DT HD Tracks, worth it?

[George Eliot]

I know I haven't been here long and I don't yet have a ton of posts under my belt, but I thought I would give a new thread a try.  Plus, this is something I am very curious about.

Earlier today I went over to HD Tracks.com and listened to the samples from ADToE and compaired them with the Amazon downloaded version I own.  Honestly I couldn't tell the difference.  I listened to them several times and tried really hard find subtle differences, but could find none.

My hardware
PC (motherboard sound, but my motherboard is pretty good)
Jlab Jbuds Epic (sound great to me and certainly a lot better than my old Skull Candies)
Used WMP for Amazon MP3's and browser for HD samples

For you audiophiles out there, do I need better hardware to actually tell the difference?
For you doctors out there, do I just need my ears checked?

So, what do you think?  Are HD Tracks worth it?

[son_ov_hades]

No I'll never pay for a digital download. The vinyl master is superior anyway, and that's my preferred format.

[George Eliot]

No I'll never pay for a digital download. The vinyl master is superior anyway, and that's my preferred format.

I can't believe I forgot vinyl.  Thanks for the reminder.  I adjusted the poll to include that.

[BlobVanDam]

lolvinyl

The HDTracks version is noticeably better if you have good enough equipment (which I can't comment on as I don't know of your earbuds), and are sensitive to loud mastering, but the album still doesn't sound amazing in any format.

It does make the snare drum sound less flat, and brings out more nuances with the cymbals and keyboards that are otherwise buried in guitar, and is less tiring to listen to, but the mix itself is still quite loud, and the difference isn't earth shattering.

[Bolsters]

The different masters are obvious to me even if I use crappy earbuds (which I sometimes do when I take my MP3 player out and about) but really, that's all you're paying for with the HDTracks - the increased bit depth and sampling rate are incidental. The real reason anyone would want to buy these albums from HDTracks is because they find the CD too compressed and they would like something more dynamic.

If you can't tell the difference between the two masters and can't find anything "wrong" with the sound or dynamics of these albums, or you can but aren't bothered by it at all, then there's no point in buying any of the albums again.

[KevShmev]

Yes.

Both ADTOE and DT12 sound noticeably better.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

I already bought the album once, I have no interest in buying it again.

[George Eliot]

lolvinyl

The HDTracks version is noticeably better if you have good enough equipment (which I can't comment on as I don't know of your earbuds), and are sensitive to loud mastering, but the album still doesn't sound amazing in any format.

It does make the snare drum sound less flat, and brings out more nuances with the cymbals and keyboards that are otherwise buried in guitar, and is less tiring to listen to, but the mix itself is still quite loud, and the difference isn't earth shattering.

Well, my earbuds recieved a very favorable review on an audiophile review site (I wouldn't consider myself an audiophile by the way, I was just doing some research before I made the purchase), but they only cost me about $40.

The different masters are obvious to me even if I use crappy earbuds (which I sometimes do when I take my MP3 player out and about) but really, that's all you're paying for with the HDTracks - the increased bit depth and sampling rate are incidental. The real reason anyone would want to buy these albums from HDTracks is because they find the CD too compressed and they would like something more dynamic.

If you can't tell the difference between the two masters and can't find anything "wrong" with the sound or dynamics of these albums, or you can but aren't bothered by it at all, then there's no point in buying any of the albums again.

Yes.

Both ADTOE and DT12 sound noticeably better.

Did you need to train your ears to hear those details?  I don't think my hearing is bad.  Just curious.  I certainly noticed a big difference when I bought my new earbuds vs my old ones.  I heard sounds I didn't even know were in the music, such as JP's pick hitting the strings on the OtBoA intro, and I could finally understand the spoken lyrics part in BIA.  So I figure if I was able to notice those differences I would notice the difference between a 256k mp3 and a 24 bit flac, but maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges.

[dparrott]

Even DT12 HD burned on a CD sounds better than the original. 

[Zydar]

Yes.

Both ADTOE and DT12 sound noticeably better.

[me7]

Even DT12 HD burned on a CD sounds better than the original.

True. The master s a bit better, but the "HD aspect" of HDTracks is mere marketing. Having only 44.1kHz/16bit equipment doesn't degrade audio quality of the HDTracks release in any way.

[Skeever]

I already bought the album once, I have no interest in buying it again.

this

[Bolsters]

I'm starting to get over the desire to have physical copies, so I think the next DT album will be an HDTracks purchase only. Though I will probably cave and buy a disc once the price comes down just for collecting's sake. Definitely HDTracks off the bat though.

[hefdaddy42]

I already bought the album once, I have no interest in buying it again.

