Octave Music Don Grusin High Resolution Music Analysis (Video)

[MakeMineVinyl]

3 dB down, half-power-point, corner-freq, cut-off freq or whatever one calls it it's all more work to do for the amp class(s) with the higher bandwidth.

Audio power amplifiers don't like amplifying ultrasonic crud; most will even protest with a constant 20kHz.

 

[kongwee]

Great logic. The two channel peak limiter they used is even smaller, has less functionality and is 4k$. One channel of the Neve 900 series mixing console is twice the price of the SSL mixer.

Yup, one mic pre can cost $4k too.

 

[perdido34]

Why bother when you can purchase first rate talent and performances of the same music, and sometimes with better sound to boot; Janos Starker on Mercury Living Presence for instance?

I posted in response to someone who characterized the Octave Records releases as "typical audiophile stuff." I get the point, but the Bach suites are an exception.

I have Starker's Mercury Bach cello suites on SACD. These were recorded in 3-channel, and yes, they do sound great. And they are fine performances. But Zuill Bailey is also a "first rate talent," and I like his way with the cello suites irrespective of their cost. I have probably a dozen versions of the Bach cello suites. If my main concern was price, I would have bought Maria Kliegel on Naxos (also fine, and $15) and stopped there. But then I would have missed out on so many others, e.g., Bylsma, Livkind, Ma, Queyras, Schiff, Casals. Oh, and vinyl fans (e.g., MakeMineVinyl) can buy reissued Starker Mercury on LP for $110--so did you?

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Oh, and vinyl fans (e.g., MakeMineVinyl) can buy reissued Starker Mercury on LP for $110--so did you?

No, I have the CD. I actually don't listen to vinyl all that much compared to streaming; the MakeMineVinyl moniker was just something I thought was a cleaver name. Since I'm more interested in open reel tape machines, I could have called myself "MakeMineMylar", but most people wouldn't get the joke.

 

[Geert]

I've just downloaded one and am enjoying it now. Sounds excellent.

I also bought the album. It sounds very clean and tonality is nice. But I agree with Amir, it sounds to close miked for a solo recording. Would have been better if it would have been recorded in an acoustically nice sounding room. And that's my problem with audiophile labels, they often have their priorities wrong.

 

[pinpoint_oxford]

I also bought the album. It sounds very clean and tonality is nice. But I agree with Amir, it sounds to close miked for a solo recording. Would have been better if it would have been recorded in an acoustically nice sounding room. And that's my problem with audiophile labels, they often have their priorities wrong.

Again, I think you just need to buy and listen to what you like. Attacking the label because of one recording you don't like seems like a cheap shot. They have all of the tracks available for preview, so I don't see why this is a problem.

You can call BS on components because they don't do anything on their own, they need music. But complaining about music seems like a weird thing to do since it's art. The whole point is subjectivity.

 

[dadregga]

SACD/DSD was originally marketed as method of providing a superior sound to 44.1/16 while keeping the cost of of the DAC in an affordable price range. It was an argument that had merit at the time but the time of DSD has long passed.

It wasn't designed to be edited originally - DSD was originally designed to be Sony's digital archive storage format for analog tapes, which would be converted to PCM as needed - editing wasn't the problem they were solving for.

Slapping it on SACDs was a thing Sony came up with later.

 

[abdo123]

@amirm you look very handsome with the Stealth headphones on! Thank you for sharing.

 

[Geert]

Again, I think you just need to buy and listen to what you like. Attacking the label because of one recording you don't like seems like a cheap shot.

I'm not allowed to share my impression of the sound quality of a specific recording I purchased? You're not obliged to read it if you're not interested.

But complaining about music seems like a weird thing to do since it's art

I evaluated the sound, not the musical performance. And it looks like you skipped my compliment on how clean it sounded and the nice tonality.

 

[Endibol]

I actually feel sort of bad for Paul. In the bad old days, he parlayed his finesse with some audio engineers who knew something of what they were doing. Paul's engineering skills have been reportedly acquired as a disc jockey, and through rubbing elbows with a few actual engineers. But without the skills of mathematics and electronic circuits, his engineering department must be a major mystery to him. For sometime now, I have offered comments on his YT channel that attempted to point to some major errors in his thinking -- particularly Paul's basing an entire recording studio investment on just a couple of concepts:

1. DSD is fundamentally good (which it fundamentally isn't, especially), and an entire business plan can be made of DSD, and
2. That really competent, highly talented musicians will be attracted to nothing more than a niche audiophile record label. (Most won't.)

