RWetmore said:

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

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/

DSD said:

I have asked Robert von Bahr to clear this up. I have three BIS SACDs from PCM masters: American Spectrum - Llewellyn, Grieg: Peer Gynt Suites - Ruud and Shilkret: Trombone Concerto etc. - Lindberg/Neschling And two of them DO NOT sound like low resolution to me, but as I stated before I like BIS' older DSD recordings much better.

However I feel the Grieg: Peer Gynt Suites - Ruud could be a low resolution PCM master as I was very disappointed in it's sound compared to the earlier DSD recorded Grieg: Norwegian Dances, Symphonic Dances, Lyric Suite - Ruud

DSD said:

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!

bissie said:

To the best of my knowledge I haven't received such a question. Where did you send it to? But I am happy to clear this up anyway.

I think Thore Brinkmann's mail says it all. It is an upfront mail telling honestly why we have taken the stance we have. We're using our knowledge of microphone placing and production values to enhance music, using the SACD possibilities to give an added sound experience in the process. I believe now, and I have always believed that expertise in WHERE and HOW to record, psychological insights in how to get the absolute best out of the artists ultimately are much more important for the end result than what system one is using. And his comment

"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."

is a crucial one, because it exemplifies the difference in attitude between those who listen for the music's sake and those who listen with only numbers in their minds. Yes, we could record in 88,2/96 or higher, but, doing that, we would miss out on other things that "are far more audible". With such choices we opt to go with the music every time.

In the end of the day, it is music that we are producing, not bits.

Best - Robert

bissie said:

To the best of my knowledge I haven't received such a question. Where did you send it to? But I am happy to clear this up anyway.

I think Thore Brinkmann's mail says it all. It is an upfront mail telling honestly why we have taken the stance we have. We're using our knowledge of microphone placing and production values to enhance music, using the SACD possibilities to give an added sound experience in the process. I believe now, and I have always believed that expertise in WHERE and HOW to record, psychological insights in how to get the absolute best out of the artists ultimately are much more important for the end result than what system one is using. And his comment

"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."

is a crucial one, because it exemplifies the difference in attitude between those who listen for the music's sake and those who listen with only numbers in their minds. Yes, we could record in 88,2/96 or higher, but, doing that, we would miss out on other things that "are far more audible". With such choices we opt to go with the music every time.

In the end of the day, it is music that we are producing, not bits.

Best - Robert

AELK said:

Please say us what type of PCM BIS is recording today ( 24/96, 24/192 DXD etc ) ?
Alan

flyingdutchman said:

What so your preconceptions won't be blown? You've probably listened to some BIS SACDs that were recorded at less and thought nothing of it. Stop worrying about the bit numbers for God sake.

AELK said:

What is the problem here ? This is a hiden secret ?
I want BISSIE say something about it, the real numbers, or if this is a confidential information for the public.
I wish know as I used with Telarc, Pentatone, Channel where this info is at the booklet or cover.

Mr. Wetmore was ausent of this site for long time. I have noticed that he appears here only when there is SACD releases of 2L Records.
Alan