djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 3, 2016 12:05:13 GMT -5
In general all the albums I've bought from HDTracks have been excellent. The one that I was least impressed with was Elton John's Yellow Brick Road. It sounds like an old recording. Some of the jazz stuff I have that was recorded in the 60s sounds unbelievably good. It all depends on the mastering process. You know the SACD copy of GBYBR I got sounded like crap. I couldn't dump that thing fast enough. DJ
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Mar 3, 2016 12:06:06 GMT -5
Yes. Yes it does. I have both on my system and the HiRes version is better. Same with Neil Diamond's Hot August Night and Cat Stevens "Tea for the Tillerman". The list could go on for a while. Then of course, you have HiRes albums that are also re-mastered. So it is not just the conversion from standard to HiRes that has to be considered. Couple of questions, in what ways does the Hi-res version sound better, and are the masters for both identical or different (Graceland specifically). Like you say, there are Hi-res albums that have been remastered which can account for differences in sound and not just the resolution itself. I am wondering if Graceland's two versions are different masterings. The HiRes version is more dynamic. The background seems totally quiet. The soundstage is wider, deeper and higher. Instruments are more easily delineated. Horns sound more like the real thing. You can play it louder with less listener fatigue. I will double check if you like, but I think both versions are identical, not remastered as opposed to something like Neil Diamond's Hot August Night which is definitely remastered. I think a lot of whether or not you value a HiRes recording is predicated on the system you play it on. I must say, that in general, almost all my HiRes downloads sound better than the original on my system. Obviously, there are degrees of improvement, but to a person that really enjoys music and likes to listen critically HiResolution downloads, whether PCM or DSD or even SACD's, which I really enjoy, are worth the cost. It is like stereo systems in general. The weakest link limits the maximum performance.
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Mar 3, 2016 12:08:24 GMT -5
I've had excellent luck so far with purchase from HDTracks, ProStudioMasters or TheClassiclaShop. However, most of the purchases were orchestral recordings that don't receive the brick wall treatment in mastering. I've also bought some Frank Sinatra and then a few jazz albums I knew were mastered by organizations that do not squash the recordings.
Unfortunately, I did buy quite a few remasters in the mid 2000's that were complete crap. I think Rush is one of the biggest offenders with their 97 remasters which completely ruin the music.
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 3, 2016 12:13:16 GMT -5
I've had excellent luck so far with purchase from HDTracks, ProStudioMasters or TheClassiclaShop. However, most of the purchases were orchestral recordings that don't receive the brick wall treatment in mastering. I've also bought some Frank Sinatra and then a few jazz albums I knew were mastered by organizations that do not squash the recordings. Unfortunately, I did buy quite a few remasters in the mid 2000's that were complete crap. I think Rush is one of the biggest offenders with their 97 remasters which completely ruin the music. The Kiss remasters were pretty awful, too. I have the new HDTracks KISS Hi-Rez re-issues, and can vouch for them. They sound infinitely better than the re-masters from the 90's. DJ
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 3, 2016 12:15:54 GMT -5
Couple of questions, in what ways does the Hi-res version sound better, and are the masters for both identical or different (Graceland specifically). Like you say, there are Hi-res albums that have been remastered which can account for differences in sound and not just the resolution itself. I am wondering if Graceland's two versions are different masterings. The HiRes version is more dynamic. The background seems totally quiet. The soundstage is wider, deeper and higher. Instruments are more easily delineated. Horns sound more like the real thing. You can play it louder with less listener fatigue. I will double check if you like, but I think both versions are identical, not remastered as opposed to something like Neil Diamond's Hot August Night which is definitely remastered. I think a lot of whether or not you value a HiRes recording is predicated on the system you play it on. I must say, that in general, almost all my HiRes downloads sound better than the original on my system. Obviously, there are degrees of improvement, but to a person that really enjoys music and likes to listen critically HiResolution downloads, whether PCM or DSD or even SACD's, which I really enjoy, are worth the cost. It is like stereo systems in general. The weakest link limits the maximum performance. How can the HR version sound more dynamic when it actually isn't. The numbers don't lie. DJ
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Mar 3, 2016 12:19:19 GMT -5
The Kiss remasters were pretty awful, too. I have the new HDTracks KISS Hi-Rez re-issues, and can vouch for them. They sound infinitely better than the re-masters from the 90's. DJ I assume the 90's KIss remasters were really loud. Did they go so far as sounding distorted?
