• Tom Petty Download At 24 bit / 48 kHz Plus CA Recommendation

    Not only is the new Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers release Mojo available for download at 24 bit /48 kHz, but Tom's Producer and Engineer Ryan Ulyate recommends Computer Audiophile as, "A very good resource for information on Hi-End computer audio and DACs." I have to say this is really neat news for me and I hope it's just as neat for the CA readers and contributors. I encourage everyone considering Tom's new album to purchases a version that includes the higher resolution download. The 24/48 version has little or no dynamic range compression and sounds pretty good. Plus purchasing this album is a wonderful way to tell everyone from the artists to the producers and engineers that we care about better quality and are willing to spend money to obtain this quality.



     

    The new album Mojo, when purchased as a Blu-ray Disc or Vinyl record, includes a code that unlocks access to the 24 bit / 48 kHz download. The physical Blu-ray Disc contains audio only and offers the exact same 24/48 resolution available as a FLAC download. The download is stereo only while the physical disc contains a DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 surround sound version in addition to the stereo version. I ordered the Blu-ray version directly from Tom Petty's website and received it in about one week. Below are screenshots of the download experience. Notice on the "What is FLAC" page the CA recommendation toward the bottom of the page. In addition to purchasing the disc from Tom's website I also sent a message via the contact form expressing my gratitude for recommending Computer Audiophile and the fact Tom is offering higher resolution downloads. If you feel the same head over to the Tom Petty Contact form to drop them a note.

