DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
Dream Theater => Dream Theater => Topic started by: George Eliot on June 25, 2014, 09:02:20 PM
-
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?
-
No I'll never pay for a digital download. The vinyl master is superior anyway, and that's my preferred format.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I already bought the album once, I have no interest in buying it again.
-
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.
-
Even DT12 HD burned on a CD sounds better than the original.
-
Yes.
Both ADTOE and DT12 sound noticeably better.
-
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.
-
I already bought the album once, I have no interest in buying it again.
this
-
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. :loser: Definitely HDTracks off the bat though.
-
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.
-
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.
-
How about releasing the best sounding stuff in the first place?
-
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.
-
I'd take a vinyl master on CD over a "brick wall". Use the brickwall for the mp3's for the casual fan.
-
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.
-
So is that the fault of the sound engineer or the producer?
-
Yes.
Both ADTOE and DT12 sound noticeably better.
-
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.
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v394/kevshmev/Screenshot2014-06-26at14214PM_zpsf941eb46.png)
-
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?
-
As an owner of the regular DT12, I refuse to dish out more money to get "the album they should have released".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :tup :tup
-
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.
-
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)!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
That. If it was the exact same master, but just in HD, you wouldn't hear any difference. The reason the HDTracks version is better is 100% because it's not the same master as what got put on the CD. Even if you take the HDTracks version, and downsample it and burn it back onto a CD, it will retain all of the benefits of that better master.
-
All this talk made me dig my HD Tracks from the lifeboat-HardDrive. It really feels way less tiring to my hears than the CD version, where I can hardly stand two songs in a row. :)
I'd say it was well worth the price for me!
-
I'm actually surprised to never have seen "audiophiles" rant against dithering, since that intentionally adds noise to the final signal.
-
I have, you mostly see that on remasters of 70s records. Soooo bad on the Yes remasters.
-
I'm actually surprised to never have seen "audiophiles" rant against dithering, since that intentionally adds noise to the final signal.
I don't think audiophiles are knowledgeable enough about technical details to go any further beyond "digital bad". :P
-
Leave it to an Autobot to poke fun at old people not liking new technology. :lol
-
Actually, the most vocal fans of analogue audio and vinyl I meet aren't old people, they are young hipsters.
-
You need to go on music forums were a lot of old music fans are. Oh they complain. :lol
-
Sonically it is worth it but it sucks they won't go on my iPhone.
-
Just downsample them to 16/44 or 16/48 (if the iPhone supports it) and encode ithem in AAC or AIFF. :chill
-
The HD tracks, IMHO, should have been an optional download that comes with the regular CD. I have no problem with creating a car stereo-friendly version, and that even be the main version. It's just the apparent attitude of "yeah, we put 20 layers into our music, but you're not gonna hear the difference anyway because you're a metal fan and your hearing is shot. If you actually care about the music, well, wait a few months and prepare to pay again, and even more." that bugs me.
EDIT: Alternatively, offer the HD tracks + regular CD on release date, (arguably) at a slightly higher price.
-
The HDTracks were available on DTXII's release date for a bit more than the CD.
-
Yeah, but no one knew they were coming and they weren't announce with preorders. So if you were like me, you'd already gone out and bought or preordered the inferior version without realizing the HQ version was coming.
Anyway, the lesson I learned is just "don't buy". Listen on Spotify or another free streaming service. And then IF YOU REALLY LIKE it, buy it. Or pay for a Spotify subscription so you can listen to it anywhere.
-
Sorry yeah, I got the timeline mixed up because of the preordering and the stream that was up for a week. The point still stands, the folks who likely would care about the HD tracks, were the ones forced to buy it all over again.
-
I suspect more than a few of us here might not buy the next CD immediately next time around if word gets out that it has sound issues again AND we think an HD version is coming. I am not a big fan of downloading stuff, especially by my favorite artists whom I like to support, but if they are gonna pull this again, I may have no choice. And I don't think it was a conscious decision of the band or anything like that, but if they can't make the normal CD sound as good as possible, then it's their own fault if some of us are forced to get it for free while waiting for the HD version.
-
Preordering has become a joke too. Quite a few people here were pissed that their local CD store had the album in the shelves, while they were still waiting for theirs in the mail.
Regarding the sound, remember when the stream was up for a week and everybody was like "don't judge the sound quality by the compressed stream!!". Then the album came out and everybody was like " Oh." :lol
-
I've never gotten the appeal of pre-ordering, especially when it's a CD that I know will be at Best Buy on the Tuesday it comes out (a category which Dream Theater amazingly still falls under).
-
I've never gotten the appeal of pre-ordering, especially when it's a CD that I know will be at Best Buy on the Tuesday it comes out (a category which Dream Theater amazingly still falls under).
Same here. Hell, I live in Mount Airy, NC, and DT is sold at our local Wal-Mart. No reason to pre-order (unless some cool promotion, like the autographed lithograph I got for pre-ordering SC).
-
But I can't be bothered going out in the sunlight. Steven Wilson can go to hell!
-
The HD tracks, IMHO, should have been an optional download that comes with the regular CD.
Agreed. When Witherscape released their debut album last year, they included a "full dynamics" version of the album as MP3s in the limited edition. I think DT should do something like that with the next album.
I suspect more than a few of us here might not buy the next CD immediately next time around if word gets out that it has sound issues again AND we think an HD version is coming. I am not a big fan of downloading stuff, especially by my favorite artists whom I like to support, but if they are gonna pull this again, I may have no choice. And I don't think it was a conscious decision of the band or anything like that, but if they can't make the normal CD sound as good as possible, then it's their own fault if some of us are forced to get it for free while waiting for the HD version.
Yeah, next time I may wait for an announcement of a HD Tracks version before buying the album.
re: pre-ordering: I only pre-order an album if I know I won't find it at a local store or if there's a bundle that includes a T-shirt or some other extra.
-
Use the brickwall for the mp3's for the casual fan.
This statement, and others like it, bothers me.
I'm not a casual fan but I love mp3s. They sound great in my car and on my iPod. Encoding the CD tracks myself at 256-320, organizing and tagging them "properly", and putting in the album artwork is fun to do.
The only time I can (maybe) hear a difference is if I can take the time to listen to my (mid-range) home theatre or be able to afford $300 earbuds or a $500 headset.
I really don't enjoy being made to feel inferior cuz I like mp3s and/or I don't have a multi-thousand-dollar audio setup. Audiophile "elitists" (I'm not saying dparrot is one of these) make me feel pretty stupid about how I listen to music. It would be similar to people who only drive $100,000 cars telling me how I'm not a "real" driver cuz I'm not doing the same.
-
There's no reason why the mp3 can't sound amazing, PetFish.... don't feel bad
-
There is absolutely nothing wrong with mp3s as long as they are encoded at 200+ kbps. Frankly, DT 12 is so brickwalled you'd be able to tell if it was encoded in Real Audio. As I mentioned before, people were initially blaming the compressed stream that was up for a week. When the CD came out there was a good amount of consternation.
-
To be fair, there are times when SoundCloud really does sound quite a bit worse than the final product, so I wouldn't blame anyone on being optimistic and thinking that the final product would sound better.
-
No I'll never pay for a digital download.
totally agree
-
There's no reason why the mp3 can't sound amazing, PetFish.... don't feel bad
Thanks. I don't feel bad at all about mp3s, I love them, and listen to them when I don't have time to sit in front of my home theatre, which is 98.333 (repeating, of course) of the time.
It's the audiphiles that trash anything lossy (aka The Lossless Gestapo, haven't used that one in a while) that make me feel bad. If people can here the difference between an mp3 @ 320 and a .wav on average equipment, great, they have excellent ears, but they never seem to want to be proud of that, they have to tell others who can't hear the difference on average equipment how crappy their ears are and *snort* cuz they don't have uber-ukabaduka sound systems.
