add to wish list | library


5 of 10 recommend this,
would you recommend it?

yes | no

Support this site by purchasing from these vendors using the paid links below. As an Amazon Associate SA-CD.net earns from qualifying purchases.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Discussion: Schoenberg, Berg, Webern - Karajan

Posts: 64
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Post by LPG1964 April 27, 2010 (61 of 64)
Chris said:

I also agree with you regarding some of those early to mid 60s recordings by DGG.
They are not only musically sometimes still unrivalled.

IMHO they are also some of the most naturally balanced and realistic recordings made by that company.

Both the Brahms and Sibelius symphonies by Karajan and is Berliners are so good that I sometimes still listen to them on LP.

And yes if one were to go back to the orginal analogue masters and make DSD transfers from them,they would probably make SACDs of a similar quality as the 1962 Beethoven set.

I had high hopes that it would happen after that set but it didn´t.

Although much later,70s,and more multimiked the four Mahler symphonies and Das Lied von der Erde from Karajan would also be interesting to hear as DSD transfers from analogue masters IMO.

But it would not surprise me if Esoteric instead chooses to "remaster" the early digital ninth by Karajan just as they did with Kleiber´s Brahms fourth symphony.

One sometimes wonders why they really bother at all?

Hi Chris,

The ones that bothered have long been sacked by the new generation of managers who only care about quick profits by selling 200,000 copies or more of a Bartoli CD.

Their wonderful back catalogue is just there to be dumped for dimes. Quality is no consideration to them. They sincerely believe that quality does not sell, and in the short term they are right of course. In the long term they are already working somewhere else for an even higher salary. That is the sad truth, I’m afraid.

Maybe some rich guy could supply the money one day, to allow some skillful engineer to remaster those tapes. That is probably our only hope. I too would love to hear the Mahler, Sibelius and Debussy recordings of the 60s and 70s remastered in the same way that Beethoven set was done. At least we have got something left to dream of...

Post by DSD April 27, 2010 (62 of 64)
flyingdutchman said:

But then you should have been here when Teresa called Robert (from BIS) a liar and worse.

Wrong! I never once called Robert a liar, all I asked was that he return to DSD recording as his best SACDs were DSD recordings which the first three SACDs of the Grieg series proves beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Back in 2005 when he announced he was switching from DSD to PCM (24bit, 88.2kHz or 44.1kHz) I understood that to be 88.2kHz PCM for SACDs and 44.1kHz for CDs, I was wrong. The fact that a couple of his SACDs sounded better than 44.1kHz is a compliment.

Post by LPG1964 April 27, 2010 (63 of 64)
DSD said:

Wrong! I never once called Robert a liar, all I asked was that he return to DSD recording as his best SACDs were DSD recordings which the first three SACDs of the Grieg series proves beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Back in 2005 when he announced he was switching from DSD to PCM (24bit, 88.2kHz or 44.1kHz) I understood that to be 88.2kHz PCM for SACDs and 44.1kHz for CDs, I was wrong. The fact that a couple of his SACDs sounded better than 44.1kHz is a compliment.

I was already wondering whether a Teresa could be that rude… (My daughter is called Theresa). Certainly Robert von Bahr and the BIS label earn our respect for what they have achieved.

Last year I met Robert on a presentation of new releases. He is a real gentleman, music lover AND salesman. I asked him to stick with sacd, and he confirmed they would, although discussions were always there because of the higher production costs.

Jared was also there and he asked Robert to use DSD in the original masters. The reason for going back to PCM lies in the convenience of working in more than just a few channels and be able to mix afterwards to get an optimum balance. During setup and sessions there is always a lack of time because of the high costs for the venue and the orchestra’s. That was different in the old days. Nowadays everyone wants to be efficient because of these costs.

Using DSD requires you to have everything right before you start recording the first take. It is not advisable to try to repair things afterwards because of the problems with extra conversions. Jared takes this road. He makes sure everything is right and then records straight into pure DSD and remains there. Many engineers don’t have the guts to do this, because you miss the ability to repair afterwards in the mix. Robert hasn’t participated in recording sessions for many years now. He leaves that to his knowledgeable staff. That staff is reluctant to go the DSD route for these reasons.

