|Entered by||Matt Vernon|
|Checksums||Dec2006_md5 , Dec2007_md5 , Dec2007-st5|
|Disc Counts||1 / 2|
|Source Summary||SBD > Cass/1 > DAT > CDR > EAC > WAV > Cool Edit (Remastering) > SHN; SHN Conversion by Mike Wren; Pitch correction by Hunter Seamons (NOTE: two versions circulate from Hunter Seamons, one from 12/31/06, and one from 12/1/07. Both versions are included in this entry)|
|Other Sources (comments)
SBD > Cass/1 > DAT > CDR >... (1) flac16; SBD > ??? >... (1) flac16; SBD > cass/0... (0)
|04/29/2007||Ford Prefect||I'm surprised I didn't see a comment for this - but this recording is 16/48 (not CD quality). The info file should really have a note for this before circulating.|
|07/03/2007||hseamons||Yes, this did turn out to be 16/48. This was an oversight on my part when I did pitch correction. However, I do not think the sound was affected in any way, meaning I don't think there was a loss in quality when it went to 48 kHz (supposedly) because I did not render the audio clips as such. I only put the songs into a 48kHz sequence, but when I exported them I did not render the sequence but the individual clip files with the speed edits within that sequence. I the songs may have just been labled 48 khz, but did not actually get converted to it in the end. If you burn this to CD at 44.1 kHz, moreover, you will not be able to tell any difference, of which I believe there is none.|
|07/03/2007||hseamons||I did not explain a certain part right above. I exported the songs with speed change without rendering them as 48kHz, even though they are labled as such from being in a 48 kHz sequence (unrendered). Let's just ask ourselves: "Can it ever be the case where the info is wrong that get's attached to the file?" - I believe so. It's complicated. I never could tell any difference from the 44.1 kHz source I had and the new version - BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A DIFFERENCE! Enjoy the show.|
|07/03/2007||hseamons||Okay, on further reflection I think I DID export them as 48 kHz. But I think they sound just as crispy, if not more crispy for being at 48 KHz rather than 44.1 kHz. I just hope there's some good karma with these files.|
"I just compared the 64k MP3 with the 48k WAV on my PC-Based Altec playback system. Both sound equally as good!"
Basing your technical arguments on how the final product "sounds" isn't a good idea. You need to show proper lineage.
It sounds like you took the original 44.1k files, saved as 48k files to do your Pitch work, then SHNed again.
"rendering" from the original 44.1k to 48k will do nothing except add a bunch of silence. So any resulting 44.1k files from the fixed 48k files will be "as good" as the originals.
That being said, of course your 44k and 48k versions sound the same, both have the same exact digital information. "rendering" from 44>48k doesn't all of a sudden add aural information.
I have a question of how you did your pitch correction - did you adjust to a known tuning?
This statement "***Note: I cut everything above 11 kHz 18dB because nothing existed above that freq. range on the original recording." indicates this source is LOSSY. Removing information from the file set (irregardless of data contained within) violates the lossless audio principle.
It is also reported that this set (and the original) are AUD tapes.
|08/11/2007||Tenniru||I can not tell if this is an audience recording or a SBD recordd a bit too hot. For something this old, it's great-sounding; aside from some bass saturation and low vocals, it's an amazing listen.|
The 10/17/85 filler bit is assigned to this shnid