[Disco Angelicum]Riccardo Allorto - Musiche Di Commento - Suite Elettronica N.1

[Texas Ranger]

Riccardo Allorto (1921-2015) was an ialian composer, conductor, music historian and magazine editor.

Suite Elettronica is a very original record of early electronic library music.
Allorto created a dark experimental concrete album mixed with psychotic synthesizer sounds of the 60s.
The sound is raw and wild in it's nature... a true piece of art and individualism in my opinion. Thanks to the og ripper.

The album contains one piece of music which is not mentioned on the cover - track A 7.

https://we.tl/t-uPd99TArVt





Url: https://www.discogs.com/release/7901518-R-Allorto-Musiche-Di-Commento-Suite-Elettronica-N-1-Colonna-Sonora

[Ene]

Nice!! Thanks a lot N°2

[Greta]

Great!
Thank you N.2, and Merry Christmas.

[scotch111]

Cool record. Thanks for the share!

[tezeta]

Amazing! For this I owe you a ton of thanks. We all remember how disappointing it was learning that the digital version of this album was both incomplete and transcoded from a lossy source.

Recently, I was sent a different rip from this one, also from the genuine LP, but someone copied it wrong; one track was duplicated over another, and it turns out another track was missing entirely. I was actually just thinking of sharing it here with an appeal for the missing tracks... But now you've saved me that trouble! Now, finally, we can hear the whole thing, and what wonderful, groundbreaking music it is. Definitely one of my top library records!

Cheers to you for finally clearing this up, No.2! You made my year of browsing this lovely place. 

[owlglass]

Wonderful! Thanks, N°2!

[Stout]

N°2, many thanks for this!

Looks like Santa Claus came early this year.

[roope]

Thank you very much, cool share!

[Rocco]

Thank you very much for this rarity N°2, such a beautiful record.

[Tanasi]

Thanks, N°2!

[tezeta]

It's time for a bump and a new link! Thanks to you OP, once more, for the complete and genuine rip of this truly special record! I have taken the liberty of converting to 24bit/96kHz FLAC files.
mega.nz/folder/UWJkFJ7C#d5gdken7r9TwiU55_f8t1g

[likedeeler]

... I have taken the liberty of converting to 24bit/96kHz FLAC files.
...

Hey tezeta, I downloaded the rip when it was posted by Texas Ranger (aka N°2).

I hesitate to mention this, but: did you indeed convert his 16-44 files to 24-96? I suspect that you did because spectrals indicate it's the same rip.

Doing so is not advisable, for obvious reasons.

Firstly, you mislead others (and also yourself) about the actual format of the recording.

Secondly, this rip is now three times as large without purpose.

While upscaling lossless audio files is less bad than transcoding lossy files -- one can simply downscale them again without any change in acoustic properties -- it is still something that I suggest you should consider abandoning.

Here's the rip, as originally provided by Texas Ranger in 16-bit, 44.1 kHz format:

mega@.nz/file/A1oU   0bpC#7_M7tjgxm8Dc-NP   XfQ3ahNrsv0Syp5mA   PzUmqmgIFY4

(Delete spaces and replace '@' by the obvious.)

To all who have downloaded the inflated version: please do not pass on these files; instead, delete them on your side and replace them with the 16-44 version.

[nidostar]

Agreed. I still don't understand the attraction to producing rips of analog data at such a crazy rate as 24/96. It's not like you're capturing any additional musical information. Plus the human ear has natural limitations. Hence the reason why the CD format settled with 16/44. But whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[likedeeler]

... I still don't understand the attraction to producing rips of analog data at such a crazy rate as 24/96. It's not like you're capturing any additional musical information. Plus the human ear has natural limitations. ...

We have to distinguish two aspects here: information and perception.

For perception, frequencies above 20 kHz are largely irrelevant: no normal hi-fi system -- even a very good one -- can produce frequencies above 20-25 kHz, and you could not perceive them anyway.

But if you digitally record a phonographic record, using a record player, you are going to have frequencies well above 20 kHz, if it's a capable set-up.** If you want to capture these frequencies (which is information) you may need a higher sampling rate than 44.1 kHz. That's because one always needs to sample with at least twice the highest frequency present in an acoustic phenomenon to digitally record it completely.

Upsampling (or increasing the bit depth of) digital audio files is useless in any case, as the informational content cannot and does not change by it.

________
** These frequencies are mainly produced by the player, because the vibration of the needle caused by the groove in turn causes the record player itself to vibrate, creating overtones. No master tape and no phonographic record contains frequencies above 20-21 kHz since these are invariably -- and deliberately -- removed at the final steps of mastering.

[tezeta]

Hmm! I'm confused because the files on my drive were 32 bit (!)96kHz wav and I don't recall converting them at all before prepping this post... I'm well aware about upsampling and how/why it's frowned upon (and yes LD, we've had disagreements before about audio quality, but let's leave all that in the past) and I would certainly never post anything upsampled intentionally.

When I'm home from work today I'm going to investigate the original files, which I still have saved.