HDtracks now offers AIFF, ALAC, WAV, & FLAC

[One and a half]

HDtracks now offers AIFF, ALAC, WAV, & FLAC starting right now! All you have to do is go to the album page and pull down and select the format you want. Then get ready for the coolest and fastest download manager on the planet. Enjoying master quality downloads has never been easier. With one easy click just install the new HDtracks HD Downloader on your next purchase. Any future updates will be automatic. And once you have the format you choose to use, you can go to your customer page and select your default format.

 

Where is DSD....? We can wait another year s'pose.

[valenroy]

Anyone downloaded the WAV and AIFF versions yet? How is the metadata of the downloads on these 2 formats?

[DigiPete]

Where is DSD....? We can wait another year s'pose.

 

Well - your loss I suppose.

[sandyk]

I would like to know the source of the aiff and .wav DLs.

With previously available .flac files, have they simply been converted from the original .flac DL format to the new aiff or .wav

formats ?

IF so, I would prefer to do the conversion from the original .flac to .wav myself ! I certainly do NOT want somebody else to convert from the original Record Company supplied format to .flac first .

Alex

[elcorso]

I would like to know the source of the aiff and .wav DLs.

With previously available .flac files, have they simply been converted from the original .flac DL format to the new aiff or .wav

formats ?

IF so, I would prefer to do the conversion from the original .flac to .wav myself ! I certainly do NOT want somebody else to convert from the original Record Company supplied format to .flac first .

Alex

 

Hi Alex,

 

I don't know (yet) in HDTRACKS, but in QOBUZ is very notorious the difference, by some (listening) tests. After some money spend I DL everything in WAV format.

 

Kind regards,

 

Roch

[Robert Hutton]

I would like to know the source of the aiff and .wav DLs.

With previously available .flac files, have they simply been converted from the original .flac DL format to the new aiff or .wav

formats ?

IF so, I would prefer to do the conversion from the original .flac to .wav myself ! I certainly do NOT want somebody else to convert from the original Record Company supplied format to .flac first .

Alex

 

My first thought when I saw the announcement was the same - they surely did not get the supplier record labels to give them new files, I would think they must surely be conversions from the original flac files in the great majority of cases.

 

I'm with you on this - just give me the original file.

[One and a half]

Well - your loss I suppose.

 

and others!

[rwwjr44]

When JRiver first introduced its HDTracks Downloader, it did wav and some others. The metadata seemed to be the same as the flac. I think that JRiver is just transposing on the fly.

[integriscdp]

My first thought when I saw the announcement was the same - they surely did not get the supplier record labels to give them new files, I would think they must surely be conversions from the original flac files in the great majority of cases.

 

I'm with you on this - just give me the original file.

 

I've sent an email to HDTracks support requesting clarification on the source of the WAV files, i.e. whether the files have been supplied directly from the record labels, or simply converted 'in house' from other formats, e.g. FLAC. If I get a response I will post it here...

[jackman]

I've just downloaded the 24/192 wav of Jackson Brown's Running on Empty. I was curious to compare it to the flac that I dled when it became available. The wav file is considerably more detailed with a much greater sense of space in the soundstage, (Cocaine and Rosie were the compared tracks.) There is also, for lack of a better way to say it, an organic liquidity to the sound that is more like the sound of an original master tape. The flac, as good as it is, sounds dry, a little congested lacks a top to bottom coherence that is clearly evident in the wav, even when listening casually, off axis.

 

Now, admittedly, I'm using a world class digital front end, an Esoteric D-02 with the Rubidium clock...(not mine, it's demo gear at the store where I work,) it will be interesting to see what sort of difference I hear at home with an M2Tech Young through my very good, but not reference level system. I'm curious to see if HDTracks responds to queries about the file sources. The wav is so superior I have to wonder if the source is the same. I have tried generating flac and wav files taken from LP. I've tried this with the A-D built into a modified TASCAM DR-680, M-Audio 192 pci card and a Mytec A-D, (an older model, I'm afraid I don't recall the model number.) The results, although slightly different flavored, all gave an advantage to the wav file. However, it was much more subtle than what I'm hearing between the Jackson Browne files. The HDTracks flac is so inferior to the wav in this particular case that I'm going to contact HDTracks and see if they will allow me to redownload previous flac purchases in wav. I'm happy to pay a bandwidth fee, but to my ear, the wav file considerably diminishes the value of the flac files.

 

Anybody have similar experience? Any tried the aiff against the flac?

[integriscdp]

I've just downloaded the 24/192 wav of Jackson Brown's Running on Empty. I was curious to compare it to the flac that I dled when it became available. The wav file is considerably more detailed with a much greater sense of space in the soundstage, (Cocaine and Rosie were the compared tracks.) There is also, for lack of a better way to say it, an organic liquidity to the sound that is more like the sound of an original master tape. The flac, as good as it is, sounds dry, a little congested lacks a top to bottom coherence that is clearly evident in the wav, even when listening casually, off axis.

 

Now, admittedly, I'm using a world class digital front end, an Esoteric D-02 with the Rubidium clock...(not mine, it's demo gear at the store where I work,) it will be interesting to see what sort of difference I hear at home with an M2Tech Young through my very good, but not reference level system. I'm curious to see if HDTracks responds to queries about the file sources. The wav is so superior I have to wonder if the source is the same. I have tried generating flac and wav files taken from LP. I've tried this with the A-D built into a modified TASCAM DR-680, M-Audio 192 pci card and a Mytec A-D, (an older model, I'm afraid I don't recall the model number.) The results, although slightly different flavored, all gave an advantage to the wav file. However, it was much more subtle than what I'm hearing between the Jackson Browne files. The HDTracks flac is so inferior to the wav in this particular case that I'm going to contact HDTracks and see if they will allow me to redownload previous flac purchases in wav. I'm happy to pay a bandwidth fee, but to my ear, the wav file considerably diminishes the value of the flac files.

 

Anybody have similar experience? Any tried the aiff against the flac?

 

While I haven't actually downloaded a WAV version of a previous FLAC purchase, I have observed similar details when ripping my hi-res DVD-A and blu-ray audio discs. I have compared WAV rips to FLAC (with zero compression option), and still the WAV files sound better than the equivalent sized FLAC files. The WAV files always seem to have a little extra air in the soundstage.

[Manelus]

Wav sounds better than flac. That is, flac converted to wav "on the fly" losses slightly.

If I convert my flacs to wav, previous to play. Wavs sound better.

Question is: Is there a diference between these WAVs and the ones downloaded from HDTracks or from Qobuz?

As far as I know the "time" problem arises in "on the fly" decompression, but once decompressed they shoud be equal.

[DigiPete]

Wav sounds better than flac.

 

Wav sounds EXACTLY the same as a FLAC, if it has the same information in the container.

 

Your equipment is SHIT if it sounds different.

[souptin]

Wav sounds EXACTLY the same as a FLAC, if it has the same information in the container.

 

Your equipment is SHIT if it sounds different.

 

As I understand, it is the 'same information' issue that is one of the questions being examined here. HD Tracks' track record is not great in this regard, a mistake in their filing is a possibility.

 

With regard to your second statement, are you just blowing off some steam or is there something specific you have identified? I share your skepticism, but wouldn't it be interesting to find a setup that repeatedly and clearly showed up differences in (otherwise data-identical) file formats? Whether you want to think of it as a fault or a feature is moot... it's not supposed to happen which makes it pretty darned interesting imo.

 

Although I have to admit I'm the person who struggles to hear differences which I know are there and are easily measurable, so I'm basically a spectator in topics like this. Maybe I should stfu.

[One and a half]

I've sent an email to HDTracks support requesting clarification on the source of the WAV files, i.e. whether the files have been supplied directly from the record labels, or simply converted 'in house' from other formats, e.g. FLAC. If I get a response I will post it here...

 

I do hope there is a post soon, cause the thread is going to be another FLAC vs WAV argument, with no conclusion. HDtracks is providing a convenience service, however the origin and provenance of their files is usually shrouded in a cloud of mist (can freely use the same word for German as well as English) and raises more questions.

 

The convenience costs HDtracks in the realm of disk space, so more servers are required, unless there's a very clever script, that can use say dbpoweramp and convert on the fly into a temporary folder where you download from. Once the DL is complete, the files are removed. It takes dbpoweramp, less than a minute to convert and album from FLAC to WAV or to AIFF and does a great job of retaining metadata in the AIFF.

[Manelus]

As I understand, it is the 'same information' issue that is one of the questions being examined here. HD Tracks' track record is not great in this regard, a mistake in their filing is a possibility.

 

With regard to your second statement, are you just blowing off some steam or is there something specific you have identified? I share your skepticism, but wouldn't it be interesting to find a setup that repeatedly and clearly showed up differences in (otherwise data-identical) file formats? Whether you want to think of it as a fault or a feature is moot... it's not supposed to happen which makes it pretty darned interesting imo.

 

Although I have to admit I'm the person who struggles to hear differences which I know are there and are easily measurable, so I'm basically a spectator in topics like this. Maybe I should stfu.

 

It seems I'n not the only one that uses SHIT as HiFi stuff, LOL

Barry Diament probably uses the same shit:

(A well reputed Sound engineer, I note it juts in case because of your ignorance DigiPete, you don't know him)

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/aiff-vs-wav-7840/

Pls scroll to bottom of page 1

If someone really wants to know, is decompresion "on the fly" that causes diferences. Otherwise, already decompressed files are exactly the same.

Maybe this is too complitate for you to understand DigiPete.

BTW I won't write here anymore

[Gregor Samsa]

Actually Pete, it's spelled Schiit. Other than that, you're right. Very revealing kit.

[ron spencer]

I've just downloaded the 24/192 wav of Jackson Brown's Running on Empty. I was curious to compare it to the flac that I dled when it became available. The wav file is considerably more detailed with a much greater sense of space in the soundstage, (Cocaine and Rosie were the compared tracks.) There is also, for lack of a better way to say it, an organic liquidity to the sound that is more like the sound of an original master tape. The flac, as good as it is, sounds dry, a little congested lacks a top to bottom coherence that is clearly evident in the wav, even when listening casually, off axis.

 

Now, admittedly, I'm using a world class digital front end, an Esoteric D-02 with the Rubidium clock...(not mine, it's demo gear at the store where I work,) it will be interesting to see what sort of difference I hear at home with an M2Tech Young through my very good, but not reference level system. I'm curious to see if HDTracks responds to queries about the file sources. The wav is so superior I have to wonder if the source is the same. I have tried generating flac and wav files taken from LP. I've tried this with the A-D built into a modified TASCAM DR-680, M-Audio 192 pci card and a Mytec A-D, (an older model, I'm afraid I don't recall the model number.) The results, although slightly different flavored, all gave an advantage to the wav file. However, it was much more subtle than what I'm hearing between the Jackson Browne files. The HDTracks flac is so inferior to the wav in this particular case that I'm going to contact HDTracks and see if they will allow me to redownload previous flac purchases in wav. I'm happy to pay a bandwidth fee, but to my ear, the wav file considerably diminishes the value of the flac files.

 

Anybody have similar experience? Any tried the aiff against the flac?

 

Do a proper abx in foobar and post the results in hydrogen audio. Otherwise you are just reporting placebo effect. Too many people touting flac over wav with NO abx evidence. Let's see it.

 

There is no FLAC vs WAV debate until proper scientific testing is done. Double-blind and abx are easy to do now..post your results.

[wgscott]

The people who think files with identical checksums can be different won't be swayed by AB/X tests.

 

As for hydrogen audio, there seem to be so many crackpots who slavishly ape what they wrongly perceive to be the scientific method that I cannot recommend them as competent judges of anything. Just the other side of the same coin.

[DigiPete]

Actually Pete, it's spelled Schiit. Other than that, you're right. Very revealing kit.

 

Sorry, my bad :-)

 

That is indeed very cool Schiit!

 

 

Do a proper abx in foobar and post the results in hydrogen audio.

Otherwise you are just reporting placebo effect. Too many people touting flac over wav with NO abx evidence. Let's see it.

 

There is no FLAC vs WAV debate until proper scientific testing is done. Double-blind and abx are easy to do now..post your results.

 

So true, so very true.

The human brain is capable of amazing things, most of it is done without our consent.

This is why so many or us end up with voodoo beliefs unless we stay on the narrow and strict scientific path.

[Boris75]

Wav sounds EXACTLY the same as a FLAC, if it has the same information in the container.

 

Your equipment is SHIT if it sounds different.

 

I fully agree with the substance of your remark (although I personally do not share the tone). The information in both files is the same, as the word "lossless" in FLAC makes it clear. If the files sound different, it means that the equipment does not have enough processing power or memory to do the job on the fly without hiccups.

[Boris75]

This is why so many or us end up with voodoo beliefs unless we stay on the narrow and strict scientific path.

 

Like audiophile ethernet cables for instance...

 

By the way, I include myself among those that can fall into voodoo audiophile beliefs: when I installed my interconnect and speaker Supra cables, I carefully respected the directional arrows on the cables, even though doing so went against everything I learned in my (rather long) studies in science and engineering...

[Julf]

The wav file is considerably more detailed with a much greater sense of space in the soundstage, (Cocaine and Rosie were the compared tracks.) There is also, for lack of a better way to say it, an organic liquidity to the sound that is more like the sound of an original master tape. The flac, as good as it is, sounds dry, a little congested lacks a top to bottom coherence that is clearly evident in the wav, even when listening casually, off axis.

 

And have you tried comparing the flac version with a wav file converted from that flac? And then compared that wav version with the wav you downloaded directly?

 

That, to me, seems the easy and obvious way to nail down any differences.

[ron spencer]

And have you tried comparing the flac version with a wav file converted from that flac? And then compared that wav version with the wav you downloaded directly?

 

That, to me, seems the easy and obvious way to nail down any differences.

 

yes...download the wav and convert to flac yourself...then abx that.

 

 

I am open to the fact the WAV could be better due to a decoder problem with some PC implementations, but flac has been proven to be lossless. There is way too much chatter about wav being better than flac. I am not completely closed to this possibility, but until I see proper evidence, it is just bunk.

 

I wonder if we will see wav and flac offered for purchase in the future with wav costing more...hmmm...don't get caught on some stupid bandwagon without evidence.

 

As I said, abx testing can be fun. Try it yourself, you will often be surprised at the results.

[ron spencer]

The people who think files with identical checksums can be different won't be swayed by AB/X tests.

 

As for hydrogen audio, there seem to be so many crackpots who slavishly ape what they wrongly perceive to be the scientific method that I cannot recommend them as competent judges of anything. Just the other side of the same coin.

 

Just like the same crackpots who think WAV is better than FLAC without any proper evidence and that $23,000 speaker cables make a difference.

 

Crackpots everywhere....so do some work yourself instead of downloading and saying "hey it sounds better because someone in a forum says so... have no need to test...I will pay more."