Neil Young - Archives Vol. 1 [96/24 and 192/24 Audio]

Posted By : johhenrik | Date : 04 Jan 2010 21:01:15 | Comments : 71 |

Neil Young - Archives, Vol. 1 (1963-1972) - 2009
FLAC 24Bit/96KHz and 24Bit/192KHz | Year/Label: 2009 Reprise | File-host: RS.com , Hotfile , Filefactory
Rock | Complete Artwork | Recovery 5% | Size: 10.30GB & 17.90GB

These are audio rips from the DVD and Blu-Ray Edition, so NO LOG and NO CUE.

This is one of last year's most anticipated boxset and here it comes in all the glory of high resolution. I have included both a 96KHz and 192KHz version for you to chose from (or get both). I wouldn't be surprised if this post is targeted quickly, so I recommend downloading it as fast as possible, preferably using a premium account. In order to help out, I have uploaded it to RS, Hotfile and Filefactory, so all of you should have as good a chance as possible.

Included is a HQ PDF made of the 236 page book. It's a separate file for you to download, in case you just want that one.

This is not my rip, so thanks to the original ripper for these files.

Track Listing DVD 96KHz/24Bit

Track Listing Blu-Ray 192KHz / 24Bit

These are NOT possible to burn to CD!

Download list

Password

ADVERTISING »

High Speed Download

« ADVERTISING

Posted By: hd2496 Date: 04 Jan 2010 21:46:54

Johhenrik - you are the GOD!!!!!!
I'm so happy, my favourite NY in HR!

Posted By: amitnewyork Date: 04 Jan 2010 21:46:58

Wow, is this for real? You've done well, my friend. I hope you've checked the tracks for authenticity at your end before uploading. Started downloading the 17.9 GB set. I hope I can download it full. At my speed, it's gonna take me some 15 hours to do so. Hope the links will last that long... uhhm... did I say thank you?

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 04 Jan 2010 21:49:26

They're from a trusted source and look/sound as they should.

Posted By: Miltiades Date: 04 Jan 2010 22:22:24

What a great upload of You...
Thank You very much!

Posted By: Lakefield Date: 04 Jan 2010 22:28:54

johhenrik said:

'These are audio rips from the DVD and Blu-Ray Edition, so NO LOG and NO CUE'

So that means they are directly from the disc to the harddrive? Or is it like Standalone Player -> Soundcard -> HDD?

@amitnewyork

What programm do you use for HiRes files to check for authenticity. audiochecker doesn't work for this

Thanks guys,
Lakefield

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 04 Jan 2010 22:43:37

Look in audacity and also listen to them.

They are not analog rips. I am writing this on my iphone but i will explain the ripping process later when i have a decent keyboard.

Edit: And here's how it's ripped:

DVD is ripped using DVD Audio Extractor 4.5.4

Blu-Ray: Extracted directly from Blu-Ray PCM streams using AnyDVD and tsMuxer. Files tracked and converted to FLAC using CDWave and tagged in Foobar.

Posted By: HHR18 Date: 04 Jan 2010 23:34:20

Yup, the DVD audio was extracted using DVD Audio Extractor. I know because it's my rip I uploaded on what.cd!

Posted By: Lakefield Date: 04 Jan 2010 23:36:06

Wow, that's fantastic. It seems like the old days of analog SACD rips are almost over with the new Blu-Ray Audios.

Thanks a million.

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 04 Jan 2010 23:46:34

And there you have the first ripper. :) I don't like posting peoples nick, but hey, now it's official. ;)

Posted By: sausage Date: 05 Jan 2010 01:19:12

thank you for the upload :)

question... can the 192/24 PCM be burnt as a BD5 and played in a bluray player?

Posted By: jorgeluiz Date: 05 Jan 2010 01:33:20

glorious upload johhenrik , is completely priceless! :-)

thanks so much and Happy New Year.

Posted By: Manelus Date: 05 Jan 2010 01:37:20

@HHR18
Did you rip the Blu-ray too?

I have downloaded 24/192 Blu-ray I I will Download a DVD-A 24/96 and see how it compares.

BTW Thanka a lot you both HHR18 and johhenrik

Posted By: Manelus Date: 05 Jan 2010 01:57:13

I have compared a couple of tracks and, to my ears DVD-A sounds slightly better (reproduced in a "Hi End" system.
Is it me?
Anyone else?
Extraction metode could be the culpit?

Posted By: eadd Date: 05 Jan 2010 03:08:00

I don't have enough space, what should I take? the 24/96 or the 24/192 ? what is better ???

