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
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.
tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
1,368 posts
 
Raymonda,

You have highly developed listening skills and experience with the highest quality playback of both digital and analog recordings, but most of us out here have never heard anything close to the highest quality playback and are stumbling around in the dark trying to put a decent sounding system together.

What is your opinion on the differences between average digital vs average analog, the world most of us live in. I would guess that at this level of playback quality, whether digital or analog sounds better is entirely dependent on the particular system and listener taste. One could put together an analog based system that sounds better than most digital systems and vice versa. What do you think? I promise not to argue with you no matter what your opinion is.
zd542
5,339 posts
 
"You have highly developed listening skills and experience with the highest quality playback of both digital and analog recordings, but most of us out here have never heard anything close to the highest quality playback and are stumbling around in the dark trying to put a decent sounding system together."

I don't see why that has to be true. The typical audio playback system in a recording studio is usually nothing special. Its not that difficult to surpass a system like that with a fairly modest home system. The application is different. Also, if you look at Raymonda's system, I don't see anything in there that the average person couldn't buy.

"most of us out here have never heard anything close to the highest quality playback and are stumbling around in the dark trying to put a decent sounding system together."

You would probably enjoy a trip to CES. Its loaded with expensive systems. That said, I doubt listening to super high end systems will do you any good. If you can't afford it, then its off the table anyway.
raymonda
847 posts
 
My system is nothing special but carefully crafted and modified to my taste and within my budget. I'm not even sure if what is listed is current....but most anyone could assemble this system or a better one. However, the quality of one's system does not give one ears, nor does money spent.

The storage medium is often less of a concern than the engineering of the recording, mixing and mastering. It doesn't matter what it is stored on if the first is bad. When you get this right and couple it with great music then both mediums are great. You can put together a great budget analog as well as digital system and enjoy them both.

Average is very good....you get to choose based on your mechanical and musical values. You can have both. It really isn't an either or situation. Drink from both wells and enjoy!
More to discover