HD Tracks and High Resolution Audio Make your Hifi System Shine

[gene]

You could be forgiven for believing we’re entering an age where streaming music services are taking over. Today, hyper-compressed online music distribution services like Spotify, Pandora and Rdio are being rewarded by ever-increasing listenerships and are fast becoming the norm. It’s just as David Bowie famously predicted back in 2002: “Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity...” For a dedicated few there’s an opposing trend that includes building your own library of high resolution digital audio from sources like HD Tracks.

Read our editorial: HD Tracks and High Resolution Audio: Why We Care and You should Too!

 

[Nestor]

All of what the editorial mentions (binaural, etc) can be offered at Redbook quality resolution and bit rate.
So I will ask the same question: why not?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[GO-NAD!]

Out of curiosity, I went to the HD Tracks website. First of all, the overwhelming majority of titles are unavailable to me, because of "regional restrictions". And, the few that were available to me are astronomically priced (they were the only ones that displayed the price). I suppose that's understandable, due to the small market they cater to. Hard for me to swallow though...

Another thing that isn't clear to me, is that they are still subject to the quality of the master tapes. The album could be high resolution, but could still be dynamically compressed, couldn't it? Or, does this compression take place "downstream"?

 

[hankki]

On monday evening I bought my first music from HDtracks, first ever download music, and like 'GO-NAD!' I also meet the "regional restrictions" on a lot of the music. I bought Gary Clark jr live and Willie Nelson "to all the girls...". I had to make mp3's for use on an USB stick in my car, super LO-FI original speakers in my 2002 VW eurovan/transporter. When I listened to track 14 I started to get really "speeded" because the sound was "always loud" so I had to test the DR when I got home and the result was 5, peak was "over" and RMS was -6.27dB.
All tracks have peak over and and the worst RMS is -5.90 dB. 5 songs of 15 has a DR of 5, 7 has a DR of 6, one is 7, one is 8 and one is 11 with RMS at -13.57 dB. This was tested with TT DR Offline meter1.4 and the album was reduced to 44.1/16 with Nero recode software.
I will probably buy from HDtracks again because it is so convenient and the normal price of $17.98 is still cheaper than normal price CD's here in Finland. Let's just hope they get the rights to sell more albums outside of the US.

 

[Wayde Robson]

Hey guys, thanks for reading and commenting. I thought I'd chime in here:

@Nestor - I won't claim to know everything about Redbook except that it uses CD sampling and bit-rates... which is no problem at all. My main point is... "hi-res" is really just shorthand for quality. No, I don't believe there's anything magical about 24/96 and CD-quality should be fine... so to in answer to your question... No reason.

@hankki and GO-NAD, I am in Canada and also suffer from unavailable titles. I wish it weren't the case but licensing is a pain and so are borders.

GO-NAD "...subject to the quality of the master tapes. The album could be high resolution, but could still be dynamically compressed, couldn't it? Or, does this compression take place "downstream"?"

In terms of audio-purity the master recording taken at the session is as close to the source as it gets. However there are plenty of processes the sound undergoes during and after that session that could go into the master tape... including compression.

So, (going out on a limb and speaking for HDT, but in no way do I represent the company) what you're buying from HD Tracks is the retail audio-recording produced by the owner (studio) and not some guy making music files from his collection on a home computer.

Any and all compression is tricky to avoid in digital files. By definition any digital file is compressed in some way. FLAC is lossless but still a form of compression, just not evil. But I would call any digital audio as a "compressed" form of analog.

I think the least compressed "digital" format is the wav file which I believe you can buy from HD Tracks.

What I like about buying from a legal source and not downloading free from Bit Torrent, which is an obvious elephant in the room... people are going to do it.

But what you get from a legal source is accountability for the quality. In other words, anytime you buy a song in a lossless format you're getting something the record label stands behind ... if you're buying a hi-res file you're buying what the label says is the best sound you'll get from this recording until some future re-master of the recording is released.

Personally, I digitized all my CDs a long time ago and stopped buying them. Yes, I downloaded a lot of MP3's from file sharing programs in the early 2000s but they sounded like crap on my hi-fi system. Ironically when I discovered Napster and Lime Wire I bought more music than at any time in my life (on CD which I digitized in lossless codec).

Now with HD Tracks I don't mind throwing in some of its recordings into my collection for either important classic albums I love or experimenting with new stuff that sounds great.

I find the price agreeable. Obviously it's not free like it would be if I "stole" it off a bit-torrent. But I've spent way more on DVD-Audio discs and CDs than the equivalent digital file on HD Tracks.

 

[its phillip]

You guys experiencing regional lockouts could try utilizing a US-based VPN or something like that

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Wayde, you seems like a smart fella, but flac lossless compression is not same as lossy mp3/aac compression at all.
It's not just not "ebil". Decoded flac file is byte identical to it's source wav file or original CD , so i don't see any benefit in wav (or rather pcm technically) files besides wider support.

Best way to think about flac/alac lossless compression is like a zip archive .
Its typically smaller than original, but uncompressed it's a same file

 

[GO-NAD!]

Wayde, I get where your coming from when you compare HDT downloads to compressed, perhaps pirated, downloads. For the record, I've never downloaded any music, free or not. Every album I have (approx. 600) is on CD. If we ignore MP3's for a moment and stick with "High Res" and CD, I find the justification for jumping up to the High Res format, less compelling. If, as you've indicated, they are both subject to the quality of the masters, you might not get a well-engineered album just because the recording is in a High Res format. In fact, High Res albums may just reflect the varying quality we see across different genres of music, just like on CD. The difference will just be in the file size. Is that accurate?

 

[Wayde Robson]

If, as you've indicated, they are both subject to the quality of the masters, you might not get a well-engineered album just because the recording is in a High Res format. In fact, High Res albums may just reflect the varying quality we see across different genres of music, just like on CD. The difference will just be in the file size. Is that accurate?

I totally agree with you, GO-NAD. If the master sucks then any subsequent CD/hi-res or whatever will suck also. I don't believe hi-res audio has any magical properties, quite the contrary. Hi-res isn't going to make something sound better than CD... I only cite the source of the file coming from a studio who remasters something specifically for hi-res will most likely have pulled out all the stops in creating the best sound possible. The bit-rate and freq are just one small part of that and certainly not the most important.

 

[Wayde Robson]

...flac lossless compression is same as lossy mp3/aac compression at all.

I think so. Lossless compression is still compression.

 

[Wayde Robson]

You guys experiencing regional lockouts could try utilizing a US-based VPN or something like that

Do you have any suggestions? I am already using unblock.us to get away from regional blackouts on hockey games. I assumed it would let me bypass the lockouts for regional distribution of downloads.

I love unblock.us for NHL Center Ice, I get every game now, just what NHL Center Ice says it does but does not do if you happen to live in Canada... any game carried by a Canadian network is blacked out. Not that anyone would want to watch the Leafs but where I live every Leafs game is blacked out. It's a sad state of affairs that is asking to be circumvented with a proxy.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I think so. Lossless compression is still compression.

Typo on my end. I edited original. I meant to say flac compression is NOT same as mp3 one.
Lossless is by definition is not affecting the source in any way. If you think that flac is any way worse than original CD or wav file - you are deeply mistaken and trying to spread fud.

 

[Wayde Robson]

Typo on my end. I edited original. I meant to say flac compression is NOT same as mp3 one.
Lossless is by definition is not affecting the source in any way. If you think that flac is any way worse than original CD or wav file - you are deeply mistaken and trying to spread fud.

Nope. I would never say FLAC is compressed the way MP3 is. I use FLAC all the time, it's how I encode my digital music collection.

