|
|
|
rammiepie said:
I would be surprised if Decca didn't avail themselves of the newer Dolby True HD with 96k upsampling using Meridian's proprietary apodising filter.
Those seeking to compare the Esoteric SACDs with the newer BD~Audio version will have to realize that if your SACD player is better than HDMI out on the BD player it may not be much of a contest.
IMO, upgraded analogue outs on the better BD players (the Ayre DX~5, i.e.) might be a better contest.
1) Persons claiming acquisition of the new Decca Solti Ring set on another site say they have found it is 48k.
2) HDMI is not designed or intended to carry analogue signal, only digital. In comparing the Decca blu ray and Esoteric SACD versions, the digital-to-analogue conversion could be accomplished in the player itself or in an external DAC. The analogue electronics need not be contained in the BD player or SACD player.
3) Assuming the Decca remix is the same as that used by Esoteric for its Ring and is 24-bit resolution with a 48 khz sampling rate, as has been reported, then likely the Esoteric product would have somewhat superior sound. Whether the difference would be significant for most listeners is conjectural, but the price difference sure isn't.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox October 6, 2012 (142 of 329)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
3) Assuming the Decca remix is the same as that used by Esoteric for its Ring and is 24-bit resolution with a 48 khz sampling rate, as has been reported, then likely the Esoteric product would have somewhat superior sound. Whether the difference would be significant for most listeners is conjectural, but the price difference sure isn't.
Readers should bear in mind that the Esoteric offering is "sold out" so the offer price is somewhat academic
|
|
|
Post by seth October 6, 2012 (143 of 329)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
I read elsewhere that the notes for the set indicate that it WAS derived from the 1997 remastering and is 24/48, as you say, explaining that the master tapes have deteriorated to such an extent that another remastering would not be productive.
This is from the liner notes of the new box set:
"While working on a transfer for a Japanese company in 2009, Decca's technical producer Philip Siney, along with mastering engineer Ben Turner spent much time with the tapes, but sadly, though the masters had been preserved as best as possible the degradation had been significant, and it was deemed impossible to make superior audio transfers from them."
This confirms that the Esoteric release used the same digital master as the 1997 CD release, which the current Blu-ray also uses.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie October 7, 2012 (144 of 329)
|
|
OK, so hardly in the same league, AmazonUS has Wagner's The Ring Without Words, an 83 minute BR disc of Lorin Maazel conducting the Berliner Philharmonic recorded in 5.1 DTS Master Audio and PCM stereo for under $9.
Turn off the video (an actual concert) and enjoy the music sans picture.
Released by Euroarts in 2011 (the actual concert was recorded in 2001). The disc was pressed in Austria.
|
|
|
Post by Lute October 7, 2012 (145 of 329)
|
|
I love Esoteric's release of Solti's Ring cycle. They did a hell of a job!! I know it is not directly from the original master tapes. (Right???) But I am always interested in different versions. Years ago I had Maazel's Ring without Words. I am curious how the 5.1 version compares with the old redbook. And how the Blueray version of Solti's sounds??
|
|
|
Post by jlk155 October 7, 2012 (146 of 329)
|
|
|
Picking up on the current discussion of the Solti Ring (Esoteric SACD vs. Decca Blu-ray), while simultaneously returning to thread-starter Allen's question as to whether Blu-ray Audio has any potential, I found this tantalizing statement in a text presentation on the Ring Blu-ray (under Main Menu selection "How to use Decca Pure Audio"): "Decca Classics has always been committed to the future of audio. Decca Pure Audio Blu-ray is another pioneering step in audio presentation, allowing the classical music lover to experience the very best recordings by the world’s greatest artists in the highest possible audio quality."
Time will tell whether this is a “pioneering step” for Decca or a one-off release. As of this writing, there have been no announcements of further Decca Pure Audio Blu-rays. If more do materialize, let us hope that 24-bit/96kHz becomes the standard. I can confirm, as others have reported, that the Ring Blu-ray uses 24-bit/48kHz encoding. This tends to perpetuate the longstanding question of whether the 1997 transfer by James Lock was REALLY made at 24/96, or only at 24/48, as others have speculated. By 1998, Decca’s Lock remasters of the Strauss/Solti series were explicitly documented (in the CD booklets) as being “96kHz 24-bit transfers from analogue masters (via dCS converter)”. Or perhaps the use of 24/48 on the Ring Blu-ray is simply a matter of data limitations (would 14½ hours of 24/96 stereo fit on one disc?).
There’s also the Decca Originals release of Das Rheingold, whose cover (lower left corner) is explicit regarding the remastering. I'm not saying that information represents the final word on this matter (might be just careless use of the cover template for The Originals series), but it does tend to keep the plot thick!
|
|
|
Post by seth October 7, 2012 (147 of 329)
|
|
jlk155 said:
Time will tell whether this is a “pioneering step” for Decca or a one-off release. As of this writing, there have been no announcements of further Decca Pure Audio Blu-rays. If more do materialize, let us hope that 24-bit/96kHz becomes the standard. I can confirm, as others have reported, that the Ring Blu-ray uses 24-bit/48kHz encoding. This tends to perpetuate the longstanding question of whether the 1997 transfer by James Lock was REALLY made at 24/96, or only at 24/48, as others have speculated. By 1998, Decca’s Lock remasters of the Strauss/Solti series were explicitly documented (in the CD booklets) as being “96kHz 24-bit transfers from analogue masters (via dCS converter)”. Or perhaps the use of 24/48 on the Ring Blu-ray is simply a matter of data limitations (would 14½ hours of 24/96 stereo fit on one disc?).
There’s also the Decca Originals release of Das Rheingold (above), the cover of which is explicit regarding the remastering (rather small font, but it does indicate "96kHz - 24-bit REMASTERING" in the lower left corner).
A few points:
1. I think we'll see more of these releases in the future because it's yet another way for Universal to get us to rebuy these recordings. It could be a whole new revenue stream on the back catalogue.
2. A 60 minute 24/96 Flac file is about 1GB. A Blu-ray can hold up to 50GB of data. So there should have been no issues with file size/storage capacity.
3. In the 1990s Sony was doing its analog to digital conversions at 20-bit for the "Masterworks Heritage" series, and RCA was also going with 20-bit for "Living Stereo." I have releases from as late as 1999 in these two series that state this. DG listed no technical specs for its "The Original" series -- they just had very length copy about the glories of "Original-Image Big-Processing." The first time I can recall claims of 24/96 transfers being advertised were the Decca's "Legendary Performances" and "Philips 50" series that started around 1999/2000. And the transfers of catalogue releases for Sony's first SACDs were done at 24/88. So given that the switch to 24/96 came right at the very end of the century, it seems likely that a release from 1997, prepared in 1996, was done at only 24/48 -- or maybe it was really a 20-bit transfer like Sony and RCA were doing at the time.
4. I totally don't trust claims of 24/96 remastering unless the notes explicitly say that the analog tapes were transfered at that resolution. Labels play fast and loose with the word "remastering," sometimes using it when all they did was upsample an old digital master to 24/96 and doing some new EQ'ing at that resolution -- so technically they did "remaster" the recording at 24/96.
5. Despite all of the talk about sample rates, I'd argue that about 50% of the benefit of using Blu-ray audio for catalogue releases is eliminating the forced breaks between discs on operas, and saving us shelf space (instead of a 15 disc box set, we could get everything on a single disc). And while I'm not holding my breath on this, it could be an opportunity to get quad recordings in multi-channel sound.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie October 7, 2012 (148 of 329)
|
|
And Seth, you forgot to mention that although SACD and DVD~A were NOT supported "across the board" by the majors and indies, Blu-Ray is and points at a better chance to get more than we ever bargained for released in this format.
And the newer Dolby True HD with 96k oversampling with Meridian's apodising filter would be, IMO, a better choice than DTS Master Audio 5.1 to master these newer BD discs!
In the final analysis, it's not about the chosen format, but about getting the music (especially those old quad masters as you alluded to) in a hi~rez format in the hands of many at reasonable pricing.
And the increments in BD hardware SQ playback will only aid and abett this quest for sonic perfection.
|
|
|
Post by seth October 7, 2012 (149 of 329)
|
|
rammiepie said:
And Seth, you forgot to mention that although SACD and DVD~A were NOT supported "across the board" by the majors and indies, Blu-Ray is and points at a better chance to get more than we ever bargained for released in this format.
And the newer Dolby True HD with 96k oversampling with Meridian's apodising filter would be, IMO, a better choice than DTS Master Audio 5.1 to master these newer BD discs!
In the final analysis, it's not about the chosen format, but about getting the music (especially those old quad masters as you alluded to) in a hi~rez format in the hands of many at reasonable pricing.
And the increments in BD hardware SQ playback will only aid and abett this quest for sonic perfection.
Right.
While I would prefer that everything be DSD on SACD, if getting high-rez from the major labels means 24/96 (or some variation of that) on Blu-ray, I'll take it.
And I think one thing to be optimistic about, is that for the first time in a long time, Universal has acknowledged that CD quality resolution isn't the end-all in resolution.
All we can do now is wait to see what Universal does next.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie October 7, 2012 (150 of 329)
|
|
seth said:
Right.
While I would prefer that everything be DSD on SACD, if getting high-rez from the major labels means 24/96 (or some variation of that) on Blu-ray, I'll take it.
And I think one thing to be optimistic about, is that for the first time in a long time, Universal has acknowledged that CD quality resolution isn't the end-all in resolution.
All we can do now is wait to see what Universal does next.
I truly believe Universal was well aware of the RBCD's shortcomings back in the 80's when that perfect sound forever mularky was severely challenged by audiophiles the world over.
Their foray into DVD~A and SACD was NOT the panacea they imagined and with the advent of BD they now have a potent tool in which to "unload" their vast catalog (now including EMI) and the reason BD didn't garner the initial mass acceptance of DVD (video) is because of the severe challenge of downloadable movies and music posed by not only the internet but by the direct competition of cable providers who have come a long way since the advent of the DVD.
That they even clumped the RBCD "package" with the BD audio only disc with the Solti Ring was a last chance ditch of making some extra coin because just releasing the BD~A alone would have put less revenue in their greedy pockets.
|
|
