I do not regularly buy High Resolution files and most of my High Resolution files are my own FM recordings or something that was given to me by other people. I bought no more two dozens of Hi-Res files in past and it was about it. I do not actively looking for Hi-res files out there and each time when I decided to check out what is available (once a few month) I have the same unpleasant feeling.

The DAW business look like booming and each day brings new Hi-Res DACs but I wonder what the hell those people play from their DAWs? There are a few companies that make PCM Hi-Res files available. Each of them have very limited amount of good titles and those titles are well known for years, we all get to use to them.  How many times you can listen the RR’s Symphonic Dances and who cares that nowadays it is in 176K if the interpretation itself is far from “ultimate”?

I would not even mention that some 176K or 88K files sound like upsampled 16 bit files, or bad conversion from SACD. I know a person who runs output of his CD player to $200-worth consumer grade 176K sound card and promote the files as digital masters. I wonder I am a resaler of Hi-Res PCM files and if I sale 44K, 48K, 88K, 96K, 176K and 192K file of the same performance then how do you feel those “masters” at different sampling rate are made?  It is highly possible that resaler buy from the studio a few licenses for 96K and hen just cut from it any format you wish. I am sure the do not go from 48x to 44x conversion via a file A/D-D/D circle but juts run DSP and fell that it is how it shall be done.

So, I wonder – where to buy 176K or 88K PCM files that would have any more or less assurance that the files are not repackaged garbage able to satisfy just idiots of audio-reviewing level? The post important – what the hell the studios that record new music in PCM 176K or 88K PCM? The Hi-Res PCM is around form beginning of 90s – what are all recordings? Is the fear of piracy the only thing that forces the studios to record in the stupid SACD format?

It is sad that no one talks about it and it is very not clear what is going on. It looks like the companies that sell hi-res files feel that the phrase hi-res is automatically an assurance of some kind of “quietly”.  Well, they most likely deal with “audiophiles” – the sick breed that would eat shit with spoon then they were told that the small of shit is a new fashionable French perfume….

The Reference Recordings has a few 24/176.4 titles. Let take for instance their Exotic Dances disk. I do not know if I would buy it in 24/176.4 as it is old recording and everyone knows it and have it for years - I do not buy music to prove the stupid audiophile concepts.  Still let to take this disk as an example. The assholes from Tape Projects would scream that the RR masters were analog tape. The Reference Recordings say it was 24/176.4. Let presume that it was the 24/176.4, which is most likely. Then we go HDTracks.

http://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD030911107123

take a look, the very same recording is now belong sold in 96khz/24bit format.  I am absolutely convinced that Reference Recordings would record in 48X, so the question is “What is going on?” Did the HDTracks sell their hi-res as upsampled 44/16 or they took the RR 24/176.4 and vandalized it from 4X of 44K to 2X or 48K. In either case what they do is semi-criminal crap that unfortunates discredit the whole hi-res notion.

Or for instance let take Linn Records. Linn Records runs probably the most advanced hi-res files operation. They record own music and have professionally implements site with properly done download service. Very good Linn! Still there are some “issuers”.

Let look at the following recording:

http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-gustav-mahler--symphonie-no--6.aspx

There is a product that they call “Studio Master” and it is FLAC 24bit 192kHz. Ok, I presume that 192/24 was the format it was recorded in – very good. Still, it was not recorded in FLAC! If they charge a bit more and allow to buy large 192kHz file and call them “Studio Master” then why do not sell the copies of the Masters. FLAC is armature stupid compressed format – who the hell need it? I understand if Lynn would sell budget-price file in FLAC format but to sell their top of the line files in FLAC is beyond me. Linn says:

“FLAC files can be imported into many media players, such as the Linn DS digital stream player, but unfortunately Microsoft does not yet support high bit-rate FLAC, so these files will not play in Windows Media Player. There are many other FLAC players available such as Media Monkey and Foobar. FLAC Studio Masters play in Play and VLC, but not in Cog or MPlayer. It is however very easy to transcode FLAC to several other lossless formats. “

I am sorry but the player of the level MediaMonkey and Foobar are crap – why Linn insist that their top of the line files to be played by inferior player? Then Linn suggests converting FLAC into other formats to play it – very smart move!!! With the stupidity like this Linn effectively kills own 192kHz businesses for the people who have brain and ears. I for instance decided to buy a few Linn files but I was tuned off with Linn FLAC agenda. Then they have WMA 24bit 96kHz “Studio Master”. It is imidetaly two questions pop up:

1)      How the files were converted to 96kHz from 192kHz?  At certain level it is a BIG question: I what to know how it was done in order to evaluate how much it was destroyed.  Why the hi-res companies failed to mention it. The files that are recorded in 96kHz sound much better then the files that were recorded in 192kHz and then converted to 96kHz. So, if I buy the hi-res file then it is my prerogative to know how they were processed.

2)      I am sure the files were not recorded in WMA, that is basically a sort of compressed format but most likely in uncompressed WAV or AIFF. The conversion from WAV/AIFF to WMA very dramatically reduces the quality of the file. Does anybody care about it in Lynn? Way do not sell the 96kHz or 192kHz original WAV files?

So, if to look at the hi-res files story then it very ugly picture – the companies- providers can go away with anything. It is not regulated and there was no critical reviewing voice that might be in opposition to the hi-res providers defending interests of better sound and hi-res purity. There are a few clowns out there who literally suck the hi-res providers’ dicks for each file they get from them. There are no critics, not decisive reviewing, not quality control, nothing and if the providers would sell sound of AM radio then as long it will have  hi-res sampling rate then the Morons would swalow it with no further question asked.

I bought a few Linn Records own recordings of Duisburg Philharmonic Orchestra, Scottish Chamber Orchestra and Dunedin Consort. They pushed them as “Studio Master” but they are WMA files – means the re-rendered compressed files – very sad.

I was playing last night the Mahler’s 6th, Mozart’s 41st  and Beethoven’s 4th  concerto. In fact I was not able to “pay” any of them but was forced to play just fragments – it was so bad that it was not listenable as music. I do not know if I need to go into details.  I asked Linn if it possible to return the files back. I know it is kind of silly to ask to return the downloaded files but if they accept it as return and issue a refund then I will delete them from my DAW.  The reason I asked for return is not so much about the   money but to send them a message that their “Masters” are not up to the acceptable level and the artistic/sonic quality. I will listen more of it but my first reaction was very negative.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I bought a few Linn Records own recordings of Duisburg Philharmonic Orchestra, Scottish Chamber Orchestra and Dunedin Consort. They pushed them as “Studio Master” but they are WMA files – means the re-rendered compressed files – very sad. I was playing last night the Mahler’s 6th, Mozart’s 41st  and Beethoven’s 4th  concerto. In fact I was not able to “pay” any of them but was forced to play just fragments – it was so bad that it was not listenable as music. I do not know if I need to go into details.  I asked Linn if it possible to return the files back. I know it is kind of silly to ask to return the downloaded files but if they accept it as return and issue a refund then I will delete them from my DAW.  The reason I asked for return is not so much about the   money but to send them a message that their “Masters” are not up to the acceptable level and the artistic/sonic quality. I will listen more of it but my first reaction was very negative.

I got today an email from Linn:

“I think we're going to need a bigger awards cabinet! We are hugely pleased that Sir Charles Mackerras and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra have been awarded a Blue Moon Award by sixmoons.com for their recording "Mozart Symphonies 38 - 41".   "Sir Charles Mackerras' vision with the SCO is one of the very finest of the modern era - one that will move you emotionally and at the same time reward with insights that none of the others provides. The fact that the superb recording quality supports the artistic performance so perfectly makes this set a must own and a Blue Moon Award without any reserve."

http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-mozart-symphonies.aspx

Yes, the award list of big, so the comments in the “Reviews” tab in the link above. I felt kind stage: am I so off the wall that I failed to recognize the “glory” of the Linn’s Mozart. I do clearly remember that I did not like what I heard and I do remember my intention to hear it more today, so I did. This time, in response to the email I concentrated on the Mozart files.

First I need to resolve the problem with quality.  It was bad, I mean really bad, very sub-acceptable.  My software decompresses the files and play them from intermittent 88/24 WAV files. The sound is truly CD level – even worst: the MP3 level. I need to get from those WMA file the “original” files I figured. I need to say that I hate to compresses/decompress files it as no one knows how much sound is lost during digital compression. Anyhow, I have a few decompressors and I tried them. The result they produced virtually identical (with negligible but existing sonic difference). However, the difference between playing the WMA files and the WAV extracts from WMA files was huge.  The sound went from being “it is garbage, take the files back” to something that is possible to deal with. Again, Linn did not inform in what format the files were recorded originally, so when I decompress them from WMA then in what format shall I convert them to? To the WAV? How about if they were recorded in .W64 or AIFF? The conversion .W64 those formats does kill a LOT of sound, any format conversion does!!! You must not sell files promoting them as “masters” without referencing what was the format and rate of the original recorded files. It will be my decision to decide how much “masters” they are not the Linn’s decision.

So, I fire my cigar and decided to listen what Linn offers. 

Since I have expressed some negative comments above about Linn sound I felt that I have an obligation to follow it up. The 88/24 files were played via WaveLab 6, Linx16, Lavry 924 (I tried the Pacific Microsonics as well) and then to Milq/Macondo. It will not be a “review” but rather a feedback, so I will be short. Surely playing the WAV instead of WMA files completely evaporated my “give me refund” attitude. The files were usable and I would say as they were “good buy”. However, I do not buy or sell the files but I defend the interests of better sound. Did the Mozart symphonies deserve the jillion awards? I do not think so. I do have a number of problems with the files. Was anything else expected? I will try to briefly describe what my problems with the Linn files are.

Audio:  The Mozart symphonies have a very light glaze of HF “air” that I feel is inappropriate. It gives a sense of faulty quality but it what I call “Quality for Morons” – the prominent HF most frequently understood by audio fool as “quality”. Milq/Macondo is very accurately calibrated for HF and no accidents are possible in there. I did rolled off a bit HF but it was NOT the amount of HF 0 it was not “bright”, but it was some kind of HF mist, sort of superstructure that enveloped sound.  This strange HF haze made sound to be like a view from window through a mosquito screen- you might discard it but why it need to be there in a first place? BTW, Pacific slightly veiled the haze a bit but it was still there.

Then I did not really like the entire LF region.  I understand that it is a Mozart-type orchestra with no forceful bass section. Still, in the way how Scotts played Mozart it was VERY much contemporary interpretation and very much form the period reading and sounding. Look what our James Leven does with Mozart’s symphonies: they are bass-balanced and his contemporary Mozart with small chamber group sound very full and with good power at lower rigion. The sound of Scottish Chamber Orchestra was not. It was in a way “Skinny Mozart”. Shall I blame Linn or Scottish Orchestra and Sir Charles Mackerras for the thin sound? Well, played a few seconds of Mahler and Bach. It was instantly audible that they all have the SAME SIGNATURE - overlay fast decaying bass and with lower region harmonic texture very wrong - something that I might expect from the “absolute sound” lovers. The Linn LF is smother that Linn need to work on – it is not the bass itself but the harmonics and dynamics of bass – something that Linn does in there is very wrong.

So, the lean, bass-underdeveloped sound with some odd HF varnish, do I need to say more? Yes I do.

I know that they wanted to make the sound “impressive” for the Morons-Audiophiles but God, save me from those stupid up-closed microphones! I do not want to hear the saliva dripping from horns and the air passing from the trumpets valves.  Put the microphones further up and let the sound and the ensemble’s sound to be mixed naturally. I know that then the audio-idiots would give you less medals but you will get more Musical Sound. Then the sound of the recording Hall - I am sorry - it was very bad. It was so overly-dead acoustically that Mozart’s sounded like salted pickles marinated in distil water. Please, record more ambient sound. I do not need music played in anechoic chamber – this Sound exists only in sick minds suffering from audio hallucination.

Music: Not bad but….  Each single note of the Mozart symphonies sound like well-brewed studio recording and it make the people who play it … boring. They try to play “exiting” but it was fake excitement. There was not necessary “sparks” and enthusiasm and this celebrated “something” in music that I call “the accent for the next note”. It was a good group of musicians very nicely rendering the notes and rhythm but it was no “music rebirth event”.  I would not call it boring or soporific but rather not eventful.  The Mr. Mackerras interpretation was also very orthodox with no personal kink in it. His players tried “do not play bad” and they play it “secure” instead of playing “interesting”. It was not the performance that shall get medals. The medals shall be given in my view for a performance that pushed the boundaries of the pieces confines. The Linn recording did not have it. I would call it as blended performance but the sound of Scottish Chamber Orchestra did not blend.

The Scottish Chamber Orchestra has very wrong for Mozart tone. It was Bartok of Shostakovich tune not Mozart, even I would prefer in Bartok to have more texture. The texture of the Orchestra sound was something that I would describe “digital”. It was kind of binary sound with not a lot of going on between the states so sonic Booleans. The woodwinds were absolutely bleached out and sound with no colors at all. With all tremendous Macondo capacity it sounded like it was playing a pair of Kharma or Magico in my room. The color of the whole ensemble was very week. Yes, the Scottish Chamber Orchestra is not Winner Philharmonic but it was still a bit cold-cut sound and I blame Linn in it.  I heard many contemporary orchestra – they do not sound so brutal and cold. The Scottish Chamber sound more like Scandinavian jazz –I do not think they shell sound like this.

The barbaric up-closed microphones positioning by Linn did not help to the Scotts:  their strings were thin and overly bity, the sections were played in virtual isolation and there was not a lot of actions between sections. In all together it was not the performance but rather an illustration of performance - I would call it the perfect rehearsal. Now, the musicians need to dress up, the conductor need to say an arousing speech and they need to re-record it. To re-rerecord by sound specialists who do not record the stupid individual audiophile sounds but rather would record the whole musical event.

Anyhow. Do not take my criticism of Linn’s Mozart as my dis-invitation to buy it. It is a good recording but in my view it does not live to the hype and far from where I think it needs to be. Linn needs to learn how to USE recording space, how record more ambiance and with less microphones, how to deliver better preservation of “master files” and how to address the problems that I described in the “sound” section. Linn is certainly in the right direction to make high-res file available. I just wish to hear more critical and more sober view of the actual results. Somebody shall take a stand…

I decided today to try more files from Linn.  My rational was that if they were less lucky with Scottish Chamber Orchestra and their recording avenues them I might be luckier with Duisburg Philharmonic or I Barocchisti. So, I bought a 3 more of Linn files to see how it goes. Since, all of their so called “Studio Masters” are available in the stupid SACD then I presume the all were recorded in SACD and then just converted from SACD to 88/92 PCM. It is highly possible that the negative moments with sound that I described in my post above were the result of down-conversion. Interning that some of their files are available in 192K are the very same files are NOT available in SACD. I make a presumption that Linn recorded those files in 192K PCM and this is VERY interesting as those files are not down-conversion from   inferior SACD. I did buy today one of those files and I would like to hear of it has the problems that I described above.

http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-Dmitri-Shostakovich-Symphony--No--15-A-Major-Wolfgang-Amadeus-Mozart-Symphony-No--35-D-Major-Haffner.aspx

