[*Scotty*]

Jason,why not go straight to the top and email David Chesky and ask for an explanation. It is starting to sound like that in many cases only poorly down mixed 5.1 masters are available to Chesky for downloading from their web-site. 
 http://chesky.com/core/body_contactus.cfm
Scotty

[regnaD kciN]

O.K., I've listened to both the CD and DVD-A mixdown.  It's clear that they are two different mixes, and not just a matter of a screwy automated mixdown from 5.1.

It has already been mentioned that, on "San Andreas Fault," the solo guitarist appears far-right on the DVD-A mixdown and mid-right on the CD.  However, the drums are also less prominent on the DVD-A mix -- still in the same position behind Merchant, but dropped in level.  An even bigger clincher appears a few moments later, when the "echo vocal" comes in on the chorus.  On the CD, the echo vocal is only slightly softer than the lead, and comes directly to their (stage) left, in the same plane of depth.  On the DVD-A mixdown, however, the echo vocal is substantially softer, and comes from a point almost directly behind the lead (if anything, a touch to stage right), back about half-way to the drums.

It would appear to me, in summation, that this is not simply a failure of SMART, but a conscious decision, at the time the 5.1 mix was made, to do a brand-new mix of the album, with a 2.0 downmix that would sound somewhat different from the CD, and that this became the new "improved" version of how the album is supposed to sound.  Whether this was done with the participation and consent of Merchant and/or the original production team is impossible to say.  But it appears to be the way the album is meant to be heard from now on.  If you don't like the mix, or think the high-res reissue of the classic album should be mixed exactly as the RedBook version was, you have reason to complain...but to Warner/Elektra, not to Chesky or HDTracks.  They can only offer what the record companies provide as their "final" official version.  And I would say there's a big difference between demanding that HDTracks review the source material given them by the record companies to make sure that, for example, tracks aren't missing or the "hi-res" material isn't upsampled RedBook, and ensuring that the mixes sound exactly the same as the original CD from which they aren't drawn.
 

[firedog]

Just found this at pinkfish media forum:

"Although this isn't the first 24/96 recording I have downloaded where I also have the CD, but I have just got Natalie Merchants Tiger Lilly from HD Tracks. I've used this album as a test record for many years, have listened to it on vinyl, CD, and ripped CD, and reckon I know every note like a familiar friend.
About ten seconds in to the first track I realised I've never heard it properly before. The 24/96 version may be remixed as it really is very different, much more live sounding and the tonal purity is just amazing. If you need convincing that 16/44 isn't good enough, download this. "

So different remix. Apparently not a "crap" version from HD. Sorry if you don't like it. Again, this is what the record labels provide to HD, HD doesn't master the hi-res versions (in most cases). However, again I would recommend that we demand from HDT that they give us the "provenance" of the hi-res master. In this instance, if the OP understood it was a remix, he might have reacted differently

[ted_b]

I still think everyone is possibly listening to a SMART downmix that is faulty (but not HDtracks fault)...but it remains likely the only hirez stereo version out there...so everyone who hears it assumes a new mix and that it is correctly conveying the mixer's intent.  However, when you stop and realize that the downloadable downmix for Flaming Lips' Yoshi Battles...is truly a mess (no way the mixer intended this) then you have to keep an open mind that this too is incorrect. 

Like I said earlier, maybe the only way to really understand if this is what the mixer intended is to listen to the 5.1 and get the feel.  Or find the mixer and ask him/her.

[rbbert]

I continue to be amazed at the garbage HD tracks churns out, thinking they can pan it off at premium prices to unsuspecting customers. If you want high-res audio, buy it from sources that know how to do it (RR, Linn, etc). These clowns won't wake up until people stop buying from them.

I continue to be amazed at the ill-informed criticism of HDTracks.   You say Linn and RR do it right?  They usually do, and you can buy their stuff from HDTracks and it is identical to what RR and Linn sell themselves (although the Linn stuff is often cheaper at HDTracks than at their own website).

I personally have criticized HDTracks repeatedly, and when it is actually their mistake they have been very responsive.  When it is the record company's fault, they are somewhat less so.  I think they need to screen their material more carefully, but that's just my opinion and obviously not theirs.

[ted_b]

I agree that these kinds of mix changes (or even faulty mixes) are not the direct fault of HDtracks.  But it shouldn't surprise you that this disappointment is heaped on them when their track record (even in your own admission, rbbert) has been less than stellar.  As I said earlier, just what we need in this clearly difficult launch of hirez downloads....possible faulty downmixes!!  I guess the best advice to consumers is to know that you can ask for credit, and that we are still in a somewhat early adopter stage; and the best advise to HDtracks is to provide a better sample or "listen only" capability so that folks can hear these mixes before buying them.  Currently the samples are not good enough to discern these often subtle but important changes.

[Pez]

Just found this at pinkfish media forum:

"Although this isn't the first 24/96 recording I have downloaded where I also have the CD, but I have just got Natalie Merchants Tiger Lilly from HD Tracks. I've used this album as a test record for many years, have listened to it on vinyl, CD, and ripped CD, and reckon I know every note like a familiar friend.
About ten seconds in to the first track I realised I've never heard it properly before. The 24/96 version may be remixed as it really is very different, much more live sounding and the tonal purity is just amazing. If you need convincing that 16/44 isn't good enough, download this. "

So different remix. Apparently not a "crap" version from HD. Sorry if you don't like it. Again, this is what the record labels provide to HD, HD doesn't master the hi-res versions (in most cases). However, again I would recommend that we demand from HDT that they give us the "provenance" of the hi-res master. In this instance, if the OP understood it was a remix, he might have reacted differently

Ummm sorry, I don't care what you or anyone else says. Hearing an electric guitar with the amp off sounds very distinct. I should know, I own one. That is EXACTLY what I'm hearing in San Andreas faulty. Its SUPPOSED to sound like a nice rythmic electric guitar riff, but instead it sounds like a musician practicing in his apartment with the amp off so he doesn't piss off his neighbors.

Lets put aside sound quality for a moment (which I agree 100% is superb) and yes, even the fact that this album is slightly different in it's mix. You cannont argue that the very prominent electric guitar in this song is supposed to sound like the guitar amp is off. You cannot argue that Mona Lisa is supposed to be missing her nose. End of story. This is a poor transfer I don't give a rats ass if HD tracks is not directly to blame. They are the ones selling a bad recording.

[Pez]

Jason,why not go straight to the top and email David Chesky and ask for an explanation. It is starting to sound like that in many cases only poorly down mixed 5.1 masters are available to Chesky for downloading from their web-site. 
 http://chesky.com/core/body_contactus.cfm
Scotty

Also thank you Scotty, I will definitely do that. 

[Bob in St. Louis]

[regnaD kciN]

I still think everyone is possibly listening to a SMART downmix that is faulty (but not HDtracks fault)

But didn't you yourself say that the 2-channel DTS (which came out, I'm pretty sure, before the DVD-A) had the same mix?  If so, it seems to me that said mix is deliberate, and not a "faulty SMART downmix."

[ted_b]

But didn't you yourself say that the 2-channel DTS (which came out, I'm pretty sure, before the DVD-A) had the same mix?  If so, it seems to me that said mix is deliberate, and not a "faulty SMART downmix."

I believe the DTS is a downmix as well (DTS disc is mainly 5.1 surround).  I'm assuming its' identical in its instructions.

[regnaD kciN]

Ummm sorry, I don't care what you or anyone else says. Hearing an electric guitar with the amp off sounds very distinct. I should know, I own one. That is EXACTLY what I'm hearing in San Andreas faulty. Its SUPPOSED to sound like a nice rythmic electric guitar riff, but instead it sounds like a musician practicing in his apartment with the amp off so he doesn't piss off his neighbors.

I usually tend to stop reading comments that begin "sorry, I don't care what you or anyone else says," but I will agree in this case about the sound of the electric guitar.  In the hi-res mix, it is placed much further left, and has a curious tone, as if it were being miked acoustically instead of through an amp.

Where I differ is Pez's (and others') assertion that this is the result of a screwed-up downmix.  As far as I know, there's nothing in the SMART technology that could cause the difference in tone that we're hearing.  It would have to be a case of either a) drastic re-EQ being done to that track, or b) substituting a different guitar track altogether.  In the latter case, it may be that, during the recording session, they were both running a mic directly off the strings as well as one plugged in to the recording console, or it may have been from another take of the same song.  But the change seems to me something that was done very deliberately during remixing, and is not just an accidental screw-up.

Curiously, as against your claim, I find the sound of the electric (?) guitar on the hi-res mix to be far more noticeable (and striking) than on the CD.  On the original RedBook, that guitar riff seems to me to get lost in the background as part of the rhythm section; here, the more-metallic tone makes it stand out and fit better as a counterpoint to the guitar that appears far-right at 1:56.

