Soulster: "Baby It's Me" [[Expanded) At Pro Studio Masters

[Lulu]

I'm not sure if you've mentioned this site before. What are your thoughts? It's not terribly much more than iTunes for the entire album purchase:

http://www.prostudiomasters.com/album/page/2631

[alanbill1074]

Great for America. Can only hope the rest of the world get the opportunity.

[thanxal]

Wish I would have seen this before buying the iTunes version.
I LOVE this album... and to think, I wasn't really a Ross solo fan until Andy went on Nightlight and I heard the remix of TMITM.

[Lulu]

Wish I would have seen this before buying the iTunes version.
I LOVE this album... and to think, I wasn't really a Ross solo fan until Andy went on Nightlight and I heard the remix of TMITM.

I just heard about it today as it appeared in my Google feed. I feel the same way!

[jobeterob]

I haven't bought it yet ~ waiting for Christmas and all.

Are you guys saying it's better to buy it from this other site?

[calvin]

Great for America. Can only hope the rest of the world get the opportunity.

I hadn't checked for some time, but I see it's also on Qobuz, you can select high resolution or cd quality.

http://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/bab...884?qref=dac_2

[alanbill1074]

Not available in the UK on this site either :-[[

[thanxal]

I haven't bought it yet ~ waiting for Christmas and all.

Are you guys saying it's better to buy it from this other site?

Its a higher quality digital file. If you listen on a real hi-fi stereo with multiple speakers and all, then it is worth it. If you primarily listen to music on cheaper headphones/earbuds or the small bluetooth speakers, then you are unlikely to notice the difference. I have a full hi-fi with four Boston HD8s and two HD5s with an Outlaw sub so when I bought the Ella and Louis Again Mp3, I did hear a difference. But it don't matter much since I have the original vinyl. When I do listen to mp3s it is on my iPhone with Klipsch x11i earbuds. Even with those I have a hard time distinguishing the nuances of the higher quality files. But I'm old and deaf. Others might hear a difference worth buying them.

[marv2]

Hey look check this out. This is Diana Ross' best solo record in my opinion. This is an alternate mix of the 1977 released we heard on the radio. Still it is very jazzy and has that snap, crackle and pop to it! LOL!

[detmotownguy]

Marv......hum.... Snap crackle pop...I disagree on this one. Although popular with many fans I always thought this song wAs boring. But many many years ago she added quite a bit of scat to the song and did a really good job on it; really spiced it up.

[marv2]

Marv......hum.... Snap crackle pop...I disagree on this one. Although popular with many fans I always thought this song wAs boring. But many many years ago she added quite a bit of scat to the song and did a really good job on it; really spiced it up.

I thought it was perfect for her way of singing. You know, lightweight with very simple lyrics and chorus with a hook. The musicians really are what make this record swing. Oh well....

[calvin]

Not available in the UK on this site either :-[[

Alan, I see it on the French and UK Qobuz sites, doesn't the link I gave above work?

[soulster]

OK guys: THIS is what i'm talking about! "Baby It's Me", with the BONUS TRACKS, is now up on HD Tracks in LOSSLESS high-rez! AAC, FLAC, WAV, and AIFF. I TOLD you all to be patient for CD, or better than CD quality downloads. And, it will be LOSSLESS CD quality and hi-rez on Pono next month, too. I told you guys not to bother with iTunes lossy downloads!

[alanbill1074]

Alan, I see it on the French and UK Qobuz sites, doesn't the link I gave above work?

Ah it does now thanks. Last night it was just going to the home page. Happy days :- )

[lakedistrictlad1]

Andy mentioned on Facebook that they are still looking into ways of making Funny Girl and Baby It's Me physical releases.

So FLAC is great - but I'm still going to wait until the possibility of physical.

[honest man]

Andy mentioned on Facebook that they are still looking into ways of making Funny Girl and Baby It's Me physical releases.

So FLAC is great - but I'm still going to wait until the possibility of physical.

fingers and everything crossed,me too hopefully it may happen,cheers

[thanxal]

OK guys: THIS is what i'm talking about! "Baby It's Me", with the BONUS TRACKS, is now up on HD Tracks in LOSSLESS high-rez! AAC, FLAC, WAV, and AIFF. I TOLD you all to be patient for CD, or better than CD quality downloads. And, it will be LOSSLESS CD quality and hi-rez on Pono next month, too. I told you guys not to bother with iTunes lossy downloads!

While you're without doubt correct on sound quality, I sometimes don't want to pay almost double for a lossless album that:

a) I listen to predominantly on an iPhone with earbuds. Almost none except the most expensive earbuds will reproduce a difference noticeable enough to me.
b) I can listen to on the original vinyl for most tracks when I get that religious feeling about sound quality.
c) takes up vastly more space. If I had all lossless digital music, I'd need about 10 iPod Classics or a 10gb external drive. I once converted about 30 "essential" albums such as the expanded IHAS and A Go Go to lossless and it used up more than the remaining available space on my iPod Classic.

So, while you are correct that lossless is inferior from a sound quality point of view, as with everything else in life, there are many points of view, such as the ones above. Lossy isn't a total waste, IMHO and serves several purposes.

[soulster]

Andy mentioned on Facebook that they are still looking into ways of making Funny Girl and Baby It's Me physical releases.

So FLAC is great - but I'm still going to wait until the possibility of physical.

But, if you download it, you can have it in master tape quality instead of just CD quality.

Oh, BTW, Lulu, Somehow I missed your opening post. I have not ordered from Pro Studio Masters, as I already have an account with HDTracks.

[soulster]

[QUOTE]

While you're without doubt correct on sound quality, I sometimes don't want to pay almost double for a lossless album that:

a) I listen to predominantly on an iPhone with earbuds. Almost none except the most expensive earbuds will reproduce a difference noticeable enough to me.

I could not be happy, or even tolerate listening to music on ear-buds! Horrible! I need full-range sound! Even if I go walking, I use Sony pro studio headphones.

b) I can listen to on the original vinyl for most tracks when I get that religious feeling about sound quality.

Face it: a lot of original Motown vinyl didn't sound the best, so that's why I prefer the hi-rez versions when I can get them.

c) takes up vastly more space. If I had all lossless digital music, I'd need about 10 iPod Classics or a 10gb external drive. I once converted about 30 "essential" albums such as the expanded IHAS and A Go Go to lossless and it used up more than the remaining available space on my iPod Classic.

I keep all of my music stored on hard drives, several of them for redundancy in case one goes belly-up. I keep FLAC files on three, and 320 kbps mp3 versions on two of them for the car and whatnot. AS it stands now, my collection has long outgrown the three 1.5 TB, and 500 MB drives I use, and need to get bigger drives! Right now, i'm having to zip up albums I rarely ever listen to and store them on yet another drive. MY car can play both mp3 and lossless .wma, but I have to convert the FLAC versions to .wma. Since the mp3 files are already there, I can just load up a couple of hundred album on a USB and play that.

Yes, we all have our different way of doing things. If I have a record album, I create a digital master of it. Right now, i'm working on a Natalie Cole album from 1979. But, it's not that good of an album, so, when i'm done mastering it and adding artwork, i'll zip it and archive it just so I have it.

So, while you are correct that lossless is inferior from a sound quality point of view,

Uh, no, Lossless is SUPERIOR from a sound quality point of view.

as with everything else in life, there are many points of view, such as the ones above. Lossy isn't a total waste, IMHO and serves several purposes.

Sure! I play them in the car. I don't have to, but it's less of a hassle. But, I do not play them on the big stereo at home, where I can appreciate the difference in quality. I will not buy an mp3 unless there is absolutely no other way to get the music. Regarding BIM: There is no reason to buy the lossy versions. Buy the CD or hi-rez versions and create the mp3 from it yourself. It's so easy to do! That way, you have both!

[LuvHangOva]

Hey look check this out. This is Diana Ross' best solo record in my opinion. This is an alternate mix of the 1977 released we heard on the radio. Still it is very jazzy and has that snap, crackle and pop to it! LOL!

Yes....Yes ...YES!!! I agree. For me this is Miss Ross's best solo album too!! Most times i think she sounded like she was trying too hard. On this cut in particular she sounds like she is just relaxed and having FUN, which i exactly how I like my pop [[and jazz) music by anyone...bouncy and fun. By snap crackle and pop if you meant the bass, percussion and rhythm in general sound "tight and punchy" you are correct again [[in my opinion). The production is phenomenal! [[a home run for Richard Perry-and whoever else helped on this version) I do miss the scatting at the end however.

[mysterysinger]

It's physical for me on BIM and FG - so I can, and will wait for those.

[whitesoxx]

It would have helped if they had informed us a lossless download would become available soon... :-[[

[greg jones]

Hey guys,

I haven't attempted to buy any of these higher quality versions yet as there is something that i'm not sure if i've grasped. Do you have to have another player to play any of these higher quality versions or can you still play them within iTunes ?

I've set up a separate library on an external drive to my desktop computer with everything ripped in Apple Lossless for eventual hook up to my home entertainment system and receiver. In my laptop, i have everything in 256k for loading on iPods, iPhones and other on the go players to squeeze as much for quick on the go listening. So can i just have the high rez quality on the desktop iTunes?

greg jones
los angeles, ca

[thanxal]

I could not be happy, or even tolerate listening to music on ear-buds! Horrible! I need full-range sound! Even if I go walking, I use Sony pro studio headphones.

Well that might work for you, but I can't tolerate the giant headphones around my ears. And face it, many many people simply use the low quality earbuds that come in the iPhone box.

I think my main point is that we're not all audiophiles. While this setup works for you, it doesn't for the average person. Most people can't even imagine keeping track of that much hard drive space for music. I deal with TBs of discs at work so am used to it, but for the average person, I still think lossy has some use.

Uh, no, Lossless is SUPERIOR from a sound quality point of view.

Yes, I meant to type that lossy is inferior.

Regarding BIM: There is no reason to buy the lossy versions. Buy the CD or hi-rez versions and create the mp3 from it yourself.

Again, this is an audiophile perspective, which many people just aren't.

There is a major downside to LOSSLESS which is management of the files and conversion down to manageable file sizes that many people either don't want to do or don't know how.

[thanxal]

Hey guys,

I haven't attempted to buy any of these higher quality versions yet as there is something that i'm not sure if i've grasped. Do you have to have another player to play any of these higher quality versions or can you still play them within iTunes ?

I've set up a separate library on an external drive to my desktop computer with everything ripped in Apple Lossless for eventual hook up to my home entertainment system and receiver. In my laptop, i have everything in 256k for loading on iPods, iPhones and other on the go players to squeeze as much for quick on the go listening. So can i just have the high rez quality on the desktop iTunes?

greg jones
los angeles, ca

You can play them within iTunes. But it is not great at file/playlist management.
I did the same thing for a while, but quickly ran out of disc space. I still think that for most uses lossy is ok. Not great. But ok.

I haven't really found the need to rip my CDs to Apple Lossless, but eventually I may need to revert to the dual setup like you describe since we can no longer get CDs. I'll probably then have to do what Soulster suggests in the post below, but it is so much more file management that I don't really want to have to do until forced.

[soulster]

It would have helped if they had informed us a lossless download would become available soon... :-[[

I warned you all. I tried to tell you all, repeatedly, but you guys had no patience, and went for lossy anyway, and would rather tell me how no one cares about sound.

[soulster]

Hey guys,

I haven't attempted to buy any of these higher quality versions yet as there is something that i'm not sure if i've grasped. Do you have to have another player to play any of these higher quality versions or can you still play them within iTunes ?

I've set up a separate library on an external drive to my desktop computer with everything ripped in Apple Lossless for eventual hook up to my home entertainment system and receiver. In my laptop, i have everything in 256k for loading on iPods, iPhones and other on the go players to squeeze as much for quick on the go listening. So can i just have the high rez quality on the desktop iTunes?

greg jones
los angeles, ca

Of course! You can either download the ALAC, AIFF, or WAV versions. iTunes will play them all.

[soulster]

I think my main point is that we're not all audiophiles.

I know, and that's because people opt for cheap-ass products, and buying into the Apple ecosystem, but it doesn't have to be that way. I may not care for most of Neil Young's music, but I applaud him for trying to up the quality of portable playback with his new Pono player.

Again, this is an audiophile perspective, which many people just aren't.

many people could be if they would just listen to what they're missing!

There is a major downside to LOSSLESS which is management of the files

This makes no sense! People manage photos, so music files are no different. Install a great media management program like J. River. It plays everything, and with audiophile standards. It supports smartphones and remote playback, and everything else you can throw at it. Today, there is no excuse for not improving your sound quality, even if you aren't an audiophile. That's the point i'm trying to make here! Face it: lossless and hi-rez is the direction the industry is going. People are going to be soon wondering how to downgrade their quality files to fit into their puny little cellphones and iPods.

and conversion down to manageable file sizes that many people either don't want to do or don't know how.

This is what is wrong with our world. People want everything dumbed-down and don't want to learn anything. This is why all electronics and software is so complicated today. They are trying to appease the average person who refuses to learn anything.

[LuvHangOva]

Yes....Yes ...YES!!! I agree. For me this is Miss Ross's best solo album too!! Most times i think she sounded like she was trying too hard. On this cut in particular she sounds like she is just relaxed and having FUN, which i exactly how I like my pop [[and jazz) music by anyone...bouncy and fun. By snap crackle and pop if you meant the bass, percussion and rhythm in general sound "tight and punchy" you are correct again [[in my opinion). The production is phenomenal! [[a home run for Richard Perry-and whoever else helped on this version) I do miss the scatting at the end however.

For those who are audio production saavy, the compression is slammin on this mix but not over done

[soulster]

For those who are audio production saavy, the compression is slammin on this mix but not over done

Audiophiles don't like mastering compression. mastering compression reduces dynamic range, realism, and clarity for NO OTHER REASON THAN TO MAKE IT LOUDER, and that's NOT a good thing. There is something on your stereo called a VOLUME button. People should learn how to use it and quit letting the engineers make it loud for you, because when they do it, the process they have to employ destroys the original sound the artist and producers signed off on, and is very far away from the master tape.

[TheMotownManiac]

More and more people are learning and appreciating the difference. One day it will be the rule. It does no harm to support the high grade product as one day, most playback systems will be in compliance. I'm glad I waited.

[smark21]

Of course a lot of people have busy lives, whether it's job/career demands, along with family obligations [[raising children, taking care of aged parents and relatives, nurturing relationships) so they may not have much free time. Of course there are people who are fortunate and/or lonely enough to have more free time, but perhaps they have different priorities for how they want to use their leisure time. People shouldn't be put down if they don't want to invest the time and energy to work on the files on their computers in order to enjoy the maximal musical/audio experience.

Soulster, what does your wife or girlfriend think of all the time and energy you devote to your audiophile pursuits as well as the time you take to craft line by line responses to posts here that raise your ire? Also, why are you so angry that not everyone wants to be an audiophile like you?

[ejluther]

It doesn't show that you get the terrific booklet/artwork with the hi-rez downloads and, if so, that's too bad...

[soulster]

Of course a lot of people have busy lives, whether it's job/career demands, along with family obligations [[raising children, taking care of aged parents and relatives, nurturing relationships) so they may not have much free time. Of course there are people who are fortunate and/or lonely enough to have more free time, but perhaps they have different priorities for how they want to use their leisure time. People shouldn't be put down if they don't want to invest the time and energy to work on the files on their computers in order to enjoy the maximal musical/audio experience.

I can kill your argument fast. Do you make time for The Supremes and Diana Ross? Well, same thing.

Soulster, what does your wife or girlfriend think of all the time and energy you devote to your audiophile pursuits as well as the time you take to craft line by line responses to posts here that raise your ire?

She has her own pursuits that take up a considerable amount of her time too. And, she has a full-time job just like I do. My point is that if you love something enough, you MAKE time for it. In fact, it's HEALTHY to have hobbies, It's a lot better than wasting your time going out and drinking like so many people do.

Also, why are you so angry that not everyone wants to be an audiophile like you?

Why do you think i'm angry? That's just strange. I find that very curious, if not, laughable. If anything, I am passionate. Do you have some vision of some angry Black dude ready to charge at you? My question to you is, why does it make you angry that I care about our musical legacy?

[thanxal]

Well, same thing.

No, it isn't.
Everyone has their passion for something. I think the issue here is that you don't see or don't want to see that not everyone can have the same passion you have for audiophile music standards. That's not really a problem until you continuously tell everyone that they must or ought share the same passion as you.