Posted By: Blue61 Date: 05 Jan 2010 03:13:10

Thank you very much from Spain.
Muchas gracias !!!

Posted By: Dr. Robert Date: 05 Jan 2010 04:15:11

Awesome post you have. My bandwidth will be tied up for sometime downloading this. I'll grab the 24/96 first, and I'll come back later for 24/192 too, just because I'm a hi-rez pig. This is the type of post that makes me glad for jDownloader.

A big thanks to HHR18 for taking the time to rip and upload this. And a special thanks to my friend Johhenrik for sharing this on Avax. This download would have totally wiped out my ratio on the torrent site

Posted By: kingstefan Date: 05 Jan 2010 04:37:12

eadd, the 24/96 sounds amazing and takes up half as much space as the 192. 192 is overkill in my opinion, unless you have an extremely expensive hi-fi set and a trained ear. And even then you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Posted By: wersollsschonsein Date: 05 Jan 2010 05:48:33

Cheers from Ireland

Posted By: eadd Date: 05 Jan 2010 07:05:35

How was it rippd? is there a way to rip from DVD-A or something? can you please explain more on it?

And is the 24/192 is different from the 24/96? like better source or what ever?

Also
Thanks a lot for all the hard work!, hope there will be more of it :)

Posted By: Hellenback Date: 05 Jan 2010 07:21:57

Thanks a million for this. I have a hard time believing that the 24/192 will sound any better than the 24/96. Anybody find an audible difference? (Gonna burn with Solo ;)

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 05 Jan 2010 07:39:55

@eadd

read my comment above about ripping process. And this is not DVD-A, but Bluray and DVD-V. Although, the answer to your question, yes, DVD-A can be ripped too using DVDAExplorer.

Posted By: snoop26 Date: 05 Jan 2010 08:16:16

doesnt the dvd-box come with the "jurney through the past" movie? does anyone have it? oh forgot: god bless you!

Posted By: HHR18 Date: 05 Jan 2010 08:57:57

@Manelus: No I did not rip the blu ray, just the DVD-audio!

I liked the sound of the blu ray release, to my ears it sounds slightly better but you have to listen very hard! It might be placebo though :)

Posted By: Ghost of Hedonism Date: 05 Jan 2010 11:33:14

wow thank you very much ... I'm wondering if the 24/96 release is good enough for my old ears, it surely will be. but as far as I know me I will also grab the blu ray afterwards if it's so long available ... just to be ready for future. thanks again, very good job.

Posted By: HHR18 Date: 05 Jan 2010 12:19:03

By the way, another great thing about this release is that it isn't as compressed as the modern standards. I just hate overcompressed music! My thanks goes to the bluray uploader!

Posted By: wonderpig58 Date: 05 Jan 2010 14:43:37

Absolutely great!!! Thank you very much for sharing your wonderful job.

Posted By: Manelus Date: 05 Jan 2010 14:48:29

Correction of my previous post:
This time I have performed an intensive comparation listening.
HHR18, you are right 192 is better, closer to the reference vinyl.

Posted By: Ghost of Hedonism Date: 05 Jan 2010 16:25:12

I have a question to the Ultra Hi Res People: My 24/96 Download is almost finished and I'm thinking now about queuing the 192/24 thing for the night. Unfortunately my equipment foobar -> not so good usb2spdif port (96 khz) -> rather good DAC with max. 192 kHz -> stereo gives me only the chance to resample 192's to 96's already in foobar. Will I hear any diffenrence, what do you suppose?

Posted By: SteveJobs Date: 05 Jan 2010 16:35:53

Thank you so much for this amazing share!

Posted By: SuperFuzz Date: 05 Jan 2010 17:27:15

Thanks for the big share! I'll be grabbing the 24/96 files.
@Ghost of Hedonism, I don't see any point in grabbing the 24/192 if you're going to have to down-sample to 96khz using the USB-spdif. You'll be losing the ultra high-resolution and you can't get it back.

Posted By: jorgeluiz Date: 05 Jan 2010 17:30:21

Ghost of Hedonism posted

“

”

maybe you don't will hear differences, impossible to tell as is hardware and ears dependent but don't be afraid to test, go ahead and tell us yours impressions!
stay with the sources without changes to don't repent later! ;-)

cheers! :-)

Posted By: Guenni Date: 05 Jan 2010 18:17:21

Does Vol1 means there are another Volumes2 .... ?

