XXHighEnd

Well I don't know how this album escaped my notice but I have just got hold of The Gifted Ones by Count Basie/Dizzy Gillespie today and absolutely no doubt about it - it has gone straight into my all time greatest 10 Jazz Albums (but not sure which one it has displaced yet!!!!). What an awesome album. I always loved Dizzie but when you add in the Count magic happens. Well it does for me anyway - its all about the notes NOT played really just superb.

Good sound quality as well - the symbols playing as they should do thanks to NOS1.

 

Ordered! Thanks for the recommendation.

But as usual, there seem to be a number of CD releases of this 1977 recording. It seems the first was in 1996. The CD I've just ordered from Amazon is a 2000 release - couldn't find the 1996 release. There are a few on eBay though... Which version is yours?

Mani.

Gents,
CD Wow, 8,99 Euro (incl.transport)
greetz, HW

http://groovenotes.org/2010/03/06/1000-jazz-albums-you-should-hear-before-you-die-the-first-500/

Hi Mani,

release 1996

http://www.amazon.com/Gifted-Ones-Count-Basie/dp/B000000Z27/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1320135117&sr=1-1

Joachim

Hi Mani - Its the "Original Jazz Classics" Pablo Records originally issued Feb 3 1977 and remastered and re-released 1996.

Hope you like it.

Paul

Well I paid just over €2 (yes, two) for a brand new 2000 release of this. I may 'splash out' and order the 1996 release... but it's gonna have to be great music if I'm gonna part with €5 of my hard-earned money  :grazy:

Kind of reminds me what a great philosophy Peter followed when creating the NOS1: Forget hirez, get redbook right instead - there's just infinitely more great music available. And isn't this what this hobby's all about???

Mani.

Mani - Check out the last track "Ow" drums and symbols being played right here in my room right in front of me. Ow is now my new demo track to impress unsuspecting visitors.

I have a reference system I sometimes listen to, to check out how a real Jazz set should sound. It is called "The Stan Tracy Quintet" and they play live at the Bulls Head in Barnes (going there tonight as it happens to hear my cousin perform a Steely Dan set - if anyone lives nearby come along). Always strikes me how real life symbols sound - very loud in the mix and just so much detail.

Right here at home and in front of me right now is the best reproduction I have ever heard of symbols. They STAND OUT LOUD & PROUD and that's the way they should sound. Maybe only NOS1 does that in the world of sound reproduction - I certainly have not heard any other front end produce this level of detail.

Rockin good sound Peter - (note to self - try to contain enthusiasm as Peter is bound to come up with further improvements and then you will have run out of superlatives he he).

P

Hi,

I'm on a journey through Apples Itunes where you can find nearly all older (and new) releases for a price < € 10,00.

The tunes are transfered as compressed *.m4a files, that can be converted to lossless wave back.

It's a bargain.

Joachim

Haha... I came back home yesterday and waiting for me in the post was the 'The Gifted Ones' CD I ordered. It's actually the original 1996 release (not a 2000 release as indicated on Amazon). So I paid just over €2 for a brand new original release of this CD. Now that's a bargain! (Oh and yes, Scroobius is right - it's great music!)

Also, I don't trust downloads at all. Many hirez downloads are proving to be sourced from redbook in reality. And as for 16/44.1 downloads... how do we know that these haven't just been ripped from physical CDs by a summer intern working at the record company? I really wouldn't be surprised if this is common practice. Also, we wouldn't know which CD release they used. All in all, I much prefer buying the physical CD and doing the rip properly myself. My experience with buying CDs off Amazon and eBay is that if ordered within Europe, they're in my post box with 2-3 days.

And there's no substitute for knowing that you have the physical disc should anything untoward happen with your HDD.

Mani.

Comparision between a ripped file (dBPoweramp) and an iTunes File.

The files are nearly identical. There is a small time shift in upper channel of appr. 0,0001 sec.

The left curve is the iTunes file.

The question is, what file is genuine.

Hi,

please be careful, some of my oldest CD's cannot be ripped due to unreadable frames.

http://www.enotes.com/science/q-and-a/what-lifespan-cd-rom-disc-289144

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub121/sec4.html

Joachim

I have to agree with Mani and now I just rip CD's where possible. 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.

I have great recordings in 16 44 and The Gifted Ones is one of the best examples of the best quality recordings I have heard on my system. And I have other recordings in "hi res" that are just poor. But there again I have 24 96 recordings from Itrax that are just superb 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.

BUT what about the bit depth of the recording - well that should matter the calculations would indicate that 24bit should be much better than 16bit for dynamic range if the system will play it. Although 16 bit should be good for 96db surely that is enough. I would be interested in what you guys experience is in that area. 

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.

When Mani came to my place I played him a CD of music written played produced and mastered by my cousin Chris and his group. Chris is a professional musician. He recorded the album in his garage (OK converted into a recording studio) and created a digital master on equipment that cost him £800. I think I am right in saying that Mani was surprised at the recording quality. I have to say that my cousin Chris is not technically minded 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.

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

P

Hello P,

iTunes is the only store to my knowledge to get OLD records with releases around the 1970s from Crosby, Stills & Nash, James Taylor, Cream, Blind Faith, Jack Bruce (Harmony Row), Lee Ritenour, Dave Grusin, Stanley Clarke, Chick Corea, Ray Brown  etc. with a 24/44 bit depth, which are not easily to buy on a CD anymore.

The quality of the iTunes files seems to be congruent with the CD rippings. A save storage of the "bits and pieces" should not be a major problem nowadays. What I'm missing are the covers.

Joachim

I´d like to know the process, step by step, that some of you use to rip cds to be  played later in XXHighEnd.

This is what I do:

1- I rip the cd in my laptop using EAC (Exact Audio Copy) and save the files in a 1Tb WD Elements SE HDD. Always I use WAV files. I use this HDD because it´s like an USB flash drive, very little and easy to carry, with USB3.0 it is fast also.

2- Once the rip is done I copy the files from the WD Elements to another bigger (2Tb) WD external HDD to make a back up copy. I use this WD just for back up.

3- I take the WD Elements and copy the WAV files to the PC where I have XXHighEnd and the music HDD

4- Once the copy is finished I erase the WD Elements and all starts again.

I wonder if to make a copy from one HDD to another HDD it is not the best way to do it. Could I loose something in the process?.  Maybe I´m too picky because I only use the music PC just to play music, the same way like the typical transport. I don´t use it for anything else, not even to rip cds.

Juan

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

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

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

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

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 (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.


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

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

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

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

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

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...


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

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!).

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:
Is true even for this record.

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

Hi Peter,


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

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



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 :yes:).

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).

Yep

I am not in the theoretical deatils of this but one reson to record in a higher resolution is to have some headroom for editing of the recorded material. I think it is very unlikely that you will have a record and you can put it as it is on a CD. You will have to at least match the volume of the intruments, do slight equalization and maybe add some reverb. If you are not recording some classical music. This is not bad at all and if done right a good thing. If you do this with a higher resolution and bandwidth, there will be less alteration of the 16 44 file in the end.

Great fricken' album. Thanks Paul!