Post by Claude June 8, 2009 (51 of 134)
|
|
hiredfox said:
Possibly, Dan because you are a surround man rather than an out-an-out audiophile?
Is stereo more audiophile than surround?
|
|
|
Post by Gussy June 8, 2009 (52 of 134)
|
|
mahlerei said:
The whole DSD/PCM debate is a distraction. If a disc has the SACD logo on the tin that's all I need to know.
Couldn´t put it better myself!!!
|
|
|
Post by bissie June 8, 2009 (53 of 134)
|
|
zeus said:
The ensuing farce notwithstanding, there are some here who ARE interested and may not agree with Robert's findings and subsequent strategy. It didn't stop me adding two more BIS SA-CDs to my collection last week though, both satisfying purchases.
Dear zeus,
don't you think you're using a tad strong words here? "Farce"? I find myself being called a liar and a cheat, BIS is being vilified beyond all reasonable measurements. I do believe that I have a right (which I have used liberally) to explain the very musical reasons behind our standpoint (not strategy, please), but I also should have that right without it being called a farce.
I absolutely respect those who think differently and who think they can actually hear the differences and who think that the sound is much more important than the music, and they will stop buying BIS, which is fair.
For those, to whom MUSIC is the most important thing on an SACD, they will presumably at some point stop buying pure DSD-SACD:s, since inevitably the musical results are being negatively influenced by the non-existent possibilities to do any meaningful post-production within the DSD system, or then the artists play so safe so as not to make mistakes that the result becomes dull. We've been there, seen it, and drawn the consequences, because we asked the artists.
STILL NO DSD COLLEAGUE (WHO ARE READING THIS FORUM) HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION: HAVE THEIR ARTISTS BEEN EXPLAINED THE TECHNICAL FACTS ABOUT MISSING POST-PRODUCTION POSSIBILITIES AND HAVE THEY BEEN GIVEN A CHOICE???? (For REAL live recordings DSD is, of course, ideal)
And then we have those in between, who simply enjoy good engineering, good acoustics, and artists who produce to their absolute limits, and they'll enjoy what we and other musical companies do.
For those we still produce more SACD:s than basically anyone else on Earth.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
|
bissie said:
Dear zeus,
don't you think ...
Robert
Robert,
Let me give a positive spin to all this in an effort to cheer you up:
This endless (hopeless) discussion on DSD vs PCM is giving BIS and yourself so much air time that I am certain by now BIS has higher awareness than any other SACD label. I personally read that as very positive awareness because of the technical content of your explanations and the positive rationale you provide.
All this will necessarily translate into increased BIS SACD sales, and we will all hopefully continue to enjoy your work and records for years to come.
May now the discussion carry on? Cheers !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
bissie said:
Dear zeus,
don't you think you're using a tad strong words here? "Farce"? I find myself being called a liar and a cheat, BIS is being vilified beyond all reasonable measurements. I do believe that I have a right (which I have used liberally) to explain the very musical reasons behind our standpoint (not strategy, please), but I also should have that right without it being called a farce.
I absolutely respect those who think differently and who think they can actually hear the differences and who think that the sound is much more important than the music, and they will stop buying BIS, which is fair.
For those, to whom MUSIC is the most important thing on an SACD, they will presumably at some point stop buying pure DSD-SACD:s, since inevitably the musical results are being negatively influenced by the non-existent possibilities to do any meaningful post-production within the DSD system, or then the artists play so safe so as not to make mistakes that the result becomes dull. We've been there, seen it, and drawn the consequences, because we asked the artists.
STILL NO DSD COLLEAGUE (WHO ARE READING THIS FORUM) HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION: HAVE THEIR ARTISTS BEEN EXPLAINED THE TECHNICAL FACTS ABOUT MISSING POST-PRODUCTION POSSIBILITIES AND HAVE THEY BEEN GIVEN A CHOICE???? (For REAL live recordings DSD is, of course, ideal)
And then we have those in between, who simply enjoy good engineering, good acoustics, and artists who produce to their absolute limits, and they'll enjoy what we and other musical companies do.
For those we still produce more SACD:s than basically anyone else on Earth.
Robert
Hello All,
There's a middle ground to be found here!
We do LOTS of productions in DSD. Postproduction possibilites are somewhat more limited than with PCM, but the situation is constantly improving. It's now possible to do vastly more in post with DSD than it was a couple of years ago (I was editing and mixing 24 tracks of DSD today). Working in DSD takes more powerful hardware, the latest software, and sometimes more patience, but it certainly can be done. All the tools that you need are available in high quality, along with many you don't (mixing, dynamics processing, EQ, reverb, restoration plugins).
At the same time there are times where we're working with PCM -- always with hi-res (88.2 or 96k)if it's intended for SACD release. This is primarily in live situations, where we're providing live radio and/or TV mixes in addition to the recording, and where setup and breakdown times are often extremely limited. Working in PCM is vastly easier for live broadcasts (and more reliable -- all current DSD mixers are PC based), and post is easier. Most importantly hi-res PCM sounds great when the right equipment is used.
Lots of great SACD's are being produced from all sorts of source material (also wonderful analogue tapes!). Different labels, producers, and engineers will choose different methods, as they always have, to attain what they're looking for. Some put more emphasis on the purest possible recording chain, others on having the most creative possibilities in post. Personally I think that hi-res recording is worth the extra effort -- and I don't feel limited in any way by the technical restrictions imposed hi-res.
Everett Porter
Polyhymnia
|
|
|
Post by DSD June 8, 2009 (56 of 134)
|
|
mahlerei said:
The whole DSD/PCM debate is a distraction. If a disc has the SACD logo on the tin that's all I need to know.
No good enough for me though. SACD is just the first step, and I would like to know how it is recorded before I buy it, thus I do not lose the money selling it on AudiogoN because of it's sound quality.
Over the years I have sold over half of my SACDs purchased since adopting SACD again because of less than perfect sound quality including some that sounded "digital" in a bad way. Most of those sold have no information on them about whither DSD or PCM is the recording source. This is why we desperately need a SPARS-type code, so we don't lose so much money resaleing unacceptable SACDs. http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/sacd-format-needs-more-complex-spars.html
There is a real pattern that has developed over the last 10 years, DSD recorded SACDs sound the best by a long shot, except for a few known bad ones. Most of the SACDs I have sold as unacceptable sonically were either PCM or undisclosed. This tells me it is far safer financially to buy DSD recorded SACDs, as most of those STAY in my collection. Over 80% of my SACD collection is DSD, there can be no greater compliment to DSD and SACD than that.
Also even though editing it limited (a good thing as far as I am concerned), I recommend the entire recording industry move to DSD recording! And make more natural recordings where everything is done prior to recording and eliminate fixing it in the mix. Eliminate all those PCM tricks such as artificial reverb and compression. I was really hoping SACD and DSD would move the world back to honest recording where we at home can hear the artists as they really are. This is how Telarc and others record in DSD, and besides the sound quality, the mostly "hands-off" requirement is the other thing that insures DSD recordings are usually so fantastic IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by zeus June 8, 2009 (57 of 134)
|
|
bissie said:
don't you think you're using a tad strong words here? "Farce"? I find myself being called a liar and a cheat, BIS is being vilified beyond all reasonable measurements.
Not by me.
|
|
|
Post by zeus June 8, 2009 (58 of 134)
|
|
DSD said:
No good enough for me though. SACD is just the first step, and I would like to know how it is recorded before I buy it, thus I do not loose the money selling it on AudiogoN because of it's sound quality.
Teresa, I'd like to take this occasion to distance myself from your comments.
BTW, it's "lose" not "loose".
|
|
|
Post by DSD June 8, 2009 (59 of 134)
|
|
tommwi said:
One thing for Zeus to consider is to remove all site info regarding PCM/DSD source format ...
Please Zeus do not do this, we can no longer buy SACDs in person and sa-cd.net is the only honest source of this information.
With major compositions I have always looked for a DSD version first, resorting only to PCM when a work is not available as DSD recorded. sa-cd.net is a wonderful site for the audiophile SACD listeners, please do not compromise it for those who cannot hear the difference.
Thanks a bunch, Teresa
|
|
|
Post by bissie June 8, 2009 (60 of 134)
|
|
DSD said:
No good enough for me though. SACD is just the first step, and I would like to know how it is recorded before I buy it, thus I do not loose the money selling it on AudiogoN because of it's sound quality.
I have sold over half of my SACDs purchased in the last year because of less than perfect sound quality including some that sounded "digital" in a bad way. Most of those sold have no information on them about whither DSD or PCM is the recording source. This is why we desperately need a SPARS-type code, so we don't loose so much money resaleing unacceptable SACDs. http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/sacd-format-needs-more-complex-spars.html
There is a real pattern that has developed over the last 10 years, DSD recorded SACDs sound the best by a long shot, except for a few known bad ones. Most of the SACDs I have sold as unacceptable sonically were either PCM or undisclosed. This tells me it is far safer financially to buy DSD recorded SACDs, as most of those STAY in my collection. Over 80% of my SACD collection is DSD, there can be no greater compliment to DSD and SACD than that.
Also even though editing it limited (a good thing as far as I am concerned), I recommend the entire recording industry move to DSD recording! And make more natural recordings where everything is done prior to recording and eliminate fixing it in the mix. Eliminate all those PCM tricks such as artificial reverb and compression. I was really hoping SACD and DSD would move the world back to honest recording where we at home can hear the artists as they really are. This is how Telarc and other record in DSD, and besides the sound quality, the mostly "hands-off" requirement is the other thing that insures DSD recordings are usually so fantastic IMHO.
So, Teresa, are you now saying that you prefer pure DSD SACD:s? OK, then I understand.
Why didn't you say so earlier?
Robert
|
|