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Mar 3, 2016 12:21:37 GMT -5
In general all the albums I've bought from HDTracks have been excellent. The one that I was least impressed with was Elton John's Yellow Brick Road. It sounds like an old recording. Some of the jazz stuff I have that was recorded in the 60s sounds unbelievably good. It all depends on the mastering process. You know the SACD copy of GBYBR I got sounded like crap. I couldn't dump that thing fast enough. DJ The DVD-Audio is excellent.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Mar 3, 2016 12:26:25 GMT -5
The HiRes version is more dynamic. The background seems totally quiet. The soundstage is wider, deeper and higher. Instruments are more easily delineated. Horns sound more like the real thing. You can play it louder with less listener fatigue. I will double check if you like, but I think both versions are identical, not remastered as opposed to something like Neil Diamond's Hot August Night which is definitely remastered. I think a lot of whether or not you value a HiRes recording is predicated on the system you play it on. I must say, that in general, almost all my HiRes downloads sound better than the original on my system. Obviously, there are degrees of improvement, but to a person that really enjoys music and likes to listen critically HiResolution downloads, whether PCM or DSD or even SACD's, which I really enjoy, are worth the cost. It is like stereo systems in general. The weakest link limits the maximum performance. How can the HR version sound more dynamic when it actually isn't. The numbers don't lie. DJ Well there are at least two different ways to measure DR. jRiver can display 2 types and they are sometimes very different. wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Dynamic_Range
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,929
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 3, 2016 12:30:14 GMT -5
Actually I stand corrected - they apparently now do at least some BASIC testing (and, from their description, their testing should serve to weed out some of the most egregious examples of someone simply up-sampling and re-saving a file). However, it is pretty basic, and not altogether as conclusive as they would like you to think. Here are a few things to keep in mind: 1) Obviously, if you start with a master tape recorded in 1962, and re-convert it at 24/192k, the result is almost certainly going to be that you have a nice recording with no musical content above 18 Khz or 20 kHz, and some very accurately rendered ultrasonic tape hiss (because most mastering recorders from back then simply didn't go any higher, and neither did most microphones). This means that you won't gain anything audibly (but it couldn't hurt). 2) Their statement about checking for "active bits" is entirely accurate, but also somewhat misleading. If I were to take a 16/44k recording and simply convert it to 24/44k, the most accurate process for doing this would be to simply pad the lower 8 bits with zeros - in which case you will in fact see "16 bits that are active and 8 bits that just sit at zero" - just as they said. However, if you were to take a track that starts out at 16/44k, and re-sample it to 24/96k, because the re-sampling process involves interpolation, depending on the order in which you process it, and the software you use, it's quite possible that the resulting file will in fact have all 24 bits active. (Note that this is a GOOD thing, because those extra bits allow the new interpolated samples to be calculated and stored more accurately, but it doesn't "prove" that your new 24/96k file didn't start out its life at 16/44k.) And, if I was deliberately falsifying the file, I could simply add a tiny bit of 24 bit noise to it to make those bits active. Therefore, while their testing serves as a reasonable "quick check" to weed out files that obviously aren't what they seem, it isn't as conclusive as they would like you to think, and really doesn't substitute for having an actual description of the provenance of the original file, and the processing that was done to it. However, it is a lot better than nothing, and should "catch" obvious phonies and mis-labeled files. Please note that I am NOT in any way suggesting that their testing is bad, or even that it doesn't serve a reasonable purpose, or that it shouldn't make you feel better than if they weren't doing it. Also note that, depending on the processing actually done, it is actually quite possible to remaster a 16/44k original at a higher sample rate, and end up with a new copy that, BECAUSE OF THE THINGS YOU CHANGED DURING THE REMASTERING PROCESS, is actually better than the original, and even that "justifies" the higher sample rate. One example of this is the "apodizing filter" offered in Dolby's current Professional Encoder (v2.0). This filter takes a 44k or 48k original digital audio file, and alters it in such a way that it sounds better (according to Dolby), and produces an "improved" version of the original which, due to how the process works, MUST be created and used at 24/96k. (So, in other words, there's at least one product that does legitimately convert a 16/48k original into a 24/96k output file, and really does improve it along the way.... in which case the "24/96k upsampled version" really IS better.) Ya, I've read that before. This all comes into question, now. DJ
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Mar 3, 2016 12:50:01 GMT -5
The HiRes version is more dynamic. The background seems totally quiet. The soundstage is wider, deeper and higher. Instruments are more easily delineated. Horns sound more like the real thing. You can play it louder with less listener fatigue. I will double check if you like, but I think both versions are identical, not remastered as opposed to something like Neil Diamond's Hot August Night which is definitely remastered. I think a lot of whether or not you value a HiRes recording is predicated on the system you play it on. I must say, that in general, almost all my HiRes downloads sound better than the original on my system. Obviously, there are degrees of improvement, but to a person that really enjoys music and likes to listen critically HiResolution downloads, whether PCM or DSD or even SACD's, which I really enjoy, are worth the cost. It is like stereo systems in general. The weakest link limits the maximum performance. How can the HR version sound more dynamic when it actually isn't. The numbers don't lie. DJ I can toggle between the CD rip and the Hi Res download. To my ears the download is more dynamic and has a blacker background. The general impression is a more silky sound. I cannot speak for the accuracy or validity of whatever testing method or equipment was used to determine dynamic range. I believe in numbers, but I also believe what I hear. People used to claim CD's were "perfect sound forever" because of the measurements they could do at the time. I and most others could hear problems, we just did not know what jitter was or how to measure it. Perhaps the fact that there is more info on the original analog master tape than a CD can handle while a HiRes file can hold much more info impacts what I am hearing. All I can really do is tell you what I hear.
