[ted_b]

Our good buddy Bruce Brown, Puget Sound, has informed us that he and the folks at HDTracks are undertaking a huge re-assessment of the files they receive from labels.  Why?  Cuz, for example, some of the Verve and much of the BIS stuff was not all native HiRez; after some electronic waveform sleuthing Bruce uncovered that they were upsampled from redbook and not fit for their HiRez store category.

This is an issue in that HDTracks as yet to announce anything formally, but have consistently offered refunds or download-again-when-hirez-file-appears to anyone who writes/contacts them.  The only ways you'll know:
1) the title you bought is no longer on their HiRez store listing; or
2) it just doesn't sound right to you and you inquire.....

FYI.  I'll keep everyone abreast of this.  A couple of forums have posters who raised this discussion to somewhat feverish levels and accused HDTracks of everything including fraud...but it's clear (to me) that HDTracks received inaccurate information and/or files.  They are cleaning it up, offering refunds, and likely will announce something once the scope of the problem is identified.   Stay tuned.

[werd]

How will HD tracks know if its mastered hirez or not. They will have to do an audit of sometype. They have lots of 9624 titles.

[ted_b]

First off, all the Chesky stuff is known, of course, and all the stuff that Bruce did himself (SACD rips) are known too.  But yes, it's a big undertaking and they will have to spot audit labels I guess.  I sent Bruce an email with the text, so maybe he'll respond, or even post here.

[DSD_Mastering]

Unfortunately Ted, the thousands of rips I did from SACD were NOT checked. It was assumed, since it was on SACD, that the labels recorded in hi-rez. It wasn't until last year when we found out that a few labels were taking 24/44.1 files and upsampling them to DSD that we started checking the new files that we recieve. We are slowly checking those thousands of rips that I did over the past couple of years and when we find one, it gets pulled from the site. Technically 24/44.1 is hi-rez, but is not what was advertized at 24/88.2
There has been mention on the forums of a RR file that is not hi-rez, but I haven't gotten word to check it yet. But as soon as I find one, HDtracks is quick to take it down from the site.


Regards,

[mcullinan]

This was originally a topic of discussion on the Slim Devices forum. Glad to see that something is being done about it.
M

[ted_b]

Thanks Bruce.  So...wow, this is not solely an HDtracks issue as it is a labels issue having to do with properly marketing SACD (and DVD-Audio for that matter).  Meaning, some of our own SACD's could very well be simple upsamples.....argh!  We all know the Norah Jones Come Away With Me redbook-upsample 2 channel SACD story, thought to be a one-off (cuz the 5.1 was not done that way, and the 2 channel mixup was supposedly inadvertent) but guess it's not. 

[DSD_Mastering]

Unfortunately Ted, there are quite a few labels upsampling files to DSD and putting out SACD's.



Regards,

[ted_b]

Unfortunately Ted, there are quite a few labels upsampling files to DSD and putting out SACD's.



Regards,

Bruce,
Would you put transferring analog master tapes to 24 bit/xxx and then converting to DSD, or transferring analog master tapes direct to DSD in the same "faux upsampled" category? 

[DSD_Mastering]

Bruce,
Would you put transferring analog master tapes to 24 bit/xxx and then converting to DSD, or transferring analog master tapes direct to DSD in the same "faux upsampled" category?

It is my opinion that anything going to SACD should be recorded directly to either DSD64/128fs or DXD (24/352.
Transferring analog tape direct to DSD or DXD is worthy. Every tape that we get in here that goes to digital is recorded at 32/352.8kHz.


Regards

[Napalm]

Unfortunately Ted, the thousands of rips I did from SACD were NOT checked. It was assumed, since it was on SACD, that the labels recorded in hi-rez. It wasn't until last year when we found out that a few labels were taking 24/44.1 files and upsampling them to DSD that we started checking the new files that we recieve. We are slowly checking those thousands of rips that I did over the past couple of years and when we find one, it gets pulled from the site. Technically 24/44.1 is hi-rez, but is not what was advertized at 24/88.2
There has been mention on the forums of a RR file that is not hi-rez, but I haven't gotten word to check it yet. But as soon as I find one, HDtracks is quick to take it down from the site.


Regards,

Why pull them, just relabel them as "upsampled from 24/44.1". What really matters is that the description is honest.

Nap.

[werd]

Hello DCD_mastering

We are beginning to see all these 32 bit dacs coming out now. Would you be able to shed some light maybe to what they are a prelude to. Maybe some type of hirez standard in the forseeable future? Or are they just marketing bits?

[DSD_Mastering]

Hello DCD_mastering
We are beginning to see all these 32 bit dacs coming out now. Would you be able to shed some light maybe to what they are a prelude to. Maybe some type of hirez standard in the forseeable future? Or are they just marketing bits?

It's a marketing tool. You would never be able to even come close to it's potential. Every bit is about 6dB..   so 24-bit DAC's are about 144dB dynamic range. I know of no speaker or media that produce those dynamics. Much less 192dB of 32-bit.

Regards

[werd]

It's a marketing tool. You would never be able to even come close to it's potential. Every bit is about 6dB..   so 24-bit DAC's are about 144dB dynamic range. I know of no speaker or media that produce those dynamics. Much less 192dB of 32-bit.

Regards

Hello

Yes, no doubt. But what about the 32bit output. Would it not look closer to full wave analogue than even 24 bit?
Is there not that advantage?.

[DSD_Mastering]

Hello
Yes, no doubt. But what about the 32bit output. Would it not look closer to full wave analogue than even 24 bit?
Is there not that advantage?.

If you want to "see" a waveform, then fine. The 32-bit is dynamics... the amplitude of the waveform, not the samplerate "tracing". DSD 128fs has that at at 5.6MHz if we're talking about looks.

Regards,

[Napalm]

I know of no speaker or media that produce those dynamics. Much less 192dB of 32-bit.

Fuel-air bomb.



 

Nap.

[firedog]

So HDTracks got duped. Doesn't really bother me, except that I think they should notify everyone who downloaded the tracks in question (they have acc't info on record) and offer a partial refund or credit towards next purchase.

To simply take the tracks off the site and expect visitors to a)notice; and b)then ask for a refund, is unrealistic. Simply  a way for them to get away without compensating the customers.

[werd]

If you want to "see" a waveform, then fine. The 32-bit is dynamics... the amplitude of the waveform, not the samplerate "tracing". DSD 128fs has that at at 5.6MHz if we're talking about looks.

Regards,

Hi

Thankyou for your comments. 

[mercman]

Ted,

The issue with HDtracks was that they failed to notify customers that had purchased high res files that were not high res files.  I believe they simply made a bad business decision

Incidently, I have 3 titles that have problems. I first asked for a replacement title and 2 refunds. After several days I contacted David Chesky today and offered to take 3 replacement titles instead of a refund.

I see there is a replacement now posted for the Herbie Hancock River.  The Reference Recording Garden of Delights does not seem to have a high res replacement, although David did not seem aware of this at the time.

I do not feel that HDtracks tried to cheat anyone. I believe that after communicating with David, they will do their best to satisfy all of their customers.

[ted_b]

Ted,

The issue with HDtracks was that they failed to notify customers that had purchased high res files that were not high res files.  I believe they simply made a bad business decision

Incidently, I have 3 titles that have problems. I first asked for a replacement title and 2 refunds. After several days I contacted David Chesky today and offered to take 3 replacement titles instead of a refund.

I see there is a replacement now posted for the Herbie Hancock River.  The Reference Recording Garden of Delights does not seem to have a high res replacement, although David did not seem aware of this at the time.

I do not feel that HDtracks tried to cheat anyone. I believe that after communicating with David, they will do their best to satisfy all of their customers.

Steve,
My point is that they, HDTracks, will likely not want to send out one-off emails as they go through their re-assessment project.  I would think the prudent business plan would be to finish the library scan then send out a sendmail/news letter listing, comprehensively, which products/titles were "faux".  That way they can address all issues with one fell swoop and not have to send out multiple emails during each day of the re-assessment.  Maybe I'm missing something here. 

[mercman]

Ted,

I sugggested at AA that they post something on their site letting customers know what was up with certain titles. That would be very easy to implement.