AVS Forum banner

HDtracks, fantastic!

10K views 135 replies 24 participants last post by  sworth 
#1 · (Edited)
This past weekend I drove my step father up to cottage so we could do some late season repairs and plan out some fixes for the spring. He is 64 years old and a lifelong audiophile, back in the 70’s he used to own a small chain of A/V stores in the province of Quebec. I'm 46 and the marketing & sales guy for AVSForum. We have different tastes and also broadly agree on a lot of the same music. We are also both savvy digital content consumers.

A few years ago, while he and my mother were moving, most of their possessions were stolen. He was able to replace and update all of his audio equipment and we enjoy fantastic music systems when visiting and at the family summer home i.e. cottage. He was unable to replace his vinyl and CD collections. All he has remaining from those days is his Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues LP from Sheffield Labs which he loves and uses for setting up systems for friends and family. Makes my mom insane LOL. While driving up he asked me about how to get better digital music because he cannot stand the lack of quality on iTunes. I’d suggested HDtracks and Tidal which he researched on his phone as I drove and he decided that downloading better suited his needs over streaming and I agreed.

When we arrived at the cottage we booted up the laptop to download two albums. He chose Eagles – Hotel California and I selected Michael Jackson – Thriller. We spent the rest of the weekend cranking those two albums on his system and doing A/B song tests against iTunes. What an incredible and obvious difference. He was blown away and I was thrilled to experience the comparison using some fave songs.

HDtracks gained two new customers this weekend!


System:
Nakamichi AVR
JBL towers
KEF rear bookshelfs
(No need for a sub)

 
See less See more
#5 ·
HDtracks doesn't sell very many songs that were actually recorded in high-resolution. Almost all are below high-resolution songs stuffed into high-resolution containers. If HDtracks would be honest about that, I would be happier to recommend them as a download service. That being said, many people can tell lossless from lossy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: synccoil
#9 ·
Naxos, 2L and itrax all honestly sell high res recordings. They also document sources and equipment used, to prove it.
 
#10 · (Edited)
I think there are exceptions to this on hdtracks. I had a buddy send me the 192/24 Junta and Lawn Boy Phish albums from hdtracks and did a little research and found this......

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/phish-junta-hi-rez-now-at-hdtracks.284332/

Sure seems legit to me, but I haven't listened to them yet.

I also have Thriller off hdtracks and it sounds absolutely fantastic! If this isn't high res, it sure fooled me on my home rig which is nice and revealing, especially with my new PSA 210 mains.

Thanks for the info on the other sites. Definitely going to check those out. :)
 
#20 ·
The recent Fragile release is another proof, why mastering often needless and more often a possible detrimental step in the process of bringing music to audiences.If the mix was done right a flat transfer is all that needed to create a master.
 
#21 ·
I recently downloaded an array of titles from HDTracks, been pretty happy listening to:
01. Chaka Khan- "What Cha' Gonna Do For Me"
02. Tony Williams- "Civilization"
03. Various Artists- "La La Land" (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)
04. Nathan East-"Reverence"
05. Jeff Beck- "There And Back"
06. Hiromi- "Spark"
07. Weather Report- "The Legendary Live Tapes 1978-1981"
08. Lyle Mays- "As Falls Wichita, So Falls Wichita Falls"
09. Stanley Clarke- "Up"
10. Donald Fagan- "The Nightfly"
11. Joe Sample- "Voices In The Rain"
12. Fleetwood Mac- "Rumours"
13. Eagles- "Hotel California"

Most all the listed titles sound very nice. I'm of the 1970's/1980's generation, I have purchased many of these same titles and more back-in-the-day when originally released on LP and, eventually, CD. I have some relative memory of each respective original release quality. The more recent release "La La Land" stands out noticeably, I assume because it has been recorded using latest state-of-the-art hi-rez gear (recording-to-mix-to-mastering)?

I own a revealing system:
Marantz AV8802A processor
Parasound A51 amp
Monitor Audio Gold GX-100 fronts, GXC-350 centre, Gold GXFX rears
JL Audio F110 subwoofer
Oppo BDP-105 media player
Sony SCD-XA5400ES CD/SACD player
 
#22 · (Edited)
No one stole my stuff...

My very large old house is overflowing with CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, DVDs and Blu-rays; plus I have a steamer trunk full of vinyl. I could care less about streaming or downloading. What the OP shows is that the real purpose of this site is to get us to buy the same content yet again, and buy new components to play it with.
 
#26 ·
My very large old house is overflowing with CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, DVDs and Blu-rays; plus I have a steamer trunk full of vinyl. I could care less about streaming or downloading. What the OP shows is that the real purpose of this site is to get us to buy the same content yet again, and buy new components to play it with.
my somewhat very old house is billowing with CD's (900-plus), SACD's (100-plus), HDCD's (20-plus), DVD-A's (50-plus), DVD's (200-plus) and BluRay's (100-plus).

I also have the remains of my extensive original LP collection stored in a fancy antique wooden chest (approx 70 titles). My wife convinced me to downsize the albums from what I had, so I painfully tossed-out a few hundred titles (sold to Ameoba Records in Hollywood).

While I love, and prefer, playing my SACD's and DVD-A's directly, I love the convenience and portability of streaming, especially for driving. I will always hold-onto my SACD's and DVD-A's. Would love to reduce some of the shelves of plastic cases though (wife would be happier) :)
 
#23 ·
I'm a big classical music fan, and I'm happy as a clam because Sony and RCA have been systematically remastering and releasing their classical libraries as big box sets of CDs at $2-3 a disc. The Bernstein box sounds better than any old Columbia vinyl pressing, and the three Living Stereo boxes contain some of the best sounding recordings ever made in pristine sound. It's a great time to love great sounding music. No reason to spend a lot on esoteric formats when even bargain boxes sound incredible.
 
#25 ·
Didn't they do the same thing with the DVD-A release?

On a similar note,
Bob Katz does up sample everything he receives for mastering and than he does his thing to create a master and claims it sounds better than the source. Of course it should sound different since he was "tweaking" it, but simply creating larger files will do nothing for sound quality.
 
#30 ·
I have a massive collection too. But I'm sick of spending so much time sorting stacks of slippery jewel cases and videos. I rip in the background while I'm doing other things on my computer and I've digitized my entire CD collection. Now I'm working on DVDs. It is much more convenient to have TV shows ripped and in Plex than it is to deal with box sets and trying to figure out which disc to watch. That feeling of pride of ownership in collecting has shifted to the digitized copies now. I feel the same way about finishing up ripping a series as I did buying the discs in the first place.
 
#34 · (Edited)
My own experience with HDTracks is that they often gain access to better quality masters which do result in better sounding music. Personally, I don't buy into the higher frequency / higher bit rate stuff because it's pretty clearly inaudible. But if you haven't heard any difference on any HDTrack file and you find you can just grab any off the shelf CD at Target and get the best result.... well, honestly I don't buy that either. The quality of the master tape makes a huge difference in the sound and that's what I look for from HDTracks. I would also note that I download and play in flac format, so I can't speak to what aif sounds like.

YMMV....
 
#38 ·
Sort of - if they are JUST 44.1/16 audio then they are generally red-book. If they also have non-audio data (say, like a CD-ROM or a hybrid Audio/Data CD) then they are yellow-book - an enhancement to red-book that treats timecode regions as pseudo-sectors for storing non-audio data. There are other "rainbow book" CD specs as well. All of these formats use the same physical media - a compact disc.

These eventually became known as the “Rainbow Book Series”.  Lesser-known standards also included “Yellow Book” for CD-ROMs, “White Book” for video discs, “Beige Book” for photo discs, and “Scarlett Book” for super-audio discs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Books

For the purposes of this thread, you can think of red-book as code for "plain old audio CD"
 
#39 ·
I haven't found any general correlation between sound quality and either format or label/distributor. I wish I was able to judge quality by that. It would be a lot easier. Instead I have to read through reviews online and try to figure out which version is best. That isn't easy either, because reviewers are usually too rushed to make proper comparisons, and audiophiles tend to speak in flowery generalizations that don't tell me anything. I was able to use Amazon's samples to determine that a box set included the mixes that I was searching for. That is a pretty good way to tell, but they don't often have multiple sample versions of the same music.
 
#41 ·
It is "a" standard - but not "the" standard for CDs. "Red Book CD" is not redundant.
 
#42 ·
I did find HD Tracks to have a somewhat louder sound with a slight haze over the sound vs. traditional red book CDs with a 44.1 sampling rate and 16 bit depth rate. Its hard for me to articulate, but I find traditional red book to sound more natural. Then again, with CDs you get liner notes etc. I cannot for the life of me understand the reason downloads are so much more expensive than CDs when there is no case or extra packaging for it. :eek:
 
#43 ·
You pay for all of the extra zeros it takes to fill in the space between the lower potential analog tape source and the 192khz/24 bit container file that they send you.
 
#45 ·
so what's the difference between DSD playback from an SACD track (on a disc), compared to playback (or streaming) the same DSD track from HDTracks? Are they equal? Or does it depend on how the DSD track (data) was originally derived?

Would, say, The Eagles "Hotel California" DSD tracks from an actual SACD yield exactly equivalent playback quality (bit-for-bit) than it's HDTracks DSD counterpart?
 
#50 ·
It's all about the master. Yes SACDs are DSD encoded[ DSD64 to be precise], you'll see that they now pushing DSD128, 256 double and quad for DSD downloads, the same principle as the PCM sampling rates. No quality gain but tremendous penalty on file size, and again the vast majority of recordings out there were not recorded DSD, and even if it was it won't permits any post processing in DSD, it would require conversion to PCM. Yes there are some exceptions out there, labels like 2L and such produce very high quality recordings in many formats all "HR" but if one don't care about their music selections...........;)
 
#54 ·
For the most part, Vinyl rips sound so much better than HDTracks or CD it's not even funny. Nirvana's Nevermind... HDTracks gain is pushed to the max even more than the cd. Typically, only vinyl has good mastering and good dynamic range. For Nirvana, it's Japanese vinyl or bust, even if it's a flac rip, take what you can get. The Ramones and Van Halen have great 24-bit/192hz download collections online. Adios Amigos is the last Ramones album, and the official downloads are only CD quality, but there is a superior vinyl rip. You'll never get a good Beatles download, not compared to a vinyl rip of a first or second printing from the UK. Vinyl flac can sound so real,it's like John Lennon and Paul McCartney are in my house. Beatles USB/CD is nothing at all even similar. USB has a rare true stereo version of a song or two. That's about it.
 
#59 ·
For the most part, Vinyl rips sound so much better than HDTracks or CD it's not even funny. Nirvana's Nevermind... HDTracks gain is pushed to the max even more than the cd. Typically, only vinyl has good mastering and good dynamic range. Vinyl flac can sound so real. USB has a rare true stereo version of a song or two
I'm seriously considering purchasing one of these bad-boy's to convert my LP collection to digital:
http://www.parasound.com/vintage/zphonoUSB.php

I was'nt sure what type of sound quality yield I would attain from going this route (comparing to what's out there on the market in regards to digital downloads of all flavors), but I've read a few convincing articles. I just need to consider the total cost of adding this additional gear (ie. a new turntable, Parasound Zphono unit, record cleaning crap, etc.,...). I have a pretty decent LP collection which I accumulated going back to 1970's. A few may be slightly scratched here and there but most are in excellent shape and condition overall. Actually my wife forced me to reduce my collection a year back, so quite a few were sold for pennies to Ameoba Music in Hollywood (they buy back all forms of music and video). To be honest I was happy in the early 1980's when CD's first came around- no more popping and hissing dirty sounds on recordings, record cleaners, etc.,...a mess if you ask me. But now I can appreciate having better, originally, levels of resolution and dynamic range
 
#61 ·
The LP format has a lower level of resolution and dynamic range compared to CDs.
Most vinyls have analog audio, far superior mastering, and can be ripped at 24-bit/192Hz. CD mastering typically includes maxed out gain, and that's on top of the intense dithering. CD quality is stuck at 16-bit/44Hz. If you take a vinyl rip that is 24/192 it is usually going to blow a cd out of the water. If you dither it down to 24/96hz it's noticeable on the right system, if you dither it down to 16/44 (CD quality) it's going to be extremely noticeable, you've just dithered it to high hell. It will typically still sound better than a CD, and that's a difference between the way CDs and vinyl records are mastered. The same is true with a good 24/192 flac from HDTracks. Whoever told you that CD has a superior dynamic range is an idiot. CDs can have decent dynamic range, it depends how they are mastered, they are almost always mastered for extreme loudness, the maxed out gain hurts the dynamic range, but its used to make up for the fact that the CD has to be compressed to high hell.

Lots of people have theories that CD is better,or you can't tell the difference between CD and vinyl. I wouldn't argue with anyone else. I can tell, other people I listen to music with can tell. That's all I need to know. I think CDs suck. SACD/Vinyl/HD flac can all be great, depending on several factors.
 
#63 · (Edited)
LP records have about half the dynamic range of CDs- because their noise floor is MUCH higher. Dynamic range extends *downwards* from peak level, not upwards above the peak. LPs generally have a dynamic range of 35 to 45dB. CDs have a dynamic range of 90. Generally LPs have a rolloff above 15 to 18kHz to prevent fast record wear. CDs are 20-20. Ripping to 24/192 is total overkill. All that is going to do is give you perfectly rendered noise. CDs are superior to vinyl in ever aspect of sound reproduction (Dynamic range, frequency response, distortion level, signal to noise, time based error, etc,). The only way an LP can sound better than a CD is with a better quality master, which has nothing to do with the format.

Bigger numbers don't always equate with sound quality. Once a recording format achieves audible transparency, you can keep increasing the numbers all you want, but all you're achieving by doing that is to create a file with a grossly inflated file size.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top