Over the years, there has been some controversy over some releases sold by HDtracks and there are some ongoing issues and concerns mainly related to the quality and provenance of HD remasters. I recently had an opportunity to speak to David Chesky by phone and talk about some of these issues and concerns.
Can you tell us how HDtracks got started? I don't necessarily mean history, I'm more interested in the reasons behind starting HDtracks.
Years ago, many years ago I had this idea but the web wasn't there yet. It wasn't fast enough, the bandwidth for HD downloads wasn't readily available. It took time. It took years to build.
I liked this idea for two main reasons:
A) Even if you're living in Idaho were there aren't any music stores you can listen to, preview, and buy all of this great music. If you're going to buy a new recording of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 you pretty much know something about what you're going to get even if you haven't heard it. But with contemporary music, you have no idea what the new Jane Doe record is, what it's going to sound like. Now we can preview all of this music before we buy it.
And B) Playback execution, mainly playing from memory, has allowed digital to sound great.
"We sell what artists want us to sell and in the end I have to respect their vision."
One of the main issues I've seen discussed on various audio-related forums is the sound quality of some HD downloads. Specifically, there have been some releases such as Nirvana's Nevermind where it appears as if additional dynamic compression was employed during the remastering process and other releases that appear to have been upsampled to create a higher resolution version from a CD-quality recording. Could you provide an overview of the process for a HD remaster, what HDtracks' involvement is this process, and what if anything HDtracks can do to ensure the quality of the HD remasters you sell.
HDtracks is a delivery system. We sell what artists want us to sell and in the end I have to respect their vision. This is an aesthetic choice and some musicians like the sound of analog and even digital compression. That's the way they want it. Look, if you buy a contemporary rock record chances are its going to be compressed. On the other hand, the entire Warner Brothers Jazz Series catalog is 192/24, uncompressed, unedited and straight from the masters. Check that stuff out, Ellington, Coltrane, The MJQ...It sounds amazing.
"Look, Reference Recordings gets it. Water Lilly gets it. But some people still don't get it."
About two years ago we were sent a few files from a label that were represented as being 24/96 and they were not. They didn't get it. Look, Reference Recordings gets it. Water Lilly gets it. But some people still don't get it. So now we have three outside sources testing everything before we release it on HDtracks to make sure it is what its claimed to be. These are mastering studios who are spending their time listening to and testing things for us using equipment that's much better than something like Audacity.
This is a learning process. It's going to take time for artists and producers to really understand what hi res audio is, but HDtracks is shifting the paradigm to quality.
On the subject of dynamic compression, consumers are starting to rely on sites like the "Unofficial" Dynamic Range Database as well as applications like Audacity to determine the sound quality of a given recording. Is there some rating system HDtracks can put into place to give customers an idea of the quality of a recording before they buy it?
No! Look, some artist is going to say 'Why did you rate my record as sounding bad. That's exactly what I wanted'. I've had people say to me that some of our recordings [on the Chesky Label] have too much natural reverb or not enough bass but I'm not going to change the way I do things based on someone else's opinion. That's the art form, part of the complete aesthetic. This is not a science its an art.
And people can preview music and listen for themselves, download a single track before buying the entire album.
"We can ask, we can suggest but in the end we cannot tell the labels what to do."
Another concern I've seen discussed boils down to provenance. People are interested in information regarding the origin of a remaster, as well as the specific steps taken during the remastering process. I've seen this information available for some HD releases and was wondering why its not available for all releases.
We rely on the labels for this information and while we always ask for it and try to explain why we feel its important, we cannot dictate this kind of thing to the labels. We can ask, we can suggest but in the end we cannot tell the labels what to do. As we grow we'll have more influence and people will learn why these things are important. But when this information is available to us, we make it available on HDtracks.
Some people feel that the prices for HD downloads are prohibitively high and some people feel HDtracks is responsible. Is this true?
HDtracks is a delivery system. The labels dictate the wholesale price and we add our markup just like Tower Records or any other retailer.
With the internet record companies are getting slammed and hanging there, I dont know another business where people just walk in and take things off the shelves like they do with illegal downloads. So the drop in volume will dictate prices as well.
"We want HDtracks to be like a club, a premium service, something special."
I've noticed a lot of "coming soon" labels listed on the HDtracks website including ESP Disk which I'm particularly excited about. How many HD albums are currently available from HD Tracks and can you give us a rough idea of where you think you'll be 12 and 24 months from now?
