Thread: A way to improve demand for SACD?

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

Post by flyingdutchman May 20, 2009 (21 of 90)
DSD said:

You missed the bigger implication I am saying RWetmore is not telling the truth about receiving a letter from Robert von Bahr of BIS. I do know that BIS now records PCM but it is high resolution PCM. Since you have trouble reading between the lines, I asked that troll RWetmore to post the email BECAUSE I KNOW IT DOES NOT EXIST. Robert von Bahr (under Bissie) is a poster here and I do not believe he would lie to us.

I have sold many SACDs because they sounded like they were from 48kHz PCM even when they did not state so! And 44.1kHz is even worse. My Golden ears are fine, none of my BIS SACDs are from 44.1kHz PCM.

You just have too little faith in Robert von Bahr, shame on you. FYI the only BIS SACDs I know of from 44.1kHz masters are all the ones in the Ultra Extended Playing Time 4 Hour 15 minute series and Robert was very forthcoming about those. I owned the Mendelssohn Concertos but sold them as ultimately they did not sound good enough for me.

I trust Randall more than I trust you. Randall doesn't stretch the truth--you do. Further, Randall has a lot more knowledge in this arena than you do. As for being a troll, you are perhaps the worst troll there is on audioasylum, here, and goodmusicguide.

Post by RWetmore May 20, 2009 (22 of 90)
Here is the email from BIS in response to my question "What PCM format do you use?":


"We record everything 44.1kHz 24 bit. Of course in post production we also use 32bit as a recording format when applying level changes.

About 5 years ago we decided to embrace the SACD as an Audio Format for mainly 3 reasons:
1. By far superior sound quality than CD no matter what High Resolution Format you choose.
2. the only existing (surviving) carrier for Surround Sound - this is really a huge benefit in our opinion
3. Hybrid disc allows backwards compatibility with ordinary CD Players. thus we produce only one carrier

In the beginning we had generous technical Support from SONY, who wanted to push the format. but the logistics did not work for the large number of SACD recordings we intended to do. And the machinery was far too complicated - especially when honoring the fact that we do all our chamber music recordings with only 1 person. Orchestras we usually record with a team of 2.

You could argue that recording in a higher sample rate would make sense. At least 88.2 kHz or 96, if not 352.8 like a few others do.
We did try to do that, but we had to discover a limiting factor in the necessary computer technology.

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.

Last but not least: The CD layer is still 44.1kHz, so no converting is needed here. Since many (if not most) of the listeners still play the CD layer rather than SACD, we believe that they will at least benefit a little from NOT CONVERTING the recording. While those who listen to SACD layer really receive an excellent product. Converting to DSD is different from converting from 96kHz to 44, many CD players have already 1bit converters, they use similar technology, but the amount of DATA recorded on a CD (16bit) is still the limiting factor.

I could have given you a Yes/No answer, but I hope you will understand, that there are a lot of factors behind such a decision. It is not so much the recording format that matters (we are talking on a high level), but rather how you take care to capture sound by placing the microphones in the best possible way and then how you handle the recorded material.

If you look at our catalogue, you will see how many SACDs we have managed to release. They are all carefully produced, edited and engineered. We do like to use our own equipment, so we have to ship it around the world. The advantage is, that knowing our tools well keeps our focus on the music and the sound. Handling too complicated or unknown equipment will absolutely distract from the really important things.

Thank you for your interest. Since your questions have been quite to the point I am actually curious about your own position on this and how this may have influenced your opinion.

Kind regards,

Thore Brinkmann"

*The email is dated 1/19/09

Post by RWetmore May 20, 2009 (23 of 90)
BTW, 44.1khz/24bit is technically high resolution because it's 24 bit and not 16 bit. To me though, true high resolution should be at least 88.2khz.

Post by canonical May 20, 2009 (24 of 90)
RWetmore said:

BTW, 44.1khz/24bit is technically high resolution because it's 24 bit and not 16 bit. To me though, true high resolution should be at least 88.2khz.

44.1 kHz is extremely lame ... to be frank.

It means your music will still sound quantised, even though you might get better dynamic range from the 24 bits. I recently complained here about a 'distorted grainy' sound from my BIS Handel concerti grossi set:

/showthread/34236//y?page=first

and my BIS Sudbin Rachmaninov SACD also sounds quantised and CD like (he plays well though).

Many of the earlier DG releases are 48 kHz / 24 bit, and they are very grainy. To DGs credit, they always state the details on the box.

Sooooooooooooooo, ....

I am not buying any more BIS recordings until they:

(i) move to at least 96 kHz (my defn of hi-rez)
(ii) print on the boxes what they are doing.

