Bob Marley Legend at HDTracks

[jmall]

Hi Guys,

 

All of this is well and good... I'm as scientific as the next guy. But how does it sound? Is it worth the purchase? I have a very good vinyl copy and love it immensely... I have to say that in almost every case the 24/192 version _does_ sound better on my Ayre QB-9 (so thinking of that version) as long as the copy is indeed done well. Which seems to be the case here. I will jump if the prospect is good

 

Thanks!

 

Jeff

 

PS - I might just buy it to compare to the vinyl version!

[ron spencer]

I like it....there are 15% off coupons as well....

[Patrick Butler]

Good luck getting a discussion about sound around here.

 

Hi Guys,

 

All of this is well and good... I'm as scientific as the next guy. But how does it sound? Is it worth the purchase? I have a very good vinyl copy and love it immensely... I have to say that in almost every case the 24/192 version _does_ sound better on my Ayre QB-9 (so thinking of that version) as long as the copy is indeed done well. Which seems to be the case here. I will jump if the prospect is good

 

Thanks!

 

Jeff

 

PS - I might just buy it to compare to the vinyl version!

[Neil Hobbs]

Good luck getting a discussion about sound around here.

Would love to download this but unable to in the UK

[Julf]

But how does it sound? Is it worth the purchase?

 

Well, I don't see anyone discouraging posting of subjective listening impressions too, but some of us are also interested in keeping the industry at least somewhat honest after the many cases of material upsampled from Red Book/CD quality, but marketed as "genuine high definition". A CD can sound really good too, so I don't always put fuill confidence in somebody else's ears, but prefer to have things verified with measurements too. And while somebody might argue that "if it sounds great, why should we worry about it being upsampled or not", the original Red Book CD material would sound just as good, but take less disk space and bandwidth - and be cheaper.

 

PS - I might just buy it to compare to the vinyl version!

If you do, please let us know what you hear!

[got tinnitus]

Would love to download this but unable to in the UK

 

I'm in NZ and I'm downloading it as I type this.

 

Use PayPal as payment method and you're golden.

[REShaman]

Downloaded several HDtracks albums with 15% promotion as an incentive. Although I already have Tuff Gong remaster of Legends in my collection, I DL'd the 192/24, Esperanza Spalding's Radio Music Society 96/24. I have been critical of HDtracks DLs fringing they are generally disappointing in SQ favoring my own XLD conversions of redbook CD to AIFF. I also downloaded several other albums but my comments are specific to Marley and Spalding's DLs. They sound excellent played through my system and to my ears. I can appreciate Other's expressions of wanting the measurements as important in assessing the quality of the DL. Regardless of what calibrations indicate about these two DLs, they are extremely enjoyable listening to DLs. The soundstage on Legends clearly places the musicians in a 3D live-like positions and the percussion, attack, PRaT is excellent.

 

I pay attention to not only how the music sounds, but how it makes me feel. Often, feeling provides as important a criterion as the SQ, measurements aside. Not dismissing the validity of the numbers. For me, when I enjoying the music it has to of necessity feel good. The voices, instrumentation, ambiance, clarity, coherence, timbre are there for me in a highly desirable performance. The tracks described as extra and only offered at 96/24 (tracks 6 & 10) did not disappoint, the other 14 tracks are rendered at 192/24.

 

I am confining my remarks to Bob Marley and the Wailers' Legends to stay OT. Highly recommended!

 

Enjoy the music,

Richard

[Julf]

They sound excellent played through my system and to my ears.

 

That is good to hear - but the question is if they sound better than the same recording on CD, to justify the disk space, bandwidth and higher price.

[AudioExplorations]

That is good to hear - but the question is if they sound better than the same recording on CD, to justify the disk space, bandwidth and higher price.

 

Well, that is of course highly subjective. To some people a 1% increase in SQ is worth thousands.

 

Is this hi-res release even 1% better than CD? The 4-5 double blind studies I have read about all suggest that no one is able to tell a difference (with high res in general). But that's a different topic of course.

[REShaman]

Not interested in discounting any POV regarding Legends in particular and Hi-Res versus redbook CD in general as I have excellent examples of redbook CDs that converted to AIFF which are for me highly-desirable for listening to.