I have no idea. Look, we're not trying to be the biggest, we're trying to be the best of the best. We want HDtracks to be like a club, a premium service, something special.
Comments
This was really needed. Thank you for speaking with Mr. Chesky about his business model. I appreciate the fact that Chesky is doing what it can to be open and honest about the content provided by various record labels.
Let's hope this educates more consumers and professionals about hifi,
Let's hope this educates more consumers and professionals about hifi
I thought this quote from David Chesky sumed things up nicely (and I probably should highlighted it):
"It's going to take time for artists and producers to really understand what hi res audio is, but HDtracks is shifting the paradigm to quality"
Nice interview. This is as candid as I have seen David Chesky.
However...some obvious questions were not answered
First, HDTracks CAN provide source of their FILES...not necessarily the mastering or the remastering, as that is done by the record company, but they CAN tell us whcih files ripped from DVD-A, SACD, etc. They do this THEMSELVES. The others that are new tape archives do have more lineage. They need to standardize the information they provide us.
BTW, the Nirvana is a total an utter disaster. I would love to know how a reviewer like Alan Taffel can live with himself after calling it and the Stones Some Girls excellent. He probably gets his downloads free and did not want to bite the hand that feeds. But what happened to serving the reader?
Jesus said, “Let he who is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone.”
“Ouch!” said Jesus as he cringed from being struck on the temple with a stone, “Oh come on Mom. I was trying to make a point!”
I believe it’s in HDtracks best interest to provide this information and I also believe they’d agree. I’ve also seen this kind of information available for a number of releases on HDtracks. Point being while I am not, nor do I want to be, in a position to defend HDtracks, one takeaway point I’ve taken away is they’re helping to define this market and its not yet perfected. But I do not see any ulterior motives at work.
And while I do not know Mr. Taffel, I do know that others have enjoyed the Nirvana Nevermind HD release so I’m not so sure I’d call it a disaster. I also know that I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions as to his motives and I especially wouldn’t assume the worst-case scenario.
Then again, I don't want to be in a position to defend him either but due to the nature of your questions, I kinda sorta feel inclined to. Which leads me to believe that the very nature of the scenarios you've presented is unnecessarily offensive.
Fair enough, points taken.
"I believe it’s in HDtracks best interest to provide this information and I also believe they’d agree. I’ve also seen this kind of information available for a number of releases on HDtracks."
So if they would agree...why is there no lineage literally hundreds if not thousands of internet postings requesting this?
It is NOT that hard.
Let's see:
Foreigner 4:
Ripped from DVD-A with Playback Designs modified unit.
Remixed from the multitrack tapes.
Prepared for download by Bruce Brown.
Wow, that was hard! (This is my own hypothetical liner notes).
As far as Nevermind and Some Girls, I have a direct quote from Bruce Brown, who prepared the files for download, where he calls these remasters "unlistenable" and hugely dissapointing. Kind trumps Taffel, sorry.
I will leave him alone and just assume he has sub par listening skills, as opossed to alterior motives.
As far as Nevermind and Some Girls, I have a direct quote from Bruce Brown, who prepared the files for download, where he calls these remasters "unlistenable" and hugely dissapointing. Kind trumps Taffel, sorry.
No need be sorry and this raises an interesting question - I wonder who forced his hand? It also appears to highlight one of the difficulties involved in this process.
Can you clarify what you meant about forcing his hand I assume you meant Brown.
BTW, the horrific sound of Nevermind and Some Girls has NOTHING to do with HDTracks.
The CDs suck big time too.
Bob Ludwig did the Nevermind and Stephen Marcussen, I believe did Some Girls. He butchered Exile on Main St. too.
That he did not have a say in the matter. Similar to David Chesky's point about the same issue. I find it difficult to understand how a musician or anyone involved in the process would choose to release crappy-sounding records.
Time for that beer.
Let me clarify front and center here that I have never held HDTracks to the fire for crappy sounding masters, no more than I would Amazon if i bought a turdy sounding CD. They get what they get and Bruce Brown and David Chesky do not make artistic choices, just technical ones.
The ONLY issues I have with HDTracks are lineage, and the fact that they in the past DID sell upsampled, or as it is commonly known, FAKE hi res. They have remedied the situation by having mastering engineers check the files. But why did it take outside prompting to do this.
Pricing? The market will decide if the pricing is too high. I am ok paying a slight premimum for higher than CD resolution.
The ONLY issues I have with HDTracks are lineage, and the fact that they in the past DID sell upsampled, or as it is commonly known, FAKE hi res. They have remedied the situation by having mastering engineers check the files. But why did it take outside prompting to do this.
That's you and so is this:
Yes, I believe HDTracks HAS either reimburrsed or offered credit for albums found to be upsampled or flawed.
Customers complained (and I’d imagine we’re talking about the incident referred to in the Q&A from a few years go), HDtracks looked into it and found out their customers were right, HDtracks then reimbursed or offered credit to their customers who bought these upsampled or flawed downloads, and they have since implemented testing procedures to make sure this doesn’t happen again. And this is still an issue for you.
I obviously need another beer.
You lost me.
Either you and I have had too many beers or not enough, lol!
First, I agree that HDTracks has remedied the situation in making sure there are stop gaps and testing to prevent any problems.
Secondly, I think any customer harmed by purchasing upsampled files has been mde whole.
My only "issue", if you can call it that, is lineage, meaning information about the source of the files. Those who have been pesistant already know that 90% of what they sell is ripped form SACDs and DVD-As with a customized Playback Designs unit and high level software..why not document the process?
Wolfgang's vault does, and so do many others.
Ok, another cold one.
Those who have been pesistant already know that 90% of what they sell is ripped form SACDs and DVD-As with a customized Playback Designs unit and high level software..why not document the process?
This is an interesting claim. I'll see if I can validate it, or not. If it turns out to be incorrect, which is my hunch, I'm going to give you a very hard time about it.
;-)
Michael:
THAT is the process. Go and verify, by all means. For virtually every 96/24 download of classic material, there is a corresponding commercially released DVD-A. Look on HDTracks, then search the DVD title on Amazon.
EVERY ONE of the Abko Stones downloads are ripped from an SACD.
You really did not know this?
The ARE downloads of newer recordings that sourced from studio masters, like Jason Mraz, Plant/Krauss, Elvis Costello, Rufus Wainwright.
Then there are a bunch of 192 and 96 khz tape archives.
Several of the 192 Khz downloads, like the Eagles, Jackon Browne, and Marvin Gaye Let's Get It On are also from DVD-As.
The Doors 1st album 96 Khz download is a rip from the REMIX DVDs that came with the 2007 studio box set. I did my own rip with DVD-A extractor and it sound virtually identical the HDTracks download.What I don't like is they are selling it with NO mention of the fact it is NOT the original album mix.
You do realize that all these SACDs and most of the DVD-As are out of print and comment ridiculous collector level pricing on ebay and amazon.
"Ripped from [DVD-A or SACD]" is a misnomer at best. No one is sitting at a PC and ripping a disk at HDTracks, which is the implication in this discussion.
At any given time, the label is going to supply HDTracks with files that match what's on a particular DVD-A or if SACD, (transcoded to PCM from DSD as necessary) if that's what's available and if that's what's chosen by the label to be "the release."
As my old Econ 51 prof Walter Johnson liked saying, coincidence is not causality / correlation does not imply causation.
What seems implied by "Studio Master", is a file straight off the studio hard disk, or freshly created from analog without mastering done for an intended physical product. I think that's a misnomer (at best) --- everything is mastered.
So ... if 10 years from now the label thinks today's original release could be bettered, it could release a remastered version of the previously "unfettered" Studio Master. Hopefully they kept the raw tracking files and not just the mixed 2-ch. final copy.
In fact, the new Studio Master of Bob Marley's Legend is like this. They took a more recent analog mix, like what appears on recent CDs and digitized it anew; I have the original '80s CD and it's a different mix. so even an unfetttered Studio Master is a fungible thing, depending on what source mix is available.
As usual, you are misinformed and have created a comfortable fantasy world to live in.
YES,they ARE are using COMMERCIALLY RELEASED SACD AND DVD-A discs. They are using a sophisticated workstation in conjunction with a Playback Designs universal player modded for the application by Andreas Koch.
KNOW your facts.
As you pointed out the this is not the case of EVERY release, but for most of them
Many of these discs are no longer in print and would cost a fortune for an end user, plus you are still tied to physical media.
I can rip a DVD-A with $30 software that is a bit perfect copy of the files on the disc. Same for SACD with a Sony PS3.
