add to wish list | library


11 of 11 recommend this,
would you recommend it?

yes | no

Support this site by purchasing from these vendors using the links provided below. As an Amazon Associate SA-CD.net earns from qualifying purchases.
 
amazon.ca
amazon.co.uk
amazon.com
amazon.de
 
amazon.fr
amazon.it
 
 

Discussion: Verdi: Requiem - Philadelphia Orchestra/Ormandy

Posts: 11
Page: 1 2 next

Post by canonical January 18, 2013 (1 of 11)
Aside from being a superb performance, this also has superb sonics ...

I had stopped listening to the Verdi requiem ... found it a bit um hackneyed ... until I heard this version.

Recording resolution: Analogue 1964 converted direct to DSD (apparently)
Format: Single-layer Stereo only
Playing time: 83 minutes --> This fits the whole of Verdi's requiem onto a single disc ... one of those special long-playing SACDs ... and an absolute gem this SACD is too!!

Post by seth January 18, 2013 (2 of 11)
canonical said:

Aside from being a superb performance, this also has superb sonics ...

I had stopped listening to the Verdi requiem ... found it a bit um hackneyed ... until I heard this version.

Recording resolution: Analogue 1964 converted direct to DSD (apparently)
Format: Single-layer Stereo only
Playing time: 83 minutes --> This fits the whole of Verdi's requiem onto a single disc ... one of those special long-playing SACDs ... and an absolute gem this SACD is too!!

As a matter of fact, all of the Sony discs were PCM transfers. But that shouldn't preclude anyone from buying this recording. (Which is also why we need to stop obsessing about these details).

Post by Claude January 18, 2013 (3 of 11)
seth said:

As a matter of fact, all of the Sony discs were PCM transfers.

How do you come up with that idea?



The Verdi SACD sounds spectacular, but the recording is a bit too close up for my taste, like sitting in the first row of a concert.

Post by Ubertrout January 18, 2013 (4 of 11)
seth said:

As a matter of fact, all of the Sony discs were PCM transfers. But that shouldn't preclude anyone from buying this recording. (Which is also why we need to stop obsessing about these details).

Wasn't this discussed and refuted on the Steve Hoffman boards? http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/are-older-sony-jazz-sacds-not-sourced-from-the-master-tapes.26562/

Post by seth January 18, 2013 (5 of 11)
Ubertrout said:

Wasn't this discussed and refuted on the Steve Hoffman boards? http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/are-older-sony-jazz-sacds-not-sourced-from-the-master-tapes.26562/

Interview with Dixon Van Winkle who did the transfers for the classical recordings:

Large chunks of Dixon's time these days are spent remixing and mastering archival material from the Sony catalog for the new SACD format. "What a privilege!" he says. "I sit at a workstation with scores in front of me working on the best orchestral recordings ever made by the likes of the Cleveland, Philadelphia, New York and Columbia Symphony orchestras. Bernstein, George Szell, Bruno Walter - these are the kinds of conductors I get to listen to! Right now, we're re-issuing all of Szell's work with the Cleveland Orchestra. It's amazing and rare to find any edits in Szell's work!"

Working with a Sonic Solutions workstation, Dixon also removes clicks and pops, making new 24-bit, 88.2kHz masters. Eventually, this material is changed into DSD (Direct Stream Digital) and then into SACD masters.

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_dixon_van_winkle/

Post by canonical January 18, 2013 (6 of 11)
Ubertrout said:

Wasn't this discussed and refuted on the Steve Hoffman boards? http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/are-older-sony-jazz-sacds-not-sourced-from-the-master-tapes.26562/

That's an interesting thread ... the killer quote referenced is this one, from Sony engineer Mark Widler:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/162917.html

================================================


Being someone who is intimately involved with the mastering of Jazz at Sony, I would like to say a few things.
First, I do not believe Jeremy123 is a Sony employee, nor does he have any firsthand knowledge of the mastering of the Sony Jazz catalog. If he is, I am calling him out. My extension is x4257, call, I'd love to talk.

Second, our general rule for mastering Redbook or SACD is to use the best available source, period. Myself, with producers and other engineers, work long and hard not to screw this stuff up, because we know you are out there listening.

The tapes are in excellent shape, kept in climate controlled vaults. Tape condition is very rarely an issue.

Since my first SACD project in 1999, the Meitner converters have proven themselves time and time again. Currently, they are on Version 5 with small improvements each time. They are so good that, on occasion, I use them for Redbook issues of frontline CD's.

I could not let comments like the ones posted by jeremy123 slip by. This will be my only post. I only registered to reply to what was forwarded to me.

Mark Wilder

===============================================

Post by Claude January 18, 2013 (7 of 11)
Sorry, but that very general and vague Mix Online article can hardly be used as a proof for this very specific issue. I doubt that "clicks and pops" were removed from all the Sony transfers, as they feature quite a lot of tape hiss. Maybe this was the case with a few recordings which required manipulation. Why would Dixon rave about DSD being closest to the source tape when his transfers are actually PCM-based?

Post by seth January 18, 2013 (8 of 11)
Claude said:

Sorry, but that very general and vague Mix Online article can hardly be used as a proof for this very specific issue. I doubt that "clicks and pops" were removed from the Sony transfers, as they feature quite a lot of tape hiss. Why would Dixon rave about DSD being closest to the source tape when his transfers are actually PCM-based?

Seriously, people. This is like ignoring the Simpson DNA evidence.

Converting the tapes to PCM for cleanup is no different than what EMI did for its recent reissues, with the reason being that there are more tools available in the PCM domain than DSD for these kinds of fixes (http://audaud.com/2012/04/emis-new-sacd-remasters/).

What does tape hiss is completely separate? It's totally different than removing discreet analog artifacts, such as where edits were made. And some of the Sony SACDs have audibly less hiss than their previous CD issues, such as the Szell Dvorak symphonies.

Winkle is a Sony employee. Obviously he's going to say that DSD is the greatest thing ever.

And if there was never any conversion to PCM, why would it even be brought up with the specific details of the resolution. You're seriously saying the writer was told it was a DSD transfer and he rewrote that as 24/88, or Winkle is somehow so clueless that he has no clue what format he's converting the tapes to?

If you won't believe an interview with the person who transfered the tapes and created the final DSD masters, then there is no amount of evidence that you're willing to accept to sway your belief.

Post by canonical January 18, 2013 (9 of 11)
Claude said:

Why would Dixon rave about DSD being closest to the source tape when his transfers are actually PCM-based?

Exactly ! The Dixon article makes little sense ... it says that the only transfer method that they used that sounded like the original was DSD ... without any PCM!

My Sony analog conversions don't generally show much evidence of re-mastering / cleaning up / de-hissing etc ... if you listen with headphones, they tend to be just as hissy as the original. :) ... just the way I like it. I don't even notice any hiss through loudspeakers (have to use headphones to find it).

Post by Polarius T January 18, 2013 (10 of 11)
Hiss is a completely separate issue as Seth already said. Didn't you read any of the explanations Simon Gibson has written about how they go about doing their thing? There are numerous links to them on this site, including in threads you've yoruself bombarded with your scandalmongering posturings.

But, like Seth also said, it does not matter. You have your belief system and your listening pleasures are dictated by it -- belief, not facts, not what's actually there. So who cares even if God made a divine intervention and told you how things are; you'd claim he can't possibly know and there must be something dubious about it.

So, so much for that "debate." Case closed. And your golden ears have been outed as tin ones indeed.

If you don't take it from the guy who did them... Whatever, have your own world like Rammiepie has. But he at least is a bit more open about his belief system, doesn't pretend it's anything else, and doesn't take himself as seriously.

Can we now move on to the next article of insistent faith? Or the next great scandalous "discovery"?

Sorry, but I can only laugh at this point. :-)

Page: 1 2 next

Closed