Thread: A way to improve demand for SACD?

Posts: 90
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next

Post by RWetmore May 20, 2009 (41 of 90)
bissie said:

"The main point is that some of the tools we need to create the best possible (and natural sounding) mix simply will not work at sample rates over 96 kHz. And at 96kHz they already do not have enough Inputs and Outputs, thus forcing us to make other compromises which will become far more audible than the difference between 44.1 kHz and 96kHz."

Robert,

Might I ask what "tools" are being referring to here?

Also, what does Thore mean by "do not have enough Inputs and Outputs, thus forcing us to make other compromises which will become far more audible than the difference between 44.1 kHz and 96kHz."?

Are there not properly developed systems and tools these days to fully handle higher sampling rates? This is the first time I've heard of anything like this.

Post by AELK May 20, 2009 (42 of 90)
bissie said:

Dear Alan,

Thore Brinkmann's letter (quoted before in this thread), which answers your question, was sent on Jan 19, 2009, if I remember correctly. I am sure I would have heard about it, had BIS made a policy change after that.


Best - Robert

Thankyou Robert, I am surprised, in the future a low sampling rate can prejudice the re editions of BIS for download files or DSD 128 SACDs.
Alan

I sorry Bis have to downsizing DSD to 24-44, you have changed DSD for convenience and low cost. You could rise the SACDs prices.

Post by DSD May 21, 2009 (43 of 90)
bissie said:

To the best of my knowledge I haven't received such a question. Where did you send it to? But I am happy to clear this up anyway.

I think Thore Brinkmann's mail says it all. It is an upfront mail telling honestly why we have taken the stance we have. We're using our knowledge of microphone placing and production values to enhance music, using the SACD possibilities to give an added sound experience in the process. I believe now, and I have always believed that expertise in WHERE and HOW to record, psychological insights in how to get the absolute best out of the artists ultimately are much more important for the end result than what system one is using. And his comment

"The main point is that some of the tools we need to create the best possible (and natural sounding) mix simply will not work at sample rates over 96 kHz. And at 96kHz they already do not have enough Inputs and Outputs, thus forcing us to make other compromises which will become far more audible than the difference between 44.1 kHz and 96kHz."

is a crucial one, because it exemplifies the difference in attitude between those who listen for the music's sake and those who listen with only numbers in their minds. Yes, we could record in 88,2/96 or higher, but, doing that, we would miss out on other things that "are far more audible". With such choices we opt to go with the music every time.

In the end of the day, it is music that we are producing, not bits.

Best - Robert

Hi Robert,

I posted the question in the "BIS thread"
/showthread/22322//y?page=last

Thanks for clearing that up, that does explain why the sound quality of the Greig series dropped off so much when you switched from DSD to PCM recording.

I still say these two SACDs sound like high resolution PCM:
American Spectrum - Llewellyn
Shilkret: Trombone Concerto etc. - Lindberg/Neschling

Any information on these two as they sound way too good to be 44.1kHz PCM.

I guess there is not any chance of talking you into going back to DSD recording is there?

Post by DSD May 21, 2009 (44 of 90)
RWetmore said:

In a recent email they told me they are using 44.1khz/24bit for their recordings.

RWetmore I'm sorry I doubted your story. But Robert von Bahr confirmed Thore Brinkmann's email and the 44.1kHz 24 Bit masters used for their newest SACDs.

As you know I was a big fan of BIS' earlier DSD recorded SACDs that is until I purchased Grieg: Peer Gynt - Ruud and complained about the sound quality as it was not as good as the first three Greig Orchestral SACDs and even questioned if it was DSD at all as it said nothing about being a DSD recording in the booklet. Well it turned out my fears were well founded as this was PCM and BIS had switched to PCM recording, at the time we had no idea that it was low resolution PCM as well. I know I didn't like the sound and sold it.

In the early days of SACD I used to praise BIS' DSD recordings and I really wished they went back to recording DSD. After they switched I mostly bought unusual repertoire that I could get no where else. My first choice is always DSD so I look to Telarc first, then PentaTone and Channel Classics.

