SACD Lives

SACD Informative from DAISy

2011-12-22T20:01:00.000-08:00

DAISy stands for Digital Audio Industrial Supply. They have been supplying state of the art optical laser modules, high-quality loading systems and display devices for audio and audio-video applications for 15 years. They are a leading supplier of OEM audio-video products in the high-end market.

Their site explains why SACD was invented, gives SACD original specifications and how it all works in easy to understand language.

Super Audio CD Introduction

SACD original specifications

Hybrid disc structure

Direct Stream Digital (DSD)

Super Bit Mapping Direct Conversion

Direct Stream Transfer (DST)

Sector format, error correction and channel modulation

Data organisation

Digital Watermarking

So when internet yahoos try to distort, pervert or outright lie about DSD or SACD send them to DAISy, makers of the parts for SACD players to get the straight answers. Great reading for us loyal fans also.

Star Trek: Nemesis SACD Special Edition

2011-07-06T19:11:00.000-07:00

Goldsmith: Star Trek Nemesis - Original Motion Picture Soundtrack

Jerry Goldsmith, Hollywood Studio Symphony

Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid DSD

Varèse Sarabande 302 066 430 2

This is an older SACD release but it is so unique I though I should do a short write up rather than a formal review. I have owned this since it was released in 2002 and it is an excellent sounding DSD recorded SACD of great Star Trek music.

From the liner notes:

"The Star Trek film franchise has produced two soundtrack recordings that carry a very special historical significance. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) was Jerry Goldsmith's first score in the Star Trek series and was the very first digital recording of a motion picture music score. Twenty-three years later, at Paramount Pictures Music Scoring Stage M in August and September of 2002, Star Trek Nemesis—the tenth in the series and Jerry Goldsmith's fifth—became the first motion picture music score to be recorded directly to DSD (Direct Stream Digital) and subsequently released on SACD Hybrid 5.1 / Stereo and PCM. The mixes on this recording are live, with no remixes and only editing done between takes to perfect the performance.

DSD recording technology captures the live performance with a greater depth, frequency response and dynamic range than has ever before been possible. Jerry Goldsmith's score for Star Trek Nemesis, with its striking mix of electronics and an extraordinary dynamic 96-piece orchestra, offered the ideal opportunity to marry great music with this new technology. This disc preserves a unique and historic event and represents a dramatic evolution in recorded sound." — Bruce Botnick

One of my favorite SACDs and still in-print but for how much longer? Varèse Sarabande released three SACDs in 2002 and nothing since then, so my feeling is once supplies run out this will go out of print. If you are interested I would get this one as soon as possible as I think the price will go through the roof when it is out of print.

New Poll

2011-06-14T18:34:00.000-07:00

Overall I prefer SACD to any analog format, however one of the goals of SACD was to convert the "analog" holdouts (of which I was one) who rejected the cold, analytical, uncomfortable sound of CD with a digital format (SACD) that had the warmth and comfort level of the best analog. Sonically I believe Sony has succeeded, it could be most other analog-lovers have either not given SACD a chance or have never heard of the format.

From Sony’s first brochure "Super Audio Compact Disc, Eliciting the full Performance of Music"

"Super Audio Compact Disc is the realization of an audiophile’s dream come true: all the precision of digital reproduction combined with all the warmth and ambiance of analog sound. The secret is Direct Stream Digital™ encoding. Its one bit, 2.8224 MHz (64 fs ) sampling produces nothing less than a quantum leap in music resolution."

Here is the Poll Question (which is located on the right)

Do you believe Sony's claim that SACD offers all the precision of digital reproduction combined with all the warmth and ambiance of analog sound?

The most realistic recordings on Planet Earth

2011-04-10T00:10:00.000-07:00

"The Telarc team produced the best sounding recordings from a major label since the Golden Age of Mercury and RCA some 40 years ago."
Harry Pearson, The Absolute Sound

Telarc DSD recorded SACDs offered the maximum sonic realization of the SACD format with excellent to definitive performances, they will be missed greatly.

I WANT NEW TELARC SACDs AND I WANT THEM NOW!

2011-04-05T15:12:00.000-07:00

Concord Music Group why did you buy Telarc and Heads-Up and then quit their SACD release programs? I cannot think of anything more cruel (at least in the music world) than giving us MOST REALISTIC RECORDINGS ON PLANET EARTH and then taking them away. Shame, shame, shame Concord Music Group.

It has been over two years since the last Telarc SACD was released. I have not yet to found a recording company whose SACDs are as realistic, especially to Telarc's stateside USA recording teams. Polyhymnia who recorded most of Telarc's European recordings comes close. I have PentaTone SACDs also recorded by Polyhymnia that offer excellent sonic realism. Also some of the better Reference Recordings, Channel Classics, Chandos and a handful of Exton's. But nothing equals the absolute concert hall realism achieved on Telarc SACDs? Getting almost there is still a let down after getting near concert hall realism in my home from Telarc SACDs. And not just in Classical Music, Telarc is the absolute best at recording Jazz, Blues and Folk music.

Concord Music Group please resume your SACD program!

Here is a list of new Telarc recordings NOT released on SACD because of Concord Music Group's decision to abandon SACD. The engineers are still recording in PURE DSD, in multichannel and stereo yet there are only on CD and MP3! What a crime!

Troubadour Live by Eric Bibb
An Evening With by Dave Grusin
Medicine by Tab Benoit
Spanish Music for Classical Guitar by Albeniz - David Russell
That's How We Roll by Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band
Brahms Works For Cello and Piano by Zuill Bailey and Awadagin
Hiromi: Solo Live at Blue Note New York
Pursuit of Radical Rhapsody by Al Di Meola
The Definitive Dave Brubeck on Fantasy, Concord Jazz and Telarc by Dave Brubeck
The Singing Rooms by Jennifer Higdon, Alvin Singleton, Alexander Scriabin, Robert Spano and Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and Chorus
Have You Ever Been...? by Turtle Island Quartet
Great Strauss Scenes by Christine Brewer, Richard Strauss, Donald Runnicles and Atlanta Symphony Orchestrav
Pushing the Envelope by Gerald Albright
Joined at the Hip by Pinetop Perkins and Willie "Big Eyes" Smith
Cameron Live! by Cameron Carpenter
In Hi-Fi Stereo by Mindi Abair
Clovis People, Vol. 3 by Otis Taylor
Groove Alchemy by Stanton Moore
Interchange: Concertos by Joaquin Rodrigo, Sergio Assad, David Amado, Delaware Symphony Orchestra and Los Angeles Guitar Quartet
Sonidos Latinos by David Russell
Flood by Moreland & Arbuckle
Rockin in Rhythm: A Tribute to Duke Ellington by John Pizzarelli
Bach Cello Suites by Zuill Bailey
Mozart Arias For Male Soprano by Michael Maniaci, Boston Baroque and Pearlman
Booker's Guitar by Eric Bibb
Place to Be by Hiromi
Holst: The Planets; Britten: The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra by Benjamin Britten, Gustav Holst, Paavo Järvi and Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra
Blu.Black by Corey Harris
Never Far Away: Music of Bright Sheng by Bright Sheng, Jahja Ling and San Diego Symphony Orchestra
From the Top at the Pops by Edvard Grieg, Max Bruch, Stephen Feigenbaum, Johann Sebastian Bach and Felix Mendelssohn
Caroline Goulding by John Corigliano, Jascha Heifetz, Fritz Kreisler, Paul Schoenfield and James Scott Skinner
Complete Works for Piano & Cello by Zuill Bailey and Simone Dinnerstein
Jacques Loussier Plays Bach by Johann Sebastian Bach and Jacques Loussier
For David by Sergio Assad, Francis Kleynjans, Stephen Goss, Benjamin Verdery and Philip Rosheger
Shostakovich: Symphony No. 10; Veljo Tormis: Overture No. 2 by Dmitry Shostakovich, Veljo Tormis, Paavo Järvi and Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra
Górecki: Symphony No. 3 "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs" by Henryk Gorecki, Donald Runnicles, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and Christine Brewer
Desire by Tierney Sutton
Never Going Back by Shemekia Copeland
Keri Noble by Keri Noble
At Last by Ann Hampton Callaway
Zuill Bailey: Russian Masterpieces for Cello and Orchestra by Pyotr Il'yich Tchaikovsky, Dmitry Shostakovich, Martin West and San Francisco Ballet Orchestra

Grammy® for Best Surround Sound Album

2011-02-16T18:53:00.000-08:00

Keith O. Johnson and David Frost win Grammy® for Best Surround Sound Album Britten’s Orchestra (RR-120SACD)

Reference Recordings "Prof." KEITH O. JOHNSON and producer DAVID FROST have won this Grammy for their first release in Surround Sound. Winners were announced by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) at the 53rd Annual GRAMMY® Awards on Sunday, February 13, 2011, at Staples Center in Los Angeles. All nominations were for albums released from September 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010.

“Keith is a phenomenal engineer and we are thrilled about his win,” says Reference Recordings partner and executive producer Marcia Martin. “Everyone at RR is delighted that he and David have been honored by their peers in the music industry for this achievement. Keith’s collaboration with David Frost was a great success and we look forward to their next project when they return to the Kansas City Symphony in May to record the Enigma Variations by Elgar and The Wasps by Vaughan Williams.”

Congratulations to all who were instrumental in bringing this outstanding album to life:

Kansas City Symphony, Conductor: Michael Stern

Executive Director: Frank Byrne

Producer: David Frost (also Grammy winner for Producer of the Year, Classical) Engineer: Keith O. Johnson

Reference Recordings Staff: Tam Henderson, Marcia Martin, Sean Martin, Bill Roarty, Janice Mancuso.

And very special thanks to all the Sponsors of the Kansas City Symphony, without whom this recording could not have been made.

Category 94

Best Surround Sound Album

For vocal or instrumental albums. Albums only.

BRITTEN'S ORCHESTRA (Benjamin Britten: The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra; Sinfonia da requiem; Peter Grimes: Four Sea Interludes and Passacaglia)

Keith O. Johnson, surround mix engineer; Keith O. Johnson,

surround mastering engineer; David Frost, surround producer

(Michael Stern & Kansas City Symphony)

[Reference Recordings]

www.ReferenceRecordings.com

About Reference Recordings:

For 35 years, Reference Recordings has been one of the most innovative and respected independent labels in the music business. Founded on the premise that most commercial recordings sound nothing like the live performance experience, Reference Recordings productions have been widely and lavishly praised for their dedication to high quality sound in the service of great music. In 1978, founder Tam Henderson began working with engineer Keith O. Johnson, who was already becoming an audio legend for his innovative approach to realistic recordings. Some 120 discs later, RR is still recording what many consider to be the finest-sounding classical and jazz discs in the world.

Reference Recordings has now won three Grammy Awards and many other nominations, including a nomination for Henderson as Producer of the Year in 1998 and seven nominations for Johnson for Best Engineered Album. In addition, RR has received numerous awards and citations from industry organizations and publications. RR has recorded many world premieres, and has pioneered many technological innovations—most recently the introduction of HRx, high resolution digital files for home music servers, and the widely praised HDCD digital encoding process (co-invented by Keith O. Johnson).

About Keith O. Johnson:

Keith has been Technical Director of Reference Recordings since 1980. Early on, he applied his well-practiced recording methods with half speed mastering expertise from Stan Ricker to spawn exceptional phonograph record releases that received numerous awards and continue to be the best of their kind. With producer and RR founder Tam Henderson, Johnson continues to record and release the finest quality compact discs, which now total over 120 titles.

To improve the compact disc, he was a founding partner in Pacific Microsonics where he contributed important parts of the HDCD process. Johnson’s ideas: morphing filters, hidden codes in dither, conversion sequences or pipelines are amongst the first of their kind. Unparalleled conversion accuracy is manifest in the Model 1 and Model 2 HDCD encoders, which most consider second-to-none. Microsoft bought the company and hired Johnson as their consultant, and while working for them he invented a speaker correction method to remove object related sounds. Johnson helped Microsoft develop a system based on generic speaker models and simplified files that is bundled with Windows XP software to improve computer speaker sound.

His invited participation in the UCLA School of Recording Arts planning committees helped emphasize technical and perceptual aspects of music production. He also continues to work with educational and historical committees for NARAS.

Johnson has been a prolific designer of pro and consumer audio equipment. The manufacturer Spectral Inc. has produced high-end audio equipment from his designs for decades. Many of the most expensive audio and home theater installations feature this equipment due to their unmatched performance.

Some of the many awards for Johnson’s work include 3 Grammy winning releases, 7 nominations for Best Engineered Classical Recording, a Silver Medal (Lifetime Achievement Award) from the Audio Engineering Society, the 2010 Founders Award from the Los Angeles and Orange County Audio Society, 2 NAIRD Indy winners for Best Recording, 2 Absolute Sound Golden Ear awards and 3 awards from the Academy for the Advancement of High Performance Audio.

Multi-channel processing for large screen sound is a currently a great interest for Johnson. He is also investigating and consulting on hearing physiology and hearing correction. He plays keyboard instruments and is a competitive middle distance runner and Senior Olympian.

100% high resolution.

2011-01-27T19:35:00.000-08:00

My music listening is now 100% high resolution as yesterday I deleted all MP3's from my hard-drive as they are just too compromised in resolution compared to high resolution music files and SACDs. While more comfortable than CD, they just do not sound good enough after listening to a steady diet of high resolution downloads and SACDs. I sadly said goodbye to music I may never hear again, and I have no 44.1kHz digital now in any form now.

Most of my SACDs are DSD or analog recorded. And my high resolution music files are 24 Bit 88.2kHz to 192kHz.

The comfort level was not enough, damn it I need resolution too! I have updated my blogs to reflect my new feelings about low resolution MP3.

I would love to find a financial backer to purchase Telarc from CMG

2011-01-01T14:12:00.000-08:00

As previously noted Concord Music Group is letting most Telarc's SACDs and CDs go out of print, some now only available as MP3s.

Telarc made what I feel are the most realistic recordings ever released on SACD or any other format. They are the definition of the concert hall experience and was SACDs biggest supporter, that is until they were purchased by Concord Music Group.

Telarc records exactly what was in the concert hall, jazz club or studio, no tricks, no EQ, no unnecessary mixing, etc. What you hear on their SACDs is what you would hear if you were there in person. They record mostly direct to stereo and direct to surround. Even most of the sound effects on the Cincinnati Pops recordings are done in "real time' So far Telarc is the only record company to expose the full resolution of SACD. Channel Classics, PentaTone, Reference Recordings and a handful of others sometimes come close but they are not there yet. In time I hope they will be.

The Sanken CO-100K microphone with frequency response to 100kHz

2011-01-01T13:54:00.000-08:00

An omnidirectional super wide range condenser microphone with unprecedented 20Hz to 100kHz frequency response.

The Sanken CO-100K is the first 100kHz microphone in the world designed for actual professional recording. Michael Bishop used the Sanken CO-100K microphones as the main orchestra pickup on the final Telarc orchestral SACDs, and is still using it but alas no SACD versions. CO-100K User's Report from Michael Bishop, Recording Engineer & Producer of Five Four Productions Ltd.

RR 2010 Grammy Nomination for Best Surround Sound Album

2010-12-08T00:29:00.000-08:00

Reference Recordings "Prof." KEITH O. JOHNSON has received his eighth Grammy nomination for his first SACD in Surround Sound.

Category 94

Best Surround Sound Album For vocal or instrumental albums. Albums only.

BRITTEN'S ORCHESTRA

Michael Stern & Kansas City Symphony

Keith O. Johnson, surround mix engineer; Keith O. Johnson, surround mastering engineer

David Frost, surround producer [Reference Recordings]

RR Grammy Information and Links

Keith O. Johnson is known for his many outstanding recordings and contributions to entertainment technology. He began by building a three-channel magnetic tape recorder and ribbon microphones in high school, which earned him a scholarship and training program from Ampex Corporation. At Stanford University, he recorded music groups and constructed a solid-state portable recorder that would ultimately record and master over 100 record releases. He introduced radio-frequency bias methods and photolithography construction of heads to significantly advance the state of recording art. He consulted to Sherman Fairchild, who licensed this patented "focused gap" technology for recorders he built for RCA.

Johnson's professional achievements and patents also include:

Partnered Gauss Electrophysics and applied recording methods and patented air suspension of tape to standardize and dominate the high-speed tape duplication industry for many years.
Developed an optical scanner to remove noise from damaged motion picture sound tracks. Famous movies are still being restored with the devices.
Partnered Reference Recordings and has engineered over 120 exceptional titles.
Designed critically acclaimed high-end audio equipment for Spectral Incorporated for almost 20 years.
To improve the compact disc, he partnered with Pacific Microsonics and contributed important parts of the HDCD process and patents. Johnson's ideas -- morphing filters, hidden codes in dither, conversion sequences or pipelines -- are amongst the first of their kind. Microsoft bought the company and Johnson provided a speaker correction method to remove object-related sounds from small speakers. For Microsoft, he also helped develop a system based on generic speaker models and simplified files that is bundled with Windows software to improve computer speaker sound.
He has received many awards, including 2 Grammy®-winning releases, 7 nominations for Best Engineered Classical Recording, 2 NAIRD Indy winners for Best Recording, 2 Absolute Sound Golden Ear awards, and 3 awards from the Academy Advancing High Performance Audio.

For more than 30 years, San Francisco-based Reference Recordings has been one of the most innovative and respected independent labels in the music business. It is fully dedicated to high quality sound in the service of great music. Reference Recordings has won two Grammy Awards and many other Grammy nominations, including a nomination for founder Tam Henderson as Producer of the Year and seven nominations for Johnson for Best Engineered Recording. In addition, the label has received numerous awards and citations from industry organizations and publications. RR has recorded numerous world premieres, and has pioneered many technological innovations-most recently the introduction of HRx, high resolution digital files for home music servers, and the widely praised HDCD digital encoding process (co-invented by Keith O. Johnson).

Here is my review of this wonderful SACD: Reference Recordings SACD and HRx

Telarc SACDs disappearing

2010-12-08T00:12:00.000-08:00

Concord Music Group is not only letting Telarc SACDs go out of print, but CDs as well. many Telarc recordings are now only available as MP3s. New Telarc CDs are still being released but I wonder if they will do just one CD printing and then when it is gone just sell MP3s?

SACD sale at Concord Music Group

2010-12-06T21:16:00.000-08:00

Telarc and other Concord Music Group SACDs $13.98!

Additional 20% Off With Promo Code CMGH3 (Expires 12/12/2010)
Free Shipping On Orders Over $25
Buy 5 Titles And Get The 6th Free

Holiday SACD Promotion

Support companies who support SACDs full resolution capabilities

2010-11-13T02:13:00.000-08:00

I believe in supporting those companies who support SACDs full resolution capabilities and are dedicated to SACD as a TRUE high resolution format not just a multichannel version of CD.

November 11, 2010 I posted the following in the PENTATONE thread at sa-cd.net in reply to Ernani71 comment "...the more I hear about how financially impossible it is to produce only sacds, the more I feel for a companies who have staked everything on sacd."

My response: "This is the primary reason I look to PentaTone and Channel Classics FIRST as they produce ONLY SACDs! Even my favorite company, Telarc released lots of DSD recordings only as CDs before they quite releasing SACD altogether.

PentaTone and Channel Classics hearts, souls and musical rightness are dedicated to us music lovers who appreciate realistic sound and should be rewarded accordingly.

Channel Classics has been recording in DSD exclusively since its introduction in 2001. In 2003, they stopped releasing double inventory of sepertate CDs and SACDs and now only release SACD/CD hybrids.

PentaTone releases new (mostly) DSD recordings as well as reissuses of analog Quadraphonic Philips recordings from the 1970's only on SACD/CD hybrids."

The Flyingdutchman had one of his usual off the wall comments promoting low resolution recordings from a substandard label: "As is BIS, Teresa. BIS is an excellent company all the way around. Robert cares about music lovers and always has."

My response: "Sorry, BIS recordings are mostly 24/44.1kHz PCM, not DSD as ALL of Channel Classics are and most of PentaTones. In addition the better recording companies have FAR better sound quality than BIS, they have smoother string tone, deeper more realistic bass and are considerably more comfortable to listen to. Of the 18 BIS SACDs I've purchased over half have strident string tone, thin sound and weak bass. Even the great sounding BIS SACDs are bass-light. All one has to do is listen to the Minnesota Orchestra recordings on BIS, Reference Recordings, Telarc and Vox/MFSL.

Please reread my post for a better understanding of why IT IS CRUCIAL to support those companies who use the FULL RESOLUTION of the SACD format, and just don't see it as a multichannel version of CD. SACD is so much more than that!"

Next Polly Nomial asked "So that I can better understand your listening ideals, could you state which BIS recordings they are?"

To which I responded "Here is my Library

If you choose the "Recommended YES" you can view the 5 BIS SACDs I recommend and the "Recommended NO" the 13 BIS SACDs I do not. There are a couple of 24/44.1kHz PCM BIS SACDs I do recommend as sometimes music triumphs over sonics. However I can very easily list over 100 recording companies who recordings are better engineered, and they are not all audiophile labels."