Roger and out/

Post by RWetmore May 20, 2009 (25 of 90)
DSD said:

You missed the bigger implication I am saying RWetmore is not telling the truth about receiving a letter from Robert von Bahr of BIS. I do know that BIS now records PCM but it is high resolution PCM. Since you have trouble reading between the lines, I asked that troll RWetmore to post the email BECAUSE I KNOW IT DOES NOT EXIST. Robert von Bahr (under Bissie) is a poster here and I do not believe he would lie to us.

I have sold many SACDs because they sounded like they were from 48kHz PCM even when they did not state so! And 44.1kHz is even worse. My Golden ears are fine, none of my BIS SACDs are from 44.1kHz PCM.

Apparently they are.

Post by flyingdutchman May 20, 2009 (26 of 90)
canonical said:

44.1 kHz is extremely lame ... to be frank.

It means your music will still sound quantised, even though you might get better dynamic range from the 24 bits. I recently complained here about a 'distorted grainy' sound from my BIS Handel concerti grossi set:

/showthread/34236//y?page=first

and my BIS Sudbin Rachmaninov SACD also sounds quantised and CD like (he plays well though).

Many of the earlier DG releases are 48 kHz / 24 bit, and they are very grainy. To DGs credit, they always state the details on the box.

Sooooooooooooooo, ....

I am not buying any more BIS recordings until they:

(i) move to at least 96 kHz (my defn of hi-rez)
(ii) print on the boxes what they are doing.

Roger and out/

You people are hilarious. Unless Randall pointed it out, you'd still probably think many of your BIS SACDs were 96 Mhz-based regardless of your claim that you've got one that "sounds quantised and cd-like." This only points out how ridiculous many people are who claim that they can "hear" the differences.

Post by canonical May 20, 2009 (27 of 90)
flyingdutchman said:

This only points out how ridiculous many people are who claim that they can "hear" the differences.

Not at all. Actually, quite the opposite.

I have 3 BIS SACDs ... I commented here on the graininess of the Handel BIS several weeks ago.

They ALL sound better than CDs ... they have more clarity and better dynamic range ... but I still find them grainy - and now we have a rational explanation for that.

Given the choice, if I have to spend my money on a disc, I'd rather buy something that is not grainy. Everyone knows that you need a hi-rez master to end up with a proper hi-rez SACD ...

--

So ... keeping to the subject of this thread ... my suggestion du jour:

1. Remove uncertainty: Make it compulsory for labels wishing to use the SACD logo to print the resolution of their master source on the box.
2. DSD logo should only have been allowed on DSD recordings ...

Post by audioholik May 20, 2009 (28 of 90)
canonical said:

1. Remove uncertainty: Make it compulsory for labels wishing to use the SACD logo to print the resolution of their master source on the box.
2. DSD logo should only have been allowed on DSD recordings ...

not a bad idea, although I doubt it would improve demand for SACD..

just look at CDs or DVD-A discs - no one is informing customers whether the particular CD or DVD-A was recorded with sigma delta pcm recorders or pcm recorder? probably 99% of people simply don't know what it is...

Post by flyingdutchman May 20, 2009 (29 of 90)
What in the hell is "grainy?"

Post by DSD May 20, 2009 (30 of 90)
flyingdutchman said:

I trust Randall more than I trust you. Randall doesn't stretch the truth--you do. Further, Randall has a lot more knowledge in this arena than you do. As for being a troll, you are perhaps the worst troll there is on audioasylum, here, and goodmusicguide.

Your post is bizarre in the extreme, let me give you the reasons.

1) RWetmore wants to turn SACD into 176.4kHz DVD-Audio without the menus. He evidently does not like DSD, I personally think this is a terrible idea and my best sounding SACDs are pure DSD ones from Telarc, Channel Classics and PentaTone.

2) RWetmore defends people who belittle and berate SACD, and attacks people who do not like CDs.

I have NEVER stretched the truth not even once, I give my complete and honest listening evaluations. I do not even bend the truth even to save face.

I think I have more knowledge about SACD and DSD than RWetmore as he doesn't seem to really like either one. One generally gains knowledge in what one is interested in. Also I do not value the audio opinion of anyone who prefers PCM over DSD as it does not match my experiences. For example BIS' early SACDs from DSD masters are their best sounding, Chandos newest recordings from DSD masters are their best sounding. And the DSD recordings from Telarc, Channel Classics and PentaTone make the finest sounding SACDs I've heard yet.

You have NO idea what a troll is and RWetmore clearly is one. I have NEVER been a troll anywhere I post, not in my long entire history on the Internet. Why are you lying about that? What are you trying to accomplish?

Troll (Internet)
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Now you know what a troll is, and it is not and never will be me!

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

Closed