You may not like the change (even though, oddly enough, you still admit the high-res remix sounds great) but, once again, that's something to complain about to WEA, not HDTracks.  (And, as to your earlier assertion that the the only way HDTracks can be absolved from blame is if they, essentially, go back to WEA and tell them that "we've had a complaint from a customer, and demand you do an entire new high-res remix of the album that exactly matches the CD mix in every detail"...well, "laughable" is the first word that comes to mind because "laugh in their face" would be the most likely response from WEA -- probably followed by dropping HDTracks as a distributor for any of their recordings.)

[regnaD kciN]

I believe the DTS is a downmix as well (DTS disc is mainly 5.1 surround).  I'm assuming its' identical in its instructions.

I'm not up on DTS discs, but I'm pretty certain this one was produced before the DVD-A and its associated SMART technology for downmixes.

The bigger point, as I made in my last post to Pez, is that I don't believe there's any way to get the acoustic changes I'm hearing as part of a downmix.  It strikes me that they could only have come about as a deliberate choice on the part of whoever did the remix.

[ted_b]

I'm not hearing big acoustic changes, just shifts in balance and gain on each instrument...my $.02.  And my DTS track is from a questionable source so not sure.  The MP3 I have shows the DTS cover, so I assume it's same source.  But you are probably right....I bet when I listen to the 5.1 the mix will sound more like the mix in question than the redbook (I'm under the weather right now and no interest in firing up the big rig).

[regnaD kciN]

O.K.  I just did some further tests on the CD and DVD-A downmix versions of this album with foobar2000 and Audacity.  "Weird" doesn't begin to cover the results.  First, using foobar2000's dynamic range metering --

Redbook:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Merchant, Natalie / Tigerlily
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR12      -0.20 dB   -14.23 dB      3:58 01-San Andreas Fault
DR10      -0.20 dB   -11.98 dB      4:27 02-Wonder
DR11      -0.18 dB   -14.08 dB      5:02 03-Beloved Wife
DR10      -0.18 dB   -12.70 dB      5:32 04-River
DR12      -0.20 dB   -13.23 dB      5:59 05-Carnival
DR11      -0.20 dB   -13.87 dB      8:08 06-I May Know the Word
DR14      -0.18 dB   -18.49 dB      2:11 07-Letter, The
DR13      -0.20 dB   -17.53 dB      4:39 08-Cowboy Romance
DR11      -0.20 dB   -12.85 dB      2:41 09-Jealousy
DR13      -0.20 dB   -14.91 dB      4:00 10-Where I Go
DR12      -0.20 dB   -15.86 dB      5:30 11-Seven Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks:  11
Official DR value: DR12

Samplerate:        44100 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   16
Bitrate:           680 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================

DVD-A:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Merchant, Natalie / Tigerlily (24/96)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR11      -1.81 dB   -17.42 dB      3:56 01-San Andreas Fault
DR9       -2.39 dB   -14.39 dB      4:27 02-Wonder
DR11      -0.21 dB   -14.57 dB      5:02 03-Beloved Wife
DR11      -1.34 dB   -16.27 dB      5:32 04-River
DR10      -1.99 dB   -15.29 dB      5:56 05-Carnival
DR10      -2.04 dB   -14.92 dB      6:18 06-I May Know The Word
DR12      -2.39 dB   -19.81 dB      2:11 07-The Letter
DR11      -2.05 dB   -19.16 dB      4:39 08-Cowboy Romance
DR10      -4.57 dB   -16.85 dB      2:40 09-Jealousy
DR11      -1.56 dB   -14.84 dB      4:00 10-Where I Go
DR11      -2.24 dB   -16.22 dB      5:36 11-Seven Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks:  11
Official DR value: DR11

Samplerate:        96000 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   24
Bitrate:           2463 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================

Several conclusions can be drawn from this data.  First off, the average peak level of the tracks on the CD comes to between 0.03 and 4.37 (!) dB higher than on the DVD-A.  From the Audacity graph, the CD appears to have some rather mild limiting on a few peaks, but nothing comparable to the worst excesses of the Loudness Wars.  The track levels on the CD are much more normalized, only differing by around 0.02 dB from each other, while there is far more variance between the tracks on the DVD-A.  However, the biggest surprise is that, despite any limiting, the dynamic range is greater on virtually every track of the CD as compared to the DVD-A, which is the opposite of what I might have expected.