To which the Flyingdutchman challenged "Then do it. Remember more than 100. And while you're at it tell us exactly why they are better engineered. Not a blanket statement, mind you, but go into detail."

Thus the birth of this important article, which I dedicate to the pesky and rude Flyingdutchman. The Flyingdutchman and his cohorts at sa-cd.net illogically and falsely prop up BIS recordings whenever they get a chance especially when the discussion is about true high resolution. I have concluded the Flyingdutchman is either on BIS' payroll or has no experience with good recordings from engineers who KNOW who to record an orchestra! As there is no way any logical person who actually listens to music with their ears can claim that BIS is a good recording company.

Here is a letter I sent to him last year that he never answered:

"Dear Flyingdutchman,

LOL do you own stock or get kickbacks from BIS? Some BIS recordings sound good, most I have heard do not. Most BIS SACDs offer serviceable performances and a couple have great performances, but overall a very uneven recording company that varies greatly from disc to disc.

DG and Naxos also get good reviews but that does not magically transform them into reference recordings such as those made by the finest audiophile labels. If you actually think BIS SACDs sound good, perhaps you should try some SACDs from Telarc, BSO, Channel Classics, PentaTone, Reference Recordings and Tacet all of which make great sounding SACDs usually with excellent to definitive performances!

Five loud BIS supporters and a couple of Pro-BIS reviewers does not prove your point. I am tired of you elevating BIS to a standard it does not deserve and the potential damage it could do in turning away newbies from the SACD format. It is fine if you love BIS recordings but it is not right to turn a blind eye to their sonic flaws as newbies could reject the SACD format based solely on how BIS SACDs sound.

Most of my BIS recordings I have purchased as MP3s, mostly from emusic.com and most have been deleted from my hard drive due to poor sound and/or lackluster performances. I find the finest sounding MP3s to be from Telarc, Reference Recordings and Lyrita. I no longer purchase MP3s from BIS or Naxos which I believe are the absolute worst."

Happy listening,

Teresa

NOTE: I have purchased 18 BIS SACDs, 30 BIS MP3's, 5 BIS CDs and 2 BIS LPs, I believe I have heard enough BIS recordings to know I like nearly every other recording company's engineering better.

UPDATE 1/27/2011: Even though more comfortable to my ears than CDs, ultimately I deleted all MP3's from my hard-drive as they are just too compromised in resolution compared to high resolution music files and SACDs.

The Flyingdutchman plays the low resolution card

The Flyingdutchman likes to state to those of us who do not like BIS' poor recording techniques that it is because we refuse to listen to 24 Bit 44.1kHz recordings. This is untrue as I own and enjoy a few of the early 24 Bit 44.1kHz Telarc Jazz recordings made before they started recording Jazz in DSD. Telarc and others have proven that even low resolution can be enjoyed if well recorded, however they also have proven that high resolution PCM and especially PURE DSD sound considerably better and are WORTH the extra effort! Unfortunately BIS suffers not only from low resolution, but poor engineering and often strident sound quality, all of which is unacceptable in the SACD format.

So Flyingdutchman numbers are not of supreme importance to me either, they are important but offer only part of the overall sonic picture! That is why I can enjoy SACDs from 16 Bit 50kHz Soundstream recordings. IMHO most BIS recordings in any format at not sonically very good, there are a couple of exceptions. However most BIS SACDs are inflicted with strident string tone which usually is only heard on CDs, thus proving that either their recording techniques or 44.1kHz sampling rate are to blame. So why do you continue to push a label that is sonically inferior to 90% of the other SACDs out there?

The Flyingdutchman continues to falsely state I will only listen to DSD recordings.

The truth is I PREFER DSD recordings. He often likes to site poorly made DSD recordings, this is a poor choice of attack for him as every format has poorly made recordings. Recording in DSD is important but it cannot help a poorly made recording, I have never cared for the LSO Live and some of the newer Chandos SACDs, all DSD recorded. By the same token I find Telarc SACD's from their historical 50kHz Soundstream recordings to be superb, not as good as their DSD recorded SACDs but considering their lower resolution they are amazing.

Engineering is just as critical as resolution. Especially the ability to recreate as close as possible the original deep and wide soundscape, without losing the critical deep bass or too much of the excitement and impact of the original performance in the concert hall. To my ears Telarc, Reference Recordings and Polyhymnia are the most successful. Two record DSD, the other analog and high resolution PCM.

In short higher resolution only offers the potential of better sound not a guarantee, there are lots of other ways to sabotage it. Everything is important!

My biases

I like music to be beautiful, exciting and captivating drawing my attention to it's complex inner worlds. I prefer music that is a pure joy to listen to.

I require deep bass response like what I hear at a concert hall. The double basses and cellos should have that deep, deep growl. Organs should have "in you bones" virisanal bass. and bass percussion instruments need to be deep with the impact heard live.

I require the midrange to sound smooth and realistic with NO digital fatigue and with the resonance to the human voice I hear live.

I require the high frequencies to be smooth however with great impact and attack especially with high percussion instruments. This requires both fast transient response and non-digital sound.

If I have to chose I prefer comfortable, beautiful sound over absolute resolution. And sometimes for some works I have to chose lesser resolution, such as analog cassettes.

I cannot over-stress how important deep bass response is to me in digital formats as even DSD recordings without adequate bass response puts undo emphasis on the high frequencies making them sound digitally shrill. Whereas analog can still sound fine (although not as realistic) with less bass it is so far not possible for me in the digital domain.

BIS, an ear-sore on the musical landscape.

Not just SACDs but their CDs, LPs, MP3s are in my opinion among the worst sounding of all recording companies. Their engineers need to get a clue HOW to properly record an orchestra. Now that Jack Renner is semi-retired he is teaching engineering, all BIS engineers desperately need to learn correct techniques from his skillful hands and ears! Jack Renner is co-director of the recording engineering school at The Aspen Festival and School, Audio consulting teaching free lance recording at Renner Consulting and Adjunct professor of recording engineering at The Cleveland Institute of Music. There is hope for a bright new crop of recording engineers being trained under the incomparable Jack Renner's wings.

In my opinion BIS's low resolution SACD program has done more damage to the reputation of the SACD format than any other action taken by anyone anywhere. Indeed Concord Music Group abandoning SACD and taking the wonderful Telarc DSD recorded SACDs with them is nothing compared what BIS has done promoting 44.1kHz PCM and giving all the CD lovers yet another reason NOT to adopt SACD!

DVD audio was cursed with mediocre remasterings from Silverline, SACD is cursed by new mediocre recordings from BIS. Towards the end of DVD-Audio's life most new DVD-Audio's were from Silverline and I firmly believe these poor recordings were the final nail in DVD-Audio's coffen. My deepest darkest fear is that what happened to DVD-Audio will happen to SACD because of BIS' poor sounding recordings, as they are now one of the largest producers of new SACD recordings.

Some of BIS' old DSD recorded SACDs sound excellent, although they are bass-light and string tone is not as smooth as most other labels DSD recordings. I assume this is because the microphones are too close to the string section. The loss of bass could have to do with the position of the microphones and/or the gauge of the microphone cables. Robert von Bahr made a BIG giant mistake switching to PCM and we all told him so back in 2005.

The fact that people willingly pay good money for BIS SACDs, just proves to me that they are desperate for new multichannel recordings and will take whatever they can get no matter how poorly recorded.

BIS 24 Bit PCM versus DSD

I was initially extremely impressed with how BIS was able to make a few of their SACDs from 24 Bit 44.1kHz maters sound much better than they have any right to. One would never confuse them with DSD recorded SACDs however they sound considerably better than any CDs I’ve ever heard showing the advantage of 24 Bit recording.

However, the majority of BIS’s 24 Bit 44.1kHz SACDs sound unacceptable, and some have the strident string tone common to the CD format. BIS is NOT alone over a third of my SACDs were rejected for sound quality reasons, most from either PCM or undisclosed masters. BIS’ older DSD recorded SACDs are sonically superior to their new PCM SACDs. And you can prove this to yourself by just comparing the first three Grieg-Ruud DSD BIS SACDs to the later Grieg-Ruud PCM BIS SACDs.

A Tale of two SACDs - DSD versus 24 Bit PCM

Here are two SACDs recorded in the same hall: Grieg Hall, Bergen, Norway

Grieg: Norwegian Dances, Symphonic Dances, Lyric Suite

Ole Kristian Ruud, Bergen Philharmonic

BIS SACD-1291 - DSD Recording - Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD

Grieg: Peer Gynt Suites Nos. 1 & 2, Funeral March in Memory of Rikard Nordraak, Old Norwegian Melody with Variations, Bell Ringing

Ole Kristian Ruud, Bergen Philharmonic

BIS-SACD-1591 - 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM Recording - Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD

"In my system playing the high resolution 2 channel stereo program, the PCM recording has muffled high frequencies, and is congested on climaxes and the climax of "In the Hall of the Mountain King" actually has audible digital distortion of the type I usually only hear on Redbook CDs, as if the recording is running out of steam, or perhaps bits?

The climaxes on the earlier DSD recording are clean, powerful with no congestion or closed-in feeling and not even a hint of distortion. DSD also affords the percussion instruments more umph! There is more ambiance on the DSD recorded SACD along with more beautiful and relaxing sound.

Both SACDs lack deep bass and bass warmth but that could be due to the hall or the choice of or placement of the microphones. In short these two SACDs prove why all recordings, especially orchestral recordings should ONLY be recorded DSD.

This is a very educational listen for anyone to undertake and not too expensive at that as BIS SACDs cost the same as CDs.

There are lots of theories on Ultrasonics, tests show that we respond to frequencies up to 80kHz even if we have severe hearing damage in the audible range. Our brain handles inaudible frequencies differently than audible frequencies. They are said to also be absorbed though the skin much in the same way subsonic frequencies are. Many believe ultrasonics are what makes live music "feel" live. Also these ultrasonic frequencies besides offering additional audio cues actually change the timbre of audible frequencies by their mere presence. All of this research is the reason Sony choose the cut-off frequency of 100kHz for SACD.

I have learned to look for "PURE DSD" or "DSD recorded" when I purchase a new SACD as I have learned the hard way, by losing money resaleing unacceptable sounding SACDs from PCM masters.

So far the only DSD recorded SACDs I have found unacceptable are the LSO Live ones, many believe this is due to the poor acoustics of Barbican Hall.

Reviews are of the 2 channel stereo high resolution DSD layers."

Now to the 18 BIS SACDs I've tried:

BIS DSD recorded SACDs recommended with qualifications:

Takemitsu: Rain Coming, Archipelago S, Fantasma/Cantos II, Requiem, How slow the Wind, Tree Line

Christian Lindberg (trombone) Tadaaki Otaka, Kioi Sinfonietta Tokyo

DSD - Stereo - BIS-SACD-1078

GRIEG: Piano Concerto, Symphony in C minor, In Autumn

Noriko Ogawa (piano) Ole Kristian Ruud, Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra

DSD Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1191

GRIEG: Norwegian Dances; Symphonic Dances; Lyric Suite

Ole Kristian Ruud, Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra

DSD Stereo/Multichannel - BIS SACD-1291

GRIEG: Sigurd Jorsalfar, Landkjenning, Bergliot, Sorgemarsj over Rikard Nordraak, Den Bergtekne

Hakan Hagegard, Gorild Mauseth, Ole Kristian Ruud, Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra

DSD Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1391

Part of a series of Grieg orchestral music all available on SACD from BIS, the first three SACDs were DSD and the later ones are from 24 Bit PCM. The DSD recordings from this series are the best I have ever heard Greig sound and the performances are ideal! The only concern is a lack deep bass and bass warmth but that could be due to the hall or the choice of or placement of the microphones. Still recommended due to the realistic sound of these three SACDs.

BIS PCM recorded SACDs recommended with reservations

AMERICAN SPECTRUM

NED ROREM: Lions, MICHAEL DAUGHERTY: Sunset Strip, JOHN WILLIAMS: Escapades, CHRISTOPHER ROUSE: Friandises

Branford Marsalis Quartet

Grant Llewellyn, North Carolina Symphony

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1644

SHILKRET: Trombone Concerto / HÖGBERG: Trombone Concerto No. 1 "The Return of Kit Bones" / LINDBERG: Helikon Wasp

Christian Lindberg (trombone and narrator) John Neschling, São Paulo Symphony Orchestra

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS SACD-1448

These do have a PCM signature but all PCM recorded SACDs to my ears have a particular PCM sound even at resolutions much higher than 44.1kHz. It's taken many years to get my ears adjusted to PCM sound. It does not have the air, ambiance, bass presence or huge soundstage of a well made DSD recording however I never expected it to. If your only exposure to 44.1kHz PCM has been of the 16 Bit variety such as CDs or computer downloads, be assured that 24 Bit is an audible increase in resolution over those.

BIS DSD recorded SACDs not recommended

Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 1 in G minor Op. 13 "Winter Daydreams", The Snow Maiden Op. 12, Romeo and Juliet

Neeme Järvi, Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra

DSD - Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1398

Even though this is DSD recorded the sound quality is not up to SACD standards and the performance is subpar.

BIS PCM recorded SACDs not recommended

Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 4 & 5

Osmo Vänskä, Minnesota Orchestra

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1416

Encores - Karlsson, Green, Arndt, Silvmark, Peterson-Berger, Loguin, Engström, Alfven, Hodlar, Hamilton Green, Johnson, Eriksson

Kroumata Percussion Ensemble

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1452

Ge Gan-ru: Chinese Rhapsody, Wu for Piano and Orchestra, Six Pentatonic Tunes for Orchestra

Margaret Leng Tan (piano) José Serebrier, Royal Scottish National Orchestra

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1509

Grieg: Holberg Suite, Two Elegiac Melodies, Two Melodies, Two Nordic Melodies, Two Lyric Pieces

Ole Kristian Ruud, Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1491

Grieg: Peer Gynt (Complete)

Hakan Hagegard, Marita Solberg, Ingebjorg Kosmo, Kari Postma

Ole Kristian Ruud, Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1441/42 (2 discs)

Grieg: Peer Gynt Suites Nos. 1 and 2, Funeral March in Memory of Rikard Nordraak, Old Norwegian Melody with Variations, Bell Ringing

Ole Kristian Ruud, Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1591

Liszt: Piano Concertos Nos. 1 & 2, Totentanz

Arnaldo Cohen (piano) John Neschling, São Paulo Symphony Orchestra

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1530

Mendelssohn: Complete Concertos

Ronald Brautigam, Isabelle van Keulen, Roland Pöntinen, Love Derwinger

Lev Markiz, Amsterdam Sinfonietta

Total time: 4:15:55

PCM Stereo Single Layer - BIS-SACD-1766

Skalkottas: Piano Concerto No. 2, Tema con Variazioni, Little Suite, Four Images

Geoffrey Douglas Madge, Nikos Christodoulou, BBC Symphony Orchestra

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1484

Pulkkis: Enchanted Garden, Symphoni Dali, Flute Concerto

Sharon Bezaly (flute) Jaakko Kuusisto (violin)

Susanna Mälkki, Stavanger Symphony Orchestra

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1339

Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 2 in C minor Op. 17 "Little Russian"

Neeme Järvi, Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra

PCM Stereo/Multichannel - BIS-SACD-1418

Many of these sound as bad as a poorly made CD, most have strident string tone, light bass, and an overall uncomfortable sound. The Liszt Concertos are the worst performances of these I have ever heard.

I wanted very much to like the Mendelssohn: Complete Concertos which is an Ultra Extended Playing Time SACD (4 Hours + on a single disc) but the sound quality was not much better than CD.

Ratings of 138 recording companies that produce SACDs:

I live in the real world in which not all recordings are equal in the sonic realm. Just having an SACD logo does not guarantee either high resolution or excellent sound quality.

These are average ratings as many recording companies will have SACDs in one or more of these categories.

Cream of the Crop (Highest recommendation)

This recording company produces SACDs that take full advantage of the SACD format from the deepest bass to the highest treble with a realism I have only experienced in an excellent concert hall.

Telarc (especially their DSD recorded SACDs)

Highly Recommended

The "highly recommended" recording companies on this list, will reveal most of the aural and sonic capabilities of the SACD format and help any newcomer with a window into the musical enjoyment possible with this wonderful format.

Audioquest Music
BSO Classics
Chandos
Channel Classics
Channel of China
Cisco Music
Cryston
DMP
Exton
Fidelio
First Impression Music
Fonè
Groove Note
Hyperion
Opus 3
PentaTone Classics
Philips Electronics
Red Rose Music
Reference Recordings
Rounder

Recommended

The "recommended" recording companies on this list, are just a shade lower in resolution and sonic abilities and will reveal many of the aural and sonic capabilities of the SACD format.

Alia Vox
Alpha
Analogue Productions
Archiv Produktion
Artegra
Arts Music
ATMA Classique
Audio Fidelity
Audio-B
Audite
Barsukk
CCn'C
Chesky
Delos
Farao Classics
Harmonia Mundi
Heads Up
Herbie Mann Music
Hungaroton
MA Recordings
Market Square
Mercury Living Presence
Mercury/Polydor
Mobile Fidelity
Musicaphon
Philips Classics
Sketti Sandwich Productions
Songlines
Sonoma Records
Tacet
Talent Records
Top Music International
Turtle Records
Valley
Vanguard Classics
Varese Sarabande

Recommended with reservations

The "recommended with reservations" recording companies on this list, many of which still reveal the resolution and sonic abilities of the SACD format are not sonically perfect in my opinion. These are sometimes enjoyable recordings but not close to realm of possibilities of the format, thus would not be worthy to judge the format by and would not be ideal starting points for newcomers to the format.

2L
A&M Records
A-Records
ABKCO
Alba Records
BIS DSD recordings
Blue Note
BMG (Hong Kong)
Bona Nova
Brilliant Classics
Capitol
Capriccio
Caro Mitis
Challenge Jazz
Chess
Clarion
Columbia
Concord Records
Coviello Classics
CPO
Cybele
Decca Classics
DHM
Dutton
EMI
Epic
Fantasy
Geffen
GRP
Hannibal
Harvest
HighNote Records
Island
Jive
JSP Records
Koch Records
Linn Records
Lost Highway
Lyrinx
Mariinsky
MCA
MDG
Melba Recordings
New Classical Adventure
New West Records
Non Profit Music
NorthWest Classics
Oehms Classics
Ondine
OUR Recordings
RCA
RCA Living Stereo
Red Ink
San Francisco Symphony
Simax Classics
Six Degrees
Sony BMG
Sony Classical
Steamhammer
Sugar Hill Records
Tudor
Universal SHM-SACDs
Velvel Records
Vertigo
Verve
Virgin
Vocalion
Zoe
ZoomTone
ZTT

Sometimes recommended with reservations

The "sometimes recommended with reservations" recording companies on this list, very from atrocious sounding to sometimes nearing greatness. These are very uneven recording companies, whose recordings vary greatly from title to title.

BIS PCM recordings
Deutsche Grammophon
Naxos
Universal (Japan)
Universal Records
WaterLily Acoustics

Not Recommended

The recording companies on this list, while having more resolution than the best audiophile CDs on the whole do not easily reveal the sonic capabilities of the SACD format. Indeed even the most atrocious sounding ones still sound like high resolution, just awful sounding high resolution. For some poorly made recordings lower resolution may indeed sound better as it will mask many of their problems. So if you have no trouble with the sonic color and sound of 44.1kHz PCM and CD then you may actually enjoy some of the SACDs on this list, just do expect them to take you to the level of refinement SACD is able to deliver when used to at least minimal effect.

Albany
Blue Coast Records
Cala Records
Hip-O
Interscope
Membran

For the Flyingdutchman 140 recording companies (in all formats) that produce better engineered recordings than BIS, in alphabetical order.