The word "compression" is a bit tricky. It's usually pejorative in sound quality but in the case of lossless compression I don't have any problem at all. Any digitization of analog sound involves a kind of compression, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's removing anything. I hope I made it clear in my article and forum posts that there is a huge difference between lossy and lossless.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I agree with you on analog to digital transfer is never 100%, but i was referring to lack of difference between digital CD and flac file. Despite the latter is compressed it's can be easily deflated back to wav form without any lossless.

 

[its phillip]

Do you have any suggestions? I am already using unblock.us to get away from regional blackouts on hockey games. I assumed it would let me bypass the lockouts for regional distribution of downloads.

I've read that people have used purevpn to watch netflix, so that service might work for you. The vpn I use is private internet access. There are many other vpn providers out there - torrentfreak will be releasing an updated list of recommended providers next month:
http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-services-take-your-anonymity-seriously-2014-edition-140315/

 

[Wayde Robson]

Thanks, man.

Using Unblock.us also gives me US Netflix which is nice.

 

[sh0]

From the article:

Hi-res audio, by the numbers, can only ensure that part of that chain introduce any acoustic deficiencies. But, it’s more than likely that a hi-res recording is part of a remaster (of the original CD release) using only the highest quality source such as original master tapes from which most HD Tracks are produced.

I don't mind using HD Tracks if I know I was getting a unique master but it usually isn't clear that a different master was used.

Using some current "pop" examples which may be the exception to the rule but ... take the Taylor Swift album mentioned in the article. It's available on HD Tracks as 24bit/44kHz for $23. Is the HD Tracks using the same master as the CD (at almost 2x the price of the CD on Amazon)?

The newly re-mastered Led Zeppelin II (Deluxe Edition) is available on HD Tracks as 24bit/96kHz for $30. Is this the same master as the CD on Amazon for $13. The only difference being the 24/96 vs 16/44.

And again, the general consensus seems to be that assuming identical masters 16/44 will not be audibly different to 24/96.

From what I can tell, I should NOT be assuming that if it's on HD Tracks it's a different master than the CD. I've been using this Dynamic Range database (http://dr.loudness-war.info/) to see if I can determine if there's a different master being used (with the assumption that the DR values would differ between masters). Sometimes there is an entry specific to HD Tracks as well as the CD so they can be compared.

 

[Stanton]

I don't mind using HD Tracks if I know I was getting a unique master but it usually isn't clear that a different master was used.

...and that's the rub. I have just started comparing (existing) CD rips (16/44) to (newer) hi rez (24/96--don't get me started on whether we need 24/192) downloads, and for the most part it is difficult to tell the difference. However, I have found instances--and sometimes only after being "tipped off" by the recording engineer who actually DID the masters--where critical listening can reveal some differences in sound field, etc. As I get my hi rez listening setup established (I want to compare "apples to apples"), I plan on posting some comments/updates to existing CD reviews I've done with more specific examples/data (recent Yellowjackets CD's are an example of "good" hi rez).

 

[Nestor]

...and that's the rub. I have just started comparing (existing) CD rips (16/44) to (newer) hi rez (24/96--don't get me started on whether we need 24/192) downloads, and for the most part it is difficult to tell the difference. However, I have found instances--and sometimes only after being "tipped off" by the recording engineer who actually DID the masters--where critical listening can reveal some differences in sound field, etc. As I get my hi rez listening setup established (I want to compare "apples to apples"), I plan on posting some comments/updates to existing CD reviews I've done with more specific examples/data (recent Yellowjackets CD's are an example of "good" hi rez).

The best test would be to listen to both masters with the same bit rate/frequency, otherwise, it's impossible to conclude that the difference has anything to do with hi Rez.

It's also important to add that these comparisons must be bias controlled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irvrobinson]

I'm a member of HD Tracks, and downloaded a few albums about a year ago to see what all the hubbub was about. I couldn't hear any difference vis-a-vis the same albums on CD. But if the only way to get better recordings is buy hi-res then I suppose we're stuck with it. It seems dumb, though, if you have to buy hype to get better sound. For recording purposes 24bit is better, but the 192KHz part is just silly.