And, when it comes to opposites, just look at the frequency plots!

Redbook:



DVD-A:



Looking at the graphs (both taken from the same 30-second clip of track 1), you can see that the RedBook version's frequency plot drops below -90 dB at around 19kHz.  However, on the DVD-A, that same point occurs somewhere around 17kHz instead -- lower than the RedBook!  Note that this is not an example of "upsampled RedBook," as has been so often the case among high-res downloads.  In that case, the frequency plots of the two tracks would have looked the same; instead, this appears to be a case where, once again, the hi-res remix was modified to deliberately roll off about 2kHz lower than the RedBook.

Now, for the final twist:  Although the CD version appears to have more dynamic range and frequency extension than the DVD-A remix, to my ears, the DVD-A sounds better.  The CD strikes me as having a heavy blanket over the lower midrange that makes Merchant's voice sound chesty and the whole soundstage seem more closed-in.  On the DVD-A, her voice is purer, there seems to be more space (both laterally and in terms of depth) between instruments, and the instrumental tones themselves seem richer and less "processed." 

Go figure.

[jermmd]

How is the different duration of the songs explained?

[Pez]

It is a different mix and obviously inferior in a lot of ways the least of which is the dynamic issues. As far ad the guitar riff I stand firm. I know it's not a matter of sounding distant or just tonally different I know EXACTLY what that sound is. As far as I'm concerned this matter is settled. It is an inferior mix period.

Yes the sound is better. That is not in question nor is it hypocritical to my assertion that the mix is what is bad.

[regnaD kciN]

It is a different mix and obviously inferior in a lot of ways the least of which is the dynamic issues. As far ad the guitar riff I stand firm. I know it's not a matter of sounding distant or just tonally different I know EXACTLY what that sound is. As far as I'm concerned this matter is settled. It is an inferior mix period.

Yes the sound is better. That is not in question nor is it hypocritical to my assertion that the mix is what is bad.

Yes, it is a different mix.  I would argue, counter your assertions, that it is a better mix, and the fact that even you admit "the sound is better" is proof of that.  To go farther than that, either of us would need to know what the intentions of Merchant, the original production team, and the team that did the remix -- and, for that matter, how much of an overlap there may have been in those groups -- were.

But one thing's certain:  if it was a deliberate remix, which everyone seems to agree, the fault (if any) lies with WEA and not HDTracks.  Period.

[vhiner]

Yes, it is a different mix.  I would argue, counter your assertions, that it is a better mix, and the fact that even you admit "the sound is better" is proof of that.  To go farther than that, either of us would need to know what the intentions of Merchant, the original production team, and the team that did the remix -- and, for that matter, how much of an overlap there may have been in those groups -- were.

But one thing's certain:  if it was a deliberate remix, which everyone seems to agree, the fault (if any) lies with WEA and not HDTracks.  Period.

I'm gonna probably regret this, but wouldn't it be better to band together and pressure HDtracks to disclose more information about the provenance (source) of their material so that consumers can make their own informed choices? 

IMHO, the real problem is that HDtracks is not exercising its due diligence in getting all of the details of material it releases. In the old days, re-masters were done more "officially" and the press reviewed them pretty thoroughly.  Before buying an "official" CD or DVD release, I could do research about all the details of the re-release before deciding to purchase. With HDtracks, I'm often in the dark. This needs to be fixed. If this was a new or alternative mix by WEA, then it should be properly labeled for the consumer. I'll bet if it had been released as a physical DVD, it would have been. Sorry, if i'm speaking above my pay grade here.

[ted_b]

If this was a new or alternative mix by WEA, then it should be properly labeled for the consumer. I'll bet if it had been released as a physical DVD, it would have been. Sorry, if i'm speaking above my pay grade here.

It WAS released as a physical DVD (DVD-Audio) in 2000, and was mislabeled as including a dedicated stereo layer!.  It was early in the hirez game and surprisingly did not contain a stereo mix (as we've said repeatedly, it required the player to read the SMART table and do a downmix).  When it was released it had very strong appeal due to very few of these DVD-A's in the market, the clearly high level of sonics, and some were surprised by the mix (on quadraphonicquad forum, the go-to forum at the time, it was mixed with some wanting a more aggressive mix).  But few if any listened to the downmix..until we DVD-A diehards were able to rip DVD-A's...and then again until now.