Norah Jones - Come Away With Me in HDTracks

**smdb01us** · 05-09-2012, 10:46 AM

My favorite album from Norah. I bought the 24/192Khz version. I can post Audacity's analysis if anybody is interested... I not sure if this has been done already...

Cheers...

PS. I also need to figure out how to use Audacity... :-)

**smdb01us** · 05-09-2012, 10:58 AM

Spectrogram for "Turn me on"

**smdb01us** · 05-09-2012, 11:00 AM

Waveform for "Turn me on"

**smdb01us** · 05-09-2012, 11:02 AM

Waveform (dB) for "Turn me on"

**smdb01us** · 05-09-2012, 11:03 AM

Frequency analysis for "Turn me on"

**The Computer Audiophile** · 05-10-2012, 01:52 AM

Just purchased the 192 version. Listening now. It's a great album.

**One and a half** · 05-10-2012, 05:57 AM

The download was weird.

First of all, the download was very fast, usually takes 45mins +, this time just 20mins. At track 14, the whole show stops downloading. Restart, twice, then I notice in the download folder, there's another folder, 192kHz....and the same tracks are downloading again!

Foobar tells me the first shot at downloads are redbook, Seven years is 750kbs for the redbook and 5000+kbs for the 192 file.

Dynamic range Results for sample of the two files.

foobar2000 1.1.11 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2012-05-10 20:50:31

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 02-Seven Years
Number of samples: 6406260
Duration: 2:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Left Right

Peak Value: -0.92 dB --- -0.64 dB
Avg RMS: -12.47 dB --- -13.26 dB
DR channel: 9.25 dB --- 9.68 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official DR Value: DR9

Samplerate: 44100 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 16
Bitrate: 750 kbps
Codec: FLAC

foobar2000 1.1.11 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2012-05-10 20:48:16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 02-Seven Years
Number of samples: 27948053
Duration: 2:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Left Right

Peak Value: -0.43 dB --- -0.45 dB
Avg RMS: -13.31 dB --- -14.95 dB
DR channel: 10.44 dB --- 11.16 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official DR Value: DR11

Samplerate: 192000 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 5529 kbps
Codec: FLAC

Comparison between the original Redbook CD and the 2012 Version, SQ wise much like a horse race, 'too close to call'. 192 version is quieter, but tonally pretty much the same.

**Julf** · 05-11-2012, 04:24 AM

Looks like 192 doesn't really add much value compared to 96...

**sandyk** · 05-11-2012, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by The Computer Audiophile

Just purchased the 192 version. Listening now. It's a great album.

Ditto.
I haven't properly heard the whole album yet, but I particularly enjoyed "Turn Me On"
There must have been quite a demand for this album, as Download Manager had heaps of 30 seconds attempts to gain access.
I am on my 2nd copy of the SACD, as the original developed a small split at the outer edge.
Alex

**smdb01us** · 05-14-2012, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by sandyk

Ditto.
I haven't properly heard the whole album yet, but I particularly enjoyed "Turn Me On"
There must have been quite a demand for this album, as Download Manager had heaps of 30 seconds attempts to gain access.
I am on my 2nd copy of the SACD, as the original developed a small split at the outer edge.
Alex

For me, "Turn me on" is the best song in that album.

I agree with all, I don't think there is much benefits on the 192 version but I want to have it anyway...

However, even if there is nothing worth earing above, let's say 60Khz (yes, I am well aware of the human hearing range but hear me out, no pun intended), since you are sampling more data from the all the frequency range, wouldn't that provide more data for a more accurate reproduction of the original signal?

**Julf** · 05-15-2012, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by smdb01us

However, even if there is nothing worth earing above, let's say 60Khz (yes, I am well aware of the human hearing range but hear me out, no pun intended), since you are sampling more data from the all the frequency range, wouldn't that provide more data for a more accurate reproduction of the original signal?

It would provide more data, but I think the jury is out on if it makes the reproduction of the music any more accurate. It is a bit like adding more ultraviolet spectrum to a picture - if your eyes (or ears) don't process it, will it matter?

There is a common bit of fallacy in that people think of how increasing the pixel resolution in a photo improves the quality of a picture (to a degree). That works because the eye is an instrument for resolving precise spatial detail. The ear is not so much an organ for detecting minute waveform detail, but relationships between time, pitch and amplitude of multiple signals.

**wisnon** · 05-15-2012, 07:20 AM

I thought the ear is way way more frequency sensitive than amplitude sensitive.

**Julf** · 05-15-2012, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by wisnon

I thought the ear is way way more frequency sensitive than amplitude sensitive.

Well, yes, much more sensitive to differences in frequency (pitch). But not very sensitive to high frequencies.

To keep stretching an analogy way beyond anything reasonable, my eye can easily pick up wavelength differences of 50 nanometers (between blue and violet) but struggle to pick up actual spatial detail of even 100 micrometers - or to see anything beyond 300 nanometers (ultraviolet).

**Downrange** · 05-17-2012, 05:40 AM

One of my reference CDs. I will be ordering this up when I return from this business trip. Thanks for posting!

Thread: Norah Jones - Come Away With Me in HDTracks

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Norah Jones - Come Away With Me in HDTracks

Norah Jones - Come Away With Me in HDTracks