AVS Forum banner

HD Tracks quality? Please share your experience about this download service

46K views 147 replies 61 participants last post by  Bill-99 
#1 ·
Bought a few tracks and couple of albums from HD Tracks . I am playing these through the Oppo BDP-95 from a USB flash drive. While they sound very good, some tracks (For example the song Hello, Lionel Richie, 192Khz/24bit) have some audio breaks/skips. Is it because of the USB drive? I will try the eSATA option too at a later time, but for now I am wondering if it is just a quality issue of the tracks. I still seem to prefer my SACDs. Makes me wonder how much attention they pay to rip quality.

Thanks,
 
#103 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129  /t/1404247/hd-tracks-quality-please...-about-this-download-service/90#post_24703595


Well, HDTracks should allow user reviews so that people don't get burned. I realize it's not HDTracks supplying the downloads, but HDTracks should stand behind the product they're selling.

Totally agree. I've been told (by a recording engineer who supplies product/downloads to HDTracks) that while they verify submissions were sourced at the advertised bit rate (e.g. simple analysis reveals it was not something up-converted), the result is still only as good as the actual mastering process (as had been said many times before). Also, while the same release may have two different bit rates available (e.g. 44.1 kHz and 96 kHz), that doesn't necessarily mean they were from the same master, which makes something like a review even more important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tubetwister
#104 ·
"Croz" by David Crosby was my first HD Tracks purchase. I use JRiver on my PC connected to an Oppo 105, it sounds incredible. CTA by Chicago was next, pretty good but not in the same league. They should let you ple 30 seconds of tracks to check sq before you purchase.
 
#107 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129  /t/1404247/hd-tracks-quality-please...-about-this-download-service/90#post_24724056


I will only go there if they are selling a better or different mastering that I want. Otherwise I don't see any benefit to it over buying it on a record or a CD.

That makes sense. I buy the CD in most cases and rip it which is cheaper.


How can you know if HDTracks has a different master?


- Rich
 
#108 · (Edited)
Originally Posted by RichB

That makes sense. I buy the CD in most cases and rip it which is cheaper.

How can you know if HDTracks has a different master?

- Rich
A quick Google search will usually turn up a thread on Steve Hoffman forums or Computer Audiophile going into more depth on the quality. Typically the 'best' version of an album is going to be one of the audiophile remasters like Mobile Fidelity, Audio Fidelity, DCC, Analogue Productions, SHM (not an audiophile label but typically is mastered well) or Sony Mastersound. I'd rather pay the same price that a 24-bit download costs and get the audiophile disc instead.
 
#109 · (Edited)
Just bought some of the Tom Petty remasters. These are bonafide 24/96 resampling from the original tapes. Big thumbs up for "Full Moon Fever". Its much more unhyped and natural sounding than my 1993 Gretest Hits CD (unfortunately you have to buy full albums ie no Greatest Hits package)


New Paul Simon remasters have a similar treatment, but aside from a few fabulous hits, its a little too sleepy for me, so I'm not excited enough to buy full albums.


Note that they promote this information like its a special case. So I remain skeptical until I hear otherwise.

Runnin Down a Dream!
 
#115 ·
I buy from HDTracks
  • It is roughly the same price (so I don't have to rip)
  • I am impatient (it happens :))
  • It is a better master.
Unfortunately, there is no data on provenance or any other clues to the quality of the recording.


User reviews and Dynamic Range (DR) ratings would be nice.
Less compression is audible but does not appear to part of the HD Audio pitch.


- Rich
 
#126 ·
Any Star Wars fans here want to try out the new Force Awakens soundtrack on HDTracks for us? :D http://www.hdtracks.com/star-wars-the-force-awakens-soundtrack-274441

Comes in 96/24 and 192/24. It would be interesting to see (graphs?) how the 96/24 compares to the regular cd version.

I also have a question - there was an album I was interested in getting in HD (London Grammar - If You Wait) - but the only "HD" version is 44.1/24-bit... is 24 bit going to even provide a better sound when the samplerate is still 44.1?


Forgive my ignorance :p
 
#127 · (Edited)
Any Star Wars fans here want to try out the new Force Awakens soundtrack on HDTracks for us? :D http://www.hdtracks.com/star-wars-the-force-awakens-soundtrack-274441

Comes in 96/24 and 192/24. It would be interesting to see (graphs?) how the 96/24 compares to the regular cd version.

I also have a question - there was an album I was interested in getting in HD (London Grammar - If You Wait) - but the only "HD" version is 44.1/24-bit... is 24 bit going to even provide a better sound when the samplerate is still 44.1?

Forgive my ignorance :p
I find the inclusion of 192 and 96 at different price-points confusing:

If the 192 is the source resolution, then the 96 is down-sampled.
If the 96 is the source resolution, then the 192 is up-sampled.

