Inconsistent Hi-Res Quality

[CatManDo]

didn't see any mobile fidelity downloads.

 

Their remasterings are not available for download (yet). Since Mofi is a reissue label that licenses music from other labels, this would require an additional licensing agreement.

[chauncy]

I landed on this forum on a search for other persons experience of the SQ of hi res downloads, in this case particularly the Doobie Brothers "Minute By Minute" and "The Captain And Me" albums available on HDtracks.

 

I usually don't post to forums, but I have received quite a bit of info from this website that helped me with setting up my first PC sourced sound system. My thanks to the administrators of this website and to all the contributors.

 

I'd like to post my experience regarding my first exposure to hi res audio downloads. This is actually about my very first experience hearing hi res audio as I have never heard SACD or DVDA.

.

I am living overseas and mail order is not available for me. I am interested in a lossless format and it appears that in my situation downloads from the Web is all that is available. I'm not posting to bash HDtracks, but my intial experience as related below, was much the same as what I have read from other contributors. I have not yet made any purchases from other vendors / resellers. I'd appreciate any feedback on alternatives to HDtracks.

 

My HDtracks downloads so far are a remaster in 24/192 of John Coltrane's "Black Pearls" album and "The Traveling Wilburys Vol. I" (remastered 2016) on the Concord label at 24/96. My system is rather modest; NAD C 356BEE DAC and 12 year old B&W DM602 S3's. The files are sourced from MusicPlayer Daemon (mpd) on a low-latency Linux kernel with low OS overhead. The NAD's modular DAC has three native sampling rates: 44.1, 88.2 and 96 Hz.

 

I down-sampled the John Coltrane album to 24/96 on X Lossless Decoder for OS X with the SoX decode library before playing. Beautiful! Nice open sound, good imaging and for the B&Ws that are not placed so well, tight bass. Then I played The" Traveling Wilburys Vol. I" (no conversion as I bought it at the DAC's native sample rate of 96 kHz). What a disapointment! My only comparison was the last track "End Of The Line" with a mp3 file at 320 bitrate that I had downloaded for free. The "Hi Res" version sounds only marginally better the lossy mp3. The rest of the Wilburys download was as flat sounding the last track. I speculate on what I would have got if I had paid for the 24/192 Wilburys download. Bumped gain / and/or compression maybe?

 

I also downloaded from HDtracks the Miles Davis "Kind Of Blue" at 24/192 and down-sampled as above. Gorgeous! Next was Paul Simon's "Graceland" (25th anniversary edition). So-so. Sounds like what I remember hearing on the orginal redbook CD, same speakers, decent Denon CD player and a Japanese built Carver receiver bought in the mid 90s.

 

Consequently, I am now shy to purchase from HDtracks. They do post the provinence of some albums i.e. "Kind Of Blue", but I agree with other contributors that to be responsible resellers of the recording labels product, they should provide the customer an opportunity to download a sample of the recording to be purchased. As to customer reviews, the music listening experience is entirely subjective and dependent upon many factors, I think general customer comment can be useful, buy yet rather limited as a basis for a purchase decision.

 

Another consideration for audio samples is that though a given recording may not be of the highest quality, if I like the material, I might make the purchase irregardless of SQ differences between different media (redbook CD vs. "hires" download) or file formats (lossless .wav vs. lossy .flac). In other words, if I really like the music, it need not always be technically "perfect" ...and I might not be able to find it elsewhere. In that vein, I hope that Mr. Chesky isn't putting a lot of reliance on a business model of "this is it, take it or leave it, good luck finding it elsewere".

 

As I mentioned above, in my overseas location my options are pretty much limited to downloads from the Web, and some vendors have regional restrictions that I may be subject to. Please, any suggestions on a vendor / reseller with a good catalog of labels / artists / genres? My interests mostly run in 70s - 80s Pop, Jazz and World music. Thanks in advance!

[firedog]

The recent Paul Simon remasters are all volume compressed, AFAIK. So they don't sound so great, IMO. You are better off with the original CD remasters. Same is true for a lot of 70's -80's music you are interested in (Jazz - less so. as usually they don't add heavy VC to jazz).

 

One thing to do is check the DR database or on forums like this one before you buy. In most cases, if a hi-res remaster has been volume compressed more than a very moderate amount (say avg DR is below 12, or below 10 - i.e., DR reduction of -3 or more, depending on what it was in earlier versions), it will sound worse on good equipment than a CD version that hasn't been volume compressed (pre early-mid 90's generally don't have the added VC).

