
This is an album that, with all the heavily processed vocals and guitars, makes it impossible to know how it is “supposed” to sound. Within that context, I can safely say that the download bests the CD in a few areas. Both versions, and the LP, have crushing, fuzz-drenched bass, but the download has better low-end pitch definition than the CD. In addition, the CD tends to congeal these incredibly dense mixes, whereas the download allows each layer to come through more clearly. Finally, when an acoustic instrument makes a rare appearance, its sound is more natural on the download. Overall, the HDtracks release very closely resembles the LP. Maybe that’s how it’s supposed to sound. Alan Taffel

Like the Beatles, Fleetwood Mac was blessed with three strong songwriters who could also sing or harmonize with equal skill. Add in Lindsay Buckingham’s brilliant guitar work and the crack rhythm section and it’s no wonder Fleetwood Mac was the pop band of its era. Even now, Rumours flies high on the wings of its energizing material and passionate performances. The original CD is a pale reflection of the LP—dynamically squashed and tonally thin. The 2004 re-master is far more successful; its instruments and voices prove nearly the equal of the LP. The DVD-Audio offers punchier bass, but also edgy vocals that make the whole enterprise rather off-putting. Thankfully, the HDtracks release is not similarly marred. Still, my favorite digital version remains the remastered CD. Surprised? Then consider that despite their “hi-res” claims, neither the DVD-A nor the download contain any information above 22kHz. That means that all of these digital formats were derived from lowly 44.1kHz data. AT

There are three digital versions of this greatest hits collection, and the differences between them are mighty subtle. All three sound very good, with the main advantage offered by the high(er)-res DVD-A and download formats being cleaner bass. Seal was never one to skimp on the bottom end, but the vigorous thumping on the CD is slightly bloated and smeared. Other than that, though, you can take your pick. I have a slight preference for the DVD-A because it’s slightly smoother and airier, but that format isn’t readily available. You really can’t go wrong with this download. AT

After a performance of Howard Hanson’s First Symphony in Rochester, Kodak multi-millionaire George Eastman hired the 28-year-old composer as director of his recently founded Conservatory. Hanson remained in charge for 40 years, becoming a powerful force in the American musical establishment. His Sibelius-influenced compositional style was out of vogue for much of his career but, in retrospect, he was a pioneer of the “Neo-Romantic” movement decades before musicians like David del Tredici, John Corigliano, and Christopher Rouse would make this approach “respectable.” Hanson’s gloriously melodic Symphony No. 2, written for the 50th anniversary season of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, is his best-known piece, and the composer’s description is apt: “Young in spirit, Romantic in temperament, and direct in expression.” The ethos is very American in its freshness and optimism, which also holds for Hanson’s setting of Walt Whitman texts for Song of Democracy. These composer-led performances, dating from 1957 and 1958, are typical for Mercury—up-front, bright, detailed, and highly involving, but light in the bass. Sonically there’s little difference between the 176/24 download and the SACD iteration. (Though Hanson’s renderings of his own symphonies are authoritative, they are not necessarily the last word on them; check out Gerard Schwarz’s more luxuriant recordings on Delos if you like the music.) Andrew Quint

