1. Home
  2. digital
  3. 1442763165

Why would anyone use HD Tracks for Downloads?

I really enjoy hi-res computer audio music files I've downloaded from Liaison in Europe. These files were recorded direct to digital and I download them as 24/96 FLAC or WAV files. There is an obvious improvement in dynamics, soundstaging, noise floor and detail over CD that make it worth the small increase in $$.
My understanding is that all, or at least the vast majority, of downloads offered by HD Tracks are nothing more than existing older standard resolution analog masters transferred to PCM or DSD format digital files. Standard resolution recordings transferred to a hi-resolution format cannot produce hi-res music files. An analogy is transferring a steak served on a small plate to a larger plate; the steak will still taste the same and there is no improvement in taste. Music originally recorded on a multi-track analog reel-to-reel recorder will have limited dynamic range, a higher noise floor, a limited frequency response and less detail than the same music recorded directly to digital.

I know there currently is a lack of major artists taking advantage of hi-res, direct to digital recording of their music. Most of the truly hi-res music seems to be coming from lesser known artists. I've found that i Trax in California and the Liaison Music Shop in Europe are 2 good sources of true hi-res recordings.

So, my question is to those that have downloaded supposed hi-res music files from HDTracks: Are you disappointed by the sound quality of your purchases from HDTracks? I would think you would be, since I believe you're listening to standard resolution files that should sound no better than CDs or records you may already own of the same material.

I'm very leery of buying HDTracks downloads not only because of the above, but also because they fail to list the source of their downloads; there's no mention of whether they're simply transfers of standard resolution masters or are recorded direct to digital and actually are hi-res.

I'm interested in readers' thoughts on avoiding standard resolution files advertised as hi-res.

Thanks,
Tim
noble100

Showing 6 responses by geoffkait

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
14,147 posts
 
I asked essentially the exact same question on another audio forum. I kinda don't think the analog master tapes are being made available to every Tom Dick and Harry. DVD Audio is 192/24 and there's nothing wrong with the sound of DVD Audio. Pity it went belly up in 2007.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
14,147 posts
 
That's pretty much the whole debate with respect to analog especially tape and digital sound. Digtial has been playing catch up for more than 30 years in terms of musicality and in terms of perceived dynamic range, especially when one considers what recording engineers have been doing to the dynamic range of the original recordings, which is to suffocate it. Obviously on paper digital looks great. No one is denying that. It's just that in practice digital sounds compressed, bass shy, congealed, wiry, information challenged, think threadbare, like paper mâché.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
14,147 posts
 
Yer absolutely right, it is the gold standard. And that is why we have the audiophile expression, "it's sounds like the master tape." Of course even the master tape can sound generic or perhaps even horrible on a bog standard system. It so hard to generalize in this hobby, no?
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
14,147 posts
 
I did not detect any hostility in Noble100's response, and I do nothing debates or even extended debates or heated debates. I agree that on paper digtial appears to be the cat's pajamas, always has, you know, what with dynamic range and SNR numbers up around 90 dB or more. Compare those number to say vinyl that comes in around 65-70 dB on a good day. Let's take the highest number 70 dB and compare that to 90 dB. What's that 100 times higher? Yet, seldom does dynamic range actually sound 100 times higher than (very good) vinyl. Taking this logic further if one takes a look at the on line dynamic range database what he'll find is that there is a very wide variation in dynamic range for CDs over the past 30 years, with the trend being lower dynamic range, in many cases very low dynamic range. What I recommend is developing a matrix of sonic characteristics such as dynamic range, apparent SNR, tonality, naturalness, realism, perceived resolution, frequency response, bass performance, soundstage depth and width, for example, and thn weight those parameters to prioritize them, say 1-10. Then anyone can compare say Vinyl vs CD or Vinyl vs hi res downloads or CD vs cassette and rate each medium according for each sonic parameter. Each person can weight the parameters however he wishes, so the results will be specific to each individual. This takes all the bias and guesswork out of the debate which is now what almost 35 years old?
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
14,147 posts
 
To me it seems rather moot to debate the pros and cons of one medium's supposed superior resolution over another since it's well established we're not getting the full picture of what's on the actual recording for a myriad of reasons. In the case of Redbook, for example, information that was once inaudible spring suddenly to life in a flood of new details and nuances when vibration isolation is applied to the system, or colored pens are applied to the disc, or the out of round disc edge is beveled, or the CD is treated with some lotion or another. So, we know, the medium is not necessarily the culprit in the first place. There is a lot more to the art of sound as it were than spinning a disc or even downloading a file.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
14,147 posts
 
Pardon me for pointing out a rather blatant irony. The irony is that 24/96 is actually the same thing as DVD-Audio, which, as fate would have it, was considered obsolete by 2007. Ironic, ain't it?
More to discover