Post by hiredfox November 28, 2011 (1 of 51)
|
|
Things are most definitely on the up, 96kHz and a truly adorable Firebird cover design... .
Never mind the Super Jewel Box let's get our hands on this disc for Christmas
|
|
|
Post by current93 November 28, 2011 (2 of 51)
|
|
Obligatory purchase for me, this. And the cover...just fabulous. When will it hit the "virtual" shelves?
|
|
|
Post by bissie November 30, 2011 (3 of 51)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
I'm a bit skeptical of the 96 kHz provenance here. Although the high 1874 catalog number would place this within BIS' new high-rez batch, Robert indicated that large orchestral projects were still being recorded in 44.1 kHz until recently. I'd like to be proven wrong though.
And I'd like to prove you wrong, but, alas, I cannot.
It is a great-sounding 24/44,1.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
|
bissie said:
And I'd like to prove you wrong, but, alas, I cannot.
It is a great-sounding 24/44,1.
Robert
And what's the reason for that again?
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa November 30, 2011 (5 of 51)
|
|
Good venue, good orchestra, good conductor, good miking, good converters, good editing.... Those are the reasons for a great BIS sound.
=:-)
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox November 30, 2011 (6 of 51)
|
|
bissie said:
And I'd like to prove you wrong, but, alas, I cannot.
It is a great-sounding 24/44,1.
Robert
Yet, the new Sibelius is...
Guess we're kinda struggling with this uncertainty...
|
|
|
Post by zeus November 30, 2011 (7 of 51)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
And what's the reason for that again?
Might I remind you (and others) that this is a review-based site. If you get a copy of the disc, listen to it and don't like what you hear you're free to say so in a review. Attacking Robert because some numbers don't fit with some preconceived and simplistic notion of recording practice isn't on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zeus said:
Might I remind you (and others) that this is a review-based site. If you get a copy of the disc, listen to it and don't like what you hear you're free to say so in a review. Attacking Robert because some numbers don't fit with some preconceived and simplistic notion of recording practice isn't on.
Oh, c'mon. That is hardly an attack. I didn't attack Robert at all. I just wanted to know his reasoning for it. You want to go blame someone for attacking Robert look somewhere else. I,for one, would probably buy this and other discs anyway and have been one of Robert's biggest supporters through all this crap the DSD or 24/96 at least crowd here have been on all these years. We all know, however, that Robert had now gone to 24/96 (or at least so I thought).
Good God. Get off your horse.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox November 30, 2011 (9 of 51)
|
|
zeus said:
Might I remind you (and others) that this is a review-based site. If you get a copy of the disc, listen to it and don't like what you hear you're free to say so in a review. Attacking Robert because some numbers don't fit with some preconceived and simplistic notion of recording practice isn't on.
????
|
|
|
Post by bissie November 30, 2011 (10 of 51)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
And what's the reason for that again?
That the recording was made before we got the technique to change resolution.
I thought that would be evident.
However, we at BIS stand by the sound as is and are proud of it, as well as the music-making.
Robert
|
|