My point is that if you love something enough, you MAKE time for it. In fact, it's HEALTHY to have hobbies

Yes and yes. But not everyone shares your passion for audiophile music. You come across harshly to anyone who disagrees or tries to express another point of view, which is fine because free speech and all. Just don't expect people to react kindly.

[calvin]

It doesn't show that you get the terrific booklet/artwork with the hi-rez downloads and, if so, that's too bad...

Strange that the digital booklet is not listed in the Qobuz link I gave above, where one can choose between high resolution or cd quality. But then Qobuz has a seperate listing for the cd-quality download, and here it does say that one gets a digital booklet:

http://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/bab...885?qref=dac_2

[soulster]

No, it isn't.
Everyone has their passion for something. I think the issue here is that you don't see or don't want to see that not everyone can have the same passion you have for audiophile music standards. That's not really a problem until you continuously tell everyone that they must or ought share the same passion as you.

And, you know this how?

Frankly, I don't care what you, personally do. I am here to suggest a better sound quality to enjoy, you know, what you used to before mp3 and iTunes came along. When did you get to the point where you don't care how something sounds?

Yes and yes. But not everyone shares your passion for audiophile music.

It's not "audiophile" music, it's the quality of the sound. Once upon a time, most people cared how the music sounded. One would think that, being fans of Motown music, you would care how it sounds. I find it strange that you all want CDs, not mp3, but you get upset that I am promoting the very sound they offer over your precious iTunes downloads. And, it seems like you care more about the booklets, and the ability to stare at Diana Ross than you do about her music. Are you sure you're music lovers?

You come across harshly to anyone who disagrees or tries to express another point of view, which is fine because free speech and all. Just don't expect people to react kindly.

You guys are very thin-skinned for being on the internet. I imagine that this is the only forum you guys come to. Well, look around at other places on the net. I'm an angel compared to what you find out there on other music forums. And, make no mistake, there are other audiophiles on this forum. I've just made it safer for them to come out and not be intimidated my you non-audiophiles.

[soulster]

I guess you all have nothing else to accuse me of.

[supremester]

Don't include me in "y'all" 'cos I learned from this thread. I don't think I'm an audiophile, but I'm doing a little research into it all.

[soulster]

Don't include me in "y'all" 'cos I learned from this thread. I don't think I'm an audiophile, but I'm doing a little research into it all.

An audiophile is anyone who appreciates and quests for better sound, and, most importantly, learns how to critically listen to musical audio.

[soulster]

PonoMusic listening party:


If you can listen to this on a big stereo, please do.

[alanbill1074]

I downloaded the hi res version, so I have it for play on the PC, and then burned a CD to listen to on my good system [[Marantz SA11S2, Marantz PM11S3, Yamaha Soavo 2's, Chord Chorus Signature Interconnects and Chord Epic Reference Speaker Cable), so it's high end stuff. Personally I still think that the 2012 paper sleeve Japanese SHM CD sounds better on the original album. The new tracks do sound very vibrant though on CD and a definite improvement on the MP3 as one would expect.

Once again shows me though that the SHM CDs actually do make a difference to sound quality. Diana's whole Motown catalogue [[to diana) has been re-issued on cheapish SHM CDs in jewel cases so anyone who really does like to get the best sound may want to check them out.

[LuvHangOva]

Mhm ... That may be but each and every recording that leaves a studio has some degree of processing added to it. As someone who was in charge of audio production for quite a few radio stations I am aware that the trick is to apply just enough processing to not interfere with the sonics of the equipment your productions will be played on and/or the tastes of the person who plays or owns the finished product .

[LuvHangOva]

Audiophiles don't like mastering compression. mastering compression reduces dynamic range, realism, and clarity for NO OTHER REASON THAN TO MAKE IT LOUDER, and that's NOT a good thing. There is something on your stereo called a VOLUME button. People should learn how to use it and quit letting the engineers make it loud for you, because when they do it, the process they have to employ destroys the original sound the artist and producers signed off on, and is very far away from the master tape.

Mhm ... That may be but each and every recording that leaves a studio has some degree of processing added to it. As someone who was in charge of audio production [[Award winning "Production Director" and studio engineer) for quite a few radio stations I am aware that the trick is to apply just enough processing to not interfere with the sonics of the equipment your productions will be played on and/or the tastes of the person who plays or owns the finished product .

