[olddude]

The Steve Hoffman site is full of arguments about quality of albums (just like here about quality of equipment).  
 
You can look at the Pono site under Provence and see what it says about the albums you are thinking of getting (not all are likely to be there).  
 
I would suggest looking at a variety of sources to see what is said about the albums you are considering.  At the same time, I've had pretty good luck getting things from Pono (granted, I've gotten less than ten albums from it).  ProStudioMasters is another good site.  HDTracks seems to be improving, but I'm always cautious with it.
 
I do have the Dead hi-res albums from the GD site, and they are excellent.  There are some higher-res ones (24/192 as opposed to, I believe the 24/96 ones I got) available from another site that I didn't find better in any way.  

 

[GrouchoMarx1933]

Reports from multiple sources are always beneficial.

 

[FFBookman]

  Reports from multiple sources are always beneficial.

Did anyone check the provenance of anything musical before the hi-res era?  I just bought was was available over the last 40 years, I had no idea if the album, CD, cassette or MP3 I was buying was altered from an original master.  Of course I know the lossy was degraded, but they almost never gave information about provenance to the consumer, or it was buried in liner notes and couldn't be independently confirmed anyway.
 
Note that I don't usually go back to things I own on vinyl or CD and re-buy them at 24bit.
 
I guess in the cases where I do (like Led Zep) I do consider provenance. Jimmy Page himself put out the latest 24/96 versions and said they are the last versions of Zep he ever needs to do. Considering he's in his 60s already I believe him. So you are right, it helps to know you aren't being ripped off. 
 
But I think 'upsamples' are straw-man argument. I highly doubt they exist, they are illegal, easily provable, and would open these companies to both class action lawsuits from customers and breach of contract suits from artists. 
 
If it's the exact same file as 16/44 just rendered as 24bit, it's obvious. If they re-master it and make it louder at 24bit, that's up to them, it's always up to them. That technically is a new mix.  I have an Aerosmith's greatest hits like this - it's 24/96, it's louder than previous versions from what I can tell, and it's labeled the 2014 remix.  Nothing is different other than volume and overall bigness of the mix.

 

[GrouchoMarx1933]

I didn't mean to put you off getting a Pono, it's a great device and will make your music sound great.
 
I'm the kind of guy to try and track down the most dynamic masters I can find, so if you're not as concerned about it, then don't worry about it.
 
However, I'm not sure it is illegal to upres. Technically you are selling a 24/96 or 24/192 file, there's just no information available to take advantage of the higher resolution. Now, if you were selling a 16/44 file without upres and saying it's 24 bit, that's false advertising. And several up sampled files have already been proven, it doesn't stop the labels from making and selling them. So they do exist. Now, I'm guessing Pono probably picked artists whose albums will sound good, but then again it may have been more to do with who was willing to play ball than what will sound the best.

 

[olddude]

HDTracks got caught uploading 16/44 in 24 bit packages.  That did not help expand its business as word got around.  It seems to be doing better now.
 
Pono released some stuff of which there were questions, and it made good to all who bought.  It seemed to have been caused by a record company giving them "incorrect" files or "mislabeled" files.  Pono has a free upgrade policy, so I wouldn't worry so much about it.  
 
These companies are releasing companies.  They don't make or manufacture anything.  Record companies release files to HDTracks or Pono or ProSoundMasters and then they sell them "as is" reported to them.  
 
In the days of vinyl you bought the record.  There was not much talk about quality for a while.  Then people found out the sound of records made in Germany and Japan and England was better (because of better vinyl and fewer pressings from each master.  
 
Also, if a record was longer, the sound began to degrade as the grooves got closer together.  That was about it.
 
Now we can buy digital files and they can come from a variety of places or of releases of the same album done by different cutters/masterers/mixers.  Go on the Steve Hoffman threads and you'll find discussion of a vinyl album released in 1966 being better than the same album in 1968 because the cutter was different.  
 
I've gotten hi-res albums that sounded like crap because the original sounded like crap.  Crap in, crap out.  Hi-res is not going to fix crap recording techniques.  But a good recording in hi-res can sound fabulous.  
 
Bottom line is to do as much due diligence as you can without your head exploding.  And remember that everyone has an opinion, and no one thinks theirs smells.  

 

[Saraugie]

  HDTracks got caught uploading 16/44 in 24 bit packages.  That did not help expand its business as word got around.  It seems to be doing better now.
 
Pono released some stuff of which there were questions, and it made good to all who bought.  It seemed to have been caused by a record company giving them "incorrect" files or "mislabeled" files.  Pono has a free upgrade policy, so I wouldn't worry so much about it.  
 
These companies are releasing companies.  They don't make or manufacture anything.  Record companies release files to HDTracks or Pono or ProSoundMasters and then they sell them "as is" reported to them.  
 
In the days of vinyl you bought the record.  There was not much talk about quality for a while.  Then people found out the sound of records made in Germany and Japan and England was better (because of better vinyl and fewer pressings from each master.  
 
Also, if a record was longer, the sound began to degrade as the grooves got closer together.  That was about it.
 