Please -

Great share and thanks

Btw : if you turn it to wavs and burn with nero the redbooks are made out of it
I prefer (if i want a redbook CD) to transform it with Wavelab 6.1 to redbook Format.
and in this case to make the AudioDVDs of it ( dito with Wavelab)

Posted By: rich1 Date: 05 Jan 2010 19:13:10

OMG!!....johhenrik I think I love you!
I have only been able to get this in 160 quality (Awful) and could not find the artwork anywhere.
Thank you so much...and also not forgetting the original uploader for all your hard work.
It`s times like these that i don`t regret that Premium Rapidshare account...Now if only I`m fast enough?

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 05 Jan 2010 19:33:10

@Guenni

Vol 2 is planned, but it is not out yet.

Posted By: Dr. Robert Date: 05 Jan 2010 19:37:04

@ Guenni

This Volume I is currently the only NYA volume that has been released by Neil Young and his record company. Yes there will be a Volume 2. Hopefully some nice person will purchase it and share it too. Perhaps this will give you a better idea on NYA releases. But news on future releases is vague.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Young_Archives

This box set includes much alternate versions and remixes of original album tracks. The Neil Young Archives project has re-issued the first four studio albums and some new live concert albums. Those you should also seek out. Between myself, aksman and pbthal you can find excellent quality vinyl rips of the single album released.

Posted By: vpvi26 Date: 05 Jan 2010 20:54:42

Would you marry me Johhenrink ?

Posted By: wc2 Date: 05 Jan 2010 21:00:36

You're the BEST!!!! I can't believe this. Thanks a billion, Johhenrink.

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 05 Jan 2010 23:25:00

@vpvi26

sure, but you bring the dowry...

Posted By: HHR18 Date: 05 Jan 2010 23:33:32

I can't wait for volume II to arrive. An even better periode for Neil Young, musically that is! I will most certainly be buying the box!

Posted By: lkrushel Date: 06 Jan 2010 19:10:58

Incredible post! Thanks to everyone involved in ripping and posting!

Posted By: hddoc Date: 06 Jan 2010 20:38:46

How do I download this from file factory rather than rapidshare?

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 07 Jan 2010 07:05:55

@hddoc

You use the File Factory links? :) Or am I missing something?

Posted By: bad0nc1 Date: 07 Jan 2010 22:52:07

Brilliant stuff! Great job Johhenrik!

Posted By: hddoc Date: 08 Jan 2010 00:49:32

I must be missing something because I only see a single rapidshare link to a 4KB file. Where on the page are the links?

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 08 Jan 2010 02:54:48

the links are in that file.

Posted By: Ghost of Hedonism Date: 09 Jan 2010 14:51:04

@jorgeluiz and all ... here my impressions:

I must confess that my old ears are not a real help on fixing the difference between 96 vs 192 kHz. I tried for days now in a double blind szenario. I even borrowed a E-MU 0404 DAC, capable for 192 kHz, from a friend since my DAC does resolve only 96 kHz. FOR ME, no chance to say what file it is. Best sound I get from my own DAC and this does not depend on the kHz because in this chain everything is resampled to 96.

The E-MU is not bad, a bit sharp sounding for my feeling, the "stage" not as "living", and overall a little weaker then my own equipment at last. Not bad but weaker. My chain goes on with excellent amp and very good speakers in front of old ears.

For me it definetely depends on the DAC, not on the other chain elements and surely not on the files.

I guess there's a bit placebo, but life's too short not to enjoy the 192 ... :-)

Posted By: eadd Date: 09 Jan 2010 19:52:03

The 24/96 and 24/192 are really the same!
But
Maybe if yours DAC can handle 192, why not?
:)

Also, a DAC that can handle 192, doesn't mean it will sound better than 96.
96 requires less "work" from the cables, the CPU, the DAC and so on, and can leads to a better sound in the end.

24/192 is usually for studio processing.

Also today studios even use 32/384 for mastering (mixing and so on), so?
I don't see anyone here wants 32 bit of sound, right?!

There are many long posts on head-fi about it, and it seem that 16/44 can be most of the time as good as even 24/192, usually if you do hear a different it is due to a different master tape or processing in the way.

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 09 Jan 2010 21:10:27

Using 32bit is only 24bits padded up to 32bit. This to help out with the math, not more information in there, just a bigger value to work with. I still claim there is a difference between 192 and 96, although there is no night and day difference. Lsteing to drums (or maybe more precisly, cymbals), you notice a differnt timber on them. Acoustical guitar as well. Anyhow, I don't hear this difference using my speakers, only my HD600 headphones. My listening room doesn't exist any longer, since I've gotten kids etc..