Paul's engineering skills seem especially minuscule, demonstrated by a few of his videos that incorporate a whiteboard. He gets it mostly wrong, then applies erasing skills and waves his arms, and the lesson falls flat on uncomprehending eyes.

I have paid considerable attention to this channel and Amir. Amir gets it right; I can find almost nothing over which to disagree with Amir.
....
To make great recordings, successfully, takes production skills in addition to artistic talent. Any teenager can stick microphones near a piano, have someone play it, and get a very unattractive result. DSD cannot make that recording great, desirable, or profitable.

I suspect that Paul is listening to some screwy advice, and I'm kind of glad I don't know his bankers. I don't wish him any ill. If, by some accident of fate, he succeeds, well, we'll all have a few good albums... maybe.
...
By way of qualification, I am a degreed electrical engineer with a major in the mathematics and statistics of signals, a registered professional engineer (retired) in two States, a musician (piano) with a grand piano, and experience early on with a recording studio making classical as well as popular music. I am not bragging; I am merely stating some qualifications. In this field, Amir knows a lot more than I do. Information science and technology, of which audio is a tiny subset, is a complex and arcane field -- as Sony and some of its executives had found the hard way.

I actually feel sort of bad for Paul. In the bad old days, he parlayed his finesse with some audio engineers who knew something of what they were doing. Paul's engineering skills have been reportedly acquired as a disc jockey, and through rubbing elbows with a few actual engineers. But without the skills of mathematics and electronic circuits, his engineering department must be a major mystery to him. For sometime now, I have offered comments on his YT channel that attempted to point to some major errors in his thinking -- particularly Paul's basing an entire recording studio investment on just a couple of concepts:

1. DSD is fundamentally good (which it fundamentally isn't, especially), and an entire business plan can be made of DSD, and
2. That really competent, highly talented musicians will be attracted to nothing more than a niche audiophile record label. (Most won't.)

Paul's engineering skills seem especially minuscule, demonstrated by a few of his videos that incorporate a whiteboard. He gets it mostly wrong, then applies erasing skills and waves his arms, and the lesson falls flat on uncomprehending eyes.

I have paid considerable attention to this channel and Amir. Amir gets it right; I can find almost nothing over which to disagree with Amir.
....
To make great recordings, successfully, takes production skills in addition to artistic talent. Any teenager can stick microphones near a piano, have someone play it, and get a very unattractive result. DSD cannot make that recording great, desirable, or profitable.

I suspect that Paul is listening to some screwy advice, and I'm kind of glad I don't know his bankers. I don't wish him any ill. If, by some accident of fate, he succeeds, well, we'll all have a few good albums... maybe.
...
By way of qualification, I am a degreed electrical engineer with a major in the mathematics and statistics of signals, a registered professional engineer (retired) in two States, a musician (piano) with a grand piano, and experience early on with a recording studio making classical as well as popular music. I am not bragging; I am merely stating some qualifications. In this field, Amir knows a lot more than I do. Information science and technology, of which audio is a tiny subset, is a complex and arcane field -- as Sony and some of its executives had found the hard way.

Paul's white board sessions are pretty chaotic most of the time. It not only shows that he doesn't prepare them well but also that he lacks basic knowledge of physics as well as teaching skills. Although I think his good intentions to explain stuff to laymen are genuine, I am certain the he quite often confuses his audience more than he enlightens them. A perfect example of someone with great teaching skills who prepares his lessons well is Monty Alexander (see one of his video in this threat).

 

[Elephen]

I am not disputing Amir’s measurements of that PS Audio file, but DSD files sound more analog to my old ears when I’m listening to music via my Sennheiser HD-600 headphones and Benchmark DAC2 HGC. I generally do not listen to files on the day I download them, and I don’t do blind listening tests. The first time I listened to “The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan” on DSD64, I thought I was listening to a vinyl album. Perhaps that means either that I like the sound of added noise or the other labels do a better job with their DSD files.

 

[Astoneroad]

I wasn't aware that Paul or anyone at P.S. Audio isn't competent or knowledgeable enough to defend those claims with math and science, only unsubstantiated claims with no measurements and a tacit plea to believe an avuncular story teller's version of "Spooky actions at a distance." After reading various digs toward ASR on PSA's site, I'm saddened that thinking hasn't moved past the embraced ignorance of the Inquisition that silenced Galileo from sharing his facts gleaned from observation. What's next... selling indulgences? I shouldn't put that idea out there... next thing that we know... that will be the "next" outrageously expensive tweak. There will be indulgences for digital or analog, for current recordings and those long since dead... but I'm sure the difference in the sound will be like "Night and Day". Somebody pass me the snakes.

 

[PeteL]

A little mistake around 5:10

"When you get the raw file, even if you have a DSD Dac, don't know how to apply any filter, then when you play it as a digital file, the entire thing get's transmitted to amplifier".

There is a lot of truth to this video, but this isn't. I've look at most DSD Dacs architecture and these considerations are taken into account. Here's an example, from WM8742 datasheet:

 

[dadregga]

I am not disputing Amir’s measurements of that PS Audio file, but DSD files sound more analog to my old ears when I’m listening to music via my Sennheiser HD-600 headphones and Benchmark DAC2 HGC. I generally do not listen to files on the day I download them, and I don’t do blind listening tests. The first time I listened to “The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan” on DSD64, I thought I was listening to a vinyl album. Perhaps that means either that I like the sound of added noise or the other labels do a better job with their DSD files.

Or you like a certain mastering and the DSD format itself isn't actually a factor.

 

[dadregga]

A little mistake around 5:10

"When you get the raw file, even if you have a DSD Dac, don't know how to apply any filter, then when you play it as a digital file, the entire thing get's transmitted to amplifier".

There is a lot of truth to this video, but this isn't. I've look at most DSD Dacs architecture and these considerations are taken into account. Here's an example, from WM8742 datasheet:

View attachment 191832

Yep, most modern off-the-shelf DACs that support DSD absolutely do filter out the hump out of the box, my Topping E30 defaults to a 30khz cutoff.

You *can* disable that or choose a less aggressive filter, but nearly every DAC I've used rightly assumes only a nut would do that and defaults to ~30khz

 

[Billy Budapest]

It is also not totally wrong.

nyquist theorem is totally true.
but as an mathematical concept it assumes a view things.

1.)Perfect band limited input signal (this can be done digitally while resampling)

2.)Perfect Low pass filter
(they cant be perfect)


3) It also assumes an infinite resolution /precision of amplitude sampling.

Of cause in the real world we have al sorts of error on the Amplitude sampling like noise, nonliterary, hysteresis, jitter, and of cause limited resolution.

Higher sampling significantly relaxes the requirements on imperfect analog filters. also bandwidth can be exchanged for bit depth troug noise shaping.

Butt of cause engineers know all this... and this is why (almost) every modern DAC works at higher sampling rates >> over 44.1khz.
they (all) internally up sample / over-sample to around ~700Khz (some more some less).
So there is arguable no need to ship higher sampling rates if the DAC/PC can generate higher sampling rates on the fly.

Hence, my earlier comment about 24/48 providing an adequate safety margin against aliasing artifacts.

 

[Herbert]

Recording standard in studios is 24/96, very often 24/48, sometimes 24/192.
Enough resolutionto generate DSD from the final master.
Nobody can use DSD for mixing besides selling it as "analog sounding" (which is rubbish anyway)
or selling the recordings as some kind of "Direct-to-disc recording" of the digital age:

DSD Pure in Sonoma – Real HD-Audio

www.realhd-audio.com

Q. Can I record, mix and master in DSD?

The DSD/SuperAudio CD format seems to slowly be coming back into focus, with recent releases from Korg and Sony, after many thought it was dead. Steinberg released software support for DSD some time ago in Cubase, but is it possible today to use DSD with Cubase or other desktop recording...

www.soundonsound.com

 

[pinpoint_oxford]

I evaluated the sound, not the musical performance. And it looks like you skipped my compliment on how clean it sounded and the nice tonality.

I suppose my comment was more on the complaint on the close-mic'ed nature of the piece and posturing about audiophile labels. I agree that solo piano pieces recorded like this tend to be boring to me, so I just stay away from those

 

[Lakker]

“Out of thin air” is available for streaming through Qobuz in 192/24. I am not a big fan of solo piano music. But in terms of sound-quality, this is clearly an excellent recording.

 

[Geert]

I suppose my comment was more on the complaint on the close-mic'ed nature of the piece

I'm a pro sound engineer, and I play piano (or attemp to). The piano sound on this album is a very direct sound (and also very wide), like you hear it yourself when playing the piano. That's an unusual sound for a solo jazz or classical music album. Usualy they aim for a sound character as the audience hears it. A bit more distant, more room sound.

agree that solo piano pieces recorded like this tend to be boring to me,

I can appreciate the music. But afterwards I listened to The Soren Bebe Trio ("Home", 2016). No DSD or marketing fuss about the recording proces, but a nicer listening experience. In the end that's what matters to me.