The Rolling Stones Now Available From HDtracks at 24/88.2 and 24/176.4

Wow, this is BIG!<br />

<br />

I've never been a die-hard Rolling Stones fan like I have for Zeppelin, but I definitely like a lot of their music. And now, it just tickles me to death that one of the legends - dare I say old-timers - whose music and magic arose in an all analog world, is now paving the way into the digital future of great music.<br />

<br />

BRAVO!

It's cool to see CNN pick this up as well.<br />

<br />

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/28/rolling.stones/

Are they really just good transcriptions of the original analogue? <br />

<br />

Or are they volume edited, overly equalized, and volume compressed like the "Exile on Main Street" remaster from last year that I find unlistenable (literally)?

It is great news that more mainstream music is being made available in high resolution. But as far as I know you still have to either be an American resident, or pretend to be one if you want to purchase music from HD Tracks. I've no intention of wanting to do anything remotely dishonest, and so I can't actually buy anything from HD Tracks.<br />

<br />

Similarly, I've bought some music from Qobuz, but find that I can only buy certain albums from where I live in Spain. Particularly annoying was not being able to buy the salsa albums, when here I am living in a spanish speaking country with lots of salsa fans.<br />

<br />

I assume this is some problem with the record labels, rather than a local taxes billing problem. But it is certainly a pain in the arse as far as I'm concerned, and I really hope they get their act together. I wish the the record labels spent as much time sorting out how to sell high quality music, as they do suing 'music pirates' for copying largely worthless low res MP3 files.

<br />

I have the complete ABKCO Stones and Sam Cooke on SACD, as well as all the Chesky titles that I like, but I can't transfer them to my server.<br />

<br />

I won't pay $30 (again) just for that convenience for sound quality that is not significantly better than what I already have.<br />

<br />

I guess this is the penalty for being an early adopter.<br />

<br />

Al J.

just a different method (downloads) instead of the SACD's that have been out for six years. I own most of them, and yes they are good. Granted, we couldn't, up until now, rip or access the hirez via computer...but it's still just an SACD re-do. No new material, no new catalog. Oh well, I will likely re-buy Beggars and LIB anyway.

This is great news. Hopefully this will pave the way for further artists to do the same.<br />

<br />

But I do find it a rip-off they charge an extra $10 for the 176.4 kHz versions. Although it’s probably the one I will reluctantly buy!

Richard,<br />

HDTracks is music without border. At leaast if you use Paypal. Which I what I do (Non US resident).<br />

Cheers<br />

Z

That's the big news? As has already been commented, these have been available in a higher resolution for some time now.<br />

Now someone offering something like the whole Deutsche Grammophon catalogue available in 24/96 would be big news, but this? Come on guys. Besides, the Stones should be played on big old efficient horn speakers or in cars on distorted in door speakers not some fancy hifi! To me this is seriously missing the mark.<br />

<br />

Yawn X 2<br />

<br />

Besides, arguably, does the world need coarse music in hires?

Says they used Sonoma DSD digital audio workstation and Meitner Design ADC8 and DAC8 MKlV converters. Is this state of the art equipment?<br />

<br />

Why didn't they transfer directly from analog to PCM?<br />

<br />

Seems like a typical record company tactic of reselling old transfers converted to another format.<br />

<br />

Maybe they should be called "reconversions".<br />

<br />

Wow tough crowd this morning. Is the glass half full for anyone out there :~)

<p><b>zerung: </b><i>"HDTracks is music without border. At leaast if you use Paypal. Which I what I do (Non US resident)."</i></p><br />

<br />

<p>If you look at the <a href="https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=terms_condition">HDtracks Terms and Conditions</a> it says the following:</p><br />

<br />

<p><pre><code>11. Territory. The Digital Store is currently available only in the continental United States, and is not available in any other location. You agree not to use or attempt to use the Digital Store from outside of the available territory, and that HD may use technologies to verify your compliance.</code></pre></p><br />

<br />

<p>So you can ignore this, but it seems pretty easy for HD Tracks to find out your location from your IP address if they wanted to. I wonder what would happen if something went wrong and you wanted a refund or any other sort of support, after they found out your real location.</p><br />

<br />

<p>I just don't see what the problem is with selling high resolution downloads outside the USA. It shouldn't be my problem, it should be the record company's problem, and they seem pretty incapable of dealing with the need to change their business models.</p>

<em>Says they used Sonoma DSD digital audio workstation and Meitner Design ADC8 and DAC8 MKlV converters. Is this state of the art equipment?</em><br />

<br />

<em>Why didn't they transfer directly from analog to PCM?</em><br />

<br />

These are the classic ABKCO SACD's from 2005, the DSD files converted with Weiss Saracon software. <br />

<br />

Chris, I'm happy that the SACD catalog is being converted to downloads, but this is not "history"! Bruce and others have been converting existing SACD's for some time now.

You can use Paypal - legal and it works.<br />

<br />

Apparently the problem is different royalty rules and rates in different countries. <br />

<br />

My guess is that using PayPal qualifies as a US purchase b/c technically/legally that makes the transaction actually take place in the US.

<i><br />

"Wow tough crowd this morning. Is the glass half full for anyone out there :~)"<br />

</i><br />

<br />

If they're gonna release material that's supposedly audiophile quality, then it do it right. They should know by now that audiophiles are gonna pick up on this stuff. <br />

<br />

If small companies like Audio Fidelity, MFSL and Classic Records etc. can manage to retransfer everything they release then why aren't the large record companies doing it?

Any thoughts on why they released these as 24/88.2 and 24/176.4 instead of 24/96 and 24/192? Seems like 24/96 and 24/192 rates are supported on more DACs than 24/88.2 and 24/176.4.

<i><br />

"Any thoughts on why they released these as 24/88.2 and 24/176.4 instead of 24/96 and 24/192? Seems like 24/96 and 24/192 rates are supported on more DACs than 24/88.2 and 24/176.4."<br />

</i><br />

<br />

How dare you question their decisions. Just buy it.<br />

<br />

Seriously, I guess DSD is 64 times CD sampling rate and they can do an integer conversion.

very well, there is no reason to go there. As Labjr states, DSD64 (SACD's format) is a multiple of 88.2k and 176.4k. The conversion is inherently cleaner.

Yes, it has been out on SACD for an age, but I have not got around to sorting my SACDs yet so this is fantastic news.<br />

<br />

Now all I have to do is sell those SACDs and accept the money some folk are prepared to pay for them, so very happy days.

Integer multiples for tracks taken from SACD.

I agree, tough crowd. Not all of us have invested in SACDs, and even if I did, there's no way for a hack like me to rip it in hi res.<br />

<br />

But complaining that it wasn't the "whole DGram collection" is ridiculous. That's almost entirely of classical music, which me, and I know many here, are not into at all. So to blast this news for not being classical, is well, ridiculous...to be consistent lol<br />

Instead we should be happy for finally, good rock and roll music is coming out the pipelines...now just have to wait for Led Zep.<br />

Just my .02 cents.

The reference to DG is simply using a label, any label, not meant to be classical biased. I guess it's my 60's-70's rebel rearing it's ugly head is mainly the problem. I mean, yes, the Rolling Stones did produce some good rock that fit the times very well and guess what, there are a LOT'S of good rock bands out there still doin it. My point was simply that we should be getting a TON of hires music out of the record companies and not some little dribble of things that some folks deem as classics. Hey, I dig the Stones, saw em a few times back in the day but how about some current music being released in quality resolution that can be downloaded today?<br />

I applaud HDT for giving it the old college try but really for this to get legs we need a BIG hitter to come along and proclaim hidef downloads to be THE standard and get the music industry to start pumping it out like it was no big deal.<br />

<br />

THEN we'd have something to celebrate!

<em>Instead we should be happy for finally, good rock and roll music is coming out the pipelines...now just have to wait for Led Zep.</em><br />

<br />

Being that Led Zep has only "How The West Was Won" as hirez material, you will be waiting a very very long time. That's my point! No new stuff, just converted SACD's. I hope I am proven wrong and that these re-do's sell like hotcakes, and that the major labels realize us baby boomers have good enough gear and deep enough pockets to merit master tape quality remasters. No one on this forum is more of a fan of hirez than I am, and I have hundreds of DVD-A's and SACD's to prove it, along with huge $$ in a full ITU 5.1 identical full range driver setup. But this Stones thing is not "history" unless by that we mean the negative connotation of farewell (ok, sorry, maybe not that bad...couldn't resist). Just my $tens of thousand dollars.

So the Beatles and now the Stones makes up a glass half full eh? *s* I mean really. Let's take a look at just the label that Mott The Hoople recorded on...or the one that Joni used during her formative recording years, you know, that one with the ocean name? I didn't mean to sound so sour on the big announcement and yes, it appears that there is a slowly developing movement for better quality but to be truthful the future looks pretty bleak for many industry insiders that have tracked the industry for decades. So, to me, a glass half full would yes, need to be a major label throwing their weight behind this whole thing. I believe until they do then it will stay exactly as it is now, a fringe segment and with that always comes the danger of acts being left out by not being "good enough" to be deemed worthy of being re-released in high def. And that's not a good scenario.