[jpelg]

 
In the past, we've had dedicated threads in which to post mini-reviews of both SACD discs and DVD-Audio discs. Given the rising popularity & availability of hi-rez downloads, in a similar fashion, I'd like to start a thread dedicated to this new frontier of high-fidelity content.
 
Ideally, a mini-review would contain information that compares the hi-rez download in context alongside its Redbook, SACD, DVD-A, or even vinyl versions, as well as clearly stating the associated gear you used to listen & compare. Technical info behind the recording and/or new mastering is most welcome. Occasionally there are issues with the hi-rez files (such as has been noted with the Coltrane "A Love Supreme" download), so an unbiased take is always best. Also good information would be the source of your hi-rez files & your experiences with these vendors.
 
Obviously, when it comes to posting, we ask that you adhere to Head-Fi's Terms of Use, as well as normally accepted laws with regard to digital content.
 
So, have at it, and let the mini-reviews begin!

 

[arnaud]

I have been downloading quite a few recordings from HDTracks in 24/88.2 or 24/96 in the past but never really went back to compare to 16/44.1 version I would happen to already own. But tonight, I did this comparison for Beck's "Sea Change" recording and I am glad I did!
 
To put it shorlty, you're wasting money downloading hi-rez tracks .... ... ... Not! Just kidding, the difference is definitely present and the revelation for me is that it's not just high frequency extension / shimmer. It just takes me to whole new place and feels much more natural. This Beck album is my favorite of the bunch and I feel it is very engaging emotionally. Well, call this placebo effect if you will but the 24/88.2 version transports me even more...
 
It's actually a bit difficult to precisely quantify what is going on but it all simply sounds just more right on the HDTrack 24/88.2 version. The cymbals have more texture, the dynamics seems increased (or maybe the background noise is reduced?), even the bass impact seems more real. The voice is definitely not shrill on the previous 16/44.1 recording (which I always considered very good on its own) but it does sound a bit sharp compared to the 24/88.2 version. Same goes with acoustic guitar attacks. There is more depth / better instrument separation on the 24/88.2. The list goes on, it is just simply amazing, I really did not expect that much difference.
 
Now even more interesting, I thought 90% of this had to do with the quality of the mastering, such that the 24/88.2 version downsampled and decimated to 16/44.1 (using Itunes) would pretty much sound the same as the original. Well, it doesn't. For one, we can clearly tell the new 24/88.2 is a new mastering (I have zero information on it though, as usually from HD Tracks) as the downsampled / decimated version clearly sounds different from the previous 16/44.1 version. Additionally, most of the magic I experienced with the 24/88.2 version is actually missing when listening to the downsampled / decimated version. It feels like going from lossless to a high quality lossy format. It sounds good but somehow it has lost the magic.
 
As for associated equipment: Macbook Pro (2011) >>> Audio-gd DI >>> Yamamoto YDA-01 >>> Stax SRM-727a>>> Stax SR-007a. One thing to note: the player is Audirvana and it is actually upsampling the 24/88.2 to 24/96 because the Audio-GD Digital Interface does not support 88.2kHz feed. I assume one would get even better results with an interface that does not resample...
 
My apologies if this mini-review is not very precise or clear. I did not intend to make any review at all actually, but it just sounds soo awesome I felt this had to be shared!

 

[jpelg]

Thanks for sharing that, arnaud. Exactly the kind of info I think suits this sort of thread!

 

[giedrys]

I really really really like Keith Jarrett The Köln Concert in 96/24 from HDtracks!

 

[slappyjam]

Were you performing a double-blind A/B test when you were switching between the two?  I feel like knowing it's the higher sampling rate changes the experience in your brain... in other words, if you *know* it's a higher sample rate you look for reasons it's "better" and vice versa.
 
Quote:

I have been downloading quite a few recordings from HDTracks in 24/88.2 or 24/96 in the past but never really went back to compare to 16/44.1 version I would happen to already own. But tonight, I did this comparison for Beck's "Sea Change" recording and I am glad I did!
 