Imagine my delight when HDtracks released not one but two hi-res versions of one of my all-time favorite albums. But before I tell you how they fare, let me put in a word for the CD. This format tends to work well for small jazz combos, and here the Vince Guaraldi Trio sounds natural and airy. The bare bones, unprocessed treatment afforded the children’s chorus is refreshing and charming. But as good as the CD is, the downloads are in a different league. Guaraldi’s piano is so much more dynamic, it’s as if someone raised the lid. The difference is audible within the first half dozen notes of “Linus and Lucy.” Moreover, the entire presentation is more spacious, and the chorus sounds even more natural, with individual singers easy to discern. The 192/24 version dispenses with the very subtle digital patina that coats the 96/24’s piano, and the chorus is clearer still. However, the less crisp 96/24 version is also mellower and more forgiving. The choice is a matter of preference, but I can’t imagine anyone being less than thrilled—musically and sonically—with either of these downloads. AT
Comments
First the Nirvana download is pure and utter dreck, 96 khz or not. Sorry Bob Ludwig, you screwed this one up.
Even Bruce, who prepares the files for HDtracks, said it was horrible. Sorry Mr. Sircom, a hit to your credibility here.
Secondly, the U2 Achtung Baby is not "high rez" in any shape or form. The original mixes are 44.1/16. They were imported into a work station for the 2011 remaster. 44.1./24 is a total fabrication. For 11 bucks you can get the double CD, a much better value.
They did the same thing with Rush Moving Pictures, which was upsampled to 96/24 from a 44.1/16 mix.
How is HDtracks getting away with this? Having read this thread, I did some research and discovered many of their supposed hi res offerings are not that at all. And how is the audiophile press not calling them on it?
Does anyone know if Linn and Naim have similar issues?
"Overall, the HDtracks release very closely resembles the LP. Maybe that’s how it’s supposed to sound." This is absolute nonsense.
Again, the original mix downs were to DAT at 16 bits. Very, very detailed, as a matter of fact, painful comparisons to the original 1991 CD and the remastered CD , and the download, reveal the slightest of "polishing", and a hint more compression, but tonally identical.
Much of this is artist driven. It was Rush's production team that upsampled the original masters. They wanted add whatever
EQ and compression they deemed necessary in the digital domain. Upsampling of old vintage DIGITAL masters can yield better results
by reducing jitter, but no guarentees. Moving Pictures was one of the first digital rock recording.s
However, HDTracks has been caught with their pants down on many occasions. They put up a bunch of Verve titles that were upsampled to produced fake hi rez. There were others too.
They also are not very forthcoming about the products. For instance, the new Doors "96/24" download is NOT the original mix, but the REMIX done in 2007 for the Studio Box Set. Those mixes are available on the accompanying DVD-A's that came with the box set. This should be FRONT and Center. There is nothing to tell a prospective buyer they are getting remixes. Shameful.
But again, to be fair, most of their hi rez stuff is legit, but the bad stuff is bad.
Well, I've spent a lot of money at HDtracks and find this pretty shocking. I will think twice before buying more from them unless they adopt a more transparent policy.
They are tone deaf to the fact that they have been asked countless times for more transparency.
Plus in my opinion their prices are outrageous. There is no manufacturing, printing, or physical distribution costs, so where is our savings?
The concept is great, the execution sucks.
There are a number of legitimate high rez downloads from hdtracks I have wanted to purchase lately, like the 96/24 flac of the last Fleet Foxes album.
But I am waiting for a 20% off coupon, which I have not seen for a while.
I have the Fleet Foxes. It's very good. Where can one find out which ones are legitimate?
Yes, i am sure the Fleet Foxes is very good since it is a native 96/24 Pro Tools recording. Same for the Alison Krauss album.
The only way to know you are purchasing the real deal is to do your own research. I found out through extensive research that both the AK and the Robert Plant/AK are legit. Raising Sand was an analog mix down, then archived to 96/24.
See that is the kicker..the put the onus on YOU to figure it out. Bad way to do business. An informed customer is a loyal customer.
Just when I whimsically thought that we were starting to crediblize HD ! Finding this out is very disturbing.... but greatly appreciated!
Thanks for saving me a lot more than I have already paid them.
Tom
Just like "asynchronous" USB, HD is another new buzzword they hope will save this hobby.
But to repeat again, much of the stuff on HDTracks are legitimate HIGHER resolution files.
Most of what they sell are ripped SACD and DVD-A files, with studio masters thrown in.
If there is a title you are interested in do your research. Email the engineers. Google is your friend.
Alan Sircom is of no help here. His credibility is zero if he thinks dreck like the Nirvana remaster is worth two cents.