# Solti's Ring on SACD -- the ULTIMATE?!



## GrosseFugue

Hi, I've read how Solti's Ring, even despite Decca's James Lock's 1997 remaster, still doesn't sound like it should; is too compressed. I've enjoyed the set, but I can totally see what they're saying; there's potential for a much larger soundscape, something to really blow your lid off.

Jack Lawson from Music Web hails the new CD/SACD hybrid remaster from the Japanese label: Esoteric. http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Feb10/Wagner_Ring_ESSD90021-34.htm 
It makes my mouth water!  I would LOVE to have this. But it costs $800. Also I'd have to invest in an SACD player to really get the most out of it. If only I was a millionaire! 

Has anyone here heard this set? Is it true BLISS?


----------



## Itullian

no, i haven't, but i had the set on lp back when, and the cds don't even come close.
but 800 is ludicrous.


----------



## Guest

It would be more blissful if it were multi-channel instead of stereo.


----------



## Amfibius

As it turns out, I own a copy of this SACD. I also have it on vinyl and the later release. I made this post on another forum some time last year when I received my set:

--

Yesterday, my copy of Wagner's Ring cycle, remastered by Esoteric on SACD arrived. Many thanks to David.M for giving me a heads-up that these were still available on Elusive Disc. I ordered the set at the end of November and paid $60 for express delivery via USPS. It arrived nearly 7 weeks later! I was in contact with Jason from Elusive Disc, who offered to ship me another copy, gratis, if the first one did not arrive. Top marks to Jason for outstanding customer support.

In any case, I am talking about the legendary recording of the Wagner Ring cycle, conducted by Georg Solti with the Vienna Philharmonic, and recorded by John Culshaw between 1958-1964. It was praised for its outstanding sound quality, and for a while even outsold popular albums by Elvis. Wagner nerds might debate which is the best performance - Knappertsbusch, Keilberth, and Furtwangler are also highly regarded - but there is no question that every Wagner afficionado must have a copy of this particular performance.

In any case, I now have three copies of the same performance - on vinyl, RBCD, and SACD. This is _not_ necessarily a comparison of the formats, although it does showcase what can be achieved by each format. This is because the mastering is different - the vinyl was taken from the original analogue master tape; the RBCD is a 1990's remaster from the analogue master tape; and the SACD is a 2009 remaster, taken from the original analogue tape, but this time in DSD format.

My boxed set on vinyl is a rare release from the 1970's with a brass relief etching on a substantial cardboard box. The thing weighs a tonne - probably about 10kg! The discs inside are pristine and unscratched, and totally silent. You get a beautiful booklet and a lovely libretto.

On digital, there have been two remasters. The first was done in 1985 and was universally acknowledged to sound horrible. The one I have was remastered in 1997. The reviews at the time said that it was a substantial step up from the original digital remaster from the 80's. It does not sound bad by any means, but it is nowhere near as good as modern classical recordings on digital.

When the set was released, it was very expensive - about $350 for 14 discs. In 1997 money. As you can see from the picture, the production copy was not very impressive. The CD's are held in paper sleeves within cardboard boxes, which are packed into another cardboard box. The libretto is printed in small type - very difficult to read in a darkened room.

The Esoteric remaster was made in 2009. The Japanese engineers obtained the original master tapes from Decca and remastered it on DSD using their own equipment. There is a series of Esoteric SACD's, which is supposed to be the pinnacle of classic recordings of classical music - the best performances, with the best sound quality, remastered on the latest and best technology. Sort of the Criterion Collection, but for classical music. This set comes with all the operas, an accompanying documentary on DVD on the making of the 1958-1964 recording, a book called "The Ring Resounding" by John Culshaw, and the Libretto printed on two books on beautiful paper.

Besides the cost ($1299 from Elusive Disc!!) there is one serious downside. Everything is printed in Japanese.

So what do they sound like? Well: vinyl is best, SACD second best, RBCD is dead last.

The quality of the sound on vinyl was a real eye-opener. Dynamic, rich, layered, clear, and extraordinarily expressive. It is hard to believe this was recorded in the late 50's, because it is better than most modern recordings on digital.

The SACD follows quite closely behind, however for some reason it sounds more sterile even though you can hear as much detail as you can with the vinyl. The dynamics of the attack are still there, but the leading edge lacks aggressiveness and sounds much smoother. This could be distortion on the vinyl, or the Esoteric engineers missed something in translation, or that my playback equipment isn't good enough. Or maybe digital still has a way to go. I am not sure what is responsible, but SACD still isn't as good as vinyl.

That the RBCD finished last was no real surprise. I have known for years that this CD, despite sounding thin and having a brittle top end, still manages to sound muffled in the midrange. However, this is a sad indictment of the modern classical industry that it still sounds better than many modern recordings - for example, nearly every Deutsche Grammofon digital recording from the 1980's right up to the early 2000's, which was when they got their act together. Modern DGG sounds great, but not close to the quality of the SACD of this recording.

So there you have it


----------



## GrosseFugue

Amfibius, thank you for that very detailed follow-up! (BTW, did you ever try out the remasters at Pristine Classical?)

Does anyone know if Decca's got plans to re-re-master the set anytime soon?

It's been 15 years now since the last one and technology has gotten much better since. I don't know why they don't. Seems like an easy way to rake in some cash (and even make a PROFIT!). You know collectors would be flocking like mad to buy it. Decca recently put out a CD omnibus called: "Decca Sound" -- http://www.amazon.com/Decca-Sound-V...UTF8&coliid=I3I5G5I8J8TSPJ&colid=GXMGKMQXBBBG You'd think if they're going to that much trouble they'd at least consider doing the same for their best selling album of all time!


----------



## bigshot

SACDs are a complete waste of money. Any advantage in sound is so far below normal listening level, you'd never hear it unless you turn the volume up to deafening levels. I did a controlled comparison between the redbook and SACD layers od a DSD Pentatone hybrid SACD. After level matching, there was absolutely no difference. All of the differences I found between CDs and SACDs were differences in mixing and mastering. The format is no better than CD.

SACDs are a boondoggle designed to get you to buy recordings you already own a second time.


----------



## bigshot

By the way. The main difference between the original release and the remaster of Solti's Ring was that the original was a straight transfer off the master tapes. The remaster had a little bit of hiss removal. Other than that, they are identical. The CDs sound much better than the vinyl, particularly the LPs produced during the 80s with Ring Resounding included in the box.


----------



## Amfibius

GrosseFugue, I haven't heard any of the remasters on Pristine Classical. I had to google it after you mentioned it ... sounds intriguing! The only problem is that I have no way to play downloaded music on my system. I would have to order the CD  

Oh, and there are cranks who say that SACD's don't sound any different to CD's. There are also cranks who think that there are no discernible differences between MP3 and CD. All I say is: if you can't hear a difference then don't buy it. To each their own.


----------



## bigshot

I am not a crank. I work in the entertainment business and I've recorded, edited sound and supervised sound mixes. I know what the difference is between high bitrate sound and redbook. An engineer freind and I spent a month putting together what we needed to do a controlled A/B comparison. I'm not just talking about my "impressions". I've done the legwork to know for sure what the difference is.

If you know about digital audio, you know that the increased resolution of high bitrate audio extends downward in the dynamic range. At normal listening volumes, the sound is exactly the same. The reason music is recorded at a higher rate is to allow room to boost the level of elements in the mix without running into the noise floor. If you are just listening to music on headphones, you would have to raise the level to the volume of a woodchipper at close range to hear a difference. If you did that, it wouldn't matter because you would incur hearing damage.

Audiophiles regularly point to numbers on a page when they talk about good sound quality. But they usually have no clue what those numbers mean. The difference between a well mastered CD and the same recording on SACD is completely indistinguishable. If you think you hear a difference, it's something other than the bitrate that you're hearing.

By the way, Pristine Audio adds "sweetening" in the form of synthetic stereo digital reverbs to their transfers. If you like that, they're great. I prefer less intrusive techniques.

I know of at least three LP versions of Solti's Ring. The first came in a box with a die cut window in it and had the graphics in the booklet of the CD remaster. The next version included the Disks that identified the leitmotifs. The last version included a hardback of Ring Resounding. The best sounding LP was the second set with the leitmotif disks. The earlier set is usually damaged by early stereo stylii, and the later version had more noisy surfaces. The set you have there appears to be the UK version of the third release. That would date to the late 70s/early 80s. I had the US version of that same release and I gave it away after comparing it to the first CD release. The noise floor was much better on the CD and the LP tended to have more distortion in the inner grooves.


----------



## GrosseFugue

Bigshot, you say even the first CD-release is better than the LP's?! WOW.  And I've always heard everyone praise LP's to the sky. But wasn't the first CD-release really bad and brittle sounding?

And SACD's are really no better? Again -- WOW.  And yet so many people (even renowned musicians and critics) swear by it and there is a whole sub-industry selling SACD players, etc. Are these people really just imagining an improvement? If it's truly a con-job it sounds like the ultimate con. How is that possible?

You sound like you really know your stuff, have the background, etc, so I'd appreciate your insights about these issues. 

Also, as a soundman yourself wouldn't you agree though that a new remaster of The Ring is warranted considering all the advances in technology? Certainly, there is room for improvement, yes?

PS -- you mentioned you didn't care for Pristine Classical's methods. What do you think of Eduardo's at Furtwangler Sound? http://furtwanglersound.com/


----------



## bigshot

I haven't heard anything by Furtwangler Sound.

Check out Solti's Ring at your local public library. It sounds fine. The only thing you can do to improve it is to remove the tape hiss from the master, but that doesn't really bother me. That's why I didn't buy the remastered set after comparing a friend's copy to my set and finding only a minor difference in noise reduction.

SACDs aren't for sound engineers. They're for audiophiles who trust what stereo equipment salespeople tell them. Double blind testing doesn't lie. CDs are all you need for normal listening.

Test showing SACDs sound exactly like CDs except at greatly increased volume levels beyond the limit of comfortable listening...
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

Remastered does not always mean better. The new stereo Beatles box is slightly compressed compared to the original release. That is the main audible difference. It pays to have a pair of CD players and two preamps to do direct line level matched A/B comparisons. The results might surprise you.


----------



## Amfibius

Well, getting back on topic ... have you actually heard the Esoteric remaster of the Ring, or are you talking out of your ****?


----------



## bigshot

There is no point releasing it on SACD. It won't sound any better because of the higher bitrate. See link to the AES above.

It really doesn't matter though because the format is dying... except among audiophools.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> There is no point releasing it on SACD. It won't sound any better because of the higher bitrate. See link to the AES above.
> 
> It really doesn't matter though because the format is dying... except among audiophools.


You might be a nice guy, but such pronouncements make you sound like a total a$$hole.

Anyway, I used to do professional recording, too, so I know a thing or two about sound. I have bought a few SACD versions of older RBCD recordings, such as Heifetz' Brahms and Sibelius Violin Concertos on RCA. The SACD version sounds as if a veil has been lifted: I hear far more orchestral detail, more hall ambiance, and greater stereo imaging, particularly through my Stax headphones. I rarely buy RBCDs anymore unless the music simply isn't available or it contains a particularly illuminating performance. I don't care what tests "prove": to my ears, SACDs offer superior sound. If you don't hear it, then that's fine, too.


----------



## bigshot

When you did professional recording, did you record in bitrates above 16/44.1? Do you know what the difference is between redbook and high bitrate? At normal volumes the resolution between both is identical. (Google Nyquist Curve). The difference between CD sound and DSD is almost entirely at volumes at or below the noise floor of your listening room. It isn't audible with headphones unless you turn the volume up to ear splitting levels. This isn't arrogance, it's a fact.

The difference you heard between formats on your Heifetz SACD is all due to mastering. If you bounced the SACD down to 16/44.1 and burned it on a CD, it would sound exactly the same.

The only advantage of the SACD format over CDs is its multichannel features. But even those are poorly implemented because they hobbled the format with analogue outputs. It's impossible to buy an amp with analogue multichannel inputs for under $1000. Everything uses optical or coax digital. For stereo, SACD is a total waste of time. No one can hear the difference between identically mastered CDs and SACDs. That has been proven in double blind tests, as the paper I linked to from the AES shows.


----------



## Guest

That was during the pre-digital era! I used analog gear--Studer, Revox, and Tandberg reel-to-reel decks. Around 1988-90 I bought a Sony PCM converter that used a video recorder as the storage device. It sounded a bit cold and clinical to my ears.


----------



## bigshot

Kontrapunctus said:


> I used analog gear--Studer reel-to-reel decks.


When I started out, I worked with Nagras and magstripe in the film business. Digital is quite different. There aren't subtle shades of difference between decks and there's no generation loss. When you lay something down to digital, it is what it is.

It's good that you have experience because I can give you some specs that will make it clearer to you what is going on.

The big point to understand with digital audio is that high bitrates don't increase resolution. CD sound is already 20hZ to 20kHz stone flat with no distortion. Sound can't get better than perfect. High bitrates lower the noise floor, so instead of having 90dB of available range, you get 120dB or more. The thing is, most recorded music doesn't exceed 40dB, and even the most wide ranging music has about 60 dB. The average living room has an ambient noise floor that doesn't allow more than 40dB, and in order to clearly hear the entire range the CD format is capable of with headphones, you would need to turn the volume up to a level that would cause hearing damage.

What use is high bitrate sound then? Well, it's invaluable in a mix to be able to boost the level of a small sound like a flute cleanly without bringing up the noise floor along with it. I'm sure back in the analogue era, you ran into situations where boosting something made the tape hiss rise and fall along with your signal. Recording in high bitrate extends the range you can boost, making mixing easier.

Also, CD quality sound has a curve where resolution falls off. This falloff occurs at the very bottom of the dynamic range in the quietest of sounds- things that are not audible without a huge volume boost. In normal listening because this falloff occurs far below the level where human hearing loses its sensitivity. But in a mix, you might want to bring up a sound that far down, and you want it to be clear, not distorted.

High bitrate audio is useful for mixing where a super wide dynamic range is necessary. But once the mix is finalized and it is bounced down to redbook, there is no audible difference. At listening volumes, even loud ones, you don't get close to exceeding the specifications of CD quality sound.

So if there is no difference, why do SACDs sound different than the same album on CD? The reason is that they don't use the same master to make them. Sometimes it's as simple as just pulling a first generation master tape instead of a submaster. But SACDs are almost always remastered, and often they are even remixed. They replace analogue reverbs with digital ones. They apply noise reduction to eliminate tape hiss. They reequalize the sound to make it brighter sounding, or add a bass harmonizer to extend the bass response an octave lower. All of this monkeying around with the sound either makes it sound better, or it just makes it sound different. Then they lay a totally different old master onto the hybrid redbook layer and lower the overall volume so a casual comparison between the redbook and SACD layers seems to indicate that the SACD layer sounds "better".

All of this is at its core deceptive, because you aren't hearing an improvement because of the format. You're hearing it because of the remastering. Wait a few years and they'll pull the SACD master off the shelf and use it to produce a newly remastered CD. And it will sound *exactly* like the SACD. Paying more to get a non-standard disk with proper mastering doesn't encourage record labels to improve the mastering of CDs. It just encourages them to create new "whiz bang" non-standard, non-compatible formats so they can convince you to buy Pink Floyd's Dark Side of te Moon for the umptenth time.

As for your Kreisler SACD... When that was released on SACD, it was a huge improvement over the mastering on previous releases. Until the SACD series, the Living Stereo recordings had been given the budget line short shrift when it came to mastering. But RCA recently released a box set of Living Stereo CDs and _used the SACD masters_ to produce it. With the exception of the center channel on some of the Living Stereo SACDs (because some were recorded in three track stereo) the $2 a CD box set sounds *exactly* like the SACDs. i know this for a fact because I have a pile of the RCA SACDs and the Living Stereo box an I've compared them.

Now that I've gone through my longwinded explanation, go back and read my previous comments. I'm not being an a$$hole. I'm simply stating the facts.


----------



## Rangstrom

I agree that better mastering can make a huge difference on how old analogue recordings sound on cd, but I question the statement that redbook digital is perfect from 20 to 20k. By its nature it can only be an approximation. Perhaps you meant to the limit of the ear to tell the difference, but I've yet to hear any cd match live sound (or even quality RTR on a high end system).


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Now that I've gone through my longwinded explanation, go back and read my previous comments. I'm not being an a$$hole. I'm simply stating the facts.


Calling us "audiophools" is what prompted my remark! (Admittedly, it is a clever pun...) You do sound like you know your stuff. In general, most SACDs sound warmer and less "freeze-dried" than most RBCDs to my ears. Be it different masters or whatever, I definitely prefer their sound, especially since I switched to a multi-channel system.


----------



## GrosseFugue

My understanding from what Bigshot has posted (and forgive my lack of technical knowledge) is that if the music sounds better that's because it's been RE-MASTERED and has nothing to do with the format (SACD). 

So I think we can all at least agree that music does sound BETTER on SACD. Just not for reasons people can agree on.  (Though I wouldn't be surprised if the music industry was indeed duping people into buying a format they don't need. That kind of stuff has been going on forever. From the VHS/Beta wars to constant computer upgrades that only wreak havoc.) 

Further, I'm sure we can all agree that Solti's Ring could use a new and improved RE-MASTER. Whether Decca decides to call this SACD-hybrid or what have you; the point being it WILL sound BETTER. 

So why don't they just RE-MASTER it and make some money?


----------



## bigshot

I haven't found any correlation between remastering and better sound. Some sound a little better, some sound worse. A good case in point is the recent remasters of the Beatles catalog. The primary difference between the new CDs and the original CD issue is that the new ones are a little compressed. I much prefer the originals.

Generally, I look skeptically on remasters, because the original engineers and artists signed off on a specific sound. Having an engineer go in thirty years later with completely different equipment and rejigger everything may result in a different sound, but it's not as likely to result in something more faithful to the masters as a straight transfer off the masters themselves. The vast majority of remasters don't sound better or worse, they just sound different. An example of that is Let It Be (Naked). Phil Spector's Let It Be sounds nothing like what the Beatles intended their Get Back album to sound, but neither does Let It Be (Naked). They are both completely different than the Peter Sellers acetate of the way the Beatles left Get Back. Which one is better sounding? The new one of course, but I'll take the Sellers acetate warts and all over the modern digital mush version any day of the week.

When it comes to Solti's Ring, John Culshaw put everything he had into that recording and the CD releases have been faithful to the masters. I don't know why anyone would want anything different than that. Decca had excellent engineering at that time and the masters are four tracks with stereo on the orchestra and stereo on the stage with the singers. Culshaw carefully positioned the singers in front of the mikes to get a clearly defined soundstage. Why would you want to go in and monkey with that? Leave it alone. It is what it is.


----------



## bigshot

Rangstrom said:


> I question the statement that redbook digital is perfect from 20 to 20k. By its nature it can only be an approximation.


Here is the longer, more technical explanation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shannon_sampling_theorem

The short answer is that 16/44.1 is enough to completely and accurately reproduce from 20hZ to 20kHz at any human listening level. All of digital audio is based on this theory. Higher bitrates just give you more resolution at lower volume levels.

You can't believe what you read in stereo magazines any more. It's all designed to sell you something you don't need. I've been a hifi nut for a long time, and I remember the scientific and technical efforts that were taken to squeeze the last bit of sound out of analogue components. I was suspicious of the "perfect sound" motto too at first. But I read up on the science behind it and did my own A/B tests and came to the conclusions I've reached.

Since redbook audio is perfect, and a WalMart CD player puts out 20-20 clean at with more dynamic range than you would ever need, equipment salesmen have had to resort to outright deception to get people to spend more money. They do this by juggling numbers and creating false analogies. For instance, I'm sure you've heard about "jitter". It sounds logical. That little silver disk is spinning around really fast, maybe the sound could be jittering...

Well, the Audio Engineering Society published a study on jitter based on hundreds of listening tests conducted by audio engineers, musicians, golden ear audiophiles and just plain folk. They listened to a huge variety of equipment, from the highest high end systems to normal ones... even their own systems. The study concluded that the threshold of audibility for digital jitter was 100 times the range jitter is found in even the cheapest CD player at Costco. They couldn't hear jitter until it was magnified 100 times. Jitter is complete hoodoo.

Another argument is that even though redbook perfectly reproduces the audible range of sounds, frequencies beyond what humans can hear are important. (I've had stereo salesmen try to use this one on me to sell me a SACD player.) But the AES also conducted a test on that, and they found that although many people can perceive sound pressure of ultra high frequencies, these super sonic frequencies do not have any impact on sound quality at all. In fact, they induce headaches and listening fatigue. Another study found that you can filter off all frequencies above 10kHz (that's the top octave in the audible range) and the vast majority of listeners will say that it sounds just as good as a recording that goes all the way up to 20kHz.

The reason I call them Audiophools is because they don't do their homework. They trust equipment manufacturer's advertising, magazine advertorials and the hot air of audio equipment salesmen... and they pay through the nose for snake oil.

I agree with you that open reel tapes sound the best. The reason for that is that the manufacturing process on open reel tapes doesn't require remastering. You just plug a deck into a player playing the master and you hit the red button. Open reel tapes are more likely to be straight transfers off the master with no "sweetening" or compensation for technical issues, like the RIAA curve on LPs. But if you take the best sounding open reel tape in the world and capture it to 16/44.1, it will sound exactly the same. The difference between the master and the CD quality copy will be imperceptible. I know because I've done this test with both open reel tapes and half speed mastered Sheffield Lab LPs. I've also done direct comparisons between high bitrate music recorded and played back on a high end ProTools workstation and a redbook bouncedown of the same recording. No difference.

CD sound is all you need.


----------



## bigshot

Kontrapunctus said:


> Around 1988-90 I bought a Sony PCM converter that used a video recorder as the storage device. It sounded a bit cold and clinical to my ears.


I noticed you added this... If that is the one with the separate Beta portapack (PCM 10?), I used that too. I worked for a Hollywood sound man who recorded the first TV program to be recorded digitally... Barry Manilow's Copacabana special. I did the transfers and dailies on that show using that deck. It took a second for the sound to resolve when you hit play, but the Nagras took a second for the crystal sync to pop in too.

Before my boss retired his Nagras, he did a battery of comparison tests involving test tones and real world sound between the Nagras and that Sony. I watched him. Learned a lot. That Sony deck outperformed his high end Nagras handily. The only drawback to the Sony was how it distorted when it became overdriven. The Nagras would take the red peaks cleanly in comparison. But the dynamic range of digital was so much wider, and the noise floor so much lower than tape, he just dialed back his levels 20% to allow headroom and it worked fine. The coldness you heard wasn't because of that deck.


----------



## Guest

I connected mine to a Sony Betamax that I had at home--I didn't have the nifty matching portapack unit.


----------



## Amfibius

The reason you call them "audiophools" is because you have no respect.

People like you are banned from audio forums around the world simply because your preconceptions about something being theoretically perfect inhibit you from actually hearing any differences, and you go around calling people names when they don't agree with you. That is why I think you are a crank.


----------



## bigshot

Amfibius said:


> The reason you call them "audiophools" is because you have no respect. People like you are banned from audio forums around the world simply because your preconceptions about something being theoretically perfect inhibit you from actually hearing any differences, and you go around calling people names when they don't agree with you. That is why I think you are a crank.


I'm the one offering explanations and supporting evidence to back up my opinions, while you are resorting to ad hominem attacks. I'm sorry if your feelings have been hurt, but I'm not the one acting like a crank here.


----------



## werther

My favorite Ring cycle. Solti's version is supurb.


----------



## Guest

Kontrapunctus said:


> I connected mine to a Sony Betamax that I had at home--I didn't have the nifty matching portapack unit.


I didn't have the small PCM unit--mine was more of a rack-style--don't recall the model number. (It would be nice to be able to edit posts a day or two later!)


----------



## Rangstrom

Bigshot, interesting article, although it does not support your contention of perfect sound. The formula is based on sampling for an infinite time. For time limited sampling (i.e., the real world) it is a good approximation. It has been a long time since I worked in the area so my math skills are rusty, but it is a question of discrete versus continuous. As the number of sample points (discrete) increase the closer you get to continuous, but you need an infinite number (c) to actually reach continuity.

As I mentioned before, somewhere short of an infinite number will sound the same as the real waves to the human ear. Based on past experience with live music and various analogue sources, I don't believe RBCD is at that level. While it doesn't address the issue directly, Daniel Levitin's book--This is Your Brain on Music--deals in part with the brain's tendency to fill in gaps. I suspect this process lies to some extent behind digital's less than perfect sound (of course bad mastering doesn't help/those early cds using the standard LP rolloffs were unlistenable) and aural fatigue. Anyway the book is worth reading.

I do believe a better recording medium will be discovered eventually (I thought the experiment of adding barely audible white noise to playback was promising, at least for the aural fatigue issue). As to SACD, I'm on the fence. First at my age my hearing acuity has taken the expected hit and I haven't purchased either a dedicated SACD player or a DAC. I use my DVD player for SACD and the output from my Rotel CD player is excellent. I never did quad LPS and I don't do 5 channel. Still most of my serious listening is through BeyerDynamic T1s and I find most of the SACDs (of the 50 or so that I've heard) do sound better than the cd layer. But not all. That may be due to more careful production rather than a superior process but hey I'll take the improvement. 

Thanks for the tips on the RCAs. I ordered a few of the Heifitz today.


----------



## bigshot

That's like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Audio equipment salesmen would love for everyone to think that way... Just keep splitting the difference over and over forever. Keep moving that decimal point further to the left. Good is never good enough.

You can believe that you're hearing numbers on a chart, but the truth is, if you do a blind A/B level matched comparison between a 16/44.1 recording and a DSD SACD, you won't be able to tell the difference. I know because I did it myself and so have engineers at the AES. That doesn't mean that there's something wrong with SACDs. It means CD sound is that good. More samples and bigger file sizes doesn't mean better sound.

Resolution isn't the area that can stand improvement in sound reproduction. We've mastered that. Frequncy response and directionality are the big roadblocks to great sound today. Speaker design, EQ and room treatment along with well mixed multichannel sound are the keys to solving those problems. A new format or a magic electronic box aren't going to work. It's going to take money for high quality speakers, calibration and adjusting one's living space to suit the sound.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> You can believe that you're hearing numbers on a chart, but the truth is, if you do a blind A/B level matched comparison between a 16/44.1 recording and a DSD SACD, you won't be able to tell the difference. I know because I did it myself and so have engineers at the AES.


Just because you and your rarefied audio buddies couldn't hear it doesn't mean that _no one_ can. That's just faulty logic.


----------



## Amfibius

No point arguing with him, Kontrapunktus. I have come across his type before. These audio messiahs come out and make grand pronouncements about how some things can not possibly make a difference, and when you disagree, you are told that you are imagining things. And then they call you an "audiophool".


