HD tracks redeems fake but provides no meansnto dl it

[Mnyb]

I recieved interesting email.

"
Time Sensitive! Free Album Upgrade - Stevie Ray Vaughan/Albert King: In Session
< snip >
expires at midnight, 11:59 PM, PST, Monday, October 17th, 2011.
"

Basically replacing the fake 24/96 download with another version.

But thier broken java download manager does not work in Ubuntu 10.04 anymoore.
So I responded back requesting a functioning way of downloading the album.
So the HD Track comic continues :) anyone thinks they fix it over the weekend.

I just wanted to share this For the comic effect, you are free to laugh at me for doing any kind of bussines with these con artists :-)

I do expect the next version to be just as fake but in a not so obvius way.

[Wombat]

I recieved interesting email.
Stevie Ray Vaughan/Albert King: In Session

I did read about that session and the recording equipment must have been some 48kHz digital TV sudio recorder. I guess on the fake they complained about about the absence of highs.
If now suddenly this recording has any content above 24kHz THIS will be a fake, not the old one that maybe was sold as 24/96 but really was a tue capture of the 48kHz data.

Please try to look at the spectrum when you finaly can download it and report here.

[Mnyb]

It could be 16/48 source as you suspects, but from 1983 would not some kind of analog source be the most likely source probably the the analog track from some 1" video master (or some 14bit recording if it is digital).

HD tracks very rarely describe their sources, if Stax where lucky when they remastered they got some better source it could have been taped on good tape deck or multitrack for post production and archived .

But Stax remastered in 2009 they might have worked in higher resolution ?

I can get fft spectrums from audacity (using a wav copy , there is that flac bug in audacity) .
But is there an easy way for an amateur to try to see the original bit depth, could be pointless if it all resolves to analog noise at 70dB noise is noise digital or analog so it would be impossible to spot a difference or would it , but anyway.

Anyway downloading now .

Thankyou virtualbox and a a copy of XP that I've found somewhere :)

[ralphpnj]

Basically replacing the fake 24/96 download with another version.

I just wanted to share this For the comic effect, you are free to laugh at me for doing any kind of bussines with these con artists :-)

I do expect the next version to be just as fake but in a not so obvius way.

But HDTracks advertises in and is adored by all high end audio magazines and web sites so how anything they sell not be completely overpriced garbage.

Until HDTracks:

1) shows clear proof that something they say is high resolution actually is truly high resolution

2) lowers their ridiculous prices (latest example the 24 bit 44.1kHz version of Bjork's new release is now available for $17.98 versus $11.99 for the CD on Amazon - granted the HDTracks version is the Japanese version with a few extra tracks)

I will not buy anything from them. Thank goodness there are other ways to obtain and other places to purchase high resolution audio files.

[Mnyb]

No I've done my spectrums .

apologies for not being able to get the same scale in some of them .

What is obvius is that it is not the same master at all . The new one seems less compressed :) wich is an improvement .

It has spectral content above 22k but it looks kind of weird , a knee in the response no natural decay ? but the audio pros here would know, can be that source does not have it but the post-processing generated it ?

Will post pics I'm about to resixe them a bit

[Mnyb]

Old version of "track 4 Ask me no questions" amplitude

[Mnyb]

New version of "track 4 Ask me no questions" amplitude

[Mnyb]

Old version of "track 4 Ask me no questions" spectrum

[Mnyb]

New version of "track 4 Ask me no questions" spectrum

[Mnyb]

Old version of "track 4 Ask me no questions" fft

Here the scale is different than the new one sorry

[Mnyb]

New version of "track 4 Ask me no questions" fft

here is the new on in different scale notice the knee at 22k ?

[Wombat]

It could be 16/48 source as you suspects, but from 1983 would not some kind of analog source be the most likely source probably the the analog track from some 1" video master (or some 14bit recording if it is digital).

HD tracks very rarely describe their sources, if Stax where lucky when they remastered they got some better source it could have been taped on good tape deck or multitrack for post production and archived .

But Stax remastered in 2009 they might have worked in higher resolution ?

I can get fft spectrums from audacity (using a wav copy , there is that flac bug in audacity) .
But is there an easy way for an amateur to try to see the original bit depth, could be pointless if it all resolves to analog noise at 70dB noise is noise digital or analog so it would be impossible to spot a difference or would it , but anyway.

I can´t find the reference but i remember to have read this session was recorded with 48kHz digital tape.
Now to the question how to find out it is 24bit. No way to find that one out. Nearly all recordings i tried have only uncorrelated noise in bits 17-24 even if they are 24bit :)
If you apply a DSP effect to these recordings they suddenly have related noise in bits 17-24.
So it it seems to be easier to fake some higher bitrate content as to be able having equipment to record it :)
Talking about spectral analysies, this seems to be more tricky. Recently this became fashion to first have a look what to hear. Funny how many audiophiles suddenly hear what they see.
Even this can be faked well. Use some spectralizer to add harmonics calculated from the lower frequencies.
There are even spectral repair possibilities. You fill up the space with no spectral content with fake content calculated from the rest.
Above 20khz no one is able to hear or qualify that sounds but audiophiles will suddenly hear better highs when they see this content ;)

Now back to this recording. Hmmm.. when this really was digital from the beginning that new one may be just an analog copy from that tape and the high frequency spectral content is added tape noise!
There are some releases on SACD which the studio Guru just recorded some older recording with DSD the analog way to add its magic and sold it as spectacular new version.
Maybe this new version is just the PCM analog rip before it became the SACD layer once sold this way?
If i have some other idea i will report back.

[bluegaspode]

Did you post your pictures in an audiophile forum already?

Think it's time for me to invest in some better DSP-algorithm, that can fake better spectral patterns with less hard suspicious knees at 22kHz.

Might make me rich.
I'm seeing the new weg page in front of me already "pure HD tracks". Your only source of true HD.
Every song is accompied with pictures like Mynb just posted, which well help audiophiles even more to hear the difference.

[Mnyb]

listening confirms that it actually are subtly different mixes, And the older is louder I actually managed to pick the track with the smallest difference.
there or differences in the mix here and there apples and oranges.

the differences one hear has nothing to do with it's eventual hirez pedigree it's simply two different versions, i'll go for the older sligthly hotter mix in my car or if I party, andnthe new one for home listening :)

this recording is not excatly super hifi, nice guitar jamming, I don't know why they try to sell it as hirez in the first place, but of great historical value for fans of these guitar legends.

I took the 24/96 version , I could have got the 24/192 for free , but that would have been piontless.

[Mnyb]

wombats idea of record it on analog tape to add some " magic " before AD to 24/96 makes some sense, this method, is it not used by mastering engineers sometimes to add something to some masters ?

[ralphpnj]

I beg to differ with Wombat, well not exactly differ more like augment his contention that the recording could be a product of digitized version of analog copy of the original digital recording (did I get that right?). This method would only be worthwhile from an audiophile perspective if all of the various cables used in the transfers (digital -> analog -> digital) were from some high end cable manufacturer and cost at least $500 per foot (a little over $1,600 per meter for our European friends), even and especially the cables carrying only digital signals.

[Wombat]

wombats idea of record it on analog tape to add some " magic " before AD to 24/96 makes some sense, this method, is it not used by mastering engineers sometimes to add something to some masters ?

This i meant and will count for studio engineers that prefer the old style analog route. A modern remaster shouldn´t have the noise.


I beg to differ with Wombat, well not exactly differ more like augment his contention that the recording could be a product of digitized version of analog copy of the original digital recording (did I get that right?). This method would only be worthwhile from an audiophile perspective if all of the various cables used in the transfers (digital -> analog -> digital) were from some high end cable manufacturer and cost at least $500 per foot (a little over $1,600 per meter for our European friends), even and especially the cables carrying only digital signals.

Yes you got that right. It may just be the "digitized version of analog copy of the original digital recording" :)
This may give the recording some character that sounds more smooth on first imression and when they are at it they just can add that +0.5dB more highs in the recording chain ;)
All of this is speculation of cause as long no one clearly states how these recordings were produced. On many recordings they won´t tell us for a reason.

[Mnyb]

I beg to differ with Wombat, well not exactly differ more like augment his contention that the recording could be a product of digitized version of analog copy of the original digital recording (did I get that right?). This method would only be worthwhile from an audiophile perspective if all of the various cables used in the transfers (digital -> analog -> digital) were from some high end cable manufacturer and cost at least $500 per foot (a little over $1,600 per meter for our European friends), even and especially the cables carrying only digital signals.

did you read HDtracks BS around the rolling stones remasters cryo cables :) you must use cryogenically frozen cables ;) and quantum purifiers...