[pinnahertz]

So, tape hiss is the good part of music?

No. But there is sound you want to hear at the same frequencies as the tape hiss. So using some kind of EQ to reduce tape hiss also reduces the sound you want to hear at those frequencies.
 
There were Dolby B encoded tapes to reduce tape hiss. How? The frequencies where tape hiss were prevalent were boosted on the recording. When played back, those frequencies were reduced to a normal level and that lowered the tape hiss as well.
 
There was also dbx......

Well, not exactly how Dolby B works. What you described is pre/de-emphasis. Dolby NR in all forms changes emphasis dynamically based on content and level. Above a certain point it's actions reduce to zero, which was part of the trick to making their systems innocuous. Dbx was static pre/de-emphasis with full bandwidth companding, and thus not so innocuous, and didn't cover its tracks quite so well.

 

[winders]

Well, not exactly how Dolby B works. What you described is pre/de-emphasis. Dolby NR in all forms changes emphasis dynamically based on content and level. Above a certain point it's actions reduce to zero, which was part of the trick to making their systems innocuous. Dbx was static pre/de-emphasis with full bandwidth companding, and thus not so innocuous, and didn't cover its tracks quite so well.

I was giving the 30,000 feet description of Dolby B....not the micro level view. Not everything has to be described as it would be in Phd thesis.....

 

[pinnahertz]

 
I was giving the 30,000 feet description of Dolby B....not the micro level view. Not everything has to be described as it would be in Phd thesis.....

No worries. You handle the 30Kft, I'll do the micro.  
 
I'm WAY below PHD level here.  I never mentioned the actual architecture, or the other permutations of Dolby.  But, since the Wall Street Journal just did a piece about cassette tapes making a "come-back" (seriously???), it may be useful to know a little detail at least, especially in the context of hi-res, tape hiss, and how far from hi-res tape actually is, NR or not.

 

[castleofargh]

I fail to notice differences in proper use of 320 mp3, I never fail to notice an old k7 tape recording. 'nough said.
 
about MQA and this thread, I'm starting to feel sorry for @headfry. he's been kind enough to stop writing unproved stuff in the sound science topic and made this one to discuss with MQA friends. and you guys are killing the topic with technical stuff.

 

[headdict]

  OK folks:
 
 
I've found a Tidal Masters track that sounds so musical and artistic
I want all of you interested to check it out:
 
 
 
John Coltrane   -     Giant Steps (Mono 2014 reMaster)
 
 
Title Track (1st one!)
 
 
 
Sounds so direct and expressive. Sounds to me that Coltrane
was out to make his trumpet portray some of the fullness of an orchestra.
 
 
...Success!
 
 
...really good!

The Tidal mastering totally screwed it, if you really hear a trumpet on that album.

 

[old tech]

  I fail to notice differences in proper use of 320 mp3, I never fail to notice an old k7 tape recording. 'nough said.
 
about MQA and this thread, I'm starting to feel sorry for @headfry. he's been kind enough to stop writing unproved stuff in the sound science topic and made this one to discuss with MQA friends. and you guys are killing the topic with technical stuff.

Well not always.  As he requested I did do a subjective listening test of Coyote streamed as an MQA file.  I even compared it, subjectively, with a non MQA Joni Mitchell file, albeit a different track from a different album from a different remaster. 
 
I did make a technical point, well common sense really, that these Joni Mitchell albums are not hi res music as they were not recorded in hi res but it seems headfry only replies to what he started this thread for if it totally agrees with his subjective opinions.

 

[old tech]

 
No. But there is sound you want to hear at the same frequencies as the tape hiss. So using some kind of EQ to reduce tape hiss also reduces the sound you want to hear at those frequencies.
 
There were Dolby B encoded tapes to reduce tape hiss. How? The frequencies where tape hiss were prevalent were boosted on the recording. When played back, those frequencies were reduced to a normal level and that lowered the tape hiss as well.
 
There was also dbx......

Ah, DBX.  Kinda reminded me of CX encoded records and playback.  Both were quite impressive how they eerily reduced the hiss (and even the clicks and pops on LPs with CX) but they got tiring after a while.  Although they resulted in a much cleaner sound, and it might be just me, they also sounded somewhat "fake" which became more obvious after a lot of listening.  Hard to describe but sort of a long hall effect without background white noise.

 

[winders]

  Ah, DBX.  Kinda reminded me of CX encoded records and playback.  Both were quite impressive how they eerily reduced the hiss (and even the clicks and pops on LPs with CX) but they got tiring after a while.  Although they resulted in a much cleaner sound, and it might be just me, they also sounded somewhat "fake" which became more obvious after a lot of listening.  Hard to describe but sort of a long hall effect without background white noise.

The dynamic range of classical music pressed on dbx encoded vinyl was impressive. I had a dbx 224 unit and about 25 albums. That vinyl was expensive for the day.

 

[pinnahertz]

 
The dynamic range of classical music pressed on dbx encoded vinyl was impressive. I had a dbx 224 unit and about 25 albums. That vinyl was expensive for the day.

Yes, the DR was impressive.  So was the noise "breathing" problem.  Once you got over the impressive DR, that's what you were left with.  dbx also exaggerated response anomalies.  

 

[headfry]

  Well not always.  As he requested I did do a subjective listening test of Coyote streamed as an MQA file.  I even compared it, subjectively, with a non MQA Joni Mitchell file, albeit a different track from a different album from a different remaster. 
 
I did make a technical point, well common sense really, that these Joni Mitchell albums are not hi res music as they were not recorded in hi res but it seems headfry only replies to what he started this thread for if it totally agrees with his subjective opinions.

well, it turns out high res isn't everything.....there still can be amusical distortions even with higher bits. 
 
Hejira, even though it's an analogue tape master, does sound better to me with MQA....not just in my opinion either.
So do many older recordings of superb music done on tape, e.g.:
 
Yes's Relayer and The Yes Album
Jethro Tull     Passion Play
 
Joni Mitchell  Court and Spark (I agree Down to You is classic....Troubled Child is great too, like a companion track - C&S is one of the greatest
classic pop albums of all time except for the first two tracks-  to my taste)
 
 
 
..  tape masters friends and yet they have the usual MQA improvements to me. I don't see why 
being from a tape master should exclude it from benefitting.....as I've said resolution clearly isn't everything when it comes to perceived musicality.
 
My suggestion: forget everything and just listen.
 
My intention is not that of sharing naive beliefs of MQA's benefits with "friends"....it's to encourage more to approach MQA with an open mind
and not have an indignant I-know-it-can't-be-any-good cynical attitude that is so prevalant here and elsewhere.
 
....any other MQA or Tidal Master listening perceptions out there?

 

[saddleup]

  I fail to notice differences in proper use of 320 mp3, I never fail to notice an old k7 tape recording. 'nough said.
 
about MQA and this thread, I'm starting to feel sorry for @headfry. he's been kind enough to stop writing unproved stuff in the sound science topic and made this one to discuss with MQA friends. and you guys are killing the topic with technical stuff.

Sometimes people need to be saved from themselves.
 
I had a chance to listen to Tidal and MQA on a very revealing system and came away underwhelmed quite frankly.

 

[headfry]

 


Sometimes people need to be saved from themselves.

I had a chance to listen to Tidal and MQA on a very revealing system and came away underwhelmed quite frankly.

I think that the saving from themselves bit is being drastically overdone - repetitive posts many of which are re-exressing the same
point in different ways to make it seem original -  so many of these posts and so few expressing any significant benefit -which 
many of us are hearing and enjoying....despite all the attempts at "saving" us - my preference for Tidal decoded Masters continues the same - it's not something I have to think about the differences to me so far continue obvious.

why should only those that are positive towards MQA need saving? If I have a strong belief against 
MQA - that expectation could prevent me from relaxing and just be "auditioning" - one must relax into
the experience without any agenda to fully appreciate the experience. This goes for all aesthetic enjoyment - craft beer, art ,film, life, whatever.


...anyways, thanks for your impressions!

 

[saddleup]

Sorry man, I'm being an ass first thing in the morning.  My apologies.
 
Tidal is an amazing product for new music discovery.

 

[winders]

  Yes, the DR was impressive.  So was the noise "breathing" problem.  Once you got over the impressive DR, that's what you were left with.  dbx also exaggerated response anomalies.  

The breathing problem wasn't as bad as you make it out to be. Overall it sounded better than non-dbx discs. Classical recordings of the same material on regular vinyl sounded completely flat.

 

[pinnahertz]

 
The breathing problem wasn't as bad as you make it out to be. Overall it sounded better than non-dbx discs. Classical recordings of the same material on regular vinyl sounded completely flat.

My dbx experience is confined to pro studio use.  We had Dolby A and SR, and digits as well as dbx II and the K9 cards.  Against Dolby A or SR it failed every time.  We did mostly classical and some jazz.  We also played with High Com, not bad, but not well adopted either.  We never used dbx to record because it had too much artifact, it was only used to decode tapes from outside and records. Otherwise, performance was unacceptable for our work. 
 
I guess in the consumer market where you only had Dolby B, C, HX to compare with dbx, it may have been impressive, but outside of semi-pro reel to reel it never really made it in the consumer world.  Cassettes had too much FR variance for it to track well, and I believe it had to be an external box, never was built-in.  The cost of their last LSI was very high compared to the fully integrated Dolby B chip, and with the dbx record market topping out at 200 releases over approx 10 years, it was pretty much a non-starter.  Where dbx won the market was semi-pro and economy-pro recording applications.  Home studios were just getting going in the early 1980s with 1/2" 8 track machines becoming affordable.  Sure, their head-bumps made it a Type II application only, but that's really where it won.  That, and their marvelous 165 compressor!  I think their real, lasting contribution was excellent VCAs, which is still true.
 
Trivia...the worst sounding variant of dbx was the hyped 3:1 version used on NPR's SCPC satellite system.  Essential to get the system to work, but pretty bad overall. And we all got to hear that on NPR stations all the time.