Pink Floyd 1974-11-16 d2t11

[Five]

there is some dispute over the last track "Echoes" on this set... there appears to have been some noise added in the extreme highs then a little below that looks like parapets from a castle... which means lossy! specifically, it looks like ATRAC1- DSP Type-R (2001) - [292 kbit/s] (some pics here (http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8003)).

I'm looking for some more opinions on this one

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/3965/pf19741116d2t112sec10bq.th.gif (http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pf19741116d2t112sec10bq.gif) http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/2552/pf19741116d2t112sec28yp.th.gif (http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pf19741116d2t112sec28yp.gif) http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/6687/echoessonicgramvi9fj.th.jpg (http://img50.imageshack.us/my.php?image=echoessonicgramvi9fj.jpg)

long sample (9:37.259 to 12:31.664):
http://rapidshare.de/files/15370935/pf1974-11-16d2t11wrsample1.flac.html

short sample (the first 20 seconds of the above sample):
http://rapidshare.de/files/15370998/pf1974-11-16d2t11wrsample2.flac.html

complete show:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=19071

It looks unmistakably lossy to me... please post your opinions about it

[LocalHero]

I assume you took this from the Winston "Remaster" :rolleyes: .

All I can say is that I have both listened to this version of Echoes and done my own spectral view and frequency analysis and I am positive it is lossy. Pretty easy to detect.

[LocalHero]

And here we go...another spectral view. Note the area in the red circle.

http://www.crsid.com/whatitis/spectral.bmp

[WinstonRemaster]

Do any of you own Samplitude?

[Five]

yes, it is the Winston Remasters " Pink Floyd 1974-11-16 BBC Completely Revisited (FLAC)"

I have to pull it

please still post opinions on what you can see here

[LocalHero]

Yea, I don't want to be the bad guy, but my opinion is that the last track is lossy. :cool:

[WinstonRemaster]

Playback using Samplitude Spectrogram shows sonic activity up to 22000hz .. which is identical to the PreFM SBD.. I guess I just don't see it.

Well thats the last "bootleg" source audio I will ever use.

Winston

[LocalHero]

Forget all of the technical jabber for a few moments and just listen to the song itself.

[WinstonRemaster]

Forget all of the technical jabber for a few moments and just listen to the song itself.

Trust me .. I have.. alot.

I dont see it .. or hear it.. but what do I know..

I'll take your word for it.

Winston

[LocalHero]

Also to clarify, there are no unprocessed versions of Echoes from 1974-11-16 in circulation. I was listening to Echoes from "A Strange One" with headphones, and although it didn't sound as lossy as the other version, there were still some compression artifacts audible.

Also, some people claim that "some sort of processing technique has been used" on it, and the search continues...

[Five]

this is one that got under the radar at STG... the final verdict there was that it was over nr'ed as I recall. Everybody could hear there was something wrong of a digital sort but back then we were relying more on FA for detection... and this version has some noise added at the very top which creates some activity in the highest highs. How/why I'm not sure.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2788/pf19741116d2t112sec34av.th.gif (http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pf19741116d2t112sec34av.gif)

it is not only the bootlegs that are turning up lossy of course. The true lowgens are the best raw materials out there mostly every time.

Thanks for understanding WR your work is great it is unfortunate that this bad source got into the set.

[PaulHarald]

When did I say anything here about Sirene009?

But however, I already clarified this in a previous post. Sirene used the version of Echoes from a Strange One for their release. Why would you compare them when they are the same?

Instead compare the version from "A Strange One" or Sirene 009 to the version found on this release.

Yeah, that was my bad - sorry for the mixup.

...so the "least lossy" version is the STG one? (Which is the one Winston used for this "completely revisited" version).

...or is the one from "Strange One" the least lossy but still not lossless?

I feel really stupid now but had to ask.

[LocalHero]

Yeah, that was my bad - sorry for the mixup.

...so the "least lossy" version is the STG one? (Which is the one Winston used for this "completely revisited" version).

No, the STG/Winston one is the lossy one shown in this thread. That is why the torrent was removed.

...or is the one from "Strange One" the least lossy but still not lossless?

I have never actually had the time to test out the version from a "Strange One" but I will do that ASAP and post back with the results. Winston does not want to use this one (I think) because people claim that it is processed in some way.

[PaulHarald]

Thanks for the info. It is a great remaster Winston! Hope you will share it again in some kind of altered way. The "Strange One" version of Echoes does sound better I must admit. I would not blow any whistles if you used it :-)

[LocalHero]

I would not blow any whistles if you used it :-)

You wouldn't happen to be referring to certain New Orleans audience recordings that are ever so slightly tainted by certain whistle noises, would you? :lol

[PaulHarald]

:lol indeed. Nice one.

[LocalHero]

I just checked Echoes from a Strange One and it is lossy too !!

I never expected that... :wtf:

[PaulHarald]

That's too bad. It still sounds great though!

I guess info on Echoes from this date will continue to be hazy until someone comes up with some proper lineage info and/or a true lossless version.

[WinstonRemaster]

So there is no SBD echoes source circulating that is not lossy?

Winston

[LocalHero]

So there is no SBD echoes source circulating that is not lossy?

Winston

From what I see, there are no SBD Echoes from 1974-11-16 that are either not lossy or heavily processed. :(

god knowns where the masters are.