Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › HDTracks Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HDTracks Appreciation Thread

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

Love it or loathe it.  High resolution audio legal downloads are out there.  I know it is cheaper, much cheaper, to rip off the internet.  HD Tracks has the best high resolution legal downloads on the internet for Rock music.  I can't rip my SACD or DVD audio to my computer.  I've ripped my vinyl to 24/96 but it just doesn't sound as good as the HD Tracks downloads. What is the Head-Fi take on this, I need to know.  


Edited by RUMAY408 - 3/7/14 at 7:29pm
post #2 of 16
I like hd tracks. While some of there hi rez isnt truly hi rez, they are doing more for highrez than any other site.
post #3 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingStyles View Post

I like hd tracks. While some of there hi rez isnt truly hi rez, they are doing more for highrez than any other site.

I know they have 16/44 and 16/48 audio for downloads but what I want is feedback on the 24/44 and above. 


Edited by RUMAY408 - 4/24/13 at 8:36pm
post #4 of 16
I was commenting on the 24/96/192 stuff. Some of it is upsampled and some of it is real hi rez. They have gotten better this past year in making sure there high rez is actually hirez. A title hear and there still slips through that is just upsampled..
post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingStyles View Post

I was commenting on the 24/96/192 stuff. Some of it is upsampled and some of it is real hi rez. They have gotten better this past year in making sure there high rez is actually hirez. A title hear and there still slips through that is just upsampled..

Thanks for the feedback. 

 

Comparing audio that I already own, whether vinyl or CD I can see a difference.  I never owned Derrick and the Dominoes "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" before, but that album is not crystal clear like some of the other albums on 24/96.  Claptons "461 Ocean Boulevard,"  however sounds great. so then I'm left with whether I'm dealing with bad original masters or not.

post #6 of 16
Thread Starter 

I thought I would post my latest 24/96 download off HD Tracks and compare this album to my CD album.

 

Both albums were downloaded in AIFF and played via MBAir>iTunes>Amarra 2.4.5>DF>HE 400 and later for further comparison MBAir>iTunes>Amarra 2.4.5>DF>Senns PX100.  I later flipped off Amarra so I could hear iTunes directly via the DF.

I randomized my songs (playlist created by a very uninterested 3rd party) and kept the DF and computer turned to a point I could not see the frequency changes.  I kept my impressions on paper and the results were more dramatic with the addition of Amarra and HE400.

 

The most significant differences between the CD and high Rez versions were on the drum work in particular the opening sequence on "Hot For Teacher."  The clarity and imaging was dramatically better with the high Rez version.

"Panama" in the middle sequence was also clearly better.  Roth's vocals are in the foreground and the synthesizer sounds are delivered with better separation and sequencing.

The guitar on "Drop Dead Legs" also was noticeably different from the CD version.  The finger tapping was more out front and isolated.

The guitar appeared to be more separated to the left speaker through out the 24/96 album.  I found it harder to separate the two albums when all the band was engaged. The high Rez seemed to separate  better when instruments were isolated.

 

I have very few HD Tracks albums overlapping either my vinyl or CD's so I have only a few to compare.  My take on this album is that the original mastered version on HD Tracks is superior in sound quality to the CD. Since the original masters were different than the CD I am not completely convinced that this was a fair comparison.  

 

In the future I'll try to do a less "apples to oranges" comparison. 

post #7 of 16

Just made my first purchase on HD track ... Didn't anything fancy to listen. Just a AK120 and SE846 ... really looking forward to receive my JH16 pros ... but as of now they sound really good ... its like how you get numb to quality over time.... like how i started of with mp3 128kpbs thought they sounded awesome till i realized 320kbps ... no currently on flac 16bit 44.1khz. Looking back mp3 sound less engaging .... taking my first step into hi rez realms ... it really sounds better with lots of details but then again really need to take them with a pinch of salt cos it really depends on the original recording ... if its terrible to begin with no amount of resolution is gonna make it magical .... higher rez does not equate to better song... like what kingstyle mentioned of some being upsampled.

post #8 of 16

I've always wondered about their source and who mastered them.

