I'm thinking of getting some ABKCO albums on HD tracks. Now I have the Abkco 2002 remasters which are fine, so I wonder - did they really go back to the master tapes again? Is it really worth it? Thanks for your opinions!

I don't know what the difference will be, there's a thread around here that explains it, but I don't really know. I just know there will probably be a new and "better" version out in a few years.

To my ears what Ludwig did with the ABKCO Remasters is as good as it will ever get. How they can sound any better is a mystery.

If you have no proper way to connect your computer to you hifi (or a hifi that can handle digital files), it's probably better to play SACD on a decent hifi.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
To my ears what Ludwig did with the ABKCO Remasters is as good as it will ever get. How they can sound any better is a mystery.

I think if you keep tinkering with them, and making them sound "better" (especially with the early stuff) it becomes less like improvement and more like changing. I haven't listened to these HD Tracks yet, but to me it seems like a lot of that stuff doesn't need to be in Hi-Res. I don't mind improving the sound, as long as it is faithful to the original.

There is talk that it sounds more like the master tapes, and how it was "intended" to be heard, but the way it was intended to be heard is apparently not what we fans have been familiar with for decades. I'm not really interested in what "could have been". It's kind of like all the changes George Lucas keeps making to the Star Wars movies. I'm glad the technology exists now so that George can go back and make the films the way he originally envisioned them or whatever, but it's not the same films I grew up on.

ABKCO 2002 remasters were released on 2-layer CD's. One layer is 16 bit/44.1 kHz (CD quality). And the other is SACD layer. If you listen to these on a regular CD player, the HDTracks files will sure sound better as they have a much higher definition (24 bit / 88.2 kHz or even 176.4 kHz).

"Better" here must be understand as hearing high frequencies more clearly. This makes the sound richer and deeper : more basses, higher trebles, details better defined.
This enhancement is particularly striking on early recordings : Bill Wyman's bass is now hitting in the background like it should do, you can distinguish clearly both guitars (I particularly appreciate this), Jagger's voice is warmer...

Don't expect a totally different sound though. It's really an improvement in quality of definition. When I play these HD files I don't do anything else. I just listen to the music.

I started with Big Hits 1&2 to see how they sound. It's a good choice because you have all 60's songs represented.

Otonneau i've been living on a strict diet of FLAC files for some time, and now whenever I hear some mp3 files I can feel it's mp3 compressed crap.

So I guess HD tracks are really better (think upgrading to DVD from vhs tapes). I also guess if I was living on a strict diet of HD files for some time, FLAC would suddenly sound like crap!

Upon what Ludwig did for Virgin, which was make the CDs sound as much like the original releases as I recall him hinting at, the ABKCO Remasters were in good hands. What UMe did with the 71-05 remastering changed the way they were meant to be heard as far as I'm concerned: The Rolling Stones are not Ministry.

Well, Kowalski summed it up. That makes sense.

Which really surprises me in a way.

Does this mean we have to buy them AGAIN!!???

As Gwen pointed out in the other thread these tapes are getting older and older, quality is going to get worse. It would totally make sense that the SACD's would be sufficient. I really don't think this "Master Tape" crap means anything anymore. As far as I'm concerned the best masters are probably the very 1st DIGITAL ones done by MSFL. The master tapes were close to 30 years younger and the quality is in a sense "frozen" in time.

Good tape doesn't materially degrade in quality. You can be sure that the recordings are taken good care of.

Quote
nick
It would totally make sense that the SACD's would be sufficient.

2002 SACD's are sufficient if you can listen to them on a proper SACD player. Because then you can hear the SACD layer which is HD.
The CD layer is not HD. That's why I said HDTRacks HD files are an improvement over the CD layer of the 2002 remasters. They are the same remasters but with better definition. Just like you can find Blu-ray superior to standard DVD.

having listened to Vinyl, Tape, CD, MP3, SACD, & finally HDtracks of Let It Bleed (My Fav studio Album)...

SACD & HDtracks are handsdown eeeaassily a BIG BIG step up in sound quality than all the others.
(please note i haven't listened to the SACD on a SACD player, however, on my ears IT'S STILL ALOT better sounding btw)

Now comparing SACD with HDtracks of the album, the difference between the two is not as great as when comparing both to Tape, MP3, CD etc versions.

To my ears it's still noticable that the HDtracks is a better listening experience, whether played quiet, loud or whatever, monkey man and that type of song really stands out as an improvement on HDtracks to all the other formats

if you can't afford the HDtracks, I'd DEFO buy the SACD verion of 'Let it Bleed', it's not quite on a par with HDtracks, but is a BIG improvement on all the other formats

pheeww

SACD version without SACD player = CD.
The only improvement you can hear if you listen to a SACD on a CD player is because of the remastering process or because they used different original masters.

HDTracks files are an improvement only over the CD layer of SACD's.

Quote
Captainchaos
if you can't afford the HDtracks, I'd DEFO buy the SACD verion of 'Let it Bleed', it's not quite on a par with HDtracks, but is a BIG improvement on all the other formats

The HD tracks are less than what the SACD Hybrids are going for now.

Thanks to you all for your replies!

[www.computeraudiophile.com]

As Kowalski said the SACD are worthless if you don't have an SACD player, and probably some good other equipment to listen.

HDtracks or SACD is not so easy to compare, as they are entirely different formats. For better understanding read Wikipedia info about all this.

I'm also wondering what type of equipment was used for instance in 1964 to record the Live EP. Was that equipment already that good it could capture sounds you wouldn't hear on a CD today? For Let it Bleed I'll believe that, but for older stuff from 1964 that's also available on HDtracks it's hard to believe.

A good stereo might be the first good investment for better audio.

Quote
nick
As Gwen pointed out in the other thread these tapes are getting older and older, quality is going to get worse. It would totally make sense that the SACD's would be sufficient. I really don't think this "Master Tape" crap means anything anymore. As far as I'm concerned the best masters are probably the very 1st DIGITAL ones done by MSFL. The master tapes were close to 30 years younger and the quality is in a sense "frozen" in time.

That ignores the fact that earlydigital recording technology was crap.
[CD was it's worst crime ...but It has an awful lot more to answer for ! ]

Quote
Whale
As Kowalski said the SACD are worthless if you don't have an SACD player, and probably some good other equipment to listen.

The situation is exactly the same for HD files - you need converters (ie soundcard or digital amp) that can handle HD files. Otherwise it will be resampled to CD quality. You can read SACD now with multi-format DVD players, quite cheap (but with an audio path and converter of lower grade than dedicated audiophile SACD players).

Quote
Whale
I'm also wondering what type of equipment was used for instance in 1964 to record the Live EP. Was that equipment already that good it could capture sounds you wouldn't hear on a CD today? For Let it Bleed I'll believe that, but for older stuff from 1964 that's also available on HDtracks it's hard to believe.

The thing is that digital sound will always remain an approximation of the analog sound which is being sliced during conversion. CD format was regarded as a good enough approximation.

Quote
Whale
A good stereo might be the first good investment for better audio.

Ditto. A good room, good speakers and good amp.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-29 16:22 by gwen.

Quote

A message from NY

2012 will be the year that record companies release High Resolution Audio. This is huge for our industry. Since the advent of the CD, listeners have been deprived of the full experience of listenings. With the introduction of MP3s via online music services, listeners were further deprived.

The spirituality and soul of music is truly found when the sound engulfs you and that is just what 2012 will bring. It is a physical thing, a relief that you feel when you finally hear music the way artists and producers did when they created it in the studio. The sound engulfs you and your senses open up allowing you to truly feel the deep emotion in the music of some of our finest artists. From Frank Sinatra to the Black Keys, the feeling is there. This is what recording companies were born to give you and in 2012 they will deliver.

Neil Young
May 2011

From : [www.neilyoung.com]


Let's hope he's right.

All I've wanted since 1984 [when the abortion which is CD was foisted on us] is a high quality medium for domestic music reproduction which rivals vinyl .

I'd love to think that after 25 years of going backwards... we finally got one.