Dire Straits - Brother in Arms from HD Tracks

[katywu]

My standard CD of this album sounds pretty good and has a dynamic range of DR16.....compared to most stuff today it's fantastic.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Wow DR16 is impressive.

 

[katywu]

I thought so....in fact I have just calculated the DR for most of my CD collection and I don't have any album above DR16!

 

The "so far away" track off this album has a DR of 20.

 

[lastgoodbye]

Wow. That's outstanding. My cds that have a high DR in the 12-13 range sound absolutely phenomenal. I'm sure this is no different.

 

[JeffH]

How hard would it be for them to check these files before they start selling them? Don't they know how to use Audacity like all the good people here on CA? Surely they realize people are going to check every new offering. Not a good business model if you want to be around for a while.

 

I have made very few purchases and this is just another reason not to buy and not to trust them.

 

[wgscott]

It appears that they prefer to attack the competence and integrity of anyone who has the audacity to call their products into question.

 

cf: Link.

 

 

 

[labjr]

Basically the HDtracks BIA is either upsampled 16/44.1 two track master or perhaps remixed 16/44.1 tracks also upsampled to either 24/96 or 24/192?

 

Not the person's fault who downloaded it and found out what is afterward. However, I would have thought anyone who knew and liked this album, also knew it was a "DDD" recording from the 80's thus would question an HDtracks release before buying.

 

So when Madonna's Like a Virgin shows up on HDTracks before you run out and buy it, remember it was also a "DDD" Sony DASH Multi-track recording

 

 

 

[esldude]

Sure people could question it, but if HD tracks had much integrity you wouldn't need to do so.

 

There are at least a couple dozen I would buy from them today. But unless I see proof it is really hi-rez, one clearly needs to approach HD Tracks with a guilty until proven innocent attitude.

 

I think they clearly have shown a most dis-passionate business approach. That being that a few disgruntled customers they will try and bribe by offering them another choice. Otherwise, for each of those I suppose they get many multiples not knowing different. So they come out ahead in terms of dollars and cents. This is has been going on long enough and they continue to track along the same path doing no different that one can only conclude they intend to do no better. And by now even if they do, it is only because they have been 'exposed'.

 

[beetlemania]

was the correct one. HDT sent this to me without any inquiry from me:

 

". . . we discovered that the title was mistakenly labeled in both the 192 and 96kHz formats. The file that you received was in fact 44.1kHz/16bit. Upon realizing the error we immediately removed the title from our store.

 

You were one of the customers who had purchased this download before we took it down, and we apologize for this error. You will be refunded 100% for your purchase of this download . . . utilize the discount code at the bottom of this letter good towards 10% off a future purchase . . .

 

It is extremely important to us that our customers receive the resolution quality that they are paying for and we make every effort to check incoming files from our label partners. However, there are sometimes situations that arise that are unavoidable . . .

 

Norman and David Chesky

HDtracks"

 

So, IMO, they made good. I still wonder, however, how it is that a million chimpanzees (okay, 100 chimpanzees) banging on the keyboards of this forum are able to detect faux hi res files in a couple of minutes whereas HDT cannot do likewise despite "every effort to check incoming files". Clearly they have *not* made every effort. Nevertheless, I still would like to see HDT succeed and I would like to hope that *this* time will be the last.

 

[labjr]

"So, IMO, they made good. I still wonder, however, how it is that a million chimpanzees (okay, 100 chimpanzees) banging on the keyboards of this forum are able to detect faux hi res files in a couple of minutes whereas HDT cannot do likewise despite "every effort to check incoming files". Clearly they have *not* made every effort. Nevertheless, I still would like to see HDT succeed and I would like to hope that *this* time will be the last."

 

I doubt it will be the last. I feel like they took it down because of the backlash and not the fact that it was apparently only 16 bit. Sorry but these guys should know better. They run an audiophile record label.

 

[AudioDoctor]

but David Chesky...

 

I have boycotted them for the time being, have been for a while.

 

[beetlemania]

"they took it down because of the backlash and not the fact that it was apparently only 16 bit"

 

has there been a case(s) wherein HDT left a faux file up for sale for days, weeks, months? Or a case(s) wherein they didn't resolve the situatin to the customers satisfaction? It's obvious they do a poor job screening their files.

 

[elcorso]

I own all the version of this release, since I love it.

 

My investigations agree with you Barry, It was recorded digital PCM 16/44.1 direct to two tracks.

 

That's why I don't like multitrack (multichannel), since a lot of recordings selling as it was originally recorded to something like 5.1 are fakes, then 'computer software created multichannel'. You will notice (by listening) very easy. Of course, they are real multichannel recordings.

 

After the original Vertigo® CD, the best is the JVC-XRCD24, but expensive, even better than 20th Anniversary Edition that is also SACD (then fake DSD). I have to add, to my ears and on my system.

 

Regards,

 

Roch

 

 

 

[Paul R]

... when simple incompetence will do?

 

I doubt there is any conspiracy involved in this, just HDTracks apparently not doing a good job in this area.

 

They have greatly improved their customer service, which is an encouraging sign. Perhaps more attention to detail and quality will follow?

 

Paul

 

 

[wgscott]

I can give you a list of at least 10 that they still have yet to remove, even though they know they are problematic.

 

Start with Talking Heads, True Stories.

 

[beetlemania]

that's a confounded album in that some tracks *are* hi res and others 16/44. But, yeah, the lack of transparency is bullshit. Good point.

 

And the other nine (or more)?

 

[Teresa]

I also doubt it will be the last, as long as HDTracks continues to extract the high resolution content from SACDs and DVD-Audios this will continue to happen since some SACDs and DVD-Audios are released because they are multichannel not high resolution. In a 2 channel stereo download, if a recording is 16/44.1k it makes since to sell it in that resolution and let the buyer upsample it themselves if they desire.

 

The solution is for HDTracks to only accept a copy of the computer master file in the original resolution. A high resolution download is supposed to be high resolution that is why they cost more, take up more drive space and take longer to download. Whereas an SACD or DVD-Audio does not have to be high resolution if it is being released due to the multichannel program.

 

"They run an audiophile record label."

 

Indeed and these phony high resolution downloads can only hurt the reputation Chesky built up over almost 30 years.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Roch,

 

**"...My investigations agree with you Barry, It was recorded digital PCM 16/44.1 direct to two tracks..."**

 

To be clear, I didn't say I believe it was recorded direct to two tracks. I was asking if it was because an earlier post suggested it was "recorded to" a 1630, which is a stereo (not multitrack) device.

 

I also asked if it might have been recorded multitrack and then mixed to a 1630, which was a common practice back then.

 

My own take is that I would be more than a little bit surprised if this was recorded direct to two track. I would tend to think it was done as I describe above, recorded multitrack and then mixed to 1630. This is just my guess, as I don't know for sure.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[labjr]

"I would tend to think it was done as I describe above, recorded multitrack and then mixed to 1630. This is just my guess, as I don't know for sure."

 

The article in the post by LMC tells most of the story.

 

[4est]

Incompetence is no excuse for this sort of thing at this juncture. At first maybe, but one cannot keep repeating the same mistakes without it effecting their reputation or integrity. As with Audiodoctor, I am boycotting them until I see firm evidence that they properly testing the files before they sell them to the public. I shouldn't need to test something or look on a forum to find out that it is indeed what they say it is.

 

[bdiament]

Thanks labjr,

 

Ah! So the earlier mention of 1630 was erroneous.

The album was done multitrack, as I suspected, but mixed to DAT (!).

 

What isn't mentioned in the article is whether the Sony DASH (multitrack) machines were equipped with the retrofit filters Apogee made for this machine, much like the filters they made for the 1630.