I will agree that any mp3 @ 192 or less will not sound very good on average-or-better equipment but to audiophiles mp3=mp3=lossy=garbage, no matter the equipment or listening environment and they always seem to come across as elitist douches.
No disprespect to anyone, not saying anyone specifically, but it's just the general feeling. :)
-
As someone who likes to screw around with audio I like to have lossless copies, but when I listen to music on my phone or iPod it's usually 256 kbps AAC or 192 kbps MP3 if I haven't reripped. The only decent pair of speakers I own are Shure SE215 IEMs, which I typically wear in high noise environments (behind the drumset).
-
Is there a difference between the HD tracks and the Blu-Ray 5.1 surround sound mix?
-
I always plan to buy the HD tracks version. Then the CD is released and available for $8.99 or $9.99 at Best Buy or Amazon and I just go get that.
HD tracks only has the Roadrunner releases, so I don't have the urge to get them. If they had I&W to Octavarium, I'd probably snatch those up.
-
Is there a difference between the HD tracks and the Blu-Ray 5.1 surround sound mix?
HDTracks doesn't offer DT surround sound mixes, so yes, there would be about 4 channels of difference :lol
-
Is there a difference between the HD tracks and the Blu-Ray 5.1 surround sound mix?
Most people seem to think that the HDTracks have the CD mix but with a different, more dynamic master. They're only stereo.
If you're talking about Breaking the Fourth Wall, people were disappointed with those HDTracks.
-
No I'll never pay for a digital download.
totally agree
I don't mind if it's one song that's not an album for example. . .
Although I do like to buy singles if the album isn't out for a while - but then iI always buy the Special Edition CD.
I almost never buy digital albums from iTunes except when it's a lot cheaper to get it from iTunes and the CD artwork / packaging
is lame - like Sonic Highways for example. I'm not paying £4 extra for a piece of card. . . .
-
I think the HD Tracks are much better. I couldn't tell the difference from listening to the samples on the website but I could tell the difference once I downloaded them. Are the samples really the same high quality? I also can tell a difference with higher bit depths and sampling rates. I have noticed that some people are more sensitive to sound than others so that does play into it. I have always been picky about sound but my wife could care less.
I hate to hurt physical CD sales but because of the poor masters I am going to wait for the HD Tracks this time and only purchase that. It probably won't make that much difference but it might get peoples attention if the number of HD tracks sales go up and other mediums go down if we all did this. I would hate though for this to be interpreted that I am not interested in a physical CD. I WANT a physical CD but not one with a compressed master.
-
It's so unfortunate that the regular CD is so compressed. I don't think they would ever have released such an album if MP was still in the band.
-
I hate to hurt physical CD sales
The problem here is HD Tracks should be cheaper than the physical CD. It didn't go through a mastering process and the distribution/manufacturing costs are infinitely cheaper.
If I knew I could get uncompressed files on an album release date simply by downloading a few files and charging my credit card $8 to $10, I'd do it for every audio purchase.
-
It's so unfortunate that the regular CD is so compressed. I don't think they would ever have released such an album if MP was still in the band.
Systematic Chaos says hi.
-
I just wish DT would do what Dan Swanö did with the latest Nightingale and Witherscape albums: include a more dynamic mix as an enhancement on the limited edition to give an alternative for those who want better-quality audio AND a physical product.
-
It's so unfortunate that the regular CD is so compressed. I don't think they would ever have released such an album if MP was still in the band.
SC wasn't too far away from that compression level.
To me, the very fact that the HDTracks exist as a separate product that was released after the CD, really rubs me the wrong way. It really says "if you care about sound, pay twice the money". Had they made the HDTracks available as part of a package right from the getgo, with a slight surcharge, that would have been fine. But this way, they made everyone buy the CD first, and then had their core base, the ones who give a shit about sound, shell out again.