 

Julf as I have had the redbook remaster Tuff/Gong of Legends and now the DL, surprise, I am leaning to the CD overall. In truth, it's better to be accountable, I converted the DL from Flac to AIFF using Max and listened to the DL and was so favorably impressed as to recommend the DL, which, as of late I have done far and few between because I have been unfavorably impressed with most DL from HDtracks (my POV that's all). I did not listen to the XLD conversion of the redbook CD to AIFF for Legends or to the actual CD played through my Oppo BDP-95. Your query reminded me of my omission. What was I thinking. So wrapped up in 7 downloads and a mistake in the promo code (my fault). I got side tracked.

 

I can discern a difference between the DL and the CD and the CD converted to AIFF. All in favor of the redbook CD. I played all three at the same volume. The only difference with the actual CD is that my Oppo is connected to Atlona HD 577 via HDMI and the Atlona is connected to the W4SDac2 by BNC coax. To my ears (I know this is subjective), the CD sounds more dynamic and what the difference is that makes the difference for me is how I feel about the two versions. The instruments have more pop in the CD, more attact, more dynamic more everything.

 

Now I have to go back to the thread and reveal my true findings, because I had reached a different conclusion about the DL until your query prompted me as a wake up call. To sum up based on how you worded your query: IMO the CD recording either played as a redbook CD, or as a converted AIFF file is palpably better to my ears and feelings to the HDtracks DL version. At least on my system. I would even venture to propose I can discern the difference between the DL and the CD version if it were a double blind test. And how that translates to is the DL worth the expense if one has the redbook CD, I will leave that decision to the one who must decide based on his/her criteria.

 

At least my findings are consistent because that is how I feel about 95 % of my converted redbook CDs (the one's well-recorded). I apologize for my vacillations. Now confident with these findings as presented. Still the DL is very enjoyable. But the redbook CD is more very enjoyable. How's that for being accountable?

Best,

Richard

[Julf]

the CD sounds more dynamic and what the difference is that makes the difference for me is how I feel about the two versions. The instruments have more pop in the CD, more attact, more dynamic more everything.

 

So now the question becomes "was any additional processing done to the download version?". It would be interesting to compare the spectrum plots and waveforms of both the CD and the download.

[Julf]

Is this hi-res release even 1% better than CD? The 4-5 double blind studies I have read about all suggest that no one is able to tell a difference (with high res in general). But that's a different topic of course.

 

My own limited listening tests have arrived at very similar conclusions, and I started out as a big believer in hi-res. But that is indeed a different discussion.

[REShaman]

Julf, the next step I took was to "add" the flac tracks from the original download into Amarra Playlist mode and play them as Flac. Perhaps, I am imagining this but I heard ever so slightly better SQ with the Flac unconverted by Max from Flac to AIFF. Then immediately after the first track, loaded the redbook CD conversion to AIFF into Amarra Playlist mode and the dynamics were enhanced. I am using a beta version which can border on "shrill".

As an aside, because I am very particular, I also ordered the CD version of Esperanza Spalding's Radio Music Society having also downloaded the 96/24 from HDtracks. I want to compare them. I waited for two selections that were so generally accepted as high quality from HDtracks, I chose (7 in all) those two in particular with the intention of comparing the DL to the redbook CD. Spalding DL is also very enjoyable. Waiting on the redbook to compare which I think arrives today from Amazon.

Also DL'd Pinetop Perkins Heaven, and Charles Lloyd's Mirror and several classical albums. Decided to redbookCD Jen Chapin's reVisions: Songs of Stevie Wonder and Gregoire Maret's Gregoire Maret from Amazon as I don't want to keep doubling up.

Sorry if I am all over the place and using merely subjective assessments. It just seems, that measurements aside, what I hear and how what I hear makes me feels needs to be my top criteria for deciding what format to listen to music (given a choice). It's not about the money or the storage space or anything but enjoying the music. And if I can't discern that through my senses, what other complex equivalence can I use? Certainly not the resolution as primary criteria, i.e., 192/24 versus 96/24 versus 44.1/16.

And so it goes,

Richard

[dallasjustice]

It's important to be more specific about what is meant by "hi-res." Sometimes folks (myself included) conflate the "mastering quality" (eg. age/quality of mastering gear used, quality of tape and mastering engineer's talent) with the final product bit depth and sampling rate. The studies mainly look at the later and not the former. (eg. comparing DSD to red book layer on same disc) I believe the former is the most important component of what people refer to as "hi-res." So, when I say that I prefer the 24/192 over Barry's D's red book, I am mostly saying that I prefer what is referred to above as "mastering quality."

 

I agree with Julf that higher bit depth and sampling rates don't automatically make something "hi-res." In the way I've defined it, looking at graphs can't really tell us if something is "hi-res." I don't discount the more scientific approach and I believe it has a role to play in identifying upsampling, compression, loss of dynamics and other bad mastering tricks. In the end, it's really up to the listener to decide if the remaster is really higher resolution than previous versions.

[goldsdad]

It's important to be more specific about what is meant by "hi-res." Sometimes folks (myself included) conflate the "mastering quality" (eg. age/quality of mastering gear used, quality of tape and mastering engineer's talent) with the final product bit depth and sampling rate. The studies mainly look at the later and not the former. (eg. comparing DSD to red book layer on same disc) I believe the former is the most important component of what people refer to as "hi-res." So, when I say that I prefer the 24/192 over Barry's D's red book, I am mostly saying that I prefer what is referred to above as "mastering quality."

 

I agree with Julf that higher bit depth and sampling rates don't automatically make something "hi-res." In the way I've defined it, looking at graphs can't really tell us if something is "hi-res." I don't discount the more scientific approach and I believe it has a role to play in identifying upsampling, compression, loss of dynamics and other bad mastering tricks. In the end, it's really up to the listener to decide if the remaster is really higher resolution than previous versions.

 

 

I reckon I understand where you're coming from. To me, a highly resolved recording is one containing great detail, typically increasing realism.

 

However, the specific term hi-res, with or without the hyphen, commonly refers to the digital resolution of a recording, i.e. it indicates a higher number of bits per unit of time than is used by CD audio.

 

Using hi-res as shorthand for "audibly highly detailed", or a similar phrase, seems likely to lead to misunderstandings, in my opinion.

[Julf]

Sorry if I am all over the place and using merely subjective assessments. It just seems, that measurements aside, what I hear and how what I hear makes me feels needs to be my top criteria for deciding what format to listen to music (given a choice).

 

No need to apologize for being all over the place - I, for one, find your observations extremely useful (and interesting).

 

It's not about the money or the storage space or anything but enjoying the music. And if I can't discern that through my senses, what other complex equivalence can I use? Certainly not the resolution as primary criteria, i.e., 192/24 versus 96/24 versus 44.1/16.

 

Well, especially when the resolution turns out to be useless (in cases where material of lower resolutions has merely been upsampled).

[got tinnitus]

I was finally able to complete the download of the album in question and give it a play...

 

Sounds all very nice and cleaned up but it's lacking that intangible thing called Vibe.

 

I'm obviously no expert on remastering old titles but the following seems like a common trait to me; it's like the tape hiss has been reduced to an almost inaudible level however selected high frequencies of the music content have been tweaked/pushed back up due to the work on the tape hiss(?). The result being a processed and not overly natural top end.

[REShaman]

I reckon I understand where you're coming from. To me, a highly resolved recording is one containing great detail, typically increasing realism.

 

However, the specific term hi-res, with or without the hyphen, commonly refers to the digital resolution of a recording, i.e. it indicates a higher number of bits per unit of time than is used by CD audio.

 

Using hi-res as shorthand for "audibly highly detailed", or a similar phrase, seems likely to lead to misunderstandings, in my opinion.

 

goldsdad, precisely! I am using your "full" quotation which I think is proper form. And my response of "precisely" refers to your remarks about great detail and increasing realism. That is a fortunate and succinct statement that sums up what I value in the rendition of music as my highest criteria.

 

Or the short version: Well said!

 

And, Julf, appreciate your patience with my remarks.

 

Enjoying the music,

Richard

[Garf]

I was finally able to complete the download of the album in question and give it a play...

 

Sounds all very nice and cleaned up but it's lacking that intangible thing called Vibe.

