Hi-Res Download News (HDTracks, ProStudioMasters, Pono, etc.) & Software/Mastering Part 12**

If you don't want to reach out to cs, I'd suggest buying 1, & checking file dates & run a DR yourself.

 

Certainly a good sign.

I just wouldn't download more than one of them until you're sure you like what you hear...

 

Great minds think alike...

 

Joni Mitchell's 2013 hi-res flat transfers are still available at highresaudio.com

Joni Mitchell

Some have the MQA tag, but they are also available at 96 or 192 Khz

Ladies Of The Canyon (Remastered)

 

I have some of those. Honestly, the Blue album sounds better even than the DCC. To me personally

 

Also, I got referred to this thread, please help:
I have the 24/88.2 HDTracks version of Tori Kelly's Christmas album and I'm not sure if it's an upconvert or not. This is the frequency spectrum for O Holy Night:


I see that it's not cut off at 20 kHz but if it's 88.2 kHz, I figured there would be a lot more info (also IIRC 88.2 sample rate indicates that it's converted from a DSD source, right?)

 

I honestly don't understand how someone doesn't think a HD transfer that hasn't been molested doesn't sound better than a CD, even with our host mastering. In fact, from memory, our host IS one of them who doesn't hear the difference. I was surprised but accepting when I read that--and hell, maybe I read it wrong.

88.2 does NOT mean DSD. It's an 88.2 recording. It's the HD rate that was used by nearly everyone using HD for a lot of years because the industry standard Avid hardware could basically change pitch in either direction with 88.2 and at 96 it could only pitch down.

The link to DSD is that when you're talking about an old SACD conversion--so titles released on SACD from whatever 1999-2006. No one records DSD outside of some audiophile stuff...and certainly no one whose sound requires autotune. Ehmm.

If you're looking on that static graph, the quality you're looking for is a hard lateral LINE at 20-22khz....or 23/24'ish for 48khz. I've written a bunch about this, but it's not helpful in the one thing you (ultimately) care about: better sound than CD. I've been a consumer of this tech for 20+ years. There's no statistically tangible fraud being put forth to be "on the watchout for"...

 

Thanks, clears up a lot

(And just slightly in defense of Tori Kelly - coming from someone who's really NOT into pop vocalists - she is an absolute force, with proper vocal/technical virtuosity. But I get the autotune comment. It's so overused that even proper vocalists now sound like it's just autotune. I leave this as a live exhibit A:

) )

 

I know...sorry--Tori 's pitch is the better part of her voice...I mean that's just "the sound" of now. And she tried to sound SUPER current. It's not got anything to do with capability of the singer really...

 

The key is "hasn't been molested". The problem is too many HD transfers sound bad because of decisions made by the people in the remastering chain.

 

How much depth can there be on modern mix with a DR of 3? No argument there. But I think it depends on the music. I have knocked down 24/96 stuff down to 16/44.1 for CD release and have often heard no change. But sometimes I have.....

I had a fellow engineer who wanted to make a point that bits and sample rate was all nonsense. He recorded everything at 12 bits, 32 khz.
For those who are wondering this is the equivalent of 72 db signal to noise ratio.
20 - 16 000 hz. Pretty close to 1960's specs for tape machines. Although it would be more 30 - 15 000 hz +-2db. It was a big seller. At yet no one noticed that it was 12/32. LOL. Of course it has to be knocked up to 16/44.1 for release. But the specs still stand.

I don't expect anyone to believe this story. Was this friend of mine kidding? He doesn't joke about his work. The album won an engineer award. LOL. 24 bit is good but I wouldn't get to hung up on it. He said without the last half octave the sound was just better. It has a more pleasant sound. I think he is BSing me but who knows..... He refused to use any compresion. He was convinced that modern digital theory is a lie. He just felt that 16/44.1 was TOO much.