To put it shorlty, you're wasting money downloading hi-rez tracks .... ... ... Not! Just kidding, the difference is definitely present and the revelation for me is that it's not just high frequency extension / shimmer. It just takes me to whole new place and feels much more natural. This Beck album is my favorite of the bunch and I feel it is very engaging emotionally. Well, call this placebo effect if you will but the 24/88.2 version transports me even more...
 
It's actually a bit difficult to precisely quantify what is going on but it all simply sounds just more right on the HDTrack 24/88.2 version. The cymbals have more texture, the dynamics seems increased (or maybe the background noise is reduced?), even the bass impact seems more real. The voice is definitely not shrill on the previous 16/44.1 recording (which I always considered very good on its own) but it does sound a bit sharp compared to the 24/88.2 version. Same goes with acoustic guitar attacks. There is more depth / better instrument separation on the 24/88.2. The list goes on, it is just simply amazing, I really did not expect that much difference.
 
Now even more interesting, I thought 90% of this had to do with the quality of the mastering, such that the 24/88.2 version downsampled and decimated to 16/44.1 (using Itunes) would pretty much sound the same as the original. Well, it doesn't. For one, we can clearly tell the new 24/88.2 is a new mastering (I have zero information on it though, as usually from HD Tracks) as the downsampled / decimated version clearly sounds different from the previous 16/44.1 version. Additionally, most of the magic I experienced with the 24/88.2 version is actually missing when listening to the downsampled / decimated version. It feels like going from lossless to a high quality lossy format. It sounds good but somehow it has lost the magic.
 
As for associated equipment: Macbook Pro (2011) >>> Audio-gd DI >>> Yamamoto YDA-01 >>> Stax SRM-727a>>> Stax SR-007a. One thing to note: the player is Audirvana and it is actually upsampling the 24/88.2 to 24/96 because the Audio-GD Digital Interface does not support 88.2kHz feed. I assume one would get even better results with an interface that does not resample...
 
My apologies if this mini-review is not very precise or clear. I did not intend to make any review at all actually, but it just sounds soo awesome I felt this had to be shared!

 

 

[nspindel]

I have downloaded several titles and have in general been pleased with what I've heard.  However, for me it is difficult to know if what I'm hearing is the result of 24-bit audio sounding better than 16-bit audio, or am I just hearing better masters?  The Stones stuff sounds wonderful, but I don't think the Abkco masters were released in 16-bit.  So if I compare "Let It Bleed" to my original cd, sure it is much better.  But it's a different master.  I don't know that I'm hearing anything that couldn't be reproduced in redbook just as well.  I'm just hearing things that are different between two versions.

 

[jpelg]

I agree that mastering is huge. This would come up often when discussing the merits of SACD's or DVD-Audio recordings compared to their redbook counterparts, and makes total sense. I think that it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate hi-rez from better mastering, which is a good thing! When asking us to re-purchase our libraries, it's all about providing a better product than what was available previously. And if the "scrutiny" of higher resolution playback makes mastering engineers step up & do their jobs right, I'll take it. I'm happy for a truly better product regardless of which part of the chain caused the most effect, rather than lament why it wasn't done so before.
 
If, when doing your mini-reviews, you have access to mastering info, please include it.

 

[arnaud]

 
Quote:

Were you performing a double-blind A/B test when you were switching between the two?  I feel like knowing it's the higher sampling rate changes the experience in your brain... in other words, if you *know* it's a higher sample rate you look for reasons it's "better" and vice versa.

You surely got a point there, especially for the comparison of the old CD version to the HDTracks version downsampled to 44.1/16. The differences are more subtle than it would transpire from my message, I am actually not even sure it's a different master anymore.
 
Reason why I am saying that is that I have since compared the (downsampled) HDTracks versions of Keith Jarrett's Koln Concert as well as Coltrane's ballads to my original redbook versions (I believe there has been multiple remasters for the ballads CD though? I will need to check which version I own). Anyhow, in these 2 examples, it is very very obvious the mastering of HD tracks version is totally different from the CD. Actually, I will write a bit more later on this, but in both cases it feels like you're setting further away in the room and the tonality is a bit darker. In comparison the (downsampled) HD Tracks version of Beck's Sea Change sounds virtually the same as the old CD version.
 
more later...
 

 

[jpelg]

I've been listening to several of my DVD-Audio discs over the past few days, and I realized that I typically prefer the 5.1 hi-rez (either 24/96 or 24/192 if available) downmixed to stereo compared to the 2-channel stereo straight mix. Often, the downmix just sounds more "right", with an overall richer tone, while the 2-channel mix sounds comparatively thin & unsatisfying. Some discs, there is little, if any, audible difference between the 5.1 downmix & the 2-channel mix to my ears/headphone setup). I imagine that this is completely disc dependent, with the specific 2-channel implementation (whether it is a true separate mix VS. simply the front two channels of the 5.1 mix). Or maybe I'm just a closet bass-head *shrug*.
 
Anyway, this has caused me to wonder how the HD stereo downloads sound compared to their DVD-A counterparts. If they sound more like the 2-channel DVD-Audio mix, that may or may not be good thing, depending on the album. All my opinion, in my setup, of course. As always, ymmv.
 
Thoughts?

 

[arnaud]

Here's a quick comparison between the redbook and HDTracks (24/96) version (originally released on a DVD video with "Advanced Resolution" logo?) of Buena Vista Social Club.
 
Associated equipment is in my sig. Only thing additional to mention: I was using the upsampler in PureMusic software such that the Audio GD interface is systematically fed 96kHz signals. Note however that the HD Tracks version is sent at native rate, not resampled in any way.
 
First off, it's a bit difficult to compare the two versions because the HD version is mixed with the majority of signal in the -15dB to -5dB region while the CD version is in the -12 to -2dB range. I tried to adjust the loudness as I could but this may not be perfect and play a role.
 
The very first thing I noticed is the same as usual: the instrument placement is much improved in the HD version with the instruments / singer moving a few feet back and playing in a well defined room while it does feel like you have your head right next to the instruments in CD version (while at the same time hearing a lot of the room acoustics though, so a bit weird feeling). In summary, depth, instrument placement and separation are improved in the HD version.
 
Another striking difference between the 2 mixes is that the 96kHz sounds warmer with the bass more prominent relative to the highs. What it feels like is that "nearfield" microphones are much more prominent in the mix of the CD version while the HD version relies more on "field" microphones placed more toward the auditor. These nearfield microphones give the CD version more sparkle and apparent impression of detail relative to the HD version. You read this right: relatively speaking, it first feels like the CD version is more detailed. But actually, it is not "real" detail, it's just that you hear more of the stuff picked up my microphones right next to the various instruments. Once you listen more closely to the HD version, you realize there is just the same amount of information, but it comes in more naturally as you always feel the instruments are solidly placed a few feet in front of you and a significant part of the sound is from reflections rather than direct field (including the transients). In summary, the presentation of detail is more natural in the HD version.
 
The last thing most noticeable during this short comparison was just how much more clearly I would hear the percussions (congo drums?) with HD version with individual hit of the drum clearly separated from the others. Also, the instrument has much more weight in the HD version while the CD is almost like cutting off the low frequencies in comparisons. I think this is again an artifact of using more the nearfield mics for the CD mix. In summary, well the HD rendering is simply more natural again.
 
I will conclude by saying that, if you don't have the redbook version, by all means get the HD tracks version as this is a must-have record and it sounds even better on the 24/96 format. But for those who have the redbook version and tight on budget, I'd say forget about the HD version as the CD is very well mixed and plenty good on its own.