PeedroPaula posted:

Ah, but Suge exhibits both quantity AND quality!

Suge posted:

PeedroPaula posted:

Ah, but Suge exhibits both quantity AND quality!

You just love my doggy style

YKWYA posted:

Also, being a Moderator and not posting much arent exclusive - there are a lot of lurkers here.

leo3375 posted:

What part of "Keep the thread on-topic" is so hard to understand? If a thread is about high-quality photo prints for sale, don't post about JMJ's hair or speculate on what Trent's working on in that thread. There are plenty of other threads for those kinds of discussions.

YKWYA posted:

dobyblue posted:

YKWYA posted:

Now you have two choices, wether accept my polite post or we can continue this argument in the moderation thread.

Please provide a link, I would gladly continue this debate as I would with anything I am passionate about.

Let me get this right. You can navigate your way through the complexities and minutae of audio technology yet you cant 1. Read the forum homepage to find Audio Gear or Music forum to continue that debate or 2 . Use the search function to find the relevant threads. Including the moderation thread to talk about anything i have said. Hint. Its in nin.com discussion.

dobyblue posted:

leo3375 posted:

What part of "Keep the thread on-topic" is so hard to understand? If a thread is about high-quality photo prints for sale, don't post about JMJ's hair or speculate on what Trent's working on in that thread. There are plenty of other threads for those kinds of discussions.

Agreed, so explain how discussing the Deluxe Reissue of PHM you'd like to see is irrelevant and/or off topic in a thread specifically about the reissue of PHM?!

posted:

dobyblue - I appreciate that you may have a lot of knowlege about different formats, but the fact is that most people will not notice the difference and will have only listened to PHM on CD in the first place, and that is the common standard for them. Myself included. So, thank you for your insight, but I am going to ask you to cool it on this debate, in this thread from now on. Take it to Music or Audio Gear if you want to continue, there may be threads there where this is more appropriate.

Thanks..

dobyblue posted:

Agreed, so explain how discussing the Deluxe Reissue of PHM you'd like to see is irrelevant and/or off topic in a thread specifically about the reissue of PHM?!

dobyblue posted:

Of course you haven't, you're listening on a PC with crappy PC speakers and/or crappy in-ear buds or $10 headphones. What sort of revelation where you looking for? You're low-fidelity and you love it, that's awesome for you, your inability to understand that there is a difference for people who care about fidelity and do notice a difference (I use $299 AKG 271 MKII circumaural headphones) is pretty ignorant.

dobyblue posted:

BULLSHIT!!!! That's a stereo audio-only 24/96 download, how does that compare at all to the Blu-ray SKU I listed? No additional content, no surround mix, etc., etc. You said it gets you "all of the audio/video content you listed" which is totally incorrect. You can also get 24/96 files of George Harrison, but again stereo-only audio downloads. Yes it'a great that they offer it, but I'll bet a Blu-ray SKU would sell better and allow for multi-channel and additional content. Why limit the video content to a 3CD/1DVD collection that could all fit on one 50GB Blu-ray?

dobyblue posted:

1. Sony doesn’t control Blu-ray so it doesn’t matter who they’re in league with. Blu-ray is controlled by the Blu-ray Disc Association. It has a patent pool and a board of directors including Time Warner/AOL, TDK, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Sony, 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Corp, Technicolour, Sharp, Sun Microsystems, Mitsubishi, Apple, Dell, Samsung and others. No MPAA, no RIAA. No-one’s vote counts for more than another’s. Panasonic has the most patents in Blu-ray technology, not Sony.
2. HD DVD with only 36.55 Mbps bandwidth and 30GB storage was capable of reference-level encodes like King Kong from Universal (although they didn’t release the extended edition until they released on Blu-ray) but this was while only three studios were releasing on the format. Microsoft’s own Amir Majidimehr stated that in order to get the most out of VC-1 at low bitrates Microsoft’s team of encoders would have to be involved. As soon as Universal ramped up their release schedule, encodings suffered almost across the board. If HD DVD had won, you’d be looking at either poor encodes or 720p with Dolby Digital 5.1 Nothing against HD DVD, but technically the specifications were not right for a format that you want to succeed in the mass market with a robust release schedule utilizing 1080p24 reference encodes with lossless audio. The disc space and more importantly the bandwidth don’t allow for the kind of peaks that allow for encodings to be done without spending countless hours on trouble spots. Blu-ray’s 48 Mbps does allow for less encoder passes and better looking titles, simple as that.

dobyblue posted:

Here’s the real kicker, you talk shit about things you’ve never even tried. You don’t have a Blu-ray player, yet you’re inherently familiar with how it doesn’t look any better or sound any better than DVD. You don’t own decent circumarual headphones, yet you assert there is zero difference between them and cheap in ear buds. I always test equipment before I buy, I still do. If I didn’t I’d probably have expensive BOSE equipment everywhere and think I had top of the line stuff instead of expensive lifestyle crap with little thought put into actual R&D or quality sound reproduction. Please find me one studio where the guys listen to what they’re doing on shitty in ear bud headphones while playing back .mp3 conversions of their master files. Hmm, I guess guys like Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross, Neil Young, Tom Petty, Bob Ludwig, Steve Hoffman, Barry Diament, etc., etc., these guys are all just neophytes like me right, all hearing things that aren’t there. Yes, you do hear so much difference with a good set-up. Nobody’s trying to infringe upon your enjoyment of your music on your PC, lossy downloads aren’t going anywhere, so get over it and stop trying to infringe on people who do enjoy high resolution multi-channel audio releases like the SACD of The Downward Spiral or the 24/48 DVD-A 5.1 mix of With Teeth.

me posted:

dobyblue - I appreciate that you may have a lot of knowlege about different formats, but the fact is that most people will not notice the difference and will have only listened to PHM on CD in the first place, and that is the common standard for them. Myself included. So, thank you for your insight, but I am going to ask you to cool it on this debate, in this thread from now on. Take it to Music or Audio Gear if you want to continue, there may be threads there where this is more appropriate.

Thanks...

YKWYA posted:

dobyblue posted:

YKWYA posted:

Now you have two choices, wether accept my polite post or we can continue this argument in the moderation thread.

Please provide a link, I would gladly continue this debate as I would with anything I am passionate about.

Let me get this right. You can navigate your way through the complexities and minutae of audio technology yet you cant 1. Read the forum homepage to find Audio Gear or Music forum to continue that debate or 2 . Use the search function to find the relevant threads. Including the moderation thread to talk about anything i have said. Hint. Its in nin.com discussion.

dobyblue posted:

This is about PHM, which because it is a music release is 100% relevant to the discussion at hand. Back-read through the thread and see how many different members have already stated their preference for a real DE of this resissue and are talking about the mastering of the original, the lack of 5.1 mix whether on SACD, DVD-A or Blu-ray, speculating on future DE's, etc., etc.

sheepdean posted:

You know, music was great when it was on a phonograph. If you can only enjoy it in super high definition, I feel bad for you.

benakanobi posted:

Hey give each other a break folks. Sure BD is fine, but what has it got to do with Pretty hate machine? I'd rather agree with vinyl consumers on that one, although i myself am fully content with CD.

dobyblue posted:

....And vinyl, DSD or 24-bit PCM are the best ways to reproduce analog as close to the original signal as possible, not CD and definitely not lossy .mp3!

benakenobi posted:

excellent, now he says not CD. must we cancel our pre-orders, Sir Holy Warrior?

dobyblue posted:

What, each separate sub-text should suddenly have it's own thread? It's all relevant.

dobyblue posted:

The few comments that are off topic and not specific are replies to other members comments. I am not about to start a thread about music on SD card because I have no interest in that, but I will reply to state why I have no interest.

dobyblue posted:

I love NIN, I love high resolution surround, PHM is in my top 5 albums of ALL TIME. To me it's perfectly relevant to discuss a potential Blu-ray Deluxe Edition and what it would contain in a thread about the 2010 reissue and I don't think the off topic rule applies here. If the other comments are off topic then I don't see why the specific "stop posting" comments are being directed to me, as I am simply replying, not posting, to said comments.

OnslaughtSix posted:

dobyblue posted:

For PHM for example:

Pretty Hate Machine: Deluxe Edition [Blu-ray]
*entire album in 24/192 5.1 remastered from the original master tapes
*entire album in 24/192 stereo remastered from the original master tapes
*all music videos remastered to high definition (where source material allows) with new 24-bit audio
*live performance footage from 1990~1991 remastered
*archived interview footage
*new interviews about the remastering process and making the Deluxe Edition
*all b-sides remastered from the original master tapes to 24/192 stereo
*CD "digital copy" included with no drm
*voucher to download 24/96 .flac files of the stereo tracks
*MSRP $29.99 (Amazon pre-order price $24.99)

This shits all over anything digital downloads can do.

I hope you just made all that shit up.

I'm tired of Blu-Ray getting all the cool bonus shit. Fuck you people.

dobyblue posted:

No I'm sorry, I didn't make it up, this is coming out on Tuesday December 21st, 2010, just in time for Christmas. Enjoy your palty 16-bit/44.1kHz CD though!

Just kidding, but this wouldn't fit on any other format anyway, so you would rather it just not see the light of day at all? Seems a bit selfish, buy a fucking Blu-ray player already.

botleysmith posted:

I started an appropriate thread to pick up the debate.

leo3375 posted:

I see where you're coming from, doby. However, YKWYA is right in saying that the audiophile stuff is distracting from the thread. Not everyone who posts here is die-hard into the intricacies of sound art. You're simply being asked to either dial back on your argument or create a thread in the Audio Gear/Software thread to continue more detailed discussion on the technical end of things.

I see no problem with speculating about possible format varieties in a re-issue release, but when it turns into a debate over which formats are superior, that's when it can start going over people's heads and take over a thread, making it less desirable for the more casual listener to contribute to.

YKWYA posted:

Do you even have a grasp of the English language?

posted:

What on earth are you talking about? Are you the master of Contradiction as well as Holy Warrior?

posted:

Good. Glad you understand that. As for me getting my knickers in a twist, what pisses me off is when I ask for something politely and then get a 'chip on the shoulder reponse' from someone like you when there was no need for it.

posted:

Ah, the 'out of context' argument. The preserve of people everywhere losing the argument. You cant take OFF TOPIC EXTRANEOUS posts out of context.

posted:

Not upset. Pissed off that you go into a thread and take it over, completely derailing it, while calling other peoples views ignorant and bullshit, and then get pissy when a Mod asks you to scale it back.

posted:

I watched that thread for long enough waiting for it to fizzle out, but it didnt, so first step was to ask politey. For reasons that are pretty obvious. Especially if it is true that you are a Moderator yourself. Heres what I said:

posted:

dobyblue - I appreciate that you may have a lot of knowlege about different formats, but the fact is that most people will not notice the difference and will have only listened to PHM on CD in the first place, and that is the common standard for them. Myself included. So, thank you for your insight, but I am going to ask you to cool it on this debate, in this thread from now on. Take it to Music or Audio Gear if you want to continue, there may be threads there where this is more appropriate.

Thanks...

Which part of that bold dont you understand?

posted:

MODS - feel free to merge whatever posts you like into the new subforum. I don't see how any of this is against forum rules just because you happen to only listen to CD, but would be happy to have the relevant sections explained to better understand in the future.

YKWYA posted:

At least I grasp the meaning of 'Extraneous'. Which is why I asked you too cut it out in the first place. Its a fucking NEWS thread. I have been around long enough to know what gets commented on in News threads - but again, I guess its down to your arrogance of audio/video techonlogies that you now think you can lecture me on the rules? So what you are really telling me is posts like this

<snip>
<snip>

Dont meet the definition of Extraneous to an update from Trent that PHM will be re-released? Furthermore, there already being a thread talking about possible re-issues long before this was announced. Did you take a look around the forums before landing on the front page, clicking the link and proceeding to dominate the thread?

voices1 posted:

Fucking sweet,now when is The Fragile going to be re-released?

AD10 posted:

WOOOO! I need to get a turntable now!

alexmorse posted:

Will there be a special edition? Vinyl? DVD-A? Basically I just want to send you more money as a thank you. Maybe I'll buy 10 and give them as gifts.

stax posted:

Trent if you do a super ultra deluxe edition like Ghosts ($300) I will gladly buy it. Pretty Hate Machine deserves it.

RodrigoD posted:

My head is filled with disease... my skin is begging you please... I'm on my hands and knees... I WANT SO MUCH TO BELIEVE.

skinlayers posted:

Swwweeeeeet! Yes Yes Yes!
Now, hopefully someone will put up the money for the 5.1 mix.

skinlayers

mkureth posted:

in a week or two, i wont be surprised if it is announced that 'maybe just once' is included as a bonus track and the entire album is available in 5.1 mix (for remixes). trent would not approve a reissue on this without some bonuses!

kagura_mai posted:

Very cool! Any new NIN coming? Love the shows but also love the albums. Maybe take a break from the road. Can't get enough of the music. Saw you guys in Massachusetts during li in th sk, Awesome show, worth the trips. Look forward to picking up a copy of PHM v2.0

In gassho.

hermitcrab posted:

Excellent. Yankees just get there butts kicked and bamm I see this - puts it all back into perspective. Life is good.

SSquirrel posted:

Also, unlike a lot of remasters, I think Trent will manage to keep some dynamics, while not making them quite as extreme and not introducing digital clipping. The Loudness War is insane. Altho it still makes me grin to think that a few of the tracks on Alice in Chains "Dirt" have stickers at the radio station reminding people to turn the volume down X amount when they play them

Estorium posted:

Oh my word. I have to have this on Vinyl. Have to.

How many copies will be made available on Vinyl?

dolemite posted:

How did they approach you with this? Were you surprised? Bonus tracks? argghh!!!!

ultraago posted:

NINcompoop posted:

MULTI-TRACKSSSSS???? Wouldn't THAT be NICEEEE???

FUCK YEAH, TRENT!

I'd type in more lower-case letters BUT I'M TOO GODDAMNED EXCITED!

LOL!

SAME THOUGTHS! MULTITRACKS PLEASE!

Churchy posted:

I'll hold off for the minute just in case any surprise deluxe packages are announced. If not then this is being had straight away!

Angus posted:

I'm curious to hear whatever changes/improvements have been made.

Accoun posted:

If the remasters are going to be clipping-free, then it's gonna be awesome!

And are other remasters even possible? While PHM and TDS have already good soud IMO, "Broken" could be done better and it's only one that I'm looking forward to hearing (the rest would be a nice addition, but not really needed)...

c! posted:

GREAT!!!!!

I'm just a bit concerned about these remastered versions... no doubt about Trent and Tom's abilities. Just hope it's not just "louder."


Great news anyway! I'm happy that there are still people in the "business" willing to team-up (as opposed to fucking them up) with artists to make magic happen.

MUST-HAVE-VINYL

m00000d posted:

This is all great (I mean REALLY FUCKING GREAT!) but what about the Fragile re-release?

Jruthless posted:

Okay... First Downward Spiral and now Pretty Hate Machine. Re-release Fragile already! Be sure to include Ten Mile High, The New Flesh, AND Please w/ Appendage. If I'm forgetting anything please chime in folks. This is something that is long overdue.

mcallister1977 posted:

Please release this in Hi-rez blu-ray audio. Waiting on my Social Network Blu-ray audio, since DVD-A and SACD have become pretty much obsolete the release of PHM on Blu-ray could be a huge step in getting quality sound back into people homes, not this MP3 bullshit everywhere. I mean who doesn't have a blu-ray player.

Can't wait either way love this disc

dobyblue posted:

Vivavicen posted:

These are great news!! I hope it sounds fucking loud and noisy!!

Why, is your volume function broken on your stereo? I hope it doesn't sound loud at all, I hope it has full dynamic range with a couple dB's headroom, which is the way CD's were meant to be done.

All this dynamic range compression on today's music sucks the fucking life right out of the music and makes it sound like shit. Remastering usually means the dynamics are squashed and it sounds nowhere near as good as the original recording, see Telephantasm for the most recent example.

Here's Outshined from the 1991 Badmotorfinger CD followed by the 2010 Telephantasm version.

1991 Badmotorfinger



2010 Telephantasm



The vinyl is shit too, done from the same dynamically challenged masters the CD's were created with. I returned my "limited edition" already, not spending $80 on that kife.

Myklbn posted:

Love the new artwork. I'm really curious to hear how it sounds, too. Pretty Hate Machine was very much "of it's time". In other words it sounds a little dated...as does a lot of 80s music. Product of the technology of the time, I suppose. The song-writing is top-notch, of course, and I'd rate it and "With Teeth" as the two albums that are good to introduce a new fan to NIN with.

Can't wait to get it!

