Rhino now doing lossless downloads. FLAC and ALAC.

[Hopstretch]

Rhino | Digital

Was news to me. Seems like a good thing generally, though I can't really see why the download should have to be more expensive than the equivalent physical media from their catalog?

[Grahame]

You're using logic and reason, again. Prepare to be disappointed.

[postjack]

IMA DL IT COS I DONT HAVE TO MESS WITOUT NO GAS MONEY AND MY CAR .WAT 4 IPOD ON MY DILLY NO CD IN SORE

[Hopstretch]

Well, it's surely got to be at least a small step forward that you can immediately and legitimately snag CD-quality stuff from someone who has stuff you might actually want to buy?

Like I just paid too much for all the Andrew Bird's Bowl Of Fire discs (files?) because there they were right there in my chosen format and I suddenly needed to hear them right fucking now.

[Grahame]

Deferred gratification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

[morphsci]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlqOv-9qgLw

[swt61]

Aren't Rhinos feet similar to Elephant's? How do they find the dexterity to download anything?

[aardvark baguette]

I've got a Rhino box set of 80's material from a few years ago, and have found that virtually every song has been either brick walled or very close to that, compared to the original discs (which were purchased later on).

I now try to avoid that label.

[The Monkey]

What does brick walled mean?

[The Monkey]

Rhino | Digital

Was news to me. Seems like a good thing generally, though I can't really see why the download should have to be more expensive than the equivalent physical media from their catalog?

Regardless of the pricing, this is very cool news to me. I guess I'm exactly the kind of sucker who will buy this stuff at a premium.

EDIT: Hmmm....It seems, though, that Rhino is using "Hi Def" to mean lossless and not 24/96 or the like. Mos Def not cool.

Edited November 30, 2009 by The Monkey

[aardvark baguette]

1980's CD bit depth = new high tech for 2009.

By brick walled I mean it distorts and has poor dynamics. They made it louder.

[Grahame]

You can visualize it.

Old School mastered recording with dynamic range and headroom.

Brickwalled compression (and no doubt clipping) 16 bits of dynamic range wasted.

[The Monkey]

Green is pretty.

[Dusty Chalk]

That may or may not be, but it's supposed to be music, which it is not.

[Hopstretch]

Some of their remasters suck, some don't.

[Voltron]

From wikipedia:

The trend of increasing loudness as shown by waveform images of the same song mastered on CD four times since 1983.

[aardvark baguette]

its like the aids epidemic, only worse.

[Dusty Chalk]

From wikipedia:

The trend of increasing loudness as shown by waveform images of the same song mastered on CD four times since 1983.

Pardon my contrarianism, but that doesn't look so bad, especially the first three. "Louder" isn't necessarily worse, especially if it's the exact same signal, only less attenuated. The way I would spin this is, "they more fully utilize all 16 bits of bit depth". "2000" is beginning to get visibly compressed, but I have no idea based on the images whether or not the other three are fundamentally different, other than overall amplitude.

[grawk]

The 4th one actually looks fairly close to the first, in terms of waveform shape. It's possible that the 2000 remaster might be faithful to the original, only with better dynamics.

[mypasswordis]

1993 looks good.

[Grahame]

And improved Signal / Noise ratio, as the peaks are further from the noise floor.

However, once clipping occurs, you have thrown away information, than cannot be recovered.

I now find the warning with track 59 of Sound Check somewhat quaint

MAXIMUM TONE LEVEL

Warning - This track is at the theoretical maximum recording level, 0dB FS.

THIS IS A VERY LOUD TONE - USE WITH CAUTION

Track 59: 1kHz sine wave at 0dB FS (Duration 20 seconds)

AvaxHome -> ALAN PARSONS & STEPHEN COURT: SOUND CHECK | MOBILE FIDELITY SOUND LAB | ULTRADISC II

"Theoretical Maximum", who would ever use that in practice

[Dusty Chalk]

The 4th one actually looks fairly close to the first, in terms of waveform shape. It's possible that the 2000 remaster might be faithful to the original, only with better dynamics.

No, it definitely looks more compressed than any of the other three, but I see what you mean about the shape of the first one. As to what the intentions are of the original artists, I don't know. The middle two -- especially 1993 -- look more dynamic. Follow, for example, the largish (loudish) lump in the middle of the song.

[Hopstretch]

Anyhoo, I just bought a couple of albums from them and apparently everything is 50% off right now. $7.50 I can live with.

[The Monkey]

Loudness wars aside, 50% off digital downloads through 12/6.

Sorry, I missed stretch's post above. Call me Kai.

[blessingx]

May be the only place to get lossless versions of Garfield: Music Inspired by the Motion Picture.