Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 63 of 63

Thread: TFTO - hi res on HDTracks

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by laurainspace View Post
    wtf is with all these numbers?!
    Quote Originally Posted by laurainspace View Post
    I just want to listen to my favorite music in the universe, on 5.1
    Sometimes simple numbers are hard to avoid?

    Digital resolution is actually pretty simple:

    Redbook (regular old CD) = 16/44
    "Hi-Res" typically = 24/96 or 24/192

    SACD is 24/176

    That's rounded numbers and basically all you need to know. Don't fear, this isn't Euclidian Geometry.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Udi Koomran View Post
    the HDTracks scenario as far as I understand is unlike the usual deal were the mastering tasks and costs are handled by whoever is licensing that album right? Here its all in the hands of the label right ?

    We were so persuasively and consistently educated by you amongst these pages of the golden formula - [b}Original Tapes+clean high quality transfer +neutral remaster ala Hoffman =Definitive
    So if so simple a task by all terms how come have they been fucking it up so consistently?
    Its not that easy to find those original tapes and its hard to find that righteous pro to handle this technically (they all love that loud big smiley right ??)

    Actually it might just be possible that at long last after fucking up for ages they really followed that recipe and the result indeed yielded that definitive status and the fact its sounds so damn good (which I am sure it does)
    And to the point : I am not doubting some of these HDTracks sound awesome (I might even for once might try this out cause I love this album a lot ) but this has very little to do with the fact the final result its either 192K or 96 K it much more has to do with the sources transfer and mastering - They will sound just as good in 24 bit 44.1 K -
    I don't quite follow your opening lines. You realize I am not a part of HDtracks and do not know not a single person working there, right?

    Hence, I can't answer these questions.

    The last part I basically agree with. I do think someone who is really able to hear hi-res will find a bit more smoothness on the hi-res files, but the difference is minimal. Frankly, the purchases I've made from HDtracks that I'm happy with have nothing to do with "hi-res" and everything to do with mastering and source.

    The HDtracks version of The Yes Album, for example, is truly stunning. It has all the clarity of the MFSL but is more dynamic and has better punch. Tales I also really like so far. CttE is really nice but there isn't really any hi-res info there. That could be about the master tapes and nothing to with the transfer. But it doesn't really matter. It sounds very good although I would say just a touch bright. GFTO was a bit too bright. I prefer Hoffman's. Yesshows I didn't much care for. Not enough bottom end. That's all the Yes I've heard from them.

  3. #53
    Member bp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    on the shore of the Lake Of Shadows
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Udi Koomran View Post
    up-sampling = fraud
    Upsampling can be helpful in some cases provided that the original recording was not a 44.1 or 48 k digital. What I mean by helpful is the end user using a very high quality converter with great SRC (my current piece is a Dangerous Music Source). Even using an iTunes library, the Source can really smooth the top end out when upsampling to 192k.

    This is very different from selling a product as 192k when the original master was a 44.1 digital recording. That it marketing BS (fraud) that should be criminal. Making a 192k master from a proper analog mix master (as should be the case for 70s recordings) can sound exceptional. From what I understand, many of the early Peter Gabriel SACD re-releases were from the original-first gen 1/2' masters and the depth, dynamics and tone put the original vinyl to shame.

    It needs to be understood that analog masters won't show extended upper frequency content just because the sample rate allows for more in the release format. Higher sample rates DO provide much better rise time the midrange frequencies for certain waveforms. For instance a 500 Hz square wave has a quicker rise time than a 20,000 Hz sine wave. This may sound like tech speak but it has a huge amount to do with the perception of imaging, depth and dynamics.

    In any case there should be clear documentation including the source material (format) and mastering technique made available to the customer prior to purchase. HD Tracks should get all of their material from record companies (except in the rare cases when artist own the masters) but they should require the provenience of the masters that they license for release. After all how can they properly sell something as "HD" if it isn't. This is the point where words like fraud can be applied.
    support live music

    Google is your fiend.

  4. #54
    Member bp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    on the shore of the Lake Of Shadows
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffCarney View Post
    SACD is 24/176
    ? PCM ?

    SACD is originally 1 bit / 2.8224 MHz PDM (aka DSD). Some DSD recorder have doubled the sample rate of DSD.

    When you refer to DSD = 24/176, do you refer to software that converts the DSD stream to PCM at 24 bit / 176.4k?

    Redbook is 44.1k/16 bit
    other professional PCM sample rates (without the pull up/down variants) are
    48k
    88.2k
    96k
    176.4k
    192k
    352.8k
    384k
    support live music

    Google is your fiend.

  5. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Philadelphia Area
    Posts
    1,805
    Quote Originally Posted by beep View Post
    ? PCM ?

    SACD is originally 1 bit / 2.8224 MHz PDM (aka DSD). Some DSD recorder have doubled the sample rate of DSD.

    When you refer to DSD = 24/176, do you refer to software that converts the DSD stream to PCM at 24 bit / 176.4k?

    Redbook is 44.1k/16 bit
    other professional PCM sample rates (without the pull up/down variants) are
    48k
    88.2k
    96k
    176.4k
    192k
    352.8k
    384k
    There's safety in numbers

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by beep View Post
    ? PCM ?

    SACD is originally 1 bit / 2.8224 MHz PDM (aka DSD). Some DSD recorder have doubled the sample rate of DSD.

    When you refer to DSD = 24/176, do you refer to software that converts the DSD stream to PCM at 24 bit / 176.4k?

    Redbook is 44.1k/16 bit
    other professional PCM sample rates (without the pull up/down variants) are
    48k
    88.2k
    96k
    176.4k
    192k
    352.8k
    384k
    I guess you missed that I simply broke down the basics for someone who apparently finds all of these "numbers" confusing.

    For example, I suspect she'll live just fine if she understands a CD to be 44/16 and not 44.1/16.

  7. #57
    I downloaded TFTO at 24/192 from HDtracks. I think this is the best digital offering of this title without a doubt.

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Philadelphia Area
    Posts
    1,805
    I recently purchased a turntable and of course one of the first LPs on my list to listen to was TFTO. When I played it I found it blew me away. I hadn't heard it on vinyl since probably the early 80's. I had to record it to disc and see if it still was much better than any version I had on CD and to found it to blow away any CD version I've heard.

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Fracktured View Post
    I recently purchased a turntable and of course one of the first LPs on my list to listen to was TFTO. When I played it I found it blew me away. I hadn't heard it on vinyl since probably the early 80's. I had to record it to disc and see if it still was much better than any version I had on CD and to found it to blow away any CD version I've heard.
    Which vinyl version?

  10. #60
    Not a fan of the HDtracks Tales. It's much brighter than the original UK vinyl and that is already pretty crisp.

    People who like the Rhino will probably dig it.

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffCarney View Post
    Not a fan of the HDtracks Tales. It's much brighter than the original UK vinyl and that is already pretty crisp.

    People who like the Rhino will probably dig it.
    Darn it. I definitely don't dig the Rhino's sound for TFTO, although I love the packaging, bonus tracks, and extended intro for TRSOG.

  12. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by yesstiles View Post
    Darn it. I definitely don't dig the Rhino's sound for TFTO, although I love the packaging, bonus tracks, and extended intro for TRSOG.
    Well, many are just raving about the HDtracks, so you might like it. My guess is that it was EQd pretty heavily to try to bring out some extra "air." For me, it sounds overcooked. The UK LP has plenty of air for my taste.

    I suspect that pretty much any clean vinyl pressing will win out over any CD version or the HDtracks download.

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffCarney View Post
    Well, many are just raving about the HDtracks, so you might like it. My guess is that it was EQd pretty heavily to try to bring out some extra "air." For me, it sounds overcooked. The UK LP has plenty of air for my taste.

    I suspect that pretty much any clean vinyl pressing will win out over any CD version or the HDtracks download.
    My 1980's US Atlantic LP sounds heavenly on Sides 2 & 3, not so great on Side 1 & 4 (my favorite sides!). Different stampers used on those sides. So I usually go to my 1988 USA Atlantic fatboy cd set, which is subdued but still sounds great imo.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •