Inconsistent Hi-Res Quality

[mansr]

Agreed. Having been burned by HDTracks once too often, I now avoid it altogether.

That's a bit extreme. Some labels are consistently good. Chesky, for instance, and HDTracks is the natural place to get their productions.

[mansr]

Can't say I'm a fan of MQA (yet) but it does purport to address some of the issues.

 

I don't see how. Nothing stops the label compressing something to death and slapping an "authentic" stamp on it.

[mansr]

I'm sure there are some labels that are consistently good, mostly jazz and classical I presume. But when you purchase popular music, new or reissue, the odds are better at the blackjack table.

 

For old recordings, CD reissues from the late 80s or early 90s are usually the best bet. The early issues with digital had been worked out, and the loudness wars had yet to begin. Most recordings on tape have precious little information beyond the abilities of CD anyway.

[mansr]

It does seem like better analog tapes are often found and used for many post 90s remasters. The downside though is the loudness wars. So there may be a tradeoff between generational losses in the analog tape used for the CD master vs compression applied digitally.

 

I think many of the earliest CDs were done from whichever tape was easier to find because of the view that "most recordings on tape have precious little information beyond the abilities of CD anyway". Backlash against this encouraged the labels to do a do-over and remaster from the original master tapes if possible.

Even with better tapes, the benefits of a hires transfer are subtle best and do not make up for botched loudness war remastering.

[mansr]

You are probably right. But if you have consistently hit-or-miss experiences one place and consistently good experiences at another...well....

Where else would you get Chesky recordings?