 

The vendor isn't going to make much of a difference. All of the vendors get the same hi-res versions for download from the same distributors, as a rule. The exceptions are if there is more than one hi-res remaster available, or albums that the vendor produces on it's own. Acoustic Sounds produces some of its own remasters and they are generally first rate. Likewise, Chesky records has very good sounding productions, so buying their downloads from HDT (or the Chesky Label itself) is generally no problem/

 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=simon+&album=graceland

 

Note how much VC has been added to the post 1990 versions. Reducing the VR from 14 to 9 generally doesn't give a sound an audiophile will like. IME, if the originals were at a DR of 14 and they reduced them to 11 or 12 they probably would sound fine, or at least if that resulted in a slight edge, it might be more than made up for by other postitive attributes of the remaster. But DR going from 14 to 9 is generally VERY noticeable and fairly difficult to listen to, at least for me.

[Hailey]

What does it mean when an album such as this

 

Mahler: Symphony No. 8 | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads

 

is available in 176/24 & 88/24? In which format was it recorded? Why doesn't HDTracks say?

[Hailey]

Or here. This was recorded in 1958. But its available as "audiophile 96/24."

 

Le Sacre du Printemps - Audiophile Picks | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads

 

How does that work? Who did the remastering?

 

Sorry to come off like a crank here but why should someone pay $18 for a 60 year-old recording without any kind of "provenance," if you will?

[Hailey]

And then there's this:

 

"This album was mastered using our 2xHD proprietary system. In order to achieve the most accurate reproduction of the original recording we tailor our process specifically for each project, using a selection from our pool of state-of-the-art audiophile components and connectors. The process begins with a transfer to analog from the original 24bits/96kHz resolution master, using cutting edge D/A converters. The analog signal is then sent through a hi-end tube pre-amplifier before being recorded directly in DXD using the dCS905 A/D and the dCS Vivaldi Clock. All connections used in the process are made of OCC silver cable. DSD and 192kHz/24Bit versions are separately generated, directly from the analog signal."

 

In other words, you took a 96/24 master, converted to analogue, then reconverted that into digital and upsampled.

 

Um...why?

[Musicophile]

The LSO Live recordings are often DSD masters. The relatively unusual sample rate of 176 indicates it is most likely a DSD to PCM transfer.

[Hailey]

The LSO Live recordings are often DSD masters. The relatively unusual sample rate of 176 indicates it is most likely a DSD to PCM transfer.

Ok, so what does that mean? Which one is the "real" one?

[Musicophile]

Ok, so what does that mean? Which one is the "real" one?

 

This one: http://lsolive.lso.co.uk/products/mahler-symphony-no-8

 

Or the corresponding DSD download if it were available anywhere (couldn't find it at Native DSD).

[Kal Rubinson]

This one: Mahler: Symphony No 8 – LSO Live

 

Or the corresponding DSD download if it were available anywhere (couldn't find it at Native DSD).

Could be coming since they list all the others.

[Hailey]

Downloaded the high-res version from HDTracks. Performance and sound both, "eh." In the B/B- range.

 

Waste of money.

[Kal Rubinson]

Downloaded the high-res version from HDTracks. Performance and sound both, "eh." In the B/B- range.

 

Waste of money.

I would have waited for the DSD.

[Hailey]

My DAC doesn't do native DSD, though...should I have still waited?

[Hailey]

At least the evening wasn't a complete bust...

 

Dynamite audiophile Saint-Saens 3rd ("Organ")

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/showthread.php?t=29324

[Kal Rubinson]

My DAC doesn't do native DSD, though...should I have still waited?

Well, at least you might have done your own conversion and resampling. I generally prefer to play DSD as such but conversion to PCM can be quite satisfying.

 

At least the evening wasn't a complete bust...

Dynamite audiophile Saint-Saens 3rd ("Organ")

Dynamite audiophile Saint-Saens 3rd ("Organ")

Not a great performance. Competent. As for the recording, I have not been a fan of Keith Johnson's multichannel recordings which lack the balance and the integrated ambiance that he is famous for in his stereo recordings. The RR "fresh" series is, imho, better in every instance.

[Hailey]

Well, at least you might have done your own conversion and resampling. I generally prefer to play DSD as such but conversion to PCM can be quite satisfying.

 

This is a bit over my head, I'm afraid, as I am quite the hifi novice. You're saying I would convert DSD to PCM through Audirvana or...what?

 

Thanks, in advance, for your guidance here.

 

Not a great performance. Competent. As for the recording, I have not been a fan of Keith Johnson's multichannel recordings which lack the balance and the integrated ambiance that he is famous for in his stereo recordings. The RR "fresh" series is, imho, better in every instance.

 

The performance was competent. But, again, I can't recall that level of "thereness" in any large scale orchestral work.

 

Might you suggest an example of something you think surpasses it, SQ-wise?

[chauncy]

@firedog;

 

Thank you for a very useful reply to my post. I'm quickly beginning to appreciate the major difference that compression makes on a recording (or remaster). The referral to the dr. loudness-war website is a good resource along with your guide on what numbers to look for in what may be considered a good recording. In the future I'm not going to be as impulsive about my purchases! I'll be doing more research first.

 

chauncy

[Kal Rubinson]

This is a bit over my head, I'm afraid, as I am quite the hifi novice. You're saying I would convert DSD to PCM through Audirvana or...what?

I use JRiver which lets me convert DSD on the fly to 64/352.8 or lower resolutions.

 

The performance was competent. But, again, I can't recall that level of "thereness" in any large scale orchestral work.

 

Might you suggest an example of something you think surpasses it, SQ-wise?

IMHO, any of the "fresh" releases from Pittsburgh are better balanced.

[firedog]

And then there's this:

 

"This album was mastered using our 2xHD proprietary system. In order to achieve the most accurate reproduction of the original recording we tailor our process specifically for each project, using a selection from our pool of state-of-the-art audiophile components and connectors. The process begins with a transfer to analog from the original 24bits/96kHz resolution master, using cutting edge D/A converters. The analog signal is then sent through a hi-end tube pre-amplifier before being recorded directly in DXD using the dCS905 A/D and the dCS Vivaldi Clock. All connections used in the process are made of OCC silver cable. DSD and 192kHz/24Bit versions are separately generated, directly from the analog signal."

 

In other words, you took a 96/24 master, converted to analogue, then reconverted that into digital and upsampled.

 

Um...why?

 

No. They converted the 24/96 master to analog and then converted that both to DXD and 192/24 - separately (two streams).

 

Why? I guaranteed you they will say that it sounds best this way.

[firedog]

Or here. This was recorded in 1958. But its available as "audiophile 96/24."

 

Le Sacre du Printemps - Audiophile Picks | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads

 

How does that work? Who did the remastering?

 

Sorry to come off like a crank here but why should someone pay $18 for a 60 year-old recording without any kind of "provenance," if you will?

 

I have it and it sounds great, if that helps you. Although if in general you don't like these old recordings you may not like it. They don't sound the same as modern recordings. I'm a big fan of a lot of the late 50's classical recordings.

[firedog]

What does it mean when an album such as this

 

Mahler: Symphony No. 8 | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads

 

is available in 176/24 & 88/24? In which format was it recorded? Why doesn't HDTracks say?

 

Pretty much a given at HDT if it is offered in 88 and in 176 that it is a conversion from DSD. That's what they do with DSD sources if it isn't licensed to them as DSD, but only as PCM. (Don't ask me why the labels do this. The LSO may want to keep the actual DSD download as an exclusive for NativeDSD or someone else).

 

Sony also does this with their back catalog material which has all been cataloged as DSD and much of it sold at some point as SACD. They make it available for download, but only as conversion to PCM from DSD. Possibly they think they are retaining exclusive use of the "digital master" (DSD) this way.

[Hailey]

I have it and it sounds great, if that helps you. Although if in general you don't like these old recordings you may not like it. They don't sound the same as modern recordings. I'm a big fan of a lot of the late 50's classical recordings.

 

I'm also a fan of that era--RCA Living Stereo, Everest--and Bernstein, whatever his flaws, can be counted on for a vigorous interpretation.

[Hailey]

IMHO, any of the "fresh" releases from Pittsburgh are better balanced.

 

Like the Honeck Beethoven, you mean?

[Kal Rubinson]

Like the Honeck Beethoven, you mean?

 

Yes although the performances are very forceful. The Dvorak/Janacek and the Strauss discs are excellent.

[Hailey]

Yes although the performances are very forceful. The Dvorak/Janacek and the Strauss discs are excellent.

 

I don't have a problem with being asked to listen to an old standby in a new way, so I really respect his effort.

 

But the quality of the recording itself I found very so-so. The last track--the finale of the 7th--I doubt almost unlistenable. Just woolly and distorted.

 

I thought it was a problem with my equipment but other recordings were fine so I'm not sure what to make of it...