post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daltonljj View Post
 

Just made my first purchase on HD track ... Didn't anything fancy to listen. Just a AK120 and SE846 ... really looking forward to receive my JH16 pros ... but as of now they sound really good ... its like how you get numb to quality over time.... like how i started of with mp3 128kpbs thought they sounded awesome till i realized 320kbps ... no currently on flac 16bit 44.1khz. Looking back mp3 sound less engaging .... taking my first step into hi rez realms ... it really sounds better with lots of details but then again really need to take them with a pinch of salt cos it really depends on the original recording ... if its terrible to begin with no amount of resolution is gonna make it magical .... higher rez does not equate to better song... like what kingstyle mentioned of some being upsampled.

 

What did you download? 

post #10 of 16

Loving vocals a lot i downloaded "The World's Greatest Audiophile Vocal Recordings" by chesky records ... really enjoying it

post #11 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daltonljj View Post
 

Loving vocals a lot i downloaded "The World's Greatest Audiophile Vocal Recordings" by chesky records ... really enjoying it

 

Virtually anything from Chesky is good and any of the newer material is excellent.  Some of the early High Rez is inconsistent.  Derrick and the Dominoes sounds muddy from my stand point.

post #12 of 16
Even though I buy the compressed iTunes albums and listen to a lot music on my iphone, I am excited about higher resolution digital files. I fully support this and hope to purchase some albums in the near. The 24 bit digital files should have been already introduced a long time ago. It's about time that technology is here and hopefully it will improve even furthur.
post #13 of 16

i feel that once you have a taste of higher quality audio it makes your old audio sound kinda bad .... like comparing to some less well done recordings that i have from cd (16bit 44.1khz) it now sounds less 3D not as transparent ... well this audio road is sure one slippery slope that people like us keep falling into... haha 

post #14 of 16

It totally depends. I was reading another thread yesterday and quality 16/44 recordings were spoke about. Purk suggested Live at Blues Alley by Eva Cassidy.

 

Being a fan of her music, I immediately purchased the album (for only $12) and listened to it. He's right, if care is taken during the recording process 16/44 can be impressive. 

 

I don't have many 16/44 albums that sound as good as that. He gets a thumbs up on that post for sure. 

 

Back to your original inquiry... 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RUMAY408 View Post
 

I know they have 16/44 and 16/48 audio for downloads but what I want is feedback on the 24/44 and above. 

 

Generally I find a greater gain in quality from higher bitrate (like 16 to 24 bit), than sample rate increase (from say 96 to 192). 


Edited by LNSpilot - 10/17/13 at 4:22am
post #15 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNSpilot View Post
 

It totally depends. I was reading another thread yesterday and quality 16/44 recordings were spoke about. Purk suggested Live at Blues Alley by Eva Cassidy.

 

Being a fan of her music, I immediately purchased the album (for only $12) and listened to it. He's right, if care is taken during the recording process 16/44 can be impressive. 

 

I don't have many 16/44 albums that sound as good as that. He gets a thumbs up on that post for sure. 

 

Back to your original inquiry... 

 

 

Generally I find a greater gain in quality from higher bitrate (like 16 to 24 bit), than sample rate increase (from say 96 to 192). 

A well recorded 16/44 beats a poorly recorded 24/96.  If the recording is excellent 24 bit sounds better than a similar recording at 16 bits on the right equipment.  I agree with LNSpilot the frequency rate seems, to me, to be less important.

 

My take so far on the many albums I've downloaded so far off HDTracks:

 

"CSN" may be the single best sounding album I've heard so far.

"In Utero" by Nirvana is very clean and clear.

"2nd Law" by Muse is excellent, I wish "Black Holes and Revelations" would show up one day.

"John Barleycorn Must Die" by Traffic

"Hotel California" Eagles

 

In general any album that already exists in DVD-Audio or SACD is likely very good.

 

On the other hand I've heard good and bad recordings from both The Stones, "Beggars Banquet" inconsistent (parts of audio disappear) and Clapton's "401 Ocean Boulevard" sounds great but "Derek and The Dominoes" not so much. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › HDTracks Appreciation Thread