WG, hang in there. 
This is sorted out but I am waiting for another piece of data and will then post.
This is sorted out but I am waiting for another piece of data and will then post.When is Hi-Res not really Hi-Res?
- Thread starter Kippyy
- Start date
OK, here are the spectrum analysis that I performed on the track 1 I bought and the same track Bruce gave me.
Purchased track:
Bruce's Track:
Since we are now using the same program to analyze the files, there is no question that what Bruce supplied to HDTracks is not what is being sold.
More at issue is the heavily compressed sound track. As you can see the one being sold has maxed out dynamic range. Combined with the truncated bandwidth, it seems that what is sold is the CD track, upsampled to 96 Khz/24-bit, instead of the higher resolution source Bruce had. Not good. Not good at all.
I understand Bruce has been in contact with folks at HDTracks. Let's see how they choose to resolve this. I know I want my money back or the true high-res file. I could buy the CD for less money.
Purchased track:
Bruce's Track:
Since we are now using the same program to analyze the files, there is no question that what Bruce supplied to HDTracks is not what is being sold.
More at issue is the heavily compressed sound track. As you can see the one being sold has maxed out dynamic range. Combined with the truncated bandwidth, it seems that what is sold is the CD track, upsampled to 96 Khz/24-bit, instead of the higher resolution source Bruce had. Not good. Not good at all.
I understand Bruce has been in contact with folks at HDTracks. Let's see how they choose to resolve this. I know I want my money back or the true high-res file. I could buy the CD for less money
.Thanks for doing this. As a scientist, I often have my experiments second-guessed and my data scrutinized, so I know just how unpleasant and agonizing this can be. I sincerely apologize to Bruce if I have caused him any such grief, and please know that was not my intent. HDtracks, on the other hand, I think owes us all an explanation, and for those of us who purchased this, a new set of files.
-- Bill
-- Bill
The Scientific Method -- it goes with the territory...
In science, hypotheses and conclusions must withstand challenge...that's what I teach my students.
In science, hypotheses and conclusions must withstand challenge...that's what I teach my students.
Thanks Bill... as you said on CA, I am an advocate for transparency, but also being a vendor for HDtracks, I must not overstep my bounds in calling out discrepancies that I find with what is on the site and what we give them. We're definitely not "Eating Crow", as Paul Raulerson says on CA. Just because I can't post there doesn't mean I can't read the threads. I gave the files to Amir reluctantly since I'm not free to discuss the goings on at HDtracks.
We first brought up the Rolling Stones 176.4 files to them with the issues of Saracon and got our hands slapped. We do have the ear of David and crew and are working diligently to remedy any files that are suspicious. Unfortunately we did a few thousand transfers before these issues started coming to light.
Unfortunately we can't do anything about the crappy mastering (unless we did it)!
We first brought up the Rolling Stones 176.4 files to them with the issues of Saracon and got our hands slapped. We do have the ear of David and crew and are working diligently to remedy any files that are suspicious. Unfortunately we did a few thousand transfers before these issues started coming to light.
Unfortunately we can't do anything about the crappy mastering (unless we did it)!
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but I can not speak for HDtracks. I know in the past, members have been either refunded or gotten vouchers for additional albums that they have deemed unacceptable.
What Bruce said is true. I sent them an email concerning the poor quality of the Rolling Stones *hi-rez* downloads. They apologized and told me to pick out any other album I wanted for free.
WG, would you be willing to share the email inquiry that you sent to HDTracks? That would provide better context for that reply.
Lee
Lee
Looks like a typical reply from a low level office drone. I would like to bring the matter to a higher up in the organization. HDTracks and others Hi-Rez outfit deserve our support but when they mess up, as appears to be the case, they need to be singled out. We should get what we paid for. Hopefully someone from HD Tracks will reply in this very column...
Last edited:
Whichever Hi-res download service you go to, I would bet will have a similar issue with various purchases, HifiNews recent Hi-res download review (do 5-8albums a month in this category) showed HDTracks were fine this month but a different company had an upsampled album on sale as Hi-res.
Key is ensuring one checks the file as your doing and happy they get some kind of refund.
Cheers
Orb
Seeing I am also a customer now , I went ahead and emailed them my complaint. Let's hope they respond properly.
, I went ahead and emailed them my complaint. Let's hope they respond properly.
I agree with Frantz that we should remain supportive in the early stages of the high-res download business. I hope that the companies involved act honorably to address these issues, whether they discovered the problems themselves or the customers found them.
