• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

GWolfman

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
624
Likes
1,041
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.
But music is dynamic, so instantaneous sound over 96dB is likely common and not harmful (e.g., drum/percussion hits). Sustained notes or the wall/sound wars on the other hand are suspect.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
The used recorders were Nagra IV.
They used 2 of them at 15ips/38cm/s because of the small size they alternated the recorders (with some overlap).

Specs from Nagra service manual:

Freq. range (in widest range setting for low frequencies) at max speed and -20dB recording level: 30Hz to 20kHz (+/- 1dB) but of course, unlike digital it can record higher frequencies but will be attenuated. The recording amplifier has peaking at around 18kHz.
18Hz to 35kHz (- 3dB)
14Hz to 50kHz (-6dB)

bias frequency 125kHz

S/N ratio: 75dB
crosstalk at 10kHz: 50dB
 

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
388
Likes
333
Location
Adelaide, Australia

Thumbs up for the reference! I stand corrected. I assume this is with a perfect reconstruction filter? Has anyone looked at filter quality vs timing resolution that can be achieved?

I have long suspected that the elaborate reconstruction/upsampling applied by software tools such as HQPlayer and hardware such as Chord M-Scaler improve soundstage by providing effectively better quality reconstruction filters, compared to a typical DACs. Now it seems that suspicion is spot on.
 

firedog

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
378
Likes
642
I don't understand the relevance or usefulness of this.
It's no secret that it's a conversion from tape. No one is being bamboozled.

If I was going to buy it, I'd buy the DXD, because it's one less generation of conversion before making the release version.

But in any case people who are buying the DSD are filtering out the ultrasonic noise on playback as part of the DSD>analog process.

And if people prefer the sound of a DSD remaster, what's wrong with that? There's a small subset of audiophiles who prefer DSD playback. That's what this site/label exists for. They also are known for doing a good job of mastering, which can be even more important than the format.
 

Hayabusa

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
787
Likes
519
Location
Abu Dhabi
@amirm
In the dsd (SACD) standard they add a 50KHz LP filter after the 1 bit dac to filter out 'HF' noise.
I assume your Adobe sw does not emulate that when showing these spectrum images?
 
Last edited:

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
@amirm do you have a single example where Hi-Res undisputably brings something to the table? I haven't been able to find a single one, but that may be because of my musical preferences. I am enjoying your analyses but that may just be confirmation bias. We need a counter example ;)
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,807
Location
Netherlands
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.

Not this again.. I feel like on every of these videos you have to explaining again: timing resolution of a sampled signal is not discrete, therefor for all practical purposes can be seen as infinite.

192 kHz samples audio does not have more time resolution than a 44.1 kHz sampled clip within the passband of what is audible for normal humans.
 

Hayabusa

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
787
Likes
519
Location
Abu Dhabi
Not this again.. I feel like on every of these videos you have to explaining again: timing resolution of a sampled signal is not discrete, therefor for all practical purposes can be seen as infinite.

192 kHz samples audio does not have more time resolution than a 44.1 kHz sampled clip within the passband of what is audible for normal humans.

Timing of a sampled signal IS discrete by the quantisation to a limited number of bits.
So a 16 bit 192Khz signal has more time resolution than a 44.1KHz one.
But we are talking about pico seconds here, no where near 10 uSec.
 

Kegemusha

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
488
Likes
462
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.
Yes, done in Stockholm, the CD i listened has a great sounding to it, feels like you are in that pub, very sell recorded, why destroy it with more strange oversampling and new formats?

Some info from Wiki:
Proprius Records founder Jacob Boethius produced the album, and it has been issued at least five times under multiple labels and formats. The album is widely regarded by audiophiles as one of the best jazz recordings of the 20th Century.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,807
Location
Netherlands
Timing of a sampled signal IS discrete by the quantisation to a limited number of bits.

Samples are discrete, the time resolution of the captured signal is not! You can encode a sine with any phase with any sample rate as long as it is sampled with at least double the sine frequency. There is nothing that says you can only capture phase in specific increments. So no, there is no time resolution advantage when sampling higher.
 

danadam

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
957
Likes
1,497
I have long suspected that the elaborate reconstruction/upsampling applied by software tools such as HQPlayer and hardware such as Chord M-Scaler improve soundstage by providing effectively better quality reconstruction filters, compared to a typical DACs. Now it seems that suspicion is spot on.
IMO, a "suspicion" becomes "spot on" only when it is confirmed. I don't see anything being confirmed in your post.
 

Phorize

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 26, 2019
Messages
1,533
Likes
2,060
Location
U.K
Audiophile press: ‘Hi res, hurrah!’

Me: ‘Hi res, meh.’
 

Hayabusa

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
787
Likes
519
Location
Abu Dhabi
Samples are discrete, the time resolution of the captured signal is not! You can encode a sine with any phase with any sample rate as long as it is within half the sampling rate. There is nothing that says you can only capture phase in specific increments. So no, there is a time resolution advantage when sampling higher.

Only if the sample value is not discrete. If it has a fixed number of steps (2^16 for instance) all these possible steps give you the resolution to capture the phase of the signal. This is very high resultion ( approx 1/(44100*2^16) sec) but not infite.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,807
Location
Netherlands
Only if the sample value is not discrete. If it has a fixed number of steps (2^16 for instance) all these possible steps give you the resolution to capture the phase of the signal. This is very high resultion ( approx 1/(44100*2^16) sec) but not infite.

Yes, bit depth plays its part, but the sample rate does not change that. As I said: for practical purposes, you can view it as infinite. "practical" is the magic word here.
 

Hayabusa

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
787
Likes
519
Location
Abu Dhabi
Yes, bit depth plays its part, but the sample rate does not change that. As I said: for practical purposes, you can view it as infinite. "practical" is the magic word here.
It does. for 192Khz its approx 1/(192000*2^16).

Note by the way that this for a FS signals. The number of quantisation steps that can capture the phase of a signal is less at lower ampiltudes.
Maybe we should do an experiment to show this :)
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,807
Location
Netherlands
It does. for 192Khz its approx 1/(192000*2^16).

No, adding more samples does not mean you gain more actual resolution.

Note by the way that this for a FS signals. The number of quantisation steps that can capture the phase of a signal is less at lower ampiltudes.

Yes, but again: the sample rate does not change that.

Maybe we should do an experiment to show this :)

Why? Shannon proved this long ago..
 
Top Bottom