Why would anyone use HD Tracks for Downloads?

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

Noble100 you are way off base. Analog has infinite resolution, it is as good as the playback system can make it. Anything recorded in analog and never converted is the good standard. Hi Rez can only hope to approximate the original analog experience, it cannot surpass it.

Analogluvr,

I think you may be living in an alternate world or universe. With your username, I should probably expect a biased viewpoint and some questionable claims.

Wow, analog has INFINITE RESOLUTION? That would make it the perfect format for recording and playback of audio. Perfect sound forever, right? Well, it would if it was TRUE!

Have you enlightened all the engineers and experts currently working on developing new recording and storage technology that would improve on the analog technology that was first utilized in the 1800's? I don't think they're aware that no improvements to existing analog technology are possible. Boy, they're sure going to be excited when they hear about your good news!

I'm thinking they'll be very grateful you finally set them straight. They'll be so happy that analog's maximum dynamic range of 90 db, well below the limit of live instruments and music, is now suddenly acceptable since no improvements are possible. They'll be overjoyed that tape hiss, high noise floors,low signal to noise ratios and frequency response errors caused by tape speed variations are no longer something to be concerned with.

I would love to be there when you break the news and let them know they've been wasting their time during all those years of schooling and all those years of researching, experimenting and testing based on the false premise that 150 year old analog technology could be improved upon. Silly bastards, I can't wait to see the expressions on their faces when you lay your infinite wisdom on them.

On the other hand, they may be upset when you let them know the truth according to you. They may respond in unison with s single digit hand gestures followed by a loud group yell of "Infinite Resolution My ASS!

It's also a distinct possibility that each engineer may insist on beating you. The severity of each beating will likely be proportionate to the number of years of schooling and research that each has invested on their futile quest for a recording and playback technology that outperforms analog.

Tim

Yer absolutely right, it is the gold standard. And that is why we have the audiophile expression, "it's sounds like the master tape." Of course even the master tape can sound generic or perhaps even horrible on a bog standard system. It so hard to generalize in this hobby, no?