Lee
Lee
I think the main thing is for all of us to encourage them to do quality control spot-checks. I'm sympathetic to the idea that some substandard stuff managed to slip through the cracks, but it has been a couple of years now that they have known some files are problematic. What is frustrating about the True Stories example is that it just appeared, so that tells me that they still aren't even doing what a naive end-user (i.e., me) can do, and the reply to my question about the Kodami album ("what exactly do you see as the problem?") speaks volumes. Presumably they have the professional tools and software and expertise to do this kind of checking much much better and more efficiently than most of their customers can do, and, frankly, the burden of testing shouldn't be placed upon the consumer.
Another thing that would really help is if the spectral analyses from their spot-checks could be posted, so WYSIWYG.
With that, the assumption that the customer is always wrong probably should be abandoned.
Another thing that would really help is if the spectral analyses from their spot-checks could be posted, so WYSIWYG.
With that, the assumption that the customer is always wrong probably should be abandoned.
Yeah as a customer it is frustrating,
but we also need to consider how many tracks-albums these sites deal with, and that I am sure updates are not individual but mass bulks and this takes a lot of time to check, furthermore this can be compounded that they receive the tracks from various studios who probably state they did checks.
Question is, are people willing to pay even more for hi-rez downloads if say the QC of the files is done by the retailer such as HDTracks (which in their case are checked and done by Puget Studios)?
Using basic spectral analysis is not really enough, as an example Keith Howard ended up writing his own software to analyse average and peak dbfs against frequency and time, along with also ensuring they are 24bit and shows actual characteristics of the track.
This process is not quick even when using bespoke software designed specifically to highlight behaviour of filters, aliasing-noise-etc,upsampling, and of secondary consideration bit depth change (say if track is converted to 24 bits from 16bits, however so far this has not happened).
In the case of the recent file, it is worth noting what Bruce had was their hi-rez track while the one on site seems to be CD, but this seems to me to be a batch processing error where the two may had been swapped or somehow both applied while the hi-res became lost, something else similar happening; this is a different situation to that of the file not being checked and processed.
What would be interesting is, are these companies reluctant to refund or taking some form of responsibility?
Seems to me so far they are trying to help, and trying to cope with studios sending incorrect files, IMO it is the studios who send the wrong files or "mislabel" that we should be really critical and vocal about.
Cheers
Orb
but we also need to consider how many tracks-albums these sites deal with, and that I am sure updates are not individual but mass bulks and this takes a lot of time to check, furthermore this can be compounded that they receive the tracks from various studios who probably state they did checks.
Question is, are people willing to pay even more for hi-rez downloads if say the QC of the files is done by the retailer such as HDTracks (which in their case are checked and done by Puget Studios)?
Using basic spectral analysis is not really enough, as an example Keith Howard ended up writing his own software to analyse average and peak dbfs against frequency and time, along with also ensuring they are 24bit and shows actual characteristics of the track.
This process is not quick even when using bespoke software designed specifically to highlight behaviour of filters, aliasing-noise-etc,upsampling, and of secondary consideration bit depth change (say if track is converted to 24 bits from 16bits, however so far this has not happened).
In the case of the recent file, it is worth noting what Bruce had was their hi-rez track while the one on site seems to be CD, but this seems to me to be a batch processing error where the two may had been swapped or somehow both applied while the hi-res became lost, something else similar happening; this is a different situation to that of the file not being checked and processed.
What would be interesting is, are these companies reluctant to refund or taking some form of responsibility?
Seems to me so far they are trying to help, and trying to cope with studios sending incorrect files, IMO it is the studios who send the wrong files or "mislabel" that we should be really critical and vocal about.
Cheers
Orb
HDtracks is a distributor. They do not have the tools to check these files as they come in. That's why they rely on us, Alan and ? to check the files before they are uploaded. We get in hundreds of tracks per/day. We can not check every single track. We have found many times a label will included hi-rez as well as upsampled tracks on one album. It takes about an hour to rip a disc or transfer a tape, cut the file into individual tracks and put in track names/markers.
For a lot of the discs, we have to do sample rate conversions. That takes another 15-20min.
We use Sequoia and Sound Forge to check for spectral analysis. To load a complete album in, render the file and check each individual track, takes another 10min per album.
Once all the files have been collated, then they have to turn all the album notes into pdf files.
I'm not trying to make excuses for HDtracks. They try to get the files to the consumer as quickly as they can.
David and others from HDtracks do read these fora. They are well aware of what is being said about them. I have many times had to answer to these posts from AA, CA, AVS and others. They spend 80% of their time on the phone with customers that can't even get their machines to even play the files. Think of what nightmare that is fielding calls trying to walk customers through their setup and finding that one box isn't checked in their software or... you name it.
This is just one customer in our day to day work environment. Believe me, I'm not getting paid to post here or write other articles.
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |