Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Didital Things
In the Thread: The BSO and Digital Music.
Post Subject: I do not see hypocrisy but rather consistency.Posted by Romy the Cat on: 4/22/2009
fiogf49gjkf0d
It is not US’s Fox News and not Stereophile and there is no need to pull the fractions of "stupid" soundbytes to prove any agendas. Anyone whoever are frequent this site know in context of what the said was said. Most important that I know what I said and how I thought and frankly I think that my thought process is incredibly consisting. I ma saying it not because I feel a need to defend my view but because it is what it is. Let see.
Yes, the BSO files do actually very good but as I always say: are they sound as good as they could sound?
The very next day after I heard the BSO files I posted (all my posts are still there):
“The Mahler is a bit too wicked and unfriendly with some strange imaging/stereo transformation/corruption…”
“What to my surprise I learned is that FF compression and FM noise (dither) makes Macondo to sound more even in a way to image more interesting.”
Pay attention that I found the imaging on BSO files not up to the pair with the rest qualities of those files and in some cases even my FM recordings of those concerts (that not even contestable with BSO 88/24 files) to be very much contestable or even better in term of imaging. It was not my fantasy or my will to criticize the BSO files but my knowledge how BSO shell sound recorded
Today in your post Mark Donahue said: “If you can turn off the HDCD decoding you will find a significant decrease in the spatial imaging and overall imaging acuity.”
Condensing that I do not use HDCD-able Pacific to play the BSO files do you see a consistency in my and his comments? Pay attention that Mark Donahue is the individual who in charge of all BSO life broadcasts and he very well know the rule of the game; in fact he owns the game…
Did you pay attention that at the very same day I heard the Mr. Donahue’s file I posted the following post:
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=10195
… where I stressed that the properly applied compression might be beneficial. The reasons I did it because I found the uncompressed BSO files a bit disturbing as some dynamic aspects tear performing space apart.
Do not forget that BSO was recorded by “American recording techniques” many closed up microphones, miced-up sections and so on. It was not 2 mics dummy head recording where distanced allow some natural phase randomization. The instruments sound a bit hot and “space” managed by art of mastering and mixing instead the art position and playing. I am not against the “American recording techniques” and the Soundmirror did fine job to mix the BSO sound…. but pay attention – I was complained that it was now there due to unreasonable and a slight uncontrolled use of dynamics. What it turned out to be after all is that SoundMirror implied that “proper” BSO mixing only with HDCD’s compression activated. Well, I do not know how many folks out there with 88kHz and HDCD but since you do have this option then be judge yourself and take under consideration that 99.9999% of listeners will play them like I do – without the HDCD.
Regarding the SACD to PCM conversion – I do not know. I have no idea what is out there but the fact that the conversion go over analog is ridicules. Particularly I feel that it is ridicules because the best SACD players of today play SACD disks and right there convert the stream into 344KHz and do further PCM not SACD decoding. I wish SoundMirror do not use SACD at all, record in PCM and if the Morons want to have SACD then make them from PCM files. BTW, if I am not mistaken up to recently all editing in SACD was done by silent conversion of DSD to PSM and then conversion back.
And the last. Whden I said about “VERY right direction to go” I meant my delight that BSO file went away from the idiotic 5 channel format that they started with and let us to have 88K 2ch stereo. As I posted at AA (now the dirt have deleted the AA those posts) I made my best to crash BSO sever the first few days after the 88K 2ch stereo files become available. I sent an insane amount of notifications about the BSO new options. My objective were to swamp BSO sever with orders, to make this server to choke with traffic, to send BSO the message that when they make right actions then the customers will come. I wish BSO do more or it, I wish they signed guest conductors to the deal and I wish 20-30 orchestras around the word do the same what BSO did with their 88K 2ch adventure. If it were so then we have a perfect model how orchestras and listeners might exists without the stupid music industry… BTW, I was a person who advised them the price the files $30-$40 per concert. So, I do feel that BSO went to very right direction.
However, could the Sound of the BSO file be better? Yes, it is and I feel that reconsidering the use the HDCD compression might be a first step. Anyhow, I see no hypocrisy in what I advocate but rather very constrictive and very specific criticism. Be advised that you will not hear any single public voice out there who would offer any constrictive criticism about BSO sound quality. The Morons see 88kHz and they immediately have own brain and sense blackouted and they are willing to kiss the files in the asses. The exchange of stupid drooling is not my definition of collaboration and education…. but is you read my site for a while then you might know it…
The CatRerurn to Romy the Cat's Site