If it's just re-mastered and not re-recorded then it will sound exactly the same as far as the sound of the 80's goes.

skinlayers posted:

Swwweeeeeet! Yes Yes Yes!
Now, hopefully someone will put up the money for the 5.1 mix.

skinlayers

Fuck yeah, and let's hope it's either on DVD-A, Blu-ray or SACD. It would be a shame to do a 5.1 mix and only deliver it on DVD-Video with lossy 448 Kbps Dolby. Hope they might add a Blu-ray SKU like they did with The Social Network OST.

SSquirrel posted:

Also, unlike a lot of remasters, I think Trent will manage to keep some dynamics, while not making them quite as extreme and not introducing digital clipping. The Loudness War is insane. Altho it still makes me grin to think that a few of the tracks on Alice in Chains "Dirt" have stickers at the radio station reminding people to turn the volume down X amount when they play them

I hope so, but Year Zero wasn't very dynamic at all. PHM sounds awesome to me from a mastering standpoint, so I hope they don't apply ANY drc or limiting at all.

The Beatles Mono boxset is the best remastering job I've seen in a while.

SardoNumspa posted:

Excellent news. Will be picking this up. I always thought the original album sounded a bit 'quiet'. Hopefully this will have a more pumped up sound

God I hope not, my volume control works fine on my stereo.

c! posted:

GREAT!!!!!

I'm just a bit concerned about these remastered versions... no doubt about Trent and Tom's abilities. Just hope it's not just "louder."

Amen brother.

nihilmatters posted:

Tom Baker has mastered some excellent albums...

[precisionmastering.com]

With Teeth and Year Zero were not so great - [www.dr.loudness-war.info]

I mean, they were great albums, but the mastering was not so great. The Social Network looks really good though, even in .mp3 format. Hopefully my Blu-ray will arrive today.

deadblue posted:

hey douche! those songs you are referring to are fucking amazing! those songs ARE phm!you ungrateful douche!!! (jk with the whole douche thing)

Haha, but you're bang on the money with those songs, they're all fucking fantastic. PHM is perfect.

mcallister1977 posted:

Please release this in Hi-rez blu-ray audio. Waiting on my Social Network Blu-ray audio, since DVD-A and SACD have become pretty much obsolete the release of PHM on Blu-ray could be a huge step in getting quality sound back into people homes, not this MP3 bullshit everywhere. I mean who doesn't have a blu-ray player.

Can't wait either way love this disc

You rock!!!! And with over 22 million Blu-ray players in US homes I fully agree, this is the best format for music.

mjwood407 posted:

Trent, if you are out there...

Will there be a 5.1 remixed version like you did with The Downward Spiral?

Thanks!

Please, please, please! It is encouraging to see so many people looking for this.

SSquirrel posted:

As far as the Fragile reissue, I'm thinking Bicycle is probably easier to work with than the company he left on, what sounded like, pretty bad terms. We'll see The Fragile re-released when it can happen I'm sure.

I thought the DE was coming through Artists in Residence, which should mean 24/192 surround Blu-ray as well as other formats.

noneofthem posted:

rossthfc posted:

Great news because I absolutely love this album!!!

But can can someone explain to me what re mastering actually involves (to the original tracks) ?

FROM WIKIPEDIA [goo.gl]

Mastering, a form of audio post-production, is the process of preparing and transferring recorded audio from a source containing the final mix to a data storage device (the master); the source from which all copies will be produced (via methods such as pressing, duplication or replication). Recently, the format choice includes using digital masters although analog masters, such as audio tapes, are still being used by the manufacturing industry and by a few engineers who have chosen to specialize in analog mastering.

The source material, ideally at the original resolution, is processed using equalization, compression, limiting, noise reduction and other processes. More tasks, such as editing, pre-gapping, leveling, fading in and out, noise reduction and other signal restoration and enhancement processes can be applied as part of the mastering stage. This step prepares the music for either digital or analog, e.g. vinyl, replication. The source material is put in the proper order, commonly referred to as assembly or (track) sequencing.
If the material is destined for vinyl release, additional processing, such as dynamic range reduction, frequency dependent stereo–to–mono fold-down and equalization, may be applied to compensate for the limitations of that medium. Finally, for compact disc release, Start of Track, End of Track, and Indexes are defined for disc navigation. Subsequently, it is rendered either to a physical medium, such as a CD-R or DVD-R, or to a DDP file set, the standard method of secure delivery for CD and DVD replication masters. The specific medium varies, depending on the intended release format of the final product. For digital audio releases, there is more than one possible master media, chosen based on replication factory requirements or record label security concerns. Regardless of what delivery method is chosen, the replicator will transfer the audio to a glass master that will generate metal stampers for replication.
The process of audio mastering varies depending on the specific needs of the audio to be processed. Mastering engineers need to examine the types of input media, the expectations of the source producer or recipient, the limitations of the end medium and process the subject accordingly. General rules of thumb can rarely be applied.
Steps of the process typically include but are not limited to the following:
Transferring the recorded audio tracks into the Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) (optional).
Sequence the separate songs or tracks (the spaces in between) as they will appear on the final release.
Process or "sweeten" audio to maximize the sound quality for its particular medium (e.g. applying specific EQ for vinyl)
Transfer the audio to the final master format (i.e., CD-ROM, half-inch reel tape, PCM 1630 U-matic tape, etc.).
Examples of possible actions taken during mastering:
Editing minor flaws
Applying noise reduction to eliminate clicks, dropouts, hum and hiss
Adjusting stereo width
Adding ambience
Equalize audio across tracks
Adjust volume
Dynamic range expansion or compression
Peak limit

jeff_oberste posted:

I would really like a Blu-ray version of the remaster... or at least hi-rez .WAV files.

alucard69 posted:

it appears there won't be any 5.1 version... Too bad.

twomcs posted:

Will we ever get Blu-ray audio releases??????

jageraholic posted:

Can we have more dual disc CDs with Dolby 5.1 surround versions. Specifically for Pretty Hate Machine, Year Zero and definitely for the Fragile.

slaughterintheair posted:

I want to know if the vinyl is going to be a direct from tape to console to tape to vinyl remaster pressing, or some digitally mastered version of the tapes pressed to vinyl. Undigitized audio would make the vinyl worth buying.

