Three 24/192 Recordings that Really Suck

Funny that this verb is still being used. Is there no adequate synonym?


Do a search with any given album you want to find the best mastering of and you are likely to find a thread about it. I usually use Google to search the site.

Here is a great thread on Steely Dan albums:

That’s just plain inappropriate. Politicizing words is just not necessary or useful.


That is how language works though. Nothing is apolitical.

Another good source of version info is the loudness wars database: (I believe that’s the URL; if not, it’s easy to Google.)

The DR database can be useful but you have to be careful. Good dynamic range does not mean the mastering is good too. In other words, search out the best mastering, not the album with the most dynamic range.

1 Like

Luckily for me, I only have Phil’s first five albums on vinyl only, and all original pressings that my brother purchased back in the 80’s when he was in the military.

Yes, I meant mastering. Sorry.

This is how I know it sucks. Back in the 80s I had intended to replace my vinyl with CD but soon realised that all things aren’t equal. Early CD mastering was often poor. BTW [the Face Value CD mentioned] has a DR of 11.

Shame to hear that…an ol’ fav of mine. I’ve got many versions, suffice to say my vinyl is streets ahead of cd/digital versions I own. I’ve stopped looking at any new so-called ‘better’ versions quite some time ago now.

I recall reading maybe 5 or so years ago by David Chesky (of HD tracks) an article where he stated that bit rate was not the determining factor to sound quality. Yes, we all know this, but I found it extremely interesting he would unequivocally stated it, when in fact his business model is all about selling albums with higher bit rates than cd quality. Perhaps just a caveat on his behalf, but it does highlight one must really listen to a so-called high res release to really see if it is any better or perhaps worse.


All one has to do is listen to Blue Nile’s initial CD release “Walk Across the Rooftops” to realize that resolution is not the primary gold ticket, so to speak.


But wouldn’t it be interesting to hear a 24bit master of that recording, if that were possible?

I have done the same with recent DSOTM box set. I wear the scarf, read the bumf but the recordings have not been touched. The collection isn’t even in the music room.

Beautiful sounding album.

Have to say my vinyl of Everything Changes surpasses any digital version I have heard to.

1 Like

10 posts were split to a new topic: Automated Word Blocking

First, HDTracks is a vendor, they sell what the record company gives them to sell. Nothing more, nothing less.
As far as the re-mastering, that takes time and money, and obviously access to the original multitrack Master recordings to do correctly. After the Universal warehouse fires in LA, many, many famous classic albums were lost, and many have simply disintegrated due to quality of the tape, and are gone forever. They usually only go through the effort and expense To re-master when there is a financial reason to do it, like when there is a new “special edition” re-release, or hopefully when a new format, whether it be LP, CD, SA-CD, Low res file, LP again, or HI Res file. I’d love to think that they are maximizing the Original recording to take advantage of the strengths of each format, but I’m sure that they don’t always do it, and we get a less than stellar version. I’m also pretty sure that they aren’t doing different versions for different streaming services, that’s not financially smart. The only reason that I can think of that they may be different, is if two companies have the rights, Europe, and the US, and both do a re-master. I doubt that they both have access to the master tapes, so someone is working off copies, hence a different, and possibly inferior version.
My last thought is that we listen to our favorite music all the time, we know every little nuance, and if something isn’t perfect, we perceive it as wrong, or bad. It isn’t always bad, just different. I go through this every time I buy a new amp or speakers, I have to listen again, for the first time. Eventually it becomes my new norm. So let’s not just criticize a new version because it doesn’t sound exactly like that vinyl LP that we bought 30 years ago.

1 Like

Indeed that is likely very true for most…which taking this one step further, leads me to think therefore, what is good or bad other than our own impressions or opinions?

Likely we can rule out inferior quality as in Mp3 (low bit rate), albums with surface noise and so on, but quality releases where there are variations that’s purely subjective, especially as we can’t say with absolute surety for example that the release with the greatest DR will sound best or the release with the highest resolution.


Oh, I think we should if the remastering was poorly done. When CDs were first released many mistakes were made with the remastering–possibly in a rush to build a catalogue but also because it was new ground.

The example I used is dire. It lost what the artist intended. It is nothing about the vinyl/ CD discussion: it’s simply a recording to avoid. Fortunately, later releases put it right.

I have the original vinyl versions of the Eagles catalogue. Many of these albums were compromised by a flood so I decided to download their albums from HD Tracks. As you have indicated these hi rez versions are inferior, in fact they are crap.

This is not a dump on HD Tracks as I have downloaded some good transfers from them. Probably not good business for them but I do wish they would discontinue offering inferior products!

I was able to clean the river silt off of my vinyl with a record cleaning machine and they still sound better than the downloads.

By the way I love most of the music I stream from Tidal and play using Roon. Well produced and recorded music, properly mastered, shines through.

Absolutely. That is why my Qobuz Sublime+ subscription is so helpful for me. I try before plonking down any money, and the money I do plonk down is often cheaper than the CD equivalent.