If HDTracks is not upsampling, the "native" resolution, then on this track $2 pays for bandwidth and storage.
Still that seems high.
IMO, all formats should be the same price.

- Rich
 
#129 ·
Why is no one talking about how the music was RECORDED?

Matters not how large the word depth or sampling rate if the studio was horrible acoustically, if the microphones were junk or poorly placed, if the engineer had no idea how to double mic a snare or a kick, if the boob setting microphones for the acoustic guitar had only one near the sound hole, or pointed it just a bit off.

And this is to say nothing of the quality of the preamps into which the microphones were plugged. Or the quality of the sound board. Or the quality of the compressor/limiters, the attack and sustain settings, the quality of the EQ and it's settings... And for goodness sake, what about the vocal mic? Is it a POS or a top-shelf Neumann? What kind of pop filter was used in front of it, or was one used at all? Did the singer know to pull her face away a bit on a hard-hit note and thereby necessitate less compression? Tell me the names of the gear used and I can give you an idea if at least the equipment had the capability to make a great recording.

Diana Krall sounds so dang good on her studio recordings because (this is obvious to me though i have no direct knowledge) the people involved had great equipment and used it well. Listen carefully and you can hear her piano bench creak under her derriere on some recordings. I can hear the saliva in her mouth because the mic was so good, sensitive, and close (and likely used with no pop filter).

This all takes place BEFORE any mastering and bit depth business...

I'm trying to get my head around all this high-def music format stuff, and I'm disappointed that there is so little discussion of the recording process. It starts there...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BufordTJustice
#130 ·
I’ve bought a lot of high-resolution classical recordings that were mastered brilliantly. As for the more popular stuff, the ZZ Top, Van Halen, Tom Petty, Donna Summer, Rush (2015 masters done by Sean Magee), Miles Davis and Herbie Hancock high-resolution offerings were mastered marvelously as well.

Recording quality is obviously most important, but that is out of an engineer's control for these reissues.
 
#134 ·
Somehow, I think the industry is missing the point.

Adele 25 has a DR rating of 5 and is a case when the mastering is atrocious:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=adele&album=25

The CD has a DR rating of 5 and the vinyl is 11.
I suppose the best option is to find a rip from a LP.

The CD sounds every bit as bad as it looks in Audition.

- Rich
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: BGLeduc and DaverJ
#136 ·
  • Like
Reactions: DaverJ
#140 ·
What's the point in paying for sound you can't even hear? All they need to do is master CD and digital downloads from places like Google Play, iTunes and Amazon, correctly and faithful to the original recording.
That would be great! Unfortunately, the Loudness War continues.

But until the industry stops targeting the mixing of album masters to sound best on phone, car, computer speakers, and cheap earbuds, we have hi-rez files to listen to.
 
#144 · (Edited)
I have had my hearing tested and I can't hear frequencies past ~18khz. I'm 29 years old. I'm not sure if that is normal deterioration for my age or if I have had some abnormal hearing loss. Therefore, "HD audio" at 24/88, 24/96, 24/192, etc, etc, is useless to me. You're paying for sound you can't hear. I am still going to stick to buying CDs as they usually offer the best potential sound at the best price; but again, it all goes back into how it is mastered. You can have a really crap sounding CD and a really great sounding low-bitrate MP3 if the mastering is done the right way. Those high-res files make more sense for mastering where you want to keep the source pure as possible, rather than for playback.
 
#146 ·
This has been a very interesting read as I have recently downloaded some 24/96 tracks
 
#147 ·
I'm fairly new to the HD Audio download game but I find them to be superior to my CD versions when compared. Some are pretty dang close but most are more dynamic and more detail. In addition they are easier to listen too...More dynamic range. The CDs seem hot and overcooked to my ears. The Bass is a tad more heavy tho on the CD.

I have the Sony HAP-1ZES & it has an excellent built in DAC. Sounds phenominal with 192/24 and DSD.

To put it this way I have about 2 TB of High Rez music and all of them are superior to the 44/16 versions I had.
 
#148 · (Edited)
^IMO this is an "it depends" kind of thing.

As noted on this thread, it all starts in the recording studio. Without a quality master, there won't be quality anywhere else. With a quality master in hand, it turns into an issue of making that content available. CD, SACD, DVD Audio, LP, or various digital downloads can all work well... with a good master.

Sometimes what shows up in one media channel differs from what shows up in other channels. For example, after getting a less than ideal digital download from HDTracks, that motivated me to compare a half dozen different digital downloads (all at least 96/24) to their CD equivalent. Sometimes the digital content sounded best, sometimes the CD won. It was never predictable.

There's no question that digital downloads can sound extraordinary, but simply being in a digital format is no assurance of quality. As far as I can tell, that will always depend on the quality of the original master and the production values used in making media available to consumers.
 
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