Inside High res music: Jazz at the Pawnshop NAXOS (DSD)

[amirm]

Another repeat performance of inside high res music, this time the famous album, Jazz at the Pawnshop. This time a DSD (really DxD) file:

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Thought is was entitled "Jazz at the Pawnshop by Naxos?

 

[GWolfman]

At this rate I'm wondering if we'll ever find one with useful content...

As a side question, even though there's nothing useful in the ultrasonic, would a higher sampling rate make, or allow, better reproduction (e.g., accuracy) in the audible band?

 

[AdamG]

Wow, so the new way to just basically rip the Consumer off big time. Is there any integrity in the Music business?

 

[Ismapics]

Hello @amirm : What were Studio Tape recorders capable in the Late 60's and unto before the advent of Digital sometime in the mid 80's? Is there an article about the subject? As I have said the record industry wants to sell us the same old music over and over again. They just tweak it a little here and there.

Take Fleetwood Mac Rumours recorded in 1976. How high did those master tapes recorded go in terms of frequency response. They have sold it as Vinyl Lp in1977, then possibly Phillips Cassette, CD in the 80's, Digital Download (iTunes), Vinyl again, DVD Audio with Surround sound and now Hi-Res Audio Master from for example Tidal.

So what can actually be there that was not in the original or even a CD to justify the Hi-Res moniker of the Tidal offer. You could go and see many more in the same group. Could it be filled with noise?

Cheers all. IM

Her is form the Tidal Website, they say Masters are MQA

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I owned the vinyl Direct to Disk. It was around $40 in the late '70s. It was a Scandanavian jazz band that was recorded live in a Stockholm night club. Was a state of the art recording in its day, but the performance left something to be desired.

 

[sq225917]

There's only going to be garbage up there as the recording medium simply wasn't capable. Another example of repackaged crap

 

[Tks]

Your main system can't play DSD? You got an RME ADI 2 DAC, mines plays just fine :\

 

[HD MOVIE SOURCE]

It's honestly disappointing. From what I'm seeing here with most of the measurements, a really good CD, for the most part, is all we need.

 

[amirm]

Your main system can't play DSD? You got an RME ADI 2 DAC, mines plays just fine :\

These are old videos. I had my Mark Levinson DAC then that was designed before advent of DSD/DxD downloads.

 

[Ron Texas]

I have this. My system needs EQ for the subs, so DSD must be converted to PCM. I can't tell the difference between 96 and 48 k Hz.

 

[AndreaT]

Just looking at the Area Under Curve of the frequency/dB plot you realize you buy about 80% noise. 25 € of noise and 6 € of Music.

 

[Maxicut]

Hello @amirm : What were Studio Tape recorders capable in the Late 60's and unto before the advent of Digital sometime in the mid 80's? Is there an article about the subject? As I have said the record industry wants to sell us the same old music over and over again. They just tweak it a little here and there.

Take Fleetwood Mac Rumours recorded in 1976. How high did those master tapes recorded go in terms of frequency response. They have sold it as Vinyl Lp in1977, then possibly Phillips Cassette, CD in the 80's, Digital Download (iTunes), Vinyl again, DVD Audio with Surround sound and now Hi-Res Audio Master from for example Tidal.

So what can actually be there that was not in the original or even a CD to justify the Hi-Res moniker of the Tidal offer. You could go and see many more in the same group. Could it be filled with noise?

Cheers all. IM

Her is form the Tidal Website, they say Masters are MQA
View attachment 128152

A 1966 Teac 4-Track for example:

Frequency Response @ 0 VU
@15ips = 30 to 18kHz (that's chewing through a lot of tape!)
@3 3/4 ips = 50-7500Hz

Signal To Noise @ 0 VU
1-track = 55db
4-Track = 50db

Total Harmonic Distortion
1% @ 0 VU (so it's a lot higher than that in real world use)

 

[Sonny1]

Listening right now. Beautiful sounding. I’m not even thinking about the recording. So good.

 

[617]

Listening right now. Beautiful sounding. I’m not even thinking about the recording. So good.

It's a really fun record. But the high res is unecessary. I like 'High Life'

 

[dfuller]

At this rate I'm wondering if we'll ever find one with useful content...

As a side question, even though there's nothing useful in the ultrasonic, would a higher sampling rate make, or allow, better reproduction (e.g., accuracy) in the audible band?

Nope. There's really not much if any point to above 48k/24b for end users. For the production side there is some benefit to double sample rates (i.e. 88.2/96) because time stretch and pitch correction algorithms work better with more sample points and some plugins have bad antialiasing filters.

: What were Studio Tape recorders capable in the Late 60's and unto before the advent of Digital sometime in the mid 80's? Is there an article about the subject? As I have said the record industry wants to sell us the same old music over and over again. They just tweak it a little here and there.

Take Fleetwood Mac Rumours recorded in 1976. How high did those master tapes recorded go in terms of frequency response. They have sold it as Vinyl Lp in1977, then possibly Phillips Cassette, CD in the 80's, Digital Download (iTunes), Vinyl again, DVD Audio with Surround sound and now Hi-Res Audio Master from for example Tidal.

So what can actually be there that was not in the original or even a CD to justify the Hi-Res moniker of the Tidal offer. You could go and see many more in the same group. Could it be filled with noise?

Cheers all. IM

Absolute best case scenario you could get ~80dB of dynamic range out of a perfectly calibrated machine with Dolby noise reduction enabled (wasn't always because it had an impact on the sonics of the tape machine). An Ampex ATR-102 for example will hit around 77dB S/N unweighted at 30ips (higher tape speed = lower noise).

A lot of stuff was tracked to analog tape up through the mid-90s when ADATs became reasonably priced (and, to be honest... I'm not sure ADATs were better! I've heard a lot of horror stories) and later Pro Tools rigs became more and more commonplace.

 

[Ata]

At this rate I'm wondering if we'll ever find one with useful content...

As a side question, even though there's nothing useful in the ultrasonic, would a higher sampling rate make, or allow, better reproduction (e.g., accuracy) in the audible band?

My understanding is that HiRes recordings' primary value is to bring higher timing rather than higher frequency resolution. After all, high/ultrasonic frequencies attenuate rather quickly in air, and we cannot hear them.

Timing/phase information, on the other hand, can be audible as our ears use that to localise the sound. Good hearing has timing resolution of about 10us, which dictates that 192 KHz samplings has to be used to capture that. On the other hand, the lower 8 bits of a 24-bit recording would likely be inaudible except in extreme scenarios: 0db noise floor and someone who is willing to pierce their ear drums with >96db sound.

Therefore, there is value in HiRes recordings that show no audible content beyond 20 (and, in my case, beyond 15) KHz, in that better localisation (aka soundstage and imaging in audiophile terms) should be possible with the right recording technique and process.

 

[Tks]

These are old videos. I had my Mark Levinson DAC then that was designed before advent of DSD/DxD downloads.

Could have fooled me. The voice quality is decently recorded.

EDIT: Btw, is there any literature of PCM vs DSD from a testing perspective? (Where hopefully both have their HF garbage cut out before testing)?

 

[DHT 845]

It's honestly disappointing. From what I'm seeing here with most of the measurements, a really good CD, for the most part, is all we need.

I wish there were some tests of CD transports on ASR. Leak cdt, audiolab, Jay's audio etc.

 

[Asinus]

An interesting read:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=20954

The data from the Hi-Res vs. Red Book Audio survey indicate that hi-res audio does not deliver perceptible fidelity improvements beyond compact discs in real world listening environments. While some tracks in the present study did score marginally better than others, the moderate improvement in correct hi-res identification did not alter the statistically supported conclusion that hi-res audio is sonically identical to Red Book specification audio.

The large percentage of “No Choice” responses is another indicator that hi-res audio does not match the claims made by the music and consumer electronics industries. The use of native high-resolution recordings in the present study and the large, diverse demographic group of participants listening in their own listening rooms are compelling arguments in the debate over hi-res perceptibility.

Other factors also did not alter the core conclusion of the survey. Age, experience, system cost, and listening environment did not change the percentage of correct selections.

the study is far from perfect but it comes from someone who profits from hi res audio.