----------



## bigshot

At least I've made the effort to find out for myself and try to nail down exactly what kind of difference exists. I'm not just making up fancy diaphenous words to describe my purely subjective feelings like most "reviewers" on the internet.

I own tens of thousands of records and as many CDs. In my time I've been down the format merry go round many times. I've had reel to reel, 8 track, cassette, 78s, LPs, CDs, laserdiscs, VHS, Betamax and digital files. Adding a new format is more than just buying a player. It's an investment in software. I spent $500 on my laserdisc player, but I spent tens of thousands on disks to play in it. Today, I can go to WalMart and get a $30 DVD player that outperforms it and get DVDs for under $10 that I spent $50 to buy on laserdisc. Laserdiscs were a terrible investment. I should have just bought a player and rented disks to watch.

When the SACD format came out, I was attracted by the promise of better sound and multichannel audio. None of my friends had one, so I figured out a highly regarded player and bought it. When I went to set it up, I quickly discovered that I wouldn't be getting multichannel sound because of the assinine non- standard outputs the format is saddled with. I tried to do a direct A/B comparison between layers and discovered that switching layers took so long comparison was impossible. One day I accidentally listened to the CD layer of a hybrid disk and didn't notice. That's when I figured I needed to do the legwork to figure out what was going on.

It took me the better part of a month to work out all the bugs. I bought a dozen SACDs looking for one that had the same mastering on both layers. Finally someone pointed me to Pentatone and I made a test on my own system- no difference. So I made an appointment to take the test over to a sound engineer's place to try the test on his pro equipment- no difference.

You can feel free to say both of us are deaf and crazy. But I have done a controlled comparison and you haven't. I KNOW that SACDs are a bad investment. You just THInK they sound better. It's awfully nice of me to share this with other people on the internet. If I didn't, other people would invest thousands of dollars in $18 non standard disks that are no better than $7.99 CDs.

You're welcome!


----------



## bigshot

Amfibius said:


> These audio messiahs come out and make grand pronouncements about how some things can not possibly make a difference, and when you disagree, you are told that you are imagining things.


I am not telling you you're imagining things. I'm telling you that the whole SACD format is *designed* to make it extremely difficult to compare fairly. It isn't your imagination that the redbook layer of hybrid disks is hobbled and presented at a lower volume level, nor is it imagination that it takes so long to switch layers no human could do a fair comparison. The manufacturers don't want you to know that the emperor has no clothes. That isn't your fault. It's the high end audio establishment that is complicit with the manufacturers to help pick your pockets.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> You can feel free to say both of us are deaf and crazy. But I have done a controlled comparison and you haven't. I KNOW that SACDs are a bad investment. You just THInK they sound better. It's awfully nice of me to share this with other people on the internet. If I didn't, other people would invest thousands of dollars in $18 non standard disks that are no better than $7.99 CDs.
> 
> You're welcome!


Wow. I think we have a contender for the Most Pompous Post of the Year award. You also must have amazing powers of discernment, in addition to infallible golden years, to know what I _think_ I hear. Anyway, this thread is now dead to me.


----------



## bigshot

Kontrapunctus said:


> Anyway, this thread is now dead to me.


Addio! (that's a pun, son.)


----------



## Abraxas

*Solti Ring on BLU RAY AUDIO?*

http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/5109134

As always, google translator is pathetic!


----------



## regnaDkciN

Abraxas said:


> http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/5109134
> 
> As always, google translator is pathetic!


Nonsense! Google Translate has been proven to provide "perfect translation forever." Anyone who insists differently is a self-deluded linguophool.


----------



## regnaDkciN

bigshot said:


> There is no point releasing it on SACD. It won't sound any better because of the higher bitrate. See link to the AES above.
> 
> It really doesn't matter though because the format is dying... except among audiophools.


Excuse me, but your logic is what's foolish (excuse me, "phoolish") here. Further on down the thread, you claim that the only difference in sound quality between an SACD and a Redbook CD is that the former may have a new, improved transfer compared to the latter. Even if one were to grant your claims, the Esoteric SACDs (which have, apparently, been re-transferred) may well sound better than the current CDs, simply due to the differing transfer. Of course, you might claim that, if the Esoteric SACD transfer were converted to Redbook and released on CDs (presumably for a much lower price), they would sound just the same, but, since such CDs don't exist, any comparison is between apples and oranges. Saying there's "no point" to the SACDs ignores the possibility that they may sound better -- in fact, a _lot_ better -- without it being due to technical improvements of the SACD format over CDs, but merely a different transfer.


----------



## regnaDkciN

bigshot said:


> Generally, I look skeptically on remasters, because the original engineers and artists signed off on a specific sound. Having an engineer go in thirty years later with completely different equipment and rejigger everything may result in a different sound, but it's not as likely to result in something more faithful to the masters as a straight transfer off the masters themselves. The vast majority of remasters don't sound better or worse, they just sound different. An example of that is Let It Be (Naked). Phil Spector's Let It Be sounds nothing like what the Beatles intended their Get Back album to sound, but neither does Let It Be (Naked). They are both completely different than the Peter Sellers acetate of the way the Beatles left Get Back. Which one is better sounding? The new one of course, but I'll take the Sellers acetate warts and all over the modern digital mush version any day of the week.
> 
> When it comes to Solti's Ring, John Culshaw put everything he had into that recording and the CD releases have been faithful to the masters. I don't know why anyone would want anything different than that. Decca had excellent engineering at that time and the masters are four tracks with stereo on the orchestra and stereo on the stage with the singers. Culshaw carefully positioned the singers in front of the mikes to get a clearly defined soundstage. Why would you want to go in and monkey with that? Leave it alone. It is what it is.


I will grant the excellence of Culshaw's original work; but you must be the only person I know of who considers the CDs "faithful" to the masters. Virtually every review I've read of the CD releases have held that the 1984 is garbage, while the 1997 is garbage muffled by extra Cedar2 processing, neither of which come close to the sound of the original LP releases. And holding up the supposed sanctity of the original doesn't really cut it in this case -- by the time the first CD remaster was done, Culshaw had been dead for four years, so any CD release was done without his _imprimateur_. Like it or not, any CD (or SACD) release has been "rejiggered" from what Culshaw signed-off on; the only difference is whether it was rejiggered for good or ill. And your final lines about "monkeying" with the four-tracks make me wonder if you understand the difference between "remastering" and "remixing." Surely a sound engineer must know that, right?


----------



## bigshot

Most early CD releases were simply straight transfers from the master tape to digital. That's the most faithful a release can be. Since then, in order to sell us the same music twice, they've gone in and sweetened and applied noise reduction. That's released with a "new and improved" label... And some people believe that.

I compared the two previous releases of Solti's Ring. There was very little difference between them. Just a tiny bit of noise reduction in the lowest level sections. Nothing objectionable... Barely noticeable. I kept the original, because there was no need to replace it. If someone described the rerelease as muffled garbage, they aren't listening.

SACD doesn't necessarily mean better, and Cedar doesn't ecessarily mean worse.

Which version of Solti's Ring do you own. Have you heard both, or are you just quoting others?


----------



## regnaDkciN

bigshot said:


> Which version of Solti's Ring do you own. Have you heard both, or are you just quoting others?


Both. (I also have the cassette release, for what it's worth.) To my mind, the earlier release sounded more spacious and "airy," while the latter was more closed-in. Unfortunately, although I had previously heard the LP set from the library back in the early '70s, I never picked up a copy for myself; I wish I'd had enough money and luggage space the last time I was in Europe (back when I was 16!) to have picked up a Decca set, as I understand they were somewhat superior, at least in terms of quiet surfaces, to the London releases here.

Meanwhile, I remain curious about the newest version, due to ship next month. I had read, long ago, that everything at Decca had been mastered to 24/96 for archival purposes years ago; and, in fact, at about the time the 1997 "remaster" was released, we were getting a lot of "Decca Legends" re-releases, and a number of Solti's other Wagner music-dramas, in new editions that proudly proclaimed "24/96 remasters" on their packaging, presumably as Redbook reductions from those archival tapes. When the 1997 Ring was announced, I assumed it would be another such release, and was surprised to see that designation totally absent, with only the mention of better noise-reduction. I wondered, at the time, why they would simply rework the original 1984 transfer instead -- were the master two-tracks in such poor condition that they didn't think it safe to try to transfer them again? And, if so, what of the claims that the Esoteric SACDs were "newly-transferred from the original master tapes"; or, for that matter, what is the source of this new set? I notice that all the ad copy mentions "remastered," but none of the usual boilerplate about "from the original master tapes."


----------



## bigshot

I'd suggest buying from somewhere you cann return it and do a careful AB comparison to see if the new version is worth it. That's what I did with the second CD set. It just wasn't any better so I sent it back.


----------



## Philip

SACD is a scam, it's made by Sony. Get over it!


----------



## regnaDkciN

Philip said:


> SACD is a scam, it's made by Sony. Get over it!


Well, I guess that settles it -- no need to discuss it further.


----------



## bigshot

That's actually the correct answer, brusque as it is. Except Phillips had a part in the scam too.

SACD is fine for a multi channel format, but with two channel audio, there's no audible difference between SACD and regular old CDs.


----------



## Philip

bigshot said:


> That's actually the correct answer, brusque as it is. Except Phillips had a part in the scam too.


I personally had NOTHING to do with it ok?


----------



## Philip

bigshot said:


> SACD is fine for a multi channel format, but with two channel audio, there's no audible difference between SACD and regular old CDs.


Get a DVD player or something


----------



## bigshot

Have they released audio only DVDs of classical music in 5:1 formats like DTS, etc? It would be good to try. I never had an amp and a SACD player that could work together for multichannel. I chucked the SACD in the closet. No more of that.


----------



## Philip

bigshot said:


> Have they released audio only DVDs of classical music in 5:1 formats like DTS, etc? It would be good to try. I never had an amp and a SACD player that could work together for multichannel. I chucked the SACD in the closet. No more of that.


I don't know. I think some albums were re-released in DVD-audio, like Pink Floyd for example. As for classical, i can't say. Honestly, no multichannel release has ever piqued my interest anyway. Even for movies i'm quite satisfied with 5.1 downmixed to 2.1.


----------



## regnaDkciN

bigshot said:


> That's actually the correct answer, brusque as it is.


Sorry, but it's definitely _not_ "the correct answer" in the context of this discussion, regardless of one's opinion of the SACD format in general. And the reason is exactly the one you expressed earlier -- _the mastering_. The Esoteric discs are a new remaster of a classic recording that has had, frankly, a chequered history on CD. As a new remaster (and one not available on Redbook CD), it is going to have an "audible difference" (and, in the opinion of many, has an "audible improvement") over both earlier CD versions. Even if you hold that an SACD and a Redbook CD of the same mastering will sound the same, that is irrelevant in this case, because there is no such "Redbook CD of the same mastering," nor is there ever going to be one. You -- and I, for that matter -- may decry Esoteric's decision to make this SACD-only (although I think it probably was a limitation insisted upon by Decca to stave off competition with their own offerings), but its almost a certainty that the SACD set will sound different (and, once again, possibly better) than either of the CD releases -- and the supposed sonic advantages of the SACD format, or lack thereof, would have nothing to do with it.


----------



## bigshot

Some hybrid SACDs have the same mastering on both the SACD layer and the redbook, but not all. The first release of Solti's Ring was a straight transfer right off the masters with no attempt to digitally "sweeten" it. The second just had a small amount of noise reduction applied. This release will likely be the opposite approach.


----------



## Frasier

GrosseFugue said:


> Hi, I've read how Solti's Ring, even despite Decca's James Lock's 1997 remaster, still doesn't sound like it should; is too compressed. I've enjoyed the set, but I can totally see what they're saying; there's potential for a much larger soundscape, something to really blow your lid off.
> 
> Jack Lawson from Music Web hails the new CD/SACD hybrid remaster from the Japanese label: Esoteric. http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Feb10/Wagner_Ring_ESSD90021-34.htm
> It makes my mouth water!  I would LOVE to have this. But it costs $800. Also I'd have to invest in an SACD player to really get the most out of it. If only I was a millionaire!
> 
> Has anyone here heard this set? Is it true BLISS?


It's possible that original CD transfers were inferior to the analogue recordings. They were of sufficient quality that Decca released them on their SET label series LPs. They were half-speed mastered like all SETs and Phase4. Almost anything quality that Decca did in those days was half-speed mastered. That's why many have found their way into "Audophile" lists.

I suspect this new release is principally for the SACD-greedy Japanese market. They love their SACDs and limited releases. I have a few Esoteric one-CD releases and they're all right but nothing to go wild over. Hopefully for people queueing up for this set will be better rewarded. I mean, EMI recently remastered some old Furtwangler mono recordings in SACD. They're about £30 each. They aren't THAT much better than the first CD releases (which were also from Japan incidentally).

Decca are also releasing the set in the UK as CDs with a lot of extras including Deryck Cooke's talk for a shade under £200 from MDT. To me it's one of those aggravating things that so ANNOYS me about the music biz.
Anyone who remembers decca's first CD reissues of the Ring LP boxes will remember the sets were priced in proportion to the LP sets. So if the LP set had 4 discs you paid a 4 x whatever CD price even though the CD set might only have 3CDs. Eventually they scrapped that - it did them no good commercially.

But it's a rip off. When the music biz stamps on pirate bay for starving creative artists by "stealing" their work they never bother to think about how they rip off "consumers". The Japanese are suckers for it. They'll buy any limited, special release, so do many in the UK. The majors don't mind coming out with, in this case, yet another boxed reissue of Wagner's Ring tempting customers with super deluxe - plus a different version in Japan which is going to cost collectors dearly. Older folk will have replaced their LPs with CDs and may now consider super CDs or SACD. One thing's for sure: with classical music the CD will never die. It's too good a cash cow. Customers (or consumers as they now call us) can't just swap and pay for a new medium only, they have to pay for the music all over again - complete rip off.


----------



## regnaDkciN

Frasier said:


> I suspect this new release is principally for the SACD-greedy Japanese market.


Just for the record: the "new release" is actually a couple of years old, was limited to 1,000 copies, and is now long out-of-print, as opposed to the upcoming Decca set to be released at the end of August, mentioned below.



Frasier said:


> Decca are also releasing the set in the UK as CDs with a lot of extras including Deryck Cooke's talk for a shade under £200 from MDT. To me it's one of those aggravating things that so ANNOYS me about the music biz.
> Anyone who remembers decca's first CD reissues of the Ring LP boxes will remember the sets were priced in proportion to the LP sets. So if the LP set had 4 discs you paid a 4 x whatever CD price even though the CD set might only have 3CDs. Eventually they scrapped that - it did them no good commercially.
> 
> But it's a rip off. When the music biz stamps on pirate bay for starving creative artists by "stealing" their work they never bother to think about how they rip off "consumers". The Japanese are suckers for it. They'll buy any limited, special release, so do many in the UK. The majors don't mind coming out with, in this case, yet another boxed reissue of Wagner's Ring tempting customers with super deluxe - plus a different version in Japan which is going to cost collectors dearly. Older folk will have replaced their LPs with CDs and may now consider super CDs or SACD. One thing's for sure: with classical music the CD will never die. It's too good a cash cow. Customers (or consumers as they now call us) can't just swap and pay for a new medium only, they have to pay for the music all over again - complete rip off.


The set in question consists of fourteen remastered CDs of the cycle, the two-CD "Introduction," a previously-unreleased CD of other Wagner works, the DVD "The Golden Ring," and a Blu-Ray of the entire cycle in 24/96 sound, for those who think that provides a sonic advantage. That, plus the long-out-of-print Culshaw "Ring Resounding" book and a selection of other supplemental printed material, much of it not available before. Personally, the price tag isn't too far out of line just for the CDs, DVD, and Blu-Ray; add in the Culshaw book and the other material, and I find it hard to consider it a "rip-off." And, if you just want the CDs of the new remaster without all the extra material, Decca will be releasing it in a box set with all of Solti's other Wagner music drama recordings (_Tristan_, _Meistersinger_, _Lohengrin_, _Parsifal_, _Dutchman_, and _Tannhäuser_) for a total of 90 Euros. About as far from a rip-off as you can get, that!


----------



## bigshot

Frasier said:


> One thing's for sure: with classical music the CD will never die. It's too good a cash cow.


i don't know about that. If you check out the Amazon top 100 classical music titles, you'll find a good number of digital downloads in there. The market is changing.


----------



## Frasier

> Personally, the price tag isn't too far out of line just for the CDs, DVD, and Blu-Ray; add in the Culshaw book and the other material, and I find it hard to consider it a "rip-off." And, if you just want the CDs of the new remaster without all the extra material, Decca will be releasing it in a box set with all of Solti's other Wagner music drama recordings (_Tristan_, _Meistersinger_, _Lohengrin_, _Parsifal_, _Dutchman_, and _Tannhäuser_) for a total of 90 Euros. About as far from a rip-off as you can get, that!


It seems I can neither edit or delete my post you quoted so I wrote to the moderators asking them to delete it.

I can't tolerate this sort of gratuitous contentiousness. I posted out of interest. The behaviour of the music industry is known to be a rip off. If you are a producer or engineer then I could understand your attitude but something tells me you aren't, being instead a good consumer unable to see outside the matrix.


----------



## bigshot

Contentiousness is stock in trade in internet forums!


----------



## Frasier

bigshot said:


> i don't know about that. If you check out the Amazon top 100 classical music titles, you'll find a good number of digital downloads in there. The market is changing.


Indeed it is. Well, I did say it's too good a cash cow. Once it ceases to fulfil that role it'll be gone - or at least, seriously marginalised. There's still a band of collectors in the US and Japan. People in the US do buy these vast boxed sets having already acquired most of the individual CDs, some after buying the LPs a long time ago. And in the Far East, all these reworkings, HQCDs, Bluspecs, Esoterics, limited editions, do sell. To the Japanese it isn't music, it's business.

Looking at Amazon's top 100: It is just possible that I might choose a title or two (were it not for BBC3's musical wallpaper when I'm at home). But 98% are of no interest. I mean.... Ein Audi? Ok, so he has a following!
Two things surprised me: 1, the number of titles that didn't offer an MP3; 2, the number of titles for which MP3s were priced higher than the disc. Could be some people are too desperate to wait...


----------



## bigshot

I posted about it in another thread, but there's a series of mp3 download sets on Amazon called Rise of the Masters and 99 Essential Masterpieces organized by composer. They're produced by a company called X5 and they sell for between 99 cents and $7 a set of 100 tracks. Many of the recordings on these sets are excellent performances culled from the BIS label. Even if there's only one or two things in the collection that interest you, the price can't be beat. The exact same tracks are available under the BIS titles for full price.

The major labels haven't realized the impact the iTunes store and Amazon's digital downloads have made on the market. They're still operating on the same business model they've been working with for decades. But adventurous labels like X5 are proving there's a lot of money to be made by moving beyond physical formats. I read that the top two classical music publishers on the Billboard charts are Universal and X5.

The times they are-a changin'!


----------



## Frasier

bigshot said:


> Contentiousness is stock in trade in internet forums!


Yup. It's so much pillockry - good, as it provides a safety valve for those unable to cope face-to-face and the cowards who wouldn't dare! but bad as.....well. aficionados of "classical" music are a fairly rare breed so it's surprising they don't leap up to support each other. I'm having an evening off from a music summer school and the good has been the amiability of young composers (plus or minus minor neurotic fits!). Quite different from the internet.

But that's where it's at: making music together. Only gets cut-throat when money comes into it!


----------



## regnaDkciN

Frasier said:


> Yup. It's so much pillockry - good, as it provides a safety valve for those unable to cope face-to-face and the cowards who wouldn't dare!


Wow...you've sure thrown a good number of insults my way, just because I offered a different opinion from yours (and backed it up with instances, I should note). I'm really astounded that you appear to think that, once you have proclaimed something a "rip-off," no one can disagree with you without it turning into some sort of grave offense.

You think the upcoming release is a rip-off; I don't. Is that something to launch World War III over?


----------



## regnaDkciN

bigshot said:


> The first release of Solti's Ring was a straight transfer right off the masters with no attempt to digitally "sweeten" it.


Do you know this from personal involvement, as opposed to it being "conventional wisdom?" If the former, do you know what was used in the initial remaster -- ADC, etc? I'm assuming, due to its age, that it was done via 1630. Do you know how much repair was needed on the tapes, since I understand they had to use the multi-tracks in places to cover flaws in the stereo master for at least one of the music-dramas?

Personally, I would hope that "the opposite approach" would not involve brickwalling and/or a ton of NR. My ideal would be a Redbook downsampling of a 24/96 or higher remastering using a top-quality converter and with attention paid to upstream components, such as using a restored facsimile of the original recording machines. In short, an up-to-date version of what was done on the Mercury Living Presence reissues of the early 1990s. I don't know how realistic such hopes are, though...


----------



## regnaDkciN

bigshot --

I thought this might be in your area of expertise.

It's pretty much "conventional wisdom," at least on the forums I visit, that the 1997 release merely took the digital master from 1984 and added some EQ and noise-reduction while in the digital domain -- but an experiment I tried this evening casts some doubt on that, to my mind. I was thinking of taking a common track (the final one, incidentally) into Audacity, normalizing and hand-syncing the two, then inverting one of them and mixing the two together, to see if there was much of a "difference file" between the 1984 and 1997 tracks. I soon found out that this was impossible -- when I trimmed one of the files so a distinctive peak near the beginning of the track lined up on a sample-by-sample basis between the two versions, and then checked a similar distinctive peak near the end of the track, the 1984 and 1997 versions had slipped out-of-sync by around 674 samples, the 1997 version being longer by that amount.

As a layman, I would have to assume that such a divergence could only be explained by the two versions not being from the same digital master tape, thus meaning that the 1997 came from a different analog-to-digital remastering than the 1984 and was not merely a digital-domain tweaking of the 1984 mastering. Can you think of any other possible scenario that would explain why one track would be off by 674 samples near the tail of the track, after it had been synced at the head?


----------



## bigshot

You're probably right. They must have retransfered the tapes in 1997 and the deck was running at a slightly different speed. An alternate scenario would be that they realized they had transferred out of pitch and corrected it the second time around, but with a difference that small, it's unlikely.


----------



## bachman

bigshot said:


> SACD is fine for a multi channel format, but with two channel audio, there's no audible difference between SACD and regular old CDs.


lol - On my system, there is a huge difference between a properly recorded hi-rez recording played back in hi-rez on SACD, versus the same recording played back as a CD.

It is well known that not everyone can tell the difference between hi-rez and standard CD rez, and similarly that not everyone can tell the difference between CD and compressed mp3. If you can't tell the difference, just stick with what you have and enjoy it. For the rest, there's hi-rez.


----------



## Guest




----------



## bachman

bigshot said:


> I am not a crank.
> ...
> The difference between a well mastered CD and the same recording on SACD is completely indistinguishable. If you think you hear a difference, it's something other than the bitrate that you're hearing.


If a recording starts off life as a proper hi-rez recording (DSD or 24bit 96kHz), just to get it to fit onto the old CD format requires that the engineers have to throw out about 3/4 of the recorded data: all that can be fit onto a standard CD is less than 1/4 of the original recorded data content. If you can't tell the difference, so what? Nothing to get cranky about. Let those who can enjoy it. Hi-rez is obv not for you.


----------



## Philip

bachman said:


> If a recording starts off life as a proper hi-rez recording (DSD or 24bit 96kHz), just to get it to fit onto the old CD format requires that the engineers have to throw out about 3/4 of the recorded data: all that can be fit onto a standard CD is less than 1/4 of the original recorded data content. If you can't tell the difference, so what? Nothing to get cranky about. Let those who can enjoy it. Hi-rez is obv not for you.


That's one of the most uneducated things i've ever read in my life.


----------



## bachman

Uneducated to you, and yet correct.


----------



## bigshot

bachman said:


> lol - On my system, there is a huge difference between a properly recorded hi-rez recording played back in hi-rez on SACD, versus the same recording played back as a CD.
> 
> It is well known that not everyone can tell the difference between hi-rez and standard CD rez, and similarly that not everyone can tell the difference between CD and compressed mp3. If you can't tell the difference, just stick with what you have and enjoy it. For the rest, there's hi-rez.


The thing is, the people who claim to hear big differences are the ones that have never taken the time to do a fair comparison. It's almost impossible to compare CDs and SACDs because 1) the player inserts a huge time gap when switching layers, 2) the volume level of the redbook is always lower, and 3) the mastering of the music is usually different on the two layers.

It took me two weeks and the assistance of a sound mixer friend to drive out the bugs in my comparison. The hardest thing was finding a hybrid SACD that had the same thing on both layers. I went through careful listening of about ten disks and every one had either different mastering, or completely different mixes. Finally someone suggested a Pentatone DSD recording. They only sell hybrids, so they have no motivation to hobble the CD layer. Most people who buy their disks probably don't even have an SACD player, I carefully line level matched with preamps and lined up the SACD in one player and another copy in my CD player. No difference. Then I took it over to a sound mixer's studio to hear it on pro equipment. Again, no difference.

Now the average person won't go to the trouble I did to find out. They'll play an SACD and say "that sounds good" and assume it's better. They'll read the sales pitch and reinforce their impression. But the only way to know for sure is to do it right. I don't know of anyone else, other than the study by the AES, that went to the trouble I did. Try it yourself and you'll find the same.

When you're done, try doing a controlled test between AAC 256 playing on an iPod through the line out and the original CD on your home CD player. You'll get another surprise.


----------



## bachman

bigshot said:


> The thing is, the people who claim to hear big differences are the ones that have never taken the time to do a fair comparison.


Really?? As Ken Kessler says in Hi-fi News & Record Review:

" The fact that all SACDs these days are dual-layer means it's no big deal to compare SACD with normal CD. And despite reports by the mainstream press naysayers about the public not hearing the difference, any music lover who can't needs a session with an ear-wax remover"


----------



## Philip

If most audiophiles had actually seen what a DSD stream looks like, they would cringe in horror; subsequently falling back on the fact that it was intentionally engineered that way and that the theory behind the concept was infallible. Yet we hear from the same people: "You throw away 3/4 of the data when downsampling DSD to redbook", therefore completely disregarding the sampling theorem and theoretical concepts that were their initial motivation for the acceptance of DSD.

Paradoxical, isn't it?


----------



## bachman

bigshot said:


> I don't know of anyone else, other than the study by the AES, that went to the trouble I did. Try it yourself and you'll find the same.


You are soooooooo out of date.

FIRST, the AES study you refer to has become the laughing stock of published audio papers ...The authors of that study allowed people to bring whatever SACDs they wanted to the tests, without even checking that they contained any hi-rez content. And it turns that a whole bunch of the SACDs they used for their test had no hi-rez content ... stuff from the 80s that only existed on SACD because it was multi-track pop stuff that took advantage of multi-channel. they were testing CD resolution against CD resolution. So bad its funny.

SECOND, you are also out of date re the AES. Even the difference between 44.1kHz and 88.2kHz ... i.e. just the sampling rate ... holding bit depth constant ... has been statistically proven in ABX testing. See the recent AES paper:

TITLE: Sampling Rate Discrimination: 44.1 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz
AUTHORS: Pras and Guastavino, McGill University
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398

And that is just testing 44.1 kHz to 88.2 kHz. When you buy a hi-rez recording, you get that at the very least (44.1 kHz to 88.2 kHz) AND you get the increase in bit depth (16 bit to 24 bit). And when you buy a proper DSD recording on SACD, you get even more resolution .. roughly equivalent to DXD. All of which renders the Moran paper as diddlysquat.


----------



## quack

bigshot said:


> That's actually the correct answer, brusque as it is. Except Phillips had a part in the scam too.


I always assume that bigshot is in on the scam too, and probably works for the SACD people. The more he says that SACDs are unnecessary and that you won't hear the benefit, the more people are driven to buy SACDs in order to prove him wrong.


----------



## bigshot

Oh my! People don't need my help being wrong!


----------



## bigshot

bachman said:


> The authors of that study allowed people to bring whatever SACDs they wanted to the tests, without even checking that they contained any hi-rez content. And it turns that a whole bunch of the SACDs they used for their test had no hi-rez content ... stuff from the 80s that only existed on SACD because it was multi-track pop stuff that took advantage of multi-channel. they were testing CD resolution against CD resolution.


i used a DSD recorded Pentatone (Jaarvi's Stravinsky chamber music) for my comparison test. How's that?

By the way, what do you think about a set of operas from the fifties recorded on four track being released on SACD? Do you think they have more hires content than multitrack stuff from the 80s?


----------



## bigshot

bachman said:


> Really?? As Ken Kessler says in Hi-fi News & Record Review:


advertorial much? Nyquist who?

No big deal? He obviously hasn't tried it! How long does your SACD player take to switch layers? How big a difference in levels are there between the two layers?


----------



## bachman

bigshot said:


> i used a DSD recorded Pentatone (Jaarvi's Stravinsky chamber music) for my comparison test. How's that?


You, by your own admission, cannot tell the difference, so it doesn't matter what you use. Which is fine ... not everyone can. Some people can tell whether milk is added BEFORE or AFTER to tea ... I probably wouldn't have a clue. So what. I don't spend my life telling the tea drinkers they are wasting their time, and how to make a cuppa.


----------



## bachman

bigshot said:


> By the way, what do you think about a set of operas from the fifties recorded on four track being released on SACD?


I haven't heard them ... and I don't like the methods Esoteric use [ Apparently, Esoteric do NOT generally get access to the master tapes, but get sent 24bit 96kHz masters, and then they use some cumbersome messy process where they convert back to analogue, and then Analogue to DSD, so there is an extra unnecessary step in there, and an absence of the master tapes. But I digress. ]

I would say this though ... I have a recording from Sony Columbia of the Tchaikovsky violin concerto with Isaac Stern ... I think it is 1958 ... Sony direct converted it from analog master tapes to DSD ... and it is simply stunningly gobsmackingly outstandingly fantastic. And I have another Sony Columbia of Copland conducting Copland (both on CD and SACD --- both from the same master). And the SACD version is natural and warm and lush and just wonderful ... like vinyl without the hiss and the pops ... whereas the CD version is dry and harsh and digital and lacking in the same warmth and colour.


----------



## bigshot

It isn't very easy to prove a negative, but it's relatively simple to verify a difference if tere is one. Withall audio equipment, all that takes is a couple of preamps to balance line levels and a switcher. It's surprising how many people buy into expensive equipment and formats and never take the time to check for themselves.

It's pretty easy to get a clue just by reading the specs though. The main advantage of 24 bit and other "hi res" formats isn't high resolution at all. It's dynamic range. In digital, dynamic range and noise floors extend downward. Better specs mean better sound at lower volume levels. At the upper range, they're identical.

This is all well and good, but redbook already has a dynamic range that is double what people need for listening to music. In order to hear the difference between a CD and a "hi res" format, you would have to turn up your stereo so loud, you would incur hearing damage.

24 bit is great for recording and mixing. At work, I've recorded and edited using a 24 bit ProTools workstation. I've also supervised sound mixes. 24 bit is a huge improvement over the old 24 track 2 inch tape format (which I have also worked with back in the day). You can pull up quiet stuff in the mix and it's clean as a whistle. But do I need it in my home? Nope.


----------



## bigshot

bachman said:


> I have another Sony Columbia of Copland conducting Copland (both on CD and SACD --- both from the same master). And the SACD version is natural and warm and lush and just wonderful ... like vinyl without the hiss and the pops ... whereas the CD version is dry and harsh and digital and lacking in the same warmth and colour.


What makes you think that is due to the format of the disk and not the mastering? In order to make a fair comparison, the mastering needs to be identical. The only way I found to be sure of that was to use a DSD recording that was only released on SACD hybrid. That way the label has no motivation to hobble the CD layer (something I found LOTS of examples of on SACD hybrids from the major labels.)

The Pentatone SACD I tested sounded absolutely fantastic. Some ofthe most natural and lifelike sound I've ever heard. But it sounded just as good on the redbook layer as the SACD.

Here is the SACD. You can get it through a third party on Amazon for about a ten spot shipped. Check it out and see what you think. It's a good performance too, so you can't lose.

http://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-Histoire-Dumbarton-Concerto-Orchestra/dp/B0000XKB9W/


----------



## regnaDkciN

Wow...and people accused _me_ of being contentious...! :lol:


----------



## regnaDkciN

bachman said:


> You, by your own admission, cannot tell the difference, so it doesn't matter what you use. Which is fine ... not everyone can.


I was reading a story regarding an incident about Neil Young who, after being well-known for his harsh criticism of digital, decided that HDCD encoding made enough of an improvement for him to request his back catalog be re-released in HDCD versions. During that time, he was working with the people at Pacific Microsonics to review test releases of the new versions. The system they were using to evaluate them had several different HDCD-compatible DACs so that they could check the results on all of them. At one point, while Young was in the adjoining room, the tech staff switched DACs and played back a bit of the tape, only to be interrupted by Young, still in the next room, asking if they'd just switched to so-and-so DAC. As it turned out, they had. They then had him stay in the other room, and went through the DACs on a random basis, asking him which unit was being used at the time. They were amazed to see that he got it right 100% of the time. Needless to say, I wouldn't be able to tell such a thing from an adjoining room; in fact, unless we were talking about DACs with drastically different levels of quality, I probably wouldn't be able to tell such a thing while sitting in the "sweet spot" in the room. It appears that some people simply have better hearing than others -- and I'm not sure whether it would be considered a blessing or a curse.


----------



## regnaDkciN

bachman said:


> SECOND, you are also out of date re the AES. Even the difference between 44.1kHz and 88.2kHz ... i.e. just the sampling rate ... holding bit depth constant ... has been statistically proven in ABX testing. See the recent AES paper:
> 
> TITLE: Sampling Rate Discrimination: 44.1 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz
> AUTHORS: Pras and Guastavino, McGill University
> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398


For what it's worth, here's the précis (the only part available for free) from the AES study:



> It is currently common practice for sound engineers to record digital music using high-resolution formats, and then down sample the files to 44.1kHz for commercial release. This study aims at investigating whether listeners can perceive differences between musical files recorded at 44.1kHz and 88.2kHz with the same analog chain and type of AD-converter. Sixteen expert listeners were asked to compare 3 versions (44.1kHz, 88.2kHz and the 88.2kHz version down-sampled to 44.1kHz) of 5 musical excerpts in a blind ABX task. Overall, participants were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and their 44.1kHz down-sampled version. Furthermore, for the orchestral excerpt, they were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and files recorded at 44.1kHz.


What I find most interesting about this study is that you had three different audio sources:

1) 88.2 kHz native
2) 44.1 kHz native
3) 88.2 kHz downsampled to 44.1 kHz

What really leaps out at me is that the participants had no problem distinguishing between sources 1 and 3, but only were able to distinguish between 1 and 2 on one particular excerpt. It seems odd that 88.2 downsampled to 44.1 would be so easily distinguishable from 88.2 native, but 44.1 much less easily detected. Frankly, if I were reviewing the results, my initial thought might be that there was something wonky in the downsampling process that imposed its own sonic signature on the resulting 44.1 file that wasn't there with 44.1 native. Nonetheless, it seems clear that, at least on the orchestral excerpt, participants could distinguish between the higher and lower sampling rate. This might suggest that the difference between Redbook and "high-res" might be audible, but only on music of a certain level of complexity.


----------



## bachman

regnaDkciN said:


> This might suggest that the difference between Redbook and "high-res" might be audible, but only on music of a certain level of complexity.


I actually find the difference most noticeable with just a plain solo piano recording (especially in the bass), or a solo cello, or a small chamber ensemble like a piano trio.

Also, it's nice that they proved this with statistically significant results using ABX testing ... but that's really a a very difficult and onerous task to achieve. You have to remember not 2 .. but 3 ... sources ... and then say whether the X sounds like the A or the B. That's a very cumbersome and difficult test to prove. I don't know what else has been proven with ABX testing? Does anyone know? For example, has the difference between mp3 and CD been proven with ABX testing? And if so, which mp3 rates?

A much simpler test is to simply ask people: do you prefer A or B? Or which one do you think is hi-rez: A or B? Much easier.


----------



## Philip

http://mil.mcgill.ca/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/pras_sampling_2010.pdf

Papers of this sort do not mean much until corroborated. Still a nice read, but the study gives rise to more questions than it answers. For example: Just how good are black box "professional" software mastering tools? Why are sound engineers so often recording in 1 fs (44.1kHz, 48kHz) only? etc.


----------



## bigshot

regnaDkciN said:


> Frankly, if I were reviewing the results, my initial thought might be that there was something wonky in the downsampling process that imposed its own sonic signature on the resulting 44.1 file that wasn't there with 44.1 native. Nonetheless, it seems clear that, at least on the orchestral excerpt, participants could distinguish between the higher and lower sampling rate. This might suggest that the difference between Redbook and "high-res" might be audible, but only on music of a certain level of complexity.


Dithers are very important.

Complexity of sound is different than we often think it is. When I was testing mp3 and AAC, they had no trouble encoding digital recordings of Mahler symphonies, but I stumbled across one recording that stubbornly artifacted at a much higher rate than all other kinds of music. It was a Sammy Davis Jr song from the late 40s on the Decca label. Every single track recorded at that session artifacted. I had to bump up the rate to get it to render properly.


----------



## bigshot

Also, the main difference between "hires" rates and CD sound is the depth of the noise floor, not resolution at normal listening volumes.


----------



## bachman

bigshot said:


> Also, the main difference between "hires" rates and CD sound is the depth of the noise floor, not resolution at normal listening volumes.


I am a bit confused. By your own admission, you cannot tell the difference between hi-rez and CD sound, so I am surprised to see you describe the "main difference" as being XX or YY. This makes no sense.

In any event, the main difference to my ears has nothing to do with dynamic range or the noise floor. For my listening needs, CD has puhlenty of dynamic range and I don't really need any more, for home listening. To my ears, the main advantage of SACD ... given a proper hi-rez recording that has been kept clean and untainted through the editing stage ... is that the sound is natural and warm, that bass has impact and clarity that you do not get on CD ... and the problems of CD ... digital and harsh ... are mostly absent. I ascribe these benefits to the fact that at least 6 times more data is collected, with dramatically less need for interpolation i.e. that hi-rez is just more accurate than lower rez. But there are a whole variety of possible explanatory variables where hi-rez exceeds CD format standards ... and I don't really care. Ultimately, what matters is that it sounds better.


----------



## bigshot

It makes perfect sense. If you check up on how digital sound works, you'll find that 24 bit is used for recording and mixing, because the lowered noise floor allows quiet elements to be boosted in volume without bringing up a lot of noise along with them.

However, For the purposes of playing back music in your home, even the most dynamic music rarely even uses half of the dynamic range of regular CDs. For normal playback of music, in order to hear down to the noise floor of 24 bit, you would have to turn your volume up to the level of a jet engine. You would suffer hearing damage. Total overkill.

Due to the Nyquist Theorum, the fundamental principle digital sound is based upon, 16/44.1 (CD sound) is capable of perfectly reproducing sound within the range of 20-20,000 Hz with a dynamic range of well over 70 dB. So the sound quality of CD sound in the range of normal listening volumes for music is identical to 24 bit. The added resolution of 24 bit is down in the depths of the dynamic range where you'll never hear it. If you're hearing a difference, it isn't because of the format itself.

SACDs aren't quite 24 bit, but the same applies to them.

Do you understand the difference better now? I'm trying to explain it clearly.


----------



## Philip

bachman said:


> I am a bit confused. By your own admission, you cannot tell the difference between hi-rez and CD sound, so I am surprised to see you describe the "main difference" as being XX or YY. This makes no sense.
> 
> In any event, the main difference to my ears has nothing to do with dynamic range or the noise floor. For my listening needs, CD has puhlenty of dynamic range and I don't really need any more, for home listening. To my ears, the main advantage of SACD ... given a proper hi-rez recording that has been kept clean and untainted through the editing stage ... is that the sound is natural and warm, that bass has impact and clarity that you do not get on CD ... and the problems of CD ... digital and harsh ... are mostly absent. I ascribe these benefits to the fact that at least 6 times more data is collected, with dramatically less need for interpolation i.e. that hi-rez is just more accurate than lower rez. But there are a whole variety of possible explanatory variables where hi-rez exceeds CD format standards ... and I don't really care. Ultimately, what matters is that it sounds better.