 

I'm obviously no expert on remastering old titles but the following seems like a common trait to me; it's like the tape hiss has been reduced to an almost inaudible level however selected high frequencies of the music content have been tweaked/pushed back up due to the work on the tape hiss(?). The result being a processed and not overly natural top end.

 

In my comparison of the original CD release to the 24/192 download, I hear no more or less tape hiss. What I do hear is a more natural, balanced, and less punchy version with a deeper soundstage that is to me, clearly superior.

[REShaman]

In my comparison of the original CD release to the 24/192 download, I hear no more or less tape hiss. What I do hear is a more natural, balanced, and less punchy version with a deeper soundstage that is to me, clearly superior.

 

Garf, excuse my confusion. Not sure what refers to which. Would you clarify (for me) specifically what you hear from each version. As I have the Tuff/Gong remaster CD, used XLD to converted it to AIFF, and now have the HDtracks DL (192/24); and I have already stated my findings (subjective as they are and based on my system), I am interested in your specific findings re whatever versions you are comparing.

With appreciation,

Richard

[jaccli]

I hope I don't sound too dated , but I am a big fan of Bob Marley . I am also one who was frustrated with just about every format ,recordings and live that he has done . I remember going to see him live and like most concerts in the 70s the sound was just not there . I remember the vinyl recordings dynaflex yuck . I have some of his first cds and I rarely listen to them . I did get Songs of Freedom nicely remastered and was my go to for a number of years . I was tempted to buy the SHM -CD from Japan but they cost a bundle . So I bought Legend with the 15% discount and I must say that it sounds really nice . It's also encouraging to read that the new remastered cd sounds great also . I hope this is just the beginning .

[Garf]

I compared this to The Barry Diament Tuff Gong release, ie: not the 2002 remaster. It does not have the two additional songs. There is some additional information in the separate Music Analysis - Objective and Subjective forum, comparing to this HDTracks release.

 

If I had known I had a copy if this CD in the first place (it was on my 'find' list), I would probably not have bought the HDTracks version, its that good. But this HDTracks release is even better, which is saying a lot.

 

Gary

[REShaman]

Thank you Garf for specifying your findings. I have five versions of Kind Of Blue including the original released CD; and I can appreciate the nuance of each issue often returning to the original though I also have 5.0 version. Your comments about the soundstage are interesting to me. As I do not have the CD version of Legend that you have I can only compare the 16 track remaster (2002) with the HDtracks download. Aside from the remastered CD being punchier as you describe, the sound stage for both are comparable as I perceive the CD & DL. Not disagreeing with your perception, merely adding my own.

 

Appreciate your response.

 

Best,

Richard

[cjf]

I also have the 2002 Remaster version of the Redbook album and now also own the 24/192 HD Tracks download and to these ears the 24/192 version sounds better in everyway.

[audiozorro]

I was finally able to complete the download of the album in question and give it a play...

 

Sounds all very nice and cleaned up but it's lacking that intangible thing called Vibe.

 

I'm obviously no expert on remastering old titles but the following seems like a common trait to me; it's like the tape hiss has been reduced to an almost inaudible level however selected high frequencies of the music content have been tweaked/pushed back up due to the work on the tape hiss(?). The result being a processed and not overly natural top end.

 

I tend to agree with your observations though some songs are significantly better than others.

 

For example with Exodus I find the 24/192 download to have great midrange and treble clarity, but muddy bass. Perhaps because of digital over-processing I find the Exodus download to have great highs but the result is somewhat cold and analytical. By contrast, I find that my DSD128 copy of Exodus from vinyl to be very natural and musical. The vinyl or DSD128 copy just draws you into musical pleasure. The 24/192 draws you into analyzing the music but as a whole it does sound somewhat unnatural.

 

It would be interesting to get Barry Diament's opinions on the 24/192 download of Exodus.

 

I would probably rate the Legend 24/192 download as a B+, which is still pretty good but for me is a shame since I rate the music on vinyl as an A+. By contrast I rate the 24/192 download of Jen Chapin's reVisions: Songs of Steve Wonder as an A or A+. Of course Barry's 24/192 Equinox album is a solid A+.