Since BIS' switch to PCM most of the recordings I purchased ended up being sold not long after as I didn't like to sound quality. To be honest none of them sounded like 44.1kHz, but I did suspect a couple of being 48kHz. The 44.1kHz took me as a total surprise. Knowing this I won't be buying any more BIS SACDs until they either switch back to DSD or at the very least use 88.2kHz PCM.

Also the sound of BIS SACDs before and after the switch to PCM I used as an example on why I like DSD recording the best. Now I realize that is not fair as BIS was not using the highest resolution of PCM. So I no longer can hold their switch up as an example of DSDs superiority to high resolution PCM, just DSDs superiority to low resolution PCM.

Post by zeus May 21, 2009 (45 of 90)
AELK said:

Thankyou Robert, I am surprised, in the future a low sampling rate can prejudice the re editions of BIS for download files or DSD 128 SACDs.

Don't worry, you can always download them at 88.2kHz from here:

http://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=browse_music&type=label&id=92

:-)

Post by DSD May 21, 2009 (46 of 90)
zeus said:

Don't worry, you can always download them at 88.2kHz from here:

http://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=browse_music&type=label&id=92

:-)

Wow Zeus you know what that means don't you? If the original master is 44.1kHz 24 Bit HDTracks are upsampling them to 88.2kHz PCM. HDTracks claims not to upsample. Looks like it's getting harder to trust anyone.

Just another reason to choose DSD recordings as there are only two resolutions of DSD: consumer DSD64 and professional DSD128.

Post by bissie May 21, 2009 (47 of 90)
AELK said:

Thankyou Robert, I am surprised, in the future a low sampling rate can prejudice the re editions of BIS for download files or DSD 128 SACDs.
Alan

I sorry Bis have to downsizing DSD to 24-44, you have changed DSD for convenience and low cost. You could rise the SACDs prices.

"I sorry Bis have to downsizing DSD to 24-44, you have changed DSD for convenience and low cost. You could rise the SACDs prices."

No, I very definitely cannot raise my SACD prices, if I want anyone to actually buy them instead of downloading from some pirate.

As for convenience, I really do wish that you'd read the posts before accusing like this. If Thore Brinkmann is right, then it has not to do with convenience, but with a musical choice. We can do more musical things with the equipments we have in 44,1 than we can with 88,2 or 96. In a choice of what to sacrifice, we put music first.
I have asked Thore to inform me what equipment he is talking about in order to answer RWetmore, but today is a bank holiday in Sweden and I am not going to call him up.

However, without having the foggiest knowledge about this (remember, I am from the analogue, splicing-tapes-with-scissors age) I do have to say that we have four (4) complete equipments flying around the world at any given moment, carefully put together to combine weight, easy-to-handle, RELIABILITY (you don't want to stand in South Africa with a faulty machine!!) and economical feasability and - important - compatibility with the editing studios we have here in Sweden. We put them together years ago to answer to the demand (and our wish) to produce superior recordings and releasing them in the SACD format.
I don't honestly know, but it is possible that there is new machinery out there now that could do the trick, but I have to jump on the brake before committing to creating 4 new equipments and upgrading all the editing suites to handle them - all this IN A TIME WHEN WE ARE DESPERATELY FIGHTING TO SURVIVE IN THE WAKE OF ALL THE PIRATES and to continue to defend a format that is - let's be honest about it - not doing terribly well. Sorry, can't be done.
Since I equally honestly cannot hear the difference between our results and DSD (or indeed, 88,2), for me personally this is just a playing around with numbers rather than concentrating on the subject-matter - music.

It is incredibly more expensive anyway to record and produce SACD:s, and now I am faced with a boycott because we cannot show the numbers, even though what we're doing is hi-rez by definition. Well, not a great incentive to continue doing the SACD:s we're doing - and we're the 4th largest SACD company in the world! I respect anyone that actually HEARS a difference, but I don't respect anyone that first looks at the numbers and then decides whether it is good or bad, prior to actually listening.

A personal note: I am incredibly proud of our recordings and, having listened extensively to what the competition does, truly find that we're better on an average. I think our SACD:s sound spectacular, on an average, but, even if they weren't, I still feel that the musical content is far more important than the technique.

best - Robert

Post by zeus May 21, 2009 (48 of 90)
bissie said:

It is incredibly more expensive anyway to record and produce SACD:s, and now I am faced with a boycott because we cannot show the numbers, even though what we're doing is hi-rez by definition.

Which is why this site is based around reviews of the sonic values (and performance) as perceived by the listener, rather than numbers ... interesting though they may be.

Post by wolf359 May 21, 2009 (49 of 90)
bissie said:

"I sorry Bis have to downsizing DSD to 24-44, you have changed DSD for convenience and low cost. You could rise the SACDs prices."

No, I very definitely cannot raise my SACD prices, if I want anyone to actually buy them instead of downloading from some pirate.

As for convenience, I really do wish that you'd read the posts before accusing like this. If Thore Brinkmann is right, then it has not to do with convenience, but with a musical choice. We can do more musical things with the equipments we have in 44,1 than we can with 88,2 or 96. In a choice of what to sacrifice, we put music first.
I have asked Thore to inform me what equipment he is talking about in order to answer RWetmore, but today is a bank holiday in Sweden and I am not going to call him up.

However, without having the foggiest knowledge about this (remember, I am from the analogue, splicing-tapes-with-scissors age) I do have to say that we have four (4) complete equipments flying around the world at any given moment, carefully put together to combine weight, easy-to-handle, RELIABILITY (you don't want to stand in South Africa with a faulty machine!!) and economical feasability and - important - compatibility with the editing studios we have here in Sweden. We put them together years ago to answer to the demand (and our wish) to produce superior recordings and releasing them in the SACD format.
I don't honestly know, but it is possible that there is new machinery out there now that could do the trick, but I have to jump on the brake before committing to creating 4 new equipments and upgrading all the editing suites to handle them - all this IN A TIME WHEN WE ARE DESPERATELY FIGHTING TO SURVIVE IN THE WAKE OF ALL THE PIRATES and to continue to defend a format that is - let's be honest about it - not doing terribly well. Sorry, can't be done.
Since I equally honestly cannot hear the difference between our results and DSD (or indeed, 88,2), for me personally this is just a playing around with numbers rather than concentrating on the subject-matter - music.

It is incredibly more expensive anyway to record and produce SACD:s, and now I am faced with a boycott because we cannot show the numbers, even though what we're doing is hi-rez by definition. Well, not a great incentive to continue doing the SACD:s we're doing - and we're the 4th largest SACD company in the world! I respect anyone that actually HEARS a difference, but I don't respect anyone that first looks at the numbers and then decides whether it is good or bad, prior to actually listening.

A personal note: I am incredibly proud of our recordings and, having listened extensively to what the competition does, truly find that we're better on an average. I think our SACD:s sound spectacular, on an average, but, even if they weren't, I still feel that the musical content is far more important than the technique.

best - Robert

Thank you Robert for a very honest concise and open answer. I for one appreciate it very much. I am getting old and my hearing while still good even at its peak could never discrminate such nuances easily. I am however curious to know who is Pirating your recordings. I would have thought that pirating a classical music/audiophile niche was a pretty pointless exercise as it is not exactly mass market and many of the posters on here seem to prefer to have the physical disc I know that I do. As for the rest the general population are not that intrested in Classical Music. I do not wish to upset my fellow posters but rather than squabble amongst ourselves about DSD vs PCM should we not be defending the format as a whole. If people were to stop buying DSD discs out of spite this would surely play into the hands the Anti SACD brigade even more and hand them ammunition. I would rather have a well recorded PCM disc on SACD than no SACD at all which may happen in the future

Post by mahlerei May 21, 2009 (50 of 90)
bissie said:

A personal note: I am incredibly proud of our recordings and, having listened extensively to what the competition does, truly find that we're better on an average. I think our SACD:s sound spectacular, on an average, but, even if they weren't, I still feel that the musical content is far more important than the technique.

best - Robert

And so you should be. What riches the nay-sayers are losing out on. Their loss, of course.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next

Closed