Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Music
Home Forums Rules Articles Store Gallery Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Music A place to discuss the thing we are doing all this other stuff for

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 3rd December 2011, 10:39 PM   #31
kevinkr is offline kevinkr  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
kevinkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Blog Entries: 6
__________________
www.kta-hifi.net
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2011, 10:58 PM   #32
diyAudio Member
 
beau2317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Pukekohe, New Zealand
I've got about 20 HDtracks downloads and only one of these is not real HD.

Looking at the two graphs that have been shown above, the first looks nothing like any HDtracks I've downloaded. I'm guessing the HF content is noise shaping. Not such a great thing imho. Most noise shaping moves noise to a much higher freq than that. Some systems will not like that noise there and may react badly to it.

The second one is mighty odd, for several reasons:
1) There's no music content above 12kHz - hardly HD material!! But this is just a piano recording so that might be kosher.
2) There seems to be an inverse of the music at the top of the freq range, some of which is only -20dB, which is as loud as some of the music! This is sure to mess with some systems.

I'd recommend both of these posters write to HDtracks with a copy of the graphs, and request a refund. If enough people do this then they might tighten up their QC a bit. How hard is it to check recordings before making them available??
__________________
Moskido (Hybrid Aikido/Mosfet); Verumecce (biased interconnects). Buffalo III with Unbalancer tube output; Magnepan 3.6R
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2011, 11:41 PM   #33
diyAudio Member
 
buzzforb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
I agree with the assumption if both the test and test environment are such that give accurate measurements. I am not saying that this is not the case, but we must tread carefully. I am a business owner and in the modern times of of mass communication, someones misinformed opinion can spread like wildfire. I have no issue with confronting them with the issue and i have done so, but to go beyond that and move into accusations, we must have valid and repeatable proof.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2011, 12:18 AM   #34
diyAudio Member
 
beau2317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Pukekohe, New Zealand
Yes I am a business owner as well.

You can see that I've shown the same result with two different programs. That's all there is to the test environment - it's program-analyzes-file - simple as that. And the fourier transforms that are needed to calculate the frequencies are well known undergraduate math. (ie - It's not rocket science)

Please also note that I gave HDtracks a week to reply before I posted anything here. That should have been ample time to get a response.

I agree with your sentiments to some extent, but in the particular case I was highlighting, I don't see any question about the data. And anyone who chooses can easily reproduce the findings.

On the other hand, they have taken my money and delivered a sub-par product. They refuse (so far) to give me a refund. What other recourse do I have? And I do think I have been careful here - I feel that I understand the technical issues sufficiently to be able to explain in quite some detail what's going on in the tracks I bought (I won't make the same claim about the other tracks presented here - that would need more investigation and I don't have access to those tracks, and am loathe to give HDtracks more of my money until this issue is resolved.)
__________________
Moskido (Hybrid Aikido/Mosfet); Verumecce (biased interconnects). Buffalo III with Unbalancer tube output; Magnepan 3.6R

Last edited by beau2317; 4th December 2011 at 12:24 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2011, 01:06 AM   #35
diyAudio Member
 
buzzforb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
I agree completely with how you have handled it, I am more concerned with others taking this example and expanding it beyond its appropriate application. Audio people tend to be full of opinions, just want to make sure they are backed up by facts, like in your situation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2011, 09:31 PM   #36
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by beau2317 View Post
erin - btw, what program were the screenshots from on page1 of this thread?
Adobe Audition
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2011, 09:37 PM   #37
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by pompon View Post
Here a 24/88 download from hdtracks ... from the SACD they tell
It's seem false 24/88 ... The part up ... noise ? antipiracy codes ?

Click the image to open in full size.


That one is really interesting. Is it sourced from analog tape?

If it is a digital recording, perhaps it is recorded 44.1khz PCM and then converted to 88.2khz without appropriate filtering? All the noise is sitting right at the 44.1khz sampling frequency. Something very strange is going on there.

Last edited by erin; 5th December 2011 at 09:40 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th December 2011, 08:56 PM   #38
diyAudio Member
 
beau2317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Pukekohe, New Zealand
Update : HD Tracks have done the right thing. They have agreed that there is a problem and they need to "clean house". Also they have allowed me credit for the tracks.
__________________
Moskido (Hybrid Aikido/Mosfet); Verumecce (biased interconnects). Buffalo III with Unbalancer tube output; Magnepan 3.6R
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th December 2011, 09:22 PM   #39
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Thats good news. For me, this was never about bashing HDTracks. I'm very critical of modern "remastering" techniques involving brickwalling, but that is a result of the record lables.

HDTracks has to be commended for being a pioneer of lossless audio downloads, and also what appears to be good customer service.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2x4 in Box with 24/96 or 24/196 aazeez1975 miniDSP 3 8th July 2011 10:40 AM
New 24/96 usb converters sendler PC Based 0 7th October 2010 10:10 AM
Are there any DIP 24/96 or 24/192 ADCs and I2P to FireWire Codecs? BoilermakerFan Digital Source 0 21st July 2008 08:27 PM
24/96 and 24/192 is no good. MP3 sounds better! peranders Digital Source 92 30th July 2002 09:30 AM
24/96 question Schaef Digital Source 15 9th January 2002 10:20 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:29 AM.

Page generated in 0.09501 seconds (79.87% PHP - 20.13% MySQL) with 11 queries

Copyright ©1999-2012 diyAudio