-
It's so unfortunate that the regular CD is so compressed. I don't think they would ever have released such an album if MP was still in the band.
SC wasn't too far away from that compression level.
Most of their 2000s albums aren't too far from that compression level really. SC is a bit more noticeable because it's compressed more in the bass frequencies, and the bass drum clips a bit (especially TDEN). I think the high end is slightly more dynamic than others, like BCASL. It's a bit of a weird one for mastering.
DT12 isn't too much more compressed, but when they're that close to the edge, that tiny bit makes a big difference to how listenable it is. Judging from the HDTracks version, I think the mix itself is pretty amped too. I don't have the HDTracks of the earlier RR albums for comparison, but I expect their mixes were a bit more dynamic to begin with.
-
I think DT12's mix was compressed as well. Even though the HD Tracks files are dynamic there still seems to be something off with it. I bought Muse's "The 2nd Law" from HD Tracks and that version is awesome. It was a good example to me of how clear and dynamic a modern record could sound.(It actually could have had a little more dynamic range but I am not complaining)
I think this is the reason why many people have a harder time hearing the difference on DT12.
-
The problem here is HD Tracks should be cheaper than the physical CD. It didn't go through a mastering process and the distribution/manufacturing costs are infinitely cheaper.
But... but... they slapped big numbers on the virtual label and catered to a market known for people that buy gold plated digital cables and think it helps sound quality!
-
Systematic Chaos says hi.
Well, it said hello. It just got compressed to hi.
-
Systematic Chaos says hi.
Well, it said hello. It just got compressed to hi.
:lol :lol :lol
Anyway, i think the problem with DT's sound is not only the mastering, since it seems that the individual tracks are compressed as well, so the mix is no so dynamic anyway.
But in my honest opinion, the CD version should have the dynamic mastering, it's no excuse to sell the better sounding version digitally only and even more expensive than the standard version. Fuck it.
-
I suspect more than a few of us here might not buy the next CD immediately next time around
I am definitely not buying the CD straight away, after the appalling experience with the sound of DT12 and subsequent HD tracks release. I will wait it out and then make a judgement. If reviews of the album's sound are good, I'll probably go and get it. If not, and reviews of the HD tracks are far more positive, I'll get those and then maybe buy a used copy of the CD much later on for the completionist in me.
-
I am definitely not buying the CD straight away, after the appalling experience with the sound of DT12 and subsequent HD tracks release.
HD Tracks could do something that makes everybody happy.
If you preorder the new album coming out with HD Tracks, you can buy all the rest of the Dream Theater albums they have for $9.99 each with the same purchase. I bet many hardcore DT fans would take them up on that.
-
I suspect more than a few of us here might not buy the next CD immediately next time around
I am definitely not buying the CD straight away, after the appalling experience with the sound of DT12 and subsequent HD tracks release. I will wait it out and then make a judgement. If reviews of the album's sound are good, I'll probably go and get it. If not, and reviews of the HD tracks are far more positive, I'll get those and then maybe buy a used copy of the CD much later on for the completionist in me.
Same here.
-
So what about this (https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html) ?
-
So what about this (https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html) ?
Can someone give me a tl/dr version?
-
So what about this (https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html) ?
Can someone give me a tl/dr version?
It says: old pricks with dodgy ears from decades of way-too-loud-music can't hear shit. Buying, expensive, huge, music files in a format that only a few music players can run is a stupid waste of money.
Happy?
-
So what about this (https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html) ?
The better sound quality of the HDTracks version was entirely due to being a different master (all the benefits of which would still exist at CD quality), not due to the marketing gimmick of "HD", if that's what you mean.
The audio frequencies on the HD version of DT12 completely roll off by about 28-30Khz anyway, so while you're gaining a little bit extra over the CD's 22.1Khz bandwidth, it's nothing ridiculous or excessive. I just did a quick test by deleting everything below 22.1Khz, leaving effectively only what you'd gain from the HDTracks version, and while there is sound there, it's obviously nothing audible to human ears.
