David Chesky interview at another site

[firedog]

Q&A With David Chesky of HDtracks | AudioStream

 

Q&A With David Chesky of HDtracks Part 2 | AudioStream

 

some Q and A about topics that come up here a lot

[REShaman]

Thank you for providing the links to DC of HDt at AS 1&2. No comments other than I take DC at his word.

Best,

Richard

[Downrange]

Thanks, good interview. There is a seeming "cadre" of folks here who stand in constant opposition to much of what HDTracks puts out. They need to read that interview - Chesky is a straight-shooter, in my book. The comments are also a good read. Some people keep making the argument that some of the HI-DEF DLs are from DVD-A or SACD. I've never understood that complaint - my 1500 dollar SACD player sounds like CA-CA stock (Sony 5400), and you have to buy software to convert the one or two DVD-As I have here - hardly a going proposition with me. Personally, I'm glad Chesky (who goes way back in high end auto circles for those who've been around awhile) is at the helm of this organization, and I've been mostly very impressed with the dozen or so DLs I've purchased.

Not to mention, they offerred a full credit to one DL I just didn't "LIKE" the music on, and you can't beat that customer service. They seem to take "the customer's always right" as their watchword, and that's really rare in any industry. Thanks for posting the link.

[Julf]

There is a seeming "cadre" of folks here who stand in constant opposition to much of what HDTracks puts out.

 

Only when it turns out the things they put out isn't true hi-res and/or when it is not what HDTracks claims it is.

 

Some people keep making the argument that some of the HI-DEF DLs are from DVD-A or SACD. I've never understood that complaint

 

No problem with material from DVD-A, as long as it is a lossless copy with no sample rate conversions. No problem with a transfer from SACD if it is labelled as such - a resample of DSD to 96/24 or 192/24 is not the same thing as a true native, unconverted PCM recording. And in some cases it even appears that teh material was originally CD/red book material, that was then upconverted to DSD before being resampled to PCM...

[jhwalker]

Thanks, good interview. There is a seeming "cadre" of folks here who stand in constant opposition to much of what HDTracks puts out. They need to read that interview - Chesky is a straight-shooter, in my book. The comments are also a good read. Some people keep making the argument that some of the HI-DEF DLs are from DVD-A or SACD. I've never understood that complaint - my 1500 dollar SACD player sounds like CA-CA stock (Sony 5400), and you have to buy software to convert the one or two DVD-As I have here - hardly a going proposition with me. Personally, I'm glad Chesky (who goes way back in high end auto circles for those who've been around awhile) is at the helm of this organization, and I've been mostly very impressed with the dozen or so DLs I've purchased.

Not to mention, they offerred a full credit to one DL I just didn't "LIKE" the music on, and you can't beat that customer service. They seem to take "the customer's always right" as their watchword, and that's really rare in any industry. Thanks for posting the link.

 

I really couldn't possibly disagree more. NO ONE is trying to "stand in opposition to" much of what HDTracks puts out. EVERYONE wants a quality, dependable, high definition music download service, but I (personally) am not much enthralled with accepting upsampled Redbook, resampled SACD or DVD-A extracts, etc., as the best we can get.

 

Minimally, each posting should contain information about the original source, any processing done, and reasoning behind the choice of final output "quality". IOW, I don't want to see a Redbook rip upsampled to 24/192 and called hi-def

 

These seem to me to be perfectly legitimate criticisms of a business who wants to serve their customers well, and perfectly legitimate for us to share them here.

[Paul R]

Thanks, good interview. There is a seeming "cadre" of folks here who stand in constant opposition to much of what HDTracks puts out.

 

Oh, I don't think anyone is in opposition to HDTracks - not at all. Just not totally in support of, or trusting in, some of their practices.

 

Different thing entirely.

 

-Paul

[REShaman]

Oh, I don't think anyone is in opposition to HDTracks - not at all. Just not totally in support of, or trusting in, some of their practices.

