HDTRacks alert: they are pulling several titles that are NOT native HiRez

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 13887 times.

ted_b

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
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.

Tue, that would not be difficult.  I would agree that the site should have SOMETHING right now, worst case 'we are experiencing xxx and will be announcing a refund policy shortly".

I appreciate you talking the lead on this.  A few other AA folks got out of control (fraud and libel verbiage) so early in the process.

oddeophile

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.

Back in April, I downloaded the alleged 96/24 version of 'Jamie Cullum - Twentysomething' from HDTracks.  As the flac files downloaded were relatively small, I immediately suspected that something was wrong with the source.  A few days later, the Jamie Cullum release was pulled from the HDTracks site.  I then contacted HDTracks via email seeking clarification of what happened, listed my concerns, and requested a refund for the download.  Some 6 weeks later, I have yet to receive a response.  So, they are not offering refunds to everyone!

ted_b

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Back in April, I downloaded the alleged 96/24 version of 'Jamie Cullum - Twentysomething' from HDTracks.  As the flac files downloaded were relatively small, I immediately suspected that something was wrong with the source.  A few days later, the Jamie Cullum release was pulled from the HDTracks site.  I then contacted HDTracks via email seeking clarification of what happened, listed my concerns, and requested a refund for the download.  Some 6 weeks later, I have yet to receive a response.  So, they are not offering refunds to everyone!

Did they refuse you a refund, or have they not responded to your email?  If the latter I'd call them or resend.  I've not heard anywhere that they refused a refund when communicated with.

mercman

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 74
David Chesky and staff at HDtracks replaced the problem titles I had. They also offered a refund; I selected new downloads.

I am satisfied with the resolution of my complaint.

I am looking forward to downloading new titles from HDtracks.  :eyebrows:

DSD_Mastering

Back in April, I downloaded the alleged 96/24 version of 'Jamie Cullum - Twentysomething' from HDTracks.

We received another Jamie Cullum file to check and though it was hi-rez, there were over 1000 clips in some of the tracks. I told David that it wasn't a good transfer.


Regards,

ted_b

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Bruce,
Thanks. 

One note:  Please tell David and Norm that a 24/176 file is not too big for today's higher speed downloads.  I'm sure your SACD rips sound better at 24/176.4 than the smaller divisible cousin 24/88.2.  :)

Don_S

Ted,

It's 2:30 AM in Cleveland. Don't you ever sleep?  You party animal you.  :dance:

Bruce,
Thanks. 

One note:  Please tell David and Norm that a 24/176 file is not too big for today's higher speed downloads.  I'm sure your SACD rips sound better at 24/176.4 than the smaller divisible cousin 24/88.2.  :)

mercman

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 74
I'm still waiting for the replacement of Gilberto/Getz for the dropout in track 7.

madfloyd

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 39
I'm still waiting for the replacement of Gilberto/Getz for the dropout in track 7.

I just checked mine and I don't experience any dropout in track 7.

ted_b

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
I just checked mine and I don't experience any dropout in track 7.

Yes, there was a dropout on the earlier HDTRacks release, most likely an analog (tape splice) dropout.  I'm not aware that they replaced it (although Steve's comment sounds like they have and he's waiting for his free replacement), but maybe you have the most recent fixed version?

madfloyd

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 39
Yes, there was a dropout on the earlier HDTRacks release, most likely an analog (tape splice) dropout.  I'm not aware that they replaced it (although Steve's comment sounds like they have and he's waiting for his free replacement), but maybe you have the most recent fixed version?

Could be. I downloaded mine on May 15, pretty as much as soon as they offered it (or so it appeared from the newsletter), but maybe this was not the first hi-res release.

DSD_Mastering

The latest Getz/Gilberto we sent to them is fine.


Regards,

santacore

I'm still waiting for the replacement of Gilberto/Getz for the dropout in track 7.

I need to check mine again, because I thought I experienced drop-outs too. I downloaded it within days of being released.

bdiament

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 201
    • Soundkeeper Recordings
A friend recently played some "96k" audio he purchased from Linn Records (I believe the artist is Arnie Somogyi?).

SpectraFoo clearly revealed the steep drop at 22.05k.  I would say this album was recorded at 44.1k.

To be clear, there may indeed be some benefit to well done, off-line sample rate conversion in that the playback filter will now be higher up (further from the audible spectrum) and can be gentler.  Still, in my view, putting "24/96" next to something, is suggesting to the consumer that it in fact is a high resolution recording, which 44.1k, even going down hill with the wind behind it, is simply not.

By the way, if I may, I'd like to say that Soundkeeper will be offering 24/192 and (downsampled 24/96) files-on-disc with our next release.  In fact, one of the recording sessions will happen tonight.  The recordings are 24/192 .aif, made with my Metric Halo ULN-8.  More info when I have it.  (Please subscribe to Soundkeeper email updates at the site if interested.)

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

ted_b

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Thanks Barry, will do. 

doctorcilantro

Is there a list of the HDtracks material that was upsampled? I have quite a few non-Chesky albums.

thanks