|
|
|
|
Looks like Esoteric are back to their usual nonsense.
The Gulda is a 1983 **Digital** recording ... not analogue ... from the very early era of digital recordings ... so the recording resolution would be CD resolution. Absolutely zero value in transferring this to SACD: all you can ever get out of it is CD resolution at best.
The blurb on the Esoteric marketing page for this item, namely:
********* "The criterion of re-mastering is to faithfully capture the quality of the original master tapes" ****** http://www.esoteric.jp/products/esoteric/essw90051/indexe.html
... is just misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
From a purely logical standpoint, Esoteric is not really lying on this instance when they say that "The criterion of re-mastering is to faithfully capture the quality of the original master tapes."
The marketing blurb for this specific item contains statements such as:
1. "These new audio versions feature DSD mastering of the original recordings"
2. The criterion of re-mastering is to ' capture the quality of the original master tapes' ... So which tapes are those here?
3. "All will be equally impressed by the “soul” hidden within the notes, but never before found in previously released recordings in any format" lol
In my view, together, these statements are misleading and a fabrication. This recording is a CD res 1983 early digital recording ... and putting it on SACD doesn't and cannot add anything, because the best one can ever get is 1983 CD resolution, if that.
> But it's another story altogether with their false claims over their analog reissues, which as you first brought to our attention, were actually derived from 96/24 digital transfers and not from analog masters.
Yes - but moreso the process of how they then get that to DSD. The DG / Universal re-releases of analog recordings are also from 24/96 transfers ... but then they go direct to DSD.
By contrast, the Esoteric process is:
* Original master is an analog tape ...
* Emil Berliner converts tape to 96/24 ... (same for DG / Universal releases)
* the 96/24 file is sent to Esoteric. Esoteric don't convert this direct to DSD format (for SACD) as their converter doesn't seem to do PCM to DSD conversions. So instead:
* Esoteric convert 96/24 PCM file back to analog audio.
* Then: Audio -> DSD
So aside from starting with the 96/24 transfer provided by someone else, they also have an extra and completely unnecessary D/A step in there.
The Esoteric process would make sense if they had access to the original tapes, because then they could go: Source Analog -> DSD in one clean step. But they don't ... and their advertising seems to allude that they do.
|
|
|
Post by Mongo May 18, 2011 (3 of 11)
|
|
canonical said:
In my view, together, these statements are misleading and a fabrication. This recording is a CD res 1983 early digital recording ... and putting it on SACD doesn't and cannot add anything, because the best one can ever get is 1983 CD resolution, if that.
Well, perhaps someone who has the rbcd release of this might acquire the Esoteric disc and can compare the two discs. You seem to think that the two would identical and indistinguishable. Can't really know until the above happens.
I suppose you wrote to Esoteric and called them a bunch of liars, in keeping with your above statement.
|
|
|
Post by Mongo May 18, 2011 (4 of 11)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
The two cannot be truly identical because Esoteric adds (unnecessary) D/A/D conversions to the process.
And as it's known to (apparently not all) members of this forum, Canonical indeed wrote to Esoteric, which in turn, wrote back acknowledging and apologizing for their misleading claims regarding past reissues.
Esoteric does what they think they need to do. Maybe you should write to Esoteric and tell them how to do it.
Yes, Canonical has written to Esoteric about other discs, as there seemed to be language translation issues, and perhaps are still there.
I don't understand the big issue about Esoteric using early digital recordings for their series of reissues. I don't think there is anything in the scarlet book of sacd standards about how a sacd release has to be originally recorded. Some here seem to have the idea that early digital recordings are automatically worse than anything that was recorded on pre digital analogue tape. As has been noted in other threads, there were issues with some early digital recordings, but not all.
I think the only issue is whether or not one wants to pay the premium price for the disc.
|
|
|
Post by DSD May 18, 2011 (5 of 11)
|
|
Mongo as Arnaldo stated if it is a Stereo master at 16 Bit 44.1kHz, CD has that covered so there is no justification for a SACD release unless it is in Multichannel. So far Esoteric has not released any multichannel SACDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surprisingly, a company like Esoteric should avoid all early digital recordings (save for the Soundstream variety) as they should realize by now that SACD collectors are purist snobs who want their very pricey discs done correctly.
I have NO Esoterics in my extensive hi~rez collection and have absolutely no qualms about it especially since I own very capable RBCD equipment and can probably purchase these RBCD discs from third party Amazon vendors for a song.
If owning 96/24 knockoffs from original analogue masters (where they exist) is a privilege, I'll eat my shorts!
Talk about cotton mouth!
|
|
|
Post by Mongo May 18, 2011 (7 of 11)
|
|
DSD said:
Mongo as Arnaldo stated if it is a Stereo master at 16 Bit 44.1kHz, CD has that covered so there is no justification for a SACD release unless it is in Multichannel. So far Esoteric has not released any multichannel SACDs.
Esoteric can do as they wish without any justification from you or anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Mongo May 18, 2011 (8 of 11)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
Your attempt to sound sarcastic seems misplaced. I see no need to contact Esoteric to "tell them how to do it." Instead, I simply no longer buy their reissues. If others feel otherwise, and want to pay the premium to do so, good for them.
Regardless, it wasn't a translation issue. It was truly misleading in that they were proudly claiming the use of original analog masters, while in truth they were - and are still - using 96/24 digital copies. As to original digital masters, releasing 44.1/16 recordings as SACDs is not going to make them sound any better, or worse. It's purely a marketing ploy.
In spite of all this, I'm still quite taken with Falla: The Three Cornered Hat - Ansermet.
Arnaldo,
No worries.
The whole thing is about whether one wants to put out the money for these reissues. The price has more to do with how they are distributed than anything else as the Japanese price is a rather normal Japanese price.
I've really liked the ones I have received and expect that I will get more, if some take my fancy, even if they are really only really nice sounding cd's.
|
|
|
Post by akiralx May 19, 2011 (9 of 11)
|
|
One thing is, this is an absolutely brilliant version of K488, one of my favourite Mozart records for many years.
|
|
|
|
|
