Grateful Dead

dead.net the official site

Back in the day, he came to a tech conference I'm involved with to show off Lionel trains, for which he'd hired a friend of mine to go around the country recording different trains so the various Lionel models would have the right noises. Having seen Neil in rock star mode many times, I loved seeing him just geek out and have fun with a technically sophisticated bunch. As a result of this, we did an interview. In which he veered off at some length to deride the then-current state of digital recording (this circa 1994). This stuff's been on his mind for quite a while!

Hi Marye, Yes, early digital recording was not very good, but not from any inherent problems in the technology itself. Here's a blurb from the following link: http://recordinghacks.com/2013/01/26/analog-tape-vs-digital/ "It is my belief that much of the pain of switching over to digital recording was due to the tools that engineers had mastered for analog recording. For instance, applying EQ and compression (or no compression) to tape to make up for the color that the tape added didn’t sound so great when recording to digital. Bright FET microphones and harsh transistor preamp tones became rounded off in a pleasing way on tape, and by the 100th mix pass, the high-end was rolled off and the transients smeared so much that the final mix sounded phat, warm and fuzzy. It took experienced engineers a minute (or years) to gather their thoughts, re-examine their tools and learn how to take advantage of the clarity, quiet, and unforgiving purity of digital recording." My problem with what Neil is doing is that the marketing accompanying the Pono to which he has lent his name is propagating some of the most common misunderstandings and misconceptions about what is being termed hi res audio. Regardless of how the debate ultimately turns out (I think it's already pretty much decided), there is no getting around the simple flat out falsehoods being stated. They take advantage of people not understanding digital audio in its most fundamental basics. For instance, if you ask most folks to describe what a single "sample" consists of in digital audio, what one sample of 16-bit or 24-bit audio contains, how many would answer that the only thing it contains is an amplitude (volume) level and nothing more. That each sample is just one single volume level. How many would then go on to try to find out how a whole series of such "volume" measurements can fully encode music? The Pono folks take advantage of this lack of technical knowledge to propagate ridiculous and false concepts like "smoother" sound with more samples. In fact, based on the difference between reality and what is in those marketing materials, and given my respect for Neil in general, I find it unlikely he has actually looked into the scientific mechanisms underlying how digital audio works, maybe because the idea that if 16-bit at 41,100 times per second is good then 24-bit at 192,000 times per second must be better seems so much like just common sense that he never saw the need to look into it farther beyond questioning why files at this resolution are not being made available (and making it his mission to do so), especially because I am sure he is aware that it is these higher resolution files that comprise the original recordings that the professionals use to mix/master his music. Why look further, when the common sense is so compelling?

I wouldn't say "not from any inherent problems in the technology itself." (!) From the very same article you quoted, there is this: "It is true that the very first generation of digital recorders, like the Sony F1 and early DAT machines, didn’t sound as good as the state-of-the-art analog machines. However, the low cost and ease-of-use of the new digital machines guaranteed their success. Luckily, pro audio and audiophile users pushed manufacturers to create better sounding converters and better tools to process the sound (now known as plugins)." And if I am not mistaken, you said yourself that some early AD-DA converters were an issue. So let's not paint digital audio as great from the get-go. It was deservedly reviled by many at first, partially due to technological issues.

I agree, the early problems were a combination of both the early digital technology and its application by engineers steeped in the completely mature and largely perfected analog technology. These early efforts at digital audio helped sour many on the technology permanently (which is silly). Furtwangler, a conductor, and Huberman, a violinist, two of the most unique and revered musicians of their time both made so very few recordings compared to their peers because the early attempts to record them in the teens and twenties convinced them tha record disks were so bad they avoided the recording studio from then on, even though by the fifties the analog revording techniques had improved so much they were really quite excellent. History repeats itself.

wow, that's a lot of technical stuff to write down, thanks for the explanation of how it's all suppose to work. Now, if I could just get my ears to hear it.

on your Grammy nomination. Well deserved, as is the award itself. Still lovin My # 5000.

Hi Unkle Sam, If you're serious you can easily hear the difference in fidelity between LP and CD at a modest cost by purchasing a modern excellent classical orchestral recording where you can get both the CD and LP. I would suggest using Raphael Kubelick's recording of Dvorak's New World symphony because the LP should still be relatively available and the CD digital transfer is highly acclaimed by audiophiles. It isn't an accident that the first genre of music to start using digital technology for recording was classical orchestral recording; they generally require the higher dynamic range than other genres, and the classical musicians and their engineers were more keenly aware than others of the technical inability of LP technology to record this music without large dynamic range compression. Once CD tech had matured (it really didn't take very long), it was quickly clear that digital had overcome the limitations that had plagued the classical recording industry since its inception. Even though I love the "warm" sound of LP, and on much music the technical requirements are smaller than for classical, so LP technical deficiencies are outweighed by the "warmth" distortion, for classical which was losing so much more through LP's limitations, digital was a huge difference. Unlike the hi def vs standard def digital debate, you will IMMEDIATELY hear the difference when you compare that orchestral recording on CD with no dynamic range compression to the LP. I don't know how much further down the thread you read, but do not mistake my explaining how digital CD format is technically superior to analog, with the idea that I support so called "high resolution" digital because I dont. I posted several links that explains how digital audio works and why there is no real benefit to the listener using more than the stanard 16-bits and 44.1khz sampling rate. However, The superiority of CD is very often compromised, especially in rock, pop and hip-hop and other very popular radio music because for quite a few years they have been purposely compressing the dynamic range on the CD's so they will sound louder at a given volume setting on the radio, and so everything from the softest to the loudest sounds can be more easily heard in a noisy environment like a car. This willful lowering of the quality of the recorded music has no relation to the capabilities of the CD format; it is an intentional lowering of the quality to bring the dynamic range down, sometimes way down. This isn't universally the case though, obviously. I think it is unlikely, for instance, that the GD team uses this practice.

What you really want in the end is a recording that is non ear fatiguing so that you can listen for hours and connect on a deeper emotional level. Compressed files do not give you this option. E72 I can't listen at a nice volume level without ear fatigue. We really need those 24/96 files released.

Hi four winds, Sorry, what compression??? There is no compression of any kind in a 16/44.1 file. I'm not sure what you are referring to. But that is literal. There is NO compression of ANY kind in a 16/44.1 file. These are not mp3's. A few (maybe more than a few) posts down, posted several links that explains the scientific basis behind digital audio files (not compressed digital audio files). I can't make you do this, but did you bother reading them at all? Several of these links make Reference to the scientific reasons there is no audible difference (LITERALLY) between 16/44.1 and 24/96 or 24/192. Except that in some not too common cases the higher "resolution" files actually can be inferior because the ultrasonic inaudible frequencies they can contain can in some cases cause audible and distortion in the audible range, although in all scientific studies to date no one can hear any difference at all. The 44.1 files don't have this problem, as they don't contain frequencies above 22khz - frequencies above human hearing level. Forgive me, I really do not mean to be insulting or condescending, but the nature of your statement referring to any kind of compression difference between standard def and hi def audio files leads me to believe you haven't bothered to look into how digital audio works and are buying into the most common fallacies. The statement literally makes no sense as there is no difference in compression level of any kind between so called standard definition and so called high resolution audio files. Standard def files are smaller because they use 16-bits to encode each volume level sample and take use 44,100 samples per second as opposed to using 24-bits and say 192,000 samples per second. The science and mathematics both state as fact, not opinion, that 44,100 samples per second is sufficient to encode and reproduce any frequencies up to half that number, 22,050hz which is well above your hearing level, and 16-bits is sufficient to encode the dynamic range of any recording you currently and are likely to own unless you envision at some point buying a recording with enough dynamic range to make your ears bleed if you had equipment that could reproduce it. Did you know that each of the "samples" taken either once every 44,100 times or 96,000 or 192,000 times a second, and stored in either a 16-bit or 24-bit binary number, contains a volume measurement AND NOTHING ELSE?? How can nothing but a stream of volume measurements of music represent the actual music??? Read and find out. If your ears are being fatigued by 16/44.1 files they will have the EXACT DUPLICATE experience with 24/192 files. Again, these are not MP3 or other lossy format. The ONLY difference between the 16/44.1 and the 24/96 files is the dynamic range and frequency range they contain, and the links I posted explain why 16 bits and 44.1khz files already hold all the dynamic range the music being recorded has, and already contains all the frequencies you can hear. You already understand how LP's work. Don't you think it would be a good idea to learn how digital audio works before you start paying more for files that all the science (not to mention the society of audio engineers) have no difference (literally) to what comes out of your speakers? We're not talking about MP3 or any other compression technology here. We're talking about the COMPLETETELU UNCOMPRESSED 16/44.1 and 24/192 files that will both produce identical sound waves out of your speakers even if you were to compare them visually with sound wave analysis software. Since I take it that you DO experience ear fatigue from E72 releases, I am sorry to tell you that this must be from how the masters sound that they are using to create the CD's and downloads. Getting 24/96 or 24/192 will do NOTHING to mitigate this, and will not help you connect on a deeper emotional level with it unless it is via placebo effect. The sound waves being represented by BOTH 16/44.1 and 24/192, being identical in all audible frequencies, both reproduce sound waves so far closer to being identical to what was input to create them compared to an analog medium that it's staggering if you haven't looked into it. These are not compressed files where if you were to look at them visually they hardly even resemble the originals. The sound waves produced by either 16/44.1 or 24/192 are BOTH virtually perfect representations of the sound that went in. The science of looking at in what ways they may be different from what went in is dealing with differences so much smaller than with previous music reproduction methods that it's like comparing molehills and mountains. Hi Res files are NOT being offered because they are in any way superior to your ears. They are being offered because there is a demand for them. And, there is a demand for them because people believe all sorts of things like 16/44.1 is somehow more compressed than 24/192 (it's not), or that greater bit-depth means greater music depth (it does not - it ONLY and ENIRELY determines the difference between the loudest and softest sounds that be contained, and 16-bits can go from a light bulb to a jackhammer), that higher sampling rate yields a smoother sound wave (it doesn't - that's not how digital audio works - when it's converted back to an analog wave it is as smooth as the wave the went in - and 44.1 samples per second can reproduce any frequencies of 22.05khz and below with literally 100% accuracy because of the mathematics behind how it works). The demand is there because many (most?) people do not know much about digital audio files, and there is a lot of money to be made by many people who are exploiting then (and in many cases don't know any more about how digital audio works and believe it themselves.) Truly scientifically done listening tests (not to mention visual analysis of the sound waves) will tell you what you need to know about so called "hi resolution" audio files. But, go ahead and buy the "hi resolution" files if they become available. It's not my money. But, it really is worth scrolling down and checking out those links (and the discussion up to this point) before you spend that money.

It's only fitting that a Brent era release got a Grammy nod. Congrats Bob, Phil, Mickey, Bill, Dave, Mark, Mary, Norman, Blair and everybody involved! This is the good stuff here.

Yes, Congratulations to all involved. I also believe this box deserves the grammy nod - I believe it surpasses the music in the first box, and the package itself is simply exquisite (as was the first box).

If dynamic compression was used in the down mix process no further compression is needed.

There is no dynamic compression required when converting from 24-bit to 16-bit, and there is no reason to believe they just CHOSE to use any dynamic compression on the 16-bit file, but not on the 24-bit file. Your comment makes it clear (unless I'm mistaken, which I could be) that you believed that 16-bit is INHERENTLY more compressed than 24-bit, which is simply not the case in any way. Unless you have some reason to believe they just chose to compress the range of softest to loudest sounds on the 16-bit file and not on the 24-bit, I'd be interested to hear it. I think that's more than very very highly unlikely. Again, if you are experiencing ear fatigue from the 16-bit files, you have zero chance of improving that by buying the more expensive 24-bit ones except by placebo effect, unless they chose to reduce the dynamic range on the 16-bit files and not the 24-bit files for some reason. What possible reason do you have to suspect they would even consider going through the trouble of instituting dynamic range compression on the 16-bit files (CD's). They were NEVER going to be destined for mainstream radio play, and even if they were I don't believe Jeffrey Norman and his team do that even for releases that ARE destined for radio play. Of course, there is an easy way to answer this. Simply send DL an email to ask Jeffrey Norman (if you can't email Jeffrey Norman directly) if they compressed the dynamic range for the 16-bit release and CD's and not for the 24/192 (or 24/96) on any of their other archival releases where they have made hi-def available. I wouldn't promise my first-born, but I'd bet a lot that the answer will be no. In which case, as the links I posted point out pretty well, you will hear no difference between the two versions, nor experience a different level of ear fatigue or emotional connection - at least not due to the sound coming out of your loudspeakers. EDIT - I decided to purchase the Wake Up To Find Out hi def (24/192) download. I will rip from my CD version direct to 16-bit wav and compare them using a software audio package and should be able to easily tell if dynamic compression was used on one and not the other. I will let you know. I see no reason why they would treat the E72 release differently than the Wake Up To Find Out release as far as whether they chose to modify the dynamic range for the CD's. They both came from multi-track tape masters. Even if they didn't spend the time on the E72 releases that they did on the Wake Up To Find out release, I would still bet they treated the CD's the same in terms of how they transferred the original 24-bit files they mixed/mastered with to the 16-bit files they used to create the CD's. I will report back with the results.

I'm not sure what is fatiguing anyone's ears, but I hear some kind of pervasive audio distortion in about the first half of the E72 box mixes. It clears up on one of the Paris shows. I have no idea what caused it, but it is obvious to me and I'm sure the mix engineer noticed it eventually but no one bothered to go back and fix those first mixes. It could be inherent in just those first tapes (very doubtful), some kind of A-D transfer issue (can't imagine what), something to do with the Plangent Process (again, no idea), or something else. It still bugs me that these mixes were so rushed. Thank the gods they did not do the same with the '72 Veneta show or the new Spring 90 box. Also, let's not confuse file (data) compression with dynamic range compression. Dynamic range can be severely squashed on ANY recording format if the engineer chooses to do that. The GD archival releases are generally lightly compressed compared to many commercial releases, and I'm sure that is intentional. I actually wish they had a touch more dynamic compression on them sometimes, just to make them sound less jumpy.

You have a lot of patience ;)

I did a comparison of the CD version of Wake Up To Find Out (actually the one from the full box) and the 24/192 download. I used the first 15 seconds of Estimated Prophet (the software I'm using only lets you start at the beginning, and I didn't take the time to lop off an equal amount from the beginning of both files in order to get to the middle of the file). I chose Estimated Prophet because it begins right away having been transitioned into from the Eyes. The results: The average levels (left/right) on the CD are -17.42db/-16.19db the average levels on the HD file are -17.96db/-16.72 the peak level on the CD is -10db the peak level on the HD file is -15db The Stereo Balance on the CD is -2.14db (diff between L and R) The Stereo Balance on the HD file is -2.43db And the peak frequency on the CD is 14,685Hz the peak frequency on the HD file is 14,109Hz (that's a surprise) So, it appears that they HAVE INDEED applied some dynamic range compression to the CD version, although not a lot. I have NO IDEA why they wouldn't just convert the 24/192 file to 16/44.1 using noise-shaped dithering. The resulting files would be VIRTUALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from each other. This still says nothing about the inherent equivalency to the human ears of 16/44.1 versus 24/192, but THAT'S IF THEY'RE FROM THE SAME SOURCE. My humble apologies FourWinds as you are indeed correct that they created a master for the 16-bit file that has had some amount of dynamic range compression applied to it. WHY???? Who knows. There is NO (good) reason to do this!!! The 24/192 is not better because it 24/192. It's better because they didn't apply dynamic range compression to master used for it. However, FourWinds, in your original post you wished they would just release the HD 24/192 file already!! WHY NOT wish that they convert the 24/192 to 16/44.1 and LEAVE IT ALONE to create the CD and 16/44.1 files?? That would serve the SAME purpose. And here are the file sizes for that one file: CD: 153,035kb HD: 998,784kb And, they have the same POTENTIAL for audio fidelity. Why not just wish for 16/44.1 files/CD's made directly from the 24/192's? Wouldn't that make far more sense. In any case, you were right - they're not the same. I have no idea why they chose to do this. One Man - Yes, for driving in my car (where I do a LOT of listening) files with more dynamic range compression make it much easier to hear all the music. You don't have to keep turning the volume up and down - up because you can hardly hear it and then BAM you get hit with the LOUD so you have to turn it down again. It is true that the range compression can pretty much fix that problem. Since we would never get two versions of everything with one purchase, my preference would be to get CD's/files that have NO dynamic range compression applied, and then I could apply my to create a set of files for travel (car/plane/walking, etc.)

Is it possible that a pono player has better components than another portable playback device ? It was designed with this in mind.Same files, different players, different playback results.

Isn't a peak of -15 dB lower than -10 dB? Doesn't that suggest the HD file is more compressed than the CD? Actually, they probably both have some amount of light compression on them because that's just how it's typically done in the world. It's bizarre that one would be that different from the other. You can hear as little as 1 dB, maybe even less. The first S90 box had lots of audible compression, at least on the individual tracks. It sounds way too smooth to be au naturel, even if the mix of the various signal levels is not always great.

Not really, no. When dynamic range compression is applied, not only do they reduce the difference between the loudest and softest amplitudes, they also then have room to increase the amplitude over the entire range, so that at a given volume setting on your volume knob the volume of the music is louder than it would have been - the loudest sound is louder, the softest sound is louder, and the average sound is louder, than it would have been compared to the same signals prior to dynamic compression and raising the amplitude. This is why dynamic range compression is important in the "loudness wars" in commercial releases for radio. They compress the range, and then have room to make the whole range louder without going over peak and clipping. When you look at the visual representation of the sound from the HD file compared to the 16-bit file, the HD file is "smaller" from top to bottom - it is not as loud, but if you were to analyze it, you would find that the DIFFERENCE between the highest peaks and smallest peaks are, relative to each other, greater. So, while the -10db peak of the CD is louder than the -15db peak of the HD file, it is the CD that has had dynamic range compression applied so that they can then raise the amplitude of the entire signal by some percentage, making the peak volume of the CD louder than the peak volume of the HD file (and the average, and the softest sound as well). When the dynamic range compression is applied the DIFFERENCES between the amplitudes of loud and soft are made smaller - the percentage change is not the same across the spectrum of amplitudes, as the "average" amplitude will not have a change applied (that's a simplification, not exact, and also I'm not sure if it would be the mean or the median or some other midway point that remains unchanged). When they subsequently make the entire signal louder, the amplitude increase is percentage-wise the same across the board. THAT transformation DOES raise the average amplitude. Does that make sense? Obviously, none of this is inherent to either 16-bit or HD 24-bit. It could be applied to either. For some reason they apply it to the 16-bit file, probably because a lot of people don't like it when a CD seems like the volume is too low compared to other CD's they have. In other words, I expect they have to cater to consumer expectations.

That's where my bet is too. Sadly. "Why do I have to turn *this* CD up louder than my other discs?" is a question that often (not always) can be answered "because it was better engineered."

Right, "make-up gain" is a post-compression volume increase that presumably brings the peak up to 0 dB (or wherever the engineer chooses). It's really odd that they chose -15 dB and -10 dB for the HD and CD files, respectively. That headroom (relatively huge) serves no purpose. So, how did you know the CD files were more dynamically compressed than the HD files?

Audio inspector is the name of the software I was using. It makes some quick general assessments of the file and then starts to deeply analyze from the beginning. It takes a couple of minutes just to get through 15 seconds of a track, which is all I let it do as I didn't have much time. So keep in mind that I think those numbers are for the first 15 seconds. However, I coukd see and zoom into the entire file. It was immediately clear that the HD file was significantly narrower from top to bottom, indicating no gain (I don't know the technical terms for most of this, so I'm assuming yours is correct) or else much less gain had been applied to that file. Since everything I read indicates that the primary purpose for applying dynamic compression is to make room for gain, I believe that little or no dynamic range compression was used on the HD file (at least compared to the 16-bit file). The CD file on the other hand appears to use almost all the available amplitude range from top to bottom. Keep in mind that the -10db and -15dn peak numbers (and the other numbers as well) I referred to may be for just the first 15 seconds.

If anyone is a big collector like me and bought a few box sets/poster combinations.. do yourself a favor. Open the poster container and make sure what you ordered is in there. There's 1 poster left available to buy onlne... you can't add more than 1 to the cart. I decided to open mine tonight. Suffice to say, the 4" and 3" containers I have, which should have multiple posters, only had 1 each. Nervous, scared and terrified doesn't begin to describe the butterflies in the stomach or stomach acid reflux in my throat... since they've been sitting in my closet unopened and uninspected since July. Word to the wise... check to make sure you got what you ordered. :-( Called customer service. Suffice to say, this has to go higher for any hope of resolution. Not how I wanted to start Christmas... check what you ordered... at least I checked now and not 5 years from now. But still... my faith is w/ Dr. Rhino or someone, to help.

From what I have read, the higher the bit depth, say 16 bit vs. 24 bit, the more decibels of signal is possible above a noise threshold. I get that. It is a metric of quietest sounds to loudest possible to be reproduced in fidelity perhaps. An analogy for that might be Pink Floyd's song 'Time' where you hear the clocks ticking very quietly in the beginning and then have the loudness of the alarms going off the next moment after. The loudness change is dramatic. OK, I am having a difficult time drawing analogies to the music we listen to on CD versus say cassettes or vinyl. The waveform for analog music is continuous if displayed on a graph. Music in the forms of ones and zeroes getting converted to analog is what escapes me. How doe the reproduction of the sound of a guitar and drums get unscrambled from the digital ones and zeroes? I get that the sampling rate captures 44,100 pieces of information per a second (44.1kHz rate) of a music passage, but what is the information stored in that 1/44,100th of second? Playback is at 44.1 kHz per a second I assume ( on a CD's WAV file format). The human ear doe not pick up the 1/44,100ths of a second "quantized" sound pulses. It just hears a continuum.

