• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

My first day as an Audacity Cowboy

I suppose if one can claim ultrasonic transients effect what one hears, one can claim ultrasonic sampling can effect a mic that can't hear it either. And one wouldn't expect vocals to have such range.
 
1) beware of 'DR' readings from LPs
2) yes, 'high rez' releases have been unpredictably compressed and/or bandwidth-limited (i.e., not the 'audiophile' quality claimed) ever since they were first touted. Here's a thread I start about dynamic range compression in DVD-Audio releases, way back in 2008 (discussing some older DVD-As). Stereophile also ran an 'expose' on this , some years back.

It's been a scam from day 1. HDTracks isn't 100% fault, since they only sell whatever files the record companies give them. They don't do their own transfers. They *should* check their files though. They *should* make it clear that the format is not the sound. Sticking a Redbook master in a 96/24 container doesn't make it 'high resolution'.


3) if we're gonna do this, we should agree on what FFT settings to use. Audition offers a number of FFT size and window options, for example.
 
Last edited:
krabapple said:
1) beware of 'DR' readings from LPs
2) yes, 'high rez' releases have been unpredictably compressed and/or bandwidth-limited (i.e., not the 'audiophile' quality claimed) ever since they were first touted. Here's a thread I start about dynamic range compression in DVD-Audio releases, way back in 2008 (discussing some older DVD-As). Stereophile also ran an 'expose' on this , some years back.

It's been a scam from day 1. HDTracks isn't 100% fault, since they only sell whatever files the record companies give them. They don't do their own transfers. They *should* check their files though. They *should* make it clear that the format is not the sound. Sticking a Redbook master in a 96/24 container doesn't make it 'high resolution'.


3) if we're gonna do this, we should agree on what FFT settings to use. Audition offers a number of FFT size and window options, for example.
Click to expand...


IF HD tracks is not going to check and verify their stuff they are not going to get anything from me, they are simply lying to me by branding anything without verifying it. Right from the beginning they damn well knew what they were doing, cheating.
 
I made a request to HDTracks to publish the DR numbers in the About This Album info tab but never received any reply. LOL
I was a bit hot after purchasing Bonnie Raitt's new Dig In Deep release. There had been a review and interview in Stereophile where she talked about being excited to do a "audiophile" release, etc, etc. so as soon as HDT's got it, I jumped. I guess they were referring to the LP as after I downloaded it I measured and found it to have a DR7 :mad:
If you google I think you'll find me making a few posts on some audiophile sites about the issue. I was not happy. The Grammy winning Nick and Draw had measured like 13/14.
In all its a nice enough sounding release but I got such a booner over the issue I didn't listen to it enough to appreciate it until a few weeks back. LOL
Anyways it is sad the labels release such crap to the HDA distributors, IMO this is not High Definition quality mastering.
 
HD track means little if you don't know the provenance of the recording or indeed as you say the dynamic range.

The labels have no clue what's what! It's a den of ignorance! Record executives are clueless, it's just about profit. Fidelity is insignificant to them, even if they were to understood what it means.. Which in the main they don't!
 
Thomas savage said:
HD track means little if you don't know the provenance of the recording or indeed as you say the dynamic range.

The labels have no clue what's what! It's a den of ignorance! Record executives are clueless, it's just about profit. Fidelity is insignificant to them, even if they were to understood what it means.. Which in the main they don't!
Click to expand...
Sure, but I don't think you can claim ignorance or cluelessness. The greedy bastards are laughing all the way to the bank at the stupid audiophiles paying premium prices for downloads (no manufacturing or distribution costs) while they quick rip a analog tape to a big bit bucket.
There are some releases being done that are worth it, the Wilson-Hoffman remasters being a couple examples. But the vast majority of the classic rock stuff being released is just more snake-oil.
What a bunch of chumps we can be. :(
 
Sal1950 said:
Sure, but I don't think you can claim ignorance or cluelessness. The greedy bastards are laughing all the way to the bank at the stupid audiophiles paying premium prices for downloads (no manufacturing or distribution costs) while they quick rip a analog tape to a big bit bucket.
There are some releases being done that are worth it, the Wilson-Hoffman remasters being a couple examples. But the vast majority of the classic rock stuff being released is just more snake-oil.
What a bunch of chumps we can be. :(
Click to expand...
Ah, if you look into conspiracy and such cynical intent as you suggest the origin is more often than not ignorance and incompetence but in this case we don't know.

I did read a interview from the owner founder of hdtracks that claimed mass ignorance on the behalf of record executives in regards to recording origin and fidelity. They simply never worried about it so did not know.

We lose either way! We can agree totally on that.. The rest is accidemic.
 
Thomas savage said:
Ah, if you look into conspiracy and such cynical intent as you suggest the origin is more often than not ignorance and incompetence but in this case we don't know.
Click to expand...

Banner = "High Definition Music | The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads"

That's what they claim, and that's the expectation, b/c audiophiles have never required extensive documentation in the past towards justifying these type of purchases ... we simply required text indicating "rec. from master" or acronyms indicating "higher-resolution/definition".

Why should things change now?

Not long ago, I was looking at a particular classic rock album available @HD Tracks for $20 in 96/24. Of course, no provenance based documentation was afforded. This particular recording has been re/mastered numerous times. However, often, simply looking at the track/song time/lengths are enough to indicate which version it may have been derived. In this case, the track times indicated a certain original/mastered pressing. Yet, the track times proved to be incorrect, derived from a different master/pressing altogether.

If they can't even get the basic info correct ...
 
Last edited:
TBone said:
Banner = "High Definition Music | The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads"

That's what they claim, and that's the expectation, b/c audiophiles have never required extensive documentation in the past towards justifying these type of purchases ... we simply required text indicating "rec. from master" or acronyms indicating "higher-resolution/definition".

Why should things change now?

Not long ago, I was looking at a particular classic rock album available @HD Tracks for $20 in 96/24. Of course, no provenance based documentation was afforded. This particular recording has been re/mastered numerous times. However, often, simply looking at the track/song time/lengths are enough to indicate which version it may have been derived. In this case, the track times indicated a certain original/mastered pressing. However, the track times proved to be incorrect, it was actually derived from a different master/pressing altogether.

If they can't even get the basic info correct ...
Click to expand...
Yea, I am not defending them as ignorance is no defence but they do seem to just take the record companies word for it and only look into things when they get a million complaints about a offering.

I totally agree with you by the way, it's a broken system when they can ups sample some terrible crap and claim it's a great recording.

Sampling rates mean little but are the headlines used to market stuff, let's face it could the public handle anything else?

I want the recording to take centre stage, just delivered at what ever rate it was mastered in. Provenance of recording given, it's all that matters as we all know.
 
I've no need for re-buying/storing huge files which contain the same information (or less) as my 16/44 media.

I've had my fill of over/up/xquadrupled sampling promises; unless it was rec.natively in "hi-rez", little interest to me.

My only remaining interest w/xsampling, is none. Still looking to find/mod/lampi an older TDA1541 design (Philips/Marantz), 'em's my kicks ...
 
krabapple said:
1) beware of 'DR' readings from LPs
Click to expand...

I'd rather be aware ... not "beware" ... b/c in generalist/simplistic terms, sure, certainly turntable playback s.quality remains a moving target, yet even a well-setup $400 Technics 1200 can recreate proper DR values.
 
they?

recently, while playing within my CD collection; same song, 5 different labels/sku#/mastering ...
upload_2016-6-24_11-40-25.png
 
well, my stereo will be disabled this weekend. During summer months, when not north doing Stews bidding, the only "audiophiling" I'll be doing is rec.needle-drops and maybe rebuild/fix a turntable or two, and/or lampi a old cdp, or perhaps re-cap one of my amps (as you can see, like Amir, a lot of wishful thinking goes on here also) ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bargainguy
Selling an 800+ CD lot: My experience
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
JimBean
JimBean
N
Just got some new PA speakers to play around with - "something old, and something new!"
Replies
6
Views
469
AnalogSteph
AnalogSteph
NTTY
Marantz CD6007 Review (CD Player)
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
9K
NTTY
NTTY
R
Active monitors with deep low end
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Rasboo
R
NTTY
Pioneer PD-30 Review (CD/SACD Player)
Replies
8
Views
1K
NTTY
NTTY
Back
Top Bottom