1. Difference in information doesn't necessarily mean difference in sound
2. SACD's are edited and mixed in PCM
3. You should get into poetry
4. More data does not equal more information
5. Proper dithering means precision below the least significant bit
6. No comment
7. etc.


----------



## bigshot

Some SACDs are recorded and mixed in DSD, but most people buy legacy titles on SACD that are recorded and mixed analogue. Kind of ironic, actually.


----------



## bachman

bigshot said:


> Due to the Nyquist Theorum, the fundamental principle digital sound is based upon, 16/44.1 (CD sound) is capable of perfectly reproducing sound within the range of 20-20,000 Hz


Oh dear. You are fatally confusing theory with real world. Nyquist theory assumes that signals are sampled for infinite time. Given finite time, all you get is an approximation ... usually a reasonably good one ... but still an approximation. Higher sampling rates yield better approximations. Try again.


----------



## bigshot

No. The theorum states that the number of samples in redbook is sufficient for *perfectly* reproducing all of the frequencies in the audible spectrum. The samples relate to the number of modulations in the waveform. If you wanted to reproduce frequencies higher than 20kHz, it would take more samples, but 16/44.1 is enough to reproduce all of the audible freqencies accurately with a little bit to spare at the top.

Human hearing is not particularly sensitive to the octave at the top of the range, and the octave at the bottom of the range is felt more than heard. LP records generally rolled off frequencies at the top and bottom, because it wasn't able to reproduce them without problems. LPs sound fine. CDs reproduce right up to the edges. They also sound fine, but as a format, it's much more accurate, as well as being noise and distortion free and twice the dynamics.


----------



## Philip

bachman said:


> Oh dear. You are fatally confusing theory with real world. Nyquist theory assumes that signals are sampled for infinite time. Given finite time, all you get is an approximation ... usually a reasonably good one ... but still an approximation. Higher sampling rates yield better approximations. Try again.


What you are referring to is the fact that there are no practical ideal brickwall filters (requires infinite impulse response), therefore producing aliasing in all sampled signals.

That's why higher sampling rates are preferable for recording purposes, as it leaves more headroom for the brickwall filter roll-off and shifts the aliasing to the inaudible range of frequencies.

So bigshot is wrong on that one...


----------



## regnaDkciN

bigshot said:


> Dithers are very important.


Thus, the question: if I were to want to test out your assertion by downsampling some 24/96 material to Redbook, and comparing the two, which reasonable consumer solution (i.e. not a multi-thousand-dollar product targeted at recording studios) would be the best for carrying out that downsampling with best results?


----------



## Philip

regnaDkciN said:


> Thus, the question: if I were to want to test out your assertion by downsampling some 24/96 material to Redbook, and comparing the two, which reasonable consumer solution (i.e. not a multi-thousand-dollar product targeted at recording studios) would be the best for carrying out that downsampling with best results?


foobar2000 for all of the above...

edit: could go with SoX as well, for the resampling part


----------



## bigshot

Philip said:


> What you are referring to is the fact that there are no practical ideal brickwall filters (requires infinite impulse response), therefore producing aliasing in all sampled signals. That's why higher sampling rates are preferable for recording purposes, as it leaves more headroom for the brickwall filter roll-off and shifts the aliasing to the inaudible range of frequencies. So bigshot is wrong on that one...


I think you're referring to the brickwall filter applied in the digital to analogue conversion. Most modern DACs in CD players upsample 16 bit CD sound to 24 bit, apply the brickwall filter at that rate where it isn't as difficult to pull off, then convert to analogue. That gets around having the problems applying a brickwall filter in 16 bit.

The rolloff caused by brickwall filters really isn't an issue with CD players made in the last five or ten years... maybe even longer.


----------



## Philip

bigshot said:


> I think you're referring to the brickwall filter applied in the digital to analogue conversion. Most modern DACs in CD players upsample 16 bit CD sound to 24 bit, apply the brickwall filter at that rate where it isn't as difficult to pull off, then convert to analogue. That gets around having the problems applying a brickwall filter in 16 bit.
> 
> The rolloff caused by brickwall filters really isn't an issue with CD players made in the last five or ten years... maybe even longer.


No... i'm talking about antialiasing filters. They are a crucial part of the A/D stage as well as one of the main reasons for using high sampling rates such as 96kHz. Brickwall digital filters are also essential when downsampling, again for antialiasing purposes.

The brickwall filter roll-off is one of the pitfalls in the application of the sampling theorem; that is, even if the signal were perfectly interpolated, you would only retrieve an aliased signal, as opposed to the original.


----------



## bigshot

Isn't that why DACs upsample 16/44.1 as part of the conversion from digital to analogue?

Edit: I think I may be using the wrong term... Oversampling, not upsampling.


----------



## Philip

bigshot said:


> Isn't that why DACs upsample 16/44.1 as part of the conversion from digital to analogue?
> 
> Edit: I think I may be using the wrong term... Oversampling, not upsampling.


It's essentially the same concepts, but in reverse.

Say you have a sample-and-hold D/A converter, you will benefit from oversampling because all the jagged edges of the signal will be smoothed out at higher frequencies, ie. the necessary low-pass filter has relaxed requirements, thus noise and distortion are reduced overall. Nonetheless, i wouldn't call that an anti-aliasing filter per se.

Like i said, even if the above were indeed perfect (and practically you could argue that it comes very close), it doesn't correct aliasing happening in the recording process. By sampling at higher rates, again, you can relax the filter roll-off to reduce distortion in the audible range; regardless of how the output stage is designed.


----------



## bigshot

Oh, OK. I'm not at all talking about recording. I'm talking about playback as it relates to CD vs SACD and 24 bit audio files from the internet. Home audio. I recognize the advantages of 24 bit for recording.

Early home audio DACs in CD players, etc. didn't oversample. Even the cheapest now performs as good as SACD at normal listening levels. Problems are rare.

Digital to analogue, not the other way around.


----------



## regnaDkciN

Philip said:


> foobar2000 for all of the above...
> 
> edit: could go with SoX as well, for the resampling part


bigshot, do you agree with this? Also, as far as I can tell foobar only has one form of dither -- or am I missing something?


----------



## bachman

bigshot said:


> Early home audio DACs in CD players, etc. didn't oversample. Even the cheapest now performs as good as SACD at normal listening levels.


rofl. Bigshot says: "I'm not a crank".


----------



## bachman

*New Warner SACDs*

Universal / Deutsche Grammaphon have recently (as of mid-2011) started issuing all their SACDs as direct analogue to pure DSD transfers. This work is done by Emil Berliner studios ... who used to do 24 bit / 96 kHz PCM conversions in the past, but have now moved to direct DSD which usually yields much cleaner results.

Warner has just announced they are issuing a whole bunch of analogue recordings onto SACD (starting Sept 2012), and I was wondering if anyone knows what method they are using for the transfer: direct to DSD or via PCM?

Here is one of the Warner Erato releases I have my eye on:


----------



## Philip

regnaDkciN said:


> bigshot, do you agree with this? Also, as far as I can tell foobar only has one form of dither -- or am I missing something?


:lol: ...

Unless you're playing 24bit audio on a 16bit card, there's no need to dither.

Edit: Just downsample your file with SoX (dithering is internal and taken care of), play it back in foobar with your sound card set to the higher resolution and sample rate of the two files.

For example, convert a 24bit/96kHz file to 16bit/48kHz, set your card to 24bit/96kHz output, fire up foobar with the ABX plugin and compare the two files... the sound card (or software? not sure) will pad the 16bit file to 24bit and will most likely oversample both files to well above 96kHz.


----------



## regnaDkciN

bigshot said:


> Early home audio DACs in CD players, etc. didn't oversample. Even the cheapest now performs as good as SACD at normal listening levels. Problems are rare.





bachman said:


> rofl. Bigshot says: "I'm not a crank".


Well, I don't think there can be any question that his first sentence is totally correct.  The earliest generation of CD players -- the ones without oversampling -- sounded generally abysmal, to the extent that I found myself in total agreement with the "digital sucks" school of audiophilia. It was only when the first generation of oversampling DACs came out that it became clear that CDs could sound musical as well.


----------



## regnaDkciN

Philip said:


> Unless you're playing 24bit audio on a 16bit card, there's no need to dither.


I asked bigshot because he said, in the context of why the AES study showed that more people were able to detect a difference between 88.2 native and 44.1 downsampled from it than could detect a difference between 88.2 and 44.1 native recordings from the same feed, that dither was important. I assumed that he meant that the downsampling process used in the study may have introduced artifacts that made the difference more noticeable, and I wanted to make sure, should I run my own test, that I wouldn't be reproducing the same phenomenon.


----------



## Philip

regnaDkciN said:


> I asked bigshot because he said, in the context of why the AES study showed that more people were able to detect a difference between 88.2 native and 44.1 downsampled from it than could detect a difference between 88.2 and 44.1 native recordings from the same feed, that dither was important. I assumed that he meant that the downsampling process used in the study may have introduced artifacts that made the difference more noticeable, and I wanted to make sure, should I run my own test, that I wouldn't be reproducing the same phenomenon.


SoX is one of the most reputable tools out there. The study basically means nothing until they start repeating the outcome with a much more rigorous method and tools; they used a "professional" blackbox-type downsampler with no options, simply because that's what is often used in the industry. SoX is a full-featured open source software.


----------



## regnaDkciN

Philip said:


> SoX is one of the most reputable tools out there. The study basically means nothing until they start repeating the outcome with a much more rigorous method and tools; they used a "professional" blackbox-type downsampler with no options, simply because that's what is often used in the industry. SoX is a full-featured open source software.


I repeat my question..._to bigshot_.


----------



## bigshot

regnaDkciN said:


> bigshot, do you agree with this? Also, as far as I can tell foobar only has one form of dither -- or am I missing something?


I'm afraid I'm a Mac guy, so I probably can't recommend software to you. At home, with my transfers of records, everything I do is redbook and I use Peak. I think it has different dithers, but I've neer had occasion to use them. The ProTools station I was using when I was doing production sound had a menu full of dithers, all designed for different purposes. I have to admit, I never had time to figure them all out because I had deadlines. I found the one I used through trial and error and just stuck with it. Sorry I can't be more help.


----------



## bigshot

regnaDkciN said:


> I asked bigshot because he said, in the context of why the AES study showed that more people were able to detect a difference between 88.2 native and 44.1 downsampled from it than could detect a difference between 88.2 and 44.1 native recordings from the same feed, that dither was important.


I think that was Philip, not me. It's been my experience that redbook native is as transparent as downsampled 24 bit as long as you don't have to do any gross volume adjustments or filtering.


----------



## Philip

Oh, and please report back on your results...


----------



## GrosseFugue

Wow, nice to see so much activity on this thread I started way back. 

Question for you all -- is the the new remastered Decca Solti Ring set worth it?
http://www.getmusic.com.au/sirgeorgsolti/store/detail?id=156372

$300 for this incredibly lavish set seems like a great deal to me.

Has anyone had a chance to sample this at all? Does the 24-bit remaster
make for a noticeable difference? I assume all you need is a regular stereo
system and no fancy-pancy SuperAudio player?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## regnaDkciN

GrosseFugue said:


> Wow, nice to see so much activity on this thread I started way back.
> 
> Question for you all -- is the the new remastered Decca Solti Ring set worth it?
> http://www.getmusic.com.au/sirgeorgsolti/store/detail?id=156372
> 
> $300 for this incredibly lavish set seems like a great deal to me.
> 
> Has anyone had a chance to sample this at all? Does the 24-bit remaster
> make for a noticeable difference? I assume all you need is a regular stereo
> system and no fancy-pancy SuperAudio player?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Well, there's no way of knowing yet, since the set won't be released until 8/31 (in Japan) and 9/3 (in Europe). I don't know if it's even going to be available domestically here, so you may have to order from one of those places.

The remastered CDs can be played on a "regular stereo system," however, the 24/96 disc requires an even-more-fancy-pancy Blu-Ray player hooked up to your system. Of course, if you've gone over all of this thread so far, you'll have noticed that several people here maintain that, for the final playback stage, 24/96 will sound no better than Redbook, while others disagree.

So, as of this moment, the jury is still very much out. We'll have to wait until the set starts shipping, and gets into the hands of audio-conscious listeners. Unfortunately, since the set may not be available in stores here, coupled with the decline in both the audiophile and classical-music print media, you're going to be unlikely to find a "front-page" advance review covering all the sonic details in a _Stereophile_ or _The Abso!ute Sound_ nowadays; instead, you'll have to eventually be getting your info from other Internet users of whom you know nothing.


----------



## feinstei

Amfibius wrote on page one of this thread:
The Esoteric remaster was made in 2009. The Japanese engineers obtained the original master tapes from Decca and remastered it on DSD using their own equipment. 

I reply:
I also had the SACD set from Esoteric that I bought when it first came out (the very first recording that I ever bought which actually appreciated in value). I just sold it to someone in anticipation of the Blu-Ray version. What Amfibus wrote was inaccurate. The Esoteric Company of Japan, after much prodding, after many lies and inferences, and after much deceptive advertising, admitted that the source of their SACD's was the 96/24 digital master prepared by Universal/Decca, NOT the unequalized analogue master tapes. I have a sneaking suspicion that they took that 96/24 digital master and converted it to DSD without doing much "mastering" at all. I believe that the Blu-Ray will have the same exact sound (or perhaps better since it didn't undergo a PCM->DSD conversion) than the Esoteric since they both derived from exactly the same digital masters.


----------



## feinstei

Esoteric, in the best Japanese tradition, has found a way to deceive both their domestic and foreign customers by deceit. I must admit that I've paid out their $60.00 per SACD price for simple DSD transfers (as well as for the $800 Ring set), taken from digital masters, not the original analogue recordings. It's amazing how audiophiles (including myself) are willing to "walk into the lion's den" with their eyes and wallets wide open to buy crap that's purveyed by these charlatens such as Esoteric.


----------



## Philip

feinstei said:


> Amfibius wrote on page one of this thread:
> The Esoteric remaster was made in 2009. The Japanese engineers obtained the original master tapes from Decca and remastered it on DSD using their own equipment.
> 
> I reply:
> I also had the SACD set from Esoteric that I bought when it first came out (the very first recording that I ever bought which actually appreciated in value). I just sold it to someone in anticipation of the Blu-Ray version. What Amfibus wrote was inaccurate. The Esoteric Company of Japan, after much prodding, after many lies and inferences, and after much deceptive advertising, admitted that the source of their SACD's was the 96/24 digital master prepared by Universal/Decca, NOT the unequalized analogue master tapes. I have a sneaking suspicion that they took that 96/24 digital master and converted it to DSD without doing much "mastering" at all. I believe that the Blu-Ray will have the same exact sound (or perhaps better since it didn't undergo a PCM->DSD conversion) than the Esoteric since they both derived from exactly the same digital masters.


I have a strong suspicion that ALL dsd goes through pcm before it is pressed to sacd. It makes no sense to process audio in dsd, and i doubt very much that they would release a raw recording.


----------



## bigshot

All of this is moot because redbook audio CD copies are just as good sounding as the original master tapes for normal listening.


----------



## regnaDkciN

Well, the set should be out by now -- anyone heard it yet?


----------



## KRoad

I have enjoyed this thread. I too have done a lot of recording. Playback at 24/44.1 does sound thicker and richer than 16/44.1 but the difference in audio quality only becomes apparent (to my ears at least) in an A/B. Without the higher bit rate recording serving as a basis for comparison the redbook standard is just fine. I find bigshot's patience at explaining and supporting his views commendable - I find some of the responses he has received unfair. Mastering (and less commonly re-mixing) does without question play a big role in the "new & improved" versions of recordings over and above the claimed technological "improvements".

At the same time I don't doubt the sincerity of those who state they find the new generation of CD to be sonically superior - however, just why this is so clearly remains a moot point.


----------



## bigshot

Frequency response (ie: "thicker richer") shouldn't be any different at all from 24 to 16. The difference is dynamic range and noise floor.

Remastering involves noise reduction, adjusting compression and rebalancing levels. The studios tout the high bitrate they do the remastering at, but the real source of improvement, if there is any, is in the quality of the digital noise reduction filters and the balance adjustment decisions made by the mastering engineer.

I'm used to being beaten up by audiophiles. I'm a big boy. The general knowledge about this stuff in the pro audio community is quite different than that of the audiophile community. Too much disinformation foisted on consumers.


----------



## GrosseFugue

Hey Bigshot (and everyone else)!

I've gone ahead and ordered the Limited Edition Decca Der Ring set: http://www.mdt.co.uk/wagner-der-ring-des-nibelungen-deluxe-limited-edition-decca-17cds.html

I couldn't resist! It'll probably be the last box set I'll buy in my lifetime. For under $300 it was too good to pass up. It's been "remastered" so will be curious to know how it sounds. It's not SACD, which Bigshot will be happy to know.  Which makes me wonder if Decca also thought there wasn't much to gain with the SACD format? Anyway, it works out doubly well for me as I don't have an SACD player and have no plans to "upgrade." I've got enough regular CD's that need listening time.

I've heard various complaints about the last Der Ring CD incarnation, so am thinking this new remaster will address all those issues. Or at the very least -- it'll sound a tad better. 

PS -- Regarding the Blu-ray CD that comes with the set, I suppose the sound quality will depend on the speakers hooked up to your Blu-Ray player? I currently only have Blu-Ray hooked up to my TV, which is far from audiophile quality.  Are Blu-Ray CD's the way of the future?


----------



## Philip

GrosseFugue said:


> Are Blu-Ray CD's the way of the future?


We seem to be moving away from physical discs.


----------



## bigshot

Personally, I'd expect the CD and bluray to sound pretty much the same unless they've remastered it for surround.


----------



## regnaDkciN

I see Amazon UK has the release date slipping to 9/17, so I guess it's no surprise we haven't seen any feedback yet.


----------



## Thunders




----------



## bigshot

It seems to be aimed straight at the pakaging fetishist market!


----------



## millionrainbows

bigshot said:


> SACDs are a complete waste of money. Any advantage in sound is so far below normal listening level, you'd never hear it unless you turn the volume up to deafening levels. I did a controlled comparison between the redbook and SACD layers od a DSD Pentatone hybrid SACD. After level matching, there was absolutely no difference. All of the differences I found between CDs and SACDs were differences in mixing and mastering. The format is no better than CD.
> 
> SACDs are a boondoggle designed to get you to buy recordings you already own a second time.


What are you basing this opinion on? SACD is a superior format. Even DVD audio is better, because of the higher resolution, as the numbers show. Are you against these other formats as well? Does Blu-Ray produce a reaction in you?


----------



## bigshot

I did my own line level matched A/B comparison test between the exact same DSD recording on SACD and CD. They sounded exactly the same, even on a high end system. Bluray audio formats are all good, as is DVD audio.

I'm not against these formats. It's just that they aren't audibly better than CD. SACD and bluray audio are superior to CD in one way- multichannel surround. That's it.


----------



## regnaDkciN

It's unfortunate that this thread has deteriorated into a debate on whether one audio format is audibly superior to another. I'm more curious to hear from someone who has the set (unless the ship date has slipped again, it should have been out in Europe and Japan over a week ago), and can compare the sound quality to that of one or another of the previous two releases.


----------



## techniquest

> It's unfortunate that this thread has deteriorated into a debate on whether one audio format is audibly superior to another.


Yes, but kind of inevitable really. From my perspective it's not just a matter of the merits of one format over another, more a matter of having the right kind of equipment to do it justice. I have the Solti Ring set (the 1997 Culshaw re-master), and a rather old Sony separates unit on which it sounds just wonderful. 
The Blu-Ray audio set may turn out to be the last word in what you can do with Solti's Ring Cycle, but given the cost of this new set, actually finding someone who has it may be the trickiest part of the whole exercise.


----------



## regnaDkciN

techniquest said:


> The Blu-Ray audio set may turn out to be the last word in what you can do with Solti's Ring Cycle, but given the cost of this new set, actually finding someone who has it may be the trickiest part of the whole exercise.


Well, there are four reviews already up at amazon.co.uk. All of them raves, of course, but none going into enough detail to judge the reviewer's credibility. I do notice one referring to the CD part of the set as "a fresh remastering based on the 1997 digital transfer," whatever that means (if it's "based on the 1997 digital transfer," it's _not_ a "fresh remastering," merely a re-tweaking and/or re-equalization of the previous one).

I should note that the price keeps dropping -- it's now only a little over $212 on pre-order from U.S. Amazon. At that price, it won't take me more than a credible review or two to take the plunge.


----------



## techniquest

> I do notice one referring to the CD part of the set as "a fresh remastering based on the 1997 digital transfer," whatever that means (if it's "based on the 1997 digital transfer," it's not a "fresh remastering," merely a re-tweaking and/or re-equalization of the previous one).


I was given to understand that the 14 CD's are the Culshaw remaster from 1997 and that it is only the blu-ray disc that has been given an overhaul. I may be wrong though (often am).


----------



## regnaDkciN

Here's an interesting bit of information, supposedly from the new box set:



> 'While working on a transfer for a Japanese company in 2009, Decca's
> technical producer Philip Siney, along with mastering engineer Ben
> Turner spent much time with the tapes, but sadly, though the masters
> had been preserved as best as possible the degradation had been
> significant, and it was deemed impossible to make superior audio
> transfers from them.'


So, in other words, not only are the new CDs and Blu-Ray based on the same old CD remaster I've had on my shelves for almost fifteen years, but apparently so was the ultra-expensive, hard-to-find Esoteric SACD set! Probably both have been re-EQd to some extent, but, still...I wonder how those who shelled out northwards of $1,000 for the SACDs, with the understanding that they were a brand-new transfer from the original master tapes, this time done right for once, feel about this revelation?

P.S.: It is also being reported that the Blu-Ray, although advertised as being 24/96, is actually only 24/48. If so, I'm guessing that was the resolution at which the 1997 transfer was done, since it was always conspicuously missing the "24/96" designation found on the Decca Legends releases from around the same time.


----------



## bigshot

High bitrate releases of legacy titles are a scam. Get DSD 5:1 recordings by Pentatone and at least the technology will be utilized.


----------



## regnaDkciN

bigshot said:


> High bitrate releases of legacy titles are a scam. Get DSD 5:1 recordings by Pentatone and at least the technology will be utilized.


Yes, we know your opinion on high-bitrate formats, bigshot -- God knows, you repeat it every opportunity.

But it has _nothing_ to do with what I just wrote about: that, apparently, the Esoteric SACDs that were touted as brand-new remasterings from the original analog tapes -- and which several people who sprang for them praised as being, essentially, the first time they were well-mastered, as opposed to the supposedly awful-sounding Decca remasters of 1984 and 1997 -- turn out to be not a new remaster at all but, instead, are derived from the very 1997 remaster those people so derided. And that would be the case whether the delivery format was DSD, 24/96 Blu-Ray (as is supposedly the case with the new box set) or garden-variety Redbook.


----------



## bigshot

That shouldn't be a surprise. Once the material has been well transferred to a high quality digital format, the only improvement possible is filtering and noise reduction. Taking a 4 track master from the 50s and transferring it to DSD as opposed to 24 bit isn't going to make any real difference. It's what they do with it after it's transferred.

Edit: I was just thinking, and it's possible that if they bumped their existing transfer up to a higher bitrate, they might be able to use filtering tools that are optimized for high bitrates. This would mean that they could finesse the noise reduction at the noise floor of the four track and achieve better results. Outputting the file at high bitrate would end up with pretty close to the same results as transferring the original tapes high bitrate then processing in high bitrate. The only difference would be the resolution down around the noise floor. The normal volume range would be identical.

When I was doing sound restoration, I tried some of the tools at 24 bit, but they just worked slower- not better. But they were probably designed for redbook.


----------



## garyrc

GrosseFugue said:


> Jack Lawson from Music Web hails the new CD/SACD hybrid remaster from the Japanese label: Esoteric. http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Feb10/Wagner_Ring_ESSD90021-34.htm
> It makes my mouth water!  I would LOVE to have this. But it costs $800. * Also I'd have to invest in an SACD player to really get the most out of it.*
> 
> H


People who buy a good Blu-ray player will often get SACD capability thrown in essentially for no extra cost. I bought an Oppo BDP-93 player for $499 last year, and it plays SACD, as well as CD, DVD, Blu-ray and a bunch of other disk types.

To my ears, SACDs are sometimes warmer sounding that CDs. Many will play in 5.1 or 5.0, which can provide a transforming experience. Many remasters from the past were recorded in three channel, and appear on SACD in 3 Channel, often with increased clarity.

Your CD or DVD or BD player has to break sooner or later, so please consider a new player that will do all of these plus SACD!


----------



## bigshot

All Sony Bluray players do SACD now. You can get one for a hundred bucks.


----------



## regnaDkciN

bigshot said:


> All Sony Bluray players do SACD now. You can get one for a hundred bucks.


I thought Sony had started taking SACD compatibility out of its Blu-Ray players recently.

Anyway, to take this completely off-topic, I have the Oppo BDP-93 (now replaced by the 103), and am quite pleased with it, not only for handling my collection of both SACD and DVD-Audio discs, but also for being able to read every disc I've thrown at it. I've made independent films in the past, and know a number of other indie filmmakers in the Seattle area, and one thing we have in common is that most of us self-distribute our films on recordable DVDs. The Pioneer universal player I used before going with the Oppo was notably finicky with DVD+Rs or DVD-Rs (and don't even get me started on the rewritable formats); some brands of discs it wouldn't play at all, while others it would play or not depending, I guess, on what mood it was in that evening. With the Oppo, I don't have to worry about this, as I haven't found anything yet it wouldn't play.


----------



## bigshot

Pioneer used to be a good brand.


----------



## Frasier

I like this Esoteric brand. It's laden with ironic humour. Just pointed out to an associate here, a power cord costing 1c short of $6,000.

http://www.elusivedisc.com/ESOTERIC-7N-PC9100-MEXCEL-POWER-CORD-15M/productinfo/ESOP7P9115/

The response I got was, "Before you buy it, check how much it'll cost us to get the house re-wired to the power station with the same cable.

(At $4000/metre, that'll cost us nearly $1,000,000 to the step-down transformer. I hope it does sound different, if we have the conversion done!)



