Skip to main content
Topic: HDTracks 2017 sampler (Read 3566 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #25
No, I firmly stand by my statement. You cannot judge audio quality based on graphs, be it FFT or otherwise.

And that is why fraudulent companies like HDTracks will have no problem whatsoever continuing to relieve you of your money.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #26
That the OP would decide to undermine his own topic by raising the (non-issue) of sound quality is more than just a bit awkward.
Arnold's first sound quality point was that audiophiles who tout hi res files as superior haven't detected a non-hi res file by listening. Nothing awkward there.
His second sound quality point was a reply to a false claim that audio quality can't be judged by graphs. Nothing awkward there either, a spectrogram showing for example frequency response similar to a telephone can be assumed to sound like a telephone.

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #27
So we're left with tilting at windmills and reductio ad absurdum.

Yay, another boring anti-audiophool discussion!
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #28
Yes I've noticed such things with other of their "high-res" offerings. You might say that HDTracks helped to convince me that CD-quality actually was all I needed  :D "If it's good enough for HDTracks, it's good enough for me"

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #29
They are 24/96 files though - do they need to be, is the question.  Would you be complaining about a 44.1kHz file if it only used 20kHz of bandwidth? Or when a CD doesn't utilize all 16 bits of dynamic range?

I assume HDtracks contact studios for the the files. This is most likely what the studio supplied. There is likely no hires master available (although I assume the dithering is different in these files.)

You think that 96kHz implies there should be higher frequencies - it does not.

I look at it this way - if we're sure that 44.1kHz is enough (and it is), why are we criticizing a production that does not contain higher frequencies? Or is this a this a technical criticism? The engineer could have saved space by only exporting at 44.1? Would this recording be better if you could see the frequencies above 22.05kHz? No.
Well, would you get pissed if you bought a 50cl bottle of Coca-Cola to find out that it has only been filled up to 33cl?

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #30
I like the mono sound The Frightnrs: Nothing More to Say.  8)

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #31
Perhaps I'm dense, but it seems like the point got lost around the first responsive post, and wandered off the trail, where it fell in the mud and had to fight off mosquitoes.

Arnie didn't say "audio quality." He said "quality." As in "this car is of good quality," which means only that it is a better product than most and is a good value. As in, "how is this a good value at this price," not "how does it sound."

Not sure what all the rest of the noise was about. Or maybe I'm simply missing the point. 

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #32
I guess you missed post #20.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #33
Well, would you get pissed if you bought a 50cl bottle of Coca-Cola to find out that it has only been filled up to 33cl?
A better analogy might be a holistic "medicine" that is claimed to contain a minute amount of something, but in fact contained none. The good news is that it is every bit as effective as the real thing.

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #34
Are there even any legitimate source for buying lossless audio online? I too have had bad experiences across services, specifically beatport and bandcamp, where so called lossless audio clearly isn't. Mailing the stores about the issue does not solve sh*t, and you don't get your money back. Why would I buy something I can't verify is "real". I've waited long for a legit service to appear, but with threads like this appearing every now and then, together with my own experiences on the issue, it seems it won't be any time soon. I won't keep spending money to test weather a service sells real lossless music, so for now I have to stick with ripping CDs. And that's just sad really.

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #35
The lack of assurances of >16-bit/44.1kHz content not withstanding, there has been absolutely no evidence presented in this discussion to suggest that the titles offered by HDTracks have been subjected to lossy compression (of the psychoacoustic variety).
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #36
If you sell "hi-rez", there ought to be authentic audio in the non-audible range, not "filler" (silence, noise, faked harmonics or whatever). Nobody but your dog will be able to hear it, but if it's not there, it's false advertisement.
Audiophools have it coming to them, but it's still a scam... over a scam.

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #37
The second file in the sampler is not pictured because despite being identified as a 24/96 FLAC, it is in fact a 44 KHz FLAC.

At http://www.hdtracks.com/hdtracks-2017-hi-res-sampler it is advertised as "2 Light This Party Up 02:24 44.1/24 "
although they may of course have called it "96" elsewhere.  Since HDtracks invites me to run an application called "HDtracksDownloader.exe", I don't have the download.
“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”
- Donald Trump, May 2017

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #38
HDtracks they need to document their sources with some kind of proof.

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #39
At http://www.hdtracks.com/hdtracks-2017-hi-res-sampler it is advertised as "2 Light This Party Up 02:24 44.1/24 "
although they may of course have called it "96" elsewhere.  Since HDtracks invites me to run an application called "HDtracksDownloader.exe", I don't have the download.
I have to admit I assumed Arnold had made a mistake and verified his reports the day he posted them. The download tool shows it as 96 kHz.

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #40
Whether or not there is any discernible difference between the sort of files advertised and upsampled tracks is immaterial to the point that if hdtracks  are advertising a certain product and charging for it then what they supply should be what is advertised. No different to any other product or service.

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #41
I've reviewed the HD-Tracks 2017 Sampler and I think the first track [01-Jimmie (2016 Remastered).flac] is even worse as expected.

As already mentioned it is band limited to 20kHz, and I assume it has been created from a lossy source.
It shows characteristic lossy encoder artefacts (holes and blocks), please see attached screen shots.

.halverhahn

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #42
Bands that would indicate a psychoacoustic encoding of frequency domain information. Lovely.

 

Re: HDTracks 2017 sampler

Reply #43
HenoughDTracks selling Hi-enough-Rez. (At high-enough-price.)
Just a tiny step down from:
Quote
everything sold on HDtracks is of the highest possible quality

(Now I am getting curious about this "01-Jimmie (2016 Remastered).flac" - or rather: about the un-remastered track.)
“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”
- Donald Trump, May 2017

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018