-
Actually, it talked about the fact that the fact that as the frequencies go into the extreme highs and lows (mostly highs), it takes more db to be recognizable. And sense a certain threshold hold of db = pain, hearing above 20kHz isn't very enjoyable to begin with.
Intermodulation distortion in the dog ear range can affect the human ear range, so 192/24 could actually be worse. A way to solve that is to have an ultra-tweeter, but why?
Nyquist frequency = 192kHz / 2 = 96kHz and you only need a small pad over 20khz, so what's the point?
24 bit is used during the actual instrument recording process to give headroom to avoid digital distortion. It is there for recording, not playback.
But I don't really pay attention to this stuff enough to feel confident in my summation. I mostly use my ears.
So once again, 192/24 is bigger in file size, but not only is it not necessarily better, it can actually be worse. (Article's words, not mine.)
-
So what about this (https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html) ?
Can someone give me a tl/dr version?
It says: old pricks with dodgy ears from decades of way-too-loud-music can't hear shit. Buying, expensive, huge, music files in a format that only a few music players can run is a stupid waste of money.
Happy?
Yes, thank you.
-
Actually, it talked about the fact that the fact that as the frequencies go into the extreme highs and lows (mostly highs), it takes more db to be recognizable. And sense a certain threshold hold of db = pain, hearing above 20kHz isn't very enjoyable to begin with.
Intermodulation distortion in the dog ear range can affect the human ear range, so 192/24 could actually be worse. A way to solve that is to have an ultra-tweeter, but why?
Nyquist frequency = 192kHz / 2 = 96kHz and you only need a small pad over 20khz, so what's the point?
24 bit is used during the actual instrument recording process to give headroom to avoid digital distortion. It is there for recording, not playback.
But I don't really pay attention to this stuff enough to feel confident in my summation. I mostly use my ears.
So once again, 192/24 is bigger in file size, but not only is it not necessarily better, it can actually be worse. (Article's words, not mine.)
As I said, DT12's HD version isn't using anywhere near those high frequencies, and isn't pounding your ears with high frequencies at loud volumes. It rolls off steadily as any professional recording does, and basically contains nothing above 30Khz at the most extreme. It gains enough to technically preserve the recording better, but I don't believe it would result in worse quality in any way vs the CD. The frequencies go high enough to utilize a tad higher than 48Khz sampling would allow (the next most common increment down), so I think the 96Khz sample rate is justified, if you don't mind using the storage space.
But nobody here is really arguing the HDTracks version's merits based on the sampling rate, it's just the matter of them using a different and better master. If they stuck that master on the CD, we'd all be just as happy. :tup
-
Actually, it talked about the fact that the fact that as the frequencies go into the extreme highs and lows (mostly highs), it takes more db to be recognizable. And sense a certain threshold hold of db = pain, hearing above 20kHz isn't very enjoyable to begin with.
Intermodulation distortion in the dog ear range can affect the human ear range, so 192/24 could actually be worse. A way to solve that is to have an ultra-tweeter, but why?
Nyquist frequency = 192kHz / 2 = 96kHz and you only need a small pad over 20khz, so what's the point?
24 bit is used during the actual instrument recording process to give headroom to avoid digital distortion. It is there for recording, not playback.
But I don't really pay attention to this stuff enough to feel confident in my summation. I mostly use my ears.
So once again, 192/24 is bigger in file size, but not only is it not necessarily better, it can actually be worse. (Article's words, not mine.)
As Blob said, nobody here cares about the sound definition. What we care about is the quality of the mastering. If DT are only going to release a satisfactorily mastered album on HD tracks, then that is where some people will choose to buy it.
-
The better sound quality of the HDTracks version was entirely due to being a different master
Yes. The article talks about that. That a SACD might sound better than the CD counterpart simply because you are comparing apples to oranges at the source.