     
    Click To Enlarge

    mojo-01   mojo-02   mojo-03


      mojo-04   mojo-05   mojo-06



    mojo-07
    Comments 72 Comments
    1. Shadorne's Avatar
      Shadorne -
      24/48 is what they recorded it at, according to Ryan. This is what they hear (the band). So this is what they wanted you to hear.<br />
      <br />
      The more important thing is the lack of compression compared to other major releases and the high quality FLAC download for PC playback. This is what we should all rejoice for.<br />
      <br />
      FWIW: Tom Petty & the Heartbreaker's Live Anthology (60+ tracks) can be found on Blu-ray 24/96. It sounds amazing too.<br />
      <br />
      FWIW: If you have a good DAC then it will sound just as good in 24/48 KHz as it will with a higher sample rate. 24 bits is quite an improvement over 16 bits. Although 16 bits is actually adequate if carefully mastered - as most setups cannot exploit the full dynamic range of 16 bits anyway.<br />
      <br />
      <br />
    1. labjr's Avatar
      labjr -
      <i><br />
      "24/48 is what they recorded it at, according to Ryan."<br />
      </i><br />
      <br />
      This is surprising since Tom Petty was an analog hold out for a long time. Who would record at 48 khz anyway with the low cost of good equipment. Are audiophiles buying better converters than someone like Tom Petty would record with? <br />
      <br />
      <i><br />
      "If you have a good DAC then it will sound just as good in 24/48 KHz as it will with a higher sample rate. 24 bits is quite an improvement over 16 bits. Although 16 bits is actually adequate if carefully mastered - as most setups cannot exploit the full dynamic range of 16 bits anyway."<br />
      </i><br />
      <br />
      What about high frequency detail? 48 Khz is Hardly different than CD.<br />
      <br />
      <br />
      <br />
      <br />
      <br />
    1. Tog's Avatar
      Tog -
      @Eloise - the simple answer would be use a Mac via toslink but then you know that ...and i'm being flippant ..sorry my dear...<br />
      <br />
      @Chris - the Mojo album is pretty good at redbook basic - I gather most of the tracks were one or two take with minimal overdubs...<br />
      <br />
      <br />
      yours, rockin, tog
    1. Shadorne's Avatar
      Shadorne -
      Agreed but it is good enough to get to 20 Khz. CD format was actually very good and well thought out and with a good DAC you are not gaining much if anything by going to higher sample rates.<br />
      <br />
      Since we cannot hear much above 16 to 18 KHz in most cases, the main advantage of "audiophile type high definition tracks" is the much greater dynamic range of 24 bit audio and the much higher quality mastering behind them (produced for a different and more discerning target market). The other high resolution benefits of higher sample rates are a bit over rated IMHO - of course one can brick wall filter more easily/less aggressively but, alternatively, one can also upsample the data before D to A to help with filtering anyway.<br />
      <br />
      <br />
      <br />
    1. labjr's Avatar
      labjr -
      <i><br />
      "but it is good enough to get to 20 Khz.<br />
      </i><br />
      Not really. Dataflow for higher frequency information has always been a problem with CD format. It needs to go much higher than 20 khz.<br />
      <i><br />
      "CD format was actually very good and well thought out and with a good DAC you are not gaining much if anything by going to higher sample rates."<br />
      </i><br />
      <br />
      The CD format was conceived 30 years ago based on theory like you seem to be basing your opinion on. I can hear the difference on my computer speakers. <br />
      <br />
      <br />
    1. Audio_ELF's Avatar
      Audio_ELF -
      <em>The CD format was conceived 30 years ago based on theory like you seem to be basing your opinion on. I can hear the difference on my computer speakers.</em><br />
      The theorm you at referring to actually pre-dates CD (launch) by over 20 years. Afaik, it's not been shown invalid so 48khz IS adequate to express the frequency range audible by humans. Real world performance indicate there may be difference with 96 or 192 rates and 24bit vs 16bit - for some people the increase to 24bit is most important!<br />
      <br />
      Eloise
    1. ziggyzack's Avatar
      ziggyzack -
      What Tom Petty and I really need to do is sit down and work through Nyquist, because although we get the general premise, we don't really understand why it should be. So now, a question which is most probably borne of this misunderstanding...<br />
      <br />
      Ignoring the max frequency issue, doesn't a higher resolution sampling rate allow more accuracy in the shape of a waveform? Does that extra resolution represent only higher frequency information, or does it also provide more accurate timing information about lower frequencies? (or are they the same thing?) Is that what Nyquist says? I.e. the same sound wave recorded at lower resolution will have identical information as a higher resolution recording, but only up to a lower high-frequency limit?<br />
      <br />
      I've heard it said that while human hearing may be limited to around the 20K mark for sine waves, that high frequency content in real music may be perceived differently, and more readily, which appeals to the vague model I have in my head.<br />
      <br />
      If anyone has a clue about what we're getting at, please help! How does this stuff work?
    1. The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
      The Computer Audiophile -
      It's probably best to discuss Nyquist, and issues related, in a separate forum thread. Not every discussion dealing with sample rates over 44.1 needs to go over this information.<br />
      <br />
      Thanks guys.
    1. Shadorne's Avatar
      Shadorne -
      Agreed. <br />
      <br />
      Lets focus on how fantastic it is to have Hi-Res downloadable FLAC files from a major mainstream rock artist (a legend) and a hat tip to Computer Audiophile from his Producer to boot!!!<br />
      <br />
      Wow - that is something worth celebrating. I can't see any reason to be negative. If you are negative then "please don't rain on our parade!"<br />
      <br />
    1. ziggyzack's Avatar
      ziggyzack -
      but Tom insisted. No probs. New thread here we come, first let me download that album... <br />
      <br />
      edit: darn, I don't really want the bluray anyway, but the site wants to charge $10 shipping to the UK - I want to download now, and I don't want the plastic. Not paying $32.95 to wait.<br />
      <br />
      I'm sitting here ready with my credit card and looking to pay for quality, but I can't justify that. Just give us a straight download!
    1. barrows's Avatar
      barrows -
      who are interested in discussing high resolution audio, sampling rates and bit depths, there is a very interesting discussion on this topic here:<br />
      <br />
      http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/2496-Above<br />
      <br />
    1. bottlerocket's Avatar
      bottlerocket -
      Save some carbon and some trees.<br />
      <br />
      Dear Tom, sir, we won't back down. For the next album, just put a banner ad on Computer Audiophile and link it to your download page that accepts credit cards from anywhere on the planet. <br />
      <br />
      Respectfully, Bottlerocket<br />
      <br />
    1. pjpizza's Avatar
      pjpizza -
      I think you're on to something, although in theory, the Nyquist frequency (as I know you all know) is the maximum frequency that can be encoded without aliasing of the original. You only need two points to render a sine curve mathematically (length and height, or period time and amplitude).<br />
      <br />
      So this is just theory. In practice, as I said, you're probably on to something, as more points to render the curve will statistically give you less of a deviation from the original.<br />
      <br />
      Now, my brain must go to sleep (and never speak of this again).
    1. hifitubes's Avatar
      hifitubes -
      Excellent question to post where the objectivists dwell (HA)<br />
      <br />
      <cite>Ignoring the max frequency issue, doesn't a higher resolution sampling rate allow more accuracy in the shape of a waveform? Does that extra resolution represent only higher frequency information, or does it also provide more accurate timing information about lower frequencies?</cite>
    1. ziggyzack's Avatar
      ziggyzack -
      Thanks hifitubes. I did start another thread on this, and have had satisfaction <br />
      <br />
      see here, I think it's a goody:<br />
      http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Nyquist-confusion<br />
      <br />
      At least the subjectivists can know <i>where</i> they diverge
    1. Nes's Avatar
      Nes -
      Thank you Tom Petty for breaking the mold.
    1. mikemercer's Avatar
      mikemercer -
      be happy they recorded at 48khz (as many artists have been for quite some time) and that you can get a better-sounding release here! You're expecting the music industry to sell "everything" on high res digital when their average user/consumer could care less about the actual sampling/bit rate of their music files? It's a business, and this will always be the argument. When I was at Atlantic Records I was BLOWN away at first, at the seeming lack of concern for sonic integrity. After being there for years (and I had come from workin for TAS, so I thought EVERYBODY was into high fidelity) I realize they were only catering to demands of their consumers. IF the demand increases, then the business model responds (Warner got behind DVD-A years ago, look what happened to that)<br />
      <br />
      One step at a time. It's encouraging to see Petty's engineer acknowledge Chris for his invaluable role in educating the interested, with regard to the possibilities of high fidelity through computer audio. It's also nice to see artists like Petty and Peter Gabriel release pop records in better sounding digital formats.<br />
      <br />
      This is how we make change; action - NOT by making blanket statements aimed at a business that has always been slow to change.
    1. ziggyzack's Avatar
      ziggyzack -
      it will be ripped and torrented.<br />
      <br />
      I subscribe to the idea that people like itunes because it's easy. They don't want to download illegally, they want to support the artist, they don't want to pay too much.<br />
      <br />
      I pay for HQ downloads, I do not want a blu ray collection, I do not want to subsidise the blu ray production, I do not want the wasted plastic and fuel on my conscience, I do not want to wait for delivery.<br />
      <br />
      I am not alone. The way I could get most of what I want is from illegal downloads - the only downer is I don't get to pay Tom. If I could get a certified HQ download from p2p and chuck Tom $15, everyone should be happy - but there's no way to do that. Legal HQ downloads need to happen.<br />
      <br />
      This is not a small step in the right direction, there's been HQ material around for ages on disc. Hence my disappointment. Yes, it's good to have a new rock release in HQ, and it's good that there is a relationship between this ever more popular site and a major, quality artist. However, I don't buy the idea that buying this bluray is helping the business get on the path to hq downloads. They are sticking to the value-add of bluray to maintain margin, and I say the value-add of bluray is at best nil. Pass. Reluctant, disappointed pass.<br />
      <br />
      (last para edited a bit to give Chris due credit)
    1. ghook2020's Avatar
      ghook2020 -
      Congrats Chris! What a cool way for your site to be recommended!<br />
      <br />
      Got the CD as a gift from my better half on the day it was released. A few nights before we watched their Soundstage concert on hdtv (Palladia?). Am enjoying Mojo a lot, but now you've given me the perfect excuse to run over to the Electric Fetus and pick up the vinyl!<br />
      <br />
      Hook
    1. The Computer Audiophile's Avatar
      The Computer Audiophile -
      Thanks Hook! I bet Cheapo in Uptown has the vinyl if Electric Fetus doesn't. <br />
      <br />