XXHighEnd

Ok, I don't think I am like this title. Or at least not in writing. But this time I feel it is necessary.

In the other topic (Peter's best Classic Rock recordings/cds/remasters (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1732.0;all)) somewhere along the lines I started to talk about the actually crazy good SQ coming from older material. We talked about the nature of sound of recordings from end 60's early 70's. And how it seems to be much better than today.

Phasure NOS1 owner already know : Yes, that old stuff suddenly seems to sound "great" while before it just sounded bad to today's well recorded material. But to be honest "great" only means that we can suddenly normally listen to it, and nostalgic values come across.
In that other topic -maybe a week ago- I already mentioned that the my current NOS1 USB apparently is still breaking in. I'm not even sure anymore on what parts exactly, but in the past month(s) I had to exchange DAC board and I/V, and on the USB board too there are some elco's which need breaking in. And, day by day it gets better and better, up to the extreme of that old stuff now (still seemingly) sounding BETTER than today's good recordings. But, they too improve, and I'm not sute what will be happening each other night pressing play for the first time ...

But now there was yesterday;
It was by accident that I went back in time even further; AlainGr pointed me indirectly at Waltz for Debby by The Bill Evans Trio, because a HiRes version of it popped up at HDTracks, and listening to AlainGr who said that sounds superb, I thought to play the CD version of it (I don't have the HiRes ... yet).

WOW

I have never ever heard anything like this. It is my miles and miles and miles the far best recording I have ever experienced. Recording ? man, sheer live !!
Ehm, this is from 1961.

Dinner was postponed by half an hour, because we both listened with complete open mouth to what was happening and how it could be. Yes, imagine two people standing with real open mouth of amazement. Heck, I wouldn't even know how to describe this. All normal properties lack. Must find new properties. Drool-factor or something.

In that other topic I talked about brushes being so difficult but with today's playback means all so apparent. But apparent. Not live yet. But now this ? wow wow wow
And I thought I knew a few things ...

For the very first time suddenly all was in complete balance. Yes, including cymbals being as loud as they should be. And you know what ? they didn't disturb one single bit. Loud as can be, and completely normal. Maybe for better judgement sticks should have been used too, because as far as we listened through the album this was brushes only.

I really, really don't know what is happening. How can this be ? what did they use for recording ? what could they use for recording means back then ?
I am totally flabbergasted ...

Peter

Tubes?

For sure no FETs. :)

Something as simple as your own recording? Did you tried that again?

 :)

I did not try that again, but already the other day (that day it was so increadibly hot here I recall) I explicitly said that this "own recording" wasn't the best anymore. So, somehow "it" is able to catch up. Why something like that "my own recording" doesn't need to catch up but is so very ok right from the start ... maybe some day we will understand ...

Peter,

I was looking out of interest to see if the LP is a direct to vinyl disk mastered recording and came across this.

"The trio recorded four albums: Portrait in Jazz (1959); and Explorations, Sunday at the Village Vanguard, and Waltz for Debby, all recorded in 1961. The last two albums are live recordings from the same recording date, and are routinely named among the greatest jazz recordings of all time."

(Quote from Wikipedia on Bill Evans 1960 recordings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Evans)

It seems the recording is generally very highly rated, its still amazing how this could be captured so well in the very early 1960s.

Nick.

Hi guys, I'd like to get hold of this myself to have a listen. But which version are you listening to? Is it the 2010 remastered addition as shown in the attachment?

I would get hold of the HDTracks hidef version, but I'm refusing to buy anything else from them until they can ensure that none of their 'high def' stuff has been derived from 16/44.1 PCM originals.

Cheers,
Mani.

According to the the Steve Hoffman website (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/archive/index.php/t-249217.html) the 24/96 and 24/192 versions were transferred from the original master tapes to digital by Paul Stubblebine... using a PM2. In which case, I stongly suspect they'll be the real deal.

Oh well, it looks like I'm buying the 24/192 version from HDTracks today... Both my NOS1s are down at the moment (being prepared to be shipped back to their Master for an upgrade), but I'll let you know how it sounds on my PM2 ;)

Mani.

Hey Mani,

I was talking about the original 1961 version (but don't ask me when the transfer to CD happened).

If I were you I would not buy the Hires version. I will be back later about this ...

Peter

I listened a lot to frank Zappas "one size fits all" in the last weeks. The music is great, but it is also one of the most involving and best sounding records I have. It is from the 70s. My theory: Today it is very easy to make recordings in a very good quality. And it is even easier to ruin the sound by usage of to much effects and processing. At the moment I am mixing the recordings of my band with a friend who is also in the band. We made a mix with just the minimum effects needed. On many instruments we used no effects or just slight equaliser settings. Because we both are no professionals, we asked a guy who is studiing "Sound Engineer". We wanted to learn how some effects are used or what we can do to improve the record. So, we gave him the tracks of a song. What we got back: A mix with unnatural sound, too much reverb, too much highs and so on... It was nice of him to help us and I am thankfull to learn but it showed me, that something is wrong in the education of our sound engineers. They lost the sense for the music. He send his library of 300 effects to my friend, so we can play a little. I mean, 300 effects??? Who the hell needs this?
If the engineer does not ruin the sound, it will happen when the cd is pressed. I made an interesting experience at an hi-fi dealer who showed me a master cd and the version for the market. There was an obvious difference in sound quality. After all, I do not wonder why old recordings can sound very good. People were more concentrated on the music itself and not in 300 effects they like to try. Plus Frank was a genius and I am sure he did the mix by himself, as he "controlled" everything in the band :)

Flecko, I think you've got something there.

I did some recording of me as a one man band back in the 80's. I recorded onto a 4 track TEAC 3.5 speed cassette deck (not exactly super quality  :)) Guitars (electric and acoustic) bass, flute, some percussion and voice with some overdubbing and minimal effects. I even lost the original and only had a copy on regular cassette to transfer (cheaply) to digital. I'm still amazed how decent it sounds. Noisy of course--tape hiss and such, but more musical sounding and enjoyable to listen to then some "professional," big act recordings. And I'm not talking about the quality of the music itself, just the sound.

I've also often heard the story that many recording engineers listen to poor quality speakers, so that they hear what they expect their audience to hear (what it might sound like in a car or an mp3 player) and then equalize and add effects accordingly. If that's true, or when it's true, that would also have a considerable affect. One would probably exaggerate things to make them more noticeable for the lesser quality systems. After all audiophiles don't listen to er, say Black Sabbath, or Rap master so-and-so.  :evil:

-Chris

Hi,

I did not have the chance to listen to the redbook CD from the Bill Evans Trio ("Waltz for Debby"), bit I am quite sure that it is fabulous, because the sound recording is.

I admit I am an hi-res addict. Something happend 4 days ago though and I am not sure I will stay on that track, unless there is a good description about where it comes from, when it was done and what was done. Keep clear of the Deep Purple "Machine Head" offered in a 24/96 flavour ! It is a surround downmixed in 2 channels and there are a lot of flaws in the spatial representation of the instruments. The sound is good, but the reste if awful.

I was so angry that I wrote to them about my perceptions and the results of my findings. The first person who answered me did not do anyting, but the second offered me to pick another album. At least there is customer service out there.

As for the Bill Evans Trio, while I can't compare with redbook, the hi-res version is good, very good. If all hi-res were like this one, I would not have the slightest distrust to go buying those that interest me.

I leave 2 links: one leads to the Hdtracks page where the Bill Evans Trio is. Read the paragraph about what was done with the master tapes.

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HX00888072330030

As for the other, there is an interview with Ted de Paravicini. The guy is quite interesting ! He can take a professional reel to reel that has a standard frequency response of 20 hz to 15 khz and bring it back with a frequency response of 7 hz to 35 khz. We are talking about an analog reel to reel tape here...

http://ear-usa.com/timdeparavicini.htm

Quite amazing !

Alain

Had the opportunity to try a next one. Just searched for 1961 ...

First one was from Art Blakey. Same story. As good. But, I don't like Art Blakey that much, so turned that off after a few minutes, and went on for the next one.

Next in sequence was a Dave Brubeck. Great again.
One thing, I had difficulties with recognizing the lead instrument. Same instrument as always (with Brubeck), but suddenly I couldn't tell. This doesn't seem a good thing, BUT, I am used to how this instrument normally sounds through my speakers.
Anyway, it appeared to be an alt-sax.


Before this all, I experimented with Bill Evans from yesterday again. So, let's say I got used to that sound for an hour or so. Right after that I thought to play anything "normal" again. Normal, but older (70's).
Hmm ... that sounded digital.
Can be a coincidence, and I only tried two. Then I was fed up with that, and hopped to the 61's I wrote about above ...

Waltz for Debby - HiRes ...

Ok, I could get hold of some test tracks, and these are the results. Of course it is my perception of it, and you may perceive it differently.

First idea : Totally unrecognizeable.
Second : Cymbals are too tihin.
Third : What the heck happened.
Fourth : Graphs from the tracks I could compare almost look like they are different tracks.
Fifth : Denoising noise audible.
Sixth : All the balance has gone.
Seventh : Nice all that audience, but this is too much of it.
Eight : No freshness anymore.
Nineth : where are the piano harmonics.

So, in this sequence things came to me. Here are some additional remarks :

Ad 4.
Comparison is not easy because of the different bit depth and sample rate. But I tried.
What I seem to see from it is that the HiRes contains more (in audio band) noise. A dangerous thing to conclude (because of actually looking at apples and oranges).
Looking at the wave plot itself, it seems clear that the sharp dynamics have gone. Also see 8.

Ad 6.
Nothing is forward anymore. Someone is playing in the far back some piano. Drums are as far away. Interest has gone. Also see 7.

Ad 1/3.
In combination with not seeing the wave plot the same (like it's another performance) I don't see what happened. I see bursts in the wave which are not there on the original, and the other way around. I must add though that I heard strange clicks as well, and with the tracks not being being equal in length, possibly pieces have been cut out.
The track numbers are not the same either, hence the sequence of the tracks seem to have changed. Why ? beats me, as the original already had silence between each track (this is a live recording). Someone muct have thought he was smarter in the sequence.

Ad 5.
At stages there is quite loud noise audible which isn't in the original at all. At first I thought (and expected !!) to listen to a deteriorated tape (also see 4), but later (ear in speaker) I recognized it clearly as denoising noise. The most bad part of this is that it breaks up the sound at a high frequency. Also, it will cut out the higher frequencies, and this is very audible. Also see 8.
I also seem to recognize an unevenness in the appliance of the denoising, which in the end makes me thing again about deteriorated tape. Notice that tapes may wear more on one side of the reel than the other (not meaning top vs bottom).

Ad 7.
At some stage I thought there must have been a separate feed for the audience, and this was supposed to be a Jazz at the Pawnshop #34. Later I thought that they would be moving microphones closer and farther to/from the artists.
Again later I thought all would be moot, because something just ain't right anymore. Don't try to make logic out of that.

I can say more, but the most important is that the fun has gone.
Btw, when I yesterday posted "don't buy the HiRes", this was my brief message after being 20 seconds into the first track I listened to. It really doesn't need more, BUT, you'd have to have the original first. without that, I guess you can only wonder about how they got the quality together, and undoubtedly you will be sure it is about the HiRes thing.
But it is not at all.

If Paul Stubblebine did this, U may have a message for him : stay out of denoising, or don't accept the project at all.
And, get something decent to listen through !
I mean, I really don't see the reason to lower yourself with failing productions like this.

Besides te denoising, I'm not sure how harmful the (??) conversions may have been. I see other things in the plot which don't belong there. Otoh, the denoising makes proper judgement fuzzy. So I can't tell really.

About the 210 remaster ... I just looked, and the track sequence seems the same as the HiRes one (I am doing this by heart now). Maybe it says something. But I have the hunch these both are actually the same, though the "2010 remaster" is 16/44.1 of course.

After some search, this must be the one I have : http://www.bol.com/nl/p/muziek/waltz-for-debby/1000004001303909/index.html
Notice the 10 tracks on this 2006 reissue, while the original-original contained 6 tracks. But :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz_for_Debby_(1961_album) seems to tell that the various issues contain different takes of the same track (names) anyway. This may well explain how the tracks look totally different, and sound different as well.

Here's the Hires track sequence : https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HX00888072330030
And the 2010 Remaster tracks : http://www.amazon.com/Waltz-Debby-Bill-Evans-Trio/dp/B003YOMN68 (track 8 is additional).


I hope I did this all a bit right ...
Peter

Too late! But I wanted to compare the hires with the CD version you have anyway. I've just ordered the CD so haven't been able to listen to it yet. But even when it arrives, I won't have a NOS1 up and running, so I'm not sure if I'll be listening to it in its full glory.

But for now, the hires sounds very good through the PM2. BUT I discovered something that I think I will now need to look into further:

I downloaded the hires from HDTracks last night and wanted to listen to it. But it was late, and I didn't want to disturb my wife who was sleeping in the living room next door. So I switched on the Berning Siegfried amp and listened to the album through my AKG K-1000 headphones (I haven't used the Berning/AKG combo for months and months). I'm not meaning to 'show off' here, I just want to make it clear that the replay chain was about as transparent as I've ever heard. Now, the Berning has a built-in volume pot, so I set XXHE to -0dB and listened. The piano sounded so sweet. The bass just right. Yes, way too much audience noise, but otherwise very nice. And then I thought I'd try it with XXHE set to -3dB and the Berning pot increased just a little. The sound was pretty much destroyed. Dull, dull, dull. All the sweetness was gone.

I'm going to explore this further...

Mani.

Peter, just a very quick thought. Are you sure that the XXHE attenuator isn't doing something strange when Arc Prediction is NOT engaged?

Mani.

Well, I can't be 100% sure. All I know is that I measure at -0dBFS and that that looks fine. I regularly measure at lower levels too, and nothing changes (except for the expected decrease in THD figures). The combination you pose however, is one I wouldn't use often. Or maybe never.

What I do know, is that the other day I found problems in the native playback of 96KHz Hires, which I found by playing normal music during looking at the analyser. In 192Khz the problem would be there just the same, but I can't see that through the analyser (which samples at 192 itself, and the anomalies can only be seen beyond the sample rate -> thus can't be seen). So, that one was solved theoretically.

BUT

This was solved only weeks ago, and as far as I'm concerned you don't have that version (I didn't put it up yet).
This all would mean that you must be correct in your finding, although at this moment I don't see the relation to the volume.

And after some thinking ... What happened with this bug is that you'd have about half of the high frequency output. Well, *that* would be dull ...

But but but again ...
I can't imagine (but maybe forgot) that this was about "normal" HiRes output. So, all I recall is that this is about the output for the NOS1, which brings me to the question : did you switch off the "Is Phasure NOS1 384" setting ? I guess you must have, or otherwise there will be one channel output.

For now, at indeed using XXHE, your only good option is to use Arc Prediction again, and output 384 ... ehm ... which you can't use at the other end.
Haha. Oops.
I will look into the solution of this bug again, and let you know to whom or what is applies.

Peter

Mani,

Your about note dul sound is interesting.
I don’t have the transparency of a very good head phone setup but I think might have something like this as well.

Generally I can’t play direct to amp without pre-amp at the moment, so I use XX at 0db vol and an in amp volume control to set my listening levels. Quite a lot of the time I have to limit the output from my NOS1, so in order to do this I set XX volume to -3 to -6 db to reduce output signal levels.  With XX at -3 to -6 db I also seem to have the dul sound. I would say dynamics drop markedly and performance becomes quite flat.

There could well be other factors in my system that might be contributing to this, however the difference is quite noticeable and is present with both NOS1 alone and NOS1 => SPDIF => AN4 DAC replay chains. The TVC volume control in my amp does not really change the characteristic of sound at +- 6db levels.

I put this effect down to signal compression caused by -3 to -6 db of XX attenuation so never thought to mention the change in sound. But reading your note I though I would replay these experiences just in case it’s of any use to Peter.

I’ll do some experiments with / without arc prediction and peak extend etc.

Regards,

Nick.

Update

I should have siad the above is with 44.1khz material with 8X arc prediction playing through the NOS1 and 4X arc prediction playing via NOS1 SPDIF in to the AN4 DAC.

Perhaps this is just attenuation compression ?

Nick.

Hi Nick, looking at your signature, I'm sure your system is one of the more transparent ones out there. And I suspect a TVC is one of the better ways of attenuating in the analogue domain. In any event, I'm very interested to hear what you find, especially as you have both a NOS1 and an AN DAC to hand.

Interestingly, I've never even tried feeding the NOS1 into my Berning/AKG combo, but I certainly will when I get my two NOS1s back from their upgrade (though this may be quite a while off yet). I've always said that recreating the Berning/AKG sound via speakers is what I'm striving for. Having had a good listen last night and early this morning, albeit with the 'poor old' PM2, I realise how far away I still am from getting the sound I want from speakers. There is a clarity but more so a sweetness to the sound that I don't think I've ever heard reproduced through any speakers. Well, I have a few weeks before work kicks off again and may just reignite the quest.

Mani.

Yes I am sure nobody of us do :)

I made tests with digital volume too and found, that my passive pre amp sounded better than the digital volume control. Ok, my dac is not made for a direct connection to the amp but anyway, that is what I have experienced with different dacs. Also the ones with low output impedance. Some weeks ago, I was out buying a new Preamplifier. It is no longer passive but a hibrid of tubes and burr brown output buffer. This was the most significant improvement in sound ever. Not exaggerating. I was shocked about how dynamical it can sound. And the bass...

Hi Peter,

I do not have the chance of having the 16/44 version of the album. Which one would you recommend ? I am very curious about theses differences. I still have a lot of things to learn.

Here are some thoughts:
- Is the resolution up to a point where some micro-informations are "too much" for a recording from 1961 ? I am quite sure that the microphones from that time were not as accurate and silent as those of today ?
- Maybe the master tapes are not in such good shape as the 16/44 version ?
- If you write to the engineer, maybe he will give some answers as for the conclusions you have ?

Each time I think I get it, I realize that there is something new I have to take in account...

Thanks,

Alain

My kind of pretentious ideas about this :

Higher resolution mics may not be needed at all. Good ones are. Maybe lower resolution are better in other things ?

Better dynamics seem key always. This includes the obvious "no compression".  So, this shows from older digital transfers in the first place. But, going back further thee general better dynamics start to add ? This by itself includes less diginal manipulation. And this latter again shows best when looking at HiRes. Mind you, what we can see as anomalies in HiRes, we can't see (yet) in Redbook. But there too similar things will be happening.

Of course the master tapes from back then have deteriorated by now. More or less, but they will have.

Write to the engineer ... I don't know. From the theoretical POV I can't know better. Still it is my perception that it needs a great deal of digital knowledge, and then I'm not talking about what to do with ProTools etc. Merely what causes which, like the examples Adrian (Flecko) gave.
There is more and more to it, the longer we think about it (and collect experiences). For example, you can make a R2R deck capture 35Khz from tape, but all you would be doing is capturing additional noise. Noise that would be there in another fashion when left alone (say, now 15KHz is possible), and the next thing what happens is that a denoiser has to come in. There are so (so) many stages than one has to put both feet on the ground and sit back again - and start all over because somewhere in the process a wrong decision has been taken.

For the first time in many years I was today able to at last reason out why 16/44.1 *theoretically* can be better than any HiRes. But theory can just turn out to be practice; it may take some more time to really proove it. It goes into all kind of "laws" built up over the last decades, and as so often, it takes some other anomaly to occur somewhere to let one think differently. Or at least I do, as that I am able to let occur anomalies (because of making mistakes). But then I think ... I think what is actually happening, and from there I build up.
Ok, I'm not saying that I will be better than anyone else, but I do say that I put infinite time into these things. Maybe because I think I have that time. Not everybody has that. Sure not everybody owns the combination of being into software, hardware like a DAC, audio which is a huge subject by itself, and also felt the need to make programs and products out of that. I may be the only one doing this all, and so I may be the only one being able to judge across boundaries.

This doesn't tell at all that I know how microphones from the past work. So yes, my guts tell me it must be worse than toay's, but instead of taking that for granted, I try to find why that is apparently not important at all. So, something else must be going on.
It is not much different than the Hires story from the past few years. I heard it was wrong, and it took two years to find the reason why. Well, it just *is* all wrong; at least all the DVD-A stuff is, and most probably SACD is no different.
Today it even goes further, because today it looks like I'm prooving that even today's HiRes will be wrong. Against all odds that is, but still along with my ears.

If we go one step further, we will all be back at the turntables. But this again would be a wrong decision, because long gone it has been proven that capturing from vinyl leads to a digital result which won't differentiate from the vinyl playback (hi Mani). And so it is the other way around : how to play back the digital results from the recording companies that it will be "analogue". Well, it seems it can't. But it also seems that the recordings are sh*t all over. But not those from back then ...

Currently I am just strolling to all the 1961's one by one, and they keep on working without exception. Ok, not 100% true, because there's some mono in there as well, which seems to go along with less quality. Hard to judge, because mono creates false harmonics, at least in my room here. But the Miles Davis I stumbled over ... you see the man swing the trumpet from left to right.
It is a completely different experience.

Peter

Guys, for sure I will be looking into the volume thing ...

There is an interesting article about hires downloads in the "hi-finews" on June 2011, page 14 to 18.

Most of the tested hires downloads of older records are upsampled, and therefore not worth ................... . :( :(

Joachim

I haven't read the article (stopped buying hifi magazines a long, long time ago pretty much after I read a review on the then new Marantz SA-1 which proclaimed it was the best SACD and CD player on the planet - I bought the SA-1 and totally disagreed with the reviewer... and hated the sound of SACD... still do). Did you see the rebuttal by HDTT (http://www.highdeftapetransfers.com/page/20/Response-to-Upsampling)?

Mani.

Peter,
I'm not following the volume thing completely.  What happens if you play 24/96 through XXHighEnd with Arc Prediction into the NOS1?  Any problems on the HF when you attenuation using XX in that case?

Thanks!

please see:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Look-what-Linn-sold-2496

Linn confirmes the finding and HD Tracks removed the file (a Peter Frampton CD) from their website.

The music downloads are the future business in music distribution and I'm quite shure that some ................. .
On RHINO they are selling files (not hires) directly recorded from a LP. You can hear the "touch down" of the stylus in the groove.

Joachim

Hey Tim,

As far as I know there isn't a problem with the digital attenuation anywhere, but since people report perceived problems I'm always prepared to listen and dive into the matter. That is really all (ehm, for now :)).

About playing HiRes through the NOS1 in general, it is to be taken that with the current XXHighEnd version even the HiRes needs Arc Prediction filtering. This is because there is a bug in the native playback of HiRes (probably only 88.2/96KHz but maybe also 176.4/192KHz).
This bug has been solved on my side already, but the version of this is (0.9z-6) is not up yet.

Btw, a small tad earlier version of XXHighEnd onto the NOS1 even played 88.2/96 in slomotion. This hasn't been reported by anyone, and had been in there for many months. Maybe people don't feel the need to report such a thing, but it is more probable that the output rate is always set to 352.8/384, which is exactly what I do. Then -here too- there is/was no problem.

But as said, I must look into that volume thing ...
Peter

Hi Joachim and all,

I can tell you, there is much (much) more to it than simply making a graph and point at it as no HiRes. Of course I'm not talking about "vinyl rips", and of course I am not saying that all is fine (hey, the most contrary). But for example that CA post you pointed at ... probably nothing is wrong with it. Remember, my view. But, I'm also two years longer into this than anyone else (I think).

It really needs experience to read those graphs, and sometimes it needs other measurement means to look deeper.

Fact is and remains that all what can be proven to originate from a multi channel recording, is already flawed because of the 2ch downmix in there. Not only because the downmix can't be done right, but also because it comes with its unavoidable technical anomalies.
This is why I say that when you find older (DVD-A) 192Khz recordings, you're quite on the safe side, because these won't have come along wilt multi channel recordings. Of course, unless that is upsampled stuff (which happens too).

The whole point is : nobody seems to know what he is or was doing, and I guess it needs "us" to point that out in the modern era. This is not about hoaxing, but plainly about not having a clue about what is right and what is wrong (and THUS all is wrong).

I'd even say that HDTracks provides a LOT of help to get hold of the truth about this all, just because each other day they upload a new DVD-A version which only subsequently prooves that it is the exact same as I already have here for over two years. But then -as already said- this is about poor productions, and most of the time not about upsampling or anything.

Hey, it already seems difficult for nearly everybody to recognize that any older taped stuff impossibly can contain higher frequencies because they just weren't in there. And because of this misjudgement in the first place, people judge 40KHz frequencies as very good, not having a clue about that being aliases of poor filtering after poor downmixing.

Funnily enough I think I have been the only one always (ok, two years or so) saying that HiRes s*cks all over, just because it doesn't sound good at all. But, now the whole world starts to use stuff like AudaCity, and because of too few knowledge all kind of indeed accusations are fastly spread through the net. One would say that I have my right at last, but actually the contrary happens from what I intend with it. I mean, why to accuse the better companies from providing falsifications just because "we" don't understand. The problem here is : these accusations are about today's remasters from (old) tapes, even up to real HiRes today's recordings. I too can complain about those, but then in the area of the Bill Evans like in this topic. This is quite different from something being a hoax ...

And still *I* must be very careful about not making mistakes (as the loudest shouter and bringer of bad news in this area).

Peter


PS: Alain too IMHO made a small mistake by calling Machine Head a downmix. The stupid thing here is : This album is very OK on the technical aspects. No anomalies to be seen. Why ? well, because it was NOT created as a downmix.
... But now it is a strange compliation of something like the two front channels in a 5.1 setup. That too doesn't work. There's just no way out for the 5.1 DVD-A stuff ...

Hi Peter,

I admit that when I suggested that the Deep Purple "Machine Head" download had something wrong, I was barely making a supposition about the downmix thing... I tried to put in words what was happening. Of course I would not have ask questions if it was the first time I was listening to that album, but I know it from 38 years ago... And it's a pity because apart from the mix, the sound is way better on that download...

I still am not sure what to understand about the hi-res files in general. Are they all doomed... ? This reminds me of some remastered versions of albums (on CD) I have known for as long as Machine Head - some sound richer, fuller - some others sound compressed to the max and unnatural. It is only when you have either the CD or the download in your hand that you discover the results...

The music industry is renown for extremes - sometimes they can make wonderful recordings, but I don't know if I am too negative about this, most of the time it feels almost fraudulent...

OTOH I am aware that I will not expect too much from the genre ("Rock", that is). Someone mentionned Black Sabbath somewhere. Well, I still listen to them (rarely nowadays) and I do not expect the same SQ as for a classical symphony... The mono-led recording technique used with guitars that were swinging from one channel to the other - all the manipulation (sound-on-sound, echo, etc...) were new and used a lot... It certainly was not hi-fi ;-)

I guess that any remastering will be dependant on the person sitting at the console...

As for SACD, I downloaded a few of them from Blue Coast Records. Many are free and they are offered in DSDIFF format. I don't know if it is the choice of music that is making me feel that way, but it sounds a little "thin" (I don't have the vocabulary to express better what I perceive). But it could be the sound recording technique or the DSD sound signature, I don't know...

Maybe someday the music industry will be more honest with the origins and the techniques applied to an old recording... I am not sure I will be alive to see this though ;-)

Alain



 

 

Aha, so it was YOU to whom was referred to ?

But honestly, it was to me ...
sorry :)

Hi Peter,
that is new for me, because I didn't listen to the old files since years. The sound of the old CD's even with very good CD Players and other DACs (WEISS) was horrible, and I thought, the Oldies are lost.
I heard one of the first records from Neil Young today and I was surprised, the sound with the NOS1 is amazing. Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Cream, Blind Faith, Jack Bruce, Stan Getz, Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke, Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis, Dave Grusin etc. are reborn.

Great job. It is time to send the NOS1 for an update to you soonest.

Best
Joachim

I have noticed this on some hi-rez albums too. Generally I find the (center) vocal to low in level. The reason is that while they spend many expensive studio re-mix hours creating the 5.1 surround mix, they only spend a minute pushing a button to have the 5.1 version downmixed to 2.0...  :sad:

I have bought "most" of the DVD-A and DualDiscs of the well known rock/pop/jazz artists, and this is a defect heard on several titles (but not all). Sometimes you notice it only on a couple of tracks, like the YES/Fragile. However my £100,- Frank Sinatra/At The Sands is destroyed by this sh*tty downmix.

But there are a some positive surprises too: The DualDiscs of Brothers In Arms, where (my own) downmix from 5.1 to 2.0 went very well. (Software: DVD Audio Extractor).
Also, its safe to buy the titles who never was made as 5.1, like Neil Young, The Weavers, Muddy Waters, etc.

The 3 first Sabbath albums have surprisingly good sound. At the time the Black Sabbath guys didnt have a clue about recording technique. They just showed up in the studio and did what they were told. They recorded in a small local studio run by 2 professional engineers who used to work with acoustic instruments. Geezer Butlers bass was way too load, so they unplugged him from his loudspeaker and plugged the bassguitar directly into the (4ch?) mixing console. The first album was recorded on the fly with surprisingly good sound quality. I dont know if the first generation CDs or the later remaster CDs are the best, though.

Hi Pedal,

Thanks for pointing the SQ of the first 3 albums (Black Sabbath). Yes, they sound good. My apologies. It was more a joke about comparing rock music to classical music. Maybe I should call it "a biased point of view" on my part :-) Classical music is not my cup of tea, but for reasons I have yet to find, I hope I will learn how to like it someday... Maybe my girlfriend will stop saying how ugly my loudspeakrs are then ;-)

This reminds me of something. The first time I heard about Black Sabbath, it was from the "Master of Reality" album. The fuzz was so present, I was amazed ! The friend owning the album got it through an import (Vertigo label). When I bought my own copy, it was from Warner Brothers and the sound was absolutely not the same. The fuzz was still present, but not to the level of the Vertigo pressing. And there was way too much bass.

I still have a few hundred LPs. My turntable is alas in a box... It has been sitting there for many years now. I consider removing the dust that covers it and have it checked... Too bad the cartridge is not functionnal anymore (the rubber suspension surely had disintegrated)... It is a Grace F9e (it was a Ruby when I bought it, but it was not available anymore that last time I changed the stylus).

Ooops.... I really am far from the subject :-)

I have only few DVDs and I got them because they were included in the CD I was ordering. Up until recently I didn't even bother to extract them. I bought DVD Audio Extractor because I was curious about a Lighthouse album (1 CD, 1 DVD). I like to use it but it is more complicated since I have to enter all the titles myself. I don't "tag" my music. I use the Windows folders for this: Genre/Artist/Volume A/01 songA, 02 song B, etc... I use EAC for extraction and it made me lazy (it gets the infos from an internet database as you surely know).

I just changed my whole sound system and it's a 2 channel ensemble... I am not ready to go through new expenses for a while.

Do you have the Machine Head DVD Audio from 2001 (Rhino) ?

How do you feel when you realize that even after paying more for your music, you get served in second ? That is how I felt after I listened to "Machine Head". The sound is gorgeous, but those fluctuations and the almost total disappearance of the hammond (Jon Lord) is very frustrating...

Regards,

Alain

I allmost cried from disapointment when I put on Sinatra/At The Sands the first time. It's one of those all-time greatest recordings, where the microphones happend to be at the right place at the right time. (The CD is great sounding). Similar to Bill Evans Waltz for Debby, Folksinger, Harry Belafonte at Carnegie, and other OLD RECORDINGS with fantastic sound and music.

It's important to remember that a 24/96 is only *slightly* better sounding than 16/44, if the master is identical.*
If the master is an inferior downmix, the hi-rez version is wasted money.
If the master is an improved remix, the hi-rez is great value.

I try to google and search for others opinions before I purchace a hi-rez title. Most titles are discussed in detail by users on Steve Hofman Forum and other places. Unfortunately most user reviews are for the 5.1 version, so you must spend some time being a detective.

My dream was to do my own manual downmix from 5.1 to 2.0. I even purchased the software, but never had time to learn it properly, he-he. If we are lucky somebody elsewhere in the world will do it first and share it with us afterwards... ;-)


*The combination of the ARC Prediction function of XX + the filterless NOS1 DAC actually turns your red book CD into virtual "hi-rez" by repairing the high frequency content of the squarewaves in the music. This is done by Phasures propritarian algorithm, and is an unique feature not seen elsewhere.
-So rather than spending your bucks on hi-rez you should use the NOS1 DAC together with first edition CDs without additional compression! Such CDs can be purchased in the 2nd hand market for peanuts.

Yes, I have the Machine Head DVD-A. Which song do you think is worst with regards to "fluctuations and the almost total disappearance of the hammond organ"?

Well the most obvious "anomaly" came from "Highway Star", during the intro. Deep Purple traditionally has Blackmore's guitar on one side and the Lord's Hammond on the other. With the original version, the hammond is quite present, but not on the DVD...

I also noted that at the end of "Smoke on the Water", it closes with the drums but on the DVD there are "back and forth" that alters the drum solo to a point where I was wondering if it was really part of the song...

Do you have the "standard" CD also ?

Thanks for the info about the 16/44 - 24/96. I am still in learning mode and from what I read on many forums, the more I read, the more I realize my ignorance :-) But I am willing to understand, as long as there is not too much maths ;-)

Yes, I thought about the NOS, but I got my sound system from one year ago and I need some time to "absorb" the expenses...

Where are you from ?

By the way I noted the amount of memory you have on your PC ! Wow ! I have a RAID hardware card on my desktop (I was tired of having BDOSs with the integrated Intel chip). One SSD for the OS, and 5 x 160GB HDDS for the rest. No, it's not on that PC that XXHE resides - it would be too noisy ;-)

You helped me a lot in explaining how XHE and the NOS work... I can't do better than what the signature shows, because the laptop is not powerful enough to go further. Still I am so amazed at the difference of quality when I compare with JRiver that I was using previously...

Another personal question: Frank Sinatra - Deep Purple... ? Just curious.

Regards,

Alain

Has anyone listened to the other "great," Bill Evans album? It's another 1961 album "Live from the Vanguard," or something like that. I just have a few tracks from it and I'm not sure of their provenance. They might be from the remaster. "Keepnews Collection," is also part of the title--if that helps.

The reason I ask; The sound is really quite good, but the soundstage is odd, on my tracks anyway (tracks 2-5). It's almost as if I'm sitting behind the players. The bass and drums/cymbals are in the left speaker and the piano in the right. There is nothing really in the center besides audience sounds which at times are quite prominent. There's a lot of rude talking going on, sometimes it sounds like someone is talking right outside my window. It's this audience sound which makes it seem as if I'm sitting behind the performers. By the way, my system throws a very good soundstage normally so I don't think it's the system.

I recently ordered the original cd release (1990-91) so I'll be able to compare, but was just curious as to anyone else's thoughts.

-Chris

Dear Alain,

MACHINE HEAD
I dont have the album as CD (only mp3), but some tracks are common from the ANTHOLOGY 2CD (1991). The best songs from this album I prefere in the live version of Made In Japan. Frankly, I dont care much about SQ on this particular kind of music from the 70s, because I listen to them (a lot) on my iPod/Koss Porta Pro headphones while jogging or through my average car stereo, he-he.

I love this music, but the original sound quality is normally so-so, due to the poor studio equipment and the many tracks and overdubs etc. And perhaps - most important of all - the playback monitoring equipment was far more colored sounding in the early 70s. Loudspeaker cabinets from cheapboard, paper cones and peaky treble drivers. Todays equipment is much more clean sounding and resolved, making those old rock recordings sound dull. (There are a few exceptions, of course).

I love all kinds of music, especially rock and jazz. But also some folk and pop. Not so muc classical, though.

I have been planning to make a list of recommended hi-rez titles I have purchased, but cannot find the time.

PC SPECS
I build my PC last year when I thought it was important to have a very fast/powerful PC, but it seems it is not necessary with the latter versions of XX. A "normal" PC might sound the same. Ask PeterSt.

NOS1 DAC
You should really start saving for a NOS1 DAC. It is really something "special"!


Best regards and good night from Norway!

Hi Crisnee,

I would like to help you, but my knowledge about the Bill Evans Trio is quite recent and I did not bother looking for the provenance... But you describe quite well the positioning of the instruments. There is some noise, but as for the level, I am not quite sure...

I think that Peter will be of some help, since he seems to have 2 versions I think ? If it is of some interest, Peter could send you a song from the download I sent him (through filemail) ? Peter, could you ?

Regards,

Alain

Thanks for your thoughts Alain. I'm really just curious if the original has the same "hole in the center of the soundstage," thing, or if it's a function of a remastering job. It doesn't seem to me that with that kind of hole people would have raved about the recording. I'll find out myself eventually, but was curious if anyone happened to have noticed in the mean time.

-Chris

I just noticed your track mailed Alain. I will try it. But probably I have the album as well; must check later today.

As for the "out of the window" Chris, I sure recognize this from the Debby album as well. Especially when you are not in the sweetspot, those voices may come from anywhere at the sides (very explicitly). Btw, I assume you meant windows at the sides. :)
Anyway, I do not recall holes in the middle or any other real anomalies regarding this.

Yesterday I was almost as far as putting up Frank Sinatra before trying half of a Louis Armstrong album (1965), but after discussing that would be the most outrageous for me, I dug up a Sammy Davis Jr. Am I crazy now ...
At least I have found the music my wife all likes, no matter what is playing. But the explicit remark keeps on popping up : this all sounds so normal. And it is true. Oh, I run into a poor one once in a while, but generally you can't go wrong (but skip the 1923 Armstrong stuff hehe).

A more crazy thing is that there is so much music from back then while it is all from before my ages, that I really have the feeling that I can listen forever to completely new stuff, and can run into real gems we all never heard of. Why never heard of ? because they never sounded good ! They didn't get attention other than half of the world sticking to vinyl probably because of the same reason - those recordings were so OK ?? Still, vinyl wouldn't have done it all the way, because I'm sure that still will sound gray-ish.
And suddenly ... suddenly I have a good reason to aks Mr Van den Hul over and ask for his judgement. This seems more fair than trying to point out that "CD" is better than vinyl.

May someone (with an NOS1) be able to do the comparison : dig up New York Trio. This is stuff recorded with modern technology, but posed in the same era as what we are talking about here. This is explicit, up to how the covers look like. Sounds the best if I had to judge. One month back it would be amongst my best for SQ, and although it still is, compare this with those early 60's. Only then you realize that something is not working with today's technologies. Too much "studio" or something. Too much attention taken. Something like a person with brains behing the sliders, while the brains should be from the players only. Now it's inconsistent.
This may do A LOT to how we perceive music. How it works or how it will not. The whistle level is amazing the past week. It doesn't need any special instrument either.

Sadly I seem to be stuck in a genre which is not one I like to play forever. I mean, after 6 tracks from Sammy Davis Jr. I really heard enough of that (for testing it out), and it seems impossible for me to next try Sinatra. The REAL problem is ... what to put up next then ? I mean, it seems even more impossible to put up Black Sabbath right after this old stuff, which doesn't sound old at all, but which represents an era like Christmas time forever. This is NOT the case at all after playing modern Ray Brown or anything.
The other way around maybe *is* possible. First go ahead with whatever rock if you are at that anyway, and next hop back to the early sixties.

Peter

"As for the "out of the window" Chris, I sure recognize this from the Debby album as well. Especially when you are not in the sweetspot, those voices may come from anywhere at the sides (very explicitly). Btw, I assume you meant windows at the sides."

Nope, I meant the window right in front of me, between the speakers. There does happen to be a window there, but it's closed with an air conditioner in it.

-Chris

I have always said that the first Black Sabbath is one of the best sounding rock recordings I own. Also, that was the very first LP I bought. Btw, my last Black Sabbath is Masters Of Reality. I don't recall whether I stopped because it went downhill or I lost my interest in general, but I played Masters Of Reality the other day, and it really sounds GOOD.

About plugging directly into the mixing console ...
Maybe *that* is the reason that Sabbath Bloody Sabbath sounds so strange ? It somehow won't consistently go along with other albums. The guitars are too sterile, or better put : too well outlined. The fatness has gone from the distortion guitars.
All sounds too thin.



Hey hey hey ... Neil Young 24/176.4 easily is at the (my) very top of worst sounding albums ever !!
I also have a 96 Greendale floating about somewhere, but Redbook's Greendale is near the top of best sounding already. I don't even like to try all this misery anymore, because it is s sheer waste of time, and my obsessions lay elsewhere.

The Weavers ? don't tell my wife. I have the hunch that she knows them and next wants to listen to it.
haha

Peter, have you ever listened to Mapleshade recordings?

I have a few and they're not my favorite music, but I think they're doing something in the recording process which is like the 60's only updated for the 2000's. In fact sometimes I think they've gone too far in that direction, some of their stuff sounds too real, particularly when it comes to reed instruments.

We may think we want our music too sound real when we turn on our music systems, but we don't want a real jazz quartet, (particularly if it includes drum sets and saxophones) playing in our living rooms. Yet that's what parts of Mapleshade recordings sound like, or almost sound like. I think it's actually the much ballyhooed dynamic range that's making it so (they use no compression); could it be that dynamic range can be too wide at times?

In case you don't know, they record directly to tape at 15 ips (or at least did through the early 2000's) then transfer to digital. They don't use any effects.

-Chris

Wow, I don't know. Do you have a few titles for me in particular ?


PS: I only now start to learn how important "labels" are ... but only know of them when it is about vinyl stuff from back then.
Not much of a surpise maybe.

I have 2 Neil Young albums in hi-rez: Harvest and On The Beach. Both sounds good in stereo version. That is "good", relative to the CD.

What I notice on my system is that albums from late 60s/first half of 70s have big track-to-track variation. Songs with simple arrangements sounds better than the complex ones.
-You can "hear" the excesive use of overdubs, when their mixing console didnt have enough tracks available in the first place. Doing this, they quickly ran into a noise problem (tape hiss). So they applied Dolby noise reduction which (at the time) did reduce the audible noise, BUT also robbed the natural "sparkle" and "life" in the treble range. The artist and producers didnt care or notice about this negative side effect. The audible tape hiss was main enemy. They didnt consider us, audiophiles, who 40 years later want to squeeze out maximium sound quality with modern equipment.

On the Beatles White Album, there are some simple songs sounding very good. On the Beatles Anthology #3 (the one covering the final periode), you can hear the outtakes/rough mix from The White Album sounding even better than the official album. On track Julia you really get intimate with John Lennon. And you can hear he is pissed drunk/stoned while recording it!

Or, try Led Zeppelin II: Some songs are mixed to death, while the drum solo on Moby Dick sounds fresh and clear. They were recorded without overdubs, of course.

Back to Neil Young/On The Beach: Initially I got disapointed when I heard it the first time. The first tracks sound quite "muddy", with little "low level" detail. But then I realized that the sound quality of (vinyl) side 2 is much better! The last 3 tracks has a *reasonable* high amount of acoustic ambience, which give me a wall-to-wall filling soundstage in my living room. Check out the title track On The Beach.

You will like it too! Beautiful vocal arrangments, acoustic bass and gitars on a big stage, live recording of old folk songs.

-------------

PS: It is not a coincidence that we have a big number of legendary recordings dating back from the periode between end 50s and middle 60s. (Miles Davis, Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans Trio, Muddy Waters/Folksinger, The Weavers, Harry Belafonte, etc) was recorded BEFORE Dolby A noise reduction came into studio use (end of 60s). Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_noise-reduction_system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_noise-reduction_system)

Additionally, these old albums were recorded more or less "live" in the studio with no or minimum overdubs. The jazz trio went into the studio and recorded the song in one take. If they were not happy, they just did another take, rather than trying to "correct" the track in the latter mixing process.

Legendary studio engineer Rudy van Gelder even bypassed the mixing console, hooking the mics directly to the input of the tape recorder. He hot-roded the whole recording chain, which partly explains the extremely clear and transparent sound of his 50s recordings. [Rudy seems to have Dutch ancestors, of course!] He did a huge catalogue of great jazz recordings.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Van_Gelder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Van_Gelder)

Hmm ... this sure is interesting, assuming that you explicitly mention this opposed to the early 60's recordings. Because that is what I actually started this topic for ... end 60's already seems better than today's BUT it is strange, while going back further all starts to be fairly good, if not the best.

To this regard your Dolby remarks are the most interesting too. If you know about anything else, don't hesitate ...

Btw, when I recorded some 800 vinyl albums to cassette with my "Pro" Nakamichi, I explicitly decided not to use Dolby. It just wouldn't work. Instead I tweaked the cassettes (after infinite trials which brand was the best to begin with), and really couldn't perceive a difference between the vinyl playing and monitoring the recording (the deck had 3 heads).
But this was some 40 years ago ... and today these same cassettes sound quite full of hiss and few dynamics.

Thank you pedal,
Peter


PS:
IIRC these are not the 176.4 ones, and will therefore be quite different animals (better).

Peter,

I bought it but at the back is written this:

Prduced by ORRIN KEEPNEWS
Recorded in New York; June 25, 1961
Digital remastering, 1987-Joe Tarantino
(Fantasy Studios, Berkeley)

So i guess it is the wrong one? Or should i FM you?

 :)

Peter, Here's a blurb from Mapleshade's site and the url:

"Our recording technology is equally radical. We design and build, or custom-modify, all of our electronics from microphones to tape recorders to wires. All must meet standards well beyond commercial state-of-the-art. We record live to two-track analog, transfer to digital at a rate 100 times faster than the CD standard, and use no add-on EQ, reverb or noise reduction electronics. Our recordings are made with only 2 to 4 microphones and no cables longer than 20 feet. The resulting sound has startling, "in-the-room" clarity, brilliance, spaciousness and dynamics. People with $150 boomboxes, as well as audiophiles with $100,000 systems, tell us our CDs convey far more of the music's excitement than any commercial studio recordings. Mapleshade has 40 current releases and many more in the can waiting to be released. These albums document the music of more than 175 musicians including both noteworthy new talents and established artists such as Randy Weston, David Murray, Woody Shaw, Gary Bartz, Larry Willis, Hamiet Bluiett, John Hicks, Clifford Jordan, Walter Davis Jr., Leon Thomas, Drink Small, Sunnyland Slim, Slide Hampton, and Shirley Horn."

http://mapleshaderecords.com/main/catalog.php (http://mapleshaderecords.com/main/catalog.php)

They have some free sample mp3s you can download from their site, here's some info regarding that: http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/main/freemp3s.php (http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/main/freemp3s.php), I haven't listened to any of them so I don't know how they sound compared to the cds. By the way, the cds are rather inexpensive.

They're also a bit of an "out there," company when it comes to audio products, in my opinion. They make some really crazy or wonderful (your choice) stuff from cheap to very expensive. It's worth getting their catalog in any case, to browse their recordings and to read their audio equipment philosophy.

Two recordings I listened to recently "Cats are stealing my $hit!" Warren Smith and others, "Swingin' and Burnin'," John Cocuzzi Quintet. I'm not sure if these are the best examples of what I said. I'll listen to a few more in the next few days and then I'll be able to give you a better opinion/choice.

-Chris

Hi Gerard,

I really did my best to track down the one I have (I think I bought it in the US 3 years back), but apparently I failed. Too many of these stupid versions around. I must have mine somewhere, but it's all in boxes and at this moment I don't even know where the boxes are.

I suppose you bought the same tracklisting;
The 01 you send me is not of the same length (but within a second), and the average SPL of yours is close to 6dB louder. Yours is close to the digital limit (for output peaks), while mine has loads of headroom. Notice this latter is related to the total album (well, if all is put on there with the same relative level), so t doesn't say much at all. But might you want to compare for the whole album, this is from the XXAnalysis file for mine :

MaxVolume : 32752
SPL : 1546

---

For my 01 track :

MaxVolume : 23877
SPL : 1176

For your 01 track :

MaxVolume : 31514
SPL : 2013

From the latter two follows that your SPL is almost twice as high (almost 6dB), while the MaxVolume is only 35% or so higher. This means yours must be compressed ...
(at least more than mine, haha)

Regards,
Peter

Ok, I listened to parts of the Mapleshade albums I have, and it wasn't much fun. Now I remember why I haven't listened to them in a long time. They make me impatient, I'm just thinking "get on with it already." And you're thinking "get on with it already, what do I care that you're impatient." Well I say patience and I'll soon be a patient if I have to listen to more of this Mapleshade stuff.

Ok, it's not that bad (yes it is). It's the SQ stupid. Ok, ok.

Thurman Green; "Dance of the Night Creatures," Has some examples of startlingly realistic stuff on it, mostly percussion. But it's here and there. The music is also fairly listenable, who knows you might love it. But as a whole I think this kind of recording makes a mess of things. The instruments individually sound good to great but as a whole, no. I think one does need to use a bit of processing. They don't even use mixing boards, or at least didn't on any of my cds (from 90's thru 01)

"Cat's are Stealing my $hit," is kind of interesting. It's very simple for the most part, which works better for this kind of recording. And the music (if one can so classify it) is more interesting now that I listened to the rest of my lot from Mapleshade. I think I sent back the cd's that would have made the best examples for what I said in my earlier post. The music was so startlingly realistic  (saxophones if I remember correctly) that I sent it back. It sounded like somebody practicing in the room around the corner, not what I had in mind.

I think there's a fine line between truly realistic sound, and imagined realistic sound. In other words I might have an image of a nice jazz band in a cafe playing "All Blues." I've got the scene all set, the sound as a whole, a nice sound picture in other words. However I don't want the real band playing in my living room no matter how much I might think I want realistic sound.

Mapleshade doesn't quite have it down realistically of course, but it has some elements in place, which in my opinion makes it worse. Now we've got some realistic or near realistic sounds and some not; so it becomes kind of a mess, unbalanced and confused. Or maybe I'm just dreamin'.

-Chris

LOL Chris.

Dance of the Night Creatures at least I have. I will listen to it tonght (but I'm running behind with listening).

Btw


Did that yesterday. Didn't sound good at all, but also I didn't want to listen to this rather much of all the same anymore. Must look at it more seriously. Maybe it's a remaster or something.

Ok, just looked into that Mapleshade catalogue, and I already see I have a few more of them (Al Lee, John Cocuzzi, Street Jumpers at one first glance).

Btw, never ask for a trumpet in your house.

Oh, earlier I talked about the alto sax I couldn't recognize much. The same I now say about L. Armstrong's trumpetooter. The dynamics are not in there. I won't say it's a flute, I won't say I don't recognize it as a trumpet, but it *is* a phenomenon that makes it sound more easy. Next though, my brain suffers from "knowing" it ain't right.

But now I wonder ...
When you are at at larger distance from a live jazz trumpeteer combo. Would you perceive that sharp on/off sound ? I don't think so. It's too much smeared underway. This does not happen when it comes from the speakers in your small room (if they can follow in the first place). So, I am used to *that*. But at listening to these older (no, old) recordings, I am listening to a more real life representative ??

Peter

I thought I could just as well post the track times of my version :

Hi,

I found this on youtube concerning the loudness ................... .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

best

Joachim

Hmmmmm  :(

Well still does sound good though...  :)

 :) :)

Alright, I'm listening to the Bill Evans, "Sunday at the Village Vanguard," 1987 Joe Tarantino of Fantasy Studios remaster. Label: Riverside. I'm guessing it's the original to cd transfer.

It's quite different than the tracks I've been listening to previously, of unknown origin. The hole in the middle is no more, and the audience which at times sounded like it was outside my window where I could hear distint chatter, I can now barely make out while the group is playing.
For those reasons it's much more pleasurable to listen to. As to the actual sound of the instruments, I'm not sure as it's been a few days since I heard the other version. I do know that in one of the songs there was this kind of constant cymbal haze which kind of got on my nerves, this didn't happen on this version.

-Chris

My version of Waltz for Debby (1987 Taratino Remaster) has slightly different times (as listed on the disk) and the cover is the same except for a 2cm x 3cm area on the lower right hand corner that says:

ORIGINAL
Jazz
CLASSICS
COMPACT DISC

-Chris

This was exactly my perception of my Sunday at the Village Vanguard. Well, can't have 'm all !


So ... I listened to 3 of those Mapleshade's ...
No.
I don't know exactly what they do wrong, but it seems a lot. Wrong mic placement (too far away) seems one of them. The only thing they have right is the (capture of) the base drum. That really sounds as should, and I don't hear it that often like that from recorded music.
The strange thing is : all the voices have a kind of similar distortion. Quite unbearable.

Now imagine, after this (I only played a few tracks from each of them) I wanted some noise. Put up Black Sabbath The Dio years (sorry Adrian !). I exactly never played that, and thought to listen to something new. Quite revealing after those Mapleshades. But I didn't like the "music". At the 4th track I didn't want to listen to "new Black Sabbath" at all, and dug up Black Sabbath Vol4.
And there you have it again ... so so SO super fresh without any distortion audible. So well taken. This was 1972. I just enjoyed this for its pure sound (and for its again to me familiar tracks, but that is less important (to me)).

I must add that these kind of drastic differences are all new to myself too. The distortion in the voices is something I'm sure I couldn't hear through the "old" NOS1. But the same counts for the total purity of that Black Sabbath Vol4 album.
Btw, no misunderstandings : something like the Bill Evan's '61 is not about "purity" to the sense we're talking about it here. Like I said earlier (I think), you can easily hear the lack of resolution of it. But that doesn't mean something is really wrong with it. The contrary.

Peter

Yes I am sure nobody of us do :)
It was ment as a joke. But instead of :) I should have used ;)... I listen to Black Sabath/Ozzy myself sometimes. I like "Paranoid" and "Iron Man" a lot. But who doesn't? :)

Well, Iron Man has been THE track for me I always wanted to listen to as long as I didn't have Paranoid on CD. But two years back or so I obtained it, and maybe I played it two times since then. :yes:
Not *all* nostalgy works.

I could say the same about Black Night from Deep Purple (could have been a #1 hit back then). I played that a lot when I was young. But today I don't feel the urge at all (and didn't play it in 35 years ?). But then of course it really was "nothing" ...

Peter

... which is on my version of the Bill Evans - Sunday at the Village Vanguard ...
Level goes right up to the digital maximum (99.99% sure telling that it will be compressed).

Just listened to 1.5 track again - those hissing cymbals make no sense ...

Not sure if those of you outside the UK can access this, but there's an interesting documentary on the making of 'Paranoid' here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vlq0y/Classic_Albums_Black_Sabbath_Paranoid/

It probably won't remain accessible for more than a few weeks.

Mani.

One of the best sounding jazz trios cds I've heard is "Changes," by Keith Jarrett, Gary Peacock and Jack Dejohnette. One of the minor problems with the Bill Evans at the Village Vanguard stuff is the balance of instruments, mainly the piano isn't prominent enough or the bass is too prominent, and there are just too damn many bass solos--the bass just isn't that interesting that it should be constantly featured--and I love the bass.

On the Jarrett album the bass sounds great and rarely plays by itself, but rather interplays with the other instruments. The percussion sounds fantastic, you can identify all the different cymbals (by place and sound), and the piano level is up there with the others and sounds as large.

It's an ECM recording, 1984 but actually recorded Jan 1983, Power Station, NYC. Engineer Jan Erik Kongshaug. Doesn't give anymore recording info. It's a short album, about 38 minutes.

-Chris

So, what do you think the distortion is? I didn't really recognize it as distortion, but I do find it unlistenable. I'm always immediately irritated when I listen to their recordings. I've never once listened to a whole track through, nevermind the whole cd. And yet their recording process is super pure and simple. And some folks rave about their recordings.

By the way, shortly after I bought the cds (10 years ago?) I returned most of them, and wrote Mapleshade a letter telling them what I thought of their cds; it wasn't pretty. I never heard back from them and they continue to this day to send me their catalogue.

And yes agreed about the Bill Evans stuff; however they thought too highly of the bass, and why arrange the cd with 2 takes of the same number consecutively--didn't they read the rule book? The bonus belongs at the end!

-Chris

It looks like this ended lat night at 00:00 (just a few minutes after you posted, and knowing you are one hour behind us) ? damn.
Or I don't understand what to do ...

If you want to listen to a recording which I consider to have it all (for the good SQ), listen to

Benny Green - Testifyin'! : Live at the Village Vanguard (1992, Blue Note)

(not any remaster of course, and as far as I can see mine looks original)

Music is similar to the Bill Evans' we're talking about here.

Hard to tell, but those Mapleshades seem to be all similar regarding to this. Last night I listened to Al Lee again, but this time with a longer i2s cable (this should higher jitter). It seems more listenable this way, and it also gives the opportunity to analyse better what is going on. Well, I still don't know.
His voice seems to be a male's on/off voice where something can't catch up with the fast on/off. Something like interference in/on the microphone in the lower frequencies. So, something like : a microphone which is able to catch the higher frequencies which would be about fast up/down of the membrane at lower levels (which the higher frequencies are), but which won't work for the lower frequencies (where the whole membrane has to be pulled back to zero and back again).
Maybe it is even related to that good base drum I noticed, where again the membrane would go up and down, but now in naturall fashion (because it is not on/off but going from plus to minus and back).

While this is already making things up and speculating, I really can't say more.
Btw, listened to Mark Knopfler's Golden Heart right after this - thinking about a somewhat similar voice, but no sense of this "distortion" to be heard here.

Peter

Here is a very nice version of paranoid from you tube. Sound quality is not good but what Randy Rhoads does is "some kind of magic".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taIsi994Yhg

Does somebody knows a good version of paranoid with Randy Rhoads, that also has good sound quality?

Back to Bill Evans Trio and WfD...

Just received my copy of the CD - original 1987 remastering by Joe Tarantino (althought the CD cover itself does say ©1987 and ©1992). Listening on my work PC (with HQPlayer & Juli@ card feeding pair of Stax headphones) this version really sounds like it's from the same master as the 24/192 version I have from HDTracks. The stereo left/right pan sounds identical, as too does the audience noise in the background. BUT, the CD version sounds a LOT brighter... more digital!

Attached are the two respective Audacity spectrograms.

Mani.

Looks like I have the same version as Chris. From the attachment you'll see that there's no compression.

Peter, I think we have the original version and you have a (very-well) remastered version...

Mani.

Mani, Peter,

I just posted to CA on this very thing. http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Scandal-Brewing-High-Resolution-Downloads?page=7#comment-93881 (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Scandal-Brewing-High-Resolution-Downloads?page=7#comment-93881) and then some. We have parallel universes going on.

-Chris

Hi Chris. Yes, I'll post my thoughts there.

Having listened to both for a while now, I'm not sure I would continue to say that the CD version sounds 'more digital'. Rather, I'd say it actually sounds a lot cleaner... and way more life-like.

I'm kind of coming around to Peter's thoughts that maybe the tapes had deteriorated quite a bit between the original 1987 digital remastering and the latest 24/192 one. Also, it occurs to me that the Sony PCM1610 used for early CD remasters couldn't have been that bad...

Mani.

It could be that the CD version is louder, because it uses  the full dynamic range of the cd format, producing maximum gain at your output stage. the high resolution version just uses the lower 16 bit as dynamic range. So you do not have maximum gain with the high res format. Hence noise should increase if you turn to the same volume level and it should sound not as dynamic. That could cause the better sound of the cd.

No ... it doesn't work like that. :)

It would be true that a 24 bit can have more headroom to be as dynamic (or way more), but there's nothing like that it would be using the lower 16 bits only.

Actually the CD version (the one I have here !) is less loud than the hires version (also see my earlier XX-Analisys figures).

Regards,
Peter

Ok, this was nonsense but I ment something different. I have made the experience, that high res recordings can be "not very loud", because somewhere in the track there is one very loud explosion, like the telarc dvd-audio recording of tchaikovskys 1812. I thought from the figures of many this could be the case here...some kind of unused headroom. But, ok, then it is not the case :)

Theoretically (and when things were always done as could) you are correct.

Ok, I only now see that I never put up the XX-Analysis data for the HiRes version (I just wanted to quote it all), and the HiRes version really isn't much different from my version to that aspect. The Hires has a little higher SPL (so, it's a little louder on average) and the available headrom I forgot (and I'm not at location right now), but was somewhat less and not worrying (say 31000 remapped to 16 bits. But what does that all mean ?
Ok, here's that quote after all :


My 23877 has spades of headroom (limit is 32768 as ABS() value), but it also clearly did not use all the space there is. So, less dynamical than could have been. By SPL of 1176 though, is so low, that the dynamic space is from very low up to that also low figure of the maximum level used. Compare this with Gerard's track;
Average SPL is almost twice as high (twice = 6dB), meaning that the base level is already lifted significantly. But, his also has a higher maximum level (which indeed could be about one peak only); If you plainly make percentages of this, you'll see that my version uses more of the space, hence must be more dynamical (while the S/N relation on Gerard's version theoretically will be better -> nonsense, because we would FIRST be talking about tape hiss, and that's amplified along with liftiing up the level).

So this is how it works, and the Hires (with IIRC SPL of in the 1200 or something and max level of in the 30000 range) will be the most dynamical. Well, I do not perceive that at all, which can be explained by that one peak being in there, which in both cases is just that peak which is not limited or anything and if you'd calculate the percentages I'm sure both will be rather equal. Not Gerard's version, because that *must* be compressed (that's the (IIRC) 35% vs. 45% calculation I did in that post, while also there's hardly headroom left, and *what* is there, is there for technical reaons (like the engineer didn't want to reach real maximum which is a bad thing for players because of C++ anomalies so to speak).


It is more difficult, because in either case (16 or 24 bits) the dynamical peak to peak range turns out to be the same (hey, what about that 96 vs. 144 dB (without dither) then eh ?). However, within 16 bits there are 256 times less steps for the volume to (gradually) vary, so from sample to sample it would be more rough steps. Whether this is too rough ? we may not know, because first your DAC must be able to follow those rougher steps, and usually it can't, which makes it a nice analogue "filter" (think about this !). This is also while it is so difficult to make a "better" DAC, because all what happens is that the digital steps are followed better, which may not be what you want at all. Now, assumed that this analogue filter is nicely at work, you could even say that what's normally contained in the 16 bits, just nicely stays there, and now ADDITIONAL peaks can be added in that 256 times more level available (48dB). 1812 really would fit in there (I don't know, 120-125 dB maybe ?).

But to perceive something of the music, you'd now first need to turn up the volume with 48dB more than you're used to today. And *now* you just don't want to wait for those guns anymore ...
So you see, your idea wasn't so wrong at all, and actually it's how it could have been done really. But it doesn't make much sense, because everything would break.
Also to keep in mind : where we might think that the HiRes could at least have 6dB *less* of SPL (that allowing for 6dB more dynamic space), it must have a reason. I mean, when no 96+6 dynamic space is in the recording anyway, what to do it for, and it only would make the music softer, the SNR worse, and more (digital stuff) which works out for the worse.

Disclaimer :
When I talk about these things with mastering engineers, they have complete other ideas about this all, because they don't incorporate the real merits of digital. They can't - it's not their job. SNR always has been an important thing though, and not to compress or limit is a known phenomenon / good idea. But there's also practice, and when we (these days) record in digital, how to prevent
a. the level of jumping singers etc. not to exceed digital maximum;
b. the level getting *really* low when they for one time don't jump (think of a level of 18dB less easily);
c. it not being allowed to put out an album which is waaaayy too soft.

And so limiters *are* used, and so compression *is* used. There is no other way.
Yeah, record in analogue. But mind you, attennuating that is a means of compression in my book.


It again is more complicate when we look at the filtering which happens normally in our DACs. I mean, if you think of the too rough stepping (from sample to sample and the level changes), all is totally moot when you see what that filtering makes of it. It is so completely unrecognizeable that head nor tail can be made of it. Therefore we can really wonder how important the above really is, when we first use DACs that devistate anyway.
That for many it will be so that Arc Prediction -let loose on an NOS DAC (of 24/at least 192 !)- results in out of band other anomalies is yet another thing, and that many problems are incurred for when the impulse response is able to follow those (too rough) steps - again another (nothing analoguely filters what's wrong in the base). But the latter makes this whole story of vast importance, and no mastering engineer will get *that* (hey, they don't have the DACs).

And this is still a nutshell ...
Peter

(sorry for typos; I didn't read back)

There are just so many of these versions going around! But I believe I have the same one that Chris has. Now if you compare the CD waveform that I posted earlier to the one attached below, you'll see that both seem to have a similar dynamic range, although the hires has a lower SPL. I've tried to adjust for this lower SPL in the second attachment (using a simple zoom) and if you align the two jpegs, you'll see that they're virtually identical.

I prefer the sound of the CD rip to the hires. I now agree with Peter that the tapes must have deteriorated in the last 20 years or so.

Mani.

OK, last analysis from me  ;)

The CD rip has a higher dynamic range than the hires!!!

Mani.

... which could well be because of denoising ...
(kind of wild guess because I'm not 100% sure that happened; but if it did, it can be an explanation)

Is in your case the CD louder or the Hires? From the peak value the CD should be louder...then my guess would be right :)

Yes, the CD is louder.

HOWEVER... this has nothing to do with the hires having a very loud peak or anything. It just doesn't have any louder peaks than the CD. I'm assuming that if you have 24 bits of resolution to hand, you simply don't need to go anywhere near the peak limit. With 'only' 16 bits, it becomes a bit more necessary.

But really, 96dB is already a lot. Even the best vinyl played on the best turntable would come nowhere near this!

The highest dynamic range I have come across is indeed the 1812 on SACD. I will attempt to transfer this to 24/192 and see what the dynamic range comes out as. But for now, here's the dynamic range on a Reference Recording 24/176.4 transfer from analogue tape.

EDIT: I don't think you'd want more dynamic range than a recording of a tom tom drum I have.

Mani.

Haha, my vinyl recordings have a higher dynamic range than most of the hires downloads I've purchased!

Mani.

Yep. That is exactly what I ment by "uses only 16 bit of the 24". As the peak is 3db lower, noise will be 3db higher, just because of the electronics. It's funny. One thinks at first it should be better with hi res but the devil is in the detail.
This is unbeleavable. What is the music industry doing? .... :wacko:.....

Hi Mani,

I certainly like my music with as much dynamics as possible, and there are no technical reasons why all redbook albums can't be produced with average DR's at 19 or even higher. It just takes some guts and foresight from the recording engineers and producers to do it. Of course we all know that's never going to happen though ... see the 'loudness wars' for one reason.

One example of a record producer who did accomplish fabulous dynamics was DMP ( Digital Music Products ) established by Tom Jung. By minimising interference to the microphone output and recording direct to the master, DMP have been recognised as having one of the cleanest and best dynamics in the business. Alas, they no longer are in business from what I understand, but if you want to experience what is achievable, go a huntin' on ebay or even some of the bigger record stores which may still have some stock.

I did a DR test on the very popular Telarc's 1812 Overture by Erich Kunzel and the Cincinatti Pops and the results are below. Those real cannon's would certainly have helped to lift the DR value.

By comparison, look at a couple of the many DMP albums I have. Listening to tracks with a DR of 23 is exhilarating and makes you realise how much we miss out on from your average humdrum recording.

If anyone has albums with higher DR values I'm all ears (pun intended!).

Cheers,

Russ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Erich Kunzel & Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra / 1812 Overture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR17       0.00 dB   -23.13 dB     15:43 ?-(01) - 1812 Overture, Op. 49
DR16      -3.52 dB   -27.45 dB     15:19 ?-(02) - Capriccio Italien, Op. 45
DR17      -4.63 dB   -27.21 dB      4:17 ?-(03) - Cossack Dance from Mazeppa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks:  3
Official DR value: DR17

Samplerate:        44100 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   16
Bitrate:           542 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Flim & The BB's / TriCycle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR20      -0.27 dB   -25.45 dB      4:41 ?-(01) - Tricycle
DR19       0.00 dB   -22.86 dB      6:35 ?-(02) - Cakewalk
DR16      -1.18 dB   -22.25 dB      6:06 ?-(03) - Lunch Hour Wedding March
DR20      -0.90 dB   -27.01 dB      5:18 ?-(04) - Sweet Winds Of Change
DR23      -0.03 dB   -27.84 dB      6:09 ?-(05) - Tell Me
DR18      -0.29 dB   -23.77 dB      5:10 ?-(06) - Thunder And Birdies
DR13     -13.63 dB   -32.73 dB      5:26 ?-(07) - High Wire
DR19      -0.26 dB   -22.60 dB      3:58 ?-(08) - The 8-29
DR20      -0.14 dB   -24.23 dB      5:59 ?-(09) - Sam's Samba
DR18       0.00 dB   -23.53 dB      6:10 ?-(10) - Eden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks:  10
Official DR value: DR19

Samplerate:        44100 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   16
Bitrate:           611 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Flim & The BB's / Big Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR         Peak         RMS     Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR20      -0.98 dB   -25.28 dB      7:56 01-New America
DR19      -0.31 dB   -24.98 dB      6:24 02-Heart Throb
DR20      -0.21 dB   -24.49 dB      8:28 03-At The Hop
DR14      -0.18 dB   -19.82 dB      5:57 04-Funhouse
DR21      -0.93 dB   -25.08 dB      7:45 05-Bergland
DR22      -2.16 dB   -28.69 dB      6:55 06-Street Charmer
DR20      -0.71 dB   -24.87 dB      4:46 07-Boogie Palace
DR20      -0.93 dB   -24.82 dB      3:40 08-Rebecca's Hideaway
DR21      -0.15 dB   -25.39 dB      4:25 09-Invisible Woman
DR20      -0.19 dB   -24.28 dB      3:40 10-Atosha
DR16      -0.02 dB   -22.76 dB      5:13 11-Born to Love You
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks:  11
Official DR value: DR19

Samplerate:        44100 Hz
Channels:          2
Bits per sample:   16
Bitrate:           407 kbps
Codec:             FLAC
================================================================================
   

For those wishing to track down some of the limited DMP albums, I found an archive of their website as at October 2007. It should help in identifying their range.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071023061416/http://www.dmprecords.com/index.html

Cheers,

Russ

Try Turtle records. May be hard to find though (= dutch).

I know these as ones for which I had to lower the tripping of Crack Detect ever back.
(Crack Detect trips on too high (= should be wrong) transients)

Just by means of listening : Jeroen de Rijk - Two to Tango (also dutch)
(Russ, I recall I mentioned this one to someone by email; it could have been you, so you might have it by now ...)

Peter

Hey Russ. I was an SACD early adopter and actually have the following DMP titles on SACD:
- DMP Does DSD
- Manfredo Fest, Just Jobim
- Beck & Ryerson, Alto
- Flim & The BB's, Tricycle
- The Steve Davis Project, Quality of Silence

I don't own a very good SACD player anymore (I never liked the sound of SACD), but it might be fun to transfer these to PCM (via the analogue outputs - I don't have the time or inclination to get a DSD stream out of a PS3 working) and see what their respective dynamic ranges are.

Meanwhile, will let you know if I come across anything with a DR>23!

Mani.

The DR plugin is a very educative tool. I just had look on my music library. The highest value I have found was DR22. Nothing worth to listen too anyhow.
I think I found a negative record. The new Metallica Death Magnetic has DR3. Yes, three. I never could listen to this cd because the sound is so horrible. There is a Guitar Heroes version of this album available in the internet. And this version has DR13. It sounds like it is not mastered. And it sounds a lot better than the CD version. I would not say high DR is sufficient for good sound but low DR is a clear indicator for bad sound. The average good stuff in my library is from DR13-17. DR>=18 Is very rare. Also It seems, that the high DR recordings are more demanding on the hifi system. They rather sound bad on a bad system, while low DR recordings rather sound good on a bad system. I think that is the resaon because the average pop production has a DR of 6-10.
My most dynamic CD with a lot of DR~18+-2 tracks is billy cobhams "stratus".
One thing I could affirm for me is: The dynamic recordings I like to hear even after 10years. I have heard them the most. The recordings with low DR, are the ones that are unpleasent and are not heard that often. A DR of about 13 is a mark to make it enjoyable for me, even if I heard the album a 100 times.

Mani, if you don't mind, what program are you using to measure the dynamic range? And what exactly do the numbers mean?

In other words is the 19 or whatever the true dynamic range in db, or does it stand for something else. I ask, because even the best numbers denote a narrower dynamic range than I expected (if they denote actual db). Or maybe I just don't understand.

-Chris

I think Mani is on the Dark Side of the World now and is sleeping, so in the interim, have a look here ......

http://www.dynamicrange.de/free-downloads

It's a plugin for Foobar. It's OK though ... you don't have to listen to the tracks ;) and the process is nice and quick. Further explanations of what the DR value means on that site also.

Cheers,

Russ

Hey thanks a lot Russ,

I figured he might be on the dark side, so I had resigned myself to a bit of a wait.

-Chris

Stratus ...

And not coincidentally this is one of my test albums because it is so hard to sound right on the cymbals ...
(these days working infinitely better than a few years back)

Peter

There was a time when I used the first track of the cd for testing purposes. It sounds very much like a real drum set. Somehow I did not included that track in my music test library. And to my shame there are some tracks in the list which have a DR of only 6 to 10. These tracks are electronic music and one metal track. This kind of music always seems to be in the 6db dynamic range. If sombody knows electronic musik with a DR>10 I would be interested. But there also are 5 tracks with DR 10-13 to save my reputation.  I am really surprised that no DR13-17 was included. But I was more looking for very clean recordings. The high DR files I have, are in that respect maybe not state of the art or my ears are tainted by all the low DR music. I think one problem with high DR tracks is, that they are really more demanding for the stereo system and they need to be listened with a higher volume, which I can not do in my flat (luckily this will change).

Chris, you've no doubt already looked at the link that Russ provided. But just in case you haven't had a chance to yet, here is the main description:

"The DYNAMIC RANGE METER displays the inner dynamics of a recording in whole numbers or more precisely the inner grade of compression (micro dynamic). The macro dynamic (difference from pianissimo to the fortissimo in a song) is not considered, because it wouldn´t deliver usable information about the degree of density.

... this is the average cumulative difference between peak and loudness (RMS) over a specific period of time (duration of a song or album) and is a whole number value given in decibels. Just the top 20% of the loudness are taken into consideration to ensure that songs with a long intro and and over compressed refrain doesn´t appear with a too high DR value."

The highlight is mine.

So it's not the difference between the loudest and the softest but rather the loudest and the RMS, which is a more useful number... and also explains why it's nowhere near as high a number as the actual medium can accomodate (e.g. 96dB for CD).

Mani.

In the past, I've blown up the bass drivers of pretty expensive speakers a couple of times playing the 1812 SACD. This has artificial (I believe) cannons that really are waaaay too loud compared to the 'real' music. I think this sort of dynamic range is ridiculous. The Reference Recording 24/176.4 that I cited earlier (DR 15) is verging on too much DR for practical listening (especially because the very dynamic bits are pretty low frequencies).

I tend to agree with the PMF guys - a DR of 14 is a good target to aim for for (non-techno/dance) music.

EDIT: From the PMF site - "Because of the not considered macro dynamics, values higher than DR14 doesn´t make much sense."

Mani.

Mani, Thanks for your second reply, that's the info I was looking for, but somehow missed. I did go to the site right away (downloaded the plugin) but somehow managed to miss the info. I'll have to hunt it down, in case there's more.

In fact I was surprised by how little info there seemed to be, as I was pretty sure the Dynamic Range Meter had to be using some pretty specific and specialized criteria to come up with such small numbers. I think it might be useful if the meter also gave the complete dynamic range (excluding something like the lowest 5% and the the first and last few seconds of each track--to avoid fade outs/ins and the like). It would help differentiate all those 11-13 Dynamic range recordings.

-Chris

Here's an interesting quote from the DR website (Our Aim page).

"The DR system is intended to avoid black and white judgment of dynamic quality. While DR7 is low for rock music or very low for Jazz, it is quite acceptable for electronic club music which has nowadays often values below DR4. All values above DR12 have generally a high dynamic quality."

Also I was reading about some digital remaster guys from MCA and Rhino in particular, guys who cared and had a sterling reputation. One of them (Steve Hoffman) said that tapes from before 1967 were bullet proof, from 1967 - 1974 they were less so and from 1974 on they would often deteriorate significantly within two years. He was talking about this in the early 90's I think. I mention this because tape deterioration has been mention a few times in this thread. Evidently the older the tape the better the chance it is still good.

He also mentioned how amazingly many masters, eq'd masters and copies etc. of given material there is, and how most of them are cr*p. And that the most difficult part, by far, of creating a good remaster is finding the original, about 90% of the effort. He also mentioned that tape deterioration was never a problem for him when dealing with pre 1967, and only a minor problem pre '74.

-Chris

Very interesting Chris. Thanks for letting this know.
(and yes, Steve Hoffman is really to be trusted. Btw, he likes the JVC remaster of Debby the best, and what I got from it this is not about an XRCD version (which also exists)).

Interesting! I have been digging into these matters too. Do you have a link?

Hi All

I have been away and missed this thread (unfortunately!! what a thread). I have to say that Bill Evans Waltz for Debby is outstanding and right up there as one of the great recordings of the era (some transients are startling) as you have pointed out here. BUT what about all those other great sounding albums from the same era. I made the point in http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1740.0 it seems that just about every album I listen to from that era (late 50's to mid / later 60's) are really great sounding through NOS1. Those old Ella recordings clear, dynamic, stage depth, details never heard before - I am still shocked (pleasantly) when I listened to them and all my other old recordings.

All would be recording engineers (that care about sound quality - probably not many granted) and all hi-fi manufacturers should be made to listen to these recordings via NOS1 to hear a how music should be recorded and b. how they should be played back. It is just such a great shame that so many enthusiasts may never know the quality that lurks within those old recordings.

I am listening to Stravinsky-L'histoire Du Soldat & Respighi Rossiana a 24/96 download from High Definition Tape Transfers. I know about the controversy about HiRes downloads but all I know is this sounds great - really great. It is a 1957 2 track recording. I think it would probably sound good in 16/44 the point for me is the basic quality of that 1957 recording. Just superb.

As I said before the biggest shock about NOS1 is how it plays old recordings.

Interestingly I have only come to fully appreciate the above after replacing my expensive speaker cables with really stupidly cheap d.i.y. replacements I will be commenting soon in "Gainclone Heaven" - and I have only taken the first step there is much more to come - mouthwatering.

And then again again my NOS1 has not been upgraded to the latest USB version yet - what a thought  :)

All the best

P

Sorry, no link. It's a book published for the Kindle. Really it's three interviews conducted in the early 90s or late 80s. The two main interviews are of Steve Hoffman and the guy from Rhino at the time. The book is "The Men with the Golden Ears," by Tom Graves.

-Chris

Thinking about this old recordings and the DR problem, it is very interesting and somehow mind opening. I am just about to realize, how good this old records could be and I am so surprised what was possible back then. Still, for me the reference is zappas "one size fits all" but I will listen to the bill evans record and as much other advices from you too, for sure. There is a trend for more than one band I know of ->the older the record ->the better the sound, which already I noted earlier. But I didn't expected that this trend could be followed so far in the past, like the 60's.

In the beginning of the thread there was a speculation about how the mastering of the Bill Evans record was done. It seems obvious that it must have been tubes but just to have some prove and it is interesting. Here is the picture of one CD where is an advertisement on the cd, saying it is mastered with tube electronics by Doug Sax. http://pixhost.me/pictures/1084394 (http://pixhost.me/pictures/1084394)

I do not listen to the DVD-A often. I don't like this artifcial dynamic too. The soundquality of the music is very much reduced to make this BOOM possible and the fear to destroy the bass, makes it also not so pleasent to listen to it.

Yep, it must be like this. Record a drumset without anything else and you will get the "biggest" DR possible. Adding further instruments must reduce DR. So if you are ending up with high distortion staccato e-guitars and bass, the DR can not be that high.

Re why the old recordings are often very good.

Given basic good quality equipment (which surprisingly they seemed to have had back in those late 50's and early 60's dark ages) I think basic recording techniques and simplicity were the key factors. They didn't have all the fancy options, funding to employ them, and as many marketing concerns and as much interference from the money men. So once they got the tracks down on tape, all the info was there in fairly unadulterated form ready for a good remasterer to bring to cd. And since audio systems are better today (for the most part) then they were back then, they can enable us to hear further into these old recordings.

Sure, new "masters" were created from those originals and they were often eq'd to death and denoised and what not, but a determined and vigilant remasterer (for lack of a better term) usually found the original and therefore had lots of good information to work with, and could come out with the very good cds we are lucky enough to find today on occasion. I say on occasion because unfortunately most of the remasterers were neither determined nor vigilant and often remastered from the most eq'd and denoised masters--or the first masters--they came across in the vaults (and apparently there are dozens or more per recording). So apparently it was not a question of poor tape quality or the like, but rather poor human quality.

According to something I was reading, sometimes when the good guys came across heavily eq'd masters and couldn't find the originals they were able to de-eq them, at least to a degree. I'm curious how they went about doing that. Did they just apply the opposite eq of what they determined was used on the tapes? If so, that sounds like a pretty messy process.

It would be nice if we could compile a list of high quality remasters somewhere (Here or at CA or...?) so that it wouldn't be such a hit and miss operation when it comes to finding/buying them. For instance Steve Hoffman from MCA or Bill Inglot from Rhino stuff is probably all very good, but they seemed to have done mostly oldies, and how does one find cds by remasterer (they were usually not even listed in the early cd days when these guys reigned).

-Chris
 

I have organized three different version of Bill Evans Waltz for Debby record.
1. Analogue Production Gold CD, Remasterd by Doug Sax using Tube Equipment 1992
2. Riverside Remaster 2000
3. Riverside Remaster 2010

And I got the 2002 JVC remaster of Bill Evens Sunday at the village vanguard. It was recorded at the same place and, if I am right, at the same session. I could not find the JVC remaster of waltz for debby, so I used this one to make myself an oppinion about the quality of the sound.

1. Analogue Production:
I like this record the most. It has an incredible ambience. You have the feeling you are there, in the bar, drinking and listening. Somewhere people are talking. You sometimes hear a glas clanking. The room is deep and wide and completly coherent. From the first note I can relax, just listening. You hear it is an old record. The Piano has a slight distortion in the sound but it doesn't bother. The cymbals of the drumset sound very smooth. The contrabass is decent and natural. (DR~14)

2. Riverside Remaster 2000
The sound is more steril. The ambience is not as deep and involving. It sounds slightly unnatural due to its compression. Nothing more to say. (DR~11)

3. Riverside Remaster 2010
The instruments sound the most clean of all remasters. The drumset is quieter than on the AP record. All instruments have slightly more substance. But this comes at a price. The sound engineers try to make the record very quiet. They lowered the noise floor and also background noises. They did this too much in my opinion. The ambience got lost and it sounds more like a studio recording. The sound stage is weird. The piano and the drum set seems like they would be in different rooms. While I am listening, I have the feeling that "someone" tryes to surpress the background noises and so I can not relax. If you don't like background noises and you want to have the sound more like in a studio production than a live recording, this version could be your choice. (DR~13)

4. JVC Remaster 2002 of Sunday at the Village Vanguard
Now I am comparing a little apples and oranges because these are not the same songs. I would say, the JVC remaster is well done. It is not to dry, like the 2010 remaster, or to compressed, like the 2000 remaster. But it can not create this 3D soundstage as the AP record. It sounds a little cold. You are not as much there, you feel more like a spectator. (DR~14)

In general I would not say this is an aboslute benchmark for recording technology. I hear a slight overdrive especially in the sound of the Piano. Also the noise floor is a little higher. Modern records can do better in these respects. But in terms of "beeing there" and getting involved to the event, it can be taken as reference. First af all the Analogue Production mastering is strongly recommended. Beside recording and mastering, the music is just wonderfull. I am not a Jazz guy but this one is considered to be essential Jazz.

Flecko, Thanks, that's great.

How about if I send you a couple of tracks from the "Debby," album--the original cd transfer, for you to compare to all the others? Tell me which tracks and if you think 320 mp3 would  be good enough for this comparison (I can also send flac, there just much bigger of course).

-Chris

Careful Adrian, any answer can be the wrong one here. Haha.

Hey, what's that supposed to mean? I just want you to know I'm not laughing!

Ok, now I am, but I don't know why.

-Chris

Oh, I just wanted to prevent (either) people to be embarressed about MP3 stuff. And somehow it slipped through my mind to offer those HiRes tracks I have here, as MP3. Yes, they are smaller ...

But let me tell you that you won't find any post or anything anywhere from my hand that tells about MP3 being "nothing". It's all about other things ...

Peter

Thanks Peter, that's down right decent of you (just not very clear, although I did cast a thought in that direction).

By the way, re mp3, I don't see why audiophiles have so much against the poor little darlings. And the same people rave about the historical performances of someone like Klemperer and orchestra, and other classical artists who's best work predated the fifties. For some reason quality of recording makes no difference in those circumstances "because it's all about the performance."

Personally I'll take a high bitrate mp3 over any other kind of common copy of music from the past. And I'll be very happy with mp3s of any music that I can't get or afford in a redbook or better format. I have some mp3s that sound so wonderful that I would even consider converting all my less good sounding music to mp3 if they too could sound as wonderful, including those Klemperers.

I've put up my steel umbrella to shield me from flying tomatos and eggs.

-Chris

I am borrowing one of your unbrellas now Chris ...

First of all I am fairly sure that nearly everybody wouldn't allow himself to express openly about MP3 not being bad at all. So, even if you'd think it is okay, it is not a good thing to openly say so. I don't do that either, although quite some years back I did, having joined a well setup blind test with pieces of Three Wishes from Amused to Death (Roger Waters). There was no way I could discern uncompressed from 256 MP3, as was nobody else (hundreds of competitors). I must say that by now I will be able to, just because I know the character of the sound, plus having a way better system than back then. And that character is not for the worse ...

Litterally I have been saying in quite some occasions that the stage of MP3 is wider, as an argument to "how wide the stage must be ?", obviously implying that wider not necessarily is better, referring to MP3 doing just that.
But does it mean that MP3 is worse ?

And so we have once again one of these very controversial subjects which pass from my hand. It doesn't happen often lately, but this one is worth it I think. It is brewing for so many years now, that it is time to do something with it. I'm sure it justifies a new topic, but I hardly ever do that. Too explicit or something.

I won't make it too long for now, but Chris, think about "Teresa's deseases" and what her solution was to play "lowres" uncompressed WAVs (or AIFs) ...
MP3 is listenable ...

Of course everybody starts shouting that someone is crazy (and full of deseases), but I am not so sure about this. I have (and always had) reasons to believe that MP3 might be better than uncompressed. And now, in the era of "HighRes is nothing", it kind of fits a few technical theories.

I may have referred to it one time only (somewhere), but depending on the DAC used it may have occurred to "you" that the music going along with a movie may sound better than the normal Redbook CD material. This isn't something anyone would notice much, and then I mean the opportunity for it; You'd need your audiophile DAC to play the movie music through, you'd need two channels only - you'd need the proper movie playback software - and I can tell you that this is not for everybody. This time I for once am NOT referring to the NOS1, because it already works with a 16/44.1 (48 of course for movies) NOS DAC (better put : having the extra sample rate and bit depth doesn't help here).

Two weeks or so back I wanted to play my first King Crimson, and I only had it in 256 MP3. Well, it sounded as gorgious as that other stuff from that era can sound (what is it ? 1970 ?) and this time I set myself to make something of it. To work it out. To make it "science". Ok, let's say it lasted until this post that I'm really doing something about it, but man, I wish I had more time.

Let's say that it won't last long until XXHighEnd will contain a downconversion from whatever uncompressed to MP3. Maybe 256 is even better than 328. I don't know yet. But it is about some very different means of filtering ... something really nobody thought about. But then it already takes some steps to believe in real good NOS in the first place, and now this will be about an even more strange combination : first use MP3 as a good means of filtering, to next upsample that sky high. My theories are now that this could be the best of all worlds.

Before I really implement this I'd have to measure it, because if it doens't measure well it won't go anyway. But I have the hunch this will outperform everything and all ...

So, this is the real story behind my earlier post. Call me crazy.
Peter

Wow, that's a nice new topic!
I listen to MP3's a lot because sometimes it's all I have, but don't really know what the signature of MP3 is.
A lot of times I think with music from movies, why is this not happening with CD?
So what is this thing making them better?
Is it the focussing on important details and skipping on the low-information part like Philips talked about in their DCC-days?

Well anyway XXHE does a very good job on MP3's!

I compared the first two tracks from your original transfer to the 2010 remaster and the 1992 Analogue Production Remaster. I like the original transfer the most. It is in tonality closer to the 2010 remaster, the AP Remaster seems to add some tubesound (distortions) to the mix. The original transfer is the most clean of all and due to its high DR, very natural in sound. AP remaster is slighly more exciting but that is a kind of coloration. The original transfer is it! Fantastic music and sound. Thanks again chris.


I would say MP3 lose details, especially in the highs. They sound more dull than an original cd or flac. They do not sound bad, if they are made well. Just not as good as the original.

Well then Peter must be able to put the sparkle back in!

Re mp3, just in case folks aren't aware of it, one of the major compression areas in compressed sound is right after the attack or loudest part of the signal, because the ear can't adjust quickly enough to hear the lower level. (fodder for the scientists among us (Peter) to use  for the betterment of all XX users).

-Chris

Re nothing whatsoever. Well actually it has to do with sending files to Adrian (Flecko). Bear with me.

Dropbox is a free program. It's main purpose is online storage--2gb free, and keeping all you computer's data synched. It becomes a folder on your desktop with various subfolders anything you save in it will appear on your other pcs (and Macs I think).

So what's that got to do with Adrian. Well Dropbox has several other great functions, one is that it contains a Public Folder. Anything you place in it can easily be sent to anyone--Adrian (actually a link is sent via email and they click on it to download the corresponding file). Pretty useful for forums (tests and listening--I'm not a fan of rapidshare and the like) such as this one.

But it's even more useful for people who have Dropbox installed because they can share folders. In other words say a few of us here wanted to test some files, we could place them in the shared folder(s) and each can test/add them to the folder anytime. Also good for you Peter when dealing with XX problems for examining files.

You can also access your files from anywhere via a browser such as Firefox or IE.

I've been using Dropbox for years, actually I'm an original adopter, but I'd never used the sharing function until I sent the files to Adrian--which made me think how useful it could be in a forum like this. It's really simple/intuitive because it's part of your file system; I save all my docs to it, plus my password vault and it's a great safe (encrypted) backup too.

So if anybody's interested, google Dropbox, or if you feel like doing me a favor, pm me with a request for an invitation (include your real email address) and I'll get some extra free storage space for the effort.

-Chris

Well Peter you may need more than an umbrella, how does bunker sound--the mp3 version anyway? (That was a dumb joke and should be compressed).

"Teresa's deseases"? What are you referring to with that?

Wow that's some interesting stuff. It never occurred to me that compressed could sound better, but it makes a certain kind of sense (intuitive). Would it have something to do the psychoacoustics (I think that's the term I mean)? And the technicalities of hearing (maybe compression could prevent a kind of hearing overload? your ear has less info to respond to and therefore responds to what is there better? Or the better the recording (the higher the res) the more extraneous info is included that somehow messes with the essential musicality or sound we hear when we hear live instruments--because mics and ears are not the same. I'm obviously just speculating. I'll stop now.

I'm not sure you should be volunteering these kind of thoughts being in the business you're in. I wouldn't be offended if you deleted your mp3 post, and mine.

-Chris

Hi Chris,

Teresa is that woman over at CA who ditched all her CD rips and can stand hires only. And MP3's ...

And no, no way the MP3 thing is to be subjective. If it were in my view, I indeed wouldn't have dare to post about it like I did.
It is just a technical thing. That a (brickwall etc.) filter is needed for Redbook. You know, that filter wich always compromises. Arc Prediction is one which works totally different from all of the others. This "MP3" based filter would be another new one.

Hey, I must have something to do here !
Peter

I agree that it's not subjective, or if it is, you're in trouble. You didn't think I meant it was, did you?

The question though is, why is less, more. What could the cause be? That's what I was speculating about, and wonder if you have, or anyone else has, who either thinks that mp3's are the equal of or superior to uncompressed material (in terms of quality of music reproduction to a human's ears).

Do you know what Teresa's complaints were about standard rips, or what she liked better about hi-res and mp3's?

-Chris

Well, let me tell first that it's all a bit tough to explain it from the start, also referring to the fact that in our forum here I never talked about this. So, some things must be taken for granted I guess;

Let me paraphrase the thinking of many that they want to perceive the higher frequencies beyond the official audioband, just because a. the frequencies are in there for HighRes and b. because it may be so that we can perceive that indeed (not hear, but perceive by unknown/various means).

Ad a.
There is hardly any HiRes to be found where the higher frequencies are not plain false because it is distortion. This by itself caused by dozens (?) of errors made at creating the HiRes. At least all the DVD-A and SACD are so, and if not I have yet the first to see which is okay.
To keep in mind : I have been saying for over two years that HiRes doesn't sound good at all, and since some 10 months or so I started measuring it. By now everybody can and does, and it has become a sheer fact that it is all BS. Total BS.
Not a hoax per se, but errorneous production. The mastering people didn't know.
Notice that the current new productions should be excluded from this, but there too sufficient examples exist it fails.

Ad b.
Since a. is the situation for a fact, we can wonder what people "perceive" for the better when they like HiRes over Redbook. They do ? fine. But they like distortion apparently.
Mind you (Chris), this is nothing much different from a whole world screaming about failed HiRes because they now can look at some stupid graphs while at the same time those same people keep on telling it sounds better to their ears, while when they are proposed to come up with fine examples (as per your CA question) there are no answers.
People just shout around (not in our forum !!).

Am I drifting off ?
No.

What I proposed (by a sort of indirect math) not so long ago, is that there CAN'T be a way we perceive good quality high frequencies, but IF we do perceive high frequencies, they are the wrong ones. This is just proven fact because the wrongness is proven. It only needs the combination of what people "state" and how the facts are from the other angle. So, what I say is that we better do explicitly NOT perceive those distortions, which we can't officially hear anyway. Or in other words : I set the limit to 16KHz, which is suffuciently good for everybody who can afford a fine system (meaning, when you're old enough to afford that, your hearing will have degraded "sufficiently").
Notice that the math which is the base for quite a few more things is left out now, but what this came down to is that this 16KHz (actually close to 17KHz) is reproduceable without stepping distortion. Above that it goes wrong.

Let me add that all is derived from the noticeable stepping distortion which starts to emerge somewhere in the 4KHz range, unfiltered (!). So, under there there is no problem, but above that it becomes noticeable. Let's say in brief that 4 (times upsampling) x 4 = that 16 Khz, and the 16KHz is still "doable". With this we must keep in mind that 16KHz is close to unrestorable (for the stepping distortion), with reasons which would make this story too long, but in any case I am always talking about "unfiltered" when it came down to the usual filtering always needed, and which creates the dreaded ringing (or see my graphs elsewhere).

Where Arc Prediction theoretically fails, is that images will remain beyond the audio band. This is because in normal circumstances the captured frequency is higher than the bandwidth of Redbook allows for (22.05KHz). Thus, spit out the higher frequencies from your whatever instrument, and it is doomed to go wrong later, during playback.
Here too, it shouldn't be a big deal, because those now false frequencies (remember, they are not filtered out by Arc Prediction) are way down soon. This is (not coincidentally) the limit of around 16KHz of original frequency where all is so low already that it at least shouldn't disturb any amplifier. But, if you'd look at a, say, 21.05KHz tone, the image occurring at 23.05KHz is only a few dB down.

The remainder (or base) of the story is that by no means we'd want this ringing. It is totally devistating (but sadly one can only compare with a DAC which first does nothing -> NOS). There is no (NO) way, decent filtering (not leaving images beyond the audioband) is able to compensate for that,, *if* it can be perceived at all as a positive. Notice though that I'm always assuming 4x upsampling first, and which I explicitly tried on the Mac the other day (because no Arc Prediction is available there). So, NOS alone is not enough; it must be able to do 192 at least (per my math), while that immediately needs the higher bit depth in order to not have "stepping" distortion in the amplitude domain.

And so, my story should be clear;
Prevent the frequencies above 16KHz to be there in the first place, and we should be good.
And yes, 128 MP3 limits all to 16KHz ...

I am not exactly saying that we should use 128 MP3, but merely that by some means without ringing (and I suspect MP3 "filtering" does not do that at all) we should limit the frequencies to 16KHz. All it takes now is measuring MP3 (at various bit rates) to see what comes from it, while I already suspect the reason why MP3 -not subjectively- sounds better.

Let's keep in mind that this is MP3 in the (my) NOS environment, and including Arc Prediction (8x or 16x in my case). This is always uncompareable to either 44KHz NOS or any OS DAC.
All 'n all it won't be MP3 I am hunting for, but merely the 16KHz limit, with MP3 being more or less the proof that it is going to work. When that really directly works, it's done. It would be a filtering means that does not ring.

It is all rather complicated, but some by now available pieces of the (yet quite unkown) puzzle help a lot;
Think about Debby et al. Why does it sound so crazily good ? Do I need to say more ? think about it.
It is without doubt that everybody owning an NOS1  has the same experience. Right, we could say that thus the NOS1 flaws to begin with, but now I really have to point out that the first who isn't raving about the NOS1 has yet to come. Plus I have some ears myself.
I just think it can be better again, by applying "tweaks" like this. Strange tweaks maybe, but why not.

Why not ? well, if something like MP3 really is going to be used, while it tears down on the  dynamics or something (as was told earlier), no, then it won't be a good thing I'm sure. But in that case it is a matter of rewriting the MP3 codec concerned, so that it doesn't cut down on *that*.

Peter

Sorry Peter... I only had the time to post the result of my comparison and give a quick opinion about the mp3 sound to GerardA. I didn't "planed" to argue against you. I just didn't read what you wrote about mp3 before.

Hello Adrian - Your observations are perfectly normal IMO. I just have some ideas. Maybe it doesn't work out at all ... :scratching:

Peter

Thanks Peter, for your in depth thoughts/explanation.

The thing about the high frequencies (I mean really high 20khz-100khz) was that they apparently made people feel better when they were present as opposed to not present. This was determined by some kind of a test (I think you were sort of referring to it) several years ago in Japan I think.

These high frequencies were the real thing (I'm supposing--I can't remember where I read the paper), as opposed to the distortion you're referring to in most (all?) present day hi-res recordings. So, in theory at least, hi-res (or call them recordings with extra-aural high frequencies present should be more enjoyable [if not discernable by ear] than nor-res recordings).

I'm not stating this as the case, but just as what seems logic would dictate. It's kind of an odd thing, as one doesn't hear it, but it does register as more pleasurable in the brain. Does this make sense to you? Or am I missing something? (I'm assuming you know about this test).

-Chris

Hi Chris,

Yes, those tests are known. The last one I read, I read with special care, thinking of what material they actually would have been listening to, but f what I recall from that test, is that some high frequency test tones were superimposed on normal music. Yes, people could perceive that, but that is different from better music.

It is my estimate that anyhow high frequencies will influence mind state; it may activate parts of the brain; make it more awake. At saying this I now recall it was exactly about that (scans of brain activity included).

The funny thing is, if we'd look back at those tests and try to determine the quality of the HiRes material the attenders would have been listening to, all is moot (by now).

Peter

PS: At least this article (Japanese test I think) looks like it (didn't read it, but looks interesting at a glance anyway) : http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

Edit : Here is the PDF of that (reads better) : http://www.brainmusic.org/EducationalActivitiesFolder/Oohashi_HFCs2000.pdf

One more :

http://www.hificritic.com/downloads/Archive_A10.pdf

If you really want to know, this is (I think) the result of that Japanese study, now summarized in 347 pages 5-6 years after. Can't find the whole (e)Book, but I guess it can be bought somewhere.

This may (per today !) be more important than it seems, because it looks like a "tweak" for better or worse sound. Remember, those high frequencies just *are* in there, no matter what. This again needs more explanation, but what has been filtered beyond say 20Khz, will come back at you way more further in the frequency band. Think like that whatever is filtered out can't be thrown away. It has to be collected somewhere, and there it will nicely play for you again.

This is why it *is* important how your amplifiers deal with it, and next how your speakers do, once the amplifiers done there job. This now is why analogue filteres behind everything will be as important. Mind you, for better or for worse, and the "better with no filter" comes up when the brain would be stimulated by the high frequencies which *are* correlated to the music.

Peter

Great, I was going to try to find the article(s), because it seems they might have some info that might apply to your thoughts, or be useful. So now I don't have to search for them, thanks.

By the way, Teresa doesn't listen to mp3's. I did some searching to see what her whole thing was about. I was really interested to read her rational for listening to hi-res and mp3 while excluding redbook. Unfortunately she excludes mp3's too. You must have misread something, or I don't know what. But too bad anyway.

-Chris

No no ... you are correct. She dismisses MP3 just the same, but found those listenable opposed to uncompressed Redbook (but not a preferred choice, just as I about never listen to MP3 (surprise)).

For others : she is  a Positive Feedback (review) writer, which btw to some only degraded that review site. :swoon:

Peter, this is the current conclusion from all the studies quoted from the Martin Collom article.

>>"Taken overall, and with some polite hesitation from the authors, the Nishiguchi results (These tests were done to further and even more carefully investigate/test what Oohashi tested--Chris) contradict Oohashi, (Oohashi is the Japanese test that initially confirmed sensitivity to 20khz--100khz and its pleasure enhancing quality --Chris) and in practical terms reiterate that 20kHz is entirely sufficient as a nominal limit for sound reproduction. This later result is attributed in part to the use of very steep band filtering in the experiment, to firmly separate the ‘audible’ energy band from the ‘inaudible’. Advance notice has now been given of further work by Oohashi et al9 which suggests that his previously reported phenomenon actually requires that the body and not just the ears be exposed to the ultrasonic sound field. If the body shielded from the ultrasonic component, then the perception of an extended bandwidth is no longer reported."<<

And here is Collom's conclusion in his own words

>>"Considering the evidence, it would seem that the case for a wider sound reproduction bandwidth is not proven.
 
3 EXTENDED BANDWIDTH, MASTERING AND REPLAY
Regardless of the audibility issue you may still argue advantages for the proposition. For origination a wider operational bandwidth may result in improved performance, or the equivalent of increased resolution, benefiting the established audible range. At present strong low pass filtering
is often employed to fit a 20kHz bandwidth to many digital audio chains especially MP3 portables, broadcast, and CD. The use of a recording medium of extended bandwidth makes possible more gentle filtering, with improved phase and impulse characteristics. For loudspeakers the effort to
extend bandwidth again may improve quality in the lower frequency range. Designing for better bandwidth should provide superior power response to higher frequencies, improving off-axis responses and consequently, sound quality. In addition diaphragm resonances that may have been closely proximate to the ‘audible’ band, may now be located well out of range. In Figure 2 the typical
low loss, multi-resonant output of a rigid ‘piston’ dome driver is compared with that for a wideband pure diamond type, clearly moving such problems well out of the way.
 
4 CONCLUSIONS
As an industry we need to maintain a healthy skepticism concerning marketing based performance claims of all kinds. Human perception is notoriously difficult to quantify especially when differences are small, and some results may be misleading. I believe that elements of the audio industry have exaggerated the necessity for the consumer to enjoy an extended reproducing bandwidth. Judging from this review of the subject, the case for an ultrasonic reproducing bandwidth is not proven, and 20kHz remains the practical limit for the chain as a whole.
 
However for origination and post-production, within reason, we should be encouraged to use the widest bandwidth possible to preserve the greatest information content. This will maximise archival quality."<<

Peter, I realize that you can read this from the links, but I thought others might be interested, and it's really not necessary that one dig through the details unless one has a deep interest in the subject.

-Chris

So, what you got against mp3's anyway? I guess kids got no taste, but at least they got good ears.

-Chris

Haha, that I should be against it, because we all know it is "compressed", which can not be for the better.

But once different reasons pop up (made up by myself), it becomes another matter. Or at least it can ...

Peter

Alright I have the answer to it all--well if the Japanese had not left out one critical aspect to their test anyway.

If you're right Peter about the mess above 16khz and the mp3 solution, and the Japanese are right (sort of) about the pleasure of high frequencies. Ok, I know they refuted the pleasure, but only without the body. Last I heard, we do still come with bodies. So here's the solution:

A quasi mp3/16khz filter for the music, plus a random hi frequency generator played through a special separate super tweeter or two. The highs pleasure the body, the mp3 the ears, voila, musical heaven. Of course this would kill the hi-res business.

I wish they'd included a test with random high frequencies, because my guess is that it didn't matter what they were. After all the hi freq played by themselves registered pleasure in the brain, and the brain doesn't know that they belonged to the sound of the gamelan.

I really have to go to bed, I'm getting too carried away.

-Chris

Chris, thank you very much for this nice summ up of the conclusions. And no, today I did not read them again, but I did before (and had forgotten about them already).
But they *are* intersting to say the least.

Ok, I hope I am allowed to put a few things into "today's" (my own) perspective. Look :


This is why I said in the earlier post that we may wonder what they were listening to. Btw, it is explicitly brought up by Colom himself in the last part of your post as well;

If this were to be about high transient music (I didn't read back on what exactly has been used), then these transients will have gone. See my graphs elsewhere. This by itself already implies two facts of importance :
1. The resulting now sine-like transients may be perceived as "more nice", although they would not represent the music.
2. When the impulse response (high transients) would have been sustained (which they were obviously not), everything can have happened, from WOW's (NOS1, sorry !) up to OUCH ! (sheer distortion because of not being able to cope further chain elements).

I won't say this makes all moot, but the test would be completely flawed in its base if only I have the right on my hand (which of course *I* presume).

Additionlly it would be obvious that any high transient stuff (beyond the audible band or not) can be perceived more easily. Within itself on one side, and because of being distortion when not done / worked out right on the other.
Also, I can't emphasize enough how much "different" the NOS1 sounds (which is today), and which for me obviously is to be compared to whatever they used back then. Additionally (and don't let this be a commercial !) I by now *know* what happens when normal filtering is let loose on music, which makes it so unlisteneble (again, by now and for me) that whatever will sneak in via the high frequency realm would make me dead sure such a test can *never* had worked. Never.


This too is what I referred to earlier;
We know by now that *no* HighRes ofr good (digital mastering) existed at the time. So, the conclusion looks theoretically ok, but practically it could not have happened.
I must add to this that this will have been SACD, which is fairly different from DVD-A which we encounter these days (the HDTracks downloads). But *now* I don't know of any self respecting high end audio shop which found SACD to outbetter CD (after SACD being around for several years), and which is fairly different for opinion from all the shouting we read on the internet. I again refer to what I said about this all, everybody raving and such, until people started to produce AudaCity graphs about it ...


Good for me ! hehe


And so I leave the filtering out at all.
No, this is not without anomalies within itself.


This surely needs to read back on the underlaying arguments, but it is what I am saying (but read back on those arguments !). All I add to it, is that 16KHz is far more practical, while at the same time 20KHz is some stupid nice even limit at the same time. Why not 20.3 or 19.55.
Do the test on your hearing abilities.

I'd go as far as trying a gentle normal filter which starts at 16KHz, but the problem is that any gentle filter will gently sneak into way lower frequencies along the way. But ok, since it is all easily measureable, it's easy to try. In the end that more gentle filter could start at 20KHz, so net it starts at 16KHz.

There is one additional matter which may only be about my own ignorance :
It is said that these common filters only ring in the area which is filtered out (for net result). I don't believe that, because I haven't seen anything that comes close to sustaining those transients, whatever I tried earlier on. This probably will be about the math that forms a transient, and where the steeper the transient, the more high frequencies it needs. This by itself implies that any higher frequencies filtered out will kill the steep transients, and there's no way out. So, now this is not about ringing anymore, but about the impulse still turning into a sine like thing.
If this is true, it still leaves the way MP3 filters as an alternative, to at least investigate.

Peter

Exactly. Or at least that is one piece of that puzzle I was talking about; People clearly (meaning : I sure believe that) perceive HighRes as better, which as clearly is about distortion beyond the audio band.

Indirect empirical proof.

Thanks and good night !
Peter

PS: And you may rethink about the (16/44.1) NOS/Filterless belief in general. Now *that* is distortion. But still. And it *is* music correlated. It may do something too. Something which may be fairly natural, net.

There is a related subject here too :

A few years back I started to talk about harmonics being able to be recreated in mid-air. Another strange thing, but back then I could hear it happening (after some improvements). Today I am not sure anymore whether this ever can be true (for exactly how I layed it out back then), but something else might be going on. And the twist for today is : in our brains.

If we take the "white papers" springing from Nyquist/Shannon Theorem (all what is band limited can be reconstructed to it's sheer original analogue infnite), possibly this can be worked out by our brains themselves. I won't (nor possibly am not able to) work this out here, but if you read those papers ...

... Then maybe it is possible that any too high frequency for our EARS to begin with, -and which must be about some actively operating filter !! (which is different from explicitly)- may work out the same way as we try to do that digitally.

This time though, it will be an analogue filter (which does not ring), and its steepness is determined by ... well, not even important (but may be phase related). It will be a natural thing. The point is, what is filtered here will be the harmonic result of the too rough stepping, that by itself being formed by high frequencies (because any square is formed by sines of way higher frequency). This does not mean the squares are filtered out (call that not-explicitly), but just the high frequencies are, with that the squares vanishing. Maybe completely, maybe to some degree (larger sines being the result on the latter).

When this really would be happening, there's no imaging behind the audio band to our ears (but our equipment will be as bugged by it) but more importantly, there will also no aliases *in* the audio band because of that (not being there in the first place).

What about that eh ?


PS: For those who don't know : I have always been intrigued by those liking NOS/Filterless, which was ever back the exact reason to buy an NOS DAC (which was 18/96 at the time), next being even more intrigued because I liked it myself, and always knew how most poor that technically measures (what about 30% THD easily !).
Officially it just can't be true that 16/44.1 NOS/Filterless sounds any good. Even with the tradeoff of ringing not being there, it seems hard to believe that we don't perceive that as sheer distortion.
By now I know that it sure makes a difference if we move the in-band aliases out of the way (things sound more natural compared to when they remain in), but not as much as measurement seems to depict.

Ok, back to work now.

I think one point is, that people might find hires better, because they think it should be better. Also, maybe they have better equipment for the hires files. I heard one guy saying he likes the DVD-A version of the black album the best, by far. The point is, that this specific version is more compressed then the others...So it cannot sound better and it doesn't.
If we look at the music material (records mastered to death) and what we can hear, we do not realy need the additional resolution and a higher bandwidth. But in a firts place good records and good equipment (A trivial statement, but nontheless true).

>>This later result is attributed in part to the use of very steep band filtering in the experiment, to firmly separate the ‘audible’ energy band from the ‘inaudible’.<<

Peter this quote is from the second experiment; the one that refuted the first. In other words, Nishiguchi found that frequencies above 26khz did not effect anyone in a positive way (or in anyway). They used these very steep filters to completely separate the regular from the ultra and used I think all of 6khz to do so (from 20khz to 26khz). They thought this would make the test more reliable. (Just not sure if you got that the quote was from the refuting test).

-Chris

I'm curious how many of the folks that love hi-res have speakers that reproduce frequencies out to 80khz in a smooth and clean fashion.

And speaking of Holy sh*t. Roy Orbison; For the Lonely. 1988 Rhino Remaster Inglot and Perry.

I've had this disc for years but have only played it in the back ground now and then. I love Roy Orbison, but not to listen to intently or critically.

Well I decided to listen closely last night at 5 a.m., Wow, what recordings, and kudos to the remasterers. If anyone decides to get it don't let the first two tracks discourage you and start you swearing at me and thinking me deaf, dumb and doltish. The first two are mono, thinnish--no sound stage, a bit wooden and boxy but not terrible by any means. But come track three, my room filled from wall to wall. The girls doo wapping and cooing on the right, instruments all over the room, no speakers to be found any where. And old Roy, right there, pretty much in the middle, doing it all. At times I could hear his saliva click, I saw his tonsils (ok maybe not--I didn't really want to anyway). But he's so clear and present at times, you realize he isn't perfect after all. He quavers a bit too much here and there, sometimes he's not completely controlled, sometimes a touch off. But don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. He's superb, just not perfect, but would you expect someone who wears those giant black rimmed glasses to be perfect?

Anyway, if you're at all interested in good old American rock and roll and crooning, Roy if you don't know already, is the other Elvis. Therefore you must get this.

-Chris

Hey Chris - Oh yes, I got that. But I guess my post (and ideas) about it are too much the other way around in order to naturally get what I was talking about. So, that (steep) filtering is only for the worse. What I said was something like : now it will sound all so bad (relatively) that for me myself and I there would be no way to (let) judge anything anymore. My brain would have turned completely black, red or yellow (pick one) and no sense could be made out of it.
Of course this is joking a bit, and I really wouldn't know what would happen to those brain pictures, but if it were about perceiving music for the better or for the worse, there would always be the totally annoying because of the filtering. No Q's to adjust, so to speak. It would be too far off.

And then I will have added something like : but hey, this is me, while "you" are listening to such a thing always.

Let me tell you additionally that when I was testing Fidelia the other day, and when I did not find that decent filtering yet, my wife entered the room with the immediate remark what I had done *now*. Woolly, disturbing, shouting, nothing - were her remarks. Completely off, and just that other player, but really normal in-DAC filtering. I will bet you that most people will have quite some problems in differentiating between the filter settings; not so when there's not that other filter behind it. Then they show.

... But all I was saying is that whatever it was they listened to and through whatever filtering means - it can't have been right at all.
But of course I'm indirectly telling you the same about your system, so it can't be that bad.
Although ... No. I am *not* telling *you* so, because at least you don't have that filtering sh*t in there. Other sh*t, but for the better net. Well, that's what I think.

Peter (blahblah)

For example if you have a SACD Player. It depends on the model but some are optimised for DSD and some for PCM. If the player now is optimised for DSD, CD's cannot sound as they could.
(This could be the reason why in audio magazines the SACD sound of a player is rated much higher than CD sound. Maybe DSD is that good, I do not have any experience with that format, but it looks supicious to me.)
If you have such a player you will permanently make the experience that 24/48 sounds better than 16/44. The sound could also be better just due to a maybe better format (DSD insted of PCM) and has nothing to do with sampling rate and bandwidth.
One way to make a listening test without such a bias, is to make it by a computer audio system. It should be an upsampling system too. Because if you use different sample rates, the filters should be different, which would be an advantage for hires again.
I would suggest to use a good hires file and convert it down to 16/44. Now you have two identical files that just differ in sampling rate and bandwidth.

Couldn't find this one in my library. Instead I'm right now playing the oldest I could find : Roy Orbison Sings Lonely and Blue from 1960. MFSL.

Asked my wife who it would be ... Elvis was the answer. Haha.

Well, sounds great again. Old and old-commercial, but great.

If this is the same wall-to-wall you talked about Chris, then it's my estimate that this one is taken the same as your album there. There's quite some hall added to it. Yes, I recall that from the more commercial music from back then. Moody Blues again spring to mind.

Btw, my father -back at around that time- owned a self brew hall device, and I think it produced the same sound as I hear here. It was a box of some 1.5' long, in there 2 very light (weight) springs of that length. As far as I can recall the signal just went through these springs (1/3" wide and one for each channel I'd say) and there was the hall sound. You could tap on the springs and could hear them making sound.
The shape of the (aluminum) box mattered too. It was trapezium like.
Maybe I'm dreaming if I say I recall that you could see the springs move when music went through (but they should I guess).

Ain't music good for ALL memories !
Peter

It's a Rhino compilation of the best of ole' Roy. And I'm glad you're wife recognizes the other Elvis unprompted. By the way, I don't think he was officially referred to as the other Elvis, but there was another guy "Ral Donner," who actually did at times sound almost exactly like Elvis. But don't bother looking him up, he's not worth it, although I did swoon for one song of his.

Spring reverb is what they were called, and yes I think he and his producer did use them, and I think it was all they used.

-Chris

Maybe forget about my crazy MP3 idea ...

Last night I deliberately played a 320 MP3 almost throughout (Acoustic Alchemy), and while this is without drums, all sounded rather grayish to me. So, no, I could not imagine this was the best. Ok, a psychological thing plays a role here, because I knew I had the same album uncompressed as well.

When the last track was about to start, I dug up the uncompressed version, and restarted at the 2 but last track.
What a difference ... Complete night and day on the snap, the micro attack, the reality of the (all over same and in the end annoying) guitar.

Ok. So once upon a time there was this time that I could not differentiate between MP3 and uncompressed. This time apparently is history.

Apologizes for the roar ...
Peter

Unless of course there's another reason. The difference seems too large for mp3 to be the only reason. Maybe you should do a few more comparisons, you know other albums, other compressors/decoders whatever.

And speaking of Holy Sh*t; I noticed on CA you mentioned Klaus Schulze stuff in the Holy Sh*t category. What is some of his best (tracks or albums) I've not listened to much of that type of music, but I'm always interested in the best of a genre. I do have one of his albums (X).

-Chris

G'day Chris,

"Picture Music" from back in '75 is a good example of his work before the electronics hardware started getting too complex. It's one of my favourite's from his early works. A more modern release could be something like the concert "Rheingold - Live At The Loreley" done in '08 and with support vocals by Lisa Gerrard.

KS has an unmistakable signature to his work, and you really can't go wrong with sampling (no pun intended) any of his works.

Enjoy his creativity.

Cheers,

Russ

Hiya Chris,

Re Klaus Schulze : something else is the matter here, and I will eloborate about this later. Not too much later, because I'm too eager to tell about it.

Russ, our KS expert here, knows (I think) that I am not too fund of him at all because it (generally) sounds old fashioned to me. Not interesting enough. This is mainly because nothing so much happens in the higher regions, while today quite some "similar" stuff exists that excels there.
But I applied "something" in my system, and now something unbelieveable happened to the lower regions. And I mean unbelieveable. So yes, yesterday I played vol.4 of Contempory Works (I) and it may be the best I ever heard in general. Yes, "suddenly". After that I also managed to play Vol.3 which starts with a 45 minute track. Yes, 45 minutes of 100% the same beat, and nothing much different when I played the synthesizers myself ever back, although I could do it 4 hours in a row.

The strange thing is, that now it is sheerly about the bass which makes this mighty interesting. But, as I noticed now, those highs are in there just the same. So, way into that 45 minute track it is as interesting as other stuff, but I never noticed it (on the Vol.3 just the same btw).

So, we may be raving about highs, some may be raving about bass, but watch out for that real bass. This is about another dimension again. I won't eleborate further now. Not in here.

Re MP3 ... I don't know. Remember my attitude. I'm not only open to this (MP3 is not that bad), but also *wanted* it to work. It-does-not. But man, if you only know how huge the changes have been the last year (or two). And this excludes my bass thingy, because that wasn't there day before yesterday. So theoretically the difference may become more and more.

Peter

Thanks Russ, Peter. I'll take a listen around. I did listen to "X" which I hadn't listened to in a very long time and it sounded less old-fashioned than I was afraid it would (I was never very fond of that old synth sound which is in part why I didn't get into electronica type stuff back in the day).

Peter I don't see any of the recordings you're referring to available here (in the U.S.). Could they be the same as "La Vie Electronique," of which there seem to be versions 1 through 10 or more. And all seem to be 3 cd sets to boot.

And Peter, what's some of the other more interesting stuff you're referring to. You didn't think I'd let you get away with not naming names did you?

-Chris

Well now, what better way to test my system rebuild, than a spot of KS magic heh?

The first (short) track certainly has an underlaying bass "drone" in it, which was a hint of what was to come. The second track had his typical soothing rhythmic style, this time with a more defined bass beat. The third track stepped up the tempo and the bass beat became more prevalent, with a repetitive 'da thump thump' throughout most of the track. Similar in some ways to a bass drum, but more tightly damped. The fourth (last) track was very lively, and introduced new sounds and sequences, but still with that underlaying strong bass beat.

There was certainly an emphasis on the bass beat in this album, moreso than typical with most of his works. Perhaps KS discovered a new knob on one of his many synths ;)

It's a good album to test how your system can handle relatively high energy levels in the bass region. For the ultimate test though, you need to try "Woofer Cooker" from the Boston Acoustics Test Disc. A quick google search has revealed a 320kbps MP3 is available here to sample ... http://www.mp3ye.eu/662170_bass-test-cd-woofer-cooker-this-track-can-smoke-woofers-mp3-download.html

Caution is advised!!

Cheers,

Russ

I can tell you Russ : You have NO clue. Haha.

It is THE album where I discovered for a first time how a bass drum is represented so (SOO) real, while it should be covered by a synth. Ok, maybe sampled sound, but hey, we are talking about "samples" all the time, right ?

So no. I appreciate you rather explicit outlay of this album (or both of them), but it really isn't explicit enough;
I did some more testing yesterday, and I know now. What you will be talking about is how "we" perceive such an album normally. But it is far from good ...

Later (and somewhere else) ...
Peter :teasing:

Yeah, well, I couldn't be 100% certain it wasn't a bass drum sampled by himself or something he had concocted on his Moog, which was why I said "similar" ;)

Regardless of whether it was sampled or created from oscillators, it was a good tight sound, and added a nice touch. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a sample though, as KS used to be a drummer before turning to the electronics, so I'm sure he has the odd drum kit or two still laying around his mansion.

Cheers,

Russ

Haha ... I guess you will never be able to get what I am getting at. This is because I talk in secrets.

For now I can only say that it is the best I heard in my system, which at least should tell you that I am positive.

But I also think I can claim that you never heard what I heard. No one (yet). But that might change in due time ...

Right. Now I will be creating that topic about this ...
:swoon: