Post by krisjan May 19, 2009 (201 of 221)
|
|
Jared,
I made note of the wide dynamic range of this recording in my review on this site. I like it just as it is - no compression. It sounds more like the real thing that way. I just don't understand people who complain about "low level" recordings - that's why we have a volume control. Perhaps they don't get out much to experience real music with its inherent dynamics. Their loss. Keep up the great work!
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir May 19, 2009 (202 of 221)
|
|
Level didn't seem like a problem to me--- Keep doing what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by bissie May 21, 2009 (203 of 221)
|
|
channel said:
I would like some feedback on the following:
At every recording session, we are always asking for the loudest passages to be played to be able to set the imput levels of the microphones. Since the 4th only has two such passages we were quickly ready to record.
When it came time to make the masters, I had to decide about the overall level. Because of these two passages (with the loudest being near the end of the third movement) the overall level is such that you will have to turn up your volume at home more than other cd's you might have. I did of course have the choice to raise the general level and lower just these two passages but this would have meant going through the sigma delta converter which is what I did not want to do if one wants to keep the signal path as clean as possible.Plus the benefit of SACD is the large dynamic range. It would have defeated its purpose. Hence the lower overall level.
Of course PCM recordings have a good deal of outboard gear to process through compressors /limiters (which is always being done) especially to make the a recording like Mahler 4th more accessible to the listener (especially when listening in the car!)
I have had one reviewer who loves the Mahler but made a negative point about the low signal level. From all the wonderful reviews coming in, this is only minor point received but I would still like to know your thoughts. Did you notice this at all. Do you consider this a problem when having to raise the level on your amplifier (which might raise the noise level of your system?)
thanks for the feedback
jared
Dear Jared,
no, absolutely no problem. But I am slightly shocked that you even *think* about changing the dynamic level that your musicians produce and the score demands. Please don't ever do that.
Best - Robert
|
|
|
|
|
|
I listened to the disc 5 times ever since and didn't notice any level problem at all (I just turn up my volume). The disc is wonderfully recorded and have a huge dynamics. Please don't even consider using compression at all.
|
|
|
Post by Chris May 22, 2009 (205 of 221)
|
|
channel said:
I would like some feedback on the following:
At every recording session, we are always asking for the loudest passages to be played to be able to set the imput levels of the microphones. Since the 4th only has two such passages we were quickly ready to record.
When it came time to make the masters, I had to decide about the overall level. Because of these two passages (with the loudest being near the end of the third movement) the overall level is such that you will have to turn up your volume at home more than other cd's you might have. I did of course have the choice to raise the general level and lower just these two passages but this would have meant going through the sigma delta converter which is what I did not want to do if one wants to keep the signal path as clean as possible.Plus the benefit of SACD is the large dynamic range. It would have defeated its purpose. Hence the lower overall level.
Of course PCM recordings have a good deal of outboard gear to process through compressors /limiters (which is always being done) especially to make the a recording like Mahler 4th more accessible to the listener (especially when listening in the car!)
I have had one reviewer who loves the Mahler but made a negative point about the low signal level. From all the wonderful reviews coming in, this is only minor point received but I would still like to know your thoughts. Did you notice this at all. Do you consider this a problem when having to raise the level on your amplifier (which might raise the noise level of your system?)
thanks for the feedback
jared
Those who complain about low levels don´t really know what the realistic real dynamic range of a symphony orchestra sounds like in the first place or they have inferior equipment that can´t cope with a realistic dynamic range.
Ignore them if you really care about what the hi rez format SACD is capable of!
And maybe you could have a word or two about the benefits of actually staying in the DSD domain with Bissie who also chimed in on this topic.
Although he has unfortunately abandoned DSD and even true hi-rez PCM I have always admired the realistic dynamic range of BIS´s recordings.
All the best Chris
ps Mahler´s fourth is on my shopping list
|
|
|
Post by channel May 22, 2009 (206 of 221)
|
|
Chris said:
Those who complain about low levels don´t really know what the realistic real dynamic range of a symphony orchestra sounds like in the first place or they have inferior equipment that can´t cope with a realistic dynamic range.
Ignore them if you really care about what the hi rez format SACD is capable of!
And maybe you could have a word or two about the benefits of actually staying in the DSD domain with Bissie who also chimed in on this topic.
Although he has unfortunately abandoned DSD and even true hi-rez PCM I have always admired the realistic dynamic range of BIS´s recordings.
All the best Chris
ps Mahler´s fourth is on my shopping list
Dear Chris,
It is really not my business to lecture others of which recording medium to use. I can fully understand the barriers for Robert if he is dealing with all his sets plus being compatible with their system back home. Not to forget all the postproduction capabilities which DSD just does not have. Maybe if the SACD was selling to a larger market, he might have invested in the equipment but now is certainly not the time.
My only comment to many labels who approach me is that at least record and store the data at the highest possible denominator not knowing what the future will bring by way of format to the consumer. Downsampling is always a better selling point than upsampling!
Bis makes great recordings and everyone on this forum always seems to agree so indeed the music comes first and you accept the lower sampling rate for what it is. then whether you or Bis can hear the difference in a blind listening test is not an issue.
|
|
|
Post by bissie May 22, 2009 (207 of 221)
|
|
channel said:
Dear Chris,
It is really not my business to lecture others of which recording medium to use. I can fully understand the barriers for Robert if he is dealing with all his sets plus being compatible with their system back home. Not to forget all the postproduction capabilities which DSD just does not have. Maybe if the SACD was selling to a larger market, he might have invested in the equipment but now is certainly not the time.
My only comment to many labels who approach me is that at least record and store the data at the highest possible denominator not knowing what the future will bring by way of format to the consumer. Downsampling is always a better selling point than upsampling!
Bis makes great recordings and everyone on this forum always seems to agree so indeed the music comes first and you accept the lower sampling rate for what it is. then whether you or Bis can hear the difference in a blind listening test is not an issue.
Thank you, Jared, thank you. Spoken by a true music lover!
Robert
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir May 22, 2009 (208 of 221)
|
|
It's great to have both Robert and Jared involved in this forum-- it allows us to get a perspective of their side of the music business, and at the same time, appreciate how lucky we are to have the recordings they make.
When I started this thread I said I didn't want to seem like the world's biggest fanboy, but I listened to Fischer's Mahler 4 again yesterday afternoon after a few weeks--and was transfixed. The dynamic range, the clarity, everything about the recording quality is superb. But that doesn't mean a thing without the amazing performance of Ivan Fischer and his band. This one SACD reflects the esscence of why I've been a music lover and a sound freak for all these years.
|
|
|
Post by Chris May 23, 2009 (209 of 221)
|
|
channel said:
Dear Chris,
It is really not my business to lecture others of which recording medium to use. I can fully understand the barriers for Robert if he is dealing with all his sets plus being compatible with their system back home. Not to forget all the postproduction capabilities which DSD just does not have. Maybe if the SACD was selling to a larger market, he might have invested in the equipment but now is certainly not the time.
My only comment to many labels who approach me is that at least record and store the data at the highest possible denominator not knowing what the future will bring by way of format to the consumer. Downsampling is always a better selling point than upsampling!
Bis makes great recordings and everyone on this forum always seems to agree so indeed the music comes first and you accept the lower sampling rate for what it is. then whether you or Bis can hear the difference in a blind listening test is not an issue.
Dear Robert,
There have been times in the past when I wished I had been "in your shoes"
But this is not.
I have enjoyed many, but not all of your SACD releases, both musically and as recordings , but I find it quite disturbing that you did take that retrograde step you obviously did, for economic reasons, when you abandoned true hi-rez recording formats DSD or at least 24/88,2 or higher PCM .
Here is is another take from the true music-lover Jared Sacks as quoted from Stereophile
Jared Sacks in a Stereophile interview "I'm very much dedicated to SACD," the American-born Sacks told me by phone during a recent visit to the US. "There's nothing better in terms of downward compatibility [than a format] that will play stereo, multichannel, and hi-rez."
All Channel Classics SACDs are recorded and edited in DSD. Sacks scoffs at big companies that record in PCM, upsample for SACD, and claim that people can't hear the difference between those and native DSD recordings. "It's easy to upsample high-resolution PCM to DSD," he said, "and easier for some to do postproduction, but it's not the same quality."
”Asked about specific labels, he noted that the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra records its SACDs in PCM, and that Hyperion has not only abandoned SACD, but has ignored his protests and stopped recording in DSD.”
And in his response to my post above he actually said …
”My only comment to many labels who approach me is that at least record and store the data at the highest possible denominator…”
You are obviously NOT doing that for economic reasons!
These quotes speak volumes to me at least and I think you are in the long run ”shooting yourself in the foot” by compromising the way you do now.
Is BIS´s financial situation really so bad that you have to compromise?
I am also a true music-lover, who not only trusts his ears and prefers live concerts, (I´m even thinking of moving to Prague for that very reason) and I do hear a clear difference between your DSD SACDs from Bergen and the later PCM recording of Peer Gynt .
There is no doubt on my home equipment that the earlier DSD recordings are clearer ,more realistic ,and have a higher resolution than the PCM one.
I use the word resolution because to me as a photographer the difference is similar to the difference between a lower rez digital camera and professional high rez one or the difference between a good pro lens and a cheaper one.
Just listen to the massed string sound and timbre of individual instruments.
Or listen to how realistic individual instrument decay and the acoustic are on the DSD recordings.
Like SONY said in their original ads for SACD ”THE AIR IS BACK AGAIN”
It is really quite obvious if you know what to listen for.
I came to SACD for those very reasons and when I buy an SACD I expect to get the very best that the format is capable of .
I sometimes compromise too when listening to recorded classical music.
I have several music DVDs ,Karajan conducting Bruckner and Bernstein ´s Mahler to mention a couple.
But although I certainly wish that they sounded better,much better than they do, my expectations from that format are nowhere near what they are from SACD.
Maybe Blueray will solve the DVD sound quality problem in the near future, but SACD is already here.
Then why not make the most of it?
With all due respect for the current economic problems and still hoping to see many more excellent TRUE hi-rez recordings not only SACDs but also as hi-rez downloads directly from BIS in the future.
Why cross the ocean?
We can´t even download anything from HD tracks from Europe!
You have some of the most interesting young artists on BIS please do them full, future proof, justice all the way through the recording chain by using true State of The Art recording equipment and I´m sure you will have both my and many other true music-lovers´ support also in the future.
All the best Chris
ps Why not release some of your old treasures from the analogue age on longplaying SACDs ?
I´m sure there would be a market for those.
ps 2 This was meant as as response to Bissie I tagged it wrongly sorry.
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir June 5, 2009 (210 of 221)
|
|
Check out this list from Alex Ross in the New Yorker...
http://www.therestisnoise.com/2009/06/a-mahler-list.html
I'm no fan of Rattle, and I do like the Fischer 6 a bit more than Boulez, but I've got to agree about the Horenstein 3 and 8, and the Scherchen 7 as an alternative---Although I love the Gergiev 7. Interesting list.
But he's certainly not alone in proclaiming the Fischer 4 a new classic.
Or as this fanboy says, "Me too!"
|
|