Hi JMT2010 - I posted a few links that go into a lot of detail about the technical aspects of digital audio - you can find them below. You're close, but not quite there in what you described. for instance, at the very end, you refer "the human ear does not pick up ..... it just hears a continuum". The issue here is that it doesn't have to pick or not pick up the individual samples. The digital to analog converter (DAC) takes the stored digital information and converts it back to an analog wave. The Nyquist theorm, on which the very idea of digital audio is based, states that as long as the frequency of sampling is as least twice as high as the highest frequency of sound being reproduced, then the ORIGINAL analog sound wave, of any complexity, can be reproduced EXACTLY. That's why the "stair step" concept that hi res websites like to display is a deception. When you look at a graph of a waveform stored digitally, yes if you zoom way in you can see "stair step" looking (jagged) edges to the waveform. It's a deception, because the DAC recreates from this the original sound wave EXACTLY - as long as the frequencies are below half the sampling rate. Another thing that was not quite right was your interpretation of bit-depth. It's even simpler than your first sentence. What is actually contained in each "sample" is one amplitude measurement, just a number between 0 and 65,536 for 16-bit and between 0 and 16,777,216 for 24-bit, representing the amplitude of the wave at that moment. Forget about the noise floor for a moment. The ONLY thing stored in each sample is a number representing an instantaneous measurement of the amplitude of the sound wave at that moment. Quantization error is the difference between the ACTUAL amplitude of the sound wave at that point, and the measured amplitude using a discrete number of only 65,536 or 16,777,216 possible values. Dithering is the process which mathematically converts those errors to white noise, and noise shaping actually moves that noise to largely inaudible ranges of the sound frequency spectrum. Ultimately, it is the level of noise in a digital file that determines the "noise floor" of the file. This is the exact equivalent of the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of an analog recording (LP or analog tape). Keep in mind that the SNR of even a 16-bit recording is many times better than the SNR of LP OR analog tape. Most people don't understand that, either. So, taking your Pink Floyd "Time" example, a 16-bit recording can capture the quietest elements of the clocks ticking. Of course, THAT is a recording that was NOT originally recorded digitally - it was originally recorded to analog tape. So the SNR can NEVER be better than on the original analog tape - there is a minimum noise level already inherent in the recording to begin with. Modern recordings are recorded to 24/192 digital files, and then if converted to CD (or 16-bit downloads) they are converted to 16-bit using noise-shaped dithering. Done properly, the resulting 16-bit files have a slightly lower signal to noise ratio, however it is already below the level of human perception. The noise floor of your listening environment is ALWAYS (unless you're in outer space or something) higher than the noise floor of a properly dithered 16-bit recording. Noise you don't usually notice, the hum of the refrigerator, your breathing and heartbeat, the water heater, etc. - even the quietest of most rooms still has a noise floor that is above the noise floor of a 16-bit recording let alone a 24-bit one. This is nit-picking a bit, isn't it???? The other thing you referenced is HOW does a stream of amplitude measurements capture actual music. Take out a piece of paper. Let's say you're sampling at 10 times per second instead of 44,100 times per second. So, 1/10th of a second you capture an amplitude measurement (the height of a sound wave). On the piece of paper draw a dot at that height. It might be easier if you draw a rectangle with that height (just of like the rectangles under a curve in pictures of integration from a calculus textbook). When you connect the dots, you can see the sound wave shape. The more dots, the more exact the representation of the wave. This is where the Nyquist theorem comes in. Higher frequency sounds are going up and down across the x-axis in narrower bands than lower frequency sounds which take more time (stretch out farther along the x-axis) before coming back across the x-axis). The theorem states that as long as the sampling is rate is at least twice the highest frequency, the DAC can mathematically recreate the EXACT analog sound wave. So, 44,100 samples per second is enough to EXACTLY recreate any frequencies below 22,050Hz. This is above the range of hearing for human adults. So, some people who don't understand the technical aspects will pay more for a 24/192 file than a 24/96 file. Keep in mind what the actual difference is. A 24/192 file is taking 192,000 samples per second, and a 24/96 file is taking 96,000 samples per second. The Nyquist theorem states that the 192k/s file can PERFECTLY reproduce any frequencies below 96kHz. The Nyquist theorem states that the 96k/s file can reproduce any frequencies below 48kHz. Um, most adults can't even hear much beyond 16-18khz let alone 20khz. The ONLY difference between the fidelity of the 24/96 and 24/192 is that the 24/192 can encode frequencies from 48kHz to 96kHz and the 24/96 can't. Those frequencies are all and entirely WAY WAY WAY beyond the human hearing apparatus. But, go through some of these threads and watch some people saying things like, "are we paying for 24/96 or are we actually getting the full 24/192?" The question is nonsensical. NO ONE can hear ANYTHING in the 48-96khz range AT ALL. Not only that - none of the microphones used to record the music capture anything in those frequencies at all AND on the off-chance they did, they're filtered out for technical reasons. Just WHAT do people think they're missing in the 96 vs the 192 file? It shows that they just don't understand what they're spending their $$$ on. They are assuming that 192 has to be better than 96, and/or that if its more expensive (and larger) it must be better. Anyone who understands sound at all knows that a audio with or without frequencies between 48khz and 96khz is going to be identical unless you're a hummingbird or something. It's like thinking that a picture that has light going up to the x-ray range encoded in it is going to look better than a picture that only includes light in the spectrum our eyes actually have the hardware to respond to. And then, they will actually post about how much more depth there is to the music, how much more full and somehow realistic the experience is. It's clearly entirely in the realm of psychological expectations. Actually, properly dithered, a 16/44.1 digital file made from the EXACT SAME SOURCE as the 24/192 digital file is INDISTINGUISHABLE from each other by the human ear. ALL scientific studies done in controlled environments confirm this. You will NEVER convince some people of this, however. The idea that more bits and more samples must be better seems to make to much sense to most people, and marketing has done it's job. Lastly, as you can see in one of my last posts, I compared the 16-bit CD files to the hi res files that are being offered for Wake Up To Find Out. I compared them using Audio Inspector. That comparison confirmed that these two digital files are NOT from the same source. This has nothing to do with the inherent ability of a 16/44.1 file to be as perfect to human ears as a 24/192 file. What is being done is common in the practice of making CD's. They compressed the dynamic range (the range of softest to loudest sounds) so that they could then increase the amplitude across the entire range, making the CD louder at any given volume setting than it would have been. This was either not done to the 24/192 file, or not to the same extent, because the 24/192 file is not as loud, the amplitude of the sound waves at any given point is lower than on the 16/44.1 file. This was done INTENTIONALLY (I'd rather they didn't). It is probably done because people "expect" their CD's be play at a certain volume - they think something is wrong if they put another CD on, and it's way louder without turning the volume up - they ask, "why is this one so damn low!". So, they're dealing with consumer expectations. It has nothing to do with 16/44.1 versus 24/96 or 24/192.

I must say I am very impressed with the sound quality and strong performances of all of these shows. I have been listening off and on for the past couple of months. However when I got to disc two of the first Omni Show (April 1, 1990) I discovered the disc was defected and would not play. When I called DeadNet they told me there was nothing they could do for me because the purchase was over 30 days old. Well they did tell me to repurchase the box set and return it with the defective disc. I do not want to go through all of that. I payed close to $250.00 for this and Deadnet is not willing to replace a broken disc. Any advice?

send me your order # and the details and I'll see what the Dr. can do.

Disc number two from the Omni Show (4/1/1990) will not play in my car. The car radio says "disc error" when I called Deadnet they told me they would not be able to replace the disc because it was over 30 days old. Can you help me? Who did you talk to when you called customer service? I am not very happy about this. Thanks!!

you too. So sorry.

Order #'s sent to you. I will also call Customer Service this afternoon and see if they have an update.

The fact that dynamic compression was used on the cd's is why they sound like they do.

Hi Fourwinds, I looked at my original post to you and it was uncalled for, inaccurate, condescending, and not my best moment. I have emailed DL letting him know what I found when I analyzed the CD and HD files, and asked him to ask Jeffrey Norman or other engineers if my conclusion is accurate, and why they feel they must do this. I'll report back if I hear anything back.

Drinking up all this info on digital audio, that is! Thanks, wjonjd! I am wondering about one thing: "the DAC can mathematically recreate the EXACT analog sound wave" From time to time, in discussions of upgrading home audio reproduction equipment, I will see the suggestion that a "better" DAC is essential. Is there anything to this?

Hey rrot, I was looking for a link I've seen in the past but can't find it yet. It is my understanding that modern DAC's are virtually perfect. That wasn't always the case. There is also the problem that even with near-perfect modern DAC's, PC's are something of a hostile environment due to noise/interference, which is one reason external DAC's are frequently sought out. But, the internal logic/functioning of the modern DAC chips, it is my understanding, is virtually perfect at recreating the original analog sound wave, which the Nyquist theorem stated before they existed that they should be able to do. Mathematically, you can re-create the original perfectly. I guess the problem is getting the hardware/software to do it. It is my understanding that modern dac's do this basically flawlessly.

I would love to hear about it. Read all your other posts and the associated links with great interest. I might have even learned some things! One thing that you have pointed out that no one can deny is that hi-fi audio is a field rife with misinformation in the service of salesmanship. You've been doing yeoman's work in cutting through the BS. It's appreciated!

Hi rrot (and anyone else interested), I didn't find the original link I first saw, but, I found something better. It's a link to two videos. I needed to use firefox to run them because my version of Internet Explorer wouldn't run them. they're about 30 minutes and 23 minutes and they're REALLY REALLY informative and well done. Start with the SECOND video. The second video is MUCH more relevant to the discussion here, but vid1 does have some interesting stuff. http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml and http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml Clears up a lot of myths and is very easy to understand - he actually shows you what he is talking about with actual equipment. You can also download it and watch it in a media player.

Two great links: One is a great article on expectation bias, but it also has some good technical information and a couple of really cool links as well. I added a second link that has some interesting stuff about listening tests and other digital audio trivia. nwavguy.blogspot.de nwavguy.blogspot.de/2012/04/what-we-hear.html The other is a link I've posted before, but it covers ground so critical to the digital audio topic, and does it so well, that I'm reposting that link: xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Just want to say that I am very happy with this box set. Initially, I decided I wasn't going to buy this because I have the first box and this is a big price tag, thought the better shows were in that one, etc. I ordered this after reading all the raving comments on here. Since I caved and bought it, I saved the box as a Christmas present. I opened it a bit early so that I could listen during traveling. I’ve only listened to the first three shows so far, but Wow. It is such good sound quality. I especially like the way that Brent’s organ sounds. I had never really listened to 3/18 or 3/21 before and they are both really good shows. I’m starting to believe the hype that these are all good shows. I really like 3/18/90. Pretty much the whole show rocks. Looking forward to hearing 4/1 and 4/3 in this sound quality. Really nice!

Yeah, I think ALL the shows on this tour were great. Besides the obviously special 3/29 show, the 3/14 and 4/1 shows are standouts. Just fantastic.

Listened to the 04/01 Omni show for the first time today and it really blew my mind. Always love those "Victim Or The Crime" triptychs with a ballad and a rock song following. The Stella Blue made me cry. Not for too long, though - the Sugar Magnolia is pure fun. And I love Brent's simple but effective piano phrases on "Baby Blue". This box set definitely deserves the Grammy nomination. It's pure joy. So better get it while there are still some left...

I'm going with the 3/14 and 4/3 shows. Of course the Branford show is awesome as well. But the 4/3 show is a whopper. Ironically I bought this box after saying I wouldn't and only bought 3/29 at first on its own. Then went back and bought the box. While it's not my all time fav, it's damn good.

Hard to believe that there are still some of these available. The sound quality is outstanding. I could not pick which of the two '90 boxes has the better shows. To me, they are both equal and represent the band at one of its creative peaks. The boys were sure hot on this tour. If you continue to pass this one up you will only be kicking yourself down the road, guaranteed. Rock on

I can't say I fully understand quantum computing but was wondering if anyone had any foresight into how digital music might be affected by qubits and their superpositions. We're used to 1's and 0's but quantum computing has the ability to have 1 or both states held in the same qubit. Any comments?

So, I was one of the suckers who bought the actual box, and now I see that they've released all the shows for both sets in 24bit, and the box set I got has compression. I think, people who have bought the box set should not have to pay twice to get the HD versions. Thoughts?

Hi Sfrank, wjonjd put a lot of info out on the difference between high def and what is on the CD's further down in this thread.. If you still would prefer the Hi Def files, once this box sells out (and I am sure it will eventually).. you will be able to get your money back for your box by reselling it on EBay or Amazon, then you can get the downloads, they will still be available then. ..on a related note, am I the only one that thinks they totally fibbed when they said this box was down to 1,500 copies a few months back? I cant believe this still exists. I guess since they are selling the digital files and with Dave's Picks renewals going on (plus some Dicks Picks are being re-released right now also, I think).. there is more for sale now than usual.. but I thought this would have sold out before Christmas.

JimInMD is right that you can Ebay the box for primo bucks if you wait a bit.Buuuuuuuutttttttttt, if you want to raise cash to buy the HD files and you live in the Bay Area, I have an immediate offer for you. I can't spend $240 on a box set. I have a wife and child to support here in SF on my $65K/yr income. But I can offer to give you $150 for just the CD sets and the book. You can keep 3/29 since I bought the stand alone release, and you can keep the box, the prints, the repro ticks/passes. If you want to meet up some weekend day and do this, the quickest way to contact me is through this thread as I rarely log in/see my mailbox. Just an offer.

After extensive review I have decided to keep my box set since it was a present from my Mom. I have been researching HD music for the past few months, and have come to the conclusion that this cds have been dithered properly, and they sound just as good as the 192khz files. I also did a blind test with 3.29.1990 between the 192khz and the 44khz, and my wife, who has impeccable hearing, couldn't tell which was which. That being said, I also went ahead and bought the first box in 24/88.2 khz, and while the difference is there, its quite insignificant. Its really a shame they mixed the first box set with 2 tracks. @Seth - thank you for the offer - contact me via email at sfrank115@gmail.com and i'll see if we can work something out. @JimInMD - thank you for taking the time to answer my comment. You're awesome! @wjonjd - thank you for your expansive explanation. I am conducting blind tests with various LZ 2014 remasters and PF's Division Bell remasters to see if people can tell the difference between the 16 and 24 bit versions. Most people can't - so the question comes up again, why are we going for the hi-res files if our ears really can't tell the difference. Check this out: http://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-what-neil-young-is-selling-1678446860 and finally, @brianhahne - thanks for selling me the view from the vault 1 on ebay - I have to say, those summer tours don't have the same energy as the spring shows. I think I was spoiled by these box sets. I would love to hear the bonus tracks from view from the vault 2, but Ameoba is selling it for $150. That is crazy, but I would love to hear Brent's final dark star.

..all the thanks belongs to wjonjd. He deserves an honorary doctorate in digital musicology. I have been very curious about all this and from day 1 have not used compression (mp3's) in my digital library, its 100% non-compressed. I got a real education in all this by reading this thread over the last several months. On a related note, I am very high on this recording and overall quality of this box. Like many others that have posted on this thread, I also wish the original Spring '90 was mastered from the multi-tracks.. it sounds good but this box sounds great. oh well.. I am happy they put the extra time and expense into mastering the second half of this tour. ..might as well take the time to do things right, its always worth it, and in this case the music certainly deserves a little added respect. I think I might just pop in 4/1 tonight while I get some work done.

Wait a few years and super hi-def will be out. So what if you can't hear the difference, your dogs can, and aren't they worth it?

That was funny. I just don't have that kind of wit. Says a lot in a few short words.