The article makes it sound like the HD tracks would be good to get (if they are indeed from the master recording, but not the mastered recording) with the high end (dog ear) cut off so your amplifier's THD doesn't allow the upper frequencies to intermodulate the lower (human ear) frequencies.
I'm sure there is another article that claims the exact opposite.
-
The better sound quality of the HDTracks version was entirely due to being a different master
Yes. The article talks about that. That a SACD might sound better than the CD counterpart simply because you are comparing apples to oranges at the source.
The article makes it sound like the HD tracks would be good to get (if they are indeed from the master recording, but not the mastered recording) with the high end (dog ear) cut off so your amplifier's THD doesn't allow the upper frequencies to intermodulate the lower (human ear) frequencies.
I'm sure there is another article that claims the exact opposite.
Probably. :lol
I don't buy into the audiophile stuff, and make no claims either way, I just want the better master in whatever form it becomes available to us. Ideally, I'd like it to be what is used on the CD itself, but if it's only available from HDTracks, then that's what I'll get.
-
Ideally, I'd like it to be what is used on the CD itself, but if it's only available from HDTracks, then that's what I'll get.
The funny part is if you are older, you didn't grow up on massively compressed albums. But if you are older, you are more likely to buy the CD.
So they should just make the CDs the digitally dynamic version, and the digital downloads should be the slammed master.
They got it reversed. (Maybe that's why the music industry is dying. It has nothing to do with torrents after all.)
-
I don't care much for the hi-res part, but I'd love if they used the same master they used for HD Tracks on their normal CD and digital releases. No reason why anyone needs to be stuck with a compressed staticy mess when a superior master exists.
-
I am happy that the good master is available for download because it gives access to us in ghe international market, who are killed by the price of the CDs.
-
The funny part is if you are older, you didn't grow up on massively compressed albums. But if you are older, you are more likely to buy the CD.
So they should just make the CDs the digitally dynamic version, and the digital downloads should be the slammed master.
They got it reversed. (Maybe that's why the music industry is dying. It has nothing to do with torrents after all.)
exactly. do it the Dan Swäno way: use the loudest master for the YouTube/iTunes/other digital retailer market, and sell the more dynamic master exactly the same (save bit depth and sample rate conversions) across the CD, vinyl, and HDTracks markets.
-
I suspect more than a few of us here might not buy the next CD immediately next time around
I am definitely not buying the CD straight away, after the appalling experience with the sound of DT12 and subsequent HD tracks release. I will wait it out and then make a judgement. If reviews of the album's sound are good, I'll probably go and get it. If not, and reviews of the HD tracks are far more positive, I'll get those and then maybe buy a used copy of the CD much later on for the completionist in me.
Same here.
-
Ideally, I'd like it to be what is used on the CD itself, but if it's only available from HDTracks, then that's what I'll get.
The funny part is if you are older, you didn't grow up on massively compressed albums. But if you are older, you are more likely to buy the CD.
So they should just make the CDs the digitally dynamic version, and the digital downloads should be the slammed master.
They got it reversed. (Maybe that's why the music industry is dying. It has nothing to do with torrents after all.)
This is an interesting point. Most younger people I know don't use CDs at all. It's all listening to music on youtube or downloading off itunes. Personally, I'm a bit of an OCD collector so I like having hard copys. I've been doing this with music CDs, movie DVDs (even have a decent collection of old VHS tapes :xbones) and of course video games. I hate how everything's going digital, especially when there's limited licences or crap like that, like when you can only 'activate' a digital download 5 or so times before you don't even own it anymore, but I digress. I suppose the plus side is that it's very convenient, more accessible and lasts longer.
I also think torrents are pretty irrelevant because the people that download that stuff are not the people that were ever gonna shell out any money for what they're downloading anyway so I don't think it's anyone's loss, just more exposure in the end which can only be good.