Thread: Latest Downloads from HDtracks are a major disappointment

Just know that I have suspended all purchases from your site until this is sorted to my satisfaction...

And I am not even sure what that is yet.

Responsibility can be debated endlessly, so I want to move away from endlessly debating it. I'd like to consider instead how SQ of HDTracks' product can affect their commercial success.

As much as any music seller and more than many, HDTracks' reason for existence is the customer's quest for a superior sonic experience. I think we would agree that if music labeled as high-res were actually upsampled Red Book, HDTracks would be failing to give customers what they want, and customers would feel as if they were being cheated.

In the case of a recording that is the resolution it purports to be but doesn't have superior sound quality, customers may not feel cheated, but they may not feel their money has been well spent, either. For example, the 2011 remaster of Nirvana's "Nevermind" is available on HDTracks in 24/96 resolution. I've read considerable commentary about compressed sound on the 2011 Nirvana remasters compared to earlier CD versions. Someone who buys the download and hears sound quality *worse* than his old Nevermind CD is not going to have a positive recollection of his customer experience with HDTracks, in spite of the fact that HDTracks had nothing to do with the fact that the remaster is compressed.

So regardless of any question of responsibility, to me it just makes good business sense for HDTracks to try to ensure an excellent listening experience for the customer insofar as they can possibly do so, since that is what distinguishes them from retailers selling CDs at discounts.

Jud: this is where it gets tricky, as not everyone agrees on the subjective analysis of sound quality:

"In the case of a recording that is the resolution it purports to be but doesn't have superior sound quality, customers may not feel cheated, but they may not feel their money has been well spent, either. For example, the 2011 remaster of Nirvana's "Nevermind" is available on HDTracks in 24/96 resolution. I've read considerable commentary about compressed sound on the 2011 Nirvana remasters compared to earlier CD versions. Someone who buys the download and hears sound quality *worse* than his old Nevermind CD is not going to have a positive recollection of his customer experience with HDTracks, in spite of the fact that HDTracks had nothing to do with the fact that the remaster is compressed."


I believe Chris C. reported that the sound quality of the HDTracks version of Nevermind is excellent... So, who is "right". Some may prefer a slightly compressed version, with the increased punch that could come with that mastering approach, some may prefer the original CD transfer, some may prefer a vinyl issue... So there is really not a "consensus" when it comes to sound quality. Hence my discussion of Rumours, which is cleary real 24/96, but which there are varying opinions as to the subjective sound quality, from "horrible" to "fantastic".


OK, so perhaps it would be better marketing if HDTracks did not use the terminology "Audiophile Quality", despite the fact that this terminology is not defined, and will mean very different things to different listeners. But really, do people here actually believe we are going to get (magical) "Audiophile Quality" downloads of poorly recorded early Rolling Stones albums? I was just listening to an "audiophile quality" native 24/96 recording (direct download from the label) from an "audiophile" label of Stravinsky's Firebird Suite-guess what, there is audible 60 Hz hum throughout-is this acceptable? Certainly this recording checks all the boxes for "audiophile quality", but really, should it have such an obvious flaw? I submit that those people who read the words "Audiophile Quality" and expect that previously poor recordings will somehow be magically transformed beyond what is encoded in the original recording process need to get a little more realistic about their expectations.

My point is, that the realistic consumer, recognizes that any music purchase, whether from HDTracks, Reference Recordings, Amazon, or a used record sale, may turn out to be dissappointing sonically-this is normal, and a risk we accept any time we purchase music from any source. Sure, we read reviews, and go on forums, but ultimately we choose to take the risk, or not, as other's opinions will not always match our own-it is subjective.

barrows, completely agree with everything you say - couldn't have said it better myself.

One additional comment on something you said at the end:

My point is, that the realistic consumer, recognizes that any music purchase, whether from HDTracks, Reference Recordings, Amazon, or a used record sale, may turn out to be dissappointing sonically-this is normal, and a risk we accept any time we purchase music from any source. Sure, we read reviews, and go on forums, but ultimately we choose to take the risk, or not, as other's opinions will not always match our own-it is subjective.

I agree with this as well, but want to point out the seller that goes "above and beyond" in trying to ensure the customer has a good experience may well gain an advantage here. Wouldn't it be refreshing to find notes on the purchase page at the seller's site that, for example, this remastered version of "Nevermind" is more compressed than the previous CD version but is available in a higher resolution, 24/96 as opposed to 16/44.1?

When you're buying anything, particularly a purchase for pleasure, like audio, wouldn't the experience be a whole lot more pleasant if you didn't have to feel "on guard" so much? I don't think we need more marketing terms like "audiophile quality" or "studio master quality" (which B&W applies to 24/44.1 resolution, while Linn applies it to 24/88.2 and above, designating 24/192 as "studio master (192)"), let alone subjective evaluations like "better" or "best." But as many facts as we can get - who did the master/remaster, when, was compression done, what was the original format/resolution and has it been changed... - that, IMHO, would be a great thing, and would pay back the seller who provided such information in increased sales and a happier clientele.

This is just plain wrong:

"IMHO, rule number-one for any so-called audiophile recording or remaster should be zero compression."

See this interview with Bob Ludwig:

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue58/ludwig.htm

There is a big difference between some compression, and too much compression. All pop/rock is going to have some compression, perhaps only applied during recording.mixing, and perhaps only to some tracks/instruments. Properly used, compression is just anothe tool of producing a great sounding recording, and is not some kind of "evil" thing which should be avoided in every case.
I am not advocating for "loudness" as is so oversued in contemporary pop mastering, so please do not even go there.

Hi Kimo,

I really don't know where they originated from. All I can tell you is that I have had the CD of this album for years and it did not have these issues. The release from HDTracks sounds fantastic to my ears, with the exceptions that I mention. If there was only the excessive hiss, or whatever it is on one track, Für Elise, I would not have complained and just enjoyed it. But the static is another thing all together and is just hard to me to understand how that could have been missed.

I understand with and agree regarding statements made about how a high resolution release cannot eliminate problems with the original recording, and that it may even accentuate them by making them more obvious. Unfortunately this is a very clear cut problem that I do not believe has anything to do with the original recording.

Tim

Actually barrows the flow of members' experience is what I hoped for despite my initial disappointment with the SQ. It is this: Like the rest of us I love music for all it's powers for healing and inspiration and...(fill in the blank) Ergo, the deep regret when some impediment is introduced to subtract from that experience. Most of us believe that outcome should be avoided by those who promote, record, sell etc. along that chain. As a former practicing attorney responsibility can be be assigned to different parties with different degrees of responsibilities.

At this moment, I am listening to Barbra streisand's What Matters Most disc 2 which I converted to AIFF files using XLD from the original red book CDs. The SQ is gorgeous (imagine Barbra saying that with her characteristic inflictions). Apparently, the red book CDs were mastered and mass produced with superb SQ. The clarity, presence, sound stage is huge. I do not feel the need to improve on this conversion. Other examples, I have experienced that exemplify high SQ include recordings, even in red book format, by Stevie Wonder, Paul Simon, Sting and many, many more etc.

Even if I am OT with my own thread, I highly recommend any one to give this CD a listen while I have also taken the liberty to articulate what I believe is not acceptable.

I don't think greentrumpet should regret deciding to wait for some validation before purchasing a title for, aside from the expense, the disappointment and let down is palpable. I am a therapist now; and I can easily understand how the disappointment a child feels can be traced to an adult's experience of expectation followed by disappointment in the same realm. And while the lament of sleeve information, greentrumpet calls it, that matters to him, I too regret those notices that alert the buyer that liner notes, as I refer to them, are not included because I actually read them. Here's a perfect example where HDtracks bears no responsibility because they are missing. What prevents the label from including those liner notes considering they were already created is a mystery. The point: That ommision is an obvious example where one can not hold the ultimate vendor responsible and, still, we can feel disappointed. No blame intended!

Perhaps I am getting too far into the EI (emotional intelligence) of the matter.

I am glad this thread provides an outlet to deal with issues that matter to us around procuring, playing, music and what flows from the experiences favorable and not so favorable.

Glad to learn what we're feeling and what we might do to remedy/resolve many of what does not work for us in addition to the technical/component interests. At least for me.

Thanks to all for the feedback.

Best,
Richard

Hey, I'm post-baby-boom. I'm all about blaming shortcomings on other people and taking no responsibility.

In fact, I think it is unfair if someone, for example, buys a DAC that claims it can decode 24-bit/192kHz tracks, and then they get it home and find out it really does 16/48, and then starts dissing the vendor.