This, actually.  I can hear some of the problems in the originals, but they sound good enough to me.

[BlobVanDam]

I wish they'd just release the HDTracks master with the regular album in a special edition, or even better, just use this master to begin with on the standard disc. Whoever decided that "LOUDER IS ALWAYS BETTER!" needs to be shot.

[TAC]

How about releasing the best sounding stuff in the first place?

[Grizz]

As Blob repeatedly pointed out, the only audible difference is in the mastering or lack thereof. I got DTXII on day 1 from HDTracks. A lot more room to breathe. Next will either be BC&SL because I love that album or SC because I hate that album's production.

No I'll never pay for a digital download. The vinyl master is superior anyway, and that's my preferred format.

Vinyl also has a superior master to the other formats, but as Blob has stated, the only benefit to HDTracks is a different but also superior master.

[dparrott]

I'd take a vinyl master on CD over a "brick wall".  Use the brickwall for the mp3's for the casual fan. 

[Grizz]

You could also get the HD master on CD if you're one of those individuals that prefers not to have pop and hiss on their CDs.

[?]

I already bought the album once, I have no interest in buying it again.

This. The dynamic master should've been on the CD so that people wouldn't have to buy the same album twice.

[Grizz]

So is that the fault of the sound engineer or the producer?

[Weymolith]

Yes.

Both ADTOE and DT12 sound noticeably better.

[KevShmev]

I opened up Breaking All Illusions from both the regular CD and the HD CD in Audacity next to each other and took a screenshot of it.  The HD version is the one on the bottom, and you can clearly see how much more compressed the one from the regular CD (seen on top) is.

[George Eliot]

This is turning into a really great discussion!  I tried again to compare the samples on the HDtracks website and the 256k mp3 I bought off of amazon (I did this with every song on both DT12 and ADToE).  I listened to them in 5 second snippets comparing each one closely again and, honestly, I still don't hear a lick of difference.  No difference in pops or hiss or distortion of any kind on either.  I compared the dynamic range my ear can discern with each instrument individually, and still, no difference.

So, this caused me to wonder again, is my hearing just bad?  I am certainly guilty of listening to my music on fairly high levels often (I need to drown out the ladies at work).  I haven't ever had the sonic range of my ears checked.  But at the same time, I don't have a problem hearing as far as I can tell.  I don't ask people to speak up or repeat themselves, I can hear high pitched things like crickets just fine, I can hear the bass guitar on the albums just fine (especially with my new earbuds).

So, being an inquisitive and stubborn person, I decided to do some research.  I found these articles which approach this same issue a little more scientifically:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/16-44-vs-24-192-experiment-163/

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

The first article actually references the second but does his own experiment, both are fairly exhaustive.  In a nut shell, they both claim that the human ear is not capable of discerning the differnce between 16/44 and 24/192, and any perceived difference is really all in our head.  One also claims that anything above a 192k mp3 is also not discernible.  I was fascinated to find that these articles conclusions were the same as my own experience.  They state that the best way to get a better audio experience is not in a higher bit rate but rather in better sound equipment, which is also what I discovered after I bought my new earbuds.

But, I don't think the discussion ends here, and I certainly wouldn't call anyone, who swears there is a distinct difference, a liar.  I think there might be more to our physical bodies capabilities to detect sound waves then we currently understand.  For instance, I discovered a few years ago that the human heart has it's own rudimentary brain.  Now, our brains are the devices that interpret the information our ears detect as audible sound, and my question is, does this rudimentary brain in our hearts have any of the same capacity?  We know that sound waves vibrate through other mediums and vibrate differently depending on the medium (such as the human body).  The human body has solid parts, liquid parts, soft tissues, hard tissues and empty cavities.  All of these could change the way sound travels through us as individuals, and, hypothetically, could alter the way each of us perceives sound and its range.  So, even if our ears cannot detect a difference, perhaps our bodies can and that information could still be transferred to and interpreted by our brains.

What do you think?  Are the articles right?  Or is there more to this issue?

[rumborak]

As an owner of the regular DT12, I refuse to dish out more money to get "the album they should have released".

[KevShmev]

This is turning into a really great discussion!  I tried again to compare the samples on the HDtracks website and the 256k mp3 I bought off of amazon (I did this with every song on both DT12 and ADToE).  I listened to them in 5 second snippets comparing each one closely again and, honestly, I still don't hear a lick of difference.   

With all due respect, do you honestly expect to hear a difference in 5-second snippets?  Did you look at my earlier post, with the screenshot?  Just asking.

As an owner of the regular DT12, I refuse to dish out more money to get "the album they should have released".

