Why would anyone use HD Tracks for Downloads?

"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.

Zd542,



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.

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. By better, I mean certain qualities that are obviously improved with the direct to digital hi-res recordings and playback; specifically the virtual absence of background noise that increases detail, the greater dynamic range tat increases impact and the greater illusion that the musicians are in the room (likely due to the improved detail hi-res direct to digital recordings seem to capture, giving added spatial cues, combined with a greater signal to noise ratio and lowered noise floor that allow these spatial cues to be more easily perceived.)

I'm convinced that direct to hi-res digital recordings offer higher fidelity than analog to digital transfers. I have no doubt that the analog to digital transfers can sound very good but also never better than the original analog master. I'm concerned that the major labels, along with some distributors like HD Tracks, are deliberately not recognizing and drawing attention to the distinction between the two solely for financial gain.

I believe they, and consumers, would be better off by being honest as we are being; they could state that their analog to hi-res digital transfers will sound as good as the original analog master but, at the same time, announce that all future recordings will be made direct to hi-res digital because it offers even better fidelity. They could still produce standard resolution analog vinyl and tape recordings from the direct to hi-res digital master as well as charge more for the true hi-res downloads and physical copies in Bluray and USB form. This would also free them to list the provenance of all their offerings without fear of lost revenue.

Fat chance, right?

Tim

"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.

Hi Rez is a marketing term and has no real meaning. IMHO, it only implies a recreation of music that approaches the sound of real instruments in real space. Which is a moving target dependent on a number of variables, e.g., software and hardware related to SOTA and time. What maybe hi rez today may be far from it tomorrow as technology marches on.

It is not tied to only the digital domain. In the future, digital maybe a relic of the past, surpassed by some new storage medium, which approaches "real" to a much more accurate degree. Yes dynamic range is, too a large degree, very important, however, there is more going on in there than that.

That being said, analog still has qualities that allows it to be perceived in a way that, in some case, approaches "real" in a more honest fashion than digital does. Something that is not measured by ones and zeros.

I know this is slightly off topic but important none the less.

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.