Jazz for aficionados

orpheus10,

With all due respect I did not upload those songs onto You Tube.

YouTube uploads vary and I believe the content cannot be more then 320 kbps which is compressed. You cannot use You Tube to compare the sonics of a song since the source (an MP3 "lossy file") can vary from 128 kbps (ok) to 190 kbps (ok) to 320 kbps. I would say that most of the uploads on You Tube are in the lower kilobits per second - kbps.

First in the chain of listening is the source. In this case a compact disc. If the engineer overly compresses the dynamic range will suffer.

Secondly you must rip you compact disc onto a pc to upload it onto You Tube. If you rip your CD’s in MP3 codec as most people do the sound quality suffers.

I have ripped to my laptop my whole CD collection in FLAC codec in which has a very high bit rate so the music is identical to the source with no problems in the dynamic range. I cannot upload any songs from my library to You Tube unless I convert them down to an MP3 file which is inferior by far compared to FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec.

I can plug my laptop into my audio video receiver via HDMI and my system sounds great. For even better listening I plug my laptop into a headphone amp with a DAC - Digital to Analog Convertor and then out to my Sennheiser 650’s. I recently listened to one song off each disc of the Shelly Manne Blackhawk boxset through my headphone rig which is my "critical listening" choice and the dynamic range was fine. The quiets were quiet and the louds loud (this is what becomes "flat" when overly compressed).

"Since FLAC is a lossless format, it is suitable as an archive format for owners of CDs and other media who wish to preserve their audio collections. If the original media are lost, damaged, or worn out, a FLAC copy of the audio tracks ensures that an exact duplicate of the original data can be recovered at any time. An exact restoration from a lossy copy (e.g., MP3) of the same data is impossible".

From here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC

My offer still stands. Do as you wish but please do not use You Tube as a audio comparison.

BTW Orpheus did you like the 2 songs from Stan Getz’ album titled "West Coast Jazz"


Big Stan Getz fan here. Could make an argument he is one of the top 10 tenors of all time. The following was downloaded from a turntable with a USB connect into a laptop then uploaded to You Tube and you can hear its sonics are better then 90% of the stuff on You Tube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P1EKY8p5pk

I am listening to "Sweet Rain" through my headphone gear as I write this and it sounds much better then the upload on You Tube above and that upload, as I said, is really good.

"Sweet Rain" is from the Stan Getz album of the same title "Sweet Rain" which features a very young Chick Corea on piano. Chick also composed a couple of songs on the session.

Pjw, let me answers your questions in order: I upgraded my analog so that it would be as good as my digital. Presently, I can almost flip a coin as to which is better. It goes back to the original input; which was better, the CD or the record?

No matter how good your rig is, it can not compensate for a compressed disc. Believe me, I can hear the difference, primarily because I’ve heard the same music sound better.

East Coast, West coast; they both sounded more like West Coast.

There are so many differences in uploads, that I listen to several before I choose one.

I use WAV, FLAC is a compressed lossless audio stream, WAV is uncompressed lossless audio stream. FLAC is like ZIP in audio world, you can compress/uncompress the data multiple times without any loss. But compression ratio is better than ZIP, because this compression format is tailored specifically for audio.

But if it’s compressed, it will also be compressed on "you tube", and I can tell the difference. Ultimately, I listen mostly to 2 track reel to reel at 7 1/2 speed, which is better than a vinyl record or CD.

Sweet Rain is very high quality and that's easy to hear. Compare it to that Black Hawk CD;


          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mvuMvT4xac

"No matter how good your rig is, it can not compensate for a compressed disc"


That is what I already stated. I don't know if you skipped over that part of my post here it is again word for word:

************First in the chain of listening is the source. In this case a compact disc. If the engineer overly compresses the dynamic range will suffer.************

Reel to reel is an expensive proposition:

From an "audiophile" forum:

"I've been an audiophile for over 30 years and attended many related events and shows. The last couple of years at AXPONA I had the opportunity to hear some of these new reel to reel decks and the high quality tapes mentioned here and was completely floored by what I heard. The realism, tonality, and harmonic density of these playback sources was far beyond anything else I've ever experienced with either the best analog LP or digital sources. Personally I can't justify purchasing such a front end due to the limited amount of music available in the format as well as the high cost of the tapes themselves, but it is an experience I will never forget!"

Complete page here:

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30923-the-sound-of-high-quality-reel-to-reel/











.