Now we can buy digital files and they can come from a variety of places or of releases of the same album done by different cutters/masterers/mixers.  Go on the Steve Hoffman threads and you'll find discussion of a vinyl album released in 1966 being better than the same album in 1968 because the cutter was different.  
 
I've gotten hi-res albums that sounded like crap because the original sounded like crap.  Crap in, crap out.  Hi-res is not going to fix crap recording techniques.  But a good recording in hi-res can sound fabulous.  
 
Bottom line is to do as much due diligence as you can without your head exploding.  And remember that everyone has an opinion, and no one thinks theirs smells.  

I bought Janis Joplin with Big Brother and the Holding Company, in High Res from HDTracks and it is horrible.  The original CD and FWICR the vinyl are more than decent.

 

[olddude]

I had some David Bowie in hi-res.  Awful.  The same in 16/44 CD sounded much better.  

 

[GrouchoMarx1933]

  I had some David Bowie in hi-res.  Awful.  The same in 16/44 CD sounded much better.  

Which Bowie albums did you think were awful? I've heard bad things about the recent remasters of Ziggy and Aladdin Sane, but good things about pretty much all the other remasters. And the SACD masters are all regarded as very good. The SACD of Scary Monsters in particular is stellar.

 

[olddude]

I forget.  I dumped it immediately.  Sounded like mush with a sibilant top end.  Might have been a Best Of.  

 

[FFBookman]

There are several types of "remastering" I can think of, it's a loaded term:
 
A- the authorized digital masters given to a mastering engineer and they upsample to a higher resolution in the process of working outside of the mix, and then ship it at that resolution
 
B- the authorized analog masters given to an analog studio who can bring the tape back up, make a new mix and re-digitize at a higher resolution
 
C- the authorized digital session files given to a producer who they remix the entire work, bringing a new mix to life using the same source. this new mix can be delivered in a variety of resolutions
 
D- the authorized digital masters and they just need to build for a new format or market and you leave all native resolutions as is.
 

---

 
 
A is the least amount of work, basically a cleanup and upsample.  If they don't do any cleanup or EQ it's just an upsample and I think this is what Merrick fears. Beware re-buying things here.
 
B is awesome and rare. We should pay for these and consider rebuying - it costs a lot of money to digitize the tape properly.
 
C can be cool or horrible, kind of depends on how well the new mix is loved or the old mix is hated. I usually avoid buying these, I just don't see the point unless it's radically remixed.
 
D is the only one you shouldn't have to pay for again, it's the same thing you own just on another format.

 

[olddude]

Well, The Beatles Remasters (I have them in 16 and 24) were done quite well, to my ears, but they don't sound like the records.  It's the best they've ever sounded on CD (to my ears) but there's talk on various forums about loudness and I KNOW Paulie's bass was never that distinct on the records (and I had the Blue Box).  I sure like them, though.  
 
I took a listen to the new Love + album, to my ears terrible.  Remastering AND remixing.  Big no-no to me.  Sounded "different."  I started listening to the Beatles when I was in high school, at the time of Hard Day's Night.  The sound of the records is in my head.  
 
I look for hi-res or even CDs that are of music from the 60s or 70s (and a little of the 80s) that have been brought up to a higher quality than contained on the original CDs (which were often hard on the ears and/or muddy or sibilant).  Traffic has good remasters, Fleetwood Mac has done ok, Stevie Wonder's SACDs are glorious, the more recent Steely Dans are vastly better than earlier versions (which were from 2nd gen masters).  Dylan did a good job on the Big 3 (the ones I listen to, Subterranean Highway and Blonde), and his recently-released outtakes from 1965-66 sound great.  
 
CDs are NOT records.  The entire process is different.  I don't expect a CD to ever sound exactly like the record did.  But it's nice when it sounds close to the record.  And doesn't cause listening fatigue.  To me, getting music I love in a better form is worth it.

 

[Ruben123]

LPs have quite a big bass roll off so of course they sound different than CDs.

 

[olddude]

More to the point, records have sounds embedded in grooves and a needle physically goes over the grooves.  CDs have little bits of digital sound embedded in plastic and a laser reads them from a distance.  There is no way that the sounds will be the same.  The CDs can be made to emulate the records, but they will never get there.  The source is the source, but the manner in which it is delivered affects the sound.  
 
It's not about bass rolloff or whatever, it's analog vs. digital and they are different.  Just as my Nikon F3 using Kodachrome 25 (I know, you can't do that anymore, just an example) takes pictures that look different from my Nikon D300 making big TIFFs, even when I run the TIFFs through an Alien Skin Color Slide Kodachrome 25 emulator.  Little bits of silver and dyes being exposed to light will react to that light in a much different manner than an electronic emulator.  They are getting closer, but it still looks different.
 
Same with sound. 

 

[Ableza]

Where is that dead horse being beaten GIF?

 

[Ruben123]

Please head over to sound science section for a discussion about that. It's quite ridiculous what you say at least and at the same time a nice view and topic to talk about.