"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."
That's really not true. Standard resolution seems to be a marketing term more than anything. If you don't believe me, try to find a definition. My best guess is that you are referring to Redbook, when you say standard resolution. Most recordings are not done at 16/44. They are recorded at a better quality and then down sampled to CD quality. As long as you are getting the resolution that the recording was made at, you should be getting better than CD quality. For analog recordings, there's no limit on resolution. Quality will vary depending on how well the recording was made. It can range from very high, better than CD quality, to very low quality. |
"DVD Audio is 192/24 and there's nothing wrong with the sound of DVD Audio. Pity it went belly up in 2007.
You're right. Too bad the marketing wasn't as good as the sound quality. |
Skoczylas,
I don't know how your system is set up, but you need to put time and effort into setting a computer up as a source. Its no different than setting up a TT or picking the right CD player. The same thing happened to a lot of people with SACD. They went out and bought an entry level unit from a place like Best Buy and didn't get good results. They were asking too much of the format itself. I made that mistake. I went out and bought a cheap Sony 9000ES and put it next to my Wadia. It didn't go too well for the Sony. The CD sounded way better than the SACD. But when I put a SACD in the Sony, and compared it to the same recording on CD using the Sony, the DSD did sound better. |
"Now that my computer audio system is up and running well, I'm on the lookout for more high quality music downloads like this but I'm finding the process difficult and frustrating."
You can always download the hi res files first using torrents. If the music turns out to be as advertised, then buy it. |
"09-28-15: Paul79
I've had great luck with Acoustic Sounds high rez also."
Those guys have a very good reputation overall. I would be more likely to trust them over any of the other hi res sources I know of. |
"It's really very simple. Any recording that was recorded at the time the musicians were present using equipment that doesn't exceed "CD quality" or 16-bits of dynamic range can't be called "hi-res music". This includes any and all recordings that were made using analog tape machines. They simply don't have the specifications to meet the definition for high-res music. Of course, analog recordings can, and do, sound very good. Despite the various claims to the contrary, analog recordings just lack the capacity that digital recordings possess of lower noise, higher dynamic range and finer detail."
What are you basing that statement on? When you talk resolution with digital, 16/44 24/96 etc.., its fairly easy to assign a number to it. I'm getting the impression that because its more difficult to assign a specific resolution "factor" to an analog recording, that you just assume its not as good. Also, how do you explain analog recordings that sound better on vinyl, than the same recording transferred to Redbook? If all analog recordings are no better than Redbook, then this can't happen. Not only that, there are analog recordings that are transferred to higher resolution formats than CD, and they do sound better than CD's.
So, I guess I just don't see how the rules you are referring to in your post always apply. Just to be clear, there are lesser recordings that do go by what you are talking about in that they are not good enough to realize better sound with high res. I'm not disputing that. I just want to know about the recordings that do sound better than CD despite them being all analog. |
"I am definitely not stating, or implying, that analog recordings and playback systems can't sound very, very good. Especially some vinyl and reel-to-reel recordings and systems. I am certain of this, as I believe you are, because I've heard several very good recordings on both mediums on very good systems that sounded spectacular. I think we are in agreement on this."
We are, and you definitely never said analog can't sound very good. As for the rest of it, we can't be too far off. My argument is simply, if an analog recording is well made, I see no reason why the SQ can't be at a higher level as Redbook. At least in some areas. There's no question that digital has some inherent strengths over analog.
"However, I've also heard several very good direct to hi-res digital recordings on very good hi-res digital playback systems that, and this is only in my personal opinion, sound even better."
I really appreciate your honesty. I think most people would try and make up some type of absolute technical explanation as to why they have to be right. Just to win an argument.
"Fat chance, right?"
Unfortunate, but true. Its like the music industry is trying to put themselves out of business on purpose. I've never seen so many bad choices. |
"You have highly developed listening skills and experience with the highest quality playback of both digital and analog recordings, but most of us out here have never heard anything close to the highest quality playback and are stumbling around in the dark trying to put a decent sounding system together."
I don't see why that has to be true. The typical audio playback system in a recording studio is usually nothing special. Its not that difficult to surpass a system like that with a fairly modest home system. The application is different. Also, if you look at Raymonda's system, I don't see anything in there that the average person couldn't buy.
"most of us out here have never heard anything close to the highest quality playback and are stumbling around in the dark trying to put a decent sounding system together."
You would probably enjoy a trip to CES. Its loaded with expensive systems. That said, I doubt listening to super high end systems will do you any good. If you can't afford it, then its off the table anyway. |
Raymonda,
I hope you didn't take my post the wrong way. When I read Tomcy6's post, he made it sound like you need to have exposure to very expensive, high end equipment, as a prerequisite to getting good sound. And if not, you are at a complete disadvantage. My comment about studio equipment being average, or nothing special, was general. I have no idea what you use in your studio. I referenced the system you list (I was assuming it was your home system), just to show that it wasn't necessary to go out and buy all this expensive gear in order to get it right. Knowing what you are doing is more important than how much money you spend on your system. That was the point I was trying to make. |
