|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
193.152.181.65
Yesterday I purchased from the "HDtracks" website the so-called "audiophile" version of this classic MJ album in the hope that, this time, the offered remaster was really an AUDIOPHILE remaster (i.e., a remaster preserving and respecting the dynamics of the original recording). I paid $17.98 for this download, that is clearly publicized at the HDtracks website as an "audiophile" version of the album.
http://www.hdtracks.com/bad
To my surprise, when I inspected the downloaded tracks with "Cool Edit Pro", I was puzzled at discovering that this so-called "audiophile" version of the "Bad" album was simply another victim of the "loudness war" game. Squashed dynamics and saturated volume was the name of the game. Needless to say, I felt completely CHEATED.
It's clear to me that the *ONLY* way to force the music industry to stop this nasty practice that DESTROYS the music and cheats the consumer, is by hitting them where it hurts most: in their wallets.
So, please, DO *NOT* BUY THESE FALSE "AUDIOPHILE" DOWNLOADS.
For comparison purposes, I have attached some snapshots of the HD tracks version of the album, and some snapshots of the 1st European version of the same album.
Follow Ups:
You seemed to have squashed all 4'40"+ into a compressed timeline, making it difficult to see the waveform given your monitor's resolution.
Perhaps show only one minute on the timeline (or even 20 or 30 seconds), and a single channel. Then we might be able to judge some of the dynamic range for ourselves.
big j.
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
This citation here is not unique to HD Tracks..... Dynamically compressed recordings are present through all formats, from MP3 to high-rez..... And almost all labels... There is no standard for this.....
I think half the problem is we have an industry that has lost control of its "technology"..... I think even with respected producers, the sound quality of recordings in recent times has been a crapshoot.... One album sounds fabulous, then next one sounds awful. I think there are a lot of people in the recording chain who have no clue what they're doing. (Heck, I'm now hearing remastered Frank Sinatra recordings in which the remastering process has applied Auto-Tune to his voice. It's depressing. Not to mention engineers who think mastering CDs at 24/192 is a good idea.)
And finally, I try to get the original release. I was never impressed with remastered releases. 9 times out of 10, I prefer the original.
Ask me about the Yamaha Silent Brass
I could have told you that regardless of how this version sounds..........the original didn't sound very good to me and you can't make chicken salad out of chicken s$^%. And that's w/o commentary on the musical value....chum on!
ET
Edits: 08/25/14
I personally think Michael Jackson hit a wall after "Thriller".... He hardly put out any decent work after that. (The only thing memorable after "Thriller" was the song "Will You Be There", from the "Dangerous" album. But accusations of plagiarism clouded that particular song.)
I think you might be right on that.
ET
WTF.
The HDTracks version is even more squashed than the one labelled 'Mastered For iTunes'!
But then again it is a tiny wee bit better than the 24/96 version sold by acousticsounds.com.
It would appear that the '87 cd/vinyl versions are the best while the 24bit 'audiophile' versions are some of the worst when it comes to dynamic range.
Edits: 08/25/14
Yes, a lot of the 24/96 DLs, SHM CDs, etc., IOW the premium purchases, are utter crap and amongst the worst versions of albums available. Speaking of both dynamic range and general SQ.
It is surprising that in many cases the only way to get well-recorded stuff is on LP, and I mean even on new/curent LPs recorded from digital files...obviously not the digital files they're selling though...strange.
I am not speaking of any particular vendor here, just in general.
But where is the fraud?
It is offered as;
Available in Audiophile 48kHz/24bit
Forget the word "Audiophile" it is meaningless. The only relevant thing is "48kHz/24bit".
There is no offer or warranty this download is any better or better sounding or even different that any 'Bad' album previously released.
The only thing offered is it is 48kHz/24bit ~ so as long as it is as offered then the idiocy & maliciousness the original poster is obvious.
Smile
Sox
.. JUST PAINTS A PERFECT PORTRAIT OF YOU.
I will NOT respond to the barrage of insults you have hurled at me. Others will take care of you. For a start, the behaviour and the manners you have shown in this topic will just serve to underscore the kind of person you are.
You know, you could get a job writing press releases for the North Korean "Dear Michelin Man" or whatever this one is called.
You have a talent for this work.
Too late. You already responded.And if you think this is a barrage of insults, follow some of Sudz' posts. You're being handled with relative kindness.