 

Different thing entirely.

 

-Paul

 

After these last several posts, now I will comment:

 

Taking the last four (4) posts starting with Paul'sinto consideration, each author has taken a reasonable perspective as it regards first person position (the "I"/"Me") (read customers). What we as customers value in determining what promotes our purchases; what is reasonable to expect from HDtracks.com that we pay for; and what is sold that deviates from those reasonable expectations should be of paramount importance to DC and his vision for HDtracks.com. not only in words but in policy I appreciate the challenges faced by David Chesky (Second Position "You") (read him) to make this vision happen.

 

Isn't that what ultimately brings about change (either for the better or worse), i.e., commitment to values in word/action or

apathy/disconnect that allows others to take advantage.

 

Given the published findings, the perception of the "I"s that "...not all that glitters is Gold", further validates legitimate concerns about, references to, and consumer's request for improvements.

 

With respect, Downrange, is that what you mean by "There is a seeming "cadre" of folks here who stand in constant opposition to much of what HDTracks puts out"? I am not addressing the over-the-top rhetoric, rather what has just been identified in these prior posts as fair comment.

 

Second position, David Chesky's (second position "You") remarks and revelations gleaned from the 2-part interview while evoking in me appreciation for his vision is somewhat blunted by what I hear that communicates, at least to me, as a little bit of the "I am only obeying orders" justification for products over which he has no control but accepts and retails anyway. I get the responsibility part about what others do that is not in his control or what the authors/composers/etc prefer that may not match our tastes. But how does that prevent Chesky from establishing with resolve what he could do to avoid what Paul and others are identifying that contribute to our perceptions that are de facto adulterations of product for other criteria even if intended to make better.

 

Third position ("We"/"Us" = "You" and "Me"). Would not a clear and high-quality standard communicated to HDtracks' suppliers be a possilbe antidote for what Chesky acknowledges in the interview is sold to him and consequently objectionable to his customers?

 

If not, what other mechanism will accomplish a change of standards for what HDtracks.com will accept for sale that conforms to the quality we expect or is reasonable to expect? If product is adulterated for purposes which ultimately affects the quality of SQ negatively and is a source of income for both supplier and vendor leaving us wanting, the problem of changing will be settled. More of the same. More posts like the ones we're writing.

 

I accept Chesky at his word, but I believe he could do much more to put an end to certain interferences from suppliers/whomever that HDtracks.com still accepts and sells to I/Me. Granted his explanation for some audio production characteristics are in the realm of the artist, but that is not what we posters are referring to or asking HDtracks to implement.

 

As a customer of Chesky and one in favor of his vision, I will support him if he were to take a more strigent stand with suppliers and hold them accountable. I happy to state that the service I receive at HDtracks is excellent. A willingness to take back product that one is not happy with is admirable. I have not asked for that myself. But I foolishly reordered an expensive album I had purchased months before; and my request to substitute with a different album was not only granted, but my offer to pay the difference was ignored and I was provided with the higher resolution at no charge.

 

Those are rapport builders for certain. But that is a less effective strategy for the future of download integrity.

 

I just stepped off the soap box.

 

Richard

[Jud]

While accepting that the quality of what HDTV receives and information about its provenance are in control of the labels (who seem to do everything they can to screw up customer enthusiasm for a product that is nearly a free money stream for them), HDTV could have a clearly identified section on an album's sample/purchase page for this information. They could clearly denote the info as being provided by the label. And when it wasn't provided, it would be conspicuous by its absence.

[Jud]

Sorry about the autocorrect, which made HDTV from HDT.