Not that you've bothered to post any links to support your claim, but it doesn't matter if their downloads match what's on a physical disk, for the reasons I mentioned above, which you've ignored.
Bigger picture: let's say HDTracks does have someone ripping disks. So what? Why is that important? Where's the relevancy? Are the disks somehow different than what the studios would otherwise provide? And how would you know?
No attitude here Sparky.
I have the facts.
One thing you missed is that I NEVER said there was anything wrong with ripping these hard to find, out of print discs and converting them to downloads for computer playback. I actually think its a good idea.
They are taking the DSD file and sampling it at 176.4 or 88.2 with a Weiss Saracon workstation. So it is NOT the equivalent of the studio DSD master. Sorry.
They DO however, sound quite good as 176.4 files, and even at 88.2.
I have no issues there. But I can tell you that at the last 3 hifi shows, including Newport, recording engineer Cookie Marenco did a demo where she played back her own DSD files then the commercially produced SACD produced from those files on the flagship Esoteric SACD player and according to John Atkinson, there was no comparison, the SACD was trounced.
Hey Sparky:
This is one of the dozens of posts of Bruce Brown on various topics on the subject.
You could do this to if you were willing to spend a load of money on a "Pro" SACD player with an optical output, and an expensive workstation.
Or you could you use a Sony PS3. Not sure if the results would be as good. Probably not.
I've been creating my own 96/24 bit perfect copies of DVD-As with DVD-A Extractor, which costs 30 bucks.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3341-Ripping-SACDs-the-righ...
We have 2 workstations that we use. The first one is:
Playback Designs MPS-5 out via ST-optical into a Sonoma workstation.
The second is;
EMM Labs CDSD out via ST-optical into an EMM Labs ADC8-IV changing the datastream from ST-optical to SDIF-3 and capturing the digital datastream into our Pyramix rig.
Both systems are top-notch and both do a bit-perfect copy of the DSD data.
Right now we are storing all the DSD data on 2 servers. For conversion to PCM we're using Weiss Saracon and downsampling to 24/176.4 and 24/88.2 for downloads.
Puget Sound contracts to provide files to HDTracks. Like I said, HDTracks doesn't rip anything, and Chesky was correct: they sell what they're given.
Here's your original assertion again:
First, HDTracks CAN provide source of their FILES...not necessarily the mastering or the remastering, as that is done by the record company, but they CAN tell us whcih files ripped from DVD-A, SACD, etc. They do this THEMSELVES.
By themselves I obviously meant in conjunction with a mastering studio they pay to do so. This is done exclusively for them, and has nothing to do with the record companies.
Pugget Sound rips the FILES from the commercial discs as describes then delivers said files for upload.
so we have some
r
o
o
m
I bought Some Girls based on Taffel's recommendation and I regret it. The files are so glassy and tipped up, they sound like a hires mp3 to me. So I will not be getting the other albums he recommends, such as Tea for the Tillerman, even though it is one of my favorites! Well, I might download one file and test it against a home ripped file from a record, but I can't read Mr. Taffel anymore. I don't trust his ears.
Trey
I've bought several rock albums from HDTracks, and my experience is mixed. I didn't buy Layla because the samples didn't sound any better than the audiophile CD I have. But I did buy Tea for the Tillerman since I didn't already have it and I didn't have to pay $35 for two discs, one of which is (in the Layla case) a toss. And Tea for the Tillerman sounds good to me for the price, so no complaints. If you have it already and have compared the samples, and don't find them obviously better than what you have now, then it probably isn't worth the money.
One other point...HDTrackis has never taken responsibility for some of the sub standard and misrepresented prodcut they have sold. Their attitued has been smug and they just blame the "suppliler".
For the record, when I read a review in Stereophile and the reviewer references a Chesky recroding, I cringe.
That chip on your shoulder has apparently fallen onto your keyboard and taken control!
I don’t know the point you’re trying to make regarding Chesky recordings and Stereophile but unless you can explain without the histrionics I’d suggest we leave this alone.
I agree, this is a separate topic, and has no relation.
Suffice it to say, I think Chesky Music is drivel. Just my opinion.
I very much enjoy Entre Amigos by Rosa Pasos and Ron Carter to name just one off the top of my gee-its-Friday-night-and-I-should-be-having-a-beer-and-listening-to-some-music head.
Site Map / Direct Links| Hardware |  |
Hardware | |
Software | |
Music | |
How-To Blogs Community | |
Show Reports Resources |
