Why would anyone use HD Tracks for Downloads?

Geoffkait,

I'm glad you took no offense at any of my postings, none was intended.

I'm also glad you recognize that digital, at least theoretically, has some capabilities that surpass analog vinyl and tape. I recognize the dynamic range superiority is not always evident when comparing digital Redbook CDs to analog recordings. First, when I refer to digital I am referring to hi-res direct to digital recordings at 24 bit/96 khz or higher and not Redbook CD. Secondly, I think the dynamic range advantage of digital is not usually obvious when listening is due mainly to the 'Loudness Wars' on CDs that significantly reduces the dynamic range on many recordings. I have several hi-res 24/96 FLAC files of music recorded direct to digital that have the best dynamics I've yet heard on recorded music. Fortunately, the Loudness Wars' squashed dynamics have not affected hi-res digital downloads as it has on CDs thus far. The uncompressed dynamics, along with lower noise and increased detail, are the 3 areas that are obvious improvements to me when compared to analog and redbook cd recordings.

I like your matrix idea of evaluating vinyl, analog, CD and hi-res recordings in several important audio qualities and listing the results. It sounds like a good basis for an internet start-up site. I know I'd be on such a site often.

Ray,

You posted: "Tim,
Nicely put and thanks for your reconsideration, correction and input. I'm impressed!
Ray

I should be thanking you for your honest and constructive feedback. Thank you.

Analogluvr,

You stated: "Tim when we speak and sing it is in analog. Therefore if a recording has been recorded an analog it has not been sliced and diced up yet. It's resolution is whatever you want it to be you when you slice and dice it. When it's an analog it is as good as the equipment that was used to record it. It has infinite resolution, you can always cut something one more time. You can take and break it down however you like it has not been broken down yet!!"

'Its resolution is whatever you want it to be when you alice and dice it.'?

Are you sure you're not talking about making a stir fry?; slicing and dicing your favorite vegetables to suit your tastes? I know that splicing analog tape may be part of the analog mixing/mastering process but that's the limit of my knowledge. I certainly wasn't aware that this process is capable of turning the standard-res content on the tape and magically increasing its resolution to hi-res standards or whatever you want it to be. Please let me know more about how this is done.

I've been learning more about digital mixing/mastering and post recording digital processing tools. Apparently, there are now digital tools that actually can modify direct to digital recordings and change the sound to taste. The digital file can be modified electronically to make it sound like analog tape, more tube-like and other flavoring. There is no physical splicing or razor blades required. Sounds like another advantage of digital recording. Thus far, I've not learned of any digital mastering programs that transforms existing hi-res digital musical content into even higher resolution levels.

You also stated:"Tim for someone who doesn't want to debate the differences between analog and digital you certainly waded in there with both feet! That has got to be the classiest response I've ever seen. See I can do sarcasm too :) Anyhow I'm not debating your SNR figures or any other specifications aside from resolution. Maybe you don't know the meaning of the word??? And yes you can create high rezfrom analog masters. You may not like the result but that's another story entirely.
Anyone else annoyed with the response delay, resulting from the excessive moderation? Although perhaps that allows one to cool off and reconsider a previous post....."

If you review this thread, I think you'll see I was just responding to other posters' comments about digital vs analog.My original intent of starting this thread was discovering why anyone uses HD Tracks downloads and to alert buyers that their offerings are all just transfers of analog masters to larger hi-res digital buckets/formats that are not actually true hi-res files since they were not recorded directly to digital.

As to not knowing the meaning of the word 'resolution', to me it means clarity and, more specifically on how it's related to audio, it varies in its level depending on the amount of detail presented. For recordings, hi-res direct to digital recordings are capable of capturing the highest amount of musical detail and are, therefore in my opinion, the best choice if high resolution and a high faithfulness to the live performance are desired.

I was not, and continue not to be, interested in rehashing the old debate between analog and digital audio. I have absolutely no doubt that direct to digital music on 24 bit/96khz FLAC downloads provide not only the best sound I've ever heard on my combination home audio/home theater system, but also the most convenient to use.

I have no stake in this debate and, frankly, would like to stop debating the issue. I suggest we all go back to enjoying our favorite music on our format of choice.
Yes, I've been annoyed by delayed postings due to moderation in the past but have found less delays recently.

Davide256,

You seem to have a good understanding of how digital recording works in general. I agree that, theoretically, the transfer of analog masters to 24 bit, vs Redbook CD 16 bit, word length digital would seem to allow for better resolution and dynamic range performance. Since both 16 and 24 bit digital formats exceed the limits inherent in the original standard-res analog masters, however, both recordings would sound remarkably similar since both would be very faithful copies of the analog master and no improvement in resolution or dynamic range would result.

Both the 16 and 24 bit digital copies would sound like the original standard-res analog master, no worse but also no better. If the musicians had recorded their music directly to 24 bit/96khz digital at the same time as the analog recording, the benefits of recording direct to 24 bit digital would be obvious. People have had difficulty distinguishing between analog and digital in blind testings because they've been asked to compare analog to a digital copy of analog and there are no differences.

The blind testing, ideally. should be between the same music recorded simultaneously; one recorded in standard-resolution analog tape and one recorded directly in hi-res 24 bit/96khz PCM digital. The differences and superior format would be clearly evident to anyone with normal hearing capacity.

I don't believe hi-res audio will be successful unless major artists begin recording their music directly to hi-res 24 bit/96khz or higher digital. Otherwise, hi-res digital will fail to be experienced by most people.

I created this thread wanting to make my main point:

Transferring older original analog reel to reel master tapes to hi-resolution digital formats, like HD Tracks has been doing with original analog tape masters supplied by the major record labels, does not qualify as hi-resolution audio. The best attainable result of this transfer process is an exact copy of the original standard-resolution analog master reel to reel tape that will not impart any hi-resolution qualities to the sound of the music recorded years earlier. No method exists to transform this music into hi-res.

The only possible way to create a hi-res recording of the music is to have the musicians reassemble, play the music again and record it directly to hi-res digital using digital recording equipment.

Please, no more debating required,
Tim

Tim I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you truly don't understand. Think of it in terms of digital photography. You can take a film picture of an apple and pixelate it with as many pixels as you want. You can always take one pixel and split into two pixels therefore creating more resolution. That's what's meant by infinite resolution. The original analog recording has not been pixelated at all yet so it has "infinite resolution".
I'm not sure why you keep referring to the original analog recording as standard resolution, that's not accurate. It really doesn't have a resolution specification yet as per the terminology to describe digital media. That's why it is perfectly acceptable to take the original analog master tapes and create a high resolution file from them. The result hopefully will be a closer approximation of the original analog even, then it would be with a lower resolution format. Now you may not be happy with the noise floor or other aspects of the final product but again that's a totally different story.

Tim,

I'm a recording engineer and have been working in the digital domain since 1989. direct to digital....as you put it. Even back then digital was very good, if implemented properly. I have averaged around 35 projects a year over that time, so I feel I have a bit of experience from which to speak. There are a lot of great tools to use which can provide some really great results....and there are some software plugins, etc...that help with taking some hardness off digital, however, I have yet to hear and digital tool that can recreate the 3 dimensional space of a live performance the way analog can. Once digital can do that, it may, in my book, surpass analog. However, today there is just more rightness with analog....more tactile, organic flow that digital has yet to achieve and that, to me, allows the best analog to trump the best digital.

I think it is great that you are enjoying the best of what digital can do....I know I do, but the best analog goes a bit further. The problem us that there are a lot of bad analog recordings out there, just as there are a lot of bad digital ones. Neither one's SOTA should be judge by those lemons.

I think you would be surprised at what dolbs SR can do in a shoot out. Even you might reevaluate your stance.

Btw, have you heard a direct to disk recording....no tape.....just direct to disc? IMO, that done at 45rpm might actually be the best resolution going.

To me it seems rather moot to debate the pros and cons of one medium's supposed superior resolution over another since it's well established we're not getting the full picture of what's on the actual recording for a myriad of reasons. In the case of Redbook, for example, information that was once inaudible spring suddenly to life in a flood of new details and nuances when vibration isolation is applied to the system, or colored pens are applied to the disc, or the out of round disc edge is beveled, or the CD is treated with some lotion or another. So, we know, the medium is not necessarily the culprit in the first place. There is a lot more to the art of sound as it were than spinning a disc or even downloading a file.

Analogluvr,

You stated:"Tim I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you truly don't understand. Think of it in terms of digital photography. You can take a film picture of an apple and pixelate it with as many pixels as you want. You can always take one pixel and split into two pixels therefore creating more resolution. That's what's meant by infinite resolution. The original analog recording has not been pixelated at all yet so it has "infinite resolution".

I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm stating that your statements are not making sense, are inaccurate and may be the cause of our disagreement. I've read numerous times that it's a mistake to compare how digital audio functions to how digital video functions. It seems like you are compounding this mistake by attempting to compare how digital video functions to how analog audio tape functions and behaves in your false claim that analog tape possesses infinite resolution. Stating that "The original analog recording has not been pixelated at all yet so it has "infinite resolution" is misleading and confusing, to say the least. Since there is no 'pixelation' involved at all with analog tape recordings that instead utilize a linear audio method, you seem to have falsely assumed that this means analog is capable of infinite resolution. It is a generally accepted fact that this is not true since many of the ingredients of audio resolution can be measured objectively and every measure of analog tape and vinyl are inferior to PCM digital; specifically dynamic range, signal to noise ratio, frequency response and distortion level that all affect the more subjective quality of detail and its ability to simulate the sound of live music in a realistic manner.
When compared to digital audio, analog audio has significant limits that cannot be dismissed, ignored or rationalized as unimportant in affecting the resolution and the perceived realism of the illusion produced of live music being played in a specific space.
I understand your description much better when you talked of a digital photograph of an apple. Yes, the incredible resolution of a digital photo is possible because the image is captured and represented by millions of individual pixels. But you lose me when you describe increasing resolution by turning 1 of these pixels into 2. This is where I become obtuse again since I believe this would actually reduce a photo's resolution unless the intention was to alter the original image like Photoshop software is capable of doing.

I was truly confused when you implied that digital video resolution is achieved by turning 1 pixel into 2 and that digital audio resolution is achieved by a similar process. I was completely dumbfounded, however, when you suggested that analog audio recordings' resolution can be increased infinitely by a similar post-recording process of 'slicing and dicing'. Slicing out, relocating and reattaching sections of recorded upon analog tape will not improve the music's resolution by any objective or subjective measure. I'm having a difficult time understanding your explanations and rationalizations because they are based on false premises that are simply not valid.

I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion by making a few comments that I don't believe can be disputed:

Analog tape masters and direct-to-disk vinyl can sound amazing...but they both have their limits just like every format. High-resolution PCM digital also has its limits but, since its limits are such an improvement over analog, it has the potential to eclipse every format currently available. That's a fact that is hard for many analog advocates to accept. Lots of engineers, musicians and enthusiasts like the "sound" of analog tape but that doesn't mean that it is the most accurate format available...it's absolutely not.

I think it's important to emphasize that a recording's resolution is determined by the method,the room acoustics, the recording technology, the skill of the recording engineer and the equipment utilized at the initial recording session. Nothing done after the music is recorded to improve the resolution is possible with current analog and digital technology. I know that multi-track analog master tape can be edited (sliced and diced)after recording to alter the musical content but this has zero affect on resolution. I'm also aware that there are post-recording digital tools that can alter the sound of a digitally recorded file and this also has zero affect on resolution.

I think a good master recording is important for good playback results no matter which recording method one prefers.

I've actually been a big fan of good analog for a long time. I made the switch from vinyl to redbook cds around 30yrs ago mainly due to convenience and a lack of new music releases available on vinyl, not for the sound performance. Just as many have stated, analog just sounded more smooth, soulful and like the real thing than redbook cd did at that time.
A few yrs later, I added a VTL tube preamp, replacing the stock tubes with 4 NOS Mullards, in an effort to make my system sound more like my old analog vinyl. I knew the tubes were adding a coloration but didn't care since it was successful in making my system sound smoother, more dimensional and basically more like analog with less digital brightness perceived.

The first time I heard 24 bit/96khz hi-res audio was in 2013 at my local hi-end audio/video retailer here in Indy. I initially was outside the demo room but was drawn to it because it sounded like a jazz trio was playing live inside. Once inside, I was amazed at how 'in the room' the music sounded. The music emerged from a dead quiet background with crystal clear detail and the stunning soft to loud volume increases I had only previously experienced from real instruments played live at about 10-12 ft away.

As a result of this, I decided to upgrade my combo home audio/home theater system by converting my music source to computer audio. I bought the versatile Oppo-105 Bluray player to utilize as a Bluray and hi-res audio disc player, a DAC for 24 bit/96-192khz for converting hi-res music files to analog, an audio surround sound processor for decoding movie soundtracks and as a machine capable of wirelessly communicating with my other computer audio system components. These other computer audio components include a laptop running JRiver software, a 1TB Synology NAS, a 1TB backup hard drive with all components wirelessly attached to, and communicating with each other via, my wi-fi network. I highly recommend this type of setup for those interested in hi-res audio.
Happy listening, Tim