Print

Print


According to a recent Stereophile interview with the lead guy doing EMI's
classical remasters, they are also creating transfers from analog in PCM,
192/24. And they are receiving howls of indignation for it. But, he asserts,
the restoration tools they're using are PCM, so originating the files in
that format makes sense.

I wonder if there isn't another aspect to the decision. PCM is a ubiquitous
process, even beyond audio or video; DSD is not. Perhaps the ability to work
with hi-rate PCM files in thirty years is a surer thing than with DSD files?
Is DSD technology "open source?"

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of DAVID BURNHAM
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 8:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting history of DGG-Polydor-Polygram-Berliner
Studios-SACD-etc

You're probably right.  I don't have many DGG SACDs from analog originals,
(the Mahler 2nd which started this conversation was, of course, originally
recorded digitally at 96/24, although this conflicts with the posting quoted
below which says it was recorded PCM 96/24 and DSD at the same time), but
the Karajan Beethoven cycle from 1962 was mastered at 96/24.  Perhaps they
recorded their SACDs at 96/24 because they anticipated that the two formats,
SACD and DVD-A were going to co-exist.

db



>________________________________
> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 7:13:23 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting history of
DGG-Polydor-Polygram-Berliner Studios-SACD-etc
> 
>I'm hoping Mark Donahue will chime in here. If they were comparing 96/24
PCM to DSD, when the audio was digitized to 96/24 PCM in the first place, of
course they'd hear no differences. I remember this issue coming up with the
Mercury Living Presence SACDs, which were done in Germany with no direct
involvement from any original Mercury team members. The only time DSD came
into the picture was after all the transferring, whatever DSP was deployed,
normalizing, etc. The final PCM files were converted to DSD for SACD disc
authoring. A beef in the audiophile press at the time was that "no
advantages of SACD were realized," that they just as soon have put out 96/24
DVD-audio discs (which actually would have been a better idea since most DVD
players until the recent generations of ultra-cheapos could play DVD-A discs
whereas fewer players could play SACD). Anyway, supposedly the advantages of
DSD are only heard when the product is DSD from input to output,
 which is what Mark Donahue did with the RCA Living Stereo SACDs.
>
>As far as I know, during most or all of the time that Universal was playing
in the SACD world, they were doing their transferring and production in PCM,
then going to DSD for the final SACD authoring. It may all have been based
on that listening test mentioned in this thread, but I'd argue that the test
parameters seem flawed.
>
>-- Tom Fine
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess"
<[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting history of
DGG-Polydor-Polygram-Berliner Studios-SACD-etc
>
>
>> There may have been some misinterpretation of this statement.
>> 
>> Some people are referring to this as DSD vs CD. However, based on Goran's
later posting today concerning this, it appears that the PCM in question is
24 bit 96 ks/s.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> On 2012-11-23 2:23 PM, Goran Finnberg wrote:
>>>   During the recording of Mahler´s 2nd Symphony (Vienna Philharmonic
>>> Orchestra, Gilbert Kaplan, released on Deutsche Grammophon CD 474 380-2,
>>> SACD 477 594-2) in the Musikvereinssaal, Vienna, the whole recording
>>> sequence is carried out by using both PCM and DSD technology following
the
>>> microphone.
>>> 
>>> To exclude sound variations by different A/D converters, the team uses
>>> special converters capable of dealing with both formats. The result of
the
>>> subsequent listening comparisons by double-blind test is as
straight-forward
>>> as sobering: There is no difference whatsoever.
>> 
>> -- Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada           (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>> 
>
>
>