Why would anyone use HD Tracks for Downloads?

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

Pardon me for pointing out a rather blatant irony. The irony is that 24/96 is actually the same thing as DVD-Audio, which, as fate would have it, was considered obsolete by 2007. Ironic, ain't it?

I've been recording in high rez digital since 2004 or so. Started 24/96 multi-track in 2005. It is nice, real nice. It is extremely flexible and inexpensive compared to analog. It makes an engineer's job much easier. Am I blown away by it? No, I'm not. Am I in love with it? Yes, I am. Dolby SR, now that maybe something I'm blown away by. But it is not practical for me.

I just mixed and finished three projects over the past ewo weeks, Hot Tuna and two jazz project by John Stetch, a very nice jazz pianist. I also have a new DVD Blue Ray release by Charlie Bertini of his last festival concert, as well as a duet with Charlie and Terry Meyers. My point is, these are nice recordings, you can listen to them and they provide a lot of what hi-rez digital can provide and give you a base line of from which I come.....however, as nice as these are I still prefer analog. And these are on;y my recent projects I have thousand of hours of hi rez digital projects with 10 of thousand of hours of mixing and mastering time.

That is not to say that you are not right for your ears....my ears just tell me differently. So, on that note we can agree to disagree.

Why doesn't this forum allow you to edit. Here are all my typos forever out there for all to scorn and laugh at.

Enjoy!