Thread: Emil Berliner Studios: no difference what so ever

Posts: 21
Page: 1 2 3 next

Post by AmonRa January 4, 2014 (1 of 21)
From the Emil Berliner Studio site at http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com/en/chronik5.html


"During the recording of Mahler's 2nd Symphony (Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Gilbert Kaplan, released on Deutsche Grammophon CD 474 380-2, SACD 477 594-2) in the Musikvereinssaal, Vienna, the whole recording sequence is carried out by using both PCM and DSD technology following the microphone. To exclude sound variations by different A/D converters, the team uses special converters capable of dealing with both formats. The result of the subsequent listening comparisons by double-blind test is as straight-forward as sobering: There is no difference whatsoever."

Post by nucaleena January 4, 2014 (2 of 21)
AmonRa said:

From the Emil Berliner Studio site...."There is no difference whatsoever."

Well they would say that, wouldn't they.

Post by sibelius2 January 4, 2014 (3 of 21)
nucaleena said:

Well they would say that, wouldn't they.

Perhaps they're using substandard equipment?

Post by Alexandre January 4, 2014 (4 of 21)
AmonRa said:

From the Emil Berliner Studio site at http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com/en/chronik5.html


"During the recording of Mahler's 2nd Symphony (Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Gilbert Kaplan, released on Deutsche Grammophon CD 474 380-2, SACD 477 594-2) in the Musikvereinssaal, Vienna, the whole recording sequence is carried out by using both PCM and DSD technology following the microphone. To exclude sound variations by different A/D converters, the team uses special converters capable of dealing with both formats. The result of the subsequent listening comparisons by double-blind test is as straight-forward as sobering: There is no difference whatsoever."

You failed to mention 2 important things:

1) That this statement from EBS dates from 2002-2003.

At that time, EBS was mastering SACDs from PCM sources and made some of the worst sounding SACDs I have ever heard.

2) Subsequently, around 2010-2011, EBS changed its modus operandi and began mastering SACDs using DSD directly from analogue sources.

This change produced impressive results that only a deaf can't hear.

There was a reason for EBS to change from PCM to DSD when mastering SACDs: There is a difference (and not a small one).

Post by canonical January 4, 2014 (5 of 21)
> Amonra said: "quote"

Ah yes - but that quote is positively ancient --- it is from 2002 before Emil Berliner got their new DSD converters. The update, as you should well know, is that in 2011, they dropped their old analog -> PCM conversions to using pure analog->DSD conversions (instead of going via PCM) ... and Emil Berliner claim this is the superior path now ... with their new DSD converters.

And I can certainly vouch for the improvement: many of their old analog -> PCM conversions are harsh and digital and really not that impressive at all sonically: they sound more digital than analog. By contrast, those that I have tried post-2011, such as:

Beethoven: String Quartets Op. 59 No. 1, Op. 131 - Amadeus Quartet
Beethoven: Piano Concertos Nos. 1 & 3 - Michelangeli, Giulini
Mozart: Piano Concertos Nos. 19 & 23 - Pollini

are often things of wonder ... the Beethoven string quartets, in particular, is a sonic gem!

Post by canonical January 4, 2014 (6 of 21)
Alexandre said:

You failed to mention 2 important things:

1) That this statement from EBS dates from 2002-2003.
2) Subsequently, around 2010-2011, EBS changed its modus operandi and began mastering SACDs using DSD directly from analogue sources.

This change produced impressive results that only a deaf can't hear.

Spot on! [ our postings crossed ]

Post by Claude January 4, 2014 (7 of 21)
The 2002 statement was about the recording format, not the remastering of analogue tapes. They made parallel recordings in PCM and DSD and compared the results.

The new Universal (SHM-)SACD reissues sound better than the previous ones, but IMHO this is due to more care during tape transfer, and has little or nothing to do with the A/D converter. The early SACDs were mastered from 24/96 sources made during a mass archival operation of the Universal Classis vaults. Different engineers were involved.

Have you done a blind test comparing DSD and 24/192 PCM with the same recording in order to assess the superiority of DSD? That's what this comparison in 2002 was about.

Post by Ubertrout January 4, 2014 (8 of 21)
I agree with Claude...the fact that EBS now converts analog direct to DSD means very little vis a vis this quote. Who knows why they got this result, be it playback equipment, recording equipment, or the simple fact that high-res PCM can also sound very good.

If they went to the trouble of making a DSD version of the Kaplan recording, though, they should make it available online, from SuperHirez or elsewhere. Let us see for ourselves.

Post by canonical January 4, 2014 (9 of 21)
Claude said:

The 2002 statement was about the recording format, not the remastering of analogue tapes.

Methinks you are perhaps missing the essence: In both cases ... whether a live recording or using tapes as the source ... one is starting with an analog source and in both cases then converting it to digital. That is the subject of discussion.

The simple fact is whatever they were doing back in 2002 with PCM was actually pretty poor. And what they are doing today with DSD is far superior and quite impressive. No-one goes to all the trouble and expense of converting all their systems and processes from PCM to DSD just for fun ... presumably they incurred the time, trouble and expense of moving to DSD because they think it yields better results. And certainly, the results are better then their earlier methods.

Post by canonical January 4, 2014 (10 of 21)
Ubertrout said:

If they went to the trouble of making a DSD version of the Kaplan recording, though, they should make it available online, from SuperHirez or elsewhere. Let us see for ourselves.

I am sure we all also realise that there are good DSD converters out there and not so good ones. Even in the Channel Classics recordings, there are those who sing the praises of recordings made with their GRIMM DSD converter ... and consider them to be superior to the others.

Plainly, a lot can happen in Analog to DSD converters between 2002 (baby) and 2011 (teenager/adult).

Page: 1 2 3 next

Closed