[Strangelove424]

  I use Discog's site to identify the CD I am looking for by release date and mastering.  At least, that is where my research typically begins.
 
The original Bad was first released in the US on CD by Epic in 1987.
 
http://www.discogs.com/Michael-Jackson-Bad/master/8517
 
You can get additional details about each release.  If I can determine which CD I want, usually Amazon will show the label's catalog code, and obviously once you get the CD, you can see which version was delivered.  Most of the time I get what I ordered, but other times I have had orders lost in the mail and sometimes they package a completely different CD, both album and artist.  I used to get lots of cheap, used CDs, and lets just say they sometimes have inventory/catalog issues. 
 
I see the 1987 Europe release of Bad on sale at Amazon for under $20. (only 1 left in stock)
 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00002643V
 

 
Wow, nice resource. This will come in handy. I can't remember exactly, but bought the CD around 1990, so I would assume it's either the 1987 version or 1991/1992. It's in some boxes, but I might try to find it later.
 
I'm coming round to the idea that looking for old CDs could be an extremely rewarding process. I'm tired of hearing clicks in used vinyl, that was just never something I enjoyed or could get over. CD format would be my favorite if the mastering was better, and the older CDs seem to deliver that more often. I still have a Rhapsody in Blue CD from the early 90s, in a nondescript almost industrial style cover with "compact disc" all over it (they were really proud of that fact back then I guess), and I have been unable to find a better performance/recording/master for more than two decades. That is, until Google Play came along and I could sift through 40 different versions of Rhapsody in Blue until I found one that finally bested it. That streaming version blew it out of the park. I dunno, I'll take my music from any source I guess. But sifting through used CD sales on Amazon/E-Bay may just be the mother-lode. 

 

[sonitus mirus]

Ok, I have some data to share.
 
I found 2 versions of MJ's Bad available on Google Music.  One version is from the 2012 remastered Bad album, and the other is a version from the album, The Essential Michael Jackson.
 
They look really close when inspecting the audio properties:
 

 
 
Now here is the interesting thing about these 2 files.  The Bad (2012 Remaster) is clipping something terrible.
 
Take a look:
 

 
 
Now have a look at the Bad version from the Essentials album:
 

 
I will put some headphones on and see if I can hear any clipping or see if perhaps I can possibly tell a difference between these 2 files..  (I'm terrible at critical listening, which is not a good thing for an ex-sonar technician 

)

 

[Strangelove424]

I do not have clipping on my capture of the 2012 remaster of Bad:
 

 
I captured from the bit stream but the sound card was set to max volume since I'm using the PCM output right now. The only version I have with clipping is the CD (it shows up as a red line in the right channel in a previous screenshot). I'll listen to the Essentials version later though. I don't think I've ever listened to that album. 

 

[sonitus mirus]

Maybe there is something in the way the song is captured with Audacity that masks any clipping?
 
I'm looking at a digital copy of the actual 320 kbps mp3 file that Google has encoded and uses to stream for their subscription service, and it is a red mess when showing clipping in Audacity.
 

 
I just checked and this was not from the 25th anny album, just regular Bad album, but they don't look any different.  I think it was the same file.  Here is the 25th anny version.
 

 
Edit: If I had to guess, it would seem that you are capturing audio as it passes through your sound card, and it is possible that any clipping from the file is simply being recorded as sound.  So you might not be able to tell if any clipping is happening through the analysis tool.

 

[Strangelove424]

Ok, I went back to my soundcard settings, and it actually wasn't at full volume. The volume knob and playback level sliders are two different controls, which I occasionally forget. I never understood why they did that, but I guess it's to avoid the clipping. Only problem is, now I can introduce more clipping intro streaming versions than I see in original CDs, implying that there is some gain here, so this technique is not at all precise enough for analyzing masters. What service are you using to get ahold of the raw mp3 data? I'm curious to compare one of those files to ones ripped from CD. 

 

[sonitus mirus]

What service are you using to get ahold of the raw mp3 data? I'm curious to compare one of those files to ones ripped from CD. 

Check your PM inbox.

 

[BlindInOneEar]

  Sure, this is the waveform comparison of Bad (HD is on top, CD on the bottom, unfortunately with the streaming version I can't import to audacity so can't include that in comparison): 
 

 

As long as you have the HD version of Bad loaded in Audacity, how about checking out the spectrum to see if there really is any "HD" content in it?  Click somewhere in the wave form area of the track and drag to select 30 seconds or so of music.  Then go to the "Analyze" tab and choose "Plot Spectrum."  Back in post 114 of this thread I left some shots that show the difference between an HD and a regular track.  Which does your Bad most closely resemble?

 

[Strangelove424]

"HD" version was 48khz not 96 or 192, so I think the frequency limit is 24khz. There's some information up to 24khz, but falls rapidly after 20k. Just playing devil's advocate here, but isn't it possible to add high frequency noise to a 16/44.1 mix, and call it "high resolution frequency response" without actually adding anything to the meat of the harmonic content?

 

[bigshot]

It's standard operating procedure to add higher frequency hiss to historical recordings to add a small bed of high frequency noise as "air" to older recordings that don't go about 8kHz.

 

[Strangelove424]

Sound mixers are a tricky bunch. I'll remember that tidbit next time I think I hear the "great airy expanse" of an amphitheater. That's one of the facets I particularly like about classical, trying to imagine the space it was recorded at. Kind of deflates that balloon a little.
 
Regarding HD, I don't see how anything above 20k could add to the room noise except to emphasize odd acoustics or ringing, if it was even audible. And if it's artificial noise anyway, well... the irony is thick. 

 

[BlindInOneEar]

My confusion is over just what the heck "HD" files are supposed to bring to the table if not extended high frequencies?  I agree, those high frequencies are likely not audible, but how else can one distinguish an HD file from a RedBook file?
 
Edit: Thanks for posting the picture, Strangelove424!
 
Edit again: Wow, what a playoff game between the As and the Royals!  12 innings of fun!

 

[bigshot]

People who don't understand how digital audio works think that HD tracks have added resolution within the audible range. They are wrong of course, but just try to tell them that. They'll pull out some subjective anecdote that "proves" that Nyquist isn't correct.

 

[money4me247]

  People who don't understand how digital audio works think that HD tracks have added resolution within the audible range. They are wrong of course, but just try to tell them that. They'll pull out some subjective anecdote that "proves" that Nyquist isn't correct.

lol. I can understand your frustration.
 
In the HE-560 thread, sampling rates came up in the discussion, so I posted links to Nyquist sampling theorem & a short explanation... the responses I got were definitely interesting. I still get a bit shocked when people simply don't seem to bother to read/comprehend the information and just respond really negatively or with personal attacks. ...though I guess I've been guilty of that as well. lol. =/
 
these forums have been feeling very unwelcoming recently. I think I probably need to just stay out of heated arguments. hahah.

 

[Poladise]

I always guessed the limitation of the Nyquist was that a 22.5khz sine wave can only be recorded as a square wave (@44.1), so it's not perfectly accurate. So that would have an effect on accuracy, but less and less as you go down the spectrum. Do the filters have something to do with removing harmonics from those high frequency square waves, turning them back into sines? Or am I way off? lol

 

[bigshot]

The shortest distance between two points is not always a straight line.