Are HD Tracks Worth it?

A friend of mine offered to purchase me an album on HD Tracks http://www.hdtracks.com/

The album I want is in 24/96 - my question is, is it worth it to spend the money on HD Tracks to get higher rez audio files or is it just a waste of money?

I am interested in your thoughts an opinions and if it is wise to purchase on HD Tracks or just a waste of money.

Thank you my friends and fellow members.

 

Warning - warning - personal opinion ahead.

It depends.

I find that David Chesky, Bob Katz and a few others know how to record / mix / master 24x96 very well. Others I am not so sure. In some cases of hi-rez (not necessarily hd-tracks) the hi-rez is an upsample from 16x44. And not all sample rate converters perform well. A colleague and I presented a meeting to AES on SRC performance demonstrating results of the wide variance.

Personally, I have ceased acquiring new hi-rez since going down the Schiit MultiBit DAC path. I still appreciate Chesky and Reference Recordings, the latter uses a Pacific Microsonics MultiBit A/D for conversion INTO the digital domain. It does make a difference. It is useful to have a few examples of those two recommendations for your own experimentation and to draw your own conclusions.

 

If I recall correctly there were quite many albums where they uploaded 'false' high res albums, and only quietly fixed some after multiple complains. I guess it's still a caveat emptor situation today, although it shouldn't be so.

 

well the album my friend was going to get me for Christmas is a newer album so I am not sure. I am extremely tempted to accept his generous Christmas offer, but I also did some research and read that older music does actually sound better in high-Rez - not sure about newer albums.

Do you have any other thoughts @atomicbob ?

 

Two albums that might prove useful for personal evaluation are:

The Ultimate Headphone Demonstration Disc - Chesky (I own this in 24x96 flac)
HRX2011 - Reference Recordings - 24x176.4 delivered on DVD

 

I'm curious. What' is your opinion of @baldr's claim that burrito upsampled redbook is better than high-res content:
"But arrogantly we do not care about high-res, because [...] we have the mega-burrito filter. And that's... better than high-res."

If you had the opportunity to use the burrito filter as a plugin/software/filter in your PC player or within a DDC box, would that be the end of the high-res industry, for you? As in, if you could use the upsampling algorithm with other DACs out there...

 

Sometimes the 24bit version is a different ("better") mix. The dynamic range database can give some insight on differences in recordings.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/

 

I agree with @Cspirou except I would replace the word mix with mastering. (Although, I have read that some newer recordings are dynamically limited in the mix, sometimes in the mix + in the mastering. For older recordings, just in the mastering.)

Often the Hi-Res (from any vendor) has the mastering of the current CD version. Sometimes it will be based on the same mastering as the current vinyl (if cut from Hi-Res digital). There are a few exceptions to both of these but they are kind of rare.

If I knew the title, I could try doing a bit of research and see if I come up with anything useful. (It is really a case by case sort of thing, unfortunately.)

In my experience, Hi-Res alone has not resulted in me enjoying the sound more than 16-44.1.

 

Yeah, it's pretty much all about the mastering. I'd happily pay for a more dynamic mix, especially if it could be found on CD.

Weezer's Everything Will Be Alright... was a much better sounding record in a hi-rez format, which was basically a very dynamic master, unlike the original CD. I don't think the extra size made the difference - sounded great converted to 320 AAC too.

It would be great if artists & record companies made a big deal about this. Too bad most of the public isn't concerned about it.

 

(Disclaimer: comments not specific to HDTracks.com)

High resolution audio is a minefield. Some of the stuff has been exposed as merely upsampled CD material. Some are 24bit/96kHz versions of the same thing that was eventually downsampled to 16bit/44,1 kHz, meaning it has the same dynamic range. Ideally you will want to find material that has high dynamic range, higher than the CD version. The website Computer Audiophile (no affiliation) has forums specifically for objective analysis of HD music. It´s a pretty good source for looking at what material is worth potentially buying. There´s also the Dynamic Range Database as Cspirou posted above - fantastic resource!

My experience has been that a high dynamic range is much more audible (as in better sounding) than a higher bitrate/sample rate. Unfortunately most music these days is compressed to hell and back. That´s why if you have older CD´s they usually sound a lot better than any recent remasters. Some good examples: Metallica, George Michael, Sade, Dire Straits, Madonna and Michael Jackson.

(In the rare case of high dynamic range HD audio vs. standard definition high dynamic range, maybe there is a little improvement; I´m not confident in saying I could tell the difference in a blind test though)

 

In my library and for my chain, the "hi-res" purchases have not been a better value. As Cspirou and Dino mentioned, mostly improvements are closer to the engineers involved.

On the other hand, if Glass Hammer or Steven Wilson is involved, I jump at hi-res availability (although redbook is fine). And since you have DT in your sig, I add that only two albums are better hi-res values, Systematic Chaos and A Dramatic Turn of Events.