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

[sarumbear]

The whole point of the format is to produce ultrasonics or it wouldn't be "high-res."

One could argue that the word “resolution” can mean sampling bit depth as well.

 

[MetalDaze]

See my answer above. The tape did not have the severe noise shaping. Nor do you know what your DAC will do when playing DSD256 as far as analog filtering. Don't confuse SACD players and today's DxD digital downloads. The former had some governance as far as recommended analog filtering but the latter does not. If all ultrasonics were filtered, no one would buy these tracks as they would not be considered "high-res" anymore.

Just looked up AKM4493 and this is what they say for DSD filtering:

View attachment 128244

They have two filter settings. For DSD64 (SACD) you easily have bandwidth to 50 kHz in setting 1 and 100 kHz in Setting 2. If you use DSD 128, it doubles these. The track I analyzed is DSD256 which means filter 1 gives you 200 kHz bandwidth and filter 2, whopping 400 kHz bandwidth!

So no way you are filtering the ultrasonics for such content. The whole point of the format is to produce ultrasonics or it wouldn't be "high-res."

My first thought while watching (after realizing it's produced prior to you owning the RME) was ; exactly this.
The filter settings at 50K Hz and 100K Hz. From the manual I thought I was all good, but seeing here how the actual implemented DAC chip (AKM4493) utilizes the filters depending on incoming DSD rate. That changes things. I only have several albums in my library with such a high DSD rate, this being one of them @ DSD128. I believe Kat Stevens is another.

You think you get better fidelity with the higher rate DSD (or high rez in general) but since the DAC filters actually fall short of low passing the ultrasonic noise, you're probably better with lower rate DSD where the filter may actually be in line with the data stream at the advertised frequency.

Thankfully I can't hear any of that ultra sonic garbage, but I know my amplifier is steady out to around 100K Hz bandwidth. My speakers, not so much? It makes me wonder though how much harder my down stream system components may have to work since the noise is making it passed the DAC.

Thanks Amir for again showing us the proper technical side of things. I always knew the ultrasonic noise & shaping was there, but falsely believed It was being removed in the DAC. Further confirms why I still like to find well mastered original CD's, and listen to those or accurate rips of them instead.

 

[sarumbear]

And a portable Nagra IV indicates that there was no mobile studio to monitor the "audiophility."
of "Jazz at the Pawnshop"
So this recording seems more myth than fact...

Have you listened to the original double LP? Do you think the audio quality is a myth and it shouldn't be labelled as "audiophile"?

...and interstingly, besides a volume two, nothing else was released using this quite ordinary setup...

What gave you the idea that just because the Nagra IV-S is an easily transportable device that there is monitoring done? The set-up Gert used involved a Studer mixer and a pair of active monitors.

 

[Blumlein 88]

No one has mentioned the fact the Neumann microphones used are only spec'd for 15 khz. While they have some response above that they clearly are drooping rapidly past 15 khz. Not that most adult humans have more response than this either. So whatever came after in the recording chain, this is a bottleneck on extended response.

 

[sarumbear]

No one has mentioned the fact the Neumann microphones used are only spec'd for 15 khz.

Not to mention the Dolby units which limit the top end as well.

 

[egellings]

I think that music tended to be uninvolving on direct-to-disk vinyl disks because the musicians could not afford to make a musical mistake, especially on the later songs, as the whole performance up to the mistake would have to be repeated. Multitrack taping removed that stress, and musicians could play with more aplomb, knowing that a mistake would be easy to correct.

 

[sarumbear]

I think that music tended to be uninvolving on direct-to-disk vinyl disks…

Jazz at the Pawnshop is not a direct-to-disk recording like the Sheffield disks. It’s simply a live recording.

For the music being uninvolving, I can’t disagree more, so I expect would any acoustic musician.

 

[30 Ounce]

Here’s a more in depth explanation of the recording setup and details.

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/26231-the-recording-of-quotjazz-at-the-pawnshopquot/

 

[30 Ounce]

No one has mentioned the fact the Neumann microphones used are only spec'd for 15 khz. While they have some response above that they clearly are drooping rapidly past 15 khz. Not that most adult humans have more response than this either. So whatever came after in the recording chain, this is a bottleneck on extended response.

There were 8 microphones used in this recording, some definitely extended past 20khz. I can see on Audacity that there is musical info easily to 24k and some areas to 31k.

 

[sarumbear]

Here’s a more in depth explanation of the recording setup and details.

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/26231-the-recording-of-quotjazz-at-the-pawnshopquot/

Great piece. Tallies to what Gret had told me at the time.

This bit may interest the poster who talked about the stress of playing non-stop:

“It is interesting to note how accomplished the musicians are, since everything could be recorded in one go without any cuts. There is one exception, however: at the end of one of his drum solos, Egil Johansen happened to miss a beat and messed up his entry slightly. Gert Palmcrantz cut that bar out and those who want to can amuse themselves by trying to find this almost imperceptible cut.”

 

[Michel Forbes]

This recording was re-mastered by René Laflamme around 2013-2014.
Here's what I remember when talking with René about this particular remastering.

The master used was a Dolby A encoded tape (according to René this is master...)
Right there -audiophile- may raised their eyebrow...
Dolby A encoding was not perfect and may exhibit compression / de-compression artefacts and the RTR must be very well aligned in playback response.
And praise GOD that you have Dolby Tone recorded on the tape... essential to properly calibrate the Dolby A decoder

René used a modified Nagra-T as transport and record in DSD 256 trough a Merging HAPI or HORUS ADC using Pyramix.
It's not clear if René apply more processing after that, it maybe more that just a straight transfer.


Personnaly I never considerer this album as a reference, I found recordings of Bill Evans by Orrin Keepnews more valuable.

 

[Herbert]

Have you listened to the original double LP? Do you think the audio quality is a myth and it shouldn't be labelled as "audiophile"?

I do not listen to inferior sources. Master tape (obviously unobtanium) thus I took the CD. Dolby A explains, why the Nagra was not that noisy. But once again: The setup is ordinary and musicians are expected to play flawless. I myself made enough recordings to know that. Jazz in the Pawnshop became famous when Direct to Disk recordings were the latest hype and recordings with
the simplest setup were regarded as audiophile.

 

[egellings]

I liked the music, especially the vibes on "Lady be Good".

 

[SIY]

Have you listened to the original double LP? Do you think the audio quality is a myth and it shouldn't be labelled as "audiophile"?

Yes, I have it. The sound is nothing special. The performances are yawn-inducing.

If you want small club live jazz recordings, there are a LOT of better ones.

 

[sarumbear]

I do not listen to inferior sources.

Does that mean, as far as you are concerned, there were no Hi-Fi sources for the consumer before 1982?

Jazz in the Pawnshop became famous when Direct to Disk recordings were the latest hype...

It is not a direct-to-disk recording! How can it be? It was recorded to tape!

...and recordings with the simplest setup were regarded as audiophile.

Sorry to be repeating myself, but does that mean you count all early DECCA, TELEFUNKEN, and RTF orchestral recordings as inferior?

 

[Blumlein 88]

There were 8 microphones used in this recording, some definitely extended past 20khz. I can see on Audacity that there is musical info easily to 24k and some areas to 31k.

The microphones were U47s, M49s and KM56s. The specs on these stop short of 20 khz. I'm sure there is some response higher, but it will be rather reduced in level. The M49 maybe has something like good response to 18 khz, and the others to only around 15 khz. So I'd say anything above 20 khz would have to either be awfully high in level, some garbage from a later stage or something of that sort.

 

[Herbert]

It is not a direct-to-disk recording! How can it be? It was recorded to tape!

You should read posts of other members more thoroughly.
I mentioned that I worked with the Nagra IV so I already knew it couldn't be direct to disc.

Sorry to be repeating myself, but does that mean you count all early DECCA, TELEFUNKEN, and RTF orchestral recordings as inferior?

To pick up your logic, this was high end, no compression, artifical reverb or any other kind of manipulations.
Please Note that the signal path was as short as possible:

 

[sarumbear]

Jazz in the Pawnshop became famous when Direct to Disk recordings were the latest hype...

You should read posts of other members more thoroughly.
I mentioned that I worked with the Nagra IV so I already knew it couldn't be direct to disc.

But sir, you have addressed it as such! See your quote above. If you knew then why use the wrong description? I was simply commenting on your words.

To pick up your logic, this was high end, no compression, artifical reverb or any other kind of manipulations.
Please Note that the signal path was as short as possible:..

I'm afraid you are now being contrary.

 

[sarumbear]

There were 8 microphones used in this recording, some definitely extended past 20khz. I can see on Audacity that there is musical info easily to 24k and some areas to 31k.

The microphones were U47s, M49s and KM56s. The specs on these stop short of 20 khz. I'm sure there is some response higher, but it will be rather reduced in level. The M49 maybe has something like good response to 18 khz, and the others to only around 15 khz. So I'd say anything above 20 khz would have to either be awfully high in level, some garbage from a later stage or something of that sort.

It is the usual problem, again; giving numbers without defining them.

What does "The specs on these stop short of 20 khz" or "some definitely extended past 20khz" mean? Let's make some educated guesses.

1. As those microphones are from an analogue era we can safely assume that there are no brick-wall filters involved, hence the low-pass response will have a 6-12dB/octave slope.
2. If that 20kHz figure is given at -3dB or -6dB than you expect high frequency levels to be only -6dB to -12dB less than the the overall level at 40kHz. Which means that there is every possibility that those microphones could have captured signal above 20kHz.

However, I have never seen an old Neuman microphone that measure up to 20kHz at -3dB. 15kHz is the limit at a push. Neuman has not even supplied graphs that go above 15kHz. Here is a measurement of KM56 by the BCC from 1958. Besides, There is a cascade of equipment which ads their own frequency response limits to the chain, hence we should expect a much lower value than the calculation in item 2 above. Nevertheless, as it is the beauty of analogue, there is always something recorded above the so-called threshold of hearing. In digital domain this often is not the case due to the use of brick-wall filtering.

The mature women or men may not hear those high notes on the tape but they are there. Are they worth the extra money, I say no, but it is for the consumer to decide. Are those multi-thousand Dollar DACs that measure worse than a dongle worth the premium?

 

[Jimster480]

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.

I agree, in recording some things in 24b 192Khz they sound more "real" than things recorded with lower sampling rates. I could never put my finger on why they feel more "real". Maybe it has to do with the timing. I noticed this at first with my HTC10 that allowed 24/192 recording for videos (or for standalone audio recorders) and it always sounded like I "was there" even though the quality itself was obviously not the greatest ever because it is from a phone.... My LG G8 can do the same thing when I set the recording level on the audio to 24/192.

Is there a way to explore this?