Hi-Res Download News (HDTracks, ProStudioMasters, Pono, etc.) & Software/Mastering Part 11**

Are you sure the new 24/96 are in the 8 and 9 area because that would mean they are completely different than the 24/192 version that I just posted.

 

Those numbers Mij Retrac posted are surprising, if they are the 2015 remastered versions. That's encouraging. Do they sound substantially different to you than the VH hi-rez files released in 2013? If you don't have those, I can send you a few tracks to compare. They're certainly different from the numbers being posted for the new CD's.

 

I have the 2013 HDtracks versions. They sound like they are EQd differently yes. I need a little more time with them but they seem like they are less harsh in the high end (less high end?).

 

Back on the subject of the Lou Reed's, I did something I never do and pulled up the song Vicious from the original RCA, the 2006 Japanese remasters and the new 2015 in Sound Forge just to look at the wav.

I did not take pics and don't have a hosting service to post them anyway, but: The 2006 as we know is the loudest with peaks right up to the top, but it still shows plenty of dynamics. The original RCA has the most "normal" dynamic profile...but to my surprise the right channel (which on that song is louder by about 2db on all three versions) shows some topped out peaks.

The new 2015 leave a few db headroom across the board and as such is quieter than the 2006, but louder that the RCA, yes it is liberally compressed/limited but not clipped anywhere.

Now listening to all 3 side by I hear:

2006 - to my ears harsh and agressive
RCA - dynamic and open, but the guitars are brittle and annoying (I have always thought that for years)
2015 - everything is gelled together with less dynamics, but manages to sound more like a good rock album. To my ears especially when listing in my car it works. I like the extra presence of the bass which others have reported, but to my surprise its not a million miles louder and more up front than the RCA as others have reported, actually the tone and bass weight is pretty similar its just that the highs are are brought down to its level on the 2015's if that makes sense.

Of the 5 that I bought, I think the new remastering works GREAT on "RnR Animal" and "Sally" sounds fantastic to me as well. I also find the self titled first album benefits nicely from some clean up, warmth and yes compression since that album always sounded like lo-fi crap to me.

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled program...

 

I'm converting the FLACs to WAV now in order to get the DR numbers. I'll be back in a bit with the results. I can tell you the wave forms look very similar to the 2000 remasters. We'll see what the numbers say!

 

My 24/96 Van Halen download is in the DR 8-9 range. If the 24/192 version is different, I'll ask for a refund and get the 24/192 set.

 

The DR for Van Halen's "The Collection" (96/24) is 8. I can also confirm Mij's finding that the 192/24 versions are different! I bought Fair Warning (2015 Remaster), 192/24, and it is much quieter and more dynamic than the 96/24 version in "The Collection" box!!!

 

I have the 24/192 and was completely underwhelmed. Maybe if I turned the volume up much louder I would have felt better about it (S/T we're talking about here). But on the same system with the DCC version, the Studio 6 and this version, it was the worst of the 3.

 

Interesting!

 

WTF is HDT doing!?! Completely different 192 vs 96 offerings of the same albums???
Good grief. I'm going to second guess every time I buy something (which I haven't done in weeks.)
This is getting ridiculous.
I'd absolutely be demanding refunds.

 

Or at least a credit toward the 192/24 set.
All HD music sites should be listing DR values, and posting sample waveforms on every release. It's too expensive to purchase just to "see" on your own.

 

I'd be surprised if these are two different versions. It's only been out a day, let's see what others report as DR values.

 

They are different. The 24/96 files match the DR of the retail 2015 CDs.

Seems the 24/192 is where it's at.

VP

 

That really makes no sense. Do you have both and have you done DR on both?

 

Welcome to the world of being a Van Halen fan. We have o'dourves and cocktails in the lobby.

 

I contacted HDTracks customer service (and apparently was not the only one) and they told me they would refund my purchase of the 24/96 set after I purchased the 24/192 set.

I hope they realize that there are people out there that would spend more money in the first place and buy the higher resolution version if they would just tell you on the website that it's a different mastering that "audiophile types" might prefer.

 

I analyzed the CD source. And you can read about the 24/96 (vs 24/192) here:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/van-halen-reissues-2015.412452/page-14

Not to mention a bunch of other people on that thread that have already stated there is something up. Wouldn't be the first time.

Cheers,

VP

 

Good grief what a sorry saga. This Hi Res business model is all fd up. Should be so easy to get right but they are getting it so so wrong

 

This surprises you coming from the record industry?

 

Hey I'm only 45, still wet behind the ears

 

I'm about the same age. I guess I'm just more jaded

 

Has anyone listened to VH Live from Tokyo yet in high res? I'm still looking for a review on this or a comparison to the CD to see if it's a worthwhile purchase.

 

It's not as dynamic as the studio albums but it isn't terrible. I'm not a fan of the sound quality overall.

 

Thanks. I'm thinking about getting The Collection (192/24). Do you have glitches on yours as someone else reported in the thread linked above?

 

Anyone know how to contact Chris Bellman? Is he on twitter maybe? Would love to get some comments on him as to the different mastering approaches. Is 96/24 the new 128kpbs mpeg for earbud listeners on the subway?