Why would anyone use HD Tracks for Downloads?

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.

Zd542,

You stated: "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."

I agree with that completely and, in total, I don't think we disagree on much. Both formats offer plenty of musical enjoyment when well recorded.

Raymonda,

I think you may be right that Hi-Rez has been turned into a marketing term; as I stated earlier, I believe the major music labels' deliberate but poor marketing decisions are responsible.

Technology does march on and the future version of hi-rez may not be tied to the digital domain even though your description of hi-resolution audio's implication, a recreation of music that approaches the sound of real instruments in real space, is exactly my experience thus far on well recorded direct to hi-res digital 24 bit/96khz FLAC downloads. I remain open to any new technology that makes reproduced music sound even more realistic, digital or otherwise.

I realize there's more required than just the ability of hi-res digital to recreate the realistic dynamic range of real instruments; digital hi-res's exstremely low noise floor,extremely accurate frequency response along with its ability to recreate fine detail and spacial cues, are also responsible for its exceptional realism.

You stated:"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 don't completely understand this. Analog was the first music recreation technology and I understand many people became accustomed to its smooth sound with its limited dynamic range and less than accurate frequency response due to variances in tape speed. I don't know why you would describe this system as recreating music in a more 'honest' fashion than a system based on math. Is there a better, more honest and verifiably true basis for any system than math? I can't think of one and don't know why you'd think a system based on small metal particles being aligned by a magnetic field, placed on synthetic tape that is spooled through a machine that has difficulty maintaining a constant tape speed as it passes this tape over metal pickup and playback heads that deteriorate over time, would be a better basis for a system.

I have no issue with people preferring analog music systems over digital systems. But please don't defend it with subjective and unverifiable statements that exhibit more bias than truth.

Geoffkait,

My intention of my thread was not to rehash the usual analog vs. digital debate. My intent was to present my frustration at the major labels' deliberate actions to reduce the impact of hi-res digital technology by transferring their existing older analog libraries of masters to hi-res digital files/downloads and market them as true hi-res music. I've learned that music recorded directly to PCM digital, miked and recorded by engineers that know how to do it well, gives me exceptional results on my newly established computer audio system. I also was, and still am, looking for tips and guidance on where to purchase these direct to digital recordings.

I eliminated HD Tracks as a source since they apparently offer only original analog recorded masters transferred to digital buckets/files. I'd classify HD Tracks offerings as intentionally fake hi-res music and was curious why anyone into hi-res digital music on computer audio systems would buy any of them.

Thanks to several posters on this thread, I now realize/remember that well recorded analog sounds very good. A well recorded analog master transferred to a larger bucket 24 bit/96khz PCM digital file, in theory, should be capable of an absolutely faithful copy of the original analog master. Perhaps HD Tracks' downloads won't be as big a compromise in sound as I originally thought. Their library does contain the better known artists and music while the smaller labels offering direct to digital recordings only offer lesser known artists and music. I'm a bit concerned that HD Tracks' downloads will be indistinquishable from CD sound quality but I'll give it a try.

However, I still don't understand why the major labels don't record new recordings direct to hi-res digital. They have zero direct to hi-rez digital recordings and there's probably a devious short-sighted reason motivated by money.

Tim