2L
A&M Records
A-Records
ABKCO
Alba Records
Alia Vox
Alpha
Audite
Analogue Productions
Archiv Produktion
Artegra
Arts Music
ATMA Classique
Audio Fidelity
Audio-B
Audioquest Music
AudioSource
Barsukk
Blue Note
Brilliant Classics
BSO Classics
Café Records
Capriccio
Caro Mitis
Challenge Jazz
Cardas Records
CCn'C
Century Records
Chandos
Channel Classics
Channel of China
Chesky Records
Chess
Cisco Music
Clarion
Classic Records
Columbia
Concord Records
Coviello Classics
CPO
Crystal Clear Records
Cybele
Cryston
DCC Compact Classics
Decca Classics
Delos
DHM
DMP
Dutton
East Wind
EMI
Epic
Exton
Fantasy
Farao Classics
Fidelio
First Impression Music
Fonè
Geffen
Groove Note
GRP
Hannibal
Harmonia Mundi
Harvest
Heads Up
Herbie Mann Music
HighNote Records
Hungaroton
Hyperion
In Sync Laboratories / Connoisseur Society
Island
Jive
JSP Records
Klavier Records
Koch Records
Linn Records
Lost Highway
Lyrinx
Lyrita Recorded Edition
MA Recordings
Mariinsky
Market Square
MCA
MDG
Melba Recordings
Mercury Living Presence
Mercury/Polydor
Merlin Fidelity+
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
Musicaphon
Naim
New Haven Records
New Classical Adventure
New West Records
Non Profit Music
NorthWest Classics
Oehms Classics
Ondine
Opus 3
OUR Recordings
PentaTone Classics
Philips Classics
RCA
RCA Living Stereo
Red Ink
Red Rose Music
Reference Recordings
Rounder
San Francisco Symphony
Sheffield Lab
Simax Classics
Six Degrees
Sketti Sandwich Productions
Songlines
Sonoma Records
Sony BMG
Sony Classical
Speakers Corner
Steamhammer
Sugar Hill Records
Super Analogue Disc
Tacet
Talent Records
Telarc
Top Music International
Tudor
Turtle Records
Universal SHM-SACDs
Valley
Vanguard Classics
Varese Sarabande
Velvel Records
Vertigo
Verve
Virgin
Vocalion
Wilson Audiophile
Zoe
ZoomTone
ZTT

Finally some recording companies whose recordings are as poor as BIS or even worse:

Albany
Blue Coast Records
Cala Records
Deutsche Grammophon
Hip-O
Interscope
Membran
Mace
Naxos
Tring

Back when I thought SACD was going to replace CD I thought all recordings should be released on SACD no matter how low the resolution. Now that SACD is a niche format I no longer believe this, I now believe that ONLY high resolution recordings should be released on SACD. I believe for the survival of the format we must boycott all recordings companies releasing low resolution recordings masquerading as high resolution. HDTracks removed all BIS recordings from their high resolution store once it was revealed they were only 44.1kHz, it is time we removed BIS from the SACD format itself. Their wares are better presented as honest 24 Bit 44.1kHz downloads!

SACD is high resolution digital in stereo and multichannel NOT multichannel CD!

Will SHM inspire new music to be released as single-layer DSD recorded SACDs?

2010-11-11T17:30:00.000-08:00

Here are Mark Levinson's thoughts about single-layer SACD and DSD from the insert in all Red Rose Music's single-layer SACD's.

"Where is the magic we used to feel listening to music? In the early days of audio, people would listen for hours to their favorite recordings, sometimes wearing out an LP and buying a new one to listen some more. Today, equipment has become more expensive, but people often turn off the CD long before it's over. Most music lovers agree that something about today's audio equipment and the CD just isn't right.

The problem with CDs is the operating system know as PCM. It has inherent limitations that simply haven't been overcome. The solution is a new operating system invented by Sony. It's called DSD - Direct Stream Digital.

DSD not only sounds better it feels better. People say it's more relaxing. The listener's breathing becomes easier, and one feels the emotion in the music again. DSD immerses us in the listening experience, just as we were with analog sources such as 78's, LP's and open reel tapes.

DSD is the operating system for SACD (Super Audio Compact Disc). SACD recordings are made on a hard drive and the bitstream is later transferred to a manufacturing format that produces SACD discs. An SACD is the same size as a CD or DVD, but it won't play in a regular CD player. All SACD players, however, play both CD's and SACD's, and some of them play DVDs as well. SACD players start at around $300, which means most people can afford them. SACD recordings are around the same price as CDs, so this means that music lovers can now get better sound quality for the same money.

Like LP's and CD's, some SACD's simply sound better than others. Many factors contribute to overall sound quality such as microphones and recording equipment, the engineering and mastering and of course the musicians themselves. Red Rose Music takes great care in every aspect of SACD production, and to preserve the full benefits of SACD, we use single layer disc with no PCM processing at any stage.

Hybrid discs are universal, as they play on all CD players as well as SACD players. We use single layer discs because they make a closer match to the master recording and are more enjoyable to listen to.

Musicians depend on the industry to capture their art and make it available to the world in a way that brings out meaning, emotion and substance. Just as great musicians do not compromise their music, we choose not to compromise the recording and playback. We hope you enjoy the results."

Who is going to replace Telarc with uncompromised natural DSD recorded SACDs of New Jazz, New Blues, New Film Music, Late Romantic and Modern tonal classical music?

2010-11-08T08:06:00.000-08:00

I've been watching new SACD releases for the year and a half since Telarc has quit releasing SACDs. With the exception of SHM-SACDs, which I cannot afford, very little music of interest to me is being released, especially DSD recorded.

Telarc excelled in:

New Jazz recordings by living Jazz legends as well as younger Jazz newcomers
New Blues recordings by living Blues legends as well as younger Blues newcomers
Film Music, mostly from the Erich Kunzel and the Cincinnati Pops
Late Romantic large-scale orchestral classical music
Modern tonal classical music

What little Jazz and Blues being released now is older analog recordings, not brand new DSD or even high resolution PCM recordings with the exception of 1 or 2 Chesky SACDs per year.

NO ONE is recording new Film music for SACD release!

Exton of Japan does still release new DSD recorded SACDs of Late Romantic large-scale orchestral classical music however all new releases are in Stereo only. Problem is limited distribution and high costs. PentaTone is still releasing orchestral music as well and most of it either analog or DSD recorded. As well as the few recordings done by Ivan Fischer and Budapest Festival Orchestra for Channel Classics, who otherwise specialize in chamber music. However no recording company have the breath and width of the repertoire of Telarc's magnificent sounding SACDs.

It seems most new classical SACDs are chamber and solo music and most new orchestral classical SACDs are now of the earlier Classical, Renaissance and Baroque periods. I find this totally unacceptable, thus another reason I turn more and more to high resolution downloads.

For me Telarc leaving SACD is the biggest disaster the format has ever faced and I am greatly saddened by it!

See also Who will replace Telarc with uncompromised natural DSD recorded SACDs?

Are Ultrasonics Important? Current Theory and High Resolution Digital

2010-11-05T21:06:00.000-07:00

New article at Positive Feedback Are Ultrasonics Important? Current Theory and High Resolution Digital

Dukas: The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Ravel: Mother Goose, Koechlin: Les Bandar-log SACD

2010-11-05T20:37:00.000-07:00

Dukas: The Sorcerer’s Apprentice
Ravel: Mother Goose
Koechlin: Les Bandar-log
Marc Albrecht, Orchestre Philharmonique de Strasbourg
Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD
48 kHz 24 bit PCM
PentaTone Classics PTC 5186 336

As many of you know PentaTone is known for releasing some of the finest sounding DSD recorded SACDs as well as SACDs from Philips analog quadraphonic masters. This is their first PCM SACD as it was not recorded by Polyhymnia so PentaTone was not aware of its status until after its release. On the next pressing the information will be corrected.

Giel Bessels reply at sa-cd.net

"We checked this upon reading the comments and found that in fact it is a 48 kHz 24 bit recording. We will correct in the next print run. Since 95% of our recordings are done by Polyhymnia who always record in DSD this slipped our attention."

Best, PentaMan (Giel Bessels)

managing director PentaTone Music B.V.
Baarn, The Netherlands

I personally have not heard this release as I am quite pleased with my Telarc DSD recordings of the first two works and didn't care for the sound samples I heard online of Koechlin's Les Bandar-log.

Dukas: Sorcerer's Apprentice, Symphony in C, La Péri
Jesus Lopez-Cobos, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra
Stereo Hybrid SACD
PURE DSD recording
Telarc SACD-60515

Ravel: Suite No. 2 from Daphnis et Chloe, Pavanne pour une infante defunte, La Valse, Five Nursery Rhymes (Mother Goose), Bolero
Paavo Järvi, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra

Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD
PURE DSD recording

Telarc SACD-60601

These Telarc DSD recorded SACDs are fantastic both sonically and musically. The Lopez-Cobos Dukas SACD is one of the finest sounding SACDs I have ever heard and very highly recommended unless you absolutely have to have multichannel. The Ravel is beautiful and exciting, a complete joy throughout.

Who will replace Telarc with uncompromised natural DSD recorded SACDs?

2010-10-23T18:40:00.000-07:00

It has been over a year and a half since Telarc released its last SACD.

Telarc was unique in that their recordings were the pure natural sound of music performed in a real space. Indeed what some call the Telarc "house sound" is nothing more than the true natural sound of musical instruments as heard live. Next time you go to see a live orchestra in a concert hall close your eyes and mentally compare it to a Telarc SACD.

As Telarc says "The Telarc Sound. Everything You Hear is True. Exceptionally clear, natural sounding recordings."

This is totally true and very few recording companies make recordings with all the set up and engineering done prior to recording so that when they start the recorders they are creating the audio version of a photograph.

Telarc, masters of the Art and Science of recording

About Telarc

Telarc Records - The Living Legends

Natural realistic bass response is a hallmark of Telarc recordings

Why I love Telarc DSD recorded SACDs

Don't let your receiver or surround processor degrade your SACDs

The best sounding Telarc's are the domestic SACDs of American orchestras and Jazz groups engineered and produced by various Telarc team members including Jack Renner, Robert Woods, Michael Bishop, Robert Friedrich and Elaine Martone. The European Telarc SACDs engineered by Polyhymnia also sound excellent but are at a slightly lower level of realism, however IMHO they are the best recordings Polyhymnia ever made, considerably better than their work for other labels including PentaTone.

The closest I have found so far in DSD recorded SACDs are PentaTone and Channel Classics but they both sound slightly "colored" when compared to Telarc and live acoustic music. Perhaps the music is sweetened up a little in post production?

The few Reference Recordings SACDs from 176.4kHz PCM and analog masters from Prof. Johnson's focused-gap reel to reel recorder have been superb and very realistic including the important lower frequencies. I wonder what miracles he could do in pure DSD?

The list of recording companies making uncompromised full range recordings using no equalization, no sweetening, no artificial echo, and mixing only to correct obvious mistakes is small. In the past this would include Mercury Living Presence, Reference Recordings, Crystal Clear Direct to Disc LPs and a small collection of others.

I am hoping either Telarc returns or a new company is formed to make natural real sounding full frequency response recordings once again available in the superb SACD format.

Getz / Gilberto SHM SACD review in the new issue of PF

2010-09-03T17:33:00.000-07:00

My new review is in Positive Feedback Issue 51.

Getz / Gilberto single-layer, green-label SHM SACD review plus current and upcoming releases

Also in the same issue Telarc SACD RIP - Roundup of 172 releases

The love of SACD versus hard reality

2010-07-09T20:02:00.000-07:00

SACD is the realization of an audiophile’s dream come true: all the precision of digital reproduction combined with all the warmth and ambiance of analog sound. So why are recording companies ignoring and deserting SACD? Especially when it offers the highest resolution with the most secure content protection available. And why didn't all music lovers adopt the SACD format?

Three types of listeners that adopted SACD:

Analog lovers on their continuing quest for a trouble-free easy to use non-digital sounding format. CD was rejected because it sounded too digital, and lacked the beauty and warmth of the best analog.
CD lovers on the quest for more realistic sound.
Multichannel enthusiasts who are attracted primarily to the surround sound aspect of SACD.

I'm in group number 1, as an analog lover I was attracted to Sony's mostly fulfilled promise "all the precision of digital reproduction combined with all the warmth and ambiance of analog sound", at least with the better SACDs.

I sold all of my LPs back in 2001 as I knew that SACD would replace CD, since SACD sounded like real honest-to-god music, I just knew that ALL audiophiles everywhere on Planet Earth would dump those gawd-awful sounding CDs, and even all of their LPs as fully enjoyable analog-like sound was here in a digital format, no less! IT WAS AND IS A MIRACLE! This was back in the 2 channel stereo SACD days, then once the multichannel option was added SACD should have been a slam-dunk. CD, LP and all other formats should be dead now, leaving SACD is the lone surviving physical format. But no, the right thing DID NOT happen and I was not only wrong, but dead wrong. And now the world's finest format is on its death bed. Sure there are new Classical releases from a few small boutique labels. Some may point to expensive reissues from Analogue Productions and MFSL but SACD is a very small sideline for them most of their reissues are on LP only! Then there are the super expensive unaffordable SACDs from Japan that cost $35 - $60 each plus shipping.

For me Telarc leaving the SACD fold over a year ago was the final nail in the coffin of SACD. Why? They record pure DSD, their SACDs retailed for $18.99 and many retailers offered hefty discounts, thus were affordable to music lovers from every economic spectrum.

Due to the limited selection (compared to LPs and analog tapes) coupled with TOC reading issues with SACD hybrids on many of the early SACD players many analog lovers (myself included) went back to the analog formats. I repurchased many of my favorite LPs and Pre-recorded 7½ IPS Reel to Reel tapes, however eventually I readopted SACD because I missed the stunningly realistic sound of Telarc's DSD recordings.

The selection improved over time and now there are over 6,000 SACDs released but too many music genre's are underrepresented or totally missing. Thus I depend on DVD-Audios and high resolution downloads to help fill in the gaps.

Sony had a excellent opportunity to make SACD the dominate format with the first release of Playstation 3 by supporting it with the software young gamers would buy. At the very least every single recording on Billboard's top 100 lists should have been released as SACD/CD hybrids the very day Playstation came it. They did not do that, so SACD will die. Sony missed out on making billions of dollars profit, and we missed out on everything being released on SACD. And with the deserters from the major labels and many large audiophile and boutique labels the only outcome I can see is the death of SACD.

SACD on its last legs?

Raising SACD prices a detriment to our cause!

SACD on its last legs?

2010-06-25T00:27:00.000-07:00

Even though Telarc and Heads-Up International continue to record PURE DSD in multichannel and Stereo, Concord Music Group (their owners) are releasing these recordings only on Stereo CD and MP3. This month marks ONE FULL YEAR since the last Telarc SACD Transmigration - Robert Spano, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra SACD-60673. Only the recording teams have heard the last years worth of new recordings in high resolution.

Hyperion is letting all of their SACDs go out of print and only releasing new recordings on CD and downloads.

Four years ago marked the end of the Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo SACD programs in addition all the Popular and Jazz SACDs from the Universal, RCA and Columbia/Sony labels began disappearing.

Now we are promised SHM-SACDs from Universal Japan at only THREE times the price of the original USA and European pressings.

For some reason the desires of the high resolution crowd are of no interest to many recording companies nor do they seem to care about the loss of sales. In short we don't seem matter to them. That is unless they can sell SACDs at ungodly prices we cannot afford.

With Telarc, the largest supporter of DSD recording GONE, With more and more new DSD recordings being released only as CDs and more and more 44.1K and 48K PCM recordings being released as SACDs I feel SACD is doomed and will soon disappear. My only hope is in high resolution downloads and perhaps Blu-Ray Audio.

Raising SACD prices a detriment to our cause!

2010-05-07T20:31:00.000-07:00

Part of the excuse for higher prices charged by record companies located in the United States is the loss of stateside pressing plants requiring SACDs to be pressed overseas. This is why both Analogue Productions and Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab raised their high retail price of $24.99 per SACD to an even higher $29.99 per SACD.

It is also the reason Telarc and most other USA record labels are no longer issuing SACDs. For example Telarc's retail price was $18.99 per SACD ($2.00 more than their CD price), and Concord Music Group is likely afraid that the higher price necessary due to imported pressings would hurt sells too much! Record companies do have to make a profit to stay in business.

So where does that leave us? With specialty audiophile companies and a few European and Japanese classical labels that care more about sound quality than profit. Many of the European companies sell their SACD hybrids for the same price as their CDs, however if Europe lost their SACD pressing plants like the USA did I am sure they also would have to either quite making SACDs or drastically increase their price. If any of the single inventory companies stayed with SACD they would have to go back to double inventory or loose their CD customers. It may never happen to them, and I pray it doesn't but it happened in the USA and from what I have read SACDs are the most popular in the Far East and Japan so what if the only remaining SACD pressing plants are located there. Scary thought!

Case in point: Eric Clapton's 461 Ocean Boulevard SACD versus Japanese SHM-SACD price:

Polydor SACD B0003638-36 $16.65 from CD Universe

Universal (Japan) SACD UIGY-9024 $66.05 from CD Universe

My question: no matter how much better the SHM-SACD sounds is it really worth $49.43 more than the regular SACD version? Or it put it another way, is one SHM-SACD as enjoyable as four regular SACDs?

In the long history of audiophile recordings they generally have a 50%-100% premium over the regular issues. The smaller market for SACDs combined with the closing of SACD pressing plants this seems to be greatly exasperating this divide.

CD pricing is going DOWN not up, many front-line CDs now retail for as low as $9.99. SACDs need to sell for the same price as CDs in order for SACD to fulfill their historic role of replacing the outdated low resolution CD format. In order to do this we NEED dozens of SACD pressing plants opening up in the USA, and dozens more worldwide. We NEED all recordings to be released as SACD/CD hybrids and the single-layer CD format retired.

As many are aware dual-layer DVDs now cost no more to manufacture as single-layer DVDs. The same should be true for SACD, the lower price for pressing SACDs will not happen until all pressing plants are pressing SACDs. We need to make this happen and NOW!

Ultimate SHM-SACD Announced.

2010-04-23T19:44:00.000-07:00

20 reissues announced in the new high-fidelity SHM-SACD single-layer format which is fully compatible with standard SACD players, but it does not play on standard CD players.

SHM-SACD (Super High Material SACD) is the ultimate Super Audio CD that utilizes the materials and technologies that were developed for the SHM-CD to further enhance the audio-resolution. What works wonders for a low resolution format such as CD should offer even greater sonic improvements in a real high resolution format such as SACD.

Some of these have appeared on SACD before, others never have. The latter are new 2010 DSD remasters from the analog tapes; for the others existing SACD masters have been reused.

All titles released so far are 2 channel stereo only.

Release date: 06/23/2010

The Rolling Stones: Let It Bleed [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
The Who: Who's Next [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Derek & The Dominos: Layla And Other Assorted Love Songs [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Eric Clapton: 461 Ocean Boulevard [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
The Moody Blues: Every Good Boy Deserves Favour [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Steely Dan: Aja [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
The Police: Synchronicity [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
The Velvet Underground & Nico [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
The Allman Brothers Band: At Fillmore East [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Marvin Gaye: What's Going On [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Stan Getz & Joao Gilberto: Getz / Gilberto [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
John Coltrane And Johnny Hartman [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
John Coltrane: A Love Supreme [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong: Ella And Louis [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Sarah Vaughan [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Brahms: Ein Deutsches Requiem - Herbert von Karajan [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Saint-Saens: Symphony No.3 "Organ" / Danse Macabre, etc. - Daniel Barenboim [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Bartok: Concerto For Orchestra / Dance Suite, etc. - Sir Georg Solti [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Liszt: Sonata In B Minor - Claudio Arrau (piano) [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
J.S.Bach: Orchestral Suites No.1 & No.2 - Karl Richter [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]

Prices will be high 4500yen in Japan. For other countries it is 4286 yen with the Japanese tax removed which equals US$ 45.41.

How to promote the SACD format:

2010-03-09T17:48:00.000-08:00

1) Let friends here the huge sonic and musical improvements afforded by SACD in your system.

Let them hear first hand how great SACD sounds, how enjoyable and relaxing it is. Play their favorite music for them and watch their faces light up with pure musical joy.

2) Tell the truth about low resolution CDs.

Never under any circumstances sugarcoat CDs sound quality, always be brutally honest about all of CDs shortcomings either in person or when posting on the Internet. Remember most SACDs do have a CD layer so those who actually prefer low resolution can still listen to low resolution so do not feel sorry for them. It is more important to get the truth out about low resolution to insure the retirement of single-layer CDs and all recordings issued as hybrid SACDs. So if on the off chance you do find a decent sounding CD it would be better to the future of SACD if you kept that a secret.

3) Let people read Mark Levinson's essay "CD vs. SACD and LP"

"Most music lovers feel that there is something wrong with the CD. Many prefer the sound of their LP's, or have cut down or stopped listening to music without even realizing why. Classical CD's aren't selling, while LP's of the same repertoire fetch hundreds of dollars a copy. People used to have 20 or 30 LP's and enjoy them, while now, people have hundreds or thousands of CD's which they rarely listen to, and almost never hear all the way through. What's going on?

Research shows that the pulse code modulation (PCM), the operating system of the CD, has limitations that so far cannot be overcome. There is something about listening to sound that has been processed with PCM which is stressful - the opposite of what most people seek in listening to music.

Sony has introduced a new digital operating system called Direct Stream Digital (DSD) which doesn't seem to create this stress reaction. DSD sounds much better than PCM, but more importantly, it is like analogue in the sense that it is very relaxing and joyful to listen to. DSD is the operating system of the new Super Audio CD (SACD). With good SACD recordings, people find they want to listen to music again with excitement and satisfaction. Because of DSD, it is now possible to revitalize the music world. Combining SACD with RRM equipment brings out the full benefits of SACD."

4) Let people read Super Audio Compact Disc - A Technical Proposal

Some folks believe that the best way to promote the SACD format is by making SACD players capable of good CD playback as many music lovers have large libraries of CDs. They feel that when people read accounts from SACD owners of CD playback so poor that they never listen to them because SACD is so superior, that they will not purchase an SACD player.

I believe this makes no difference at all as once music lovers experience the sonic revelation from the finest SACDs their CDs will remain on the shelf and CD playback ability will not matter at all. Indeed a new SACD owners biggest problem is the cost of acquiring new SACD software and frustrations of some of their favorite artists now being available on SACD yet. We all hope this will change and everything becomes available on SACD but this will take time and pressure from consumers.

SACD is not just another option along with CD playback, historically SACD/CD hybrids are designed to replace single-layer CDs.

I believe that people should hear for themselves how bad all CD players (even megabuck ones) sound and not to magically expect even better sound from the CD section of an SACD player. CD is only 44.1 kHz PCM while SACD is 2.8824 MHz. Once anyone owns an SACD player it makes playing CDs a waste of time.

What I want is ALL music lovers to get so MAD at the record companies for offering only low resolution CDs for over 25 years that they DEMAND all recordings be only offered on SACD from now on! I want them to be so mad at the record companies that they never buy another low resoltuion CD!

In my humble opinion, once one experiences superior SACD playback, CDs will set on the shelves unplayed to be soon sold on the Internet or donated to a good cause. I firmly believe true music lovers will not find CDs acceptable on any machine. Indeed many of us never found CDs acceptable and are not stuck with large libraries of worthless CDs to dispose of.

The record companies should have went straight from analog to DSD, bypassing PCM completely. Because they got greedy and did not we are stuck with decades of worthless low resolution master recordings and billions of low resolution CDs.

CD was a mistake, Sony made amends by inventing SACD. Sony admited their mistake, it is time the nay-sayers see the light and actually listen to SACD under ideal conditions and hear the difference for themselves.

So how do we present SACD in the most positive light possible while at the same time exposing the truth about low resolution CD? We really just need to get music lovers curious enough to at least listen to SACD.

I believe it is easier to convert LP and other analog lovers to SACD as almost no new classical music is being released on LP so having both LP and SACD is complimemtary. And SACD sounds very analog-like.

However converting CD music listeners is harder and I personally have had several visitors who have heard my system and dearly love the sound of SACDs but decided NOT to buy SACD as they would never want to hear their CDs again. So we come back to the money and availability problem again.

Super Audio CD [SACD] Lives!

A Short History of SACD

An open letter to the world's recording companies.

Is there a conspiracy against Super Audio CD?

Why are SACD/CD hybrids not the only music format?

SACD domination obstacles

How SACD/CD hybrids could completely replace CDs.

Pro-CD bias

Attacks on 2-channel Stereo SACD

2010-03-09T16:56:00.000-08:00

There are posters on several high resolution forums saying insulting things about 2 channel SACD, and some of these posters even like multichannel SACD. One says that "2 channel SACD is not a game changer" another says that "there is no sonic difference between CD and 2 channel SACD and SACD's ONLY advantage is multichannel and that 2 channel lovers would better off with CD."

Both of these comments are extremely insulting and degrading, how dare they want to derail 2-channel listeners by sending us directly to CD-hell! I'm not going, thank you very much! It was 2 channel music listeners that built the SACD format, if it were not for designers and audiophiles who KNOW that SACD is vastly sonically superior to CD by listening with their own ears then SACD WOULD NOT EXIST. SACD premiered in 1999 as a high resolution 2-channel stereo format and was so for nearly three years as multichannel was not offered on SACD until toward the end of 2001. Sony wanted to insure that SACD was accepted as a high resolution stereo format before it offered the multichannel option. Make no mistake SACD is THE high resolution 2-channel stereo format and multichannel is an option.

Why do these people persist in degrading SACD by propping up low resolution CD to a standing it does not deserve? Can they not see how counterproductive they are? They are giving recording companies an excuse to not release SACDs because of their incorrect and DAMAGING positive statements about low resolution CDs.

It is fine to listen to CDs, but when one elevates them to the status of high resolution it could kill the SACD format itself, especially since hybrid SACDs are more expensive to manufacture than single-layer CDs. If the companies perceive that we do not appreciate the difference in sound quality they will not spend the money. It is simple economics. Thus it is extremely important that we never exaggerate the sound quality of low resolution CD, and out anyone who is falsely propping up the CD format either for monetary gain or to try to make themselves feel better about the money they have invested in their personal CD collections.

One of the best sounding CDs versus one of the worst sounding SACDs.

2010-03-07T23:57:00.000-08:00

Bond and Beyond

Erich Kunzel, Cincinnati Pops Orchestra

Telarc CD-80251

- versus -

James Bond Themes

Carl Davis, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra

Membran SACD 222910

Some CDs I bought and sold as many as 8 times as I fell for the next so-called improvement to make CDs listenable.

Several years ago I bought and sold two small CD collections. First when I bought my Xindak SCD-2 as some reviewers said CDs sound better on this tubed player than SACDs do on some lesser players. They did sound listenable for about 2-3 playings then after that I could no longer listen around their edgy sound with shrill upper midrange, rolled off highs, cold bass and the timbre of most instruments was still wrong! So it turned out not to be true for me!

And then a few reviewers (different ones) said Shine-Ola CD cleaner made CDs sound as good as SACDs, untrue again!

The thing that sealed CDs doom forever in my home was a comparision between Telarc's CD "Bond and Beyond" versus Membran's SACD "James Bond Themes" - The Membran SACD won hands down it was more realistic, vivid and it actually sounded like music.

The Membran SACDs are some of the worst sounding SACDs I've ever heard but they sounded about ten times better than a Telarc CD. And by contrast a Telarc SACD sounds about ten times better than a Membran SACD. So I learned that Telarc SACDs are among my favorite SACDs, but not even Telarc can produce a listenable CD. And that any SACD no matter how bad sounds world's better than even the best CD to me.

So at this point I am not willing for fork over money for CDs again, it is true I bought most of these used but even at that it is hard to sell CDs even from Audiophile labels unless they are Mobile Fidelity's that have been out of print for a while. Not at all like when I gamble on a new SACD and don't like it, SACDs are real easy to sell and get a decent return. I just can't gamble with CDs anymore as I always loose sonically and monetarily.

Now I just know someone will try to say that Bond and Beyond is not one of the best sounding CDs, if so why does Cary Audio use it as a demo CD at Audio Shows with their tubed CD player? I will not say it is the finest sounding CD I've owned but it is damn near the top and I have owned CDs from ALL of the audiophile labels. All CDs are sonically unacceptable in my opinion, especially after experiencing SACD, high resolution digital or high quality analog playback.

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT, ONE OF THE WORST SOUNDING SACDs VASTLY SONICALLY SUPERIOR TO ONE OF THE BEST SOUNDING CDs!

Sonic reasons we need more Jazz and Rock SACDs

2010-03-07T19:08:00.000-08:00

Other than all the great and Jazz and Rock recordings still missing on SACDs, there are sonic reasons these would be good for the format. High percussion instruments have the highest ratio of ultrasonic to audible frequencies.

For example, the proportion of energy above 20 kHz is

Muted trumpet, 2 percent (Harmonics extend to 80 kHz)
Violin, 0.04 percent (Harmonics extend to above 40 kHz)
Oboe, 0.01 percent (Harmonics extend to above 40 kHz)
Cymbals, 40 percent (Harmonics still strong at 100 kHz)

Muted trumpets are used a lot in Jazz, and Cymbals are heavily used in both Jazz and Rock. While percussive rich Classical music recorded in a concert hall does have a lot of ultrasonic energy, I do not believe it can compete with Jazz and Rock with the percentage of ultrasonic to audible frequencies. This thus explains why I usually pull out a Jazz SACD first to show off the sonic advantages of the format. I never knew why I did that, now I have scientific proof for my choices in demo material.

For more on the ultrasonic response of musical instruments see:
There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz! A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz

Pro-CD bias

2010-03-07T16:22:00.001-08:00

When anyone on any forum suggests that CDs sound as good or better than SACDs, I know it is Pro-CD bias. Why? Because anyone with a working pair of ears on their heads can hear the DRASTIC sonic differences between the two formats. SACD not only offers greatly increased resolution but also a greater comfort level which has turned digital from uncomfortable and sometimes downright unlistenable to highly listenable and enjoyable.

This is true from the most basic 2 channel stereo set-up to the most extravagant multi-channel megabuck sound system. The Korg portable DSD recorders prove that DSD is vastly superior to any resolution of PCM through an iPod using decent headphones.

I would be willing to bet that even with boom-boxes that the smoothness and listenability of SACD over CD would also be easy to discern. There is not a single situation in the entire world in which a CD would ever sound as good as an SACD. And some of these yahoo's actually claim CD sounds better, either absolute and pure insanity or bald-faced lies due to Pro-CD bias.

Financial bias

The listener is afraid of the financial loss in selling their CDs and replacing them with SACDs.

Reviewer bias

The reviewer is afraid of losing their supply of free review CD copies and hide the truth about the superior sound quality of SACDs.

Equipment Manufacture bias

The poster is a manufacturer of high-end CD transports and players and is protecting his or her income.

CD Manufacture bias

The poster is an owner of a record company that only releases CDs.

I short do not fall for Pro-CD bias! In time you will be able to recognize and reveal these impostors for who they really are and their lies will die with their damaging words.

FRAUD ALERT: Another new low resolution 16 Bit 44.1kHz CD format masquerading as high resolution.

2010-02-16T16:03:00.000-08:00

DXD Digital eXtreme Definition CD: Playable on all CD players!

"DXD is a PCM signal with 24-bit resolution sampled at 352.8 kHz - eight times 44.1 kHz, the sampling frequency of Red Book CD."

CD lovers wake up from your delusions, CD is ONLY 16 Bit 44.1kHz and no magic anywhere on earth can change that! If you desire high resolution the choices are clear:

SACD
DVD-Audio
Blu-ray Audio
24 Bit 96kHz DVD
High resolution downloads of 88.2kHz or higher

REMEMBER IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM WILL LOW RESOLUTION CD EVER BE HIGH RESOLUTION. IT WOULD VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. It is totally and completely impossible! This is just another fraud to separate the gullible from their money. I call absolute and complete foul on this phony DXD CD format. Phooey!

And here is the final kick to the gut, these charlatans want $34.99 for these fraudulent CDs masquerading as high resolution! For that price we can buy two real high resolution SACDs!

Help spread the word about real honest-to-god high resolution to everyone. The sooner the CD format dies, the sooner these snake-oil salesmen can quit taking advantage of unsuspecting music lovers.

The History of BIS' departure from DSD recording to 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM recording.

2010-02-10T02:54:00.000-08:00

Here for posterity's sake is the article I spiked at the request of the president of BIS, Robert von Bahr. In June of 2009, I agreed not to publish it in Positive Feedback Online. However I think the subject matter is of extreme importance to the future of SACD and am posting it here at SACD Lives.

I have read this article dozens of times and Robert's request to spike the Positive Feedback Online is unfounded as much of the article are unedited quotes from him, his recording staff and other well known engineers. It is mostly my comments he disagrees with, personally I believe I have been more than fair, indeed I bent over backwards to present his side of the issues. I hope you enjoy the article and learn from all the issues brought forth.

The History of BIS' departure from DSD recording to 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM recording.

I fully support BIS releasing 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM SACDs as I firmly believe all recordings should be released as SACD/CD hybrids without regard to resolution. I even believe old mono 78's should be released as SACD/CD hybrids, indeed in my opinion single-layer CDs should be a thing of the distant past.

However I do believe in full disclosure, not only of the recording type, but in the case of PCM the sampling rate and bit depth of the recording and any mixing. Not all companies that record PCM are as straight forward with recording information as BIS is, indeed there are many SACDs that I not only suspect of being from 44.1kHz PCM but 16 Bit as well, based solely on their sound quality.

Since BIS quit recording DSD in 2005 due to the limited availability of DSD editing tools, the editing possibilities of DSD have greatly increased but Robert von Bahr has informed us that buying new DSD or even higher resolution PCM equipment is not viable in the current economic climate. Indeed BIS is only in a position to currently offer 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM Surround Sound SACDs and 16 Bit Bit 44.1kHz PCM Stereo CDs.

The nine known DSD recorded SACDs BIS released are generally excellent sounding and give a window into how good their engineering can sound at true high resolution.

Time Table
1) BIS switched from DSD back to PCM recording in 2005
2) Robert announced in 2005 BIS is producing everything from now on in 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.
3) Robert announced in 2009 BIS is producing everything in 24 Bit, 44.1kHz PCM. Evidently at some point 88.2kHz was either abandoned or never used.

From a previous PFO article "The SACD format needs a more complex SPARS-type code" 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM was not even listed as I was unaware of anyone actually using this combination of bit depth and sampling frequency. Until BIS' announcement I thought 48kHz was the lowest sampling frequency available for 24 Bit. As we all know 16 Bit 44.1kHz PCM is the resolution for redbook CD.

BIS DSD SACDs versus BIS PCM SACDs in 2 channel stereo

So with BIS' latest SACDs what one gets is an increase to 24 Bit and multichannel sound. As a 2 channel stereo lover I cannot address the multichannel aspect however I do hear definite improvement afforded by the extra 8 bits of information. Speaking of BIS recordings only, if one listens to the first three DSD recorded SACDs from BIS' Grieg series and compare them to the last three PCM recorded ones the differences are very telling. In my system the DSD recorded ones have smoother sting tone, more air and ambiance, warmer bass and more delicacy in the high percussion instruments. The first three Grieg SACDs sound quite like what I hear in live music, the last three sound like recordings. I found the PCM Complete Peer Gynt dry sounding with a distinctly PCM sonic signature, which I complained about before the 2005 announcement of the switch by BIS from DSD to PCM. The Holberg Suite actually has very strident string tone which sounds like redbook CD and something I thought was impossible on SACD even from low resolution.

Grieg: Norwegian Dances, Op. 35, Symphonic Dances, Op. 64, Lyric Suite, Op. 54 - Ole Kristian Ruud (conductor) Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra - BIS SACD-1291 -DSD Recording - Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD
Grieg: Piano Concerto, Symphony in C minor, In Autumn - Noriko Ogawa (piano) Ole Kristian Ruud (conductor) Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra - BIS SACD-1191 - DSD Recording - Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD
Grieg: Sigurd Jorsalfar Op. 22, Landkjenning Op. 31, Bergliot Op. 42, Sorgemarsj over Rikard Nordraak EG117, Den Bergtekne Op. 32 - Hakan Hagegard, Gorild Mauseth, Ole Kristian Ruud (conductor) Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra - BIS SACD-1391 - DSD Recording - Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD
Grieg: Peer Gynt Op. 23 - Hakan Hagegard, Marita Solberg, Ingebjorg Kosmo, Kari Postma, Ole Kristian Ruud (conductor) Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra - BIS-SACD-1441/42 (2 discs) - 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM Recording - Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD
Grieg: Holberg Suite Op. 40, Two Elegiac Melodies Op. 34, Two Melodies Op. 53, Two Nordic Melodies Op. 63, Two Lyric Pieces Op. 68 - Ole Kristian Ruud (conductor) Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra - BIS-SACD-1491 - 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM Recording - Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD
Grieg: Peer Gynt Suites Nos. 1 & 2, Funeral March in Memory of Rikard Nordraak, Old Norwegian Melody with Variations Op. 51, Bell Ringing Op. 54 No. 6 - Ole Kristian Ruud (conductor) Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra - BIS-SACD-1591 - 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM Recording - Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD

Here is my comparison review A Tale of two SACDs - DSD versus 24 Bit PCM

DSD, PCM and real life

To my ears DSD recording is ideally the most realistic and the most consistent with what I hear in the concert hall. However PCM from 24 Bit 88.2kHz and higher can often sound superb, until all recordings are from DSD masters I do find I have to either make compromises or live with a very small collection. Neither situation is ideal, so when I see a recording company moving away from DSD it troubles me greatly!

Back in February of 2009 after selling over 150 SACDs due to unsatisfactory sound quality compared to DSD recorded SACDs, LPs or live music I proposed a SPARS type code for SACD.   Most of those I sold were from masters of undisclosed resolution and I suspect they are low resolution PCM (44.1kHz and 48kHz), thus my proposal for a SPARS type code for SACD. I will admit it is a selfish attempt to not lose money on low resolution recordings residing on SACDs.   While I do believe all recordings without regard to resolution should be released as SACD/CD hybrids I also believe in correct labeling so those of us who don't care for the sound quality of low resolution recordings can instead choose those from real high resolution masters.

The magic words for me are "PURE DSD" and "DSD recorded" I sometimes play DVD-Audio and high resolution downloads and I can tell you NO DVD-Audio even at 192kHz sounds anywhere near as good as a DSD recorded SACD. When I really want to sit down and deeply enjoy music I put on a DSD recorded SACD. I prefer Telarc the most, but other labels also make excellent sounding DSD recordings. Once you hear how really great DSD recorded SACDs are it is very hard to go back to any resolution of PCM. DSD is what makes the SACD format so special. And BIS used to make some excellent sounding DSD recorded SACDs, hopefully they will again in the future.

In selecting new music to buy, a disc having SACD logo is just the first step, and I would like to know how it is recorded before I buy it. There is a real pattern that has developed over the last 10 years, DSD recorded SACDs sound the best to me, with the exception of a few known bad ones. Most of the SACDs I have sold as unacceptable sonically were either PCM or of undisclosed resolution. This tells me it is far safer financially to buy DSD recorded SACDs, as most of those stay in my collection. Over 90% of my SACD collection is DSD, there can be no greater compliment to DSD and SACD than that. My strategy is I look for a DSD recorded version first, resorting only to PCM if DSD is not available.

Even though editing in DSD is still somewhat limited compared to PCM (a good thing as far as I am concerned, unfortunately since writing this, DSD can now be manipulated as much as PCM, damn), 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. 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 also excellent performances as well.

The BIS' October 28, 2005 announcement

October, 2005 when we first suspected BIS' newer SACDs of not being DSD recorded, based solely on how they sounded.   Zeus at sa-cd.net produced a letter saying BIS was now doing everything in PCM (24bit, 88.2Khz or 44.1Khz). I am sure all of us thought it would be 88.2kHz for the SACD and 44.1kHz for the CD.

Email From BIS' Ingo Petry to Zeus in response GoldenRedux's question "I was under the impression that all of the BIS SACD's were DSD recordings, but only some of them are listed here as DSD. Are these listings correct?"

"We are producing everything from now on in PCM (24bit, 88.2Khz or 44.1Khz) first leaving everything in PCM-domain for postproduction (mixing, editing, reverb if necessary) and do the transfer to DSD at the last possible state!!! That gives optimum postproduction quality (and recording quality as well especially for multitrack recordings up to 32channels) without compromising in premixing on location!" and "We strongly believe after several blind listening tests that our solution is overall the technical most clean AND sonically most convincing one."

My response to the news on October 29, 2005

"Most BIS recordings on SACD have been from DSD Masters and have sounded superb especially the Greig Orchestral discs, the first 3 are DSD the Peer Gynt doesn't say what it is... the even later BIS SACDs do not say how the master was made and they do not sound as good as their earlier DSD SACDs and I could not put my finger on why. So now we know! On the other hand Chandos who as recently went the other way from 96kHz 24 Bit PCM to DSD recordings...have been superb so far. BIS please reconsider as your SACDs from DSD masters are among the very best in my collection..."

The BIS' January 19, 2009 announcement

Email dated 1/19/09 to RWetmore in response to his 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"

Robert von Bahr confirmation of this email:

"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."

Robert von Bahr explaining the switch from DSD to PCM recording

"I would like to be a missionary for OTHER production values than perceived sound quality differences, these other production values being so incredibly much more important to the end result. I will even go as far as to say that EVEN if our sound could be marginally better, using pure DSD (I don't admit to it, so don't quote me wrongly), but EVEN IF, and the price would be to lose out on all the possibilities we now have to make the record the way the artists would like them, I would buy the lesser sound. It would be a musical vs. a technical war, and, for me, the MUSIC WINS EVERY TIME...I don't think the same musical results could have been achieved with a pure DSD recording.

I have so far conducted several tests with Golden Ears, great artists and what not, and not even the artists can differentiate between origins, even when they listen to their own recordings on their own instruments.

If we were to go for pure DSD and thereby lose so many possibilities to make the musical contents of the recording so much better.

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.

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. [Editor's Note: I highlighted this quote in red as I find it INSULTING not only to the engineers who make wonderful DSD recorded SACDs, but to high resolution digital and all owners of SACD players!] We've been there, seen it, and drawn the consequences, because we asked the artists...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."

My post about the DSD to PCM switch and Robert's response

I said: "I understand your reasons for switching from DSD to PCM as DSD is hard to work in as Michael Bishop of Telarc explains. Once the volume level of the recording is set it cannot be changed in DSD, the engineer must get this correct before the start of recording. Balancing, etc has to be done before recording, in other words everything has to be correct and perfect before you turn the DSD recorder on as there is no fixing it later. Electronic splicing is kept to a minimum as each edit point has to be converted to DSD wide or PCM for less than 2ms and then converted back to DSD. As Michael Bishop explains this is seamless and one never hears the recording leaving and returning to DSD as the edit point is so short, much shorter than a splice on an analog recorder. Most engineer's once they start recording DSD never revert back to PCM because they are so impressed with the results. Which makes BIS somewhat of an enigma being the only company I know of to adopt DSD and revert to PCM."

Robert said: "Dear Teresa, and here you have it in a nutshell. I have earlier stated that the listening experience is a conglomerate of several factors, where the sound certainly is one. What hall you use is another. Musicians and instruments a third and fourth. They are all important!! We consider our sound to be absolutely first-class, and, so far basically everyone have agreed, with a few exceptions, you and raffells included, that is, agreed until they READ about what they have been listening to....