It is highly possible that the Linn 192K PCM files might be closest to the original files and if so then only they might be recognized as more or less commercial “Studio Masters”. I wish to know how they were edited but it would be too much to ask…  Let see what Duisburg Philharmonic does. It is also not Linn own recording but Acousence Classics. The Acousence might not record on SACD – God bless them!  Linn own reds are available on both SACD and 192K PCM.

http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-ludwig-van-beethoven--piano-concertos-3-4-5.aspx

So, let see what Acousence Classics will be able to show on naked 192K PCM. I hope that it is my an accident, that my logic is correct and Acousence’ file was not exposed to SACD….

Well, as I said – a quick run around the companies that over today the hi-res file to public shows off a much sad state. For whoever reason people feel that if it hi-res records then the performance might be mediocre or the recording techniques might be barbaric. The is company Gimell that might do better job.

http://www.gimell.com/catalogue.aspx?filter=Studio+Master

This midlevel music is not my cap of tea but the fact that they stuck with I find is very inspiring and promising.

There is iTrax company. I have no idea what they are.  Hey sell some recordings in all imaginable formats.

http://www.itrax.com/Pages/AlbumDetails.php?aID=e82d3288fdaaadf3f1a1fcd3ce71f830

They claim:

“PCM at 96 kHz/24-bits gives you all of the fidelilty of the master. This is the file type used during our production process. The bit-rate for the stereo files is 4608 kbps and 13824 kbps for the surround files.”

The production process of my ass! They do not record music but just resale others file. So, they get the publically available CD, “master” it in different formats and then sell it as craps that has “fidelity of the master”.  Looking at what they, the HDTracks and a few other bandits do I would propose that it is dangers to buy files not from the sources that records them.  The reseller looks like Morons and Idiots with whom better do not deal.

The Brits Pristine “eventually” heard my call. A few years back I begged them to sell the raw 24-bit masters bit not the 16/44 releases, as the down conversion below 20 bit kills too much of sound. It looks like nowadays they get smarter and make 24 bit available:

http://www.pristineclassical.com/More/DownloadFormats.html

Unfortunately they do not make the raw 24-bit file available. They heavily process the files with their in house “restoration ceremony” and make the 24-bit after ceremony masters available. It is MUCH better then what they use to do porting this music to 16 bit on crapy CDs. Stull, I would like to get the raw 24-bit file BEFORE they do the mastering. It shall be my decision if I prefer their “mastering “and I do not what anybody makes this decision for me.

perrew wrote:

I was looking for the Everest disc with Tossy Spivakovsky and came across this remaster in 192/24  and thought it might be interesting for the discussion.Dont know if the CD version included is as good as the original Everest but it might make for a possible comparison between CD and DVD-A http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=HDAD2030

Thanks, perrew

I am a big fin of Tossy Spivakovsky and this play of Sibelius is very very good. I wish they release his Tchaikovsky concerto as well.  However, what they released it looks like DVD-A format.  The DVD-A is very much not the same as 24/192 raw files.  As I understand in order to get 24/192 uncompressed file from DVD-A it need to be a special conversion made. I am not sure and I do not do DVD-A, but as I understand the DVD-A relates to 24 bit files as Red Book CD relates to 16/44.

If you take a row 16/44 file, juts after you’re A/D – it has the 16/44 limitation but in most cases it is a very good file. Now try to put in CD format. I have been trying to do it for years – it is implosive and as soon the file being render into CD format then a lot of sound get “lost”. I think the same might happen when people render 24/192 raw files into   DVD-A media.

I personally am a supporter of data files not the files in any kind audio format. Probably I need to make call to them and to ask if the DVD that they sell has the uncompressed 24/192 raw files, I doubt it will. I would not mention that the very same “CLASSIC RECORDS” company that clams the “revolutionary sound” at DVD-A had flooded market with horribly sounding remastered LPs. I might be wrong in my skepticism about Tossy’s re-release, probably I need to try, I juts need to learn how to get data files out of the DVD-A. I hope the transfer of Tossy’s tapes to 24/192 was made not by the very same idiots who transferred the tapes to make the SACDs and the idiotic 180Gr records.

Romy,

from my understanding, this disc called HDAD, contains on one side a DVD-Video resolution, 96/24 and on the other side a DVD-A i.e 192/24 resolution. So the disc on one side can be played in your regular DVD player and the other in a special DVD-A player. However I guess both formats are coded in LPCM.

Also one more disc is included which they say is a regular 44/16 CD which has not been downsampled from the DVD-A/V disc but recorded simultaneously.

I think the comparison might be interesting between these disc, to see if this HF/LF trouble that you assign to Hi-res is available here.

Caveat is that this comparison is conditioned on none of them being "raw" files so it might be a moot comparison.

Do I understand you correctly that when you speak about the CD being much worse than the raw file you mean the CD is PCM format or do you mean the wav wrapped PCM?


PS. The Tchaikovsky is also available but not with 44/16 included and I ordered both Tchaikovsky and Sibelius, however I dont find the EVEREST disc so cant compare to it.

perrew wrote:

Romy, from my understanding, this disc called HDAD, contains on one side a DVD-Video resolution, 96/24 and on the other side a DVD-A i.e 192/24 resolution. So the disc on one side can be played in your regular DVD player and the other in a special DVD-A player. However I guess both formats are coded in LPCM. Also one more disc is included which they say is a regular 44/16 CD which has not been downsampled from the DVD-A/V disc but recorded simultaneously. I think the comparison might be interesting between these disc, to see if this HF/LF trouble that you assign to Hi-res is available here. Caveat is that this comparison is conditioned on none of them being "raw" files so it might be a moot comparison. Do I understand you correctly that when you speak about the CD being much worse than the raw file you mean the CD is PCM format or do you mean the wav wrapped PCM? PS. The Tchaikovsky is also available but not with 44/16 included and I ordered both Tchaikovsky and Sibelius, however I dont find the EVEREST disc so cant compare to it.

I do not have a clear understanding of the DVD-A, frankly I never care about it. Yes, the linear pulse code modulation format is how both DVD-A and CD are encoded. Some people say that it is uncompressed format and some say that it is so called Lossless Packing. I have no idea but what I know is that the quality that I have with raw WAV file after it was converted into LPCM is not the same. Furthermore we have the CD or DVD-A reading media, like players that read the discs, that add own huge problems. I am kind of raw WAV files type of guy and I know that if I have a fresh file from my A/D converted then ANY manipulation with it, let me to accent: ANY MANIPULATION does destroy sound. A resaved WAV file is not the same as the master fine, do not ask me why – I down know why. I do not even talk about a conversion of a file into different format that is very devastation…

I do have the original Everest discs and a few different pressings or Everest and other companies pressings on LPs:

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=408

They did very good Sound in their time. Saying all of it negativism about DVD-A as completely not necessary format I might suspects that the Everest DVD-A in 192/24 will be better then what they had in CD years back. The only reasonable from my point of view comparing would be to the CD from 20 year back with the CD that they put in this DVD-A box. It is possible that they “mastered” the recording up to the point that they absolutely destroyed it. I have see it many times happened. Again, even though the Everest DVD-A in 192/24 might better then what was available before but juts because it is in DVD-A format it will not be as good as it could be if it was in raw WAV format.

I have no clear understanding either, but I always thought that .wav was a wrapper to the PCM file. That a raw .wav that you speak about then is a PCM file with a header?

Also from my understanding the DVD-A sometimes have a "lossless"(whatever that means) packing called MLP when the length of the recorded piece is to big to fit on the disc. But if it is short enough it can be in LPCM 192/24.
If the DVD-A with Tossy is not MLP I think it will be pretty much the raw .Wav

I agree the old CD should be compared to the new to see if new mastering has done any harm. But I cant find the old disc so very hard.