Hey, maybe some Chinese melamine baby milk factory used the wrong chip in their slave-labor camp, and the importer and company selling the DAC simply didn't notice.

Hey, it isn't their fault.

We should just be grateful there are companies that are so altruistic that they are willing to stoop to sell us any type of digital to analogue converter at all.

After all, we should learn to listen with our ears, and not pay so much attention to numbers. The important thing is that if you pay $12K for that DAC, you should be proud of your purchase. Don't let some graph-paper-brained bozo tell you any different.

Without identifying specific posters, truly thoughtful sharing is being expressed in this thread; and the tone of this discussion reflects thoughtful and deeply felt perspectives which I believe indicates how much we value the rendition of music without getting caught up in contentious squabbling with what the attributes of excellence in SQ must include.

The mystery. The Magic. The Ah! The sound of music.

I am proposing we know it when we can hear it. There are visceral responses that makes us want to get out of our chairs and dance or sit (or lie) down and let the music flow and enter into the realms created by the sound like a Sibelius tone poem or tear-up from hearing the vulnerability in a Monk piano solo recording because one can hear/feel/discern his genius, his illness, his "heart" transcending in sound.

Do we deserve excellence in the rendition? Yes! Do "they" owe us that for payement for the art of the sound? I think so! Is that guaranteed to us when we purchase hard copies and pay for them? No, unfortunately. As it has been expressed, there are no guarantees that the SQ will be there because we want it and paid for it. The SQ, whatever we can agree on, is present sensorily because along the line of creativity from composer to the final artwork, liner notes and packaging those involved held those values to be paramount and with intention to make it so with care, attention and skill.

I remember there was a time when anything with a Warner Bros'. label signified one could readily being paying for garbage or mediocre quality at best and rarely excellence. Today that is not the case (if you disagree, fine). The Criterion Collection videos (sorry to mix the media) label forecasted just the opposite (if you disagree, fine.) Excellence in production because Criterion made it so and one pays a bit more for the privilege. I personally did not influence Criterion to make it so. I did avoid Warner Bros. as much as possible.

You pays your money and takes your chances doesn't cut it. It may not be HDtracks' job or Other purveyors. Not looking to tear down anyone or any business. Just the opposite: Please, take my money. I will pay for whistling while I listen. Consensus may be difficult to achieve, but guidance can be found from those who pursue excellence and publish.

I, for one, started this thread for the idea of aligning with, communicating what we value and sharing the art of the possible by expressing it out into the World while we find a way to influence those who do the heavy lifting and render unto us. In this instance can we be the (worthy) Caesar?

PS
Aside from the recognition Amarra got (lately from Stereophile), when many of us expressed our discontent with this flawed program that gives and takes, I wonder if the resonance expressed at this forum (didn't someone mention us in a recent company newsletter?) was felt sufficiently (awards aside) by Sonic to "improve" the performance of the program. SQ has been and remains a much often characteristic that bonds many of us to the product even with its er' eccentricities. This mysterious attribute of music has legs, I suspect.

To quote Max Bialystock in The Producers, "I want that SQ!!!"
Best,
Richard

Kimo and Golds, I am sure you are both more experienced mastering engineers, with a greater knowledge of how to produce great sound, and with a greater body of fantastic sounding recordings credited to your names than Bob Ludwig.... Really.

And WG, I do not see anyone here giving HDTracks a free pass for selling something different from they claim. No one is suggesting that HDTracks should not be held responsible for claiming a given download is 24/96, when in reality it is some other format. Did you even read the thread?

Penn State? Relevance?

Really now...

Compression, limiting, and many other processes are just approaches used to produce the best results. These are subjective in nature. The mythic concept of some kind of "truth" is exactly that when it comes to recordings produced in a studio environment. The recording studio, the mixing desk, and the mastering studio are just extensions of the creative process when it comes to albums like Rumours. Appropriate use of compression, limiting, reverb, EQ, etc. are just tools used to contribute to the musical meaning. These tools can be either used in a way which is relevant to the original artistic intent, or to create something different, separate from the intent of the musician.
Music which is created in a studio recording environment is a totally different thing from music which is created through live performance-niether is more valid than the other.
Compression, limiting, and many other processes can be applied either as a service to the intent of the musician, or to, somehow, increase the apparent "value" of the "product". As long as the use of recording processes is such that it serves the intent of the musician, then it is applied in good faith, regardless of how an "audiophile" might choose to view it.