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
zd542
5,339 posts
 
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.
raymonda
847 posts
 
no offense taken and u believe we are in agreement.
davide256's avatar
davide256
362 posts
 
BTB, I have over 140 albums downloaded from HDTracks, all 24 bit, ranging from 44.1-192khz. In all but a few cases the HDTrack albums were much better for playback fidelity than the 16bit cd version... those that disappointed were from bad analog masters that nothing could help or where I did not like the engineers choice in remastering tracks. I still prefer LP's but the heavier investment I have in an LP playback source solution makes that an unbalanced comparison.
davide256's avatar
davide256
362 posts
 
And for those who think "bits are bits" and that digital is a simple appliance for playback, its not, any more than with turntable design. See example article below for just one set of challenges in DAC design

http://www.audiostream.com/content/bruno-putzeys-talks-dacs
noble100's avatar
noble100 OP
1,093 posts
 
Geoffkait,

You stated:"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?"

I think it's also ironic that the reason DVD-Audio probably didn't succeed may be a reason hi-rez 24/96 might not succeed about 30 years later: A serious lack of music actually recorded direct to digital at 24/96. The vast majority of music advertised as DVD-Audio then, just as the vast majority of music advertised as hi-rez 24/96 music today, are actually just the original analog master tapes transferred to a bigger bucket format. Consumers then, just as consumers today, are being asked to compare analog recordings to near perfect copies of analog recordings and it's not surprising they're having a hard time distinguishing any differences since there are none. The level of fidelity is forever established at the time and method it was recorded.

99% of HD Tracks recordings are analog to digital transfers. The average consumer has probably never heard music recorded directly to digital.

Raymonda,

Well said. I think we all should just agree to disagree. With your work and experience in both analog and digital audio, I find your thoughts and opinions well founded and very interesting. Thanks.

In this thread, I've often referred to transfers of analog masters to hi-res 24/96 PCM digital as being not true hi-res but there's also a positive aspect to these transfers. I think most would agree that there's a lot of good music recorded to analog master tapes over the years. Because analog tape physically deteriorates over time, it is not a good long-term storage medium. Since 24/96 PCM is capable of making near perfect copies of analog master tape, these transfers will at least prevent the permanent loss of music currently stored on analog master tapes.

More to discover