Edits: 08/25/14
This is one of the reasons I still spin CDs. I will never pay a premium price for a download when the mastering of most of these 24 bit/192KHz files have been crushed by the compression pedal. Take a look at Rush's latest album 'Clockwork Angels' that was released in 2012. The sound on the CD is crap along with the HD Tracks 24 bit/96KHz as well. The only way I can listen to this album (and enjoy listening to the album) is to either play the vinyl version or play a Cd that has the vinyl rip of 'Clockwork Angels'. A pretty sad statement indeed.
As far as remasters are concerned, they are typically all louder (i.e, lower Dynamic Range) compared to the original Cd and this translates to a lower quality recording when played back in a high end stereo system. The exception that I have found is MOFI or Audio Fidelity remasters. These outfits know how to properly remaster a Cd with even more dynamic range compared to the original.
-Ionman
"An ounce of perception, a pound of obscure." - Neil Peart
I agree with you. But using the term "audiophile" when promoting a product usually preys on the inexperienced in our hobby. It is approaching false advertisement, if not actually getting there.
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
They also offer a Beck album in 'Audiophile 96kHz/24bit' but at least two of the songs have been recorded as MP3s by Beck and so do not exist as true Hi-Rez files anywhere.
Do you think HDTracks should inform their customers that they are merely upsampled MP3s?
Is it fraud that they do not?
In the case of the MJ album HDTracks do not give direct information about which version it is they are selling but it possibly could be inferred from the given release date.
Still requires the customer to check for themselves in the DR database provided they know of its existence.
I just noticed that HDTracks version of Fleetwood Macs 'Rumours' lost 5dB in dynamic range compared to the vinyl, '84 & '90 cd releases.
Ironic really considering that over-compression will lose much, much more in SQ than might be gained by going Hi-Rez.
My only reference is to the serious allegations made by the original poster.
I see no evidence of fraud with the download he purchased.
If he is too stupid to even raise his concern with the retailer then I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
I have not looked at the other albums to which you refer.
If the download is in the format advertised then I doubt any fraud has taken place. I see no warranty or advice downloads will sound better or different to other available albums. (but I have not searched the site or the albums you mentioned, only the Bad album)
As always, caveat emptor.
Smile
Sox
No surprise. I will/would never pay for any download of any kind...
Makes sense to me - why pay for it? There's plenty of free and legal hi-resolution stuff up in the internet archives. No the most popular bands aren't there but bands like the North Mississippi All-Stars, Drive-By-Truckers and many others don't mind sharing. The fact they make great music and I buy their LPs and go to their shows has nothing to do with it.
If you don't mind .wav quality the selection gets much better. I'm almost to the point where I have as many downloads as I have CDs.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
"It would be useless. HDtracks will not return the money after the download has been made. That is an OBVIOUS fact."It only seems to be obvious to you, and if you haven't made an effort to get a refund, it's obvious that you are not dealing with a full deck. Until you contact the supplier and go up the chain for a refund it's not even a fact.
So sue me.
EDIT: This is intended for the OP obviously. Sorru for the wrong impression.
Edits: 08/25/14
I wouldn't go that far. HDTracks is definitely a mixed bag. If it's not bad to plug another site, computer audiophile dot com is a good place to look for information about HDTracks downloads BEFORE you purchase.
..Yes/No?
Smile
Sox
It would be useless. HDtracks will not return the money after the download has been made. That is an OBVIOUS fact.
...No?
It is very obvious you are;
1( A crystal ball merchant.
2( A defeatist.
Carry on.
Life's good, enjoy it.
Smile
Sox
I HAVE ALREADY TAKEN SNAPSHOTS OF YOUR *GRAVE* INSULTS, AND YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER FOR THEM IN A COURT OF LAW.
Who insulted who? When? Where?
... Bring it on, ol' son, are you sober yet or still hysterical? All caps is a nice touch.
You're an idiot, gratuitous enough for you?
When you make stupid and false accusations it will be you who is is puckering up in court.
Go and sleep it off and stop making a fool of yourself.
Smile
Sox
I don't do business at hdtracks.
EVER.
eclassical.com is the only download site I recommend.
"The problem with quotes from the internet is that many of them are just made up."
-Abraham Lincoln
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: