1. Home
  2. digital
  3. 1442763165

Why would anyone use HD Tracks for Downloads?

I really enjoy hi-res computer audio music files I've downloaded from Liaison in Europe. These files were recorded direct to digital and I download them as 24/96 FLAC or WAV files. There is an obvious improvement in dynamics, soundstaging, noise floor and detail over CD that make it worth the small increase in $$.
My understanding is that all, or at least the vast majority, of downloads offered by HD Tracks are nothing more than existing older standard resolution analog masters transferred to PCM or DSD format digital files. Standard resolution recordings transferred to a hi-resolution format cannot produce hi-res music files. An analogy is transferring a steak served on a small plate to a larger plate; the steak will still taste the same and there is no improvement in taste. Music originally recorded on a multi-track analog reel-to-reel recorder will have limited dynamic range, a higher noise floor, a limited frequency response and less detail than the same music recorded directly to digital.

I know there currently is a lack of major artists taking advantage of hi-res, direct to digital recording of their music. Most of the truly hi-res music seems to be coming from lesser known artists. I've found that i Trax in California and the Liaison Music Shop in Europe are 2 good sources of true hi-res recordings.

So, my question is to those that have downloaded supposed hi-res music files from HDTracks: Are you disappointed by the sound quality of your purchases from HDTracks? I would think you would be, since I believe you're listening to standard resolution files that should sound no better than CDs or records you may already own of the same material.

I'm very leery of buying HDTracks downloads not only because of the above, but also because they fail to list the source of their downloads; there's no mention of whether they're simply transfers of standard resolution masters or are recorded direct to digital and actually are hi-res.

I'm interested in readers' thoughts on avoiding standard resolution files advertised as hi-res.

Thanks,
Tim
noble100
raymonda
847 posts
 
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.
raymonda
847 posts
 
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!
analogluvr
800 posts
 
Tim what I am trying to say is that digital is created by turning the analog recording g into ones and zeros. How many ones and zeros per inch of analog tape master(for sake of example) is the resolution. Similar to pixels per inch in video no? And increasing the pixels per inch is in reading the resolution of the recording, same as using more ones and zeros for one inch of analog tape. Now you can always cut something one more time so they can always sell you the next "hi Rez"
Resolution has nothing to do with the parameters you keep mentioning. I agree that digital surpasses analog in those parameters but that is not resolution.
analogluvr
800 posts
 
And by turning one pixel into 2 you are increasing the resolution of a picture
And when I spoke of slicing and dicing I was using an analogy to illustrate what is being done to the analog waveform when it is converted into digital. (That's where I thought you were being deliberately obtuse, you really thought I meant cutting up the tape?) It is turned into steps of which the amount are the resolution. You can always create more steps to the original unmolested sound wave.
Yes I agree that digital as measured eclipses analog in potential, however I have yet to hear this potential realized, maybe they are measuring the wrong thing??!
raymonda
847 posts
 
(Digital is created by turning the analog recording into ones and zeros.)

I think you mean analog signal not recording.

(Maybe they are measuring the wrong thing??!)

Or we may not know what it is that needs to be measured.
More to discover