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

Think I've only had to do this a couple times for DL's.
Of course for all the 12's/7's etc.. I do the 600's are fine. With a cheapy Fire tablet I use as a remote a 1024 probably wouldn't do me any good
Not too bad!

 

Cory, I need to introduce you and @JeffMo to a "genius".

(for those of you not in the know, Apple moronically calls their salespeople "geniuses".)

 

My Oppo 95 has issues with anything over 400x400 if the audio file is 192/24...........

 

PSM has a new edition of the 80's self titled heart album, which has always sounded awful to me in any format. I hope this is an upgrade, but their tech notes (to paraphrase) seem to state that it's pretty low quality, though analog sourced.

The version I have is also dated 2017, & is a bright DR9.

Search Results for Heart - ProStudioMasters

 

Heart / Heart hi res is the best sounding version of this album that I have heard digitally. It has the remixed single versions of a few songs, at least the version I bought in 2017. Yes it’s still bright but the mids have been boosted a bit so it’s not as bright as any cd version I have. I think this is why the DR values are less.

 

I think I'll stick with my 1994 MFSL gold CD on this title.

Try https://www.albumartexchange.com/
You have to create a log-in, but it's worth the effort - they have some good quality cover art.
And just a heads up - You have to sign in with Your own IP address, You can't be using a VPN. I almost got thrown off the board for it once.

 

I used to own the MFSL. I remember If Looks Could Kill which starts the album as being REALLY bright.

 

Sadly, I have to agree with you.

 

I have the MFSL cd. I like the hi res version better for the remixes and the UK Nimbus CD for the original versions.

 

Can anyone tell me if the Led Zeppelin downloads you got in the Super Deluxe big boxes are the same as the Hires downloads available on the download sites? I am not sure what the resolution was on the downloads that came in the boxes.

 

The Super Deluxes included 96-24 downloads. Pretty sure that's the highest resolution available on the download sites.

 

Yep, re: the dl sites, & I wasn't all that impressed with the sound. I have a fan made SACD with the first 5 albums that I prefer. Nor sure what that was sourced from, but it sounds really good.

 

Thanks for posting this. It reflects my experience of listening to it. Loud and fatiguing. A huge disappointment

 

I'm inclined to believe they must be, as they include the same bonus tracks as the physical editions.
I was a bit underwhelmed by those remasters. OK dynamics IIRC, but Page seemed to have forgotten J.P. Jones was in the band....most of the bottom end seems sucked out of them.

 

Waahhh. Can't they get anything right anymore? AUDIOPHILES DON'T WANT BRICKED CRAP!

 

Except it isn't even remotely brickwalled. DR numbers are pointless - and the people who are obsessed with them could never even identify if something was lossy, which says a lot.



Also, the 24/96 download is pointless because there is a 22khz cut off.

 

Disagree with all.

 

Question on The Who's Tommy. There are two versions, one that is the Deluxe version with lots of extras and one that is just the album. I believe the album proper is different among the two. HDTracks only carries the deluxe and Quobuz and PSM carry both. My question is for the main album which is better and is there much difference.

 

It's not brickwalled, but it is mastered loud enough that the peaks are badly clipped, as you can see in your waveform graph, especially toward the right side. Just listening to the samples on HDtracks.com, I don't like the sound, though I suspect it has more to do with the way the bass is recorded and mixed — it never seems to vary in volume, producing a constant low-frequency pressure on the ear that I find very unpleasant. I don't think that effect is due to mastering; it was probably recorded or mixed that way. But in addition to that, the dynamics feel rather squashed in general.

As for the 22 kHz cut-off, the overwhelming majority of humans can't hear anything that high anyway, so whether it's cut off or not has no effect on our experience of the music. If ultrasonic frequencies were the only issue, then arguably the whole idea of HD audio would be ridiculous. Personally, I think 24-bit resolution is more important than higher sample rates, but I wonder whether increased time-domain resolution could produce a more accurate sense of space due to more accurate timing of echoes. That's not my area of expertise, though.

DR numbers aren't completely pointless, but they're not as interesting as many people around here seem to think. DR isn't a very good measurement of anything, and it certainly is not a measurement of compression. Nevertheless, very low DR numbers do tend to correspond to overly loud, clipped/limited/compressed masters.

 

Looks pretty compressed to me. It's certainly not as dynamic as it should have been.

 

The Woodstock complete (other than hendrix) 96/24 box is on sale at HDT for $400.


20% off $400 with code FLOWER20HD

 

practically giving it away!

 

Wasn't the limited cd set around $1200?

 

At least half of this is upsampled 16/44.1 or 24/44.1, though, for reasons that are unknown to me (why it is upsampled, why it isn't identified as such and why it isn't all 24/96)