However, even if one goes the PCM route, there is no excuse to work in 44.1 kHz anymore. There are several top quality AD converters that let you work in 176.4 kHz and the difference is clearly audible. In these times of huge hard discs the extra need for capacity is no problem anymore.

Bis uses Madi – a system for getting digital signals over long distances to the monitoring room, and all their equipment is suited for the higher sample rates, so they really have no argument to stick with 44.1 kHz, which is really an unnecessary cut off of valuable frequency information.

One last observation: Esoteric seems to go from PCM to analogue and then back to DSD. This is a strange method. It includes many unnecessary stages, like analogue cabling (but gives them an opportunity to brag about these). Nowadays there are excellent software or hardware methods to convert PCM straight into DSD or vice versa. The Swiss firm of Daniel Weiss is famous for their quality stuff. You can also control filtering etc. This is the modern and better approach, and it has eased the discussion about the use of DSD versus PCM somewhat.

Post by Chris April 28, 2010 (64 of 64)
LPG 1964 said:

However, even if one goes the PCM route, there is no excuse to work in 44.1 kHz anymore. There are several top quality AD converters that let you work in 176.4 kHz and the difference is clearly audible. In these times of huge hard discs the extra need for capacity is no problem anymore.

Bis uses Madi – a system for getting digital signals over long distances to the monitoring room, and all their equipment is suited for the higher sample rates, so they really have no argument to stick with 44.1 kHz, which is really an unnecessary cut off of valuable frequency information.

One last observation: Esoteric seems to go from PCM to analogue and then back to DSD. This is a strange method. It includes many unnecessary stages, like analogue cabling (but gives them an opportunity to brag about these). Nowadays there are excellent software or hardware methods to convert PCM straight into DSD or vice versa. The Swiss firm of Daniel Weiss is famous for their quality stuff. You can also control filtering etc. This is the modern and better approach, and it has eased the discussion about the use of DSD versus PCM somewhat.

Oh my,

more "inconvenient truths" delivered "Straight from the horse´s mouth".

This is getting interesting indeed.

Or maybe I should have said:

You have only posted here a handful of times ,therefore by definition,what you are saying carries no weight whatsover compared to those of us who have hundreds or even thousands of posts logged here.

Sorry if I am in a bit of a provocative mood this morning and can´t help being a bit sarcastic.

Anyway,I basically agree with you again,but from my own ,admittedly very limited experiences at sessions both DSD ones and PCM ones,

I would say that if you go all the way up to DXD ie 24/358.2 or whatever the decimal is , the argument between DSD or PCM basically vanishes into thin air IMHO.

According to some recording engineers I have talked to ,even possibly in favour of DXD over DSD?

But we are really talking of such minute differences here that very few "End Users" would have equipment capable of resolving any such differences anyway.



There are also many stunningly realistic recordings made with 24/96 or 24/176.4 or 24/192 PCM sampling rates.

Good examples of 24/96 done right are most of the 24/96 masterfile SACDs and as downloadable masterfiles from Chandos for example .



My only experience of 24/176.4 sampled material comes from Reference Recordings and they are some of the most natural and realistic recordings I know of.

For 24/192 sampled material I would recommend some of the titles by Acousence, for example the Wagner Ring excerpts recording highly praised here in its SACD incarnation.

For DXD I have already in several other posts sung my praise over what Morten Lindberg does at 2L.

Not to everyone´s taste here obviously, but if one knows what an orchestra sounds like live, sort of,from a conductor´s position, I can only repeat it can hardly get more real than this,apart from actually standing there,right among the playing musicians .

I should of course add that on the same level of realism recorded in pure DSD are most Channel Classics releases and also most of the early,pure DSD titles from BIS.



But at the end of the day for me it is really about recorded music capable of "lifting your soul!"

And that is why I still play a lot of those old 1960s LPs, for the sheer joy of music.


Let´s make it very clear :I am certainly NOT "some rich guy",but would you have any idea how much it would cost to license things from say DGG as Esoteric does?

My Karajan Wagner Ring LPs are getting a bit worn and a pure DSD transfer of Das Rheingold to name just one, would be super to have on SACD.

If one skipped the lowly and IMHO totally superfluos RBCD layer it would probably even fit on one SACD.

Now wouldn´t that be something to droll over?

ps Yes,the Weiss dacs are indeed good but "a wee bit pricey" IMO.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Closed