Article: Van Halen Studio Albums 1978-1984 High Resolution 24 Bit / 192 kHz Download

[The Computer Audiophile]

And I get his point. I still think there should be some sort of auditable "product tracking" system, just like in most other industries.

 

BTW, that thread also provided a great explanation of the 38KHz tone we see on some spectrum plots - leak-through from the motor control signal of the ATR-100 tape machine.

 

It may be interesting to create a thread soliciting opinions on a new "product tracking" system. Maybe it's possible to come up with something that works.

[Julf]

It may be interesting to create a thread soliciting opinions on a new "product tracking" system. Maybe it's possible to come up with something that works.

 

Clearly the takeaway from the thread you linked to is that it can't be too simplistic - I am already concerned about how some people seem to take DR as a "magic bullet" that is a 1-to-1 measure of "quality".

 

The other problem is that even if we come up with a perfect system, there is very little incentive for anyone to implement it. The iTunes crowd is perfectly happy with the status quo.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Clearly the takeaway from the thread you linked to is that it can't be too simplistic - I am already concerned about how some people seem to take DR as a "magic bullet" that is a 1-to-1 measure of "quality".

 

The other problem is that even if we come up with a perfect system, there is very little incentive for anyone to implement it. The iTunes crowd is perfectly happy with the status quo.

 

The target audience can't be the iTunes crowd, at least to start. The iTunes crowd never used the SPARS codes anyway.

 

The incentive to use a new code scheme is definitely there for those with great recording pedigree, skills, and products. It would be pretty cool to come up with a small list of items, like a check list, that online stores could send to music suppliers to complete.

[Julf]

The incentive to use a new code scheme is definitely there for those with great recording pedigree, skills, and products. It would be pretty cool to come up with a small list of items, like a check list, that online stores could send to music suppliers to complete.

 

Well, the scheme proposed by Teresa is a good start, as long as we make it very clear that it is not a measure of quality, but a measure of provenance.

 

On the other hand, I came across something called Brown’s Law, named after mastering engineer Phil Brown: "The general public doesn’t really need to know how records or sausage is made".

[The Computer Audiophile]

On the other hand, I came across something called Brown’s Law, named after mastering engineer Phil Brown: "The general public doesn’t really need to know how records or sausage is made".

Ha!

 

However, I like to know about milk delivered for my daughter. The following information doesn't tell me how it tastes, but tells me more than the standard milk producers.

 

 

"Our dairy products and cream line milk are from Crystal Ball Farms in Osceola, WI. The DeRosier family has about 100 Holstein cows and a state of the art bottling facility right on the farm. They control every aspect of the operation, from growing the certified organic crops that feed the cows to washing the returnable glass bottles for reuse. Cream line milk has been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria, but has not been homogenized, providing you with a healthier, more nutritious product."

[Julf]

However, I like to know about milk delivered for my daughter. The following information doesn't tell me how it tastes, but tells me more than the standard milk producers.

 

Good point - and the producer provides that information voluntarily, because it is in their own interest.

[Vocalpoint]

Fine review...but unless someone can accurately confirm that any these files come from true analog transfers done at 24/192 or even 24/96 - I remain convinced that these are simply up-sampled to hype the release.

[Somsak]

Fine review...but unless someone can accurately confirm that any these files come from true analog transfers done at 24/192 or even 24/96 - I remain convinced that these are simply up-sampled to hype the release.

 

I'd be happy just to hear an opinion or two about whether these new releases subjectively sound better than earlier ones. I don't see that in this review, just some DR numbers and other data whose correlation with sound quality is dubious. When reissues of classic recordings are being reviewed, isn't the primary role of the reviewer to determine whether the reissue under review is preferable to earlier releases that the readers might already own?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Fine review...but unless someone can accurately confirm that any these files come from true analog transfers done at 24/192 or even 24/96 - I remain convinced that these are simply up-sampled to hype the release.

What evidence do you have to, "remain convinced that these are simply up-sampled?"

 

Upsampled from what? Have you seen the frequency information provided in the images above?

[Somsak]

I guess what we really need is an updated version of the old SPARS code system (remember the "AAA", "AAD", "ADD", "DAD" and "DDD" codes from the early days of the CD?).

 

In the case of HDTracks, I'd be happy if they would include a text file with a paragraph or two saying something (anything) about the technical details of the release instead of just giving us the flac files and a scan of the original CD cover.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I'd be happy just to hear an opinion or two about whether these new releases subjectively sound better than earlier ones. I don't see that in this review, just some DR numbers and other data whose correlation with sound quality is dubious. When reissues of classic recordings are being reviewed, isn't the primary role of the reviewer to determine whether the reissue under review is preferable to earlier releases that the readers might already own?

 

Hi Somsak - There is no such thing as a single primary role for a review of any product. What I did was provide more information than most (all?) other reviews of this collection have provided along with a subjective analysis. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. If I stuck to your "primary role" readers would have virtually flogged me for not publishing the images of frequency and DR analysis. Plus, if you read the other threads about high resolution downloads, including the thread about the new VH albums, readers want this information. I also try to include information that I would want if I was considering purchasing the albums.

 

A great benefit of the Internet is crowd sourced information. I don't own all other Van Halen releases including the originals and remasters. Fortunately other readers own these versions and are contributing information about the albums.

[MarkS]

Why do people seem generally to assume the worst from HD Tracks? Has anyone asked HD Tracks to identify the source of their VH files and whether any version of the new releases are upsampled.

[Krutsch]

I'd be happy just to hear an opinion or two about whether these new releases subjectively sound better than earlier ones. I don't see that in this review, just some DR numbers and other data whose correlation with sound quality is dubious. When reissues of classic recordings are being reviewed, isn't the primary role of the reviewer to determine whether the reissue under review is preferable to earlier releases that the readers might already own?

 

I am happy to offer a subjective opinion, FWIW. I bought the 96K version and have been playing back these files on my MacBook Pro (Audirvana+) -> AQ DragonFly -> NuForce Icon HDP w/ linear PS -> Grado RS2i. My Senns don't sound right with VH - you need bright, fast, aggressive phones for this music, IMO.

 

This would the fourth time I've purchased the set of six albums from VH - originally on vinyl as they were released (one at a time :-), then on CD, then as AAC+ from iTunes and finally from HD Tracks. I know these tracks really, really well. It could all be perception bias and/or placebo effect, but I can tell you that I've never heard these songs sound this great and I can't stop playing 'em.

[Pale Rider]

I am happy to offer a subjective opinion, FWIW. I bought the 96K version and have been playing back these files on my MacBook Pro (Audirvana+) -> AQ DragonFly -> NuForce Icon HDP w/ linear PS -> Grado RS2i. My Senns don't sound right with VH - you need bright, fast, aggressive phones for this music, IMO.

 

This would the fourth time I've purchased the set of six albums from VH - originally on vinyl as they were released (one at a time :-), then on CD, then as AAC+ from iTunes and finally from HD Tracks. I know these tracks really, really well. It could all be perception bias and/or placebo effect, but I can tell you that I've never heard these songs sound this great and I can't stop playing 'em.

 

I like hearing that!

[MarkS]

I just looked at HD Tracks website and it says "All VH transfers were from the original EQ production analog tapes." But I guess that doesn't answer someone's question of whether there is upsampling.

[Somsak]

I just looked at HD Tracks website and it says "All VH transfers were from the original EQ production analog tapes." But I guess that doesn't answer someone's question of whether there is upsampling.

 

And perhaps explains why the DR figures (on the first album anyway) are the same as on the original Red Book CD (but different than on the remastered HDCD).

[edn4x4]

I also bought the 96k version and it sounds really good. I also have listened to other versions and this one I can't shut off... Its getting loud in here.

[MarkS]

I listened to a few tracks of the 24.192 version. I also listened to the same tracks on ripped cd's. I only listened to each series of tracks once and didn't have lots of time, but, to my ear, the 24.192 tracks sound substantially better. The 24.192 versions had far better and cleaner imaging and no "haze" around instruments with much more depth than the rips. Just my 2 cents.

 

I hope HD Tracks keeps releasing this type music.

[Joe Fonebone]

"purchasing the cassette of 1984 as a nine year old budding audiophile" - I've got underwear older than you.

[The Computer Audiophile]

"purchasing the cassette of 1984 as a nine year old budding audiophile" - I've got underwear older than you.

 

Ha!

[Somsak]

I bit the bullet and give HDTracks their $72 for the 96KHz version of this set. I previously had only the first Van Halen album in my collection but I had both a 1990 CD of it and the remastered HDCD version that came out around 2000. I’m assuming that my 1990 CD is the same as other redbook CD versions on the market prior to 2000 (info at discogs.com makes it appear as though there was only one remastering of this title since it was first released on CD in 1988).

 

Based only upon the first album, I think that this present HDTracks release is from exactly the same master tapes as what was used for the original (circa 1988 to 1999) CD pressings except that this time those tapes were digitized at a higher bit rate & depth and at a +0.25dB higher gain. That’s based upon DR data (which is identical to the earlier CD), replay gain data (which is consistently 0.24 to 0.26db different between the version on every track), and listening (which reveals only subtle differences between the HDTracks version and the original CD). The HDTracks version is vastly superior to the 2000 HDCD version though.

 

Since I only had the first of the albums in this set previously, I think this purchase was still worthwhile because I got 5 new good sounding albums that I didn’t already have. However I wouldn’t recommend purchasing this set as an upgrade to someone who already had the original CDs unless it’s the case that the original version of the other 5 CDs were considerably less well done than was Van Halen I.

[Julf]

I think that this present HDTracks release is from exactly the same master tapes as what was used for the original (circa 1988 to 1999) CD pressings except that this time those tapes were digitized at a higher bit rate & depth and at a +0.25dB higher gain.

 

Ah! That is clever! I doubt people comparing the recordings will account for that level error in their listening, so the hi-res recording will sound better based on that extra gain alone.

[Somsak]

Ah! That is clever! I doubt people comparing the recordings will account for that level error in their listening, so the hi-res recording will sound better based on that extra gain alone.

 

Similar thing was done with the 2009 Beatles remasters -- the 24bit 44KHz files sold on the Apple USB stick were all +0.3 db louder than than the corresponding tracks ripped from the CDs.

[Julf]

Similar thing was done with the 2009 Beatles remasters -- the 24bit 44KHz files sold on the Apple USB stick were all +0.3 db louder than than the corresponding tracks ripped from the CDs.

 

Illustrates the importance of level matching - and is also a good example of a situation where measuring instruments are much, much more accurate than the human hearing. It is trivially easy to measure level differences down to small fractions of a dB, but a listener most probably would just very slightly prefer the sound quality of the louder track.

[MarkS]

I thought the gain on the HD Tracks was lower? I used the audio tools sound pressure meter on my iPad and listened to some of the HD Tracks vs. cd rips at 90 db. I'm pretty sure I needed to turn up the volume on the HD Tracks cuts to level match???