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
paul79
163 posts
 
I've had great luck with Acoustic Sounds high rez also.
talk2me's avatar
talk2me
324 posts
 
Anthony Cordesman wrote a review of the Burmester 151 Music Server, and in the article addressed the issue of "false marketing" downloads. The implementation of the recording is more important, even what mic used. Too many people are mislead that higher rez is better is the answer.
zd542
5,339 posts
 
"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.
noble100's avatar
noble100 OP
1,093 posts
 
It is clear to me that some of the posters on this thread understand the importance of provenance (a recording's specific history) in determining whether or not a recording will exhibit the qualities of true high resolution when played back on their high quality systems.

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.

The major labels have no hi-res content but this hasn't stop them from transferring over 5,000 standard-res masters to hi-res formats and selling them as hi-res to make some easy money by duping uninformed buyers.

Instead of listing the true provenance (history) and date of the original analog master recordings, they list the date of transfer into a hi-res bucket or format. IMHO, this was an intentionally misleading business marketing decision motivated by economic gain. It was certainly influenced by the fact that all their musical content was recorded on, and stored on, the older analog equipment and they completely lacked any musical content recorded on, or stored on, the newer and technically superior digital equipment.

My concern is that this will slow or prevent musicians from recording their music directly to digital format using digital equipment, since consumers will correctly decide that the major labels offerings don't sound any better than their CDs or Analog recordings. Music lovers will not be experiencing,enjoying or demanding the improved Signal to Noise Ratios, much greater Dynamic Range and finer detail that direct to digital recording and digital hi-res playback allows on high quality playback systems.

Unfortunately, consumer knowledge and awareness may be our only forms of defense against these deliberately misleading marketing tactics.

My rant is now summarized and completed.

Thanks,
Tim

zd542
5,339 posts
 
"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.
More to discover