Jazz at the Pawnshop Again?

[Bruce B]

How many do we need of these??

Jazz at the Pawnshop

And I damn sure wouldn't have used a dCS 905 for a DSD transfer. I had one of these and didn't like it then. ProStudioMasters has the DSD128fs download

So the DXD and DSD64fs sample rates were done using the dCS 905
The 192kHz and the DSD128fs were done using the Ayre QA-9

 

[GaryProtein]

It's a modern day classic.

I guess we keep hoping the next release will be better than the ones before it.

 

[cjfrbw]

I have a minty vinyl two record set in the original Swedish that I bought for five bucks. Yeah, the sound quality is good, but not my first grab off the shelf for the music.

It seems impossible to re-issue some stuff often enough and some audiophiles seem to grab every one with the usual brouhaha. I still stick to the notion that most early generational vinyl analog copies will generally be better, with exceptions as usual, especially if the re masters are digital.

Maybe it's about romancing the nostalgia over and over.

 

[rbbert]

I seem to recall a 3 SACD set from about 10 years ago which didn't cost much more than the DSD download linked by Bruce. Twice as much "music", I wonder how the sound compares?

 

[edorr]

I seem to recall a 3 SACD set from about 10 years ago which didn't cost much more than the DSD download linked by Bruce. Twice as much "music", I wonder how the sound compares?

For starters, the SACD is multi channel, the sonic benefit of which trumps any difference in resolution / format...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

For starters, the SACD is multi channel, the sonic benefit of which trumps any difference in resolution / format...

not if you have a higher quality 1/4" master tape dub of JITPS.

I have the same multi-channel SACD and back when I had my multi-channel set-up I did listen to it in multi-channel. remember; this was recorded on a 2 channel Nagra sitting on the lap of the engineer. so the multi-channel is not discrete.

the tape kills it. and I don't know exactly the provenance of my master dub. but it kills all the vinyl pressings I've heard.

I drop-kicked my multi-channel set-up because my vinyl generally out-multi-channeled the multi-channel. the theory of multi-channel does not measure up to the reality of high level vinyl. I did the work to answer that question for myself. YMMV.

 

[edorr]

not if you have a higher quality 1/4" master tape dub of JITPS.

I have the same multi-channel SACD and back when I had my multi-channel set-up I did listen to it in multi-channel. remember; this was recorded on a 2 channel Nagra sitting on the lap of the engineer. so the multi-channel is not discrete.

the tape kills it.

I drop-kicked my multi-channel set-up because my vinyl generally out-multi-channeled the multi-channel. the theory of multi-channel does not measure up to the reality of high level vinyl. I did the work to answer that question for myself. YMMV.

May be. However, I submit that to match or exceed MCH performance with a 2 channel system, the cost of the 2 channel system needs to FAR exceed the cost of the MCH system. In other words, for your JATPS to sound to sound better on 2 channel, than say the MCH DSD rip over an exasound MCH DAC into a set of half decent speakers, you need in insanely expensive 2 channel system and access to a reference level source material.

Moot point in most cases for lack of MCH content....

 

[FrantzM]

not if you have a higher quality 1/4" master tape dub of JITPS.

I have the same multi-channel SACD and back when I had my multi-channel set-up I did listen to it in multi-channel. remember; this was recorded on a 2 channel Nagra sitting on the lap of the engineer. so the multi-channel is not discrete.

the tape kills it. and I don't know exactly the provenance of my master dub. but it kills all the vinyl pressings I've heard.

I drop-kicked my multi-channel set-up because my vinyl generally out-multi-channeled the multi-channel. the theory of multi-channel does not measure up to the reality of high level vinyl. I did the work to answer that question for myself. YMMV.

I don't have a MCH system. I wonder however if your MCH was assembled with the same level of care and, yes, of knowledge and experience your present system has been. Although you claim not to care about measurements, your room was measured with the utmost care and and scientifically designed, you even did take power seriously. The rest of the equipment you have right now is superior to what you have when you were MCHing.. Aren't you comparing Apple and Oranges? How would MCH done with the same passion and attention to detail sound? Provided of course equivalent high quality software?

 

[edorr]

I don't have a MCH system. I wonder however if your MCH was assembled with the same level of care and, yes, of knowledge and experience your present system has been. Although you claim not to care about measurements, your room was measured with the utmost care and and scientifically designed, you even did take power seriously. The rest of the equipment you have right now is superior to what you have when you were MCHing.. Aren't you comparing Apple and Oranges? How would MCH done with the same passion and attention to detail sound? Provided of course equivalent high quality software?

I'll go out on a limb and speculate that if Mike plunked the EA center channel between his mains, and 2 x EA mmmicroone speakers as surrounds into his system, and compared (all else being equal) the 2 channel digital recording of say a 2L Nordic track with the discrete MCH mix, the MCH would win..... This is sort of what I am doing - I have a very high caliber 2 channel system (because the content is in 2 channel), complemented with decent surrounds and center. The MCH mix wins any day of the week. However, it is conceivable 2 channel master tape would beat the MCH. This would just prove inherent superiority of master tape - not 2 channel. A hypothetical MCH mastertape would sound best.

 

[slowGEEZR]

I've got the "Fifth and Ultimate Version" according to the liner notes from the FIM vinyl produced by Winston Ma. According to the notes, he first re-mastered JATP in 1997, in HDCD 24K gold format. When XRCD came out, he said it offered better sound, so he produced it in that and the HDCD version was discontinued. In 2000, when SACD was launched he decided to redo it in that format. This gave him the opportunity to enhance the 2nd disc of the album, which prior had been made using a copy rather than the original master tape. After securing the full set of the original master tapes, he produced it in Red Book, SACD stereo and SACD multichannel. In 2007, he used JVC's K2 HD 24-bit 100K Hz format to re do JATP and said it was better than the previous SACD version. In 2012, he re-mastered it for the fifth time, using UHD 32-Bit mastering to produce a Redbook format. Winston says to please compare this version with any previous version, that there is "no contest - in fact, it's not even close - between the previous versions and this new and ultimate version in the UHD format". He then used Michael Bishop and Doug Sax to produce the vinyl. I have the 33 1/3 rpm triple album version, though a limited quantity 45 rpm, single-sided version was also produced.

 

[LL21]

I've got the "Fifth and Ultimate Version" according to the liner notes from the FIM vinyl produced by Winston Ma. According to the notes, he first re-mastered JATP in 1997, in HDCD 24K gold format. When XRCD came out, he said it offered better sound, so he produced it in that and the HDCD version was discontinued. In 2000, when SACD was launched he decided to redo it in that format. This gave him the opportunity to enhance the 2nd disc of the album, which prior had been made using a copy rather than the original master tape. After securing the full set of the original master tapes, he produced it in Red Book, SACD stereo and SACD multichannel. In 2007, he used JVC's K2 HD 24-bit 100K Hz format to re do JATP and said it was better than the previous SACD version. In 2012, he re-mastered it for the fifth time, using UHD 32-Bit mastering to produce a Redbook format. Winston says to please compare this version with any previous version, that there is "no contest - in fact, it's not even close - between the previous versions and this new and ultimate version in the UHD format". He then used Michael Bishop and Doug Sax to produce the vinyl. I have the 33 1/3 rpm triple album version, though a limited quantity 45 rpm, single-sided version was also produced.

thanks for the history...i happen to have bought the same version as you, never having owned anything other than 1 of the original cds. I got this super-duper set also because it had the other 2 cd's which i did not own anyway. sounds great to me.

 

[microstrip]

(...) How would MCH done with the same passion and attention to detail sound? Provided of course equivalent high quality software?

Good question, but too hypothetical.

IMHO it is not only passion and attention to detail. The objective of sound reproduction is creating a rewarding experience to the listener, creating an emotional connection that envolves the participation of the listener. As far as we can see, either because of the recordings or the playing system, MCH has not been able to accomplish it systematically as well as old stereo. We must understand why.

BTW, how should we know the software is equivalent? Apples and oranges again ...

 

[Bruce B]

Well if the recording was done with a stereo mic or 2 microphones done to a 2-track Nagra, you can not create period accurate MCH mix.

 

[edorr]

As far as we can see, either because of the recordings or the playing system, MCH has not been able to accomplish it systematically as well as old stereo. We must understand why.

All else being equal, discrete MCH done right, will beat stereo all the time, much like stereo beats mono. It is simply an inherently superior method of sound reproduction. However, all else is never equal (as you say, difference in recording, playback system), so we plunk 100s of thousands into stereo systems and acquire 2 channel master tapes and declare victory for stereo. Wrong conclusion.

 

[Bruce B]

All else being equal, discrete MCH done right, will beat stereo all the time, .

But JATP was not recorded in discrete MCH, so your theory holds no water.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

All else being equal, discrete MCH done right, will beat stereo all the time

of course all else can almost never be equal since there are so few multi-channel analog recordings and almost zero formats to play them with. and so whenever you compare stereo to multi-channel you are also comparing analog to digital. and that is like carrying a digital knife to the analog gun fight. it's over before it starts.

you need to investigate the best possible stereo formats and recordings of the same before you make a blanket statement like that.

much like stereo beats mono.

here at least there are many thousands of mono and stereo of the same session recordings. but the more you listen to these the more many listeners choose the monos. so it's not so simple.

how many of the very best mono recordings have you heard in their original formats?

It is simply an inherently superior method of sound reproduction. However, all else is never equal (as you say, difference in recording, playback system), so we plunk 100s of thousands into stereo systems and acquire 2 channel master tapes and declare victory for stereo. Wrong conclusion.

until you do the work, invest the time into investigating, how can you speak with such confidence?

i respect that you have your opinions, but others might not agree that have spent the time investigating.

 

[rockitman]

of course all else can almost never be equal since there are so few multi-channel analog recordings and almost zero formats to play them with. and so whenever you compare stereo to multi-channel you are also comparing analog to digital. and that is like carrying a digital knife to the analog gun fight. it's over before it starts.

you need to investigate the best possible stereo formats and recordings of the same before you make a blanket statement like that.



here at least there are many thousands of mono and stereo of the same session recordings. but the more you listen to these the more many listeners choose the monos. so it's not so simple.

how many of the very best mono recordings have you heard in their original formats?



until you do the work, invest the time into investigating, how can you speak with such confidence?

i respect that you have your opinions, but others might not agree that have spent the time investigating.

Well said Mike. I'm still looking for an MCH version of Ellington's Jazz Party. I haven't had any luck though. I do love both the stereo and mono versions...

 

[Bruce B]

Well said Mike. I'm still looking for an MCH version of Ellington's Jazz Party. I haven't had any luck though. I do love both the stereo and mono versions...

Rockitman, you should know you can't create something that was never recorded to begin with!

 

[rockitman]

rockitman, you should know you can't create something that was never recorded to begin with!

lol...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

to be fair to edorr i should add that there is no doubt that SACD multi-channel has great potential, that is almost always not realized.....for many reasons. and the many reasons....there are simply so many ways for a multichannel recording or playback to be messed up....is their undoing....besides which they cannot equal the best analog in sonic quality. and lastly; the best music yet played or recorded happened during a time when analog was king. so those recordings which make up 80% to 90% of what i and many listen to are not high quality candidates for multichannel.

and certainly logically it makes perfect sense that a multichannel recording should be able to sound better than simple stereo. too bad it does not work out that way.

and mostly i preferred the stereo versions of the SACD multichannel discs to the multichannel. i have over 1000 SACD multichannel discs. again; execution trumps potential.