HD Tracks quality? Please share your experience about this download service - Page 3

A well made recording in 16/44.1 will always sound better than some over-compressed hi-rez version (even if it is louder and at first listen sounds punchier). One could even argue that with correctly applied dither you don't really need more than the 16/44.1. I personally don't buy "hi-rez" music because of higher bandwidth or bit depth, I buy it because it is getting harder to find stuff on CDs, it is convenient, and hopefully they will have sourced the right mix. This for me is the problem with HDtracks; they don't seem to care. They know that as long as it is 24 bits and 88/96/192 it sells, irrespectively of the absolute quality. I do believe they have an obligation to know and inform of what they are distributing.

I followed Arnold's advice and here is my last screen grab from HC.

Now THAT is CLIPPING!

Disgusting in an allegedly professionally-made recording. :-(
Edited by arnyk - 12/3/12 at 6:11am

Forget HD track it's a rip off

I read where Alison Krauss's Paper Airplane is a 96 kHz/24 bit recording. HDTracks has this for hires download, but I am trying to decide if it is any better than just the regular cd. I guess I would just have to try both and compare them. Thanks for any input.
Here is an interesting article about the recording of Paper Airplane done by Mike Shipley.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul11/articles/it-0711.htm
Edited by mdanderson - 2/12/13 at 10:48pm

I bought a Rolling Stones album from there and it was basically a worthless purchase IMO. Here's why I refuse to buy "high definition" audio over iTunes or CD.

The music is way overpriced. In my parents' days, they had vinyl records which were far more affordable in comparison to what we pay for our music today, plus they had all the fancy album art and liner notes, with superior sound quality (yes a vinyl record sounds better with the right equipment).

There is also very little support for it. I don't know of very many players that can even handle this high resolution music. The iBasso thing is like ~$750. I've seen some players that can handle this format elsewhere, but all upwards of $500. I don't think upgrading to high definition music is worth the price right now.

I still think the best way if you want quality is to buy the CD and rip it using Apple Lossless or FLAC to 16/44.1.

Thanks for the input. I may just get the cd.

I think it depends, as others have alluded, on the ultimate source material. I made the assumption that unless it is a Chesky release, HDTracks has merely contracted to but the downloads from the distributor/source company. I have limited my purchases to those where the studio has remastered and released a work as a hi res release on DVD-A or SACD. I assumed ( and I am sure in some cases incorrectly, but reduces the risk, from a logic perspective) that the hi res remaster was used for the FLAC download.

Also, HD tracks frequently has 10, 15 and 20% off sales, so I never pay full price. I also focus on those recordings that are hard to find in CD format. Lots of jazz, classical, etc. I also, with a few exceptions for comparison purposes, have not replicated anything I own on CD. The only exceptions were in a few cases where I had the CD, DVD-A version. I wanted to compare each source. In many cases I was also able to compare a ripped DVD-A with ripped 16/44 CD and 24/96 FLAC.

On headphones, in some cases, I could definitely tell the difference between CD and FLAC or DVD-A. Much harder to tell between ripped DVD -A and download FLaC. The one I found to be the test that was quite startling was some Talking hEads, where I have the CD, DVD-A ( both dual disk and British DVD-A standalone). The hi Rez versions were indistuishable between download FLAC and ripped DVD-a. CD sounded worse to my ear. Some CD's, like Plant/Krauss "Raising Sand" where the CD sounds pretty darn good, and it is mainly acoustic driven, so likely little above 10 or 12,000 Hz, so I felt benefit of the hi res would be limited.

So far I am pretty happy with the strategy.

However, they do charge a premium price for their product, and in many cases, they include cover art, but no liner notes, which is a value drop vs the Cd, IMo. To compensate, I would like to see some information on the origin/source of the files being downloaded. They are likely selling to enthusiast who care about this stuff, an effort to do so might result in more sales.

Djkest already has provided the link to the only empirical evidence and scientific study on the matter of perceived audio quality...and yes, the Boston Audio Society (BAS) agrees with the findings...

It seems to me that one should create a CD of nine songs, with each being recorded twice (back -to-back, at the same volume (channels matched to within .1db), and using the same master source, with one version of each track being standard, Redbook quality CD and the second version of each track being higher sampling rates and frequencies. Randomize the order of track quality, send them to interested listeners, have them rank their preferences, and return the data for statistical evaluation.

I would not be too surprised to learn that most audio enthusiasts share much of the same enjoyment and appreciation of great sounding music. I know that I want to hear music that is as close to the source as possible. Currently, the evidence points to superior masters and superior recording techniques, rather than sampling frequencies or bit-rates, as responsible for improved "HD" quality. However, I'm grateful nonetheless for the awesome work of brothers, David and Norman Chesky, and HD Tracks, for striving to provide the best available source to everyone.

Hi Pakman,

Welcome to the forum. Although it's a good idea, the problem is that a CD can only support Red-Book audio - You cannot put higher resolution on a CD. And SACD only supports DSD audio. So that leaves only DVD-A or standard data discs.

DVD-A would work, as it supports a wide variety of sample-rates and bit-depths, but I don't know anybody with a DVD-A player. A data-disc with multiple resolution FLAC files would work, assuming you don't play it on something that will convert back down to 44.1 kHz, like Sonos. There are just too many variables to get reliable data.

What about recording multi-format audio to a Tascam Flash Recorder and using it for playback or the flash drive in the front of the Oppo BDP105? Surely, with all the tech geeks around, someone can devise a multi-format record/playback scenario that controls most confounding variables, for example, matching volume levels...All I'm saying is that there are no more excuses for not addressing the matter properly in a controlled, double-blind a/b/x procedure, and resolving the confusion and misinformation.

I have quite a few albums from there and have overall been happy with the quality. I think the key is how well it's mastered. For example, my parents own many of the Van Halen albums on vinyl. I have heard a few rips of these as well at 96/24 and haven't been THAT impressed with it over the old CD releases my dad has. Even those old CD releases are better than some of the newer CD releases. But I got that Van Halen 1978-1984 set from HDTracks at 96/24 and it sounds MUCH better than all of these because someone took the time to master it well.

Then again, I've also heard stuff that doesn't sound any better than a CD, so I guess it's just the risk you take. It's too bad the site doesn't let you rent an album - sort of like how iTunes does with movies where it just deletes after a certain period of time - that way you can sample it, decide if you like it or not - and buy it if you want to.

I would REALLY love to see old releases put out again on Blu Ray at 192/24.

Blu Ray is certainly capable of it, and over 8 channels.

I know I have a few CD's that would be heaven at 192/24 on Blu Ray over 8 ch.

HDTracks sucks, get 2L Blu Rays, B&W Society of Sound, Linn, Channel Classic are so much better than HD tracks

I want the best recording possible from the best master and using the best recording techniques, regardless of sampling frequency or bit-rate. It would be great to know which CDs, DVDs and downloads utilize a superior master and technique that enhances the audio quality of any audio format. I will not chase formats, and DACs in search of the holy grail. I will be greatly pleased if and when I am able to record and playback any audio format on a mixed CD or DVD of my creation. I like making my own mixes, but often find it mandatory to remaster volume when selecting tracks from different albums. Meanwhile, I am considering replacing my Accuphase DP-75 CD Player with the Oppo BDP105, just so that I can enjoy non Red Book audio formats that utilize the superior masters and recording techniques.

+1

Real HD tracks can be found here

 

- Linn Records: http://www.linnrecords.com/catalogue.aspx?format=studio

- 2L: High Definition from Norway: https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/?

- Channel Classics: http://www.channelclassics.com/high-resolution-audio-downloads.html or http://www.channelclassics.com/dsd.html

- Naim Records: http://www.naimlabel.com/catalogue.aspx

- B&W Society of Sound: http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Society_of_Sound/Overview.html

- AIX Records Offers Real HD: http://www.aixrecords.com

- Chandos: http://www.theclassicalshop.net/Default.aspx

 

 

 

Also all the others are charlatans:
 

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=602

2l and Linn are great.

2l and Linn are great.