Newsgroup: it.hobby.hi-fi
Titolo: SACD worlds: the History of BIS' departure from DSD recording to 24 Bit 44.1kHz PCM recording

http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2010/02/history-of-bis-departure-from-dsd.html
*/*
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 great 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 this year 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
**
--
Aliis alia placent
http://i41.tinypic.com/314p93p.gif
http://i49.tinypic.com/4idg1y.jpg

 
http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2010/02/history-of-bis-departure-from-dsd.html
Faccio sommessamente notare che questo � un NG della gerarchia it.
Dovresti tradurre l'articolo in italiano, ma, visto che non sai n� inglese
n� italiano, faresti pi� alla svelta a non pubblicarlo.
Tanto il SACD � morto e sepolto, solo pochi prezzolati come te fingono di
non accorgersene.

non accorgersene.
Tanto non capisci niente, mai hai capito niente, mai capirai niente.
Ad libitum...
Ah, se non lo sapessi, � latino, roba grossa per i tuoi (pochi)
neuroni... :-)


 
http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2010/02/history-of-bis-departure-from-dsd.html
Non ho letto fino alla fine, ma almeno so che BIS ï¿œ un editore da evitare. 
Ma come si fa ad usare un campionamento cosï¿œ basso per un master? 
Posso capire che ï¿œ difficile lavorare in DSD, ma almeno usare PCM 192/24 e
poi convertire in DSD e PCM 44.100 alla fine. 
Che senso ha produrre SACD fatti cosï¿œ ? Tanto vale produrre degli HDCD 
 
-- 
Ricky
Scrivimi saltando i cancelletti ( * = . )
mb#ox#*#ric#ky@yah#oo*it
oppure usa il seguente link
http://www.mynewsgate.net/mp.php?u=19024

 non accorgersene.
Non è un sistema con vasta diffusione, ma esiste e sono tuttora
prodotti dischi e macchine in grado di leggerlo.
Altri sistemi che sembravano "morti e sepolti" stanno tornando alla
luce presso molti appassionati. Vinile in primis, ma non soltanto.
Inoltre, prima di parlare, suggerirei di ascolare. Ho visto più di un
audiofilo ascoltare cose "morte e sepolte" e mettersi a caccia di un
nuovo "bimbo" da adottare...
Luca Franzesi
luf...@f2m.it