[Chappell] - DMM 301 and DMM 305 - Jack Dieval Son Piano Et Son Grand Orchestre

[scotch111]

I'd requested these two records recently (Thanks Greta and Retronic for sharing) and in the meantime I ended up finding minty copies of each on vinyl, perhaps never before played.

So I've got fresh rips at 24-48 to share that sound very nice and hifi!



[Chappell] - DMM 301 - Jack Dieval Son Piano Et Son Grand Orchestre - Dance And Mood Music Vol 1 (1966)

pixeldrain.com/u/f7jGfh2L





[Chappell] - DMM 305 - Jack Dieval Son Piano Et Son Grand Orchestre - Dance And Mood Music Vol 5 (1968)

pixeldrain.com/u/QYrMAE91

[WSBG Returns Yet Again!]

Thanks!

[grendizer1]

Thanks a lot scotch111 

[zoomo]

Thanks very much!

[digdeeper]

Very nice! Much appreciated, scotch111!

[Ice8]

Many thanks scotch111 for these Chappell.

[Greta]

Thank you scotch for your rips. Great!

I just have a question, out of curiosity, and want to know your opinion cause I'm not that skilled with technical stuff.

I noticed the difference of size between the two zip while downloading, so I've been curious to understand why and I checked the files.
And I found out that the flacs of DMM 305 are all around the 1600 kbps, while the flacs of DMM 301 are all around the 900kbps.

At first I thought that the wavs/aiff coming from your rips (or you rip directly to flac maybe?) have been encoded to flac with different levels of compression, so I tried to decode them to aiff (they result to be 2304 kbps in aiff or wav), and then encoded them back again to flac with the same level of compression.

But the result is the same as your shares, being DMM 305 with higher kbps than DMM 301.


My curiosity is: why this happens?
Sorry for being probably..nosy..?

[scotch111]

Thank you scotch for your rips. Great!

I just have a question, out of curiosity, and want to know your opinion cause I'm not that skilled with technical stuff.

I noticed the difference of size between the two zip while downloading, so I've been curious to understand why and I checked the files.
And I found out that the flacs of DMM 305 are all around the 1600 kbps, while the flacs of DMM 301 are all around the 900kbps.

At first I thought that the wavs/aiff coming from your rips (or you rip directly to flac maybe?) have been encoded to flac with different levels of compression, so I tried to decode them to aiff (they result to be 2304 kbps in aiff or wav), and then encoded them back again to flac with the same level of compression.

But the result is the same as your shares, being DMM 305 with higher kbps than DMM 301.


My curiosity is: why this happens?
Sorry for being probably..nosy..?

I'd noticed that as well. My guess is that the FLAC codec can compress the files more heavily when they don't contain as much stereo information. In the case of DMM 301, it's is a mono record, so that 's probably why.

[Kwantum Assassin]

Thanks

[Greta]

I'd noticed that as well. My guess is that the FLAC codec can compress the files more heavily when they don't contain as much stereo information. In the case of DMM 301, it's is a mono record, so that 's probably why.

Thanks for the tip, it makes sense!
Cheers.

[winter2014]

Thanks for the sharing~

[Ene]

Thx scotch111!