See, I don't get this kind of prideful "I refuse to pay for it again" stance.  With all of the money I blow on God knows what, forking over another 20 bucks to hear one of my favorite band's albums sound better seems like a drop in the well. 

[rumborak]

Well, at this point I just don't listen to DT all that much anymore. So, realistically, DT has one chance to win me over with an album. That album is DT12-regular, and despite of what one might say about the songwriting, it is completely brickwalled and has drum machine sound.
At some point I tried to torrent the HD tracks, but the torrent didn't have enough seeds. So, I lost interest.

[Skeever]

There's no impression like a first impression.

I too was a bit saddened that the HD Tracks version wasn't better advertised. I already had run out to buy DT12 when I realized that there was an "HD" version with a good master out the next week or so. A shame because I would have gladly payed the little extra for that one instead, but I'm not going to pay 150% extra just to hear it.

[The Letter M]

If you cannot tell the difference, it's not worth it. If you can, then it really comes down to whether or not you're enough of an audiophile to get the HDTracks version or just stick with what you've got.

If it's an album you don't own yet, in ANY capacity, it just comes down to if you want the better sounding one (assuming there is a difference, or if you can tell) or if you want the physical product (as many collectors would want, especially those who don't use MP3s often, if at all).

I bet if HDTracks sold their masters on a physical medium, they'd make bank, but as it stands, they already charge a hefty amount for files.

-Marc.

[KevShmev]

Well, at this point I just don't listen to DT all that much anymore. So, realistically, DT has one chance to win me over with an album. That album is DT12-regular, and despite of what one might say about the songwriting, it is completely brickwalled and has drum machine sound.
At some point I tried to torrent the HD tracks, but the torrent didn't have enough seeds. So, I lost interest.

Fair enough. 

[George Eliot]

With all due respect, do you honestly expect to hear a difference in 5-second snippets?  Did you look at my earlier post, with the screenshot?  Just asking.

Oh, I should have explained myself better.  In my first go around of listening, I just listened to the whole 30 sec. preview of each song at once and compared them with the mp3's I have.  Based on my experience, I decided to start this thread.  Then, after reading some of the comments I went back to compare again.  But this time I did it 5 sec. at a time so I wouldn't miss anything subtle.  But I also re-listened to the whole 30 sec chunks so I could compare each instrument individually.  5 sec. isn't enough, I agree, I only did that to compare detail, but, honestly, 30 sec. really isn't enough either.  I wish they would extend those previews to 1 min. instead.  I think I could make a better comparison with that.  I have a friend who is a self-proclaimed audiophile and has all that really expensive stuff, so I think I might ask if I can do a retest using his stuff over the weekend.

I did see the picture in your post.  And yeah, it looks vastly different.  But I honestly can't hear the difference.  Perhaps those are the areas of sound we just can't hear referenced in the articles, and that is why they cut it off in production.  I don't know, I'm far from an expert, and I'm just in the beginnings of learning all this stuff.  That's why I started this thread, so I could learn from people more experienced than me.

[seasonsinthesky]

recording music for a living, i have to say i've learned i can clearly hear the difference between 44.1kHz and 48kHz sampling rates, but after that it's unnoticeable. this is despite my age dropping my natural hearing range to top off at about 17kHz (as we all do). i gain more solace in the knowledge that higher sampling rates mean a superior capture of the original sound, which is scientific fact... sorta like your camera capturing every nuance in the RAW photo format but having to be whittled down to be spread on the internet as a JPEG or whatever.

with that said, the big win with these is definitely that they are less loud and therefore don't fatigue as badly over the course of the album. SC used to be impossible to sit through the entire record until this master came out (for me)!

[Grizz]

The first article actually references the second but does his own experiment, both are fairly exhaustive.  In a nut shell, they both claim that the human ear is not capable of discerning the differnce between 16/44 and 24/192, and any perceived difference is really all in our head.

Aye, but the fact is that the HDTracks version is not just without downsampling. It's also from a different master that hasn't gone through the detail-crushing ear-tiring dynamic range compression that the rest of the releases (vinyl notwithstanding) did. That's really the source of the audible difference.

[Implode]

What grizzly said. The majority of the noticeable increase in quality from the CD release is that the HD Tracks are in their pre-mastered form.

[me7]

sorta like your camera capturing every nuance in the RAW photo format but having to be whittled down to be spread on the internet as a JPEG or whatever.

I prefer the comparison to a camera that captures infrared and ultraviolet light, light with frequencies that your eyes can't perceive, just as higher sampling rates capture sound frequencies that your ears can't perceive.

JPEG is better compared to lossy compression like MP3.