[Downrange]

Well, a couple of things. First, any impartial reader of this forum (not just this thread) will recognize the intense bias against HDTracks by many CA posters - I won't bother quoting threads here as they're all extant. Second, my point is that Chesky is one of the "good guys" in high end audio - has been for decades, and he's running HDTracks as well as I personally can expect. If something is not ok with the customer, they (apparently) can easily get a credit for it. I don't think I can ask much more than that. They've also pulled some of the more egregious examples of upsampled material, and pretty quickly at that, even though this is what their suppliers provided them. They also seem to be taking very proactive measures to ensure there will be no recurrences. I would like to see the progeny of all the recordings disclosed, as that seems to be something the market wants too. That way if someone already has a ripped DVD-A or SACD, they can decide not to buy what may be virtually bit-identical.

The other issue is only to be found in digesting the linked article, including comments. I won't rehash here, as that's not the point of my comment (or the thread, imo), but simply say he's doing a great job, and, opinions will always vary. Even some mainstream reviewers, in this audiophile's opinion, are "missing the mark" when it comes to many of the releases. The TAS review I just received of some recent downloads elevated some that I have personally found mediocre, while panning one or two I found exceptional. I suspect my systems are perhaps a bit more revealing than that particular reviewer's system, just looking at his disclaimers, but who knows? In the end, music is a fairly subjective business. He says to-may-toe, and I say to-mah-toe. So I applaud the Chesky's and heartily recommend all the nabobs of negativity perhaps should read the entire article, and all the comments. It's a good discussion of a complex topic with both sides covered well imo. Chesky comes out of it all very well, imo.

[Paul R]

You make some good points, though I would still dispute the idea of people here having an "intense bias against" HDT. Certainly there is much passionate conversation about everything they do, and that might possibly be mistaken for bias against. I would suggest that it is more of a bias for HDT than against them, and the passion flares when disappointment is word of the day.

 

In the interview, I was struck by how often Chesky seemed to be defensive though. I could see how that would happen though, as sometimes he was passionate about the music or sound, and other times, following a strict "this is a business" line. The two points of view are somewhat difficult to reconcile.

 

He took refuge in the old saw "that's what our suppliers give us" and mentioned that they are checking all the files now before they post them. That's a pretty reasonable attitude.

 

What was missing to me seemed to be the details of what they are willing to accept (and promote as High Def/High Res) from those suppliers. 5th generation master tapes built for vinyl?

 

What would be advantageous to them would be to have a review staff that honestly listened to the tracks and published opinions about the sound of the tracks. Of course, such would have to be separate and no financially associate with HDTracks to avoid conflict with the suppliers or the artists.

 

Oh wait - that seems to be exactly what CA members are doing... unpaid and unthanked...

 

-Paul

[Downrange]

You make some valid points, Paul. What all this is leading towards (again just IMO) is a reevaluation of what is truly "hi-fi." Certainly, until a few months ago, I didn't realize that some of the masters being used to create "hi-res" DLs were biased for LP EQ - that's a disaster! I do stand by my comment that some of the posters in this forum appear quite biased against HDTracks (other threads), whether for those few egregious examples, or some other reason. But I'm not going to drag examples into this thread to prove anything. People are free to read the entire forum. The point is this is a good interview, and I am personally very encouraged by what I read from Chesky. Most of my DLs from them have been exceptional, btw, including one or two that TAS didn't take so highly to, so--- it is subjective.

 

Edit: I can see where this may be going - so I'll just close out by saying that, obviously, people are free to not purchase from Chesky. I, for one, am really glad he's out there and making great downloads available.

[wgscott]

I do stand by my comment that some of the posters in this forum appear quite biased against HDTracks (other threads), whether for those few egregious examples

 

It is considerably more than a "few", and it is ongoing.

[Downrange]

HDT responds to some of the questions in the original linked thread...

 

Good Stufff!!!!!!!

 

Q&A With David Chesky of HDtracks Part 2 | AudioStream

[wgscott]

What is good about it? It is absolutely vacuous. I have even less confidence now that I know they (allegedly) check the music by ear.

[Downrange]

Y'know Wg, I recall the story of the guilty dog. The guilty dog was the one who crapped in the center of the LR carpet, whilst the owners were out. Coming home, and finding the stinking pile, said owners had only to summons the quadrapeds onto the carpet, shall we say, upon which, as if by magic, the GUILTY dog would start barking...

[labjr]

Someone who runs an audiophile record label must know what audiophiles want when they put their money down. I want to know how the recording was made. And I love to read liner notes.

 

People like Steve Hoffman and MSFL are getting the original master tapes and doing the remastering themselves with many of the same classic rock and pop titles that HDTracks seem to be having problems with. A lot of companies are reissuing the titles on vinyl too. So other companies reissuing albums are doing it right and don't seem to have problems with provenance. But they have to figure it out themselves.

 

Steve Hoffman tells stories of how he acquired some of the tapes and rejected the wrong tapes when they were not original.

 

We already know record companies aren't very forthcoming but some still manage to get it right. I feel like David Chesky is making excuses and acting defensive.

[gabeg]

Steve Hoffman tells stories of how he acquired some of the tapes and rejected the wrong tapes when they were not original.

 

Hoffman tells alot of stories.

 

Actually, after reading chesky's response to the issue, I get his dilemna. If the major labels are giving him crap there's not much he can do about it. And even though he's paying liscensing fee and could choose not to sell it would be biting the hand that feeds him. I'd hate not to have most of the warner stuff he's selling available because he chose not to carry a few of the bad ones.

[orgel]

I get his dilemna. If the major labels are giving him crap there's not much he can do about it. And even though he's paying liscensing fee and could choose not to sell it would be biting the hand that feeds him. I'd hate not to have most of the warner stuff he's selling available because he chose not to carry a few of the bad ones.

 

I think this is exactly right. I'm sure Chesky knows what he'd need to do to make his (somewhat crazy) customer base happy, but then he'd make significantly less money. I really don't think he's the villain in the piece; he's caught between a rock and hard place. My solution to HDtracks quality issues is to only buy stuff there that comes from companies that have a demonstrated commitment to good sound quality (and that includes Chesky Records), or to wait for others' reviews/analysis of stuff from the major labels.

 

OTOH, Chesky does come across as kind of an a-hole in the interview. Hard to say whether that's him or the interviewer. Maybe he just shouldn't give interviews.

 

--David

[REShaman]

Someone who runs an audiophile record label must know what audiophiles want when they put their money down. I want to know how the recording was made. And I love to read liner notes.

 

People like Steve Hoffman and MSFL are getting the original master tapes and doing the remastering themselves with many of the same classic rock and pop titles that HDTracks seem to be having problems with. A lot of companies are reissuing the titles on vinyl too. So other companies reissuing albums are doing it right and don't seem to have problems with provenance. But they have to figure it out themselves.

 

Steve Hoffman tells stories of how he acquired some of the tapes and rejected the wrong tapes when they were not original.

 

We already know record companies aren't very forthcoming but some still manage to get it right. I feel like David Chesky is making excuses and acting defensive.

 

Hoffman tells alot of stories.

 

Actually, after reading chesky's response to the issue, I get his dilemna. If the major labels are giving him crap there's not much he can do about it. And even though he's paying liscensing fee and could choose not to sell it would be biting the hand that feeds him. I'd hate not to have most of the warner stuff he's selling available because he chose not to carry a few of the bad ones.

 

For the moment, leaving Mr. Chesky aside (he won't mind) labjr relates what Steve Hoffman does to match Hoffman's criteria for what he is willing to produce based on his standards that other's regard as highly-desirable product. Do I have that right?

 

In contrast gabeg, empathically gets Chesky's dilemma. Is it only Chesky's dilemma? What about the purchasing public?

 

It could reasonably be posited that some music enthusiasts will tolerate certain conditions concerning quality that are generally not well-received in order to get other outcomes which do.

 

The equation no matter who the customer is if they follow (allow for) unsatisfactory products to be sold by purchasing them, contribute to an outcome many complain about and either reluctantly avoid or accede to but with reservations that diminish full satisfaction.

 

I am not personalizing these views by attributing the state of affairs to a (any) single person. Or even a contest between right and wrong.

 

It would not matter whose name is associated with the POV. The concern is what is required for change, a reckoning that promotes highly-desirable outcomes.

 

Would it be fair to state that every time you cast a vote for a candidate you do not prefer you are maintaining a system you don't support congruently? One empowers the very outcome one seeks to avoid.

 

What if it was demonstrated that the buying population will not be compromised with mediocrity to get the better products? If Hoffman is a model for what most of us would support, a model for how to get it done that conforms to high standards, what stops us from making the point through our commitments? Not talking boycott, here.

 

What can Chesky do?

 

Of course, Chesky can do something about it; and we can support him in doing something about it. He can refused product that we object to and accept product that we support.

 

If one does not vote for a candidate one feels is not qualified; that candidate will not be elected. One's choices signal those studios what will sell and what will not or at least make worth their effort. As long as a studio releases what they care to and the public accepts the sub-standard product that is a clear signal that the Studio can get away with it and one has failed to demonstrate a resolve that signals to the Studio they will not prosper.

 

How else does one make something happen that is highly-desired by a great many that is furnished by another independent entity whose priorities and values are compromised in the first place? I am not preaching here, I am asking a reasonable question that requires some thought followed by effective action that many of us can follow to make change.

 

You know the saying: If you always do what you've always done, you always get what you've always gotten. Back to where we started from if that perspective is in play.

 

No offense meant to anyone. It's change and highly-desired outcomes that I am interested in promoting

 

Richard

[Julf]

How else does one make something happen that is highly-desired by a great many that is furnished by another independent entity whose priorities and values are compromised in the first place? I am not preaching here, I am asking us a reasonable question that requires some thought followed by effective action than many of us can follow to make change.

 

I guess you are saying "put your money where your mouth is". I have to agree...

[REShaman]

I guess you are saying "put your money where your mouth is". I have to agree...

 

Julf, that is one way of saying it. Here's another way: Change is a process of separating out what needs to be separated and combining what needs to be combined.

 

I for one am willing to do just that, put my money where my mouth is and being as diligent as I can to avoid what is essentially a pathetic product and profit for the promoters who knowingly sell it anyway.

 

If an individual like Chesky, who is a musician, composer, label owner, producer, engineer advocates a vision for music and then creates a mechanism for selling music which does not reflect those values then his words and actions do not match. Not just Chesky, any one who says one thing and does another whatever the justification is. How does someone juggle values that are so out of tune with each other and expect to be taken at his word?

 

Frankly, the buying public has a role in this scenario too. What you purchase is your own business. To hold anyone to a high standard is not judgmental. We are known by our work.

 

Best,

Richard

[Julf]

Frankly, the buying public has a role in this scenario too. What you purchase is your own business. To hold anyone to a high standard is not judgmental. We are known by our work.

 

Well said!

[goldsdad]

If an individual like Chesky, who is a musician, composer, label owner, producer, engineer advocates a vision for music and then creates a mechanism for selling music which does not reflect those values then his words and actions do not match. Not just Chesky, any one who says one thing and does another whatever the justification is. How does someone juggle values that are so out of tune with each other and expect to be taken at his word?

 

Well said!

[Paul R]

What can Chesky do?

 

Of course, Chesky can do something about it; and we can support him in doing something about it. He can refused product that we object to and accept product that we support.

 

Ah, very well said indeed Richard. The only issue being that, unless I am greatly mistaken, Chesky said that he cannot do that in the interview, stating various business reasons as justification. He does not believe he can successfully oppose the suppliers to demand quality product.

 

Personally, I don't think Chesky can do that either. At least, not until an 8000 pound "trailblazing gorilla" like Apple can convince the music companies to see reason. Chesky & Co. don't have the resources to do that.

 

-Paul