HDTracks has WMG Eagles, Jackson Browne and more

[The Hawk]

Steve, you said "but I'd be gutted if I couldn't get a Mac/DAC to out-perform it on 16/44 never mind anything else. Worth trying something a bit closer in price?"

 

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying you'd be disappointed if a Mac/outboard dac couldn't beat the CDX2? It's not a CDS3, but it's great and a very hard player to beat, IMHO.

 

Secondly, are you suggesting a more expensive dac when you say "worth trying something a bit closer in price?" I just wanted a great sounding dac for my mac when spending time in my den/family room. Set a limit of $1000, and bought the Rega dac. It's very good, meets my needs, for now. Being a Naimee, I didn't want to buy an nDac or Uniqute or any other Naim stuff for a few years until things mature more. Still like spinning discs.

 

So I need you to elaborate more.

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SteveS1]

I'll PM you. The thread interests me because of the different experiences of downloads. I hold to what I've tried so far as being pretty patchy and as has already been mentioned, putting out masterings that are superficially impressive seems to be happening and being passed off as somehow 'Audiophile'.

 

When I see folk getting excited about the Gaucho, Frampton or Rush it makes me wonder what they are comparing it with precisely. Take the Gaucho, better than a couple of CD versions I've heard for sure. Better than every release? Err, no. Not for me or anyone else where I've compared them (different systems, without parties knowing which was playing).

 

So before we get excited about Hi Res downloads, let's remember that if the source tapes and mastering is spot on, 16/44 will deliver great results. The fact that there have been so much disappointment with CD sound quality over the years has nothing to do with the limitations of 16/44 IMO.

 

Best regards,

 

Steve

 

[sandyk]

Anybody who seriously believes that the 16/44.1 of the Carly Simon track "You're So Vain" comes anywhere near the SQ of the 24/192 ripped version from the DVD-A must have very mediocre playback equipment.The same applies to 24/96 of "Fleetwood Mac- Rumours," which although it has clipping, is way ahead of the 16/44.1 version, and it's not just due to the re-mastering for DVD-A. Evidence of that can be seen with the phenomenal asking prices for that DVD-A on fleabay.

SandyK

 

[SteveS1]

Context is everything. As for the fine DVD A of "No Secrets" have you compared that with the Kevin Gray's Audio Fidelity release?

 

 

 

[sandyk]

Steve

No, I haven't heard that version.

I only have an old copy, along with quite a few other CDs back from before the "Loudness Wars" started.(My collection started from Day 1 of CD.)

Some Telarc and Mobile Fidelity CDs are damn good,as is Linda Ronstadt's "What's New" in both 16/44.1 and 24/192 and "Dire Straits-Love Over Gold" (original release).

The 16/44.1 version of "What's New"" sounds spectacular when processed using SeeDeClip Duo Pro , normalised, then burned to a 24K Gold CD-R.

Alex

 

[SteveS1]

Thanks Alex.

 

The AF is quite a big step up from the Elektra original issue that I have. It's excellent in fact, so that would be the one I would want to compare with the download.

 

Likewise, the "Hotel California" DCC is the leading 16/44 version that I'm aware of, although I understand there are one or two other early editions that sound great. Again, these would be the Hi Res comparisons I would like to hear.

 

But in this case just not enough to shell out for the whole album. :-O Just in case, previous experience is repeated (I have better CDs than some of the downloads so far).

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

[sandyk]

Steve

I have ripped the DVD-A track of "Hotel California" and it sounds quite good, but not spectacular.Once again, SeeDeClip Duo Pro makes this track sound cleaner, and better.

Occasionally, there are some great tracks on DVD-A , such as a few from the downmix from 24/96 "Queen-The Game"

This is what the Admin of a U.K. forum said about one of these tracks.

Regards

Alex

 

"Alex sent me a file (Queen - Another one bites the dust) and I must admit I have never heard such a clear rendition of it.... you can hear Freddy inhaling before singing and exhaling after... you can EVEN hear the moisture in his throat.... superb recording!

 

 

[labjr]

"So before we get excited about Hi Res downloads, let's remember that if the source tapes and mastering is spot on, 16/44 will deliver great results. The fact that there have been so much disappointment with CD sound quality over the years has nothing to do with the limitations of 16/44 IMO."

 

I agree with SandyK here. Most everything I've heard in hi-res is better than CD. A lot of it could be mastered better but low level detail is much better. While folks like Steve Hoffman do a great job, CD has it's limitations. The best CD mastering sounds two dimensional compared to hi-res. I wish Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray would start doing Hi-Res remastering.

 

BTW on HD tracks it says Hotel California was released in 2001. Are they using the same digital transfer which was used for the DVD-A release or something? A Lot of HD Tracks releases are like this. Elton John releases have a 1996 date. That's a dog's age in digital audio. HD Tracks needs to list a history of the mastering and digital transfer for everything.

 

[The Hawk]

To each their own. Like on the Naim Forum, everyone's experience is their own. I've bought music from many sites, and in the main, I've been really happy with the sound. Don't know if it's always the 'best', but I like it, and I have pretty good ears. Haven't had a chance to hear any Audio Fidelity discs. Have to try them sometime. They may cost more than I generally want to spend. I try to strike a balance. Diminishing returns and all that. I still buy a lot of physical CDs from Amazon. I like the increased availability of music on offer now.

 

I've heard 'almost' every iteration of Rush, between my system and my friends, and I'm very satisfied by the sound of the hi-res version of Moving Pictures. It may not be the absolute best recording available, but that doesn't concern me. It sounds extremely satisfying to my ears. My CDX2 isn't the best CD player in the world, but it's still excellent and provides amazing sound, without an external power supply, etc. I know that Redbook can still sound amazing. Donald Fagen's Morph The Cat even as an mp3 from iTunes is incredible sounding. I hear your point about sourcing and master tapes. I'm still excited by the direction digital music is taking. I've been very pleased with the sound quality, overall, and this is from someone who still owns vinyl originals. And have owned two LP12s and a Rega 3. Some of us may be happy buying music digitally versus buying some of the higher-end CD versions. I compare my hi-res to everything else I've heard, and in most cases, I'm quite satisfied with the sound. I understand your questioning, and your reservations, but it's a given I'm taking into consideration the source and the multitude of versions, and I like what I hear, and I have an extensive background. I was in the 'trade' for years working for a Naim/Linn dealer and others.

 

The biggest point I wanted to make is that it's a significant step forward for companies like Warner Music Group and HD Tracks to now make a huge library of music available, for download, at higher resolution, for not too much more than the price of a CD. I'm excited by it, it's all moving in the right direction.

 

Dave

 

[eatapc]

I've become discouraged by the pop/rock releases that are sourced from the remasterings done in the last few years intended for SACD or DVD-A. Mastering engineers, for whatever reason, have gotten into an infamous "loudness war," so modern remasterings typically use too much compression/limiting. In my book, that disqualifies them for playback on high-end systems. Yes, they have more low level detail, but squashed dynamic range is the inevitable flip side, and the sound is often unpleasant because some brightness + "presence" region EQ is usually used in conjunction with the compression.

 

However, I heard a rumor from a reliable source that senior people at Warner are audiophiles who want to provide uncompressed tracks to the high-end market. Is this the start of that or not?

 

Also, I believe that Warner mastering engineers were overly enthralled with the infamous Aphex Aural Exciter back in the 70's and 80's. If these remasters have taken the Aphex out of the mix (pun intended), then they might be well worth getting.

 

[tubes59]

Completely agree with Hawk's biggest point!

 

[SteveS1]

to me, too many of these have excessive compression and in some cases, limiting. But boosted top or brightness that promotes low level detail or "impressive" presentations at the expense of balance, have never been my thing and I've heard it a few times with some of the HD downloads.

 

As we say, each to their own. Dave if you like the download of Moving Pictures, try the WG Atomic or Canadian Anthem originals, they sound very good to me, much better than the subsequent "Rush Remaster" which is compressed, although not the worst. That honour belongs to the remaster of Permanent Waves which is a real ear bleeder. The MOFI of MP beats the download to my ears, when volume is matched. Being a favourite album, I'm prepared to pay the extra. Source first and all that. :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

 

[Scarpad]

I just picked up a V-Dac and V-link combo for the Eagles HC Release any benefit to me going 192/24 over 96/24?

 

[j20056]

The Eagles HC 96/24 sounds great. Not even close versus the CD version, which has the usual CD harshness on the high frequencies. Very nice...

 

[SteveS1]

which CD version?

 

[bgran]

I have been downloading close to 100 records from HDTracks and in my opinion high-rez quality is good. Now I have listen to Eagles and Jackson Browne and compared them with LPs and CDs (JB DVD audio). HDTracks has no reason to be ashamed. If they continue on this "track" I'll probably buy another 100 records.

 

Bjorn

 

[wgscott]

High res (from above):

 

 

Low res iTunes:

 

 

So, what the hell happened, especially in the lower (right?) channel?

 

[PeterSt]

new-media said

I assume many of these are DVD-A rips? I have several of these titles on DVD-A already including Hotel California, Buena Vista Social Club, and a few R.E.M albums.

 

I actually wanted to post something like this, and saw someone was ahead of me ...

 

This post didn't get any attention that I noticed, but it occurred to me just the same, and I find it strange.

I takes a few years to see a pattern, and maybe I'm not around long anough to really see it. But I guess there is one.

 

All the hires HDTracks provide are in download circles for quite some longer than HDTracks got hold of "them". But suddenly they found the source ?

 

I didn't look into it really, but I would speculate that the same flaws are in the HDTracks versions as are in those long known downloads. Like stupidly taking the front channels from a 5.1.

 

If these hires HDTracks versions came from masters somewhere, no matter where they came from, that original source would have provided a good new master. Rumours might be an example where this happened (but totally flawed just because of that -> compressed as hell) while e.g. R.E.M. is as poor as it can get because of doing something wrong in the digital domain (Redbook versions sound way better).

 

So, the pattern I seem to see is that HDTracks is not really coming up with something new. This means that the old hires (DVD-A etc.) stuff is not recreated. Thus, when nothing new comes along, why would the old stuff be redone ?

 

And thus, all we get is what we got already, including SACD we officially can't rip - but of which I have numerous (ehh, rips).

 

I say this is all one big hoax.

 

Peter

 

[bottlerocket]

If the source is the same as the DVDa (and I believe it is), so what? Try finding the DVDa for less than $20. You can't find Hotel California or Ry Cooder at this price. Same with Beck Sea Change. You can also buy CDs of the redbook quality HDtracks downloads or any of the HDTracks material at Amazon. Why does that make it a hoax?

 

I hope this forum keeps exposing the quality or lack there of individual choices on HDTracks, but I'll keep selectively buying.

 

[PeterSt]

Why does that make it a hoax?

 

I only meant that we don't seem to be able to obtain better quality by means of the downloads. This, of course, while the quality is so-so to begin with (maybe not my today's specific opinion, but read threads like this and there you have it).

 

Btw, Sea Change is of good SQ IMO.

 

[labjr]

"I only meant that we don't seem to be able to obtain better quality by means of the downloads. This, of course, while the quality is so-so to begin with

 

Yeah I feel the same way. They probably aren't bad. But Audio Fidelity and MFSL always seem to get the original master tapes for CD reissues. Why not do the same with Hi-res reissues. Maybe it will take people like Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray to get it done.

 

The record companies remind me of the TV networks because they don't always make the best decisions. Even with CD releases, Most of the time, reissue labels do a better job. I imagine what probably happened is the record companies didn't want to release anything because they didn't see enough money in it. So I guess HD tracks is a good start. At least they got something out of them. If it's successful then maybe they'll start to let the reissue labels use the original master tapes.

 

[bdiament]

Hi bottlerocket,

 

"...The waveform shows the recording engineer had poor hearing and liked his music loud as in spiking the VU meter a lot."

 

Can't really determine anything about the recording engineer from this since the waveform is from post-recording, post-mixing, post-mastering. So, if anything, it would be the mastering engineer.

 

 

"My guess is a lot of early rock recordings look like that, not sure."

 

Those early rock recordings were done in analog so there would be no digital clipping on any of them. Results like this are derived by the mastering engineer; the original recording might be pristine.

 

 

"Am I correct to say it is unlikely to be compressed based on that waveform? I am not an expert and I usually post these pics looking for some better interpretation..."

 

In my view, the opposite is true. It is likely to be compressed in view of the level. Even if the signal was not passed through a compressor or limiter, the fact that it is clipped means dynamics have been curtailed by the level setting; there can be nothing over "0" so anything that passes 0 is gone.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Priaptor]

All I know, with few exceptions, much of these HiRez classic rock, are not worth the price of admission. Some of my redbook stuff sounds better. My Goodbye Yellow Brick Road DVD-A ripped clearly sounds better than what they are selling on HDT.

 

[eatapc]

Hi Barry. Glad to see your expert opinions here. My LESS expert opinion:

 

The older CD mastering clearly went through a compressor/limiter. Mastering engineers routinely do it (as you know), and that waveform, with consistent & almost constant peaking near 0, certainly shows all the signs. However, it's entirely possible that the original mixing engineer used a tube compressor when mixing down to the stereo master tape, so the master tape could have been compressed somewhat to begin with.

 

And then there's the Aphex Aural Exciter [cringe] which compresses bass frequencies, among other things. All the California Warner Music artists used (or overused) it back in the 70s. The right channel peaks and the generally compressed look is probably evidence of the Aphex being used on the drums & bass. The Aural Exciter was an integral part of the "California sound" back then, so here's a philosophical question: Shouldn't that sound carry forward to the latest HD release? Hmmmmmm.

 

I see that "Hotel California" was issued on CD in the 80's, then remastered for a "gold" DCC release in 1990. I assume each mastering engineer would have used his own favorite compressor with his "special sauce" settings. Do we know the date of the CD that was ripped and imaged here?

 

The new HD Tracks release must have been sourced from the remix for DVD-A done in late 2001. That engineer used a different "special sauce" for his compressor/limiter settings, and it seems to be a bit hotter.

 

I'll give in and buy the HD Tracks album; I just searched by CD collection (I still have thousands to rip) and I don't see it -- I only have the LP. If I hear anything worth talking about, I'll report back.

 

Take care -- Mark

 

[ted_b]

(title track) since I own it, and I compared it to my 24/192 DVD-A rip. Identical sound. I deleted the download. This saves me $$ on all these WB offerings as I own most of them in DVD-A .