band I know and it is surely 60's - 70's when the TV was still in black & white era, color TV just appeared or about to appear in the market. I can still remember there were a few "MTV"s of CCR shown on the TV. The recording then surely was analogue and the so call 24/96 is converted from the analogue.

 

Whenever I listen to the 2 CCR albums I have, the recordings were just right for the mood of good old days, surely not of HD but faded and I enjoy the melodies of the song and the feeling rather the expectation of High Res and Hi-Fi.

 

[Julf]

Sure, the master tape probably doesn't have much real HF content. But the steepness of the cut-off (I just wish the person who posted the graphs would also have included a spectrum average over the whole track (obtainable with Analyze/Plot Spectrum in Audacity) indicates that there might have been steep filtering employed to make the material suitable for a 44 or 48 kHz format. And avoiding that steep filter is the only reason you want to go 96/24 for old material like this in the first place...

 

[goldsdad]

HDTracks = more bits, less dynamic range.

 

Click to enlarge

 

 

 

Click to enlarge

 

 

 

 

[Julf]

Well, that explains why some people think the HDtracks one sounds better. Any chance of a spectrum plot of both?

 

[goldsdad]

Sorry, I don't have the HDTracks version; its waveform and DR value were originally posted by others. Attached is a CD spectrogram and the first 60 seconds spectrum.

 

Click to enlarge

 

 

 

 

[Julf]

Thanks! The picture illustrates why I prefer to look at the averaged spectrum plot - it really allows you to look at the brickwall filtering in detail. Would love to see the same diagram from the HDTracks version, of someone out there has downloaded the album!

 

[goldsdad]

A brickwall is distinct in the spectrogram of the HDTracks version posted by lemonato. See attached image. If you had the spectrum plot, would you be able to determine whether the HDTracks is a definite upsampling from 44.1 kHz? (My suspicion is that it has been upsampled, but it is no more than a suspicion.)

 

Click to enlarge

 

 

 

 

[Julf]

But not sure if it is from 44 or 48 kHz without the spectrum plot.

 

[firedog]

I don't agree with the sentiment implied that b/c a recording is in analogue, a hi-res version won't give us much.

 

IMO, the 24bit aspect of the conversion is more important than the 88k or 96k aspect. The 24bit resolution lets us hear more details, more of the leading or decaying edge, more spatial clues, and more of the characteristic sounds of various instruments. High frequencies are not necessarily needed for much of this info to be clearly heard, the extra bit resolution is.

 

A late 1960's album that was well recorded will sound very good in a hi-res transfer. It will be noticeably superior sounding to redbook (or even vinyl) if the original recording was a good one, the tapes are in good shape, and the transfer is done properly.

 

[Julf]

I agree older albums benefit from hi-res - *if* transfered directly from a master tape to hi-res digital. But I think the main benefit is from the higher Nyquist frequency, allowing for much smoother and softer filtering instead of the absolutely brutal brickwall demanded by 44 kHz. But that only applies if the transfer is from the original analog signal. If it is upsampled from a poorer-quality digital copy, no magic in the world can restore the quality that was thrown away.

 

[goldsdad]

"the 24bit aspect of the conversion is more important than the 88k or 96k aspect. The 24bit resolution lets us hear more details..."

 

A 60s analogue tape has a signal to noise ratio requiring much less than 16 bits. Further bits in the samples in the files that you are playing contain noise only. How do you suppose you can hear details in an extra 8 bits of noise, especially when that's below -96 dBFS?

 

 

[firedog]

@goldsdad

 

Whatever. Just listen and tell me some of these good hi-res remasters don't sound better than the originals.

 

[lemonato]

Ok so here is the first 60sec of the HDT version.

 

[Julf]

Thanks! Here is the spectrum of the CD version from the 1990 "Chronicle Vol 1". I think comparing the two pictures is an educating experience...

 

 

 

And to compare, here is the HD one from lemonato:

 

 

 

[Julf]

I assume you mean the Hi-res ones sound better than the CD versions - I doubt they sound better than the original master tapes. And yes, hi-res can definitely sound better than CD, but it's mostly because of the higher sample rate, allowing you to avoid horrible, potentially ringing brickwall filters.

 

[goldsdad]

"Just listen and tell me some of these good hi-res remasters don't sound better than the originals."

 

Sure, some hi-res files from one master sound "better" than 16/44.1 files from a different master. There are countless variables involved in such a comparison, not just bit depth of the files.

 

 

[Archimago]

Okay, this is the last straw for me. The words CAVEAT EMPTOR should be posted on the home page for HDTracks... Quality is totally hit and miss from really good hi-res PCM, to converted DSD/SACD stuff (much of their 24/88 catalog), to essentially fraudulent upconversions like this. I guess the spec "96 kHz" sells better than "48 kHz".

 

Imagine if in 2011, the classic Casablanca is released as 480P upconverted to 1080P Blu-Ray with worse black levels than the previous DVD version! Scandalous! Yet this seems to be happening all the time in the music industry with these remasters, not just HDTracks :-(

 

 

[jcpom]

eye is in the holder!

 

 

oops- beholder!

 

 

[jcpom]

I like what I hear!

 

call me crass, call me cheap; I am part of the 1%! - ha ha!