Post by Peter July 25, 2006 (21 of 42)
|
|
crac said:
I will continue to investigate the options, but at the moment I think the high res format that offers the best manufacturing costs for us and the largest base of installed players would be 24/96 PCM DVD-V.
This is good enough news for me if SACD isn't on the cards. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by raffells July 25, 2006 (22 of 42)
|
|
Peter said:
This is good enough news for me if SACD isn't on the cards. Good luck!
As Ive said.It is more than good enough for me as well..I am pretty suprised at comment made that certain people within the industry who cannot releaibly identify the difference between 16/44.1 or CD sound (which is different) and higher rez.Its dependant on so many factors.
Albeit the difference is small by comparison.The number of tests that have been carried out over many years make me a little concerned for the hearing of those within the industry...I should add that I personally am glad that the objective is to issue higher rez sound for those who appreciate it rather than issue something in surround...THE VAST MAJORITY OF LISTENERS ARE STEREO ONLY,
NEXT QUESTION IS..HOW MANY sacd Players wont be able to play the Lyrita DVD dads ? Not many...
Really looking forward to so many of these..If you start with the Malc Arnold Dances I should imagine the sales of that "Greatest classical Recording ever" will subsidize many many others....Dave
|
|
|
Post by wehecht July 25, 2006 (23 of 42)
|
|
crac said:
Original artwork - not sure as yet. The 37 titles already made available as CDs will have the same design. Material previously released only on LP is a different matter - sometimes LP designs transfer well to CDs, but often they don't. I would imagine we would try to do something the is in keeping with how they have previously been released.
Sir Adrain Boult's recording of the Moeran Symphony - the digital transfers for this have already been done, so it should be one of the earlier releases, but I don't have dates yet.
Eric Coates - this disc is I think already a CD master and ready to go - should also be one of the earlier ones.
Ireland - plenty of this in the catalogue ...
There will be no surround processing of any of these recordings - they are stereo (or in a few cases mono) and will be issued that way.
I hope that covers most of the questions raised ...
Cheers,
Crac
Dear crac,
May I put in a good word for the orchestral music of Elizabeth Maconchy that comprised all of one LP and part of another? Thanks.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by bissie July 26, 2006 (24 of 42)
|
|
raffells said:
As Ive said.It is more than good enough for me as well..I am pretty suprised at comment made that certain people within the industry who cannot releaibly identify the difference between 16/44.1 or CD sound (which is different) and higher rez.Its dependant on so many factors.
Albeit the difference is small by comparison.The number of tests that have been carried out over many years make me a little concerned for the hearing of those within the industry...I should add that I personally am glad that the objective is to issue higher rez sound for those who appreciate it rather than issue something in surround...THE VAST MAJORITY OF LISTENERS ARE STEREO ONLY,
Since I was the one to raise that subject and Mr. Downes then concurred, and we both most definitely are "within the industry", may I correct "raffells's" statement quoted?
Yes, we can hear the difference between CD sound and high-resolution sound. But if raffells should bother to read what we did write rather than extemporate himself he would find that we wrote that we really cannot reliably hear the difference between high-resolution PCM and DSD and that is something totally different. Then I have maintained that some other factors, like the hall, the skill in placing microphones and having the correct psychological approach to the Artist, are much more important than gadgetry, but that's beside the point here.
Don't worry, raffells, we do have ears and eyes, and we use both of them.
Robert
|
|
|
Post by raffells July 26, 2006 (25 of 42)
|
|
bissie said:
Since I was the one to raise that subject and Mr. Downes then concurred, and we both most definitely are "within the industry", may I correct "raffells's" statement quoted?
Yes, we can hear the difference between CD sound and high-resolution sound. But if raffells should bother to read what we did write rather than expemporate himself he would find that we wrote that we really cannot reliably hear the difference between high-resolution PCM and DSD and that is something totally different. Then I have maintained that some other factors, like the hall, the skill in placing microphones and having the correct psychological approach to the Artist, are much more important than gadgetry, but that's beside the point here.
