Genius Loves Company

[magiccarpetride]

I've got Ray Charles "Genius Loves Company" (https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00013431224822) on the weekend, and spent considerable time listening to it. HDTracks are selling it as a high definition transfer (24 bit/88 kHz), so I was also focusing on the sound quality (the music quality is absolutely stunning, especially Ray himself).

Folks, I'm on the fence about the sound quality here. Part of me is blown away by the lush sound. The warmth emanating from these tracks is reminiscent of the best analog audio I've ever heard. However, going back to some well mastered red book CDs I have, and comparing their sound to this one, I feel like I'm missing certain edge on the high def tracks. These high def tracks sound a bit wimpy, a bit tame to me.

Is that all dependent on mixing/mastering, or has it something to do with the actual format (bit depth/sampling rate)? I must say I'm perplexed.

[Ali Tait]

We've been here before I think. I have this too. To my ears it's a good but not great recording. I think it's far less relevant what the format is, and more relevant how the recording was done in the first place. Some cd's I have are as good if not better than any high rez I've heard so far.

If you're looking for a great HDTracks recording, try the Glenn Miller. It's very good indeed IMHO.

[magiccarpetride]

We've been here before I think. I have this too. To my ears it's a good but not great recording. I think it's far less relevant what the format is, and more relevant how the recording was done in the first place. Some cd's I have are as good if not better than any high rez I've heard so far.

If you're looking for a great HDTracks recording, try the Glenn Miller. It's very good indeed IMHO.

So you reckon it's not down to mixing/mastering, but rather at the tracking stage?

I think you may be right. I have an old Ella and Lous recording from 1956 (https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00731454330428) in 24/96, and it's of an absolutely stunning audio quality. Sounds to me like they've just recorded it all live in the studio, in a single take, and then later on (read: much, much later on) just transferred the original studio master tape to the digitized high definition version.

That's probably the best way to go if aiming at high fidelity.

Which CDs are you referring to above?

[Ali Tait]

Yes, I have that recording too.It's very good.

[magiccarpetride]

Yes, I have that recording too.It's very good.

I've listened to Ray Charles again last night, and it's as if something is not quite right. The tracks lack certain BITE -- they're too tame, too attenuated. I'm tempted to say they're sugar coated. There certainly appears to be some form of euphonics applied during the production or post-production phase.

Anyone has any ideas what could it be? I have a hunch the engineers have selectively rolled off some highs and carefully boosted the mid bass in a way that results in a very 'safe' sounding recording. Something you'd play to some older folks if you wish to impress them with your audio system, but at the same time don't want to startle them with the rawness of the real sound.

The moment I switched to the high def Vivaldi "La Stravaganza Op. 4, 12 violin concertos" (http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/336), everything kicked back into full throttle! Now we're talking real, unadulterated high octane sound, with lots of edge -- sounds almost scary how realistic are instruments captured on that recording (I certainly wouldn't play that to some unsuspecting older visitors).

You've mentioned in your previous reply that you own some red book CDs that sound better than any high definition tracks you've ever heard. Care to share the titles of these CDs with us?

[Ali Tait]

Not quite, I said as good if not better. Try Nickel Creek's first album. One of the best recordings I've ever heard. Anything by Eric Bibb on Opus3 is very good too. Keb Mo-Slow Down is very good also.