Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Nirvana Nevermind 96/24 on HDtracks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nirvana Nevermind 96/24 on HDtracks - Page 3

post #31 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post

No way...no how.

Let me rephrase that:

It's very likely it's worse but since I don't own it I don't know. smily_headphones1.gif
post #32 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

What's the point of 24 bit depth if you're going to brickwall the recording? eek.gif

 

I think to qualify for true "HD" a recording should adhere to regulations beyond bit depth and sampling rate. Stuff that actually matters, like dynamic range.

 

LFF, set up an online store selling lossless 16/44.1 recordings remastered to sound good. I'd shop there over HDTracks any day.


You'd figure HD and such would entail minimal compression or none at all :P. Its like taking a 128 bit mp3 file and turning into WAV...

post #33 of 50

at the risk of sounding stupid, I want to amend my earlier post. I couldn't find any clipping on the Nirvana album, but I believe it is brickwalled pretty bad. Thanks.

post #34 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


You'd figure HD and such would entail minimal compression or none at all :P. Its like taking a 128 bit mp3 file and turning into WAV...

Not quite.

 

This is the compression that kills dynamic range, not frequency range.  Both types of compression are bad though.

post #35 of 50

I have two albums from HDtracks, Alison Krauss's "Paper Airplane" and Metallica's Black Album. I chose these because I also have the CD versions and conducted an A/B comparison of both. I found the differences between the two versions of Paper Airplane to be subtle, but the differences on the Black Album were quite significant. 

 

More to the point, I wanted to show the wave form of some of the HD tracks, from HDtracks for review:

 

 

 

 

They do not appear to be brickwalled to me. So, I don't know that the Nevermind album is necessarily representative of the quality one can expect from HDtracks. 

 
post #36 of 50

That's exactly the problem.  You have no idea what you're getting into with HDTracks.  All depends on the master and they do zero to sort the wheat from the chaff or to indicate anything of the like to the prospective buyer.

post #37 of 50

Is there an alternative to HDtracks (hi-res download service) out there that might have more consistent products?

 
post #38 of 50

http://www.linnrecords.com/

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/

http://bluecoastrecords.com/

 

These are all pretty consistent.  There isn't really a hirez service with expansive contemporary artists that self-moderates like they should though.  Searches on places like SH or bugging the heck out of LFF often help whittle the choices down for albums that have seen many releases.

 

When DR is the main consideration, the simplest solution is usually to find the first release (especially if it was before the mid 80's), before any remaster had the chance to mess with it.

 

DR is far from the only consideration in a "good master", but while good DR may not mean the master is perfect, poor DR is certainly a red flag that the engineer was either incompetent and making more "punchy" sound to make up for it or (probably more prevalent) forced to do things against his better judgement by the rec execs as its a sound they think the public prefers.


Edited by Radio_head - 2/11/13 at 4:59pm
post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewZander View Post

I have two albums from HDtracks, Alison Krauss's "Paper Airplane" and Metallica's Black Album. I chose these because I also have the CD versions and conducted an A/B comparison of both. I found the differences between the two versions of Paper Airplane to be subtle, but the differences on the Black Album were quite significant. 

More to the point, I wanted to show the wave form of some of the HD tracks, from HDtracks for review:

 

[snip ... see above]

 

They do not appear to be brickwalled to me. So, I don't know that the Nevermind album is necessarily representative of the quality one can expect from HDtracks. 

 

 

A bit late to this thread, but I just saw it.  I'm very interested in this topic and wish to clearly understand...

 

I'm not clear about what those screen caps are showing?  Is each image left/right of a CD rip, or the left/right of a HDTracks file, or comparison of one channel of a CD rip and one channel of the HDTrack file?  If the latter, which is HDTracks? the one on the top or bottom?  Thanx very much.

post #40 of 50

M8o,

 

Each image shows the waveform of both the left and right channels of a particular song. All songs are from HD tracks. I was simply showing that these particular songs/albums were not brick walled, and demonstrate good dynamic range. 

 

I hope I made myself more clear, let me know if I didn't.

 
post #41 of 50

Thanx for the reply.  It's very clear.

 

I'm inspired to do the similar, but comparing a CD rip of one of my better produced CDs to a 192/24 or 96/24 HDTracks download of the same thing.  When, don't ask me; procrastinator is my middle name. :p


Edited by m8o - 7/9/13 at 3:58pm
post #42 of 50

The other thing we have to cognizant of with HDTracks is if the "hires" tracks actually contain any information past 22kHz - what would be contained in CD / Redbook format (16/44). Of if the 24/192 versions actually contain more information than those of lesser resolutions, i.e. 24/96. You can tell by looking at a spectrograph of the recording.

 

The issue with HDTracks (and the industry as a whole) is that it is not clear where the sources came from, how the ADC was done (if the source was analog tape), and who did the mastering, etc. It's extremely opaque. For all we know, some random dude could have taken a CD and up-sampled it to 24/192 in Adobe Audition.

post #43 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

The other thing we have to cognizant of with HDTracks is if the "hires" tracks actually contain any information past 22kHz - what would be contained in CD / Redbook format (16/44). Of if the 24/192 versions actually contain more information than those of lesser resolutions, i.e. 24/96. You can tell by looking at a spectrograph of the recording.

 

The issue with HDTracks (and the industry as a whole) is that it is not clear where the sources came from, how the ADC was done (if the source was analog tape), and who did the mastering, etc. It's extremely opaque. For all we know, some random dude could have taken a CD and up-sampled it to 24/192 in Adobe Audition.

 

You're quite right. As an example. The Smiths HDTracks albums that are available are the Johnny Marr (2011) remasters of selected The Smiths albums. Measures similar to the Redbook version, are they better mastered or do they sound better than the original release? That's an individual perception. Morrissey didn't think so, no surprise..  I personally found no enhancement or any significant change in DR.

post #44 of 50

Good point!

 

I'm taken screen shots of the spectrograph of both the CD version and the HDTracks version of two songs, Paper Airplane and Wherever I May Roam.

 

 

 

 

 

post #45 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewZander View Post

Good point!

 

I'm taken screen shots of the spectrograph of both the CD version and the HDTracks version of two songs, Paper Airplane and Wherever I May Roam.

 

 

 

 

 

It certainly looks very similar and if anyone can hear a difference, so be it... I do have the Alison Krauss album in redbook and a HD version as well and they sound very much the same and since it is a relative new album, we are not dealing  with multiple recordings etc. and preferences, all similar..

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Nirvana Nevermind 96/24 on HDtracks