I tried finding the Tank but its impossible.

As many time I told that HDtracks are a pile of cretins as I was truly under-estimate them. Take a looks what those idiots did with file that they sell as 96/24

http://www.ultrahighendreview.com/are-9624-downloads-better-than-cds.

It is what I always say: it is not the technology but the specific fucking idiots who put their stupid hands and barbaric hands between technology and the people that they abuse. I told to David Chesky long time ago and many time that he was a fool, now he juts proved it with his stupid parley to HDtracks.

About HDtracks

HDtracks Mission Statement

HDtracks is the premiere online music store for audiophiles who demand the best sounding music. As consumers are left with few options to purchase high quality recordings, HDtracks was founded to fill the void. It is our purpose to allow our customers access to the largest online library of DRM-free CD and DVD-Audio quality downloads complete with liner notes in a PDF format.

We believe a great recording is not only the tracks of sound, but also the creative collaboration of composers, producers, musicians, recording engineers, annotation writers, and visual artists. We feel strongly that not only everyone involved in the creative process is recognized for their work, but that music consumers be able to learn about the people involved in the production of the music and therefore participate in a deeper understanding of the music. HDtracks provides audiophiles who demand the highest quality recordings with an online experience not available anywhere else.

Welcome to HDtracks, the source for Master Quality Music Downloads. Founded by David and Norman Chesky of Chesky Records, the Chesky brothers have produced some of the finest analog audiophile recordings of the last 25 years. Now, through HDtracks, they bring the same integrity and fidelity to HDtracks digital downloads. 

At HDtracks, we don't believe that sound quality should suffer because of convenience. Today, a music download can sound as good if not better than the music contained on your old physical media. HDtracks' vast and growing selection features new as well as iconic releases from every major record label and 100s of your favorite indies, across all genres, rock, classical, blues, jazz, world... You can now own a digital download that brings you into the recording studio with your favorite artists! You will hear the difference. Our Master Quality files are available as high quality AIFF, ALAC, WAV and FLAC and can be played back on most media players. 

Like you, we're passionate about music and won't tolerate lossy MP3 sound. HDtracks files will put you in the recording studio with the artists. You will hear exactly what the artists and engineer hear in the studio. How do we do that? 

An HDtracks file is not compressed like an Mp3, it contains even more sound data than a physical CD. An HDtracks file is a one to one exact digital copy of the master tape. There is no better way to hear recorded music on this planet than hearing an HDtracks hi res file played back via your computer or your digital music server with a good pair of speakers. You can even take Master Quality with you on the go with all the new portable hi res players on the market now. When you hear back our 96/24 or 192.24 files is like watching the highest quality 80 inch Plasma HDTV with a blu ray as its source. 

Remember 8 track tapes, cassettes, LPs, Cds, DVD audio, and SACD? Some of these formats, namely SACD, LP and DVD are better at capturing more of the beauty of the recording than others because these formats can hold a lot of information. For example, we all know that a DVD audio Disc sounds a lot better than a 8 track tape or a cassette. In the world of computer [digital] audio we go by numbers. So what do all these numbers mean for you, the listener? 

• A standard download Mp3 is 128 Kbps of sonic information [kilobytes per second] 
• A higher quality MP3 would be 256 Kbps 
• A CD is 1411 Kbps which is why your CDs sound so much better than your MP3s 
• An HDtracks Master Quality file is typically either 96kHz/24-bit or 192kHz/24-bit, meaning that it has twice the bit depth of your favorite CD and up to 9612Kbps of sonic information! 

Digital audio is about data and with HDtracks you get ALL the digital data captured at the time of the recording providing you, the listener with a more enjoyable listening experience. 

Go to www.HDtracks.com to learn how easy it is to experience and enjoy Master Quality Music Downloads and be part of this great new sonic adventure.