Don't worry, raffells, we do have ears and eyes, and we use both of them.
Robert
I stand corrected/ Both on my spelling and in your case,Your statement re Reliable identification of Hirez PCM/DSD.
Please note that the subject has come up numerous times in various threads and forums/hifi magazines etc.Too many other firms or recording engineers/reviewers have stated that "general" comment.My comment was more a response to general.Having listened to many sacd/Dvda and looking at the comments made in reviews It is clearly sometimes difficult to identify a finished product sacd sonic source.
I also have stated that I prefer 24/196 PCM as I have used it myself in recording compared to sacd/dsd.This is based on my own limited experience albeit spread over many years.24/192 only a few.However some of the older technology even currently used within the recording industry has age related limitations especialy when it comes to power regulation speeds..
It is excellent to see though that you "bissie (robert)" are interested in reading threads not directly associated with your own Direct thread.This I believe is way ahead of the general insider attitude and should be higher commended.
Obviously the other factors involved in recording are all important but I cannot accept the comment that improved recording technology is gadgetry...Dave
|
|
|
Post by Peter July 26, 2006 (26 of 42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by crac July 26, 2006 (27 of 42)
|
|
Peter said:
There will be a website at http://www.lyrita.co.uk/. So far it has a front page.
We are in the process of getting the initial site content approved. I hope it will be ready by the start of next week. It has the initial batch of releases plus some teasers about future relase plans.
Cheers,
Crac
|
|
|
Post by crac July 26, 2006 (28 of 42)
|
|
raffells said:
... I should add that I personally am glad that the objective is to issue higher rez sound for those who appreciate it rather than issue something in surround ... THE VAST MAJORITY OF LISTENERS ARE STEREO ONLY
...
Really looking forward to so many of these .. If you start with the Malc Arnold Dances I should imagine the sales of that "Greatest classical Recording ever" will subsidize many many others .... Dave
Whilst we (Nimbus Records) have been possibly (ducking for cover, just in case) the most dedicated supporters of surround sound recording around, having been doing it since the early 1970s, there would be absolutely no point in applying some kind of surround processing to a stereo recording for which there exists only a two channel master, and I don't think we would ever consider it. (Feel free to take a pop about Prima Voce if you feel the urge, but I think I can justify that, if required ...)
The Malcolm Arnold Dances disc is one of the initial batch that will be available immediately on CD - the catalogue number is SRCD.201. High res plans for this release, as for the rest of the catalogue, are still in the early stages, so I can't make any promises about when it may be available in any other format.
I hope that helps,
Crac
|
|
|
Post by crac July 26, 2006 (29 of 42)
|
|
raffells said:
...
Obviously the other factors involved in recording are all important but I cannot accept the comment that improved recording technology is gadgetry ... Dave
Perhaps the point is that 'improved recording technology' is not neccesary to make a fantastic recording, whereas skilled performers and sensitive producers and engineers are.
After all, the Malcolm Arnold Dances, to quote your quote, the "Greatest Classical Recording Ever", was (partly) recorded using analogue equipment over 25 years ago. Do you think it would be a 'better' recording in any important way if it were done now, with current recording technology?
Perhaps the difference is that it is now (technically) easier to make a good recording - digital equipment is much easier to use than analogue, after all - with the result that we now have many recording 'engineers' (including myself, actually) who are nothing like as technically skilled as their analogue predecessors. And perhaps this isn't an entirely good thing ...
|
|
|
Post by bissie July 26, 2006 (30 of 42)
|
|
raffells said:
I stand corrected/......
Obviously the other factors involved in recording are all important but I cannot accept the comment that improved recording technology is gadgetry...Dave
No, on consideration I would have to agree. I am just so sick and tired of people (also including distributors and reviewers) revieweing/critisizing recordings based upon the equipment used rather than the sonic results. I don't care two hoots how a result has been achieved, as long as it sounds natural and is a true mirror of what actually happened.
Robert
|
|