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 3, 2016 13:03:15 GMT -5
The Kiss remasters were pretty awful, too. I have the new HDTracks KISS Hi-Rez re-issues, and can vouch for them. They sound infinitely better than the re-masters from the 90's. DJ I assume the 90's KIss remasters were really loud. Did they go so far as sounding distorted? Not really distorted so much as they just sounded overly bright and fatiguing. I dumped them, too as soon as I could. DJ
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 3, 2016 14:00:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Mar 3, 2016 15:48:21 GMT -5
Dynamic range is just one measurement.
I own a vinyl record with some of the most amazing dynamic range ever measured, Flying Cowboys by Rickie Lee Jones. I like the music, and recorded it to check out the dynamic range. It was indeed quite high for a lp. I investigated further to see what was the likely source of that amazing dynamic range.
It was the snare drum.
The tune was coasting along at about -6db until the snare hit, then it topped out at 0.
And it did not make the recording sound amazing. Rock needs some compression to, well, rock. And DR scores only speak to one small aspect of a recording, great, or otherwise.
Trey
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Mar 3, 2016 15:52:50 GMT -5
And, by doing so, were able to sell their music a third time to the same people. The original Vapor Trails was so criminally overcooked that I think they should have made the remix available for free as an apology and act of good faith.
|
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Mar 3, 2016 16:10:31 GMT -5
And, by doing so, were able to sell their music a third time to the same people. The original Vapor Trails was so criminally overcooked that I think they should have made the remix available for free as an apology and act of good faith. Good, Bad or indifferent. I will always take the original vinyl any day of the week. It was the original at the time and the way the artist let it out. Was it always the best ? No. But I would not want a Mona Lisa That has been touched up re colored with "new" "better" pigments. The original with imperfections is still the best. Just like Ozzy Osbourne's "new" versions of Blizzard of Oz and Diary of a madman. Re recorded with different musicians. Except for the late great Randy Rhodes. The things people do for money is sickening in the music biz. I'm glad I have the Original vinyl of these.
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Mar 3, 2016 16:24:03 GMT -5
Dynamic range is just one measurement. I own a vinyl record with some of the most amazing dynamic range ever measured, Flying Cowboys by Rickie Lee Jones. I like the music, and recorded it to check out the dynamic range. It was indeed quite high for a lp. I investigated further to see what was the likely source of that amazing dynamic range. It was the snare drum. The tune was coasting along at about -6db until the snare hit, then it topped out at 0. And it did not make the recording sound amazing. Rock needs some compression to, well, rock. And DR scores only speak to one small aspect of a recording, great, or otherwise. Trey No, I understand, but dynamics are a big part of what gives music it's soul/drama/emotion/excitement. Suck out the dynamics and you suck out the life. Honestly, I think this is the big reason why so many folks are still into vinyl, and so many are turning back to it. Just check the dynamics numbers on the OG vinyl copies through Any of the dr.loudness-war links. A lot of them blow Their recent CD counter parts out of the water.
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Mar 4, 2016 10:03:41 GMT -5
Good points, I totally agree about dynamics being important, I just do not see them as triumphant!
Trey
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Mar 4, 2016 10:44:06 GMT -5
A lot depends on how you measure dynamic range. It's not so cut and dry. One method is to display the difference between the loudest and softest parts but nobody does it that way. They throw away the loudest 5 or 10% and the softest 5 or 10 % and then measure the difference so you lose the absolute peaks and softest passages. Another way is to measure the difference between the average level and the loudest passage. The resulting measurements can be quite different and cannot be converted or compared with one another.
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 5, 2016 6:31:18 GMT -5
Good points, I totally agree about dynamics being important, I just do not see them as triumphant! Trey I don't see them as triumphant, either. But more often than not, I see them as the proverbial elephant in the room!
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Mar 5, 2016 10:17:46 GMT -5
Here are a couple examples of the dynamic range reported by Dynamic Range Database (DR) and a different method DR(R128). Both are HDTrack downloads.
DR DR(R128) Sweet Baby James - Sweet Baby James 14 5.3 Graceland - Under African Skies 7 12.5
Looking at the numbers that the Dynamic Range Database uses you would think Sweet Baby James is way better but in listening Under African Skies is the clear winner in overall sound quality.
|
|