 

Interesting too, that the Auratone speakers (a single, 4" Bose (!) driver in a cube-shaped enclosure, roughly 6" (~150 mm) per side) were called "Horrortones". I've often heard them referred to as "Awfultones". ;-}

 

The Yamaha NS10s he spoke of (which I've called "NaSty10s") were very common in those days too. More often than not, they would have the tweeters covered with a square of toilet tissue. ("What is it that is coming from those tweeters", I used to ask, "that toilet tissue is used to "absorb" it?" ;-{ )

 

In either case, Auratones or NS10s, the common placement was on the meter bridge of the console. The same placement is used today with other little speakers (which I call "shoeboxes") in many studios today. I always wondered why, in addition to using dynamically restricted, bandwidth deficient, treble peaked speakers, the most common placement is such that a midrange dip (due to cancellation) at the engineer's ears is guaranteed.

 

The other gear... well, common as it is in so many studios, most audiophiles would cringe if they auditioned it. A look at the frequency response of any of the mics mentioned will make audiophiles scratch their heads. The mixing consoles might be thought of (in audiophile terms) as great big preamps. Some of those $500,000 behemoths (referred to in the article as "a huge mistake", though widely used) sound a lot more colored than a typical $500 line stage in many 'philes homes.

 

Mixing to DAT was also popular in those days. (I did a few direct-to-stereo recordings to the format myself.) But talk about error-prone! While the U-matic (3/4") tape cartridges used for the 1630 system were a bit more robust, a typical DAT, in my experience, lasted a few months before playback would turn into something very nearly resembling the sound of a fax machine.

 

The real wonder, is that anything at all good sounding can come from all this stuff. Yet, sometimes, it does. Certainly nothing that sounds convincing (as in "you are there") but just as certainly, pleasant in its own way. (As always, it depends on the sound being sought.)

 

I love the title track of this album and its moody atmosphere, along with (of course) Mark Knopfler's guitar work throughout.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[elcorso]

...my English understanding fails a lot of times.

 

But returning to the recording.

 

Last night I was listening again to the JVC-XRCD PCN 16/44, then 'Audacity' it and also shows the heavy filter about 20kHZ, but a lot of more dynamic range (with no clipping). I didn't find the original.

 

Then listened to the DSD files (two channels) (extracted from the SACD by the PS3). The SQ was much better (to my ears and with my gear), then I have the big doubt if this recording was made on analogue, or Mr. Ludwig mastering was outstanding (as always). Maybe only Bob Ludwig from Gateway Mastering knows the true.

 

There is another possibility, to be recorded to several types at the same time: To PCM and analogue.

 

I can't find the original LP, either. But have some friends looking for it, only to see from the cover if the recording type is mentioned.

 

Wikipedia says is DDD, but I don't trust them.

 

SACD database is more guarded and don't publish the recording type.

 

Kind regards,

 

Roch

 

[AudioDoctor]

is to stop buying from HD Tracks. They'll figure it out eventually when their sales start taking a significant hit.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Roch,

 

According to the article lmc linked to (here), the album was recorded to digital multitrack and mixed (via an analog console) to DAT.

 

Both of those machines would be 16-bit. It is not mentioned whether they used 44.1k or 48k sampling, which is all either machine was capable of.

 

It is possible that during re-mastering, the mix was converted to analog one more time, then re-digitized at a higher rate. This would still leave the resolution "ceiling" of the original.

 

If mastered without going through analog, it is likely the mastering tools themselves processed internally with longer wordlengths (anywhere from 24 to 32 to 48-bit commonly with pro gear and up to 80-bit with the best). This helps prevent further loss of resolution, as would occur if processing at 16-bits but it will not add resolution. (Any process to a digital file, even the tiniest level change, will lengthen the digital "word". A 16-bit container can of course, only hold 16-bits so the added low order bits would be truncated, resulting in a loss of low level detail, ambience, etc.)

 

I have only the original Vertigo CD release of this album. It does not strike me as particularly dynamic (quite the opposite in fact) or extended, particularly at the bottom, which sounds to my ears, heavily filtered.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[bottlerocket]

To me this is a watershed moment for HDTracks. They acknowledged a mistake and made it right. That's the first step. The next step is putting in procedures to make sure it does not happen again.

 

It is baffling that after all the misqueues over the *years* (it has been years now), they still have quality issues.