High resolution is not about bits or sample rate. It all depends on the engineer. Assuming you are recording and mixing without loudness in mind a 24/96 recording should sound better. But my point is that 16/44.1 done properly is good enough. For example Rush's - 1991 ROLL THE BONES would still sound harsh, super bright and have no bottom end even if it was done at 24/352.8. Recording and mixing techniques are to blame. NOT DIGITAL. Are you hearing this Mr. Rupert Hine?!

Oh, Presto was done at 16/48. Yea, look....Isn't 48 khz like high definition for 1989....No?....Bad joke....

With my little DP-02 (Hey! Hey! No laughing...)
16/44.1 8 track I made several great recordings. I had put one up. But free demo ran out. And I used no compresion at all.

 

Hey no argument there. For recordings before 1998 at least. Many recordings today are just mixed loud.

 

I know this Johh guy.... Long haired ice tea drinking freak. That John guy is ahhh strange. A nice boy but needing an injection of something.

 

Upsampled mmmmm....Huh?! When every audiophile DAC does this crap anyway.
Please note: Recodings didn't go 24/96 until the late 1990's. Maybe 1996. The industry was stuck at 24/48 for a long time. The industry was still prancing away at 16/48 at 1992!

 

Had anyone heard the two reissued Fine Young Cannibals albums? They are only 24/44.1 but it is a decent price for all the music you get. I may take the plunge, only know their hits, but just curious what the opinion on the sound is.

 

The sound of high resolution files is quite distinct. This is evident even on a modest headphone setup. Instruments sound smooth as silk, and for a dedicated listener it is an exceedingly enjoyable experience. Whether a regular individual can notice the difference is irrelevant, as in order to appreciate them the discernment of the connoisseur is required. The fine things in life are not meant for the masses.

 

With the primary means of listening by the general public brickwalled junk on mp3 through ear buds or cable satellite radio though a garbage system many people wouldn't catch the difference with 8 buts.

But there's pre 1980 analog recordings (much of my favorite music) that can truly be digitized at 192/24.

 

This is available on SACD from Dutton Vocalion as part of a two-fer that includes Cramer's 1974 In Concert album, and you get the quad mixes of both on the multichannel layer to boot. D-V have released two other stereo/quad Cramer two-fers on SACD, Class of '73/Class of '74-'75 and Super Country Hits/Young and the Restless.

 

i would argue that nearly all of the HD Tracks (and similar other sites) content are things that the business at hand is mastering (or remastering) for CD. They just discovered a new income stream by releasing the files right before downconversion—so, containing all the “psuedo required evils” of modern mastering. Meaning they're not actually "HD masters" someone is screwing up, but more that they're being paid to make a loud modern CD master...I've said for a long time that we need MEs to at least use the one head for vinyl cutting to feed the HDTracks stores without spending more $$, not the CD/streaming masters.

Eric Valentine pointed out recently that his Grace Potter mastering for vinyl had 4db less limiting--that he hadn't even considered the HD release, but that it got taken from the CD master only at the native 24/96. He says he'll look into how he can get the "for vinyl digital master" to HDT in the future.

Why do we have Pink's whole back catalog recently remastered MUCH more dynamically for vinyl...why were THOSE files not made available for purchase? because it's only the files for CD (re)masters that make their way to HDT. There are exceptions when they do BOTH at once--say Eagles in 2013 or whenever...and Van Halen in 2015--there were new CD and vinyl masters simultaneously...and they DID sell the "for vinyl" masters as HDT (in the 192khz). Maybe we'll see more of this thing happening once this vinyl **** peters out...maybe they're withholding HD dynamic content hoping it will be more valuable when streaming HD really becomes a bidding war for "important" artists exclusive content.

 

Can not buy (Court & Spark) in the US of A.

 

VPN?

 

The Qobuz download store sells it.

 

I think PSM still has it & they've been running a Joni sale

 

Yes. Very true. You need to take that back to 1978. Digital has a long throw. The 3M 32 track digital recorder was around in 1979.

 

8 bits. That's good! LOL But I think we aren't there yet. 8 bits would have a signal to noise ratio of 48 db! That would be hissy as freakin' hell. 10 bits? Probably, with the DRs of 2 and 3.