Still, do one NEED 192 or even 96? No, I don't think so. A well recorded CD sounds damn nice if you have the right gear, but hey, if one get to chose between a free Mazda and a free BMW, I pick the BMW. ;)

Posted By: waterlogic Date: 10 Jan 2010 04:45:02

@Ghost of Hedonism

You will here no difference (especially not with Neil Young kind of music) . Moreover this is impossible for a human and especially when we are talking about the same recording 96 beeing downsampled from 192 .

You might here cymbals from heaven if you spend a fortune on fancy gear (and your wife finds out).

"Those who can" hear the difference, never dare taking part in blind-test comparisons for a simple reason that out of blind testing they can imagine hearing whatever they want or like (you know : if you can dream it, you can do it). But after all, this is called imagination and is more beautiful than hearing. I think we humans have a huge defect - we always want to be in control of everything.
But as an italian car racer ones said : If you are in control it is only because you are not going fast enough.

Still all respects to johhenrik sharing with us this material in both versions !

Cheers !

Posted By: rsuser Date: 11 Jan 2010 03:56:04

@HHR18:

If the 24/96 is PCM from a DVD-V, why didn't you just upload the ISOs? It is next to impossible to create a DVD-V from this with the original bandwidth. Believe me I've tried. Yet it is easy to play a DVD-V with any player through your receiver. BTW discWelder will only create a 16/48 AC3 DVD-V. You could use DVD-lab PRO but it is very involved and time-consuming. Won't you consider this as a possibility? On RS? Please? ;)

Posted By: WalrusPaul Date: 11 Jan 2010 21:42:12

Thank you very much, Johhenrik.

Does anyone happen to know why The Losing End from the Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere album wasn't included?

Posted By: lunaire Date: 12 Jan 2010 15:20:46

Thank!thanks! thanks! really amazing post. Hurray for the hi res; not only "listen" to the music but really feel it!Awesome!

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 12 Jan 2010 23:15:33

@rsuser

Do some more research. It's extremely easy to create a DVD-V compliant DVD with the 96/24 files. Many programs support it. Check around in the comments here on other uploads and you'll find MANY tips.

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 12 Jan 2010 23:28:43

@waterlogic

I am probably stupid to get into this debate, but okey, here we go.

Your reasoning makes no sense. According to your logic, the 96KHz would be indistinguishable from a normal 44.1KHz version too. Let me actually use what someone else wrote, in much better words than I could do, to explain a few things.

"Yes [Joel], if you observe only one ear, you are right, we can not hear frequencies above 20kHz. But normally we have two ears, and it is proven by science that both ears together have a much better time resolution than it would be possible within the 20kHz bandwidth of one ear. The existence of two transmission channels can not compensate this. Please try a simple experiment: Go with one ear in front of one loudspeaker. Perfect would be a little but very good system or a dual concentric type like Tannoy. Then listen to music, at best a piece with some percussion. Now compare the resolution of your “hear system” when you hear with both ears or when you put your finger into the ear which is on the opposite site of your head (not the ear in front of the speaker). You´ll find that your hearing improves the time resolution of the perceived signal with the sound that reaches the second ear, even due to reflections of the room. E.g. you hear a better structure in percussion or other very complex sounds like piano, strings etc. This is very impressive, our human hearing is such a fantastic apparatus. You can do the same experiment with a clock that ticks very loud. Always the reproduction you perceive with both ears is much more sharp than with only one ear. This fact alone shows very clear that the simplification, done during the development of the CD, is wrong.
But perhaps this is not the most important point. If you want to do a digital recording @44,1kHz, you have to cut off all frequency content above 22,05kHz. This does not only cut down the time resolution of the music recording due to the reduced bandwidth, therefore you need a filter with a large slew rate, too. And this filter does cause a huge amount of time smearing. (Please have a look at image 2 on ths site: http://www.acousence.de/Seiten/digital_cd_en.html)
The very important keyword is the time resolution. Both effects - limited bandwidth and time smearing - cut down the time resolution, and this is not good for the sound and especially the music."

Do I claim I hear which version is which, no I don't, but I do hear a difference when using headphones. My speakers and listening room is nowadays a playground for my kids anyways *sigh*

Posted By: waterlogic Date: 13 Jan 2010 01:46:19

@ johhenrik

There is definite audiable difference between 44.1 and 96kHz of the same recording in most cases (also for people with normal hearing > 50 y.) .

We tested some hires files (96 and 192 classical music / synfonic, concertos, jazz, acoustic etc of same recordings) with some younger people (from 12 to 15 years of age) with Grado RS1i cans. The results were as expected - in more then 85 % they could not tel the difference in the 15% it could be a lucky guessing ? So we tend to believe this is just another audiofools' make believe, or ?

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 14 Jan 2010 10:04:34

I will not debate your findings. But I wouldn't use it either as proof as to whether one can or cannot hear the difference. The difference is subtle and you need a trained ear I would say. Just like I would probably not be able to tell the difference between a real or a fake Monet painting (okey, maybe a bad analogy, but it will have to do now ;) ). I have done some A/B-test with two friends of mine who are both Mastering engineers and they were able to pick the SRC beeing used but I wasn't. I think it was MBit+ and Apogee that was tested.

Push comes to shove, unless the recording/sampling is done properly, no matter how many MHz you throw at it, it will not sound better/different. Also, the term better is quite subjective... I saw a recent study where most people prefered the 96KBit version of a Ogg file, instead of the 320KBit... go figure.

Maybe it is all placebo too, who knows, but hey, it makes me feel good. ;) My point with what I said though was that 192 or 96KHz doesn't have to do with linear frequency alone, as in highest note etc, but the time domain is just as important. That is why material recorded at 192 usually sounds better than material recorded at 44 or 48, even if all is later going through a SRC to 44.1.

Posted By: rsuser Date: 15 Jan 2010 03:06:16

@johhenrik:

I have done a lot of research and only found the DVD-lab PRO "solution" which is a real pain at best. As I mentioned, discWelder won't do it. So instead of making cryptic remarks and allusions to posts here that would be almost impossible to find, how about making specific software recommendations based on your personal experience and pointing to specific posts?

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 15 Jan 2010 12:22:58

I don't really do any burning. But I have in the past. DVD Audio Solo works well, that one I actually tried just a couple of weeks ago. DVD2one2X is the one I've used most, when creating DVD-V. It creates seamless audio. Lplex and Audio DVD Creator are two others, which I haven't used, but which have been mentioned here in the comments.

This subject has been hammered to death here in the comments, therefor my comment earlier.

Posted By: dodino Date: 17 Jan 2010 13:39:19

Thanks @johhenrik for this incredible effort. the HL link are really appreciated :-)

Posted By: eharmonica Date: 29 Jan 2010 01:41:03

Holy fuck-amole!
Thanks.

Posted By: Electrotung Date: 29 Jan 2010 06:56:34

:) Yes,I am late to the party it seems as much. Thank you for this release,jh. I haven't got around to enjoying the Archives Vol1 redbook version,got to grab this for cataloging purposes. ;)

Posted By: summerdang Date: 02 Feb 2010 03:07:14

No space in my PC. FML……~~o(>_<)o ~~

Posted By: dickinhood Date: 23 Mar 2010 21:30:34

Thanks johhenrik for this great share, and the bluray rip is definitely better !

Posted By: MilMascaras Date: 23 Aug 2010 03:29:58

And another thanks to johhenrik; I always wanted Topanga 1,2 & 3 (DVDs 3,5 & 7)... Unable to get it on CD before it disappeared/was pulled, so delighted to find your posting. For the record, I took the 24/96, and converted them into 24bit/44.1kHz alac's and they play beautifully on my music server and my iPhone. I realize that keeping the 96's and/or getting the 192's would be even better, but this was a very good compromise for me, as they play on everything/everywhere, and can be easily turned to 16/44.1's if I want to make a CD (but I won't.) The Beatles 2009 USB Box set was in 24bit/44.1 kHz flac's, and that is where I got the idea for this format setting compromise in excellent sounding 24bit/44.1 kHz alac's. They sound wonderful and play on everything I own and use, Thank you again!

Posted By: cvrcmrc Date: 04 Nov 2010 13:49:00

Thank you!

Posted By: marpulca Date: 07 Nov 2010 22:37:57

i have no words. only THANKS.
a (stupid) question : i understant it's impossible to burn on cd.
but is it possible to burn it on a dvd ?
i hope the question it's not "too" stupid.
thanks

Posted By: johhenrik Date: 08 Nov 2010 14:42:20

marpulca: http://24bit.turtleside.com/

Posted By: Sartre Date: 16 Jan 2011 14:18:30

DigionAudio2 will burn 24/192 pcm/mlp to DVD-Audio and 24/96 pcm to DVD-Video.

http://avaxhome.ws/software/software_type/multimedia/Converters/digionaudio2_reloaded.html

The burner/DVD creator app won't work if you have IE9 beta installed.

Posted By: obsessions Date: 23 Oct 2011 04:01:31

Does anyone reseed this again?

Posted By: obsessions Date: 24 Oct 2011 13:48:16

Thank you very much!

Posted By: lngblackcoat Date: 30 Oct 2011 13:56:39

Hi there.........I realise I'm very late to this one.Is there an active link?
Thanks

Recent searches: