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

[SIY]

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?

Have you confirmed this with basic controls? Double blind, level matched? That’s needed before any “exploration.”

 

[sarumbear]

My understanding is that HiRes recordings' primary value is to bring higher timing rather than higher frequency resolution.

May I ask you define/explain what is timing?

 

[jam]

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

Thanks for this review Amir. Especially interesting to me as I purchased the three-discs SACD set (also includes JATPS 2 and another disc) some years ago from a UK webshopb for only $33 CAD?

 

[Herbert]

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

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.

Velvet Underground released their self-titled Album when the Hippie movement was at its peak. So the Velvets were Hippies?

 

[Maxicut]

Allow me to correct the record.

1- The recording was done a decade later in 1976

2- I personally heard from the recording engineer Gert Palmcrantz that he used a pair of Nagra IV-S recorders through a pair Dolby A 361 noise reduction units (I was working at Abbey Road then).

3- Nagra IV-S has a 20-20,000Hz +/-2dB response at 15ips, which was the speed used. Specs…

There's nothing to correct. I answered the question that was asked!

 

[andymok]

René used a modified Nagra-T as transport and record in DSD 256 trough a Merging HAPI or HORUS ADC using Pyramix.

I wish someone here can interview Claude Cellier and really gets into the technicalities someday,
Nagra-T, DSD, Hapi/Horus & Pyramix, they’re all Claude’s designs

 

[sarumbear]

I wish someone here can interview Claude Cellier and really gets into the technicalities someday,
Nagra-T, DSD, Hapi/Horus & Pyramix, they’re all Claude’s designs

Claude’s devices and the DxD format he created at Merging are excellent recording devices. Unless I’m mistaken DxD format inherently doesn’t have such high level high frequency noise. (Correct me if I’m wrong, please.)

The discussion we should then have is why the mastering engineer decided not to filter frequencies that are much higher than what the original master could have had. If there’s someone to be interviewed it’s that person. Why did they decided to let so much high frequency noise in the master?

 

[Michel Forbes]

I wish someone here can interview Claude Cellier and really gets into the technicalities someday,
Nagra-T, DSD, Hapi/Horus & Pyramix, they’re all Claude’s designs

I got an interview with Claude ( in french) about the NADAC and Clock.
Including his experience at Nagra, designing the Nagra-T.

 

[sarumbear]

I got an interview with Claude ( in french) about the NADAC and Clock.
Including his experience at Nagra, designing the Nagra-T.

If it’s published to the internet can we have a link, please?

 

[Michel Forbes]

If it’s published to the internet can we have a link, please?

 

[max233]

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.



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:

Edgy

 

[Herbert]

They used to call it “Direct-to-Wax“

 

[welsh]

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.

Another example of audiophiles preferring recording quality over performance. I have several recordings of Schubert’s masterpiece string quintet, and in my opinion the best (in terms of musicianship) is a scratchy old mono recording by the Hollywood Quartet (plus extra cello!) which no modern audiophile would dare play.

 

[Harris Fogel]

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

For those on the forum interested in DSD vs PCM vs Analog recordings, I recommend checking out the work of Dr. Mark Waldrip, who is a respected voice in the community. I should add that respected isn't always the same as loved. And he has a fair share of detractors. I met him when I first started reviewing high-res products, including recent high-res music releases from HD Tracks. His point has always been pretty basic. Don't call it "High-Res" unless it is recorded in "High-Resolution" and maintained as high-res throughout the editing, mixing, mastering, and distribution. Anything other than that, isn't actually "High-Res" in his eyes, which made sense to me.

What earned Waldrip a lot of enmity from the vendors of older analog recordings, released in expensive high-res formats, is that he felt that the public was being led astray, paying extra for files with absolutely nothing in them that qualifies as high-res. I had the pleasure of sitting in his studio, surrounded by a amazing set of five (possibly more - I can't remember) B&W 801s, which he used for mixing and producing. We listened to the same session, recorded at the same time, with PCM, DSD, and Analog, and we were able to compare and contrast formats. He has made some of those recordings available on his website for free for you to listen to and learn from. It was especially useful to hear recordings made with a calibrated Nagra, with and without noise reduction, compared to a high quality digital recording. As much as I love the distortions of analog, that experience sold me on digital audio as the best possible way to get accurate audio recordings. Which doesn't mean better, just more accurate. I love a noisy analog recording as much as the next nutcase.

I will also add that, Waldrip, as a label owner, engineer, and producer, creates recordings that are amazingly good. Certainly, at the same level as folks like Chesky, although his weren't recorded (to my knowledge) as Binaural recordings, if you are trying to make that comparison. Whatever you might think of his opinions on the state of the high-res industry, these are wonderful performances and recordings. So, don't think of Waldrip as anti high-res, he isn't that. He is a big believer in high-res recordings, and has been at the forefront of making and selling high-res music since the beginning. So, he's a true believer. But, he's not so sure about 50 year old analog recordings sold as high-res. He explained that he's ok with selling them, just make sure not to identify them as high res.

When CDs were introduced, I was part of a group that tried to influence the Congress and FTC to pass legislation about CD marketing. The simple three letter "AAD" or "DDD" had little or no relevance for the consumer as to what they were paying for. Which often, weren't as good as the LPs they already owned. Along with others, we viewed it as an issue of consumer awareness at best, at worst, we viewed it as fraud. I mean, the final "D" what was that for? It's a CD, every title is going to end with a "D" for sake. But, it was a time of anti-regulation, and scores of terrible sounding CDs hit the shelves, at high prices, only to be replaced when artists demanded it, when catalogs were sold and additional revenue by way of the "Akbar and Jeff's CD Hut" business model, and so on.

The fear was that if consumers felt ripped off, then it would affect the entire music industry. Judging by the success of MP3s, we soon realized that for the most part, consumers didn't much care. We cared about provenance, we wanted a code that indicated if the CD came from first generation masters, if it was digitally mixed and mastered, etc. but no one else seemed to care. I wrote an article about how smart EMI was to include with the Beatles remasters, interviews with the engineers, to educate consumers, thus legitimizing the purchase of new copies. Smart, smart, smart. I used to play the early Elton John CDs for my students and then played the properly mastered ones, as an illustration of the tech, but most importantly, how distanced we are from the originals, be them photographs, recordings, or films. Like the difference between a 35mm print and a VHS copy. A daguerreotype isn't the same as a digital print of a daguerreotype. As educators, conservators, archivists, historians, the concern was always there that some idiot in accounting might say, "well, we've digitized them, perfect. Toss out the originals so can save money.." Think that's farfetched? Think again. Remember why we have "The Who" multi-tracks? It's only because a man, a hero, lived across the street from what became the Virgin studios, rescued them from the bins, full of masters tossed by workman to make room in the basements that were filled with tapes. Seriously?

Even now, look at effort that Van Morrison put into blocking the 5.1 release of "Moondance", or the proper restoration of the original tracks. For a comparison, listen to how good the unreleased material on the deluxe edition sounds compared to the original tracks. The unreleased material was a complete restoration using current tech, remix, and remaster. Not so for the original album, which is a shame. The unreleased material sounds fab. But I digress.

A few years ago, a group of journalists were fortunate to attend sessions in New York and Los Angeles, sponsored by the DGA (Directors Guild of America) Producers Wing, and able to sit in the studio with folks like Bob Ludwig, playing his recent work for Beck, in both CD and high res formats, and the difference was clear as day. Mind you, this was a recent high-res recording, so no question of recording quality or provenance. When I wrote about it at the time, some nimrods said things suggesting that we were set up by Ludwig, that it was impossible to hear the difference, and that Ludwig prepared different versions to fake us out, etc. All amazingly ignorant and stupid comments, or as they say in the South, 'Why bless their little uninformed hearts and unformed brains.." Ok, it sounds snotty, but it's true. Audio is so complicated, that if there's a truth, I've not found it.

Comments like those, absolute certainty about hearing or not hearing the difference, are almost always made by armchair listeners who have never set foot in a studio, never recorded a track, have no experience on a Studer or Ampex analog reel-to-reel, or high-end digital recording gear. They've never personally mixed, applied effects, or remastered a recording. It's all make believe and conjecture, till you witness the entire chain. So, were all of us being setup by Ludwig and others? Of course not. Were sessions held at the AES conference in New York, to address these very questions, of course. Do they continue those sessions and research, of course. Do I think there is a difference between a hi-res restoration of an analog recording, and low-res, yes, I do.

Do I think there is a difference between a CD and a high-res version of the same restored track, yes, but for different reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that many CDs don't take advantage the full resolution of the CD Red Book specs. Thus what actually makes it onto a CD and out from most CD players doesn't necessarily tell the entire story. Would I prefer a high res version over a CD version, yes. But, it's, as they say, complicated. On a related note, I've found that many 96k/24bit files sound better than their 192k/24bit versions. Go figure. My EE pals at DAC (chip) companies chalk it up to forcing DACs to work harder, along with the entire data path, and actually creating different sorts of artifacts. Whatever the cause might be, 96k/24bit seems to be the sweet spot for final distribution. Maybe not for restoration and remixing work, where the lowest possible noise floor and highest resolution, are best. But, for the final listen, at home, with a pint of Brew 102 at hand, 96k/24 bit seems like a good bet. And, since 192k/24 bit files cost more (explain that to me, seriously? Are you just paying for bandwidth and server expenses? Or are you getting more music?), you might be able to save money to donate to Emir.

Years ago, during the advent of CDs, I knew some folks at Rhino, and we were discussing searching for, and obtaining masters. The consensus was, that if a label heard that you were working on a digital release, they would try harder to find a better quality master tape. If they heard you were working on an analog reissue, they didn't try as hard. What was funny, was that state-of-the-art analog sounded better than state-of-the-art digital at that time. So, they always told the labels they were working on a digital project, in the hopes of finding first generation masters. What was true, that with so many labels cutting corners, that a competent CD often sounded better then a less then competent LP from a poor quality master, or crunchy vinyl from an overused metal mother. The perception was that digital showed all, so best to put the homework into locating the best possible master.

How does this relate to Jazz at the Pawnshop? Well, it's a very well recorded analog set of tracks, recorded live in a club, not a studio, so suffers from those limitations. Do I personally care, not at all. I like the music and performance, and the recording, to me, supports that. So, I'm pretty thrilled to listen to it. I have a set of DSD albums recorded by Cookie Marenco, that I think are wonderfully musical and engaging, but I don't chalk that up to DSD, I credit Cookie and the musicians. She has sampler tracks of the same content in PCM and DSD, if you want to do your homework. From a tech standpoint, the harsh brick wall filtering required by the Sony DSD format, had always been an interesting technical choice, but I've never been convinced of the impact of that on playback. But, that's me. I certainly know that the minute someone starts shouting in all caps about something they have no personal involvement with, raises a lot of flags. I love high-res audio because at the very least, it forced studios and labels to put up, or shut up, in terms of locating the best quality masters. And we are the winners, since by providing funds for true restoration and remastering projects, with original masters being searched for and found, some amazing results are ours for the listening.

Among my favorite digital restorations include Jethro Tull's, Aqualung, and the superb "Jaco Pastorius - Truth, Liberty & Soul: Live In NYC 1982" NPR Jazz Alive project. Ok, while it's true, that I probably never need to hear "Aqualung" again, having it embedded in my brain while I was in Jr. High School, what I did find amazing was what Steven Wilson did with those tapes, which were never up to the band's sonic aspirations and expectations. The Pastorius recording, with the best mobile unit in NYC, and fantastic attention paid to recording, mic's, cabling, and more, now, that's one amazing marriage of digital and analog. The work that Jamie Howarth has done to the Dead and Springsteen catalogs is superlative, which is only a tiny example of his patented processes and expertise and titles he has restored for the world.

As a journalist, I'm always hoping that record labels will do their best for their artists and customers, and for the most part I think they do. Most folks in the business love music, and really do care. But they are up against the accountants and shareholders who care only for profits. Can you imagine how any well-run company could store one of it's biggest assets, their film and audio masters in unsafe, unprotected conditions, with almost no fire protection? Guess you can. As for "Jazz at the Pawnshop", I couldn't hear any difference between my high-res PCM files and the DSD files. Oh well. Still a great time.

P.S. I love Amir's work. Keep it up.

 

[amirm]

What earned Waldrip a lot of enmity from the vendors of older analog recordings, released in expensive high-res formats, is that he felt that the public was being led astray, paying extra for files with absolutely nothing in them that qualifies as high-res.

??? I have known Mark for probably 20 years now. For most of his career he was an advocate of highest level of video and audio recording. It is only the last few years that he has changed his views and now is dubious on benefits of high-res music. He had produced DVD-A (?) content in addition to some early HD video recordings with high sample rate music.

His transformation started when he did some shootouts with Keith Howard on AVS Forum. Ironically, I passed some of his tests of CD vs high-res.

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/11 06:18:47

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Mosaic_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Mosaic_B2.wav

06:18:47 : Test started.
06:19:38 : 00/01 100.0%
06:20:15 : 00/02 100.0%
06:20:47 : 01/03 87.5%
06:21:01 : 01/04 93.8%
06:21:20 : 02/05 81.3%
06:21:32 : 03/06 65.6%
06:21:48 : 04/07 50.0%
06:22:01 : 04/08 63.7%
06:22:15 : 05/09 50.0%
06:22:24 : 05/10 62.3%
06:23:15 : 06/11 50.0%
06:23:27 : 07/12 38.7%
06:23:36 : 08/13 29.1%
06:23:49 : 09/14 21.2%
06:24:02 : 10/15 15.1%
06:24:10 : 11/16 10.5%
06:24:20 : 12/17 7.2%
06:24:27 : 13/18 4.8%
06:24:35 : 14/19 3.2%
06:24:40 : 15/20 2.1%
06:24:46 : 16/21 1.3%
06:24:56 : 17/22 0.8%
06:25:04 : 18/23 0.5%
06:25:13 : 19/24 0.3%
06:25:25 : 20/25 0.2%
06:25:32 : 21/26 0.1%
06:25:38 : 22/27 0.1%
06:25:45 : 23/28 0.0%
06:25:51 : 24/29 0.0%
06:25:58 : 25/30 0.0%
06:26:24 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 25/30 (0.0%)

So 25 out of 30 right with essentially 0% chance of guessing.

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 21:01:16

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Just_My_Imagination_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Just_My_Imagination_B2.wav

21:01:16 : Test started.
21:02:11 : 01/01 50.0%
21:02:20 : 02/02 25.0%
21:02:28 : 03/03 12.5%
21:02:38 : 04/04 6.3%
21:02:47 : 05/05 3.1%
21:02:56 : 06/06 1.6%
21:03:06 : 07/07 0.8%
21:03:16 : 08/08 0.4%
21:03:26 : 09/09 0.2%
21:03:45 : 10/10 0.1%
21:03:54 : 11/11 0.0%
21:04:11 : 12/12 0.0%
21:04:24 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 12/12 (0.0%)

This one 12 out of 12 right.

But many people failed miserably so it was concluded that there was not an audible difference.

 

[Harris Fogel]

Hi Amir,
Thanks for your response.

I wasn't aware that Mark changed his tune (sorry, couldn't resist) on high-res vs. lower-res.
As far as I know, he was still very much a fan of high-res, as long, as it was true high-res, that is a high-res recording, from capture to distribution. I'll dig into the shootouts.

I've vacillated on high-res vs. high-quality CD content, but sitting with Ludwig and others, in a controlled environment showed me, and others, that one could discern the difference. Same gear, same studio, same everything. And we could all hear it. Hopefully those events will continue again, so maybe we can get you in the room. I certainly felt honored to sit in the chair John Lennon used in the studio.

I agree, I think that Waldrip's DVD-Audios are exemplary and wonderful. We can talk offline about his unreleased recordings.

You know, it's funny. The first serious listens I was able to do with SACD, were the Abkco Rolling Stone's remasters. I had interviewed Jody Klein, and Steve Rosenthal (Magic Shop) about the series when was on WPHT in Philadelphia. Anyhow, they sent me a stack of SACDs as well as high-res content from HD Tracks. So, I had the high-res FLAC, standard CD, and SACD. And different resolutions of FLAC from HD Tracks.

This is where I discovered that the CD side of the discs sounded "better" then the SACD sides. And I couldn't figure out why. I was using one of the Pioneer universal players, but the issues all boiled down to Bass Management on the SACDs. Later, when I switched to an Oppo universal disc player those issues went away, and the SACDs sounded great. Confused, I got in touch with folks at the labels who expressed they were aware of many consumers having similar issues with the SACD content. I wasn't alone. Fortunately colleagues came to the rescue, and I was able to manually adjust bass management on the Pioneers for proper sound signature. Whereas the standard CD layer sounded great right off the bat.

Around the same time, I interviewed a VP at Warner Special Markets, and they sent off a stack of DVD-A titles, and it was another lovely format, with small adoption. And Pure Audio BD, it's kind of dead. BTW, the gent from Warners, we asked him what his favorite title was, and it was Linkin Park, and he was right, took total advantage of the DVD-A format. Great mastering and mix.

 

[Michel Forbes]

For those on the forum interested in DSD vs PCM vs Analog recordings, I recommend checking out the work of Dr. Mark Waldrip, who is a respected voice in the community. I should add that respected isn't always the same as loved. And he has a fair share of detractors. I met him when I first started reviewing high-res products, including recent high-res music releases from HD Tracks. His point has always been pretty basic. Don't call it "High-Res" unless it is recorded in "High-Resolution" and maintained as high-res throughout the editing, mixing, mastering, and distribution. Anything other than that, isn't actually "High-Res" in his eyes, which made sense to me.

What earned Waldrip a lot of enmity from the vendors of older analog recordings, released in expensive high-res formats, is that he felt that the public was being led astray, paying extra for files with absolutely nothing in them that qualifies as high-res. I had the pleasure of sitting in his studio, surrounded by a amazing set of five (possibly more - I can't remember) B&W 801s, which he used for mixing and producing. We listened to the same session, recorded at the same time, with PCM, DSD, and Analog, and we were able to compare and contrast formats. He has made some of those recordings available on his website for free for you to listen to and learn from. It was especially useful to hear recordings made with a calibrated Nagra, with and without noise reduction, compared to a high quality digital recording. As much as I love the distortions of analog, that experience sold me on digital audio as the best possible way to get accurate audio recordings. Which doesn't mean better, just more accurate. I love a noisy analog recording as much as the next nutcase.

I will also add that, Waldrip, as a label owner, engineer, and producer, creates recordings that are amazingly good. Certainly, at the same level as folks like Chesky, although his weren't recorded (to my knowledge) as Binaural recordings, if you are trying to make that comparison. Whatever you might think of his opinions on the state of the high-res industry, these are wonderful performances and recordings. So, don't think of Waldrip as anti high-res, he isn't that. He is a big believer in high-res recordings, and has been at the forefront of making and selling high-res music since the beginning. So, he's a true believer. But, he's not so sure about 50 year old analog recordings sold as high-res. He explained that he's ok with selling them, just make sure not to identify them as high res.

When CDs were introduced, I was part of a group that tried to influence the Congress and FTC to pass legislation about CD marketing. The simple three letter "AAD" or "DDD" had little or no relevance for the consumer as to what they were paying for. Which often, weren't as good as the LPs they already owned. Along with others, we viewed it as an issue of consumer awareness at best, at worst, we viewed it as fraud. I mean, the final "D" what was that for? It's a CD, every title is going to end with a "D" for sake. But, it was a time of anti-regulation, and scores of terrible sounding CDs hit the shelves, at high prices, only to be replaced when artists demanded it, when catalogs were sold and additional revenue by way of the "Akbar and Jeff's CD Hut" business model, and so on.

The fear was that if consumers felt ripped off, then it would affect the entire music industry. Judging by the success of MP3s, we soon realized that for the most part, consumers didn't much care. We cared about provenance, we wanted a code that indicated if the CD came from first generation masters, if it was digitally mixed and mastered, etc. but no one else seemed to care. I wrote an article about how smart EMI was to include with the Beatles remasters, interviews with the engineers, to educate consumers, thus legitimizing the purchase of new copies. Smart, smart, smart. I used to play the early Elton John CDs for my students and then played the properly mastered ones, as an illustration of the tech, but most importantly, how distanced we are from the originals, be them photographs, recordings, or films. Like the difference between a 35mm print and a VHS copy. A daguerreotype isn't the same as a digital print of a daguerreotype. As educators, conservators, archivists, historians, the concern was always there that some idiot in accounting might say, "well, we've digitized them, perfect. Toss out the originals so can save money.." Think that's farfetched? Think again. Remember why we have "The Who" multi-tracks? It's only because a man, a hero, lived across the street from what became the Virgin studios, rescued them from the bins, full of masters tossed by workman to make room in the basements that were filled with tapes. Seriously?

Even now, look at effort that Van Morrison put into blocking the 5.1 release of "Moondance", or the proper restoration of the original tracks. For a comparison, listen to how good the unreleased material on the deluxe edition sounds compared to the original tracks. The unreleased material was a complete restoration using current tech, remix, and remaster. Not so for the original album, which is a shame. The unreleased material sounds fab. But I digress.

A few years ago, a group of journalists were fortunate to attend sessions in New York and Los Angeles, sponsored by the DGA (Directors Guild of America) Producers Wing, and able to sit in the studio with folks like Bob Ludwig, playing his recent work for Beck, in both CD and high res formats, and the difference was clear as day. Mind you, this was a recent high-res recording, so no question of recording quality or provenance. When I wrote about it at the time, some nimrods said things suggesting that we were set up by Ludwig, that it was impossible to hear the difference, and that Ludwig prepared different versions to fake us out, etc. All amazingly ignorant and stupid comments, or as they say in the South, 'Why bless their little uninformed hearts and unformed brains.." Ok, it sounds snotty, but it's true. Audio is so complicated, that if there's a truth, I've not found it.

Comments like those, absolute certainty about hearing or not hearing the difference, are almost always made by armchair listeners who have never set foot in a studio, never recorded a track, have no experience on a Studer or Ampex analog reel-to-reel, or high-end digital recording gear. They've never personally mixed, applied effects, or remastered a recording. It's all make believe and conjecture, till you witness the entire chain. So, were all of us being setup by Ludwig and others? Of course not. Were sessions held at the AES conference in New York, to address these very questions, of course. Do they continue those sessions and research, of course. Do I think there is a difference between a hi-res restoration of an analog recording, and low-res, yes, I do.

Do I think there is a difference between a CD and a high-res version of the same restored track, yes, but for different reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that many CDs don't take advantage the full resolution of the CD Red Book specs. Thus what actually makes it onto a CD and out from most CD players doesn't necessarily tell the entire story. Would I prefer a high res version over a CD version, yes. But, it's, as they say, complicated. On a related note, I've found that many 96k/24bit files sound better than their 192k/24bit versions. Go figure. My EE pals at DAC (chip) companies chalk it up to forcing DACs to work harder, along with the entire data path, and actually creating different sorts of artifacts. Whatever the cause might be, 96k/24bit seems to be the sweet spot for final distribution. Maybe not for restoration and remixing work, where the lowest possible noise floor and highest resolution, are best. But, for the final listen, at home, with a pint of Brew 102 at hand, 96k/24 bit seems like a good bet. And, since 192k/24 bit files cost more (explain that to me, seriously? Are you just paying for bandwidth and server expenses? Or are you getting more music?), you might be able to save money to donate to Emir.

Years ago, during the advent of CDs, I knew some folks at Rhino, and we were discussing searching for, and obtaining masters. The consensus was, that if a label heard that you were working on a digital release, they would try harder to find a better quality master tape. If they heard you were working on an analog reissue, they didn't try as hard. What was funny, was that state-of-the-art analog sounded better than state-of-the-art digital at that time. So, they always told the labels they were working on a digital project, in the hopes of finding first generation masters. What was true, that with so many labels cutting corners, that a competent CD often sounded better then a less then competent LP from a poor quality master, or crunchy vinyl from an overused metal mother. The perception was that digital showed all, so best to put the homework into locating the best possible master.

How does this relate to Jazz at the Pawnshop? Well, it's a very well recorded analog set of tracks, recorded live in a club, not a studio, so suffers from those limitations. Do I personally care, not at all. I like the music and performance, and the recording, to me, supports that. So, I'm pretty thrilled to listen to it. I have a set of DSD albums recorded by Cookie Marenco, that I think are wonderfully musical and engaging, but I don't chalk that up to DSD, I credit Cookie and the musicians. She has sampler tracks of the same content in PCM and DSD, if you want to do your homework. From a tech standpoint, the harsh brick wall filtering required by the Sony DSD format, had always been an interesting technical choice, but I've never been convinced of the impact of that on playback. But, that's me. I certainly know that the minute someone starts shouting in all caps about something they have no personal involvement with, raises a lot of flags. I love high-res audio because at the very least, it forced studios and labels to put up, or shut up, in terms of locating the best quality masters. And we are the winners, since by providing funds for true restoration and remastering projects, with original masters being searched for and found, some amazing results are ours for the listening.

Among my favorite digital restorations include Jethro Tull's, Aqualung, and the superb "Jaco Pastorius - Truth, Liberty & Soul: Live In NYC 1982" NPR Jazz Alive project. Ok, while it's true, that I probably never need to hear "Aqualung" again, having it embedded in my brain while I was in Jr. High School, what I did find amazing was what Steven Wilson did with those tapes, which were never up to the band's sonic aspirations and expectations. The Pastorius recording, with the best mobile unit in NYC, and fantastic attention paid to recording, mic's, cabling, and more, now, that's one amazing marriage of digital and analog. The work that Jamie Howarth has done to the Dead and Springsteen catalogs is superlative, which is only a tiny example of his patented processes and expertise and titles he has restored for the world.

As a journalist, I'm always hoping that record labels will do their best for their artists and customers, and for the most part I think they do. Most folks in the business love music, and really do care. But they are up against the accountants and shareholders who care only for profits. Can you imagine how any well-run company could store one of it's biggest assets, their film and audio masters in unsafe, unprotected conditions, with almost no fire protection? Guess you can. As for "Jazz at the Pawnshop", I couldn't hear any difference between my high-res PCM files and the DSD files. Oh well. Still a great time.

P.S. I love Amir's work. Keep it up.

Among my favorite digital restorations include Jethro Tull's, Aqualung, and the superb "Jaco Pastorius - Truth, Liberty & Soul: Live In NYC 1982" NPR Jazz Alive project. Ok, while it's true, that I probably never need to hear "Aqualung" again, having it embedded in my brain while I was in Jr. High School, what I did find amazing was what Steven Wilson did with those tapes, which were never up to the band's sonic aspirations and expectations.

S.Wilson did a complete remix from the original 16 tracks (or 24...)
Just removing the awful reverb plate processing add so much precision to the original recording.

 

[adamd]

I would just like to chip in a couple of points
1. the neatest explanation of time resolution of digital audio I am aware of is here
https://troll-audio.com/articles/time-resolution-of-digital-audio/
2. the 5 ns/10ns hearign acuity point is a complete red herring anyway. why? because it is the inter aural time difference ie between left and right ears (potentially mapping to channels) not the limit of resolution within one channel. Nothing to do with sampling.
3. I spent ages trying to find some evidence of the limits of time resolution within one channel /ear. ie genuine temporal resolution of the hearing system. I have not found much about it, but what little I could find seemed to point to things like the ability to detect gaps etc and seemed to be in the millisecond range.
4. imagine, if we really needed such fine temporal resolution how on earth people would have managed with tape or vinyl.

 

[Ata]

I would just like to chip in a couple of points
1. the neatest explanation of time resolution of digital audio I am aware of is here
https://troll-audio.com/articles/time-resolution-of-digital-audio/
2. the 5 ns/10ns hearign acuity point is a complete red herring anyway. why? because it is the inter aural time difference ie between left and right ears (potentially mapping to channels) not the limit of resolution within one channel. Nothing to do with sampling.
3. I spent ages trying to find some evidence of the limits of time resolution within one channel /ear. ie genuine temporal resolution of the hearing system. I have not found much about it, but what little I could find seemed to point to things like the ability to detect gaps etc and seemed to be in the millisecond range.
4. imagine, if we really needed such fine temporal resolution how on earth people would have managed with tape or vinyl.

I think 5-10ns is too short a period for the human, or any other organic life, to be able to measure or notice.

I have mentioned 10us (somebody else was claiming up to 5us) audible temporal resolution, coming from the duplex theory of sound localisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#Duplex_Theory):

"Localization accuracy is 1 degree for sources in front of the listener and 15 degrees for sources to the sides. Humans can discern interaural time differences of 10 microseconds or less."

Reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20100410235208/http://www.cs.ucc.ie/~ianp/CS2511/HAP.html

My assumption has been that 5-10us temporal resolution of the audio channel is necessary for good imaging and soundstage. The helpful folks here assured me that this is easily within reach of RBCD.

As you say, nothing here concerns one ear.

 

[adamd]

I think 5-10ns is too short a period for the human, or any other organic life, to be able to measure or notice.

I have mentioned 10us (somebody else was claiming up to 5us) audible temporal resolution, coming from the duplex theory of sound localisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#Duplex_Theory):

"Localization accuracy is 1 degree for sources in front of the listener and 15 degrees for sources to the sides. Humans can discern interaural time differences of 10 microseconds or less."

Reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20100410235208/http://www.cs.ucc.ie/~ianp/CS2511/HAP.html

My assumption has been that 5-10us temporal resolution of the audio channel is necessary for good imaging and soundstage. The helpful folks here assured me that this is easily within reach of RBCD.

As you say, nothing here concerns one ear.

sorry yes- the 5-10ns was a typo. 5-10 us is easliy achived by cd
But I think the point remains in any event that the resolution issues within an audio channel, which is what we are talking about with the analysis about limis of 16/44 processing (ie the ability to resolve a change in signal, or any event, within a channel) are distinct from the requirements of inter-channel or inter-aural time differences.