> The 7N-PC9100 is Esoteric's Reference Power Cord incorporating the MEXCEL Conductor Technology. The MEXCEL Technology provides flat impedance response over an entire frequency range, even for the main power path! This results in the highest quality for sound reproduction


Yes. The frequency range of our power path is 50Hz +/- .01% approx (the approx being a fairly detailed calculation and measurement based on time interval comparison). So it's good to hear this power cable will give a flat response over that range. Nice.


----------



## bigshot

Always read the Amazon review before buying!
http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-NR...iewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending


----------



## thesubtlebody

Perhaps everyone has already read it, but I did not see a link to a long review of the new Solti deluxe RING box by Paul Godfrey of Musicweb:
http://musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Wagner_Ring_Solti_4783702.htm
appended with a short but fairly detailed review of the remastering specifically, by Jack Lawson (whose review of the Esoteric SACD edition kicked off this thread). To skip to Lawson's review, scroll down about 3/4 of the way.


----------



## bigshot

Jiggered EQ. Sell it to you again.


----------



## tahnak

I have the Vinyl Decca set which I grew up with and also Das Rheingold and Die Walkure on CDs. The CDs don't even come half as much to perfection as the LPs and you have to hear the opening introduction, the conclusion of Rheingold and the opening electrifying passage to Die Walkure to understand what I am saying. Whatever the medium, the ultimate deliverer of the Ring is Solti and no other conductor can be put into that category. He is miles ahead.


----------



## regnaDkciN

thesubtlebody said:


> Perhaps everyone has already read it, but I did not see a link to a long review of the new Solti deluxe RING box by Paul Godfrey of Musicweb:
> http://musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Wagner_Ring_Solti_4783702.htm
> appended with a short but fairly detailed review of the remastering specifically, by Jack Lawson (whose review of the Esoteric SACD edition kicked off this thread). To skip to Lawson's review, scroll down about 3/4 of the way.


Interesting that Lawson finds the Redbook CDs of the new set to be "audibly superior" to the Esoteric SACDs he so gushed over a couple of years ago. I'm wondering how anyone who shelled out $700-$1.000 for the SACDs based on his rave review might be feeling about the new review?

Anyway, that got me off the fence and onto an Amazon pre-order. Supposedly, it will be here in a little over a week. I'll post my impressions when I've had the chance to check it out.


----------



## regnaDkciN

Well, the set showed up last night. I got number 169 out of 7,000.

Initial reaction: to paraphrase Donald Trump, "The set is huuuuuge. Huuuuuuuuuuge!" In height and width, it's about the size of an LP boxed set, but thicker than any such set I've ever seen -- 3 5/8" worth! More to the point, the set weighs a whopping _13.4_ pounds. (I'll bet Amazon is ruing the day they offered me free 2-day shipping with my Prime account.) All I've been able to do so far is clear enough space on my LP shelving and manage to heave the set up there, still in shrink-wrap. I'll open it either later tonight or this weekend, depending on some other things I have to get done right away.


----------



## GrosseFugue

*Selling Solti's Ring Deluxe Edition -- $100!!!*

Hi all,

I am selling my Solti Der Ring Deluxe Edition. The CD's, DVD and Blu Ray are flawless, never been played. Books are in great shape.

Here is why I'm selling: my initial set came with some aesthetic defects. But I just received my replacement and it too has similar issues. So apparently there is no such thing as a totally spotless-looking set.

Specifically, the set has some pages that are slightly rumpled, as if handled a bit too aggressively. Though I couldn't understand why since it came shrink-wrapped. I can only surmise it happened at Decca's factory, sometime during its "assembly."

Also, the covers of the Libretti & Ring Resounding books have a few scratches on them. My replacement set also came with scratches.

I can be very persnickety when it comes to fancy items like this. You yourself may not have any issues at all.

I have enclosed pics of the issues.

In short, I now have two slightly-less-than-perfect-looking-but-Brand-New Der Rings and am selling one.

Again, I want to emphasize that the CD's, Blu Ray and DVD are all PRISTINE. And the problems are purely in appearance and in no way "major" or "big."

So if you are alright with that, then this should be the deal of the century for you!

I will be putting it up on eBay in the next few days for the fixed price of $100, plus a $10 handling charge. You can choose the shipping option. I highly recommend media mail, it'll be around $10 to anywhere in the contiguous US. Total: $120. (Overseas shipping, I'm afraid, will be prohibitive.)

*On the other hand, I'd be happy to make a deal if you want to purchase now. I'd actually prefer not to deal with eBay and save the listing cost. *

If you have any questions don't hesitate to IM or email me.

Thanks! 

PS - You can read all the gushing reviews and details of this set at these links:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Wagner-Der-Ring-des-Nibelungen-George-Solti-Blu-ray/56588/#Review
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Wagner_Ring_Solti_4783702.htm
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/soltis-ring-deluxe-style/
I will add my own superlatives and say the remastering has fantastic dynamic range and detail, despite me only playing it on my bookshelf and factory car systems. I can only imagine how good this will sound on a truly high-end system! Blow your roof off!


----------



## bigshot

Sounded the same as the previous edition, eh?


----------



## GrosseFugue

Bigshot, actually it does sound better. I wouldn't say it's night and day difference. But there is some difference. Of course, a high-end system would really bring out all the nuances. I'm hoping to go to my local stereo shop and load one of the Ring remaster CD's and totally CUT LOOSE! Then we'll REALLY see the FULL POWER OF THE GODS. 

So, anyways, I've got it up now on eBay! http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200846361384

C'mon, for a 100 bucks you can't go wrong! It costs more than that to buy 1997 CD set! :lol:


----------



## regnaDkciN

Before moving on to the sound itself, a bit about the packaging: I've already commented on how large and weighty it is, but haven't mentioned how well-designed or even luxurious it is as well. This is a release that could stand as an example to the industry of quality in box sets.

Inside the outer white cardboard slipcover is a permanent slipcase, in black with metallic copper trim and embossing. (A small quibble: why not gold? Wagner didn't title one of the segments _Das Rheinkupfer_, after all.) In this case, you find four books of roughly equal thickness, each similarly embossed in copper. A sign of the attention to detail in this set's design is that all four books have "Der Ring des Nibelungen" outlined in copper on the spine, but the first volume has the first word of the title in solid copper as opposed to outline, the second volume has the second word, and so on, so that, when the books are inserted in the proper order, you'll get a solid copper rendering of the name reading diagonally from upper left to lower right.

The first of these books contains a reprint of producer John Culshaw's famous look behind the scenes of the project, _Ring Resounding_. The second, with thick cardboard "pages" reminiscent of coin-collecting volumes instead of the heavy paper found in the other volumes, contains cut-outs for black-and-copper sleeves containing each of the CDs (including supplemental material) and the Blu-Ray. The third volume contains the DVD of the mid-'60s documentary about the project, as well as the text companion to Deryck Cooke's musical introduction to the Ring included in the set, excerpts of Solti's annotated conductor's score (with translations of his comments), and a front pocket containing session photos plus the collected _Gramophone_ reviews of the recordings at the time they were released. Volume four is dedicated to the libretti, and is basically a reprint of the content of the booklets that originally came with earlier LP and CD sets.

Newly-designed artwork (in what I would best describe as "Valhalla Art-Deco" style) comes with all four of these volumes as well as the previously slipcase.

In short, this set carries pretty much everything related to the Decca recording project, and presents it in a strikingly stylish, impressive manner.

For all that, I have two complaints about the packaging:

1) In order to fit the book size mandated by the case design, (2'x1' when open), the text of all the volumes is displayed in dual-column-per-page format, reminiscent -- to be frank about it -- of the layout of old-fashioned Bibles. (Well, some devotees might claim that this set constitutes the "holy scripture" of classical recording...) The type is also, as would be necessary to fit all this into a (barely-)liftable box, rather small for the eyes of those no longer young, which probably makes up a large portion of the target demographic for this expensive a classical music release. With the Cooke guide and Solti-annotated score, this isn't too bad, but for the libretti and, especially, the Culshaw book, reading can get a little cumbersome and difficult. As it happens, I have several copies of _Ring Resounding_ in standard book size. acquired as part of earlier sets, and I'd most likely use one of those copies for re-reading purposes rather than pulling this off the shelf each time.

2) Because of the decision to go with all-new art, there aren't any full-color examples of Hans Wild's famous cover photos for the original Decca LP releases. (The _Gramophone_ booklet does contain these covers, but not in full-color.) Considering the iconic nature of these covers, the omission is regrettable. In my case, I'll probably hold onto my 1997 CD set simply for the cover art.

But, all in all, the visual quality of this set is outstanding. Now, on to the music...

To do a full evaluation of the sonic merits of the new set is more difficult than it may first appear. Certainly, most of us have done "comparative listening" tests -- but those have generally taken the form of comparing a new, remastered CD to its previous release. Here, we have a work totaling _14 hours and 37 minutes_, and we have _four_ versions of it: the 1984 original CD release, the 1997 remaster, plus both the Redbook and the Blu-Ray versions available in this set. (To some extent, I'm lucky that I don't have several LP sets that would need to be thrown in to the comparison as well; while I still have the late-'70s cassette box, that would scarcely be comparable in any event.) How to approach this massive a group of recordings puzzled me for a time; what I finally decided to do was to first listen to the new Redbook discs as a whole, all the while taking notes about tracks and sections to compare to the other versions in short passages once the initial listening is done.

So far, I've only been able to listen to _Rheingold_. While I haven't done any comparisons to the other sets yet. I will say that, in the abstract, the new version sounds good. _Real_ good. Good enough that, if this had been a new release from some modern-day singers, orchestra, and conductor, I'd be praising the sonics as "demonstration-quality," something I don't recall thinking was the case with either the 1984 or 1997 CD releases. There is warmth, glow, and detail to the orchestral contribution, and a completely-natural quality to the voices that I don't even recall from the LPs I listened to some forty years ago. In addition, soundstaging is excellent, both in lateral imaging and depth. (Curiously, my one counter-observation is that I get the auditory sense of a smaller hall than before when it comes to the voices; they're more present, but don't seem to be surrounded by as much resonant space as on some earlier releases. It's not that the acoustic around the voices is dead, but it seems to have shorter resonance time than I recall. I'll have to study this more when I get to the comparative-listening later on.)

Hopefully, I'll get the initial listening to the Redbook versions completed before Thanksgiving; I'll let you know if my impressions of _Rheingold_ continue through the other three installments.


----------



## bigshot

Can you please directly compare to the older CD release? Perhaps set up an A/B switchable comparison. That is going to be the only way to be able to compare with any sort of accuracy.


----------



## regnaDkciN

As I already mentioned, I'm going to compare it to both the 1984 and 1997 sets, as well as cross-checking the new Redbook and Blu-Ray. No ABX, though.


----------



## bigshot

No need for blind. Just make sure you level match and compare directly. Should be interesting. I found how full of it most reviewers were when I did that with the Beatles CDs.

Make sure you use Rheingold for comparison. Being the oldest recording of the lot, it's going to benefit the most from noise reduction, which is apt to be the main difference between versions.


----------



## regnaDkciN

A further update, which leaves a puzzling question (maybe bigshot, based on his professional experience has some clues on this one).

I've now finished my basic run-through of the entire Redbook set. My initial reaction is that the orchestral parts sound very good indeed. However, while the vocals in _Rheingold_ and _Siegfried_ are equally clear, you get a hint (or more than a hint) of fuzziness or distortion in some of the vocals of _Walküre_ and _Götterdämmerung_. It sounds like it could be overloading (although the voices are far from clipping on the two-track master, it usually happens when the performers are singing flat-out), or maybe some sort of microphone resonance. Probably the most noticeable example of this in the final track of CD 3 of _Götterdämmerung_ (the end of the vengeance trio) where, from 0:20 to 1:11 in the track, you get that distortion on the voices of Nilsson, Frick, and Fischer-Dieskau, but, if you listen for it, you can hear it frequently in the two parts of the cycle I mentioned. (Another of the more-obvious examples is in track 4 of the first CD of _Walküre_ -- Frick again! -- from 2:55 to 3:01.)

In this case, I made a special exception to my "wait to compare to other versions" rule, and checked a couple of the corresponding spots on both the 1997 and 1984 sets over headphones, and found the distortion present on both of them as well. Since the 1984 is a different remastering from the analog tapes, it would therefore seem not to be a flaw in the 1997 digital master alone, not to mention in any processing used in the new set, but something that was on the analog master tapes.

In trying to figure out why this would be audible on two parts of the cycle but absent on the others, it struck me that the order in which the works were recorded was significant: _Rheingold_/_Siegfried_/_Götterdämmerung_/_Walküre_. In other words, the issue was only with the last two works recorded. According to Culshaw's book, the recording team switched to a new, custom-built recording console at the beginning of the _Götterdämmerung_ sessions. Is it possible there was some oddity in the new console that might lead to unwittingly recording the vocals a bit too hot? I have no way of knowing if they changed microphones at the same time because, to my untrained-in-audio-recording ear, it does sound like, if not distortion, some sort of resonance that overlays itself on the vocals. Any ideas?

(Lest I seem to make too much about this, I don't mean to imply that the overall sound is bad or the vocals are fatally-flawed. This is something you have to listen for to notice...but it certainly is there.)


----------



## bigshot

They were recording an awful lot of stuff all at once onto a four track. That meant that a lot of the mixing had to be done live. Also, they had the singers moving around on a grid, closer and more distant from the mikes. Hard to prevent some mistakes from creeping in.


----------



## regnaDkciN

I can understand that -- but it still doesn't explain why the phenomenon shows up more in the two works that were recorded using the new mixing console than it does in the two earlier parts.


----------