A lot of people will not have audiophile quality equipment for playback so in a huge percentage of circumstances the point would be moot . It's also possible as you know, to compress only the rhythm, which was my focus when listening to this piece.

I'm sure Russ Terrana,, legendary Motown engineer would share a similar opinion.

[soulster]

Mhm ... That may be but each and every recording that leaves a studio has some degree of processing added to it. As someone who was in charge of audio production for quite a few radio stations I am aware that the trick is to apply just enough processing to not interfere with the sonics of the equipment your productions will be played on and/or the tastes of the person who plays or owns the finished product .

When a mix leaves the studio, it's not finished. It is tweaked by the mastering person. It would be fine if the mastering did as little as possible, but these days, or for the last fifteen years, or so, the artists, producers, or label executives have ordered them to EQ and compress/hard-limit the shit out of the music just to make it LOUDER. When they do that, it changes the sound, and not in a good way. `

Radio often receives less-compressed promo copies because the compressor they use at every almost radio station in the U.S. will squeeze the sound. Processing the average CD or mp3 will actually lower the volume and make the music sound worse! And, what makes it worse is that radio, be it terrestrial or satellite, plays mp3s. Satellite radio [[XM/Sirius) further data-compresses the sound with bit-allocation. The more channels that broadcast, the fewer bits that are allocated to each one, therefore reducing the sound quality of each. More channels is not better!

A lot of people will not have audiophile quality equipment for playback so in a huge percentage of circumstances the point would be moot . It's also possible as you know, to compress only the rhythm, which was my focus when listening to this piece.

The music shouldn't be ruined by building the volume into the CD or file. The user has a volume control. They should use it. One can also hear the degradation of the sound on non-audiophile gear. Anyone with reasonably good hearing can hear the sound differences when it is pointed out to them.

When you compress the rhythm in mastering, the bass and drums turn to mush. It looses definition and dynamic impact. Leave the compression of the bass and drums to the recording and mix engineer.

I'm sure Russ Terrana,, legendary Motown engineer would share a similar opinion.

I'll bet not! Russ is a recording/mix engineer. He does not do mastering, which requires a whole different mindset, goal, and special skill and gear. Most recording/mix guys do not do mastering. A few have that ability, but it is not common.

[LuvHangOva]

When a mix leaves the studio, it's not finished. It is tweaked by the mastering person. It would be fine if the mastering did as little as possible, but these days, or for the last fifteen years, or so, the artists, producers, or label executives have ordered them to EQ and compress/hard-limit the shit out of the music just to make it LOUDER. When they do that, it changes the sound, and not in a good way. `

>>>>> it does get abused, when volume is what one is after ...that's not what I'm talking about, My experience is in studio production, mixing and mastering<<<<<

Radio often receives less-compressed promo copies because the compressor they use at every almost radio station in the U.S. will squeeze the sound. Processing the average CD or mp3 will actually lower the volume and make the music sound worse! And, what makes it worse is that radio, be it terrestrial or satellite, plays mp3s. Satellite radio [[XM/Sirius) further data-compresses the sound with bit-allocation. The more channels that broadcast, the fewer bits that are allocated to each one, therefore reducing the sound quality of each. More channels is not better!

>>>I spent 25 years in that industry. I am aware there are negative consequences to processing in general. It does get abused. The right amount is not an issue<<<<


The music shouldn't be ruined by building the volume into the CD or file. The user has a volume control. They should use it. One can also hear the degradation of the sound on non-audiophile gear. Anyone with reasonably good hearing can hear the sound differences when it is pointed out to them.

When you compress the rhythm in mastering, the bass and drums turn to mush. It looses definition and dynamic impact. Leave the compression of the bass and drums to the recording and mix engineer.

><<> that would be "tends to" IF you don't what you are doing and what negatives you are listening for<<<.


I'll bet not! Russ is a recording/mix engineer. He does not do mastering, which requires a whole different mindset, goal, and special skill and gear. Most recording/mix guys do not do mastering. A few have that ability, but it is not common.

>>>He would however know the concept I am speaking of.... When you work that closely with audio for that long I'm sure you are keenly aware the entire process... The "links in the chain" if you will.. I was involved with the entire concept... The entire process including miking, mixing and mastering ...