Hi-Res From HDTracks vs Redbook rips

[alcarp]

I have purchased over 30 albums in 96/24 FLAC format from HDTracks and most of them sounded better than my Itunes rips. However, I recently re-ripped CD's using DBPoweramp in Secure Mode and find that these sound a lot better than the hi-res downloads. Has anyone else done this comparison?

[firedog]

For me the quality of the hi-res downloads is dependent on the quality of the hi-res remaster. Most of the ones I've bought are the best sounding version I have of the music in question, but a couple haven't been mastered well and don't sound good. Adding too much volume compression to the hi-res is one of the culprits.

[SteveS1]

What Firedog said. Don't forget, just because an HD track can sound better than a CD version you happen to own - doesn't mean there isn't a version that might even top that.

 

The mastering is all important IMO, the format is a side issue if that job is done properly.

 

Most back catalogue I see advertised as 'high res' is taken from later, often compressed or tweaked masters when a decent transfer exists in a previous issue or audiophile special release.

[spdif-usb]

The mastering is all important IMO, the format is a side issue if that job is done properly.

The recording matters at least 9 times as much as the mastering. If both the recording and the mastering are done properly, it will still sound completely artificial and uninvolving if the choice of format is neglected, and Redbook always sucks like no tomorrow.

[SteveS1]

The recording matters at least 9 times as much as the mastering. If both the recording and the mastering are done properly, it will still sound completely artificial and uninvolving if the choice of format is neglected, and Redbook always sucks like no tomorrow.

 

LOL redbook is perfectly capable of outstanding results. As for recording, there is no barrier to getting that right. When the mixing and mastering is then squeezed and futzed - as so much is these days. That is the end and no amount of silly numbers in terms of res will rescue it. But it is lucrative to flog backcatelogue to old heads who don't realise there is already a better CD out there.

[jamesg11]

LOL redbook is perfectly capable of outstanding results. As for recording, there is no barrier to getting that right. When the mixing and mastering is then squeezed and futzed - as so much is these days. That is the end and no amount of silly numbers in terms of res will rescue it. But it is lucrative to flog backcatelogue to old heads who don't realise there is already a better CD out there.

 

Yep, agreed ... & the point of this forum is to alert us to 'best' options. There can be a lot of legwork getting this right. And then you end up spending up just to see if said DL is what you really want. Hits, misses, ...

[REShaman]

The recording matters at least 9 times as much as the mastering. If both the recording and the mastering are done properly, it will still sound completely artificial and uninvolving if the choice of format is neglected, and Redbook always sucks like no tomorrow.

 

I beg to differ but I never argue with perception. I have a music collection of nearly 4000 discs. Perhaps 85% are redbook CDs, and except for the poorly mastered ones, my redbook collection rival the rest now that my present system modest as it is resolves the SQ better than I have ever heard it. Amarra also helps persuade me of the excellent SQ.

This is my perspective driven by my experience and I have no wish to prove you wrong.

Best,

Richard