Mike_Osadciw posted:

A BLU-RAY AUDIO-ONLY release would be fantastic!

The disc should not be "single volume" loud. I'm hoping that going back to the original mixes, there will be improved dynamic range and all dynamics preserved on the BD disc.

I hate this "loudness war" that's been happening with CDs. Google it and you can read about it anywhere.

I'm still a 2-channel guy, so uncompressed PCM @ 24/48 minimum would be my wish.

Use the 2-channel analogue outputs from my Blu-ray player and we're ready to go!

While we all purchase the best system we can afford and mate the best components we can for the best sound, there are some of us that still own the upper end of hifi systems...and are crying for some high-rez content of our favourite artists (um...Nine Inch Nails!!) Some of us, including myself, spend north of $30,000 on a system with carefully selected components.

I prefer a strong performance up front and the 2-channel mix can absolutely wrap sounds around you without the use of phony surround processing (not to mention that surround sound equipment - preamp/processors/receivers - all sound very inferior to a good 2 channel preamp with a helluva good volume control.

If there was a 5.1 channel option on the disc, it would be interesting to listen to as an alternative "view" of the album from Trent.

For the guy who asked for Dualdisc, that's a dead format as is stand-alone DVD-A and SACD.

BLU-RAY AUDIO is the next (and hopefully final) high-resolution format to bring the 2-channel masters into the home.

Now if only the sound quality of those two-channel mixdowns could be done as best as possible...

I can't wait for November!!

Sheepdean posted:

botleysmith posted:

No need for ANY high-def physical format. Just torrent the lossless 24-bit audio and let us audiophiles sort out how we want to listen to it ourselves.

Burn the files on a DVD or BD-R and listen on your home system; convert into Apple Lossless for iTunes so you can put those suckers on your iPod/iPhone/iPad (yep, they all do 24-bit), surf em up your ass if you want. Only thing those formats do is confuse 99% of listeners.

For those without computer, or ability to burn to a HD medium? I don't, and don't plan to have, a BD drive on this computer. Sure, I'll add one when I upgrade, but spending that much money so I can play my movies and music on a smaller screen and worse sound system seems kinda pointless. So, I can't burn a BD.
Also, not all of us have products preceded by an "i", because we didn't feel like spending a fuckload more money on a product because it's white and has the most annoying control method known to man (seriously, all clickwheels after iPod v1.0 suck).
There is obviously a reason for not putting PHM on BD for this release, most likely because Bicycle has never released anything as one. So, they'd have to bring in a third party, or Trent would have to pay more. Neither are going to be very fun, and Trent routinely assumes his fans will be thankful for the amazing things he keeps churning out, instead of being greedy and demanding that everything must have more. If it came on BD, people would complain that it was taking away from the original, I assure you. Just buy the damn music and enjoy it. Or don't. Go listen to Soft Cell, a huge influence on PHM and their albums have been re-released so many times I gave up counting.

botleysmith posted:

Sheepdean posted:

botleysmith posted:

No need for ANY high-def physical format. Just torrent the lossless 24-bit audio and let us audiophiles sort out how we want to listen to it ourselves.

Burn the files on a DVD or BD-R and listen on your home system; convert into Apple Lossless for iTunes so you can put those suckers on your iPod/iPhone/iPad (yep, they all do 24-bit), surf em up your ass if you want. Only thing those formats do is confuse 99% of listeners.

For those without computer, or ability to burn to a HD medium? I don't, and don't plan to have, a BD drive on this computer. Sure, I'll add one when I upgrade, but spending that much money so I can play my movies and music on a smaller screen and worse sound system seems kinda pointless. So, I can't burn a BD.

So burn a DVD-R... just about every decent player on the market will play .WAV files with no problem, and 45 minutes of lossless audio is hardly going to fill even a single-layer disc on its own. Even if you have kids and a job, that's dead simple to figure out. Certainly more so than hooking up a surround sound system properly.

Mike_Osadciw posted:

I never got into the "iAnything" because I could care less. I would rather not be connected 100% of the time to everything. Talk about never giving your brain a rest and being a slave to your electronics. I'm watching everyone around me get consumed in this technology and becoming anti-social. It's depressing and I'm fearing what's going to happen with the current generation of kids who will eventually be running our world.

Anyways, these iPod docs and everything else have the worst digital to analogue converters (DACs) in them. Any attempt to get high resolution from them is useless. Dedicated components that are designed well are the only method. There are a large handful of CD players and external DACs that can make a 16-bit CD sound good. You won't get that from any portable device.

Your and Sheepdean's own personal iPod hatred aside, that is how a huge number of people listen to music now. I think they sound great, not through Apple's shitty earbud headphones obviously. Getting into external DACs and so on is totally overkill for the average listener... bottom line is that 24-bit audio sounds better than the same thing on a CD, even those CDs that are up-converted and played through the best system around — and that difference is noticeable even on portables.

At the end of the day, it's up to the artist to insist on delivering that standard of high quality to their fans; no record company will bother with it unless they can make a buck selling some ridiculous format copy-protected up the yin-yang with a sticker on the front proclaiming its own greatness.

urvile posted:

I'm sad it won't be available as a deluxe set.

dobyblue posted:

botleysmith posted:

Only thing those formats do is confuse 99% of listeners.

That's incorrect, over 20% of US households now own a Blu-ray player. What's confusing about inserting a disc and pressing PLAY?

botleysmith posted:

So burn a DVD-R... just about every decent player on the market will play .WAV files with no problem, and 45 minutes of lossless audio is hardly going to fill even a single-layer disc on its own. Even if you have kids and a job, that's dead simple to figure out. Certainly more so than hooking up a surround sound system properly.

Really? Plug HDMI from Blu-ray to receiver. Plug LEFT speaker into LEFT, RIGHT into RIGHT, CENTRE into CENTRE, LEFT SURROUND into LEFT SURROUND, RIGHT SURROUND into RIGHT SURROUND, plug in power, press POWER, press "BD", press PLAY. Most HTiB's (cringe) are colour-coded and have proprietary connectors so you don't have to understand banana plugs or crimp your connections.

botleysmith posted:

Your and Sheepdean's own personal iPod hatred aside, that is how a huge number of people listen to music now. I think they sound great

They don't though, regardless of your headphones, it's still lossy, usually devoid of any dynamics worth mentioning, brickwalled and limited up the yazoo and usually 128 Kbps. It's quite easily discernable from CD quality, which is why CD is still the #1 selling format for albums substantially ahead of digital downloads. In 2010 individual track sales of DD's have finally evened off, which is great news, hopefully record companies start to wonder why and figure out the detrimental effect iTunes has had on music.

botleysmith posted:

bottom line is that 24-bit audio sounds better than the same thing on a CD, even those CDs that are up-converted and played through the best system around — and that difference is noticeable even on portables.

No chance, 24-bit on a portable doesn't hold a candle to 16-bit on a decent CD player. The problem with CD is that most people aren't playing them on CD players anymore, the DAC's are designed around 24-bit and 48/96/192kHz playback, not 44.1 kHz. On a properly set-up system I would be surprised if 5% of people off the street could tell the difference between a 16/44.1 and 24/96 stereo track. Most people are so used to crappy .mp3 dynamic-free crap these days the don't know what to listen for. I would agree that if you spent a couple hours pointing out the differences and what specifically to listen for (increased presence, more resolved silibance, etc) that the number might grown slightly, but usually it's highly trained ears that will notice the difference. In addition this would only apply if they were mastered the same way, otherwise I'll take a well-mastered 16-bit track over a typical 2010-mastered 24-bit track any day of the week, although usually the high rez stuff (and vinyl) doesn't succumb to the same mastering tools as iTunes and CD releases because they know their target audience.

blaylock posted:

At the end of the day, it's up to the artist to insist on delivering that standard of high quality to their fans; no record company will bother with it unless they can make a buck selling some ridiculous format copy-protected up the yin-yang with a sticker on the front proclaiming its own greatness.

Blu-ray doesn't need stickers to proclaim its own greatness, the proof is in the pudding. But you're right, it's up to the artist to release on Blu-ray right now, until the labels realize the potential of the format. Tom Petty's Damn The Torpedoes comes out in 10 days on Blu-ray with 5.1 24/96 PCM goodness, can't wait, hope he continues. Guys like Trent, Neil Young, Tom Petty, they know where it's at. I have no doubt this will not be the last release of PHM and we'll get a deluxe edition within the next couple years.

Neil Young posted:

iTunes has turned music into wallpaper.

Amen brothah!

botleysmith posted:

dobyblue posted:

botleysmith posted:

Only thing those formats do is confuse 99% of listeners.

That's incorrect, over 20% of US households now own a Blu-ray player. What's confusing about inserting a disc and pressing PLAY?

Nothing. I'm happy that Blu-ray audio is taking off. The big names you mentioned releasing their new albums in that format (because they care about audio quality) are some of my heroes. It's the greatest development in consumer audio since DVD surround formats made home theatre commonplace. But it took a hell of a lot of DualDisc, DTS-CD, SACD, HD-DVD format war bullshit to get us there, and pretty soon physical media will stop being relevant altogether. In the end, all those discs do is hold files. The files are what I want, not the discs themselves.

dobyblue posted:

botleysmith posted:

Even if you have kids and a job, (burning a DVD-R)'s dead simple to figure out. Certainly more so than hooking up a surround sound system properly.

Really?

I guarantee you that most people just put all six speakers around the TV so they don't have to run wires all around the room, or don't bother to balance levels, or what have you. There are other hurdles. You and I are both in the category of understanding what surround sound is for, and why it exists; to most people it's just a status symbol. I was demonstrating a point about how, if you really want to hear it, you'll put up with a bit of a fight to get access to great sound — and if you can do that, you can do without buying physical media.

dobyblue posted:

botleysmith posted:

Your and Sheepdean's own personal iPod hatred aside, that is how a huge number of people listen to music now. I think they sound great

They don't though, regardless of your headphones, it's still lossy, usually devoid of any dynamics worth mentioning, brickwalled and limited up the yazoo and usually 128 Kbps. It's quite easily discernable from CD quality

Only if you download indiscriminately. I only buy CDs to rip lossless audio from them, hardly ever playing them in a dedicated CD player. Even if I do keep them around afterwards, it's only as a backup. Again, they're just discs with files on them. Why not skip a step and download the lossless files, back them up to another hard disk if you want? Then you can play them anywhere, even your standalone player if you burn a CD-R.

dobyblue posted:

botleysmith posted:

bottom line is that 24-bit audio sounds better than the same thing on a CD, even those CDs that are up-converted and played through the best system around — and that difference is noticeable even on portables.

No chance...

What's your point? That other people can't tell a difference, and so I shouldn't ever listen to lossless audio on an iPod? Thanks, but I'll take my 24-bit albums on the go and listen wherever I want to listen to them, because I CAN hear a difference. Have you tried it? Why are you so sure there's no contest between portable 24-bit audio and a good CD player? There is no "typical" 24-bit track, it either sounds great and preserves everything it should or there's something wrong with it. Same with 16-bit, but where the better option exists, I'll take it and listen to it wherever I can.

blaylock posted:

Neil Young posted:

iTunes has turned music into wallpaper.

Amen brothah!

No, iTunes has given me unfettered access to my entire library of music in the best quality ever available, on every device I have in my home. Lazy people who like quick-fix downloads are to blame for their own inferior music listening experiences.

Mike_Osadciw posted:

On sound quality of NIN albums, physical versus virtual media, this is the summary of the below, reponding to a number of posts:

a) setting up speakers and listening chair correctly improves the listening experience dramatically without the need to invest in any new audio gear.

b) taking the leap investing in some high quality audio components will improve the resolution

c) 16-bit CD sounds better on a well designed CD player through well designed audio components than the same content in 24-bit played back on a portable music device

d) physical media is an important part of pride & ownership of your artist's favourite work (music/film/book/visual art)

e) physical media can deliver higher resolution audio in the home for an improved audio experience in well designed components, should come with a digital copy to enjoy on portable devices, and still retain pride in ownership for the collector


...and for the longer response:

botleysmith posted:

I'm happy that Blu-ray audio is taking off. The big names you mentioned releasing their new albums in that format ...it took a hell of a lot of DualDisc, DTS-CD, SACD, HD-DVD format war bullshit to get us there, and pretty soon physical media will stop being relevant altogether. In the end, all those discs do is hold files. The files are what I want, not the discs themselves.

I don't just want files. I don't want to live in a virtual world. I still prefer physical media for ownership because paying money to receive a file that I cannot put in my hands feels "empty".

I enjoy my library of books in my house. I enjoy my collection of DVDs and Blu-rays (3000+ of them) even though I don't watch all of them - but I take pride in adding them to my collection because they are important to me. I like having my own personal "film vault" to go to and grab a movie whenever I want. I do not want to imagine a future where I had to purchase 3000 movies as a file only going on a hard drive. What happens if the hard drive fails and I lose everything? Not to mention the time it would take to have all of these files downloaded again...

If physical media disappeared, where is the fun of collector's sets? Say goodbye to all of that. The movie industry has it right. They offer the physical HD copy and a download/digital copy for mobile devices. DVD and BD sales are huge and collector's sets still fly off the retailer's shelves.

Let's turn to the music side: Reznor had his collector's sets of GHOSTS with what, 2 or 3 thousand copies sold out in two days? If physical media didn't exist, would I pay $300 for a digital file of his signature on digital version of the booklet? Hell no.

There's something to be said about owning a piece of the artist's work. That's why people seek classic paintings - originals or prints. It's the presence of the artist in the room, not just by the music, but by the liners and artwork in the CD case or vinyl - something you will never enjoy digitally - even on an iPad.

botleysmith posted:

I guarantee you that most people just put all six speakers around the TV so they don't have to run wires all around the room, or don't bother to balance levels, or what have you. There are other hurdles. You and I are both in the category of understanding what surround sound is for, and why it exists; to most people it's just a status symbol. I was demonstrating a point about how, if you really want to hear it, you'll put up with a bit of a fight to get access to great sound — and if you can do that, you can do without buying physical media.

Surround sound is not a status - it's entertainment. Sure, back in the day it may have been. We early adopters who purchased hundreds of laserdiscs with Dolby Digital or DTS for the discrete surround recordings were pushing the edge of home surround when everyone was still buying VHS with 2-ch surround. We also get the technology rolling for the masses. Without our interest, the technology can fizzle out. Now surround is accessible to everyone. It's on almost all film media and it has been accepted with great enjoyment. Surround on music has not had the same effect unless it is concert material with video. I am mixed on the surround music because it doesn't sound good if speakers aren't set up correctly and if the speakers aren't identical all around. The mainstream may find it "fun" using different speakers, but in my experience and preference - it's a disaster. I do use equal speakers all the way around, with each speaker equi-distant from my listening position because:

1) I know how to do it.
2) I have a room that I've dedicated to do it.
3) I care to do it.

It's all about preserving the art. But then, most people out there haven't even heard 2-channel set up correctly in their room. Do you think most people in this forum have heard how "surrounding" Broken, The Downward Spiral, and The Fragile sound in 2-ch when sitting between their two speakers and themselves on an equilateral triangle position using the appropriate toe-in?

Below are widely accepted methods for setting up speaker/listening area:

For 2-ch:


For 5-ch:


DTS, the company that provides most of the audio encoding on Blu-ray, has several recommendations on their website here: Various Speaker Layouts for Surround Systems

Of course, what one really wants to know is the layout that the artist used when creating the content. While most movies are made on a soundstage, I've been fortunate enough to see (and hear) large soundstage at Todd-AO and smaller audio rooms in the studio houses (the latter subscribing to the 30 degrees off centre for the front, and between 110-130 degrees off centre for the surround channels.

When I was younger and actually read about the stuff you can discover in a two-channel recording just by setting yourself correctly between two speakers, I was amazed at all of the things I have never heard before. It's like a new interpretation of the music. I never knew that the singer's voice was located directly between the two speakers with such pinpoint imaging...and can rotate around the room or be inside your head. Speaker and listener position is far more effective than any cable or component upgrade - and it doesn't cost anything to do!! After that's corrected, then if anyone wants to invest in better electronics for more resolution, then that's their choice.

Since most people don't read user manuals, it would be far more effective if an music artist such as Trent had a tab on his website titled "experience" or something...that pretty much says "want to enjoy my music the best way? For two channel set your speakers and listening chair up this way. For 5.1, leave your 2-channel speakers and chair where they are and add speakers here, here, and here at these distances from your ears." Given the amount of people on this forum, and how much influence he has on his listening community, this would EDUCATE people who would have never even thought if there was an optimum way to listen to music in the home. After all, Trent put in all that effort to layer his music so intricately...why should he let that time go to waste? Tell people about it!!

posted:

[Sound sucks] [o]nly if you download indiscriminately.

Agreed. I believe high res files are accessable via download, and in the case of The Slip I have not heard the 24/96 version, mainly because I don't have a method to getting it to my DACs. PS Audio has recently come out with a device that would help this...but it doesn't interest me right now because physical media is still available and I don't want to store all of my music.

[www.psaudio.com]

posted:

...I shouldn't ever listen to lossless audio on an iPod? Thanks, but I'll take my 24-bit albums on the go and listen wherever I want to listen to them, because I CAN hear a difference. Have you tried it? Why are you so sure there's no contest between portable 24-bit audio and a good CD player? There is no "typical" 24-bit track, it either sounds great and preserves everything it should or there's something wrong with it. Same with 16-bit, but where the better option exists, I'll take it and listen to it wherever I can.

I think the point that was trying to be made is that listening to 24-bit on a portable device through earphones or even a docking station on a home stereo will not sound as good as a well designed CD player playing back 16-bit CD content through the player's own 24-bit DACS. Obviously, the CD has been uprez'd in hopes of making it sound a bit more analogue...but it's well known that most CD players out there can't reproduce the dynamics of 16-bit software...save for the CD player manufacterers that do it right. Plus, you have the rest of the stereo components. I was an A/V receiver guy way back when because that's all I knew. Well, then I put dedicated power amplifiers using the preouts of the receiver and realized how wimpy receiver amps are. Then I bought a 2-channel preamp with home theater bypass and realized how absolutely VEILED the preamp section in receivers are. Then I opted to repleace a great pair of speakers with an even better pair of speakers (Dunlavy SC-IV/A) and there was no going back - ever. I'm in pure Nine Inch Nails audio nirvana.

YKWYA posted:

I can forsee there being some wallpapers etc released, but I doubt there will be a mini site ala TDS DE, or it would have been up by now - but those are questions that will answer themsleves in due course.

Whether this will be available for remix I doubt, due to the ownership wrangling. But again, this will become clear once it is released.

Just a little patience, yeeeeeaaah eh yeahhhhhh, just a little.....

posted:

Ill tell you whats fucking nonsense. You came here to lecture people about audio/video techonology.

posted:

Therefore again, I was somehow beneath you

posted:

So everything else about mastering properly from the original recording is also EXTRANEOUS because everyone has only heard the CD.

posted:

Over two pages I watched you go on and on and on and on and.....

posted:

dobyblue posted:

The bullshit comment had nothing to do with someone else’s views, it was a satirical response to the “bullshit” comment that was quoted to my post, but of course when you quote out of context you conveniently miss those little details. There was nothing abrasive or insulting about that post at all and I am sure botleysmith didn’t take it in the manner you’re suggesting either.

Are you seriously suggesting now that there is nothing abrasive or insutling about 'bullshit' in capitals? Are you really scraping your barrel that much?

botleysmith posted:

dobyblue posted:

Digital downloads for high resolution are just not at the point where they're feasible yet, and they remove all the options Blu-ray adds to the mix.

Bullshit: [www.paulmccartney.com]

$30 gets you pretty much all of the audio/video content you listed that a physical Blu-ray would offer... in one deluxe digital download

dobyblue posted:

BULLSHIT!!!! That's a stereo audio-only 24/96 download, how does that compare at all to the Blu-ray SKU I listed?

dobyblue posted:

For PHM for example:

Pretty Hate Machine: Deluxe Edition [Blu-ray]
*entire album in 24/192 5.1 remastered from the original master tapes
*entire album in 24/192 stereo remastered from the original master tapes
*all music videos remastered to high definition (where source material allows) with new 24-bit audio
*live performance footage from 1990~1991 remastered
*archived interview footage
*new interviews about the remastering process and making the Deluxe Edition
*all b-sides remastered from the original master tapes to 24/192 stereo
*CD "digital copy" included with no drm
*voucher to download 24/96 .flac files of the stereo tracks
*MSRP $29.99 (Amazon pre-order price $24.99)

This shits all over anything digital downloads can do.

OnslaughtSix posted:

I hope you just made all that shit up.

I'm tired of Blu-Ray getting all the cool bonus shit. Fuck you people.

posted:

botleysmith reacted in the way he did because I am sure he could hold is own in a debate about the details of audio (in the appropriate fucking place).

posted:

I watched that thread for long enough waiting for it to fizzle out, but it didn’t

posted:

Now who is being creative? Answer the fucking question. Which part of what I said dont you understand? You cant can you? And, as I said before, you were more interested because YOU thought I was telling you to cool it because you thought this, to be clear:

dobyblue posted:

I don't see how any of this is against forum rules just because you happen to only listen to CD,

And therefore you got just as pissy with me as you did with everyone else who didnt accept your Audio quality wisdom. It had fuck all to do with explaing to the rules to you. You thought I was telling you to take it to the APPROPRIATE forum because I had some preference for listening to CD. Thats why. And again, you are wrong. Thats the 'kicker' to quote you again? You are being disingenuous trying to make out that all you were after was a little clarification. You fucking knew what I asked, yet decided to continue anyway, and just as you had argued with everyone else on your passionate audio topic you were, and are going to continue arguing with me in just the same manner.