Thanks. The "audiophile" version has a little more bass, the "standard" version is a little brighter, and yes maybe there's a little less distortion in the audiophile version.
But considering they told everyone that they'd done something different, the difference is pretty small.
(I used ReplayGain to match the levels. On that 30 second section, standard version = -12.70dB and audiophile version = -11.38dB. fb2k 1.2.2 RG scanner = EBUR128. Without it, the standard version is slightly louder, but not by a huge amount. Not really enough that you'd think it matters in the loudness wars, so why not just release the "audiophile" version?)
I guess one explanation is that the standard version is so close to how they wanted it to sound that by making the audiophile version any more "audiophile", it wouldn't sound as the artist wanted. Or, saying the same thing the other way, the audiophile version is exactly what they wanted and already a bit compression and crunchy, and they didn't feel the need to push it that far to create a competitive "standard" version.
The other explanation is that, like many a person deeply involved in a creative project, differences which sound small to anyone else sound huge to those involved, and they think they have released two radically different versions, at opposing limits of what they found to be acceptable.
When ever I have heard things like this in the past (less mastered vs more mastered/louder), the differences have been huge - 6dB or more loudness+compression differences, often huge EQ and effects differences too. It is amazing how "audiophile" and non-commercial the master tapes of some recordings sound.
Cheers,
David.
But considering they told everyone that they'd done something different, the difference is pretty small.
(I used ReplayGain to match the levels. On that 30 second section, standard version = -12.70dB and audiophile version = -11.38dB. fb2k 1.2.2 RG scanner = EBUR128. Without it, the standard version is slightly louder, but not by a huge amount. Not really enough that you'd think it matters in the loudness wars, so why not just release the "audiophile" version?)
CODE
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v1.2.2
2013/09/03 15:14:42
File A: D:\audio\NIN 30sec.audiophile.version.flac
File B: D:\audio\NIN 30sec.standard.version.flac
15:14:42 : Test started.
15:15:02 : 01/01 50.0%
15:15:07 : 02/02 25.0%
15:15:11 : 03/03 12.5%
15:15:15 : 04/04 6.3%
15:15:21 : 05/05 3.1%
15:15:25 : 06/06 1.6%
15:15:29 : 07/07 0.8%
15:15:33 : 08/08 0.4%
15:15:39 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)
foobar2000 v1.2.2
2013/09/03 15:14:42
File A: D:\audio\NIN 30sec.audiophile.version.flac
File B: D:\audio\NIN 30sec.standard.version.flac
15:14:42 : Test started.
15:15:02 : 01/01 50.0%
15:15:07 : 02/02 25.0%
15:15:11 : 03/03 12.5%
15:15:15 : 04/04 6.3%
15:15:21 : 05/05 3.1%
15:15:25 : 06/06 1.6%
15:15:29 : 07/07 0.8%
15:15:33 : 08/08 0.4%
15:15:39 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)
I guess one explanation is that the standard version is so close to how they wanted it to sound that by making the audiophile version any more "audiophile", it wouldn't sound as the artist wanted. Or, saying the same thing the other way, the audiophile version is exactly what they wanted and already a bit compression and crunchy, and they didn't feel the need to push it that far to create a competitive "standard" version.
The other explanation is that, like many a person deeply involved in a creative project, differences which sound small to anyone else sound huge to those involved, and they think they have released two radically different versions, at opposing limits of what they found to be acceptable.
When ever I have heard things like this in the past (less mastered vs more mastered/louder), the differences have been huge - 6dB or more loudness+compression differences, often huge EQ and effects differences too. It is amazing how "audiophile" and non-commercial the master tapes of some recordings sound.
Cheers,
David.