But here you're talking about another factor. The fact that DSD doesn't allow any meaningful post-production is VERY detrimental to the final results. [Editor's Note: This is not true any longer - see DSD in Production] If I may use an analogy - how do you think that Rembrandt or Titian would have reacted, if someone simply took away their smallest brushes and said to then that they would have to make do with the big ones only? How would they paint hairs? And this, even if they have access to the best paints in the world?

For us, it would be TOTALLY frustrating not to be able to fix that cracked horn entry or correct other mistakes, balancing or otherwise, because the system is more like a piassava brush that you sweep streets with compared to hair brushes. You talk about 2 ms edit points. That would be the equivalent of a vertical edit with a pair of scissors (yes, I am that old). Let me tell you that many edits go on for seconds. You cannot edit in a lying tone "vertically" without there being a huge bump. We record in multitrack so as to be able to bring out the ultimate musical results afterwards. That's basically incompatible with DSD. [Editor's Note: Crossfade edit points are where sections of DSD material are electronically joined together, it is this point lasting for 2ms that is in PCM wide and as Michael Bishop explains is not audible. The scissor cut is a great analogy, think of replacing a section of an analog tape, you remove the section of tape from the bad take and replace it with another section from a good take. Your splicer will join the replacement section at both ends, thus there will be two cuts and the splicing tapes applied. So in DSD that would be two crossfade edits one at the beginning of the of take and one at the end. The electronic cut or crossfade edit point would be the PCM wide and where that actual music is would be DSD. The edit points are only for joining the music which can be any length, as there is a crossfade edit point on both sides of the edit. (see next section for Michael Bishop's posts on crossfade edit points)]

But don't let's get technical here. We are talking about a system that really does sound well - no two ways about that. But we are into MUSIC, and we want to present the music and playing in the best possible manner. That REQUIRES that we can work on the material we have recorded, and DSD makes that either incredibly cumbersome or downright impossible, unless you leave the DSD domain and revert to PCM - and then, what's the point, from your point of view? We just drew the inevitable conclusion and left the system altogether. Honestly, DSD should only be used for live performances, not carefully and lovingly produced records, IMHO.

As I said - as long as one has reached a certain level, we go for the most important things. We find our sound level to be so good that even experienced professional listeners cannot with certainty distinguish between the alternatives but we would totally deplore to throw away our chances to correct and choose the really best parts of the recording takes - and that's what DSD unfortunately does - see Michael Bishop above. Jared Sacks elsewhere has also testified to the difficulties in working with DSD.

The 2ms (or 0.002 second) Crossfade edit points

Robert von Bahr does not agree with Michael Bishop that the edit point (where to music segments are joined together) can only be 2ms, he says "Please take it from me, you can only edit in 2 ms cross-fade in absolute silence. Real edits occur in up to 5-6 SECONDS crossfade (especially so in organ music). Most edits are in 50 - 1'000 ms crossfade, also with the "pure DSD" companies." I agree with Michael Bishop's statements.

My information on Crossfade edit points are directly from Michael Bishop of Telarc and he disagrees completely with you! He says the 2ms (or 0.002 second) edit point is too fast to be audible to the human ear. Also that is the only time it is in high resolution PCM at the 2ms edit point on both sides of the edit. The music itself is always DSD.

Posted September 19, 2003

"There CAN be (almost) pure DSD editing on the Sonoma DSD workstation, as long as the source is DSD, and that one does not change volume level of the source, the DSD stays as DSD except at the edit points. Only for the duration of the edit crossfade (as short as 2ms) does the DSD signal go through the Sony E-Chip for editing processing.

I try to keep all edit processing to an absolute minimum because of the interstep needed for the edit. Unity gain is the rule on my projects!

DSD workstations that rely on 32-bit pcm at 392kHz are not very successful at maintaining the source audio quality, IMO. The DSD source goes through the 392kHz process and stays there, regardless of edits, until the final conversion to 1-bit DSD."

Best Regards,
Michael Bishop  Recording Engineer

The Light goes on It sort of goes like this:
DSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSD(2ms X-fade)DSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSD(2ms X-fade)DSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSDDSD etc., etc., etc.....

"if one can hear the millisecond conversion to extremely high-resolution pcm in a once-in-a-great-while well-placed edit, that person should be the subject of scientific investigation. A good edit is a good edit whatever the domain. It's all smoke and mirrors anyway."  

Best Regards,
Michael Bishop  Recording Engineer

The problems Robert see with editing in the DSD domain

"We have different approaches. I come from the musical side and you from the sounding side. Both are absolutely valid, and we'll have to agree to disagree.

I agree with what Michael Bishop says... If you want to restrict yourself to
- not change volume level and
- only edit, where the music allows short crossfades (meaning pauses),
yes, this is OK.

But, Teresa, we don't want to restrict ourselves thusly. We come from two different camps. Let me be specific, just one example of hundreds:

Take Stravinsky's Petrouchka for solo piano. There is a passage, where the pianist has to, repeatedly and in a prestissimo tempo, hit clean E octaves with both hands, wide apart in the descant and bass, and, between these chords, play in the middle of the keyboard. So, in effect, the pianist throws both hands repeatedly to the extreme sides and tries to hit those E:s cleanly. Take it from me: it is IMPOSSIBLE for any human being to do this cleanly and with any certainty, if the tempo is as ferociously fast as Stravinsky demands. Impossible!! So you have two choices - either to play safe, meaning slowing down the tempo, so that you can wiggle your head about and check where the hands are, or just keep the tempo and hope for the best, looking at either the left or the right hand. In the concert hall almost everyone chooses the latter option, fast playing, since the music is the important thing. But comes the recording. No one likes to present a record, where wrong notes, split notes are part of it. And this is then the problem: do they slow down the tempo, so as to play cleanly or do we use the editing tool to give the poor bugger several chances, and then choose the ones, where he hits it right, in the correct tempo? To me the answer is obvious. You state that: "This Direct-to-Disc which cannot be edited or changed in any way proved to me most editing and messing with the sound after recording is totally unnecessary."

I respect your opinion, Teresa, but I cannot agree. We prefer the artist to take all risks in order to present the optimal reading of the music, NOT to play safe! Editing makes this possible.

Given then that we are committed to editing: just so that the music isn't combined from small takes of a few bars or worse, we encourage the artists to play long stretches at a time, to retain the flow of the music, something akin to having several performances, from which we take the best parts. But, Teresa, artists aren't machines. They don't play the performances exactly alike every time around (mistakes apart). Thus, when it comes to snipping between the takes, it is more the rule than not that small level adjustments have to be made, to make the transition from one take to the next absolutely smooth and inaudible. This is IMPOSSIBLE in DSD. If we want to edit in the middle of the music - and we do - we have to use sometimes very long cross-fades. [Editor's Note: According to Michael Bishop (and other engineers using DSD) crossfades are only 2ms long and are on both sides of the edit, the newly inserted music is in the middle of the crossfade points which can be as long as needed.]

This is not an option in DSD, because the cross-fades in PCM would, with Teresa's ears, be audible. (Not true section: The 2ms (or 0.002 second) Crossfade edit points, below) So, we're faced with the dilemma:

- Do we choose the musically best takes for the master or
- do we let the recording technique limit the choices for us? Or
- do we want to present a product with audible and unmusical edits?
[Editor's Note: Sorry Robert no dilemma, invite Michael Bishop to your recording session and he will show you how to do this in pure DSD.]

Again, for me the answer is self-evident, as it VERY DEFINITELY is for the ARTISTS. They would never allow a technical detail stand in the way for them to present the work as they want, NEVER!!! If they knew about the choices, that is...
I honestly do wonder, if the artists who have agreed to work in DSD have been given these choices, but I do not wonder what they would say, if they knew.

So, Teresa, from our standpoint we don't really have a choice. We come from the musical side. If only the developers of DSD had gone all the way, but they are technicians, not MUSICIANS with any experience of recording situations. This is such a pity, because let's agree finally on one thing: DSD is fantastic. Even though we consider what we deliver to be so good as to be practicably indistinguishable from it. But, for a real musician (and at BIS, we are) DSD simply is not practicable. Such a crying shame." [Editor's Note: Telarc, Channel Classics, PentaTone and others prove that not only is DSD quite practical but sounds vastly superior to PCM at any resolution.]

Robert von Bahr's final declaration, May 22, 2009 on sa-cd.net

"Dear Forum,

I think it is about time to make a final declaration from BIS regarding this discussion.
I don't pretend that I will be able to convince everyone or even anyone, but one thing I think I am entitled to, and that is to be treated with a modicum of respect. I have a track record (no pun intended) for honesty, and I will not further entertain posts from people who doubt my honesty or call me names. I am fully willing to discuss all other aspects, and I do admit that I may be wrong, but I don't cheat, period. For those who remain unconvinced, I have saved the best for the last, namely that you are in no way forced to buy any BIS products. As a quid pro quo I would want your possible criticism to dwell upon verifiable facts, not just conjecture. So, here goes, and I am sorry, if it gets long-winded.

1) We have never pretended, or tried to pass off, any BIS product for anything else than what it is. On the contrary, I have repeatedly on this Forum and elsewhere declared that, with a few exceptions in the beginning, we record in PCM, only converting to DSD in the final stage.

2) Why do we record in PCM rather than DSD?
Because, for us, the possibilities of editing, mixing etc of the raw material are infinitely greater in PCM than in DSD. Directly said: we can do more to the recording to conform with the intentions of the artists in PCM than we can in DSD. We consider this to be of utmost importance for the enjoyment of the final product.

3) Why do we record in 44,1/24 rather than in higher resolution?

Because we face a bottleneck situation in several important aspects.

- Our equipment, although being state-of-the-art, cannot handle the quantity of recording tracks needed in higher resolution than 44,1, since we record in multi-track. Any change in this would require a very sizeable investment in more/bigger equipment both for the 4 movable recording equipments we have as for the editing suites as well as necessitating more personnel for every recording. We have been constantly modernizing our entire recording equipment, incl. cables, for our SACD recordings in order to improve our sound (Multitrack recording with remix Stereo and Surround). However, these investments, before committing to them, also had to undergo a consequential analysis - we couldn't invest in equipment that necessitated an extra person per recording or making the post-production impossibly complicated, since we then would be in the classical situation: operation a huge success, but the patient (SACD releases) died.

- We only have one editing/mixing plus two other editing-alone suites for multitrack. It is really time-consuming to reset the whole equipment for different recording formats.

- We do an enormous amount of multi-channel recordings and the run-through time in this studio has to be kept at a minimum (even so, each multi-channel recording takes a good extra week in the studio just for mixing, with at least 2 persons constantly present - wanna know the costs?).

- We face economic realities like anyone else. The SACD format is, at best, a niche format, which we are trying to support by being the world's 4th largest SACD label, and probably the 2nd (after Exton) in newly recorded products per year. To make the investment in a totally different architecture of our equipment above and, taking into consideration that we would have to be 3 persons instead of 2 for each orchestral recording with what that entails (salary, travel, hotel, per diem) would make the whole SACD project financially impossible, and therefore diminish the quantity of released SACD:s drastically. We are already taking a horrible beating, financially, because of our commitment to SACD, and I am OK with that, but I will not jeopardize BIS for SACD:s sake. My earlier thread "How many of you..." showed conclusively that very few, even on this Forum, would support SACD to the exclusion of anything else, and now that we are faced with a boycott, the incitement to continue to release SACD:s doesn't exactly grow.

4) So are we sacrificing the quality of our SACD products for the sake of quantity?

A very important question, and essentially the one that set this whole discussion off. Some of you say a resounding YES to that - we say NO. Let me argue with the YES-sayers.

- We currently employ, full-time (and the only record company in the world to do so), no less than 6 Tonmeisters from Detmold, Germany, all of whom have moved to Sweden to work for BIS. Detmold is without any comparison THE place for the education of producers and recording engineers in the world. It is a very extensive education in music and technique, the entry exam is gruelling, as are the studies. "My" 6 producers have been chosen individually, out of many dozens, after long time of apprentice work at BIS before being offered a permanent position.

- We also have a small circle of some further 5-6 Tonmeisters from that same place who, while electing not to move to the country of sexually liberated icebears walking the streets, nevertheless have been chosen, after the same apprenticeship, to be part of the "inner circle" of BIS trustees.

- The point being that, before we took the decision to move from native DSD to PCM, we conducted an extensive double-blind test on all these people, and some of our best artists as well, to see what, if any, difference they could hear between the DSD original and the PCM version of the same piece. The result was statistically totally insignificant, that is, the result could have been achieved by tossing a coin.

- Am I now to believe that precisely the professionals on both side of the microphone we chose for these tests are actually deaf? And that only people like Teresa on this Forum are equipped with golden ears? That I personally, at age almost 66, am past hearing the extreme HF noises I reluctantly accept, but my Tonmeisters and world-famous artists? No, I cannot accept that.

- So what about Teresa's ("DSD") Golden Ears and veracity? I am sorry to go ad hominem here, but I have been quite upset with some of her assertions on the Forum. This is not to destroy her, just give an example that there may be OTHER reasons than what you ACTUALLY hear that decide what you THINK you hear. For instance recording format, numbers, preconceptions. The following are all DSD:s quotes on the BIS threads.

Quote (April 5, 2009): "Sorry I got off topic there, all I wanted to say is Robert's recordings are great...". [Editor's Note: This was a discussion about the musical qualities of BIS' SACDs not their sonic attributes here is the complete sentence:] "Sorry I got off topic there, all I wanted to say is Robert's recordings are great and I love the off the beaten track repertoire." Here is my post:

Quote (May 20): "I have sold many SACDs because they sounded like they were from 48kHz PCM even when they did not state so! And 44.1kHz is even worse. My Golden ears are fine, none of my BIS SACDs are from 44.1kHz PCM. You just have too little faith in Robert von Bahr, shame on you. FYI the only BIS SACDs I know of from 44.1kHz masters are all the ones in the Ultra Extended Playing Time ...." [Editor's Note: This is true and I am working of an article of 150 recommended and not recommended SACDs, and really did not believe that anyone would make new recordings in 2009 at only 44.1kHz! That still sounds bizarre to me!]

Then after the horrible exposure of how we record:
Quote (May 21): "I still say these two SACDs sound like high resolution PCM:
American Spectrum - Llewellyn
Shilkret: Trombone Concerto etc. - Lindberg/Neschling
Any information on these two as they sound way too good to be 44.1kHz PCM."

Well, as everyone will have guessed by now: The 2 SACD's referred to above are indeed recorded in 44.1/24, just like the rest. Thus I maintain that people are far too influenced with what they THINK they're hearing rather than what they actually are hearing. I again apologize to Teresa - it is a cheap shot, I admit, but one that, under the circumstances, unfortunately needs to be made. Listen with your ears, not with your eyes. What you hear, ACTUALLY HEAR, is the truth. All other things are inconsequential.

[Editor's Note: The fact that I like the sound of these two SACDs is a supreme compliment to BIS as I have never heard a 44.1kHz PCM recording in any format that sounded as good as these two! Robert von Bahr's original revelation from 2005 stated that he was switching to PCM at 88.2 and 44.1kHz PCM. Robert now says these are both 44.1kHz PCM, At no time did I ever say either one sounded anywhere near as good as a DSD recording. But I think they sound really great for PCM. So you see Robert this accusation is untrue and does not invalidate any of my extremely realistic sounding DSD recordings. Here is my latest thoughts on these two BIS SACDs from June 14, 2009 - I have re-listened to these two PCM BIS SACDs and I stand behind my comments even after Robert von Bahr confirmed both are only 44.1kHz PCM. They do have a PCM signature but all PCM recorded SACDs to my ears have a particular PCM sound even at resolutions much higher than 44.1kHz. It does not have the air, ambiance, bass presence or huge soundstage of a well made DSD recording but it never expected it to. 24 Bit is definitely an improvement over 16 Bit and I will continue to purchase BIS SACDs of unusual and rare repertoire otherwise unavailable on SACD as I have been doing since BIS' switch back from DSD to PCM in 2005. Finally Robert I listen with my ears, with the lights out sitting in the sweet spot, I never listen with my eyes!]

5) What constitutes a remarkable listening experience and how does one achieve this?

There are several factors that contribute to a good recording. Choice of music, musicians, instruments, hall, microphones, placement of same, producer that is psychologically attuned to the artists, and, yes, recording equipment. In order to achieve the very high level of customer satisfaction, one cannot really scrimp on any of these, but, conversely, not any single one of these factors is solely responsible for the satisfaction of the listener. They all combine to give the enjoyment aimed for.

Now, it is my contention that we are dealing with music here, music that has to be presented in the best possible light. All other things are secondary to that. It is further my contention that one should take pains to make sure that the weakest link in the chain should be strengthened first. Thus it is more important that a bad piano is replaced with a good one rather than that a good microphone is replaced with a very good one. It is more important that a harpsichord is in tune in a reasonable church than untuned in a good one. The list goes on.

Eventually one has ironed out the weakest links, making them stronger, until one has the prerequisites fulfilled to have the chance to make a really good recording. Call it a "minimum requirement" situation.

So, where does the difference DSD/PCM or even 44,1/24 vs 88,2/24 come in as far as weak links are concerned? Rather far down, I'm afraid. Actually, at the bottom. Since we haven't even between ourselves been able to ascertain - IN REAL TESTS - any statistically significant difference between them, and we have proven (above) that even the most vociferous Golden-Ear-people can be embarrassingly mistaken, we tend to believe that other factors are much more important for the result of the recording than the system used in this particular case, once you pass a certain level, and 44,1/24 is defined as high resolution. A change in the recording system as above may result in sound differences that even our experts cannot define with any certainty, meaning that the difference, if any, is so small as to shrink into meaninglessness, whereas the microphone placement, or recording in the wrong hall can utterly destroy the recording, regardless of recording equipment. It is my contention that you're barking up the wrong tree, concentrating on a really insignificant part of the chain (given a certain level), while totally disregarding the things that have an immediate and extremely noticeable effect on the result. And, so far NO ONE HAS SAID A WORD ABOUT SURROUND!!! Now, if that isn't a factor that in itself is incredibly more important than the perceived change in sound quality I don't know what is.

Add to this the fact that going over to 88,2/24 at this very moment in actual effect would make the whole production chain - for us - so expensive that we would have to stop releasing SACDs altogether, one is faced with the alternatives

- either embrace what we do, and have been reputed to do so well, also in this Forum or
- boycott further purchases of BIS material on account of a perceived lack of quality.

That choice is up to you.

Hopefully this will cap the discussion as far as BIS is concerned.

Best wishes - Robert

Response to Robert von Bahr about current DSD recording by Everett Porter of Polyhymnia

"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."

Jared Sachs of Channel Classics reply to Chris' post on sa-cd.net

"It is really not my business to lecture others of which recording medium to use. I can fully understand the barriers for Robert if he is dealing with all his sets plus being compatible with their system back home. Not to forget all the postproduction capabilities which DSD just does not have. Maybe if the SACD was selling to a larger market, he might have invested in the equipment but now is certainly not the time.

My only comment to many labels who approach me is that at least record and store the data at the highest possible denominator not knowing what the future will bring by way of format to the consumer. Downsampling is always a better selling point than upsampling!

Bis makes great recordings and everyone on this forum always seems to agree so indeed the music comes first and you accept the lower sampling rate for what it is. then whether you or Bis can hear the difference in a blind listening test is not an issue."

Michael Bishop of Telarc on DSD editing

"There CAN be (almost) pure DSD editing on the Sonoma DSD workstation, as long as the source is DSD, and that one does not change volume level of the source, the DSD stays as DSD except at the edit points. Only for the duration of the edit crossfade (as short as 2ms) does the DSD signal go through the Sony E-Chip for editing processing. I try to keep all edit processing to an absolute minimum because of the interstep needed for the edit. Unity gain is the rule on my projects!"

Best Regards,
Michael Bishop
Recording Engineer

How much would it cost you to upgrade your equipment to fully handle 176.4khz/24bit PCM?

"It would be exceedingly expensive to change all sets of equipments going round the world plus all the editing suites and it would necessitate an extra person at every recording. We can afford neither or, as I have said earlier, we cannot afford to actually record with them AND release SACD's.

The extra selling because of SACD is miniscule. The correct solution, if our finances were the only important thing, would be to cease and desist. We would save more than half of the recording/editing costs, and the loss in customers would be far less - don't forget, we sell SACDs at the price of normal CDs and we pay copyrights and royalties like on normal CDs. Given the extra costs for the physical production of the SACD we earn much less per copy sold, and, since the vast majority of copies are sold to people that don't even know what SACD is, much less can play them - we take a loss also here compared to normal CD's.

There is not much in SACD, financially, but we consider the sound quality difference, plus the fact that we can serve surround, to be more important than our profits. So far..."

BIS' commitment to SACD

"We have so far been totally committed to the SACD cause, trying to enlarge the repertoire (while not forgetting the standard repertoire), and, for us, the more, the merrier. But we are a business, after all, and forced to play on the Industry's conditions. We cannot charge more for our services (since most people don't want to pay extra for something they cannot use) and so we have an upper limit as to how much every production may cost. Personnel costs much (travel, salary, per diem, hotel), and most productions cannot carry those extra costs.

Then there is another thing: artists WANT to have the SACD treatment, since it is perceived to be more prestigious. We want to give it to them - thus we have to keep the quantity up. But the artists do NOT want to give up on musical quality, and they can be exceedingly demanding, so we have to employ a system where we can serve them on that front as well, while not wasting more time than necessary.

It is so nice (I am not being sarcastic here) that so many persons involve themselves in the thought process on how to ru(i)n a record company, but here you must trust me - I am sitting with all the answers, as far as BIS is concerned.

Some may say that we should lower the quantity of recordings and go on a spending spree for the few remaining ones. I think not, not, if you are concerned about the future of SACD. I think that the more material there is available, the better for the format. That we would go bankrupt in such a process is another matter, since the extra sales of such recordings would not pay for the extra costs of recording/editing them. And, again, as long as WE can state with honesty that our recording quality is not AUDIBLY less good than the other systems, I am proud to follow the line that we have chosen. Please believe me, we have had endless internal discussions about this before deciding. It wasn't just a whim from yours truly, Robert.

Ingo Petry, the most senior of BIS' recording engineers/producers explains the BIS recording process

"Example of a typical BIS microphone setup for large orchestra:

Main mics: spaced omnis, for example TLM 50 or KM 130 (all Neumann), if also surround sometimes an additional Center mic mostly of the same type as the AB configuration.

Surround mics: could be anything from omnis to figure of eight, depending very much on the hall and the music.

Spot mics: KM 143s, 184s, TLM 149s and other members of the Neumann family depending on instruments and/or musical content and/or hall specifics.

Distances, angles etc. run within a certain frame but are adjusted to the acoustical environment one has to cope with :-)

This is of course only a 'shopping list' and if further interested can be cooked into a meal within a more private conversation but definitely not on this Forum!

Let me use this opportunity to say that real relevant questions like microphone placement and types etc. are so much more rewarding to discuss than the lately slightly overblown recording format dispute...

The reason that many people think that BIS has a rather high score in 'good sound' is simply that we at BIS agree on certain fundamental sound ideas. That includes also the importance of certain elements which may lead towards a good recording. Terms like 'openness, no coloration, impact, smoothness, personality, naturalness etc.' are all words we try to commit ourselves to.

And I must totally disagree with anybody who claims that just because a recording is not done all the way in the DSD domain, it cannot live up towards that goal. Just because one is believing in something very strongly doesn't make it more true...

Anyway, this discussion is an endless one and the positive thing I can still see with some of these strongly minded opinions within this Forum is that as long there is a discussion there is an interest and somebody who cares! And that is definitely the case for BIS and all its contributors!

At last some idea for people who are willing to look a bit behind the scenes before making all these assumptions and black-and-white comments. I strongly recommend to try to come to a recording session (any label not just BIS) and see first-hand what is it all about! For our label not so difficult because we do recordings in almost any possibe (or impossible) place on this planet.

See you there,
Ingo Petry,
Record producer, sound engineer, BIS Records"

Why I sold my 44.1kHz BIS SACDs (updated 1/27/2011)

Last year I sold my last two non-DSD BIS recorded SACDs because ultimately I could not live with the lack of deep back and the somewhat strident string tone.

SACD is not about making recordings one can live with it is about making the best sounding recordings possible! If we only cared about the performance we could subscribe to a monthly service and download BIS MP3s for 25 cents a track.

For serious listening I want the highest resolution possible and for me that is DSD recorded SACDs. I only buy high resolution PCM recorded SACDs of music not available in DSD recorded SACDs. And that is why I don't have a lot of non-DSD BIS SACDs.

I am among those who firmly believe no music should be recorded at any resolution lower than 88.2kHz and if I had my way everything would be recorded DSD. Which to me means more natural sounding recordings not only because of the higher resolution but also because the editing options are limited. [Editor's Note: Unfortunately this has changed DSD can now be edited and manipulated as much as PCM without leaving the DSD domain, damn!] I have always preferred a less hands on recording technique, more like photographic recording. For example the Crystal Clear Direct to Disc recordings of the Boston Pops and the London Philharmonic, especially the wonderful Gould conducts Gould Direct to Disc LP. His Spirituals for Orchestra is so real and spontaneous plus the resulting sound quality is among the best ever captured. This Direct-to-Disc which cannot be edited or changed in any way proved to me most editing and messing with the sound after recording is totally unnecessary. I have always preferred recording companies who took the natural approach.

If you listen at all to Jazz music please check out DMP's Direct to DSD SACDs with NO editing within a track or song. If there is a mess up or problem with a track the entire track is re-recorded. Tom Jung believes editing destroys the spontaneity of the music and that is why he never edits, his results prove he is right.

I really wish there was a way I could talk BIS into going back to DSD! Go to your stereo, put on this DSD recorded BIS SACD Grieg: Norwegian Dances, Symphonic Dances, Lyric Suite turn out the lights and let the absolute beauty overtake you, and then put on one of BIS' later PCM recorded SACDs and here what is missing. I will continue to praise BIS' DSD recorded SACDs as I always have even if they never make another one.

Even if it turns out a couple of BIS' 44.1kHz sound good that is still no justification for purchasing SACDs from 44.1kHz masters, I want the highest resolution possible not the lowest! I don't want just good or even great sound, I want sound that is closest to the realism I experience in a great concert hall. So far that has come only from DSD recorded SACDs.

If Telarc, PentaTone, Exton, Channel Classics or Chandos abandoned DSD recording such as BIS did back in 2005 I would be even more upset as these are my favorite recording companies and their superbly realistic DSD recordings are why I own an SACD player in the first place, otherwise I would still be playing LPs.

How about 24 Bit 44.1kHz surround sound downloads?

Robert said: "...please tell me how to get 24 bit surround onto a DSD CD. It would save us so much money, and I could finally exit this Forum and stop producing SACD:s..."

I said: "Robert you can offer 24 Bit 44.1kHz surround sound downloads. See the Boston Symphony Orchestra Digital Store They offer 24 Bit 88.2kHz surround sound and stereo downloads, 44.1kHz downloads would have the advantage of half the download time.

Downloads will eventually completely replace CDs, so this might be a good answer for you. I don't know if HDTracks plans surround sound downloads in the future, perhaps this is something you could try on your website?"

Final thoughts

Whither you feel 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM is high resolution or not please remember BIS SACD/CD hybrids are priced the same as single layer CDs! That is like getting a free upgrade to 24 bit with optional multichannel sound. Looked at in this light they are most definitely preferable over single-layer CDs.

Further reading:

SACD and ultrasonics

DSD in Production

A Tale of two SACDs - DSD versus 24 Bit PCM

Everything is important to make a great enjoyable recording.

SACD format needs a more complex SPARS cod

BIS SACDs

IRONY

2010-01-30T17:14:00.000-08:00

Telarc's new DSD recordings are currently not being released on SACD and BIS' 44.1kHz 24 Bit recordings are.

Most of the world listens to music in 2 channel stereo, even those who watch movies in surround sound. Most of them have dismissed SACD as a surround sound format and have no interest in it at all. Even worse most have no idea that SACD is also a high resolution 2 channel stereo format!

While BIS' SACDs might recruit new multichannel music lovers since CD only offers 2 channel stereo, their 44.1kHz sampling rate might just be the excuse for millions of listeners not adopting SACD since 44.1kHz is the sampling rate of CD. At least until every other label is on board and releasing SACDs from DSD masters, I think the presence of 44.lkHz recordings might just be the final nail in the coffin of SACD.

To recruit 2 channel stereo audiophiles SACDs must be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be sonically superior to CDs, downloads and at least on equal footing with the best audiophile LPs. DSD recordings from Telarc, PentaTone and Channel Classics prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, as well as the analog and high resolution PCM recordings from Reference Recordings.

However most of the newest SACDs released are from low resolution PCM either at 44.1kHz or 48kHz sampling rates from many small companies (not just BIS), and it is doubtful the SACD layers sound much better than the CD layers in 2 channel stereo. Thus defeating the purpose for 2 channel stereo listeners. Now that editing and mixing are possible in the DSD domain what is the excuse for record companies clinging to old outdated low resolution PCM technology instead of recording DSD for SACD release?

From Sony's first brochure "Super Audio Compact Disc, Eliciting the full Performance of Music." 

"Super Audio Compact Disc is the realization of an audiophile's dream come true: all the precision of digital reproduction combined with all the warmth and ambiance of analog sound. The secret is Direct Stream Digital™ encoding. Its one bit, 2.8224 MHz (64 fs ) sampling produces nothing less than a quantum leap in music resolution."

Why is this choice so hard? "2.8224 MHz or 44.1 kHz?" Come on recording companies, DSD is over ten years old and has proven itself over and over and over to be not only vastly sonically superior to PCM at any resolution but also more comfortable to listen to!

I have high hopes for Telarc in the future as Concord Music Group is still contracting with Five/Four Productions for high resolution DSD recordings in Stereo and Multichannel. If they were not considering high resolution for the future they would not be paying extra for the Multichannel mixes.

Plus we are still getting new DSD recorded SACDs from PentaTone, Channel Classics and others, so it is all not a deluge of low resolution even if the new releases sometimes seem that way.

Links to past articles on DSD versus PCM

Telarc SACD Sampler 1 - DSD vs. PCM

A Tale of two SACDs - DSD versus 24 Bit PCM

DSD recording and 70 recommended SACDs

Winners of SACD Lives "Dedicated SACD Hybrid Revolution" Awards.

SACD and ultrasonics

DSD in Production

DSD in Recording

Don't let your receiver or surround processor degrade your SACDs

Everything is important to make a great enjoyable recording.

SACD format needs a more complex SPARS code

A Short History of SACD

How I listen to SACDs and other high resolution music

2010-01-26T19:21:00.000-08:00

When I set down to listen to SACDs or other high resolution music I turn out the lights and turn off the displays on my equipment so that the only light in my room is the "On" lamps from my SACD player, preamp and power amp. (see picture).

I listen in the dark, in the nude and with my glasses off. I set in the sweet spot so there is nothing between me and the music.

I have aluminum foil over my window, behind my drapes to completely block out the sunlight so I can listen in the dark during the daytime. The aluminum foil is necessary as I don't like to wear clothes at all and only put them on when I have company over or go out of the house.

Music not only images better in the dark but it sounds so much smoother. Light either from natural sunlight or indoor lighting adds a strident glare to music I don't like. Music in complete darkness is best!

The only time I listen with the lights on is as background music when I am on the computer.

Soundstream's 100kHz Audiophile card

2010-01-07T18:25:00.000-08:00

I wonder what ever became of Soundstream's 100kHz Audiophile card?

Back in 1983 when Soundstream was asked if they intended to introduce a format to compete with the new CD format since a 44.1kHz sampling frequency was chosen instead of 50kHz, they said not at that time but they were working on a much superior 100kHz card format as 44.1kHz was too much of a compromise but it wouldn't be ready until the turn of the century.

Soundstream originally projected the year 2000 for the premier of their revolutionary 100 kHz audiophile format using a non-movable 3" X 5" 'hard' card that was to be inserted in a slot and read by scanning instead of spinning.

Imagine if Sony has chosen a scanned card instead of the more trouble-prone spinning disc? There would be no disc reading problems including the dreaded TOC reading errors. I see no reason a card could not hold DSD data rather than high resolution PCM data, it seems logical to me.

Since it's a 3 X 5 stationary card, a DSD player of this type would not be able to play CDs, and if everyone quit making CDs and releasing music only on DSD cards. DSD cards could have replaced CDs totally. Also being new different and smaller, it might have been perceived as super cool!

Also a DSD player with only a card slot would keep all those antique CD lovers out of our hair, making the world safe for all DSD lovers. Just some random thoughts, however I think a high resolution card format might just come in the future, just look at the MP3 memory stick.

SACD and ultrasonics

2010-01-07T18:03:00.000-08:00

Maybe one needs a full frequency system to hear the gigantic improvement SACD brings to digital sound?

My Infinity Kappa 7 Reference speakers are flat to within 3dB to 45kHz, my tubed preamp to 80kHz and my power amp to 100kHz, so I am reproducing SACDs ultrasonics up to 45kHz which makes me wonder how SACDs sound on frequency response limited systems which cannot reproduce SACDs ultrasonics?

Any high-end manufacturer making SACD players, and there are now a lot of them, the SACD playback is always superior to the CD playback. To suggest CD playback can even come close to SACD playback is ludicrous.

My journey to high resolution digital is chronicled here: High resolution comes first, build quality second.

I believed at the time that SACD would wholesale replace CD as I was sure everyone could hear the difference and want SACDs only going forward. I never believed there would be a strong backlash of CD supporters who grabbed a stronghold on Sony/Philips outdated and low resolution CD format based on the propaganda of a few high end companies who refused to pay the licensing fee to manufacture state-of-the-art SACD players.

As I have said before if there is a CD player that a listener thinks sounds good, just get the manufacturer to add SACD compatibility to it and be totally blown away! As on every single player ever manufactured SACD always, without a single exception, sounds better than low resolution CD.

My stereo system has a high frequency limit of 45kHz, the limiting factor being my EMIT tweeters that are down 3 dB at 45kHz. However 45kHz is high enough to reproduce the ultrasonics on LPs, 24 bit 96kHz DVDs and 24 bit 96kHz DVD-Audio. The frequency response of SACDs can go out to 100kHz although only a few microphones go out the far. Also DVD-Audio at 24/192 can go out to 88kHz. Someday perhaps I shall try one of those new super tweeters that goes to 100kHz. Then my limiting factor would be my tubed preamp that goes out to 80kHz.

To really appreciate any high resolution music on any format: SACD, DVD-Audio, or LP look for acoustic music recorded in a real live acoustic space such as a concert hall, jazz club, or church. Look for pure DSD or analog masters preferably tubed analog 2-track 15/30 IPS masters especially from "audiophile" companies. In my opinion the best SACDs are the Classical recordings from Telarc.

And not only are CDs low resolution but so are SACDs from low resolution PCM masters. No new recording should be made with anything less than 88.2kHz PCM, DSD or 2 Track 15 IPS analog. Anything less is a crime to the music.

The original Redbook CD was a high crime against music lovers and Sony should have waited at least a year for 50kHz PCM or five years for 100kHz PCM card as recommended by Soundstream in 1980 when the specs for the upcoming laser read analog format were being worked out. CD didn't have to be low resolution and I blame Sony for rushing it to market too soon. After decades I have finally gotten 44.1kHz CD playback that is not painful and to think this could have all been avoided if Sony had only waited a year for consumer lever 50kHz sampling.

In my experience with 24 bit 48kHz on both SACD and DVD-Audio the resulting sound quality is not much better than Redbook CD and nowhere near the level of the Soundstream 16 bit 50kHz on both SACD and LP. This is why I consider 50kHz PCM the absolute minimum resolution for realistic sound quality; of course 192kHz PCM, DSD, and analog are even better.

Listening with EARS not eyes.

2009-12-20T15:58:00.000-08:00

UPDATED 11/27/2011

Robert von Bahr of BIS often accuses those of us who prefer DSD recorded SACDs as listening with eyes and not ears.

Proof that I listen with ears and not eyes is the fact that I love analog cassette even though it is 1 7/8 IPS versus my Reel to Reel tapes which are 7 1/2 IPS and thus on paper much higher in resolution.

I also agree with Robert von Bahr that recording techniques are more important than format and that is why my favorite recordings on LPs closely mirror my favorite recordings on SACDs. I love the realistic and tonally accurate recordings from Telarc, Reference Recordings and Lyrita for example. Plus the Telarc and Reference Recordings give the deep bass impact and realism I experience in the concert hall!

Low Resolution 16 Bit 44.1kHz

On LP, Reel to Reel tape, CD, SACD, DVD-Audio, uncompressed WAV/AIFF and Apple Lossless 16 Bit 44.1kHz sounds "digital" to me in the most offending ways. I believe it has something to do with how poorly 16 Bit 44.1kHz PCM reproduces the high frequencies.

High Resolution PCM and DSD

The magic of high resolution digital is its smooth and relaxing sound. In the case of SACDs the frequency response also extends up to 100kHz and extremely fast transient response.

The articles on this site will explain my feelings about SACDs and the various masters they are sourced from. For more information on high resolution 88.2kHz and 96kHz computer music files see Computer Audio, the musically comfortable alternative

How SACD/CD hybrids could completely replace CDs.

2009-12-16T20:15:00.000-08:00

SACD/CD hybrids are the perfect software solution for all the worlds record companies as they offer Stereo in standard resolution in CD form playable in all devices that play CDs. Plus high resolution Stereo playable in SACD, Universal and some BluRay players. In addition high resolution Multichannel Stereo with up to six full range channels of wonderful sound.

Taking a chapter from the history of DVD Videos, parity of pressing costs can be achieved for dual-layer discs. In the beginning of DVD Video it cost considerably more to press a dual-layer than a single-layer DVD. However as more and more movie studies started offering bonus features on the second-layer it began to be used more and more until it now costs the same to press one or two-layer DVDs. Indeed no pressing plant even stocks single-layer blanks and when pressing a single-layer DVD they just leave the second layer blank.

If all four of the major record labels ENDED production of single-layer CDs tomorrow and all future recordings (Mono, Stereo or Multichannel) were released as hybrid SACDs, hybrids discs could be made in such quantities that parity of pressing costs could be achieved. At some time in the future when most of the music on physical formats is on SACD/CD hybrids, CD blanks could be retired. And the few small companies requesting CD only could be pressed on SACD/CD hybrid blanks with the SACD layer left blank.

There would be a one time cost of converting all the worlds pressing plants from CD to hybrid SACD/CD operation, but this will be returned many fold due to the larger market generated by expending the market beyond the dying CD market.

While this wholesale adoption of SACD/CD hybrids would solve the pressing cost issue. For Stereo recordings there is the additional one time cost mastering the high resolution layer, for multichannel recordings three programs would need mastering. However this cost is spread over all the copies of the release sold. For Pop/Rock that would amount to less than a tenth of a penny per disc, for slow selling classical not much over a $1 per disc.

The other concern is that it costs more to record multichannel. While multichannel does take full advantage of the format, just because a recording is Stereo or Mono is no reason to exclude it from from SACD release. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab has proven that Stereo SACDs can sell quite well. Plus many modern recordings currently are made in multichannel and only released on Stereo CD.

So as you see if the record companies do this as a group effort not only could SACD/CD hybrids totally replace single-layer CDs in a less than a years time, but they could also save physical formats. If the record companies do nothing eventually both CD and SACD will die. It is in their hands, will they do the right thing?

High resolution comes first, build quality second.

2009-12-13T02:58:00.000-08:00

My road to high resolution digital began in 1995 when Reference Recordings announced that Arnold for Band would not be released on LP, it would be HDCD only. Even though I hated CDs with a purple passion, Prof. Keith Johnson assured us that HDCDs solved many of CDs sonic problems and were a close match to his wonderful LPs. So I bought an Audio Alchemy Digital Drive System III transport which I connected to an Adcom GDA 700 HDCD DAC using coaxial cable. I really liked the Reference Recordings HDCDs as well as ones from FIM and a few other audiophile labels, however I discovered most HDCDs from the major record companies sounded almost as bad as their awful unlistenable CDs. So I collected mostly Reference Recordings HDCDs and of course LPs.

Then in April 2000, I discovered Chesky and Classic Records 24 Bit 96kHz DAD DVDs which were even better than HDCDs and proved to me that it was possible for digital to be musically satisfying.

I checked the CD versions of some of the recordings I had on 24/96 DAD out of the library and compared them. Using the Audio Alchemy DDS III transport / Adcom GDA 700 HDCD DAC for CD versus an entry level Sony DVP-S330 using its cheap internal DAC for the 24/96 DADs. The 24/96 DADs sounded so real, with more ambiance, smoother string tone, and a deeper and larger soundstage and a lot of the smoothness of Vinyl. The CD version sounded very poor, just like a CD.

The highest resolution the GDA-700 offered was 48kHz. I next listened to the difference between the 24/96 DAD in its native 24/96 though the cheap Sony DVD player versus as downsampled to 24/48 though the Adcom GDA-700 DAC. The Adcom DAC at 48kHz had deeper bass but overall the native 96kHz from the cheap Sony DVD sounded more realistic even in the bass! Overall the sonics from the cheap Sony at 96kHz stomped all over the expensive DAC at 48kHz. Thus further proof, the first goal should be high resolution and the second build quality. High resolution is a must! Better build quality will improve high resolution sound, especially the analog circuits used after conversion to analog.

Then in December 2000 I purchased my first SACD player, the Sony DVP-S9000ES and it was so much better than the 24/96 DADs plus I purchased some SACDs from FIM and Linn that I also had on HDCD. The differences was so convincing and complete that I sold my HDCD DAC as with SACD I felt HDCD was now totally unnecessary just like the unnecessary CD format before it.

On the other side, I have discovered that high resolution does not necessarily have to sound good, indeed high resolution can have all kinds of sonic detail but be burdened with ugly sound. The can happen with both software and hardware.

The worst SACD playback I've ever heard was from the Pioneer DV-578A-S which I briefly tried back in 1994 it was only $130 from Best Buy, I returned it after three weeks giving it plenty of time to break-in. This universal player sounded bad and had the a terrible upper midrange glare on all formats. On the Pioneer DV-578A-S SACD didn't sound much better than CD. And SACDs sounded so bad they were totally unlistenable. Even though SACDs sounded terrible there was no doubt they were high resolution as I could clearly hear the extra sonic information but it was poor sounding high resolution. The Pioneer 478 Universal player proves that it is possible to make poor sounding high resolution, On the other hand it is not possible to magically change low resolution into high resolution no matter how great the build quality.

 The order of Importance 

1) High resolution 

2) Build quality

SACD domination obstacles

2009-12-13T00:21:00.000-08:00

Here are some of the things I think have hurt SACD since its introduction:

The switch from small hinged SACD box to large hinge. It cost a lot of money to reprint the bottom inlay card to fit the new dimensions of the new new large hinged cases, how many companies let SACDs go out of print instead of printing the new cards?

Lipschitz's damning exposé falsely claiming that SACD has less resolution than CD.

Meyer and Moran's damning AES paper.

The discontinuance of the of the Rolling Stones SACDs and their reissue as DSD mastered CDs

The various high-end CD manufacturer's claims that "their" newest CD player is sonically superior to SACD and that SACD is an unnecessary format.

Things that have hurt physical formats in general:

The difficult task of removing various anti-thief devices once one gets home with one's purchases. Especially the sticky glue used in the anti-piracy stripe across the top of the jewel case, even worse with DVD which have these on the side and bottom as well. Plus the magnetic sensing strip.

Broken and scratched jewel cases

Small print in booklets

Holiday SACD Promotion at Concord Music Group

2009-12-08T02:57:00.001-08:00

Concord Music Group has a select group of Concord and Telarc SACDs for $11.99 each

52nd Annual GRAMMY® Award Nominations for 2009

2009-12-02T23:34:00.000-08:00

The 52^nd Annual GRAMMY^®Award Nominations for 2009 were announced this evening in a CBS/Recording Academy broadcast event from the Nokia Theater in Los Angeles. Among the nominations announced tonight, the following nominees were projects recorded or produced by members of Five/Four Productions, Ltd.:

Please see 52nd Annual GRAMMY® Award Nominations for 2009 for details.

Congratulations to all the nominees!

Recommended and not-recommended SACDs

2009-11-29T04:32:00.000-08:00

New category at The Pro-SACD Forum with links to my 583 recommended SACDs and 303 not-recommended SACDs. Please post yours.

New blog: The Telarc High Resolution Fan Club

2009-11-09T14:48:00.000-08:00

"...the Telarc team produced the best sounding recordings from a major label since the Golden Age of Mercury and RCA some 40 years ago." HP (Harry Pearson)

The Telarc High Resolution Fan Club Includes:

DSD in Production

2009-10-27T22:05:00.000-07:00

From the 1997 Super Audio Compact Disc: A Technical Proposal

"The full benefits can best be retained by an all-DSD production chain. Both Sony and Philips have begun serious work on that chain. Prototype DSD-capable recording systems already exist. In addition, Sonic Solutions is developing a DSD-compatible version of Sonic’s well-known SonicStudio™ line of digital audio workstations. Substantial progress has been made in the mixing, crossfading, and equalizing of DSD 1-bit signals. In short, there’s no theoretical barrier to the creation of a full range of DSD post production tools, recorders, mixers, editors and effects processors."

SACD Production Using Direct Stream Digital

Sony's Direct Stream Digital (DSD) system uses a 1-bit delta-sigma modulated word, sampled at 2.8224 MHz - that is 64 times 44.1 kHz.

What makes DSD shine sonically is that the pure 1-bit signal does not get decimated or changed in the process of recording or playback; there are no brick wall filters. This is a much simpler process and is really more analog like. The 1-bit DSD signal can be down converted to any of the current digital formats.

Early DSD recording

In the beginning DSD recording lacked EQ, and it did not have any of the tools necessary to do any type of signal manipulation. Most early DSD recordings did not use any signal processing whatsoever and those few that did chose to do so in the analog domain. Microphone choice and positioning was of the utmost importance as nothing could be fixed in the mix. Some of the companies that choose to go the natural way include AudioQuest Music. DMP and Telarc. To this day some of my best sounding SACDs are from the "golden age" of Stereo SACD before DSD signal processing devices were invented.

"To me DSD sounds, what I call, "ear friendly", you know the slight pain you get in the ear when listening to the harsh or glaring sound from some digital. With DSD you get none of this and can hear around the individual instruments, not just the front." Tom Jung, DMP (Digital Music Products)

Modern DSD recording

In 2004 Sonoma offered many of the editing tools in the DSD domain for the first time. As of 2009 the most recent Sonoma Multitrack Recorder Editor Features

• Sonic Superiority via ST Optical with Separate Optical Clock

• True DSD recording, editing, and level adjustments

• Real-time cross-fades (Plays 48 streams during edits)

• Overdubs with gapless punch-out monitoring

• Real time waveform generation during record

• Time code generation and synchronization

• Powerful music oriented editing and event-based editing

• SA-CD Edit Master generation

• Real time level interpolation between edits

• True SA-CD Scarlet Book Annex D&E DSD metering

• Meter Interface Design by an ex-studio maintenance engineer

• Available in 8, 16, 24 and 32 channel configurations

• Physical Controller now available in three versions

EMM Labs ADC8 MkIV and DAC8 MkIV

A standard for Super Audio CD production, EMM Labs analog to DSD and DSD to analog converters designed by Ed Meitner have been used over the years to produce the large majority of Super Audio CDs worldwide.

There are other DSD recording options but the Sonoma / EMM labs combo proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that those recording companies that do not record DSD because editing is not available in the DSD domain are not up on the latest recording and mastering equipment.

There is currently NO EXCUSE why all new recordings are NOT DSD recorded. We must demand DSD be used from the beginning to the end of the product chain in producing our SACDs. If we don't no one will.

DSD in Recording

2009-10-27T21:47:00.000-07:00

"DSD samples music at 64 times the rate of Compact Disc (64 x 44,100 Hz). This yields a sampling rate of 2,822,400 Hz. At first, recording all those bits may seem like a daunting task. But remember, the CD uses 16 bits for each sample, so the bit rate per channel is 16 x 44,100 Hz or 705,600 bits per second. DSD uses one bit per sample, so the bit rate per channel is 2,822,400 bits per second. T h a t ’s “only” four times the data of Compact Disc. While this data rate is high, it’s well within the capabilities of many current recording systems, both tape and hard disk."

Super Audio Compact Disc: A Technical Proposal

DSD in Archiving

2009-10-27T21:39:00.000-07:00

"DSD is a superlative solution for music companies desperate to transfer archival recordings before they disintegrate forever. The unprecedented frequency response and dynamic range means that DSD will precisely capture every nuance of the original, down to the noise floor and below.

Archiving benefits from another important difference between DSD and multibit PCM. In the multibit PCM world, significant improvement means changing the digital word length or changing the sampling frequency. And that means “breaking” established formats and creating new ones. DSD is quite different. By changing the characteristics of the loop filter in the analog-to-digital converter, you can actually change the audio specifications of DSD. Some filters can be optimized for bandwidth. Others can be optimized for low noise. Future designs with higher-order filters and greater sophistication can yield performance beyond the grasp of today’s technology. And this can all happen without losing compatibility. Older archived DSD recordings will be compatible with the new machines. And newly archived material will be compatible with existing hardware! In this way, DSD archives become “future-proof.” They retain their currency, even as filter technology makes significant strides."

Super Audio Compact Disc: A Technical Proposal

SACD FAQ's

2009-10-18T19:28:00.000-07:00

What is SACD?

SACD is an abbreviation for Super Audio Compact Disc, an optical music carrier that was designed to replace the sonically outdated audio CD format introduced in 1983. It is designed to provide drastically superior sound quality, and optional multichannel sound, while maintaining backward compatibility with CD.

Who invented SACD?

SACD was developed by Sony and Philips. It was invented by Dr. Yoshio Yamasaki who also invented Super DVD a next generation DSD audio/video format that Sony rejected in favor of the lesser quality BluRay. The trademarks are owned by Sony. Philips is the licensor of the disc format and the trademark.

What does the beautiful logo mean?
The logo simply shows SACD - the S and A in the upper half, the C and D in the lower half. The logo conveys a sense of fluid, organic, natural curves as opposed to the straight, angular shapes of the CD logo, representing natural, analog sound in contrast to the imperfect digital sound of CD.

What is a Hybrid SACD?

A Hybrid SACD is an SACD disc that can be played on regular CD players. On a Hybrid SACD both the CD layer and the high-density layer are 'read' from the same side, the other side has a printed label. The high-density layer is partly reflective, partly transparent. At the wavelength used by regular CD layers (780 nm) the SACD layer is invisible so a CD player will just 'see' the CD layer. At the wavelength used for DVD and SACD (650 nm), the SACD layer is reflective.

Are all SACDs hybrid?
In the early days of SACD, many titles from Sony, Exton, and others were released as 'single layer' i.e. SACD-only but nowadays virtually all SACD releases are hybrid discs. Single-layer SACDs look 'plain silver' while hybrid ones have a goldish shine to them. Dr. Demery of Sony stated this is due to an optical illusion caused by the dual-layers.

Dual DSD-layered SACDs
There is a second option for the second layer, rather than a low resolution CD version of the music, the second layer can be high resolution DSD and provide double the music capacity and in the future this may be combined with video, lyrics and/or graphics. Dual Layer SACDs are sometimes used for special surround demo discs or for long classical works. They are relatively rare so far, however after the overdue death of the low resolution CD, recording companies will no longer see a benefit of putting an unused CD layer on their SACDs will be exploring all the possibilities of dual DSD-layered SACDs.

Are all SACDs multichannel?
No, especially in the beginning many SACDs released were stereo only. Most news SACDs rare Multichannel plus Stereo. Exton has recently switched back to Stereo only from Multichannel.

Is the stereo signal derived from the multichannel signal?
No. Unlike DVD-Audio, the SACD format does not support 'down-mixing'. When an SACD contains stereo and multichannel sound, these are stored separately on the disc. However some new multichannel players will play a mixdown of a multichannel mix if the stereo mix is absent from an SACD if 2 channel stereo playback is selected from the set up menu.

Do all SACDs contain a stereo mix?
Nearly all SACDs contain a stereo mix. There are a few examples of Hybrid SACDs that contain a multichannel mix but no stereo mix on the SACD layer. See SACD dishonor roll – No 2-channel Stereo high resolution program If you listen in 2 channel stereo make sure your SACD has a stereo program by looking up the title at sa-cd.net under Content and if it says "Stereo" or "Stereo/Multichannel" you can rest assured it will have a high resolution 2 channel stereo program.

What is DSD?
DSD is an abbreviation for Direct Stream Digital. It was originally invented by Sony for archiving their studio master tapes. Sony challenged their designers to come up with a truly transparent medium to transfer their aging analog master tapes to as even the highest resolution PCM offered a coloration that Sony found unacceptable plus they wanted this medium to be future proof and able to be downsampled to any consumer format to come along in the future. This would be the very last playing of many of these very old prized analog master tapes as many were literally falling apart.

How does DSD work?
DSD is basically a 1-bit Delta/Sigma conversion scheme. DSD being a 1-bit signal means that every bit represents a sample - a measurement of the amplitude of the sound wave at a certain time. Since a bit can only have two values, every bit in a DSD stream only tells weather the amplitude of the sound signal was higher or lower than the previous sample held in the buffer. Because it doesn't tell how much higher or lower the amplitude is, you need a lot of samples to accurately describe the signal. DSD uses 64 times the sampling frequency of CD: 2.822 MHz vs 44.1 kHz. The factor 64 is not randomly chosen. It's a power of two, meaning that it's relatively straightforward to upsample from typical PCM frequencies including 44.1 kHz and multiples like 88.2 kHz. For a more complete discription of the process see: Super Audio Compact Disc: A Technical Proposal

What is the difference between PCM and DSD?
PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) is a very abstract way to describe an analog signal in a digital terms. In PCM, every sample consists of a combination of bits describing the amplitude of the signal. The number of bits determines the resolution of how finely the signal can be described, where every added bit doubles the number of levels that can be distinguished.

Converting from analog sound to PCM and back to analog sound involves a number of processing steps, such as quantization. Every step can cause further distortions such as quantization noise, which has to be filtered out, thus deteriorating the sound quality.

DSD is an extremely simple way of converting from analog to digital and back again. The entire process is extremely transparent. In fact, the DSD bit stream is so closely related to the analog signal that if you were to play a uncompressed DSD signal as is you would here audible music.

Wasn't CD supposed to be "Perfect Sound Forever"?
Actually no even back in 1982 when CD premiered in Japan it was a step backwards from the 50kHz Soundsteam process used by the American recording companies. CD was highly compromised from the very beginning. Technology has progressed and so has insight into human perception of sound. For instance, it only became apparent later that although the human ear cannot directly pick up frequencies above 20 kHz they are actually of importance for the way we hear sounds. SACD with DSD extends the frequency range towards 100 kHz.

A possibly more important difference between CD's 44.1 kHz 16-bit PCM sound quality and SACD's 2.8 MHz 1-bit DSD sound quality is the accuracy in the time domain. As it turns out, the human ear is extremely sensitive to minute timing differences. In fact, of the various cues our brain uses to determine the direction of sound sources, probably the most important cue is the difference in time it takes for a sound to reach our left ear versus the right ear. With a sampling frequency of CD, 44,100 times per second it's very difficult to reproduce a good 'sound stage', this is an area in which DSD excels. Furthermore, at 120 dB the dynamic range of SACD is much improved over CD. SACD also provides the option of multichannel sound where Audio CD only offers stereo.

What does it mean when an SACD is recorded in PCM?
The audio on the high resolution layer of an SACD is always DSD or DST, however the original recording may have been made using PCM technology, which is then converted to DSD for the SACD master.

What is DST?
DST is an abbreviation for Direct Stream Transfer, a losslessly compressed version of DSD. Lossless compression means every single bit from the original input stream is delivered at the output after decompression, it is said to be acoustically transparent however I have read that many Stereo only SACDs were released without using DST compression as the engineer's thought they sounded better that way and Exton's new HQ Stereo SACDs emphasize they are not lossless compressed. DST is used on multichannel SACDs in order to fit the whole program on a single disc. Lossless compression basically doubles the playing time a multichannel SACD would otherwise have.

What is DSD128?
DSD128 is DSD at twice the default sampling rate: 5.6448 MHz. DSD128 is used in some studios for editing. The normal DSD format is also called DSD64. Dr. Yoshio Yamasaki's the inventer of DSD whose's proposed Super DVD format was rejected by Sony used DSD128. At current there is not consumer format being proprosed that uses this double speed sampling rate.

What is DXD?
DXD is short for Digital eXtreme Definition, an encoding scheme for professional use that was developed for editing high-resolution recordings because DSD was orignally not ideally suited for editing, however this is changing, check out the newest Sonoma editing consoles. DXD is 352.8 kHz 24-bit PCM.

I acknowledge the help of Sony, Philips, the Stradivari Society, PS3, SA-CD.net and everyone else who supplied the needed answers to our FAQ's. This FAQ represents many years of research and is offered to all who want a clearer understanding of how SACD works. For more detailed explanations please download Sony's free PDF Super Audio Compact Disc: A Technical Proposal

SACD dishonor roll – No 2-channel Stereo high resolution program

2009-10-18T18:33:00.000-07:00

The following SACDs are Multi-channel only. – They have NO high resolution 2 Channel Stereo program. Thus if you have a 2 channel SACD player you cannot play the high resolution layer, only the CD layer. It is best to avoid these SACDs!

However some new multichannel players will play a mixdown of a multichannel mix if the stereo mix is absent from an SACD if 2 channel stereo playback is selected from the set up menu.  This list made from Internet searches if you see any inaccuracies or you know of others please let me know. I have not purchased most of these SACDs to actually confirm the absence of a 2 channel high resolution layer. I have only purchased the The Big Picture (Telarc SACD-60437) which due to the long program Telarc claims there was not enough space for both the multichannel and stereo mixes on the SACD layer, so Telarc choose to give up the high resolution stereo mix in order to keep the CD layer. I have a multichannel SACD player working in the Stereo mode and it does downmix, but if you have a 2 channel stereo only SACD avoid this title as well.   

Marcel Dupré: Le Chemin de la Croix Op. 29, Gregorian Chants
Friedhelm Flamme (organ) Hans Hermann Jansen, Gregorianik-Schola Marienmünster
CPO 777128  

Wagner: Famous Overtures and Orchestral Works 
Böhm, Karajan, Kubelik, Berliner Philharmoniker, Wiener Philharmoniker
Deutsche Grammophon Eloquence 476 734-9

  Verdi: Requiem
Sharon Sweet, Florence Quivar, Vinson Cole, Simon Estes, Ernst-Senff-Chor, Carlo Maria Giulini, Berliner Philharmoniker,
Deutsche Grammophon Eloquence 476 735-1 (2 discs)

  Carl Orff: Carmina Burana 
Barbara Bonney, Frank Lopardo, Anthony Michaels-Moore, Arnold Schoenberg Chor, Wiener Sängerknaben, André Previn, Wiener Philharmoniker
Deutsche Grammophon Eloquence 476 736-7

  Beethoven: Symphony No. 9, "Ode an die Freude" 
Gwyneth Jones, Hanna Schwarz, René Kollo, Kurt Moll, Bernstein, Wiener Philharmoniker,
Deutsche Grammophon Eloquence 476 736-8  

Mozart: Clarinet Concerto, Piano Concerto No. 21 
Alfred Prinz, Friedrich Gulda, Claudio Abbado, Karl Böhm, Wiener Philharmoniker
Deutsche Grammophon Eloquence 476 736-9  

Dvorak: Symphony No. 9 "From the New World"
Smetana: The Moldau 
Christoph von Dohnányi, The Cleveland Orchestra
Decca Eloquence 476 7826  

Grieg: Peer Gynt Suite Nos. 1 & 2, Sigurd Jorsalfar Suite Op. 56
Sibelius: Karelia Suite, Finlandia, The Swan of Tuonela
Neeme Järvi, Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra
Deutsche Grammophon Eloquence 476 7853  

Handel: Music for the Royal Fireworks, Water Music Suites 1-3 
Sir Neville Marriner, Academy of St Martin in the Fields
Philips Eloquence 476 7859  

Ravel: Bolero, La Valse, Rhapsodie espagnole
Bizet: Carmen Suites 
Semyon Bychkov, Orchestre de Paris
Decca Eloquence 476 7913  

Vivaldi: The Four Seasons, Violin Concertos "La tempesta di mare", "Il piacere"
 Federico Agostini, I Musici
Philips Eloquence 476 7917

  B&W Bowers & Wilkins presents: Very Audiophile New Recordings. 
Stockfisch Records / Silkroad Music SFR.B&W01SACD  

Sea Change: The Choral Music of Richard Rodney Bennett
John Rutter, The Cambridge Singers 

Collegium CSACD 901  

Ray Charles: Live at the Olympia 2000 

XIII Bis Records 640747 SACD  

Tomorrow's Jazz Classics 2005 

Nagel Heyer CD 1022

The Big Picture
Erich Kunzel, Cincinnati Pops Orchestra
Telarc SACD-60437

Don't let your receiver or surround processor degrade your SACDs

2009-10-08T16:42:00.000-07:00

Very practical information from Telarc:

BEWARE of Home Theater Receivers with DSP

For the best performance, use a preamplifier or receiver with an "analog pass-through" circuit. Many multi-channel receiver/preamplifiers provide multi-channel analog inputs that are routed to analog-to-digital PCM converters for Digital Signal Processing control, often at 44.1 kHz. The signals are then passed on to digital-to analog converters for the final output to speakers. This "feature" will cause ALL signals, regardless of source, to be no better quality than that of CD playback. Since you are playing a SACD with a sampling rate 64 times that of CD, we recommend using a receiver or preamplifier that passes the multi-channel analog signals through entirely in the analog domain. Keeping the signal in analog, without any further digital inter-steps, will insure you will be enjoying the full quality of SACD. We also further recommend that all "effects" programs be disabled, such as "concert hall", "stadium", "nightclub", etc. These ambience programs, which are more suitable for home video use, will destroy the carefully mixed surround presentation you will find on Telarc Surround SACDs.

Editor's Note: This sage advise applies not only to Telarc SACDs but all SACDs from high resolution masters. Keep your signal path pure analog after conversion from DSD. Also if your equipment from preamp to speakers does not pass ultrasonic frequencies consider an upgrade with a goal of frequency response of at least 40kHz, and if possible the full 100kHz. There are plenty of preamps and power amps that are flat to 100kHz, Only a few speakers so far, and even fewer microphones that are flat to 100kHz, however this is growing as well.

Exotic Dances from the Opera SACD

2009-09-27T20:47:00.000-07:00

RIMSKY-KORSAKOV: The Snow Maiden: Dance of the Tumblers

R. STRAUSS: Salome: Dance of the Seven Veils

TCHAIKOVSKY: Mazeppa: Hopak

MUSSORGSKY: Khovanschina: Dance of the Persian Slaves

RABAUD: Marouf, Cobbler of Cairo: Dances

DVORAK: Rusalka: Polonaise

ANTON RUBINSTEIN: The Demon: Ballet Music

SAINT-SAËNS: Samson et Dalilah: Bacchanale
Minnesota Orchestra
Eiji Oue (conductor)

Analogue Stereo Hybrid SACD

Reference Recordings RR-71SACD

Reference Recordings second SACD is a sonic spectacular and a musical delight.

Prof. Johnson simultaneously records both analogue and digital in all of his sessions. This SACD is from the analogue master tape made with his focused-gap highly modified recorder.

This is a very quiet analogue recording from 1996 and unlike analogue recordings from the 1950's and 1960's there are no artifacts, these modern day analogue recordings in my opinion are sonically very close to DSD and better than any PCM I've heard. I also own this on an analogue to 24/88.2kHz music file purchased from HD Tracks which I really loved until I heard this SACD which totally blows it away in every aspect. I believe it is because PCM is totally removed from the equation.

This sounds just like a "PROF. JOHNSON PURE ANALOGUE RECORDING" LP but without the surface noise. Reference Recordings LPs are the one I pull out to prove LPs can indeed do deep bass.

Speaking of bass this is even deeper with more impact than even the best Telarc's, this takes me that much closer to the deep, deep bass I hear live in concert halls. The midrange is silky smooth with beautiful string tone and the delicacy and little details in the high frequencies are to die for.

I also received Reference Recordings 24 Bit 176.4kHz HRx of Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances HR-96 and I will reviewing both for PFO soon.

From the Reference Recordings website:

Why did Reference Recordings decide to make SACD after all?

"We know, many have wondered what took us so long Many feel that SACD is an improvement over Compact Discs, and it still has a large following among audiophiles worldwide.

RR has a virtually unbroken history of making the finest possible high resolution recordings. We started with analog tape. We were not satisfied with early technology, 16 bit digital recordings, but soon began making HDCD (High Definition Compatible Digital) recordings, in which the process was co-designed by our own recording guru Keith O. Johnson. In the opinion of many, these are probably the best digital recordings ever. Currently we record at 176.4 kHz/ 24 bits, with HDCD. RR’s master recordings are made using PCM, not the DSD which is the native format for SACD. For a long time, we weren’t satisfied with the sonic results of the conversion of PCM to DSD and so we did not make SACDs. New technological improvements now make that conversion much less of an issue. We’re excited to be making SACDs for fans of the format. Our first two releases are Two-Channel Hybrids, but we plan Surround-Sound SACD for the near future!"

My review of Reference Recordings first SACD and two high resolution downloads

TUTTI! ORCHESTRAL SAMPLER SACD/HDCD RR-906SACD
SULLIVAN & SIBELIUS: Suites from "The Tempest" - Michael Stern, Kansas City Symphony - 96kHz 24 Bit high resolution download
EXOTIC DANCES FROM THE OPERA - Eiji Oue, Minnesota Orchestra - 96kHz 24 Bit high resolution download

Amazing Exton DSD discovery from 2003

2009-09-24T16:33:00.000-07:00

Grieg: Peer Gynt Suites Nos. 1 & 2
Bizet: Carmen Suite No. 1
Yomiuri Nippon Symphony Orchestra, Tokyo
Gerd Albrecht (conductor)
Stereo/Multichannel SACD Hybrid
Exton DSD Recording OVCL-00137

Oh my, this is a great SACD for both performances and sound. My two previous Peer Gynt Suites on SACD were the 50kHz Telarc Soundstream SACD with Leonard Slatkin & the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra and the 44.1kHz BIS SACD Ole Kristian Ruud & the Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra. This is my first DSD recorded Peer Gynt. Like the BIS and unlike the Telarc this one does have all eight movements. The Telarc is missing Peer Gynt's Return and Solveig's Song.

This wonderful DSD recorded Exton SACD auditioned in high resolution 2 channel stereo has deep bass, the midrange especially the string tone is simply gorgeous, the highs are ultra extended and have that delicate sheen like they do live in concert. Indeed this SACD makes me feel like I am there.

Beautiful, exciting and powerful! Listening is a total joy! For me the test of any Peer Gynt is the mighty "In The Hall of the Mountain King" and this SACD nails it, the climatic dynamic contrasts are the best I've heard and the resulting goosebumps on my flesh amazing! This is where the Ruud on BIS runs out of steam and Albrecht even beats the mighty Slatkin on Telarc. I am hoping Exton gets wider distribution as I want many more like this one.

Ratings of 138 recording companies that produce SACDs

2009-09-21T22:58:00.000-07:00

While I encourage all recordings, regardless of sound quality or resolution to be released as SACD/CD hybrids, I live in the real world in which not all recordings are equal in the sonic realm. Just having an SACD logo does not guarantee either high resolution or excellent sound quality.

These are average ratings as many recording companies will have SACDs in one or more of these categories.

Cream of the Crop (Highest recommendation)

This recording company produces SACDs that take full advantage of the SACD format from the deepest bass to the highest treble with a realism I have only experienced in an excellent concert hall.

Telarc (especially their DSD recorded SACDs)

Highly Recommended

Audioquest Music
BSO Classics
Chandos
Channel Classics
Channel of China
Cisco Music
Cryston
DMP
Exton
Fidelio
First Impression Music
Fonè
Groove Note
Hyperion
Opus 3
PentaTone Classics
Philips Electronics
Red Rose Music
Reference Recordings
Rounder

Recommended

The "recommended" recording companies on this list, are just a shade lower in resolution and sonic abilities and will reveal many of the aural and sonic capabilities of the SACD format.

Alia Vox
Alpha
Analogue Productions
Archiv Produktion
Artegra
Arts Music
ATMA Classique
Audio Fidelity
Audio-B
Audite
Barsukk
CCn'C
Chesky
Delos
Farao Classics
Harmonia Mundi
Heads Up
Herbie Mann Music
Hungaroton
MA Recordings
Market Square
Mercury Living Presence
Mercury/Polydor
Mobile Fidelity
Musicaphon
Philips Classics
Sketti Sandwich Productions
Songlines
Sonoma Records
Tacet
Talent Records
Top Music International
Turtle Records
Valley
Vanguard Classics
Varese Sarabande

Recommended with reservations

2L
A&M Records
A-Records
ABKCO
Alba Records
BIS DSD recordings
Blue Note
BMG (Hong Kong)
Bona Nova
Brilliant Classics
Capitol
Capriccio
Caro Mitis
Challenge Jazz
Chess
Clarion
Columbia
Concord Records
Coviello Classics
CPO
Cybele
Decca Classics
DHM
Dutton
EMI
Epic
Fantasy
Geffen
GRP
Hannibal
Harvest
HighNote Records
Island
Jive
JSP Records
Koch Records
Linn Records
Lost Highway
Lyrinx
Mariinsky
MCA
MDG
Melba Recordings
New Classical Adventure
New West Records
Non Profit Music
NorthWest Classics
Oehms Classics
Ondine
OUR Recordings
RCA
RCA Living Stereo
Red Ink
San Francisco Symphony
Simax Classics
Six Degrees
Sony BMG
Sony Classical
Steamhammer
Sugar Hill Records
Tudor
Universal SHM-SACDs
Velvel Records
Vertigo
Verve
Virgin
Vocalion
Zoe
ZoomTone
ZTT

Sometimes recommended with reservations

The "sometimes recommended with reservations" recording companies on this list, very from atrocious sounding to sometimes nearing greatness. These are very uneven recordings which vary greatly from title to title.

BIS PCM recordings
Deutsche Grammophon
Naxos
Universal (Japan)
Universal Records
WaterLily Acoustics

Not Recommended

Albany
Blue Coast Records
Cala Records
Hip-O
Interscope
Membran

Impulse response: analog, PCM and DSD

2009-09-04T04:40:00.000-07:00

The new Mariinsky label fully supports SACD!

2009-08-28T20:53:00.000-07:00

The Mariinsky label, launched in May 2009, draws on the theatre's rich legacy and historical ties to the great Russian composers. It showcases the extraordinary talent within the theatre and orchestra, presenting new recordings of works that are both familiar and less well known to the widest possible audience.

Each recording will be made using high-definition technology in the new Mariinsky Concert Hall, which has been widely acclaimed for its exceptional acoustic. Recording commenced in July 2008 during the annual White Nights Festival. Recordings are available on SACD from the Mariinsky label website and all good retailers.

I will be reviewing the following SACD in the September issue of Positive Feedback Online:

Shostakovich: Symphony No. 1, Symphony No. 15
Valery Gergiev, Mariinsky Orchestra
Recorded July 18, 20 & 25, 2008 in Mariinsky Concert Hall, St. Petersburg, Russia
James Mallinson (producer), John Newton and Dirk Sobotka (recording engineers)
Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD - DSD recorded
Mariinsky MAR0502

It is perhaps the most realistic sounding SACD I've heard yet.

No more Hyperion SACDs

2009-08-07T01:51:00.000-07:00

Hyperion have said they will not produce any new SACDs and are letting their current catalog of 35 SACDs go out of print when supplies are exhausted. It may not help, but it couldn't hurt to let our feelings be known. Personally I don't buy CDs or low resolution digital downloads so if Hyperion wants to sell me any of their music must they must release it on SACD. It is a shame as like Telarc they record DSD. Email Simon Perry at info@hyperion-records.co.uk

You can still purchase Hyperion SACDs from suppliers who have them in stock.

Last night I played my favorite Hyperion SACD which is also by one of my favorite composers Holst: The Planets, Matthews: Pluto - Halle/Mark Elder

It was recorded 2 channel DSD in 2001. The playing time is 1 hour and 57 minutes as it has the original version of the complete Planets, followed by the Lyric movement for viola and small orchestra and then the complete Planets with Colin Matthews "Pluto - The Renewer"

On my system it's a fantastic sounding SACD with a deep and wide soundstage and spot on tonal accuracy. Plus the nice smooth delicious sweet strings I have come to expect from DSD recordings.

The performance beats all of my previous versions including the Zubin Mehta on Decca/Speakers Corner 180 Gram LP, the Georg Solti on London/MFSL Half-speed mastered LP, the Slatkin on Vox/In Sync Labs real time duplicated TDK SA cassette.

I especially love Colin Matthews' "Pluto - The Renewer", it has a very other worldly feel to it and on multiple listenings over years to me it fits with the other planets perfectly. It is very exciting and beautiful. The ending of Neptune was rewritten and the wordless chorus of Neptune fades perfectly into Pluto. As much as I love Holst, I have to say Pluto has become my favorite planet. This is also has the most exciting and menacing "Mars" I've ever heard and the jolliest "Jupiter", all the Planets are wonderful.

This is not only my favorite Hyperion SACD, it is one of my favorite SACDs period. Bravo to Mark Elder, the Halle Orchestra and the fantastic engineering by Tony Faulkner!

Older style small hinged Super Jewel cases

2009-08-02T14:01:00.000-07:00

I finally found a source for the older style small hinged Super Jewel cases. I've been looking for these for years but everyone only has the new standard large hinged Super Jewel cases not the old ones. I have a few cracked older style cases I would like to replace and I have quit buying used SACDs until I could find a source of the older style cases.

See the picture for the difference between the two styles. The small hinged Super Jewel case is on top.

eBay seller roylmail from Brixham, United Kingdom has the older style small hinged Super Jewel cases in stock, Here is a link to the current listing 10 - SMALL HINGE EARLY ISSUE SUPER JEWEL BOX CD Cases

UPDATE 2/24/2011: roylmail is now only doing business in the UK and Europe.

The Save Telarc SACDs email campaign

2009-07-19T00:35:00.000-07:00

Let's start a "SAVE Telarc SACDs" email campaign.

IMPORTANT UPDATED CONTACT INFORMATION (see below)

A lot of SACD owners were very disappointed when Paavo Järvi's new Shostakovich: Symphony No. 10 was not released as an SACD, especially considering it includes the seldom recorded Overture No. 2 by Veljo Tormis.

Michael Bishop, the recording engineer told me "an email campaign couldn't hurt! Concord thinks there is insufficient demand for SACD to justify the mastering and manufacturing costs.

No one is more disappointed than I am there was no SACD on the new Jarvi release. The DSD stereo and surround programs are stunning and it's unfortunate that no one else may never hear them. I thought the Tormis Overture turned out especially good. A lot went well with that session and project, but the timing of the release coincided with all the restructuring going on at Concord."

Michael Bishop's Five/Four Productions is committed to recording all their source masters in DSD and have an on-going relationship with Gus Skinas and the Super Audio Center in Boulder, CO. They firmly believe that DSD serves their requirements and needs best in recording "future-proof" master audio recordings, regardless of release formats.

Let's all tell the Concord Music Group (Telarc's new owners) we want Michael Bishop's PURE DSD recordings in both high resolution stereo and high resolution surround and that a downsampled 44.1kHz redbook CD is NOT an acceptable alternative.

Below updated 7/21/09

I am suggesting everyone email Concord Music Group's Mark Wexler, label manager at Telarc, mark.wexler@concordmusicgroup.com, with a CC to customerservice@concordmusicgroup.com.
with regards to our wishes for future Telarc SACDs.

Just got an email from Michael Bishop and he is suggesting sending emails to Mark Wexler, label manager at Telarc as he is not so sure the customer service email at CMG is reliably monitored.

I just forwarded the email I sent on July 19th to mark.wexler@concordmusicgroup.com and recommend everyone do the same. And for future emails send to both email addresses.

If anyone is interested here is the text of my original email:

SUBJECT: Future Telarc SACDs.

Dear Concord Music Group,

I was very disappointed when Paavo Järvi's new Shostakovich: Symphony No. 10 was not released as an SACD, especially considering it includes the seldom recorded Overture No. 2 by Veljo Tormis.

I want Michael Bishop's PURE DSD recordings in both high resolution stereo and high resolution surround SACD, a downsampled 44.1kHz redbook CD is NOT an acceptable alternative. You will be losing a lot of sales as many of us will not buy the low resolution CD version even if the SACD version is not available.

Thanks,

Teresa Goodwin

The Pro-SACD Forum started today.

2009-07-01T20:26:00.000-07:00

Great news all SACD lovers I just started a new forum today: The Pro-SACD Forum

The Pro-SACD Forum was created for the discussion of new high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. No CD-trolls, CD-agitators or CD-apologists allowed. Discussion of CD is allowed only as it related to the superior rendition of the same music on the SACD version. Any past failed experiments of unsuccessfully trying to wring music from the low resolution CD format are also allowed. Any positive comments on CD should be posted on the many CD forums on the Internet, they are not allowed on The Pro-SACD Forum.

SACD enables us to enjoy real music with realistic sonics bathed in a beautiful ambient atmosphere. Now you can discuss all your wonderful SACD experiences without the fear of attack by Internet bullies or CD-trolls.

Telarc SACD Sampler 1 - DSD vs. PCM

2009-06-23T01:03:00.000-07:00

From the liner notes on level differences on this Telarc Sampler SACD.

"Our goal in compiling this sampler was to present the listener with a variety of differing approaches to creating a surround sound experience, using various musical examples.

The Selections included in this SACD are presented with no alternation in overall level or dynamic range from the original masters. The apparent levels, therefore differ greatly from track to track. Telarc's masters are optimized for maximum peak levels during the recording sessions and subsequent mastering. When we attempted to match the relative volume between these tracks, we found it significantly degraded the sonic integrity of the original masters, resulting in out decision to leave them alone.

To make it easier to play these unleveled tracks, we chose to group them from loudest to softest. There is roughly a 45 percent difference in apparent level from the first track to the last so you will undoubtedly want to increase the volume as you play through the disc."

All tracks are Telarc recordings with the exception of Tracks 3 and 4 which are from their sister label Heads Up.

Selections and source recording type.

Moanin' - Monty Alexander from "Monty Meets Sly and Robbie" (Source: Analog)
Badia - Jason Miles, etc. from "Celebrating the Music of Weather Report" (Source: PCM 24/44.1)
Nature Boy - Philip Bailey from "Soul On Jazz" (Source: Analog / PCM 24/44.1)
Feelin' Fine - Spyro Gyra from "In Modern Times" (Source: Analog / PCM 24/44.1)
Give Me One Reason - Junior Wells from "Come On In This House" (Source: Analog / PCM 24/44.1)
Anthony's Blues - Michel Camilo from "Triangulo" (Source: Analog with DSD)
Harcourt Nights - Oscar Peterson Quartet and the Michel Legrand Strings from "Trail of Dreams: A Canadian Suite" (Source: DSD)
Pride And Joy - Kevin Mahogany from ""Pride and Joy" (Source: DSD)
Simple Gifts - Erich Kunzel & Cincinnati Pops Orchestra from "A Celtic Spectacular" (Source: DSD)
September In The Rain - Erich Kunzel & Cincinnati Pops Orchestra from "Nice 'N' Easy, Celebrating Sinatra" (Source: DSD)
Across the Universe - King'singers, Erich Kunzel & Cincinnati Pops Orchestra from "Music of the Beatles" (Source: DSD)
Cuban Landscape With Rain - Los Angeles Guitar Quartet from "Latin Album" (Source: DSD)
Dupre: Magnificat VI - Michael Murray from "Dupre, Franck, Widor: Organ Works" (Source: DSD)
Song For All Seas All Ships - Robert Spano, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and Chorus from "Vaughan Williams: Symphony No. 1 "A Sea Symphony" (Source: DSD)
O Fortuna - Donald Runnicles, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra & Chorus from "Orff: Carmina Burana" (Source: DSD)

The first selection is from an analog master, track 2 is 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM, tracks 3-5 are Analog / 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM, track 6 is Analog with DSD and remaining 9 tracks are Pure DSD.

Leaving track 5 and entering track 6 is a musical revelation! Moving from Analog / 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM to Analog with DSD the music opens up and comes alive, and stays that way with the remaining 8 tracks. The sonic differences between the first 5 PCM tracks and the remaining 9 tracks is an ear opening experience and further reinforces my belief that all recordings, no matter what type of music, no matter what the end format NEED to be DSD recorded, without a single exception.

Moving from the PCM tracks to the DSD tracks my whole soundstage opened up, it's as if someone pushed the back and side walls further back to let in more of the music in. the DSD tracks had real air between and around the instruments and their position was more defined. The bass was more realistic sounding, not deeper just more live sounding. The midrange was so precise I could reach out and touch the players in their holographic space. The smooth analog-like high frequencies of the DSD recordings are do die for, even though smoother they also had more attack sounded more like what I hear live. By contrast the PCM recordings sounded like recordings. The DSD recordings sounded like I was transported to the Jazz club or concert hall. And this is the two channel stereo high resolution program! Someday I hope to hear the multichannel program.

I had always believed that Telarc's Classical music was better engineered than their Jazz, and while that might have been true in the beginning it is not now, some of the DSD recorded Jazz sounded fantastic! While Telarc's Classical division started recording DSD several years before SACD was invented it appears their Jazz division didn't adopt DSD recording until much later.

I highly recommend this SACD and the six Telarc samplers that followed. If the first five PCM tracks don't sound so great to you, skip ahead to track 6 and listen to the remainder of the SACD. Just remember you have to gradually turn the volume up as the SACD plays to keep the same relative level. You can always listen to the first five tracks later.

Review is of the 2 channel stereo high resolution DSD layer.

A Tale of two SACDs - DSD versus 24 Bit PCM

2009-06-20T04:37:00.000-07:00

Here are two SACDs recorded in the same hall: Grieg Hall, Bergen, Norway

Grieg: Norwegian Dances, Symphonic Dances, Lyric Suite

Ole Kristian Ruud, Bergen Philharmonic
BIS SACD-1291 - DSD Recording - Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD

Grieg: Peer Gynt Suites Nos. 1 & 2, Funeral March in Memory of Rikard Nordraak, Old Norwegian Melody with Variations, Bell Ringing

Ole Kristian Ruud, Bergen Philharmonic
BIS-SACD-1591 - 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM Recording - Stereo/Multichannel Hybrid SACD

In my system playing the high resolution 2 channel stereo program, the PCM recording has muffled high frequencies, and is congested on climaxes and the climax of "In the Hall of the Mountain King" actually has audible digital distortion of the type I usually only hear on Redbook CDs, as if the recording is running out of steam, or perhaps bits?

This is a very educational listen for anyone to undertake and not too expensive at that as BIS SACDs cost the same as CDs.

I have learned to look for "PURE DSD" or "DSD recorded" when I purchase a new SACD as I have learned the hard way, by losing money resaleing unacceptable sounding SACDs from PCM masters.

So far the only DSD recorded SACDs I have found unacceptable are the LSO Live ones, many believe this is due to the poor acoustics of Barbican Hall.

Reviews are of the 2 channel stereo high resolution DSD layers.

DSD recording and 70 recommended SACDs

There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz!
A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz