hdtracks terrible compressed masters

[dimar]

I wanted to buy the new Deep Purple Whoosh album from hdtracks, and after listening to sample tracks, it brought memories of when I bought Dream Theater Distance Over Time from them, which had a terrible dynamic range compression.

I bought the Distance Over Time later again on blu-ray, which is the same 96/24 PCM format as hdtracks, but sounded much better. I attached the comparison waveform for Untethered Angel track.

After contacting hdtracks, this is what I received.

 

"Please note, we don't record or master anything here at HDTracks. We receive the most up to date masters from our record label partners as does every high res retailer. The labels only provided what they have. Each retailer receives the same files. Each label has their own recording/mastering process. There is no universal standard. But we do ask that every label provide the best quality possible. Sometimes the clarity of the high res mastering may present qualities that were unnoticeable or masked in previous formats or versions. We do ask every label to take note of this when remastering. If these are important factors, then you may wish to forgo a purchase in the future, as we do have a limited reasons for returns."

 

So the question is, why would a labels give hdtracks a high-resolution but super compressed version of an album, but put a nicer dynamically-sounding version on blu-ray? What's keeping the labels from providing FLAC files of the same version as blu-ray? I just ripped the BD into FLAC files which I can listen any time, and never use hdtracks version. Is this some sort of conspiracy from the labels?? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

The two are clearly different masters. The Blu-Ray was authored with one and the high resolution retailers were provided with another. There are endless reasons why this could be and the only way to really know is to ask the people responsible for creating the two versions. Anything else is speculation. 

[firedog]

16 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The two are clearly different masters. The Blu-Ray was authored with one and the high resolution retailers were provided with another. There are endless reasons why this could be and the only way to really know is to ask the people responsible for creating the two versions. Anything else is speculation. 

Same with the White Album 50th Anniversary. Blu-Ray is a more "audiophile" version. No way to know why. Maybe it is some silly attempt to preserve an "exclusive" version for those who buy the Blu-Ray. 

In other cases, there was a perfectly good sounding hi-res remaster, and then a "newer" hi-res remaster comes out that is actually worse sounding (usually has more volume compression, among other changes). Unfortunately, usually this means that the older "better" version disappears from the marketplace. 

[CatManDo]

On 8/8/2020 at 7:32 PM, dimar said:

So the question is, why would a labels give hdtracks a high-resolution but super compressed version of an album, but put a nicer dynamically-sounding version on blu-ray? What's keeping the labels from providing FLAC files of the same version as blu-ray? I just ripped the BD into FLAC files which I can listen any time, and never use hdtracks version. Is this some sort of conspiracy from the labels?? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

My guess is that they don't care, or are not aware of it (I would check the DR values and the spectrogram of the files before sending them to the download stores, but I'm just an amateur nerd with too much time ...).

 

Having different amounts of compression applied to different formats of a new release is actually very rare.

 

In this case, the BD-A master was probably made separately (maybe even in a different studio, as a multi-channel mix was also made for the BD-A), which explains the different mastering also in stereo. The CD and BD-A have different mastering credits.

 

But in the end the label sent the hi-rez version of the more compressed CD mastering to the download stores.

 

Quote

Mastered By – Tom Baker

Mastered By [5.1, Instrumentals & Stems] – Peter Van 't Riet

https://www.discogs.com/Dream-Theater-Distance-Over-Time/release/14199931

[firedog]

On 8/8/2020 at 8:32 PM, dimar said:

So the question is, why would a labels give hdtracks a high-resolution but super compressed version of an album, but put a nicer dynamically-sounding version on blu-ray? What's keeping the labels from providing FLAC files of the same version as blu-ray? I just ripped the BD into FLAC files which I can listen any time, and never use hdtracks version. Is this some sort of conspiracy from the labels?? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

As CatManDo suggested, it may be pure incompetence by the labels and also the two versions  for sale could have been created by different people at different times from the same source file - the "real" digital master.

 

In the case of the White Album, it's even odder: The 30 tracks of the original release have a superior 24/96 mastering on Blu-Ray, but all the 67 bonus tracks are in Redbook. Then there's also the bonus of the "flat transfer" of the original mono mix in 24/96. On the deluxe digital download release, all 97 tracks are in 24/96. No mono included. 

 

The "Lost Album" by Coltrane that came out last year had noticeable volume compression on the 24/192 download, and much less on the Redbook version. I bought the hi-res when it was released, and now listen only to the CD version. I'm pretty sure they are exactly the same master, except somehow  the hi-res ended up with volume compression that the CD didn't get. 

 

None of the above makes much sense. I think it mostly shows how little thought goes into some of this and how little respect record labels have for consumers. Just some combination of incompetence lack of care.

[Ralf Hutter]

13 hours ago, firedog said:

 

 

 

The "Lost Album" by Coltrane that came out last year had noticeable volume compression on the 24/192 download, and much less on the Redbook version. I bought the hi-res when it was released, and now listen only to the CD version. I'm pretty sure they are exactly the same master, except somehow  the hi-res ended up with volume compression that the CD didn't get.

 

 

Yeah, the DR on the HiRes version is 9. On the LP it's 13.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, Ralf Hutter said:

 

 

Yeah, the DR on the HiRes version is 9. On the LP it's 13.

Is the LP DR accurate?

[firedog]

8 hours ago, Ralf Hutter said:

 

 

Yeah, the DR on the HiRes version is 9. On the LP it's 13.

The CD is 12.
LP DR ratings are deceptive. Not really a basis of comparison to straight digital files. 

[Summit]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Is the LP DR accurate?

 

Seems like it. http://dr.loudness-war.info/ usually is IMO.

 

[CatManDo]

Fortunately, the Coltrane case (hi-rez download having worse DR than the CD released at the same time) is extremely rare.

 

If this happened more often, who would buy a download unless someone other had tested the files before?

 

Right now, the DR value of a new CD release appears in the DR database quite soon (more people buy the CD version than the expensive hi-rez download). You can assume the hi-rez version is the same. If the CD is bad, you are warned. But if the hi-rez download risks being worse than the CD, it would put me off from buying $15-20 downloads without a quality guarantee.

[firedog]

The TT-DR meter doesn't work properly on vinyl rips:

 

 

 

and 

https://www.yoursoundmatters.com/measuring-vinyl-dynamic-range-complicated/

[firedog]

10 minutes ago, CatManDo said:

Fortunately, the Coltrane case (hi-rez download having worse DR than the CD released at the same time) is extremely rare.

 

If this happened more often, who would buy a download unless someone other had tested the files before?

 

Right now, the DR value of a new CD release appears in the DR database quite soon (more people buy the CD version than the expensive hi-rez download). You can assume the hi-rez version is the same. If the CD is bad, you are warned. But if the hi-rez download risks being worse than the CD, it would put me off from buying $15-20 downloads without a quality guarantee.

That's true,  but there's enough "audiophile" hi-res that's also been volume squashed (like the CD) that you might be better off waiting to see a DR rating of the high-res after seeing that the CD versions been's squashed. 

[dimar]

I remember being so excited when I discovered hdtracks, that now I was able to have studio quality mixes, and listen from my NAS any time, any device...   and then I discovered that most of the stuff I like had that weird compression effect. What a bummer 😞

 

 

[Ralf Hutter]

On 8/10/2020 at 5:27 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Is the LP DR accurate?

 

 

from here:

 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=john+coltrane+&album=lost

[One and a half]

While not the same type of music, PhileWeb made a test between two sources, direct cut LP and Blu-Ray of the same Bruckner No. 7 concert, the last Bernard Haitink. The BD is a 320kbs AAC, whereas the LP  (it sounds better). Here is a situation where the 'mastering' is different, most likely an economic reason. 

 

Here's the entire translation to EN as a pdf. The interesting point also is that the recording used different miking techniques, perhaps @gmgraves can comment.  TLDR? DCH = Digital Concert Hall

 

I thought this comment was worth remembering:

 

"First of all, I felt that in this recording, all voices could be heard firmly, although the sound was more substantial than direct cut LP. It is speculated that this is because the omnidirectional main microphone firmly captures the whole tone and uses the spot microphone to firmly output all voice parts.

Also, although the reverberation of the low frequencies of the Philharmonic is very full, the timbre of the cello and contrabass that resonated well in the hall was very good, and I felt that it was a omnidirectional main mic. However, on the other hand, I also felt that it was difficult to get the depth of front and back like a record.

■The depth of "delivering music" that I felt by listening to different sound sources The performance of these two sound sources should be almost the same, but if the recording method and the playback method are different, it will give a completely different impression. Very interesting.

 

In the current heyday of digital, "listening on DCH" means that you can easily experience the latest concerts anytime, anywhere. However, "listening with direct-cut LP" requires preparation of a playback system, and it feels like a very special thing from a modern day's perspective. This "preparing and listening" means spending a certain amount of concentrated time, and I think it gives a similar impression to "being at a concert."

At the very least, the Berlin Philharmonic's 2015 Complete Brahms Symphonies by Simon Rattle and this time Bruckner can be heard on both DCH and direct cut LPs. I felt that this Berlin Philharmonic try informs our listeners of the depth of "delivering music" through the media."
 

 

Listen to Direct Cut LP vs. DCH Digital Delivery,Berlin Philharmonic Bruckner No 7.pdf

[gmgraves]

19 hours ago, One and a half said:

While not the same type of music, PhileWeb made a test between two sources, direct cut LP and Blu-Ray of the same Bruckner No. 7 concert, the last Bernard Haitink. The BD is a 320kbs AAC, whereas the LP  (it sounds better). Here is a situation where the 'mastering' is different, most likely an economic reason. 

 

Here's the entire translation to EN as a pdf. The interesting point also is that the recording used different miking techniques, perhaps @gmgraves can comment.  TLDR? DCH = Digital Concert Hall

 

I thought this comment was worth remembering:

 

"First of all, I felt that in this recording, all voices could be heard firmly, although the sound was more substantial than direct cut LP. It is speculated that this is because the omnidirectional main microphone firmly captures the whole tone and uses the spot microphone to firmly output all voice parts.

Also, although the reverberation of the low frequencies of the Philharmonic is very full, the timbre of the cello and contrabass that resonated well in the hall was very good, and I felt that it was a omnidirectional main mic. However, on the other hand, I also felt that it was difficult to get the depth of front and back like a record.

■The depth of "delivering music" that I felt by listening to different sound sources The performance of these two sound sources should be almost the same, but if the recording method and the playback method are different, it will give a completely different impression. Very interesting.

 

In the current heyday of digital, "listening on DCH" means that you can easily experience the latest concerts anytime, anywhere. However, "listening with direct-cut LP" requires preparation of a playback system, and it feels like a very special thing from a modern day's perspective. This "preparing and listening" means spending a certain amount of concentrated time, and I think it gives a similar impression to "being at a concert."

At the very least, the Berlin Philharmonic's 2015 Complete Brahms Symphonies by Simon Rattle and this time Bruckner can be heard on both DCH and direct cut LPs. I felt that this Berlin Philharmonic try informs our listeners of the depth of "delivering music" through the media."
 

 

Listen to Direct Cut LP vs. DCH Digital Delivery,Berlin Philharmonic Bruckner No 7.pdf 218 kB · 0 downloads

Whoever wrote that comment “doesn’t understand all they know about the subject”. You can’t record stereo with a single omnidirectional microphone (or any other kind of mike for that matter). It takes at least two mikes for stereo, and omnis can give stereo only as a spaced array (unless you are using Ray Kimber’s “IsoMike” process which used a huge, heart shaped baffle between two closely spaced omnidirectional mikes [see below]).

And what’s this about the Blu-Ray Disc being AAC at 320 kbps? Unless the OP was referring to the sample, no legitimate recording company would use Blu-Ray to deliver a compressed audio format.

[JoeWhip]

On 8/11/2020 at 12:23 PM, dimar said:

I remember being so excited when I discovered hdtracks, that now I was able to have studio quality mixes, and listen from my NAS any time, any device...   and then I discovered that most of the stuff I like had that weird compression effect. What a bummer 😞

Not my cup of tea but to give the band credit, this HDTracks 2013 release scores well on the dynamic range database. The CD though is squashed.

[dimar]

2011 A Dramatic Turn of Events I got from hdtracks sounds pretty good.

2013 Dream Theater I bought on blu-ray which has stereo and surround mix.

2019 album was a disaster, so I had to get the special edition which had blu-ray, which was expensive.

 

I actually asked hdtracks support if they'd sell surround mixes, and they said no. Surround works fine in FLAC format.

[dimar]

For Deep Purple, stuff from Warner seems to sound good. And stuff from EARMUSIC is squashed.

Just bought Stormbringer, Burn, and Fireball and they sound pretty good.