[USAudio]

FYI - https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00602527805641

 

[LFF]

Awesome. The samples sound really, really good. I'm glad they didn't boost the highs to mosquito killing level!

 

[Architeuthis]

BRICKWALLED!:mad:

 

[LFF]

Just confirmed it!

The thing is brickwalled and doesn't quite sound like the samples. What is the point of having a high resolution transfer if the mastering is crap?

 

[Anaxilus]

Wait, are they selling tracks different from the samples?

 

[USAudio]

BRICKWALLED!:mad:

Well that's a crying shame and very disappointing. Thanks for pointing this out before I put my money down. You would figure by now with all the bad press the loudness war has given such recordings that we wouldn't see them released in HiRes! :mad: I should have been suspicious when I saw that word "Remastered" ...

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Wait, are they selling tracks different from the samples?

Sounded different to me. Could be the compression.
 

 
Quote:

Well that's a crying shame and very disappointing. Thanks for pointing this out before I put my money down. You would figure by now with all the bad press the loudness war has given such recordings that we wouldn't see them released in HiRes!

I should have been suspicious when I saw that word "Remastered" ...

It's a real shame as the EQ work is quite good. No boosted highs like the MFSL. However, the over-compression kills it for me.
 

 

[Gazza]

Listening to it now (converted to Apple Lossless so I can hear it via iTunes so it's Redbook) and it sounds pretty decent. It's not the most analogue recording I've ever heard but we're not talking about Death Magnetic here either.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Listening to it now (converted to Apple Lossless so I can hear it via iTunes so it's Redbook) and it sounds pretty decent. It's not the most analogue recording I've ever heard but we're not talking about Death Magnetic here either.

No...it's not Death Magnetic. Are you guys really gonna make me post a screen cap of the waveform?
 

 

[purrin]

Just confirmed it!
The thing is brickwalled and doesn't quite sound like the samples. What is the point of having a high resolution transfer if the mastering is crap?

That's extremely sad. I guess they were relying the 24/96 thing. My first thought when I read the topic was always, "oh no, not another one, why not 16/44 done right?"

 

[LFF]

OK....got some emails asking for the waveforms:
 
My remaster (notice correct placement of "hidden track" as in original):
 

 
HDTracks:

 
Comparison coming up (Volume matched up to track 12)....

 
So...is Hi-Res always better?! As I have ALWAYS, ALWAYS said...depends on the mastering!
 
That's a big difference in dynamic range. At least now we can listen to our favorite brickwalled recordings in Hi-Res!

 
EDIT:

IF THE IMAGES DON'T SHOW...JUST CLICK ON THEM!

 

[wnmnkh]

Woot, LFF's link from Sound Science got my attention.
 
 
Considering you have to pay about 20 bucks for album, this quality is very unacceptable.
 
 
Really, out of those high-res download sites, only Linn Record is competent enough to provide content we need.
 
 
Said on other thread, we are giving them chance to revive high-definition music again (this time with much better way to deliver content as well!) only to smash such chance with these shaddy practices.
 
 

 

[purrin]

Someone at HDtracks needs a serious visit from Darth Vader.

 

[Head Injury]

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

 
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.

 

[Eee Pee]

Quote:

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

I'll be second in line.