Stonking Jazz Album

[Scroobius]

Hi Juan,

If you get a 100% perfect rip from EAC that is it - job done. I cannot see any reason why subsequent copying will affect the quality of the file.

P

[juanpmar]

Hi Juan,

If you get a 100% perfect rip from EAC that is it - job done. I cannot see any reason why subsequent copying will affect the quality of the file.

P

That´s what I think also but I remember to read something about it in the forum and I´m not sure if they were talking about if the files could be affected by successive copies.

Juan

[juanpmar]

But there again I have 24 96 recordings from Itrax that are just superb...
P

Hi Paul, could you let me know some of those tracks, today I´ve downloaded some demo from iTrax and the sound was great.

Juan

[Scroobius]

Hey Juan - just about every track I have downloaded from iTrax has been top notch sound recording quality. I guess it depends on your choice in music. One great album is Order of Distinction by Ernest Ranglin the father of reggae/ska he is in his eighties now but revered by the other artists performing with him. I have to say with NOS1 USB there is much less difference between this recording and the CD's I have but it is great and easy music that is not going to upset anyone at a dinner party.

Another I really like is The Latin Jazz Trio  http://www.itrax.com/Pages/ArtistDetails.php?aID=AR12005897945edf9949d7d0 if you like Latin music this is great the bongo's at the start just superb. I am partial to a bit of Latin and this is superb. But you can't go wrong if there is anything that takes you fancy you can be certain that it is excellently recorded and performed by people who care - can't say more than that really.

I think Mark Waldrep is beyond reproach in the quality of the recordings he produces the musicians cannot be in it for the money as it (as far as I know) is a part time venture.

But it does seem to me now that 24 96 is not relevant the thing that makes iTrax recordings good is the way they are recorded in the first place.

Just seen Oscar Peterson on iTrax that is mouthwatering but I have to say the $18.99 looks expensive nowadays when CD's are so cheap.

Happy hunting

P

[juanpmar]

Thank you Paul!, I´ll see what I can find at iTrax.

[juanpmar]

Looking in iTrax at the Oscar Peterson: Unmistakable - Zenph Re-performance I see the interesting way it was re-recorded. Take a look at http://www.zenph.com/shop/music/jazz/oscar-peterson-unmistakable
I´ve bought both the 24/96 download from iTrax, that sound fantastic as Paul said, and the cd to compare them to see the differences, if any.

It really does seem that now with NOS1 USB the important thing is not the resolution of the recording (ie 44 96 192 etc) but the actual quality of the recording and mastering is REALLY the most important thing.
P

I´d like to know if it is just something subjetive or if it is based on some new technical quality of the new NOS1 USB that makes no differences between different recording resolutions.

Juan

[PeterSt]

or if it is based on some new technical quality of the new NOS1 USB that makes no differences between different recording resolutions.

In my view it has always been so that the higher resolution didn't cut it. But the point is ...

... Show me a good high resolution recording ...

And that is the whole point;
They do exist, but chances are small we have them in larger quantities. So, generally what we would have in our hands is a poorer version of anything that is Redbook and "good enough". IOW, the Redbook is not molested; there weren't made failures on producing it. The hires ? they almost all fail.

So, no matter what you try, hires won't sound better because it *is* not better. Most often not even the higher resolution is in there, and when done well, the resolution isn't in the (too old) material. Instead you will receive higher resolution tape hiss (or recording amplifier small banded hf stuff).

And so it comes down to the good recording - just on Redbook. It's almost like math ...
But call it logic.

Peter

[juanpmar]

And so it comes down to the good recording - just on Redbook. It's almost like math ...
Peter

Thanks Peter, it seems a very logical explanation.

That means that the work to do is to find the well recorded Red Book cds. As we can see, there are different posts with recommended recordings, would be nice if we could centralize it in a data base or a specific entry. At the end this is going to be the material that deserves all the effort put in the development of the XXHighEnd and the NOS1. Any idea on how to do it?

Juan

[PeterSt]

Strange answer :

Maybe "we" are not up to that yet. I mean, it is too easy to judge an album (recording) as flawed, just because we use wrong playback means.
Of course this doesn't prevent us from judging a good recording as such, but possibly good recordings only sound good and are not at all.
Maybe it doesn't even work (out) to hand you my "good recordings" because the chance is small that you like my music. And the other way around.

Hey, do I sound negative, or what ??

There is just too much going on IMO. That kazillion things wrong in audio ...
On day one I could swear that all commercial music sounds like total sh*t, while on day two I can play ABBA without any complaint. And I even know what (I) changed ...

Please keep in mind : I am from the leage who wants to have all the albums properly sounding. Not just stupid thinking, but I know it can (almost) work. This is the opposite of throwing out all what doesn't sound good.

The NOS1-USB seems more sensitive to this all, and it seems to tell you what are good and what are poor recordings. But for me this is a weak "explanation", and things merely seem to be not right elsewhere. I have already proven this too - at least in my listening room and with some special settings. It is this what gives me confidence (to keep on hunting) :

Nearly all the Ambient stuff sounds plainly superb. This was not so with the original NOS1 (like the one you still have Juan - but that won't last long ), because back then it was merely so-so "music"; most don't even call it music, and merely unintelligent fast-composed sh*t. Not me, and certainly not today;
Ambient contains the highest transients of it all and at the same time it won't go wrong. And for example : like Jean Michel Jarre, and then compare it to modern ambient. You will sell JMJ right away. 8-bit old fashioned stuff. But my point is : when this most demanding "music" won't go wrong ever, why will ABBA ? Or why did my Uriah Heep - Live always soundED so sh*t ? Yes, soundED because I now have it working. Like ABBA, and with the same "tweak". Actually a few cascaded ones.

(actually I'm talking about that "tube rolling" post you asked me about - without me answering to that (yet)).

It is all not such a big deal as it may come across now, unless we think it is a big deal that more recordings are OK than we might think today. In the end it is about things like a voice sounding irritating, while -thus far- I never found such a thing to be definite (like it is a bad recording).

It all is and remains a work in progress, and let's say some things improved already over the past 4,5 years that this forum exists ...

Peter

[juanpmar]

Please keep in mind : I am from the leage who wants to have all the albums properly sounding. Not just stupid thinking, but I know it can (almost) work. This is the opposite of throwing out all what doesn't sound good.

Ok, me too. Don´t get me wrong, even when a cd would be a poor quality recording could have other values that can make it essential. Otherwise we could not listen to Maria Callas for example or Billie Holiday to name just a couple of old recordings that necessarily can´t sound as good as if they were well recorded today.
But if I understand you well, with the evolution and improvement of the software/hardware, if I can call the XXHighEnd/NOS1 USB this way, we can get a level of quality that will be able to show even those apparently poor recordings in its full richness. Of course there will always be bad recordings and good ones but I agree with you that with the proper playback system is sure that we´ll find a greater number of good recordings of what we think.

That is the challenge, getting a playback system that is not the obstacle but simply a clean means to contact the recording with the listener.

Juan

[Flecko]

...but I have to think that it is more because of the quality of the recording techniques, microphone placement and production than due to hi res.

My ears are telling me that 16 44 is good enough or at least there is a whole lot more recording engineers can do to improve recording quality before they even start to think of higher res.

I would suscribe with my own blood that this is TRUE! Anyway I have a DVD-A and a CD from Dvoraks New World symphony (Harnoncourt). If I play both files over my computer system, the DVD-A sounds defnitley better. But this could be also due to the better data format used on DVD-A, which really is save to copy. I am not sure if we can trust what we read from the CD. Well, I tested it myself and got the same results from the same cd with two different pc's. But it is not certain that another cd couldn't give another result. Maybe the CD production process is messed up. In my opinion the sound of the cd is in this special case too far away from the DVD-A that it can be explained only with the sample rate and bit depth. But it has been a while as I checked that the last time. Maybe I should do this again...

...but one thing he did which he did not realise is a very good thing is to record straight to 16 44 - he did not first create a 24 96 master and then down sample to create a 16 44 master (which obviously requires the use of a potentially sound quality killing brick wall filter) maybe the big studios just do not think about the really simple things that can be done to create good sound quality - I suppose "recorded straight to 16 44" just does not sound as sexy as "recorded in 24 96" which of course is irrelevant on CD.

From theory if you record in 24 96 you can use dither to improve the sound of the downsampled 16 44 file.

When the revolution comes maybe we will be able put mainstream recording engineers up against the wall and shoot them he he.

You will have a lot to do doing this. It is very sad that recordings where so much money is invested sounds so bad. You can do better than most you can buy on cd with 1000€ recording equipment (I will try to prove this statement soon!).

[Flecko]

Anyway I have a DVD-A and a CD from Dvoraks New World symphony (Harnoncourt). If I play both files over my computer system, the DVD-A sounds defnitley better. But this could be also due to the better data format used on DVD-A, which really is save to copy. I am not sure if we can trust what we read from the CD. Well, I tested it myself and got the same results from the same cd with two different pc's. But it is not certain that another cd couldn't give another result. Maybe the CD production process is messed up. In my opinion the sound of the cd is in this special case too far away from the DVD-A that it can be explained only with the sample rate and bit depth. But it has been a while as I checked that the last time. Maybe I should do this again...

Which I just did. Well, it was different this time. There is a difference in sound but the main thing is that the DVD-A is not as loud as the cd. The DVD-A seems to sound a little more resolving. Thats it. You can listen to both files. No big deal.

So:

...but I have to think that it is more because of the quality of the recording techniques, microphone placement and production than due to hi res.

Is true even for this record.

[Scroobius]

Hey Flecko - I think we agree good recording is the starting point if you don't have that you don't have anything. But I don't think down sampling from say 24 96 to 16 44 can be saved by dither because the problem is that aliasing images appear within the audio band and the only way to remove them is with a brick wall filter. And any brick wall filter has to be a very "bad thing". So transferring direct to 16 44 has to be much better for sound quality. Maybe I have missed something but I don't understand why a recording studio would ever consider down sampling from a hi res master surely it has to be easier to create a 16 44 master for CD duplication and if a hi res master is required then create that in parallel at the same time.
All the best
P

[Scroobius]

Hi Peter,

The hires ? they almost all fail.

Interested to know what you mean by the above. I think that we all understand that many hires recordings "fail" because they are say upsampled or otherwise badly or cheaply (or cheatingly) produced.

But what about good quality hi res recordings that are of the highest quality from reputable sources (i.e. people who care - and there are some - i.e. 2L or iTrax)- are you saying that there is something inherent in the process that means they will fail that is unlikely to happen in a 16 44 transfer?.

P

[PeterSt]

I spent too few words on it I guess ...

They do exist, but chances are small we have them in larger quantities.

Most often not even the higher resolution is in there, and when done well, the resolution isn't in the (too old) material.

So, there's a hand ful of current recordings and even when you have those all ...
There are a couple of thousand, all flawed. I refer to mainly the DVD-A's, but SACD is not much different. Just think about that these were multi channel (5.1) recordings and no special 2ch take was recorded (which really is needed for a good stereo recording. So, even when there's a stereo track on the disk, it's still flawed all over, and usually even downmixed.
The subject has passed before here : I have over 300 of them, and none is good.
Only when you encounter a 24/192 recording it will be ok in general (that never origines from a 24/96) but *now* you run into the bogus ones (Hotel California is a good example).

The modern recordings are ok, when the recording engineers understood what they were doing. But there are almost no recording engineers doing this anyway, at least none for the larger labels that I know of.

Even 2L is problematic, because they too are multi channel focused. But as far as I know they do their best to make a proper stereo mix in advance and at least have good knowledge.
While 2L is somewhat larger I think, they still won't be producing several albums per week. The others ? maybe one per 6 months.

So you see ? the chance that you have something that is good is very small, unless you explicitly hunt down the good ones. But I am fairly sure that everybody still think they *have* the good ones. Well, just compare ... (but use something like an NOS1 for it ).

Peter


PS: I talk about this in fairly simple fashion, but it really took me two years to reason out *why* all the old hires all is flawed. Today it's only logic ...
(read : there is much more to explain to understand it, and "see" that it will be true even without listening or measuering).