|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
92.29.48.229
I find BIS SACD dics to be incorrect for volume levels,dynamic range , quiet passages too quite and then loud too loud so constantly using vc. Just been listening to BBC CD review and the presenter remarked once you have adjusted for the too low volume level ! Anyone else notice this nuisance ?
Edits: 06/09/12Follow Ups:
When I go to a live music event and judge the sound quality, I don't just listen to how wide a dynamic range it has. I don't give this aspect primacy, whether its a big symphony orchestra, chamber orchestra, string quartet, or solo piano. I also want to hear correct timbre, inner detail, proper balance, bloom and expansion of the sound (and the reverse too),and how the quietest and loudest moments are suited to the venue. Every recording engineer has his own philosophy for recording and every listener has his own philosophy for listening. The problem is that the two don't always coincide.
This was all brought home to me in the past two weeks. Sunday I heard an all-Chopin piano recital in the local library. It was a Steinway B in a small room. The pianist had a very wide dynamic range, mostly at the loud end, and the audience gave him a rousing standing ovation. I felt he overloaded the room and strained the piano to its limits.
A week earlier I heard the La Jolla Symphony do Stravinsky's Firebird (augmented suite). It was a dress rehearsal, and we got to hear the two big moments twice. At one point the conductor, Steven Schick, a percussionist by training, asked the orchestra not to play so loud, and he repeated portions to get the balance right. The big bass drum didn't swamp the orchestra, as it does on some audiophile recording, because he didn't want it that way. Still the orchestra was spectacularly loud and the hall supported it. I wouldn't be able to listen this loud in my moderate-sized living room.
I believe there is not one right way to record and one right way to listen. A company can choose to make dynamic range the be all and end all, then the customer can choose whether to buy.
"Sunday I heard an all-Chopin piano recital in the local library. It was a Steinway B in a small room. The pianist had a very wide dynamic range, mostly at the loud end, and the audience gave him a rousing standing ovation. I felt he overloaded the room and strained the piano to its limits."
Sad to say, some pianists are "bangers". A great artist adjusts the sound to the instrument and the venue rather than project his or her ego. A great artist can also get a big but clean sound out of a smaller piano as if by magic. It would seem that the Chopin recital was not what I would call a good performance, despite the applause. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I believe there is not one right way to record and one right way to listen. A company can choose to make dynamic range the be all and end all, then the customer can choose whether to buy. (Botanic...)
Very well put. Of course all recording engineers would subscribe to that. So do we. However, all the rest was not put in question by Disbeliever; he only discussed the dynamics and average level. When I answer him, I would find it inconsequencial to dwelve on the other factors, however relevant they may be (and are). Imagibe if I answered his diatribes about dynamics with a "but we're really good at timbres"... Sounds like a very feeble defence and an attempt to deflect the attack by introducing something - for this question - irrelevant. Disbeliever chose one subject, and I chose to answer him about that.
All the rest (balance, bloom, timbre etc) is a given in my world. So is honesty, and you cannot be honest and compress at the same time. So we don't.
Robert
I have only complained about levels which Fitz says should be increased by 4dB, , so it is not necessary to discuss timbre,balance etc this is just a diversion. Anyway enough, this is my final post on the subject of BIS dynamics.
. Each to his own, enjoy your music.
Edits: 06/18/12 06/18/12 06/18/12
To alleviate any suspicions to the contrary: Andrew MacGregor has expressly approved my posting his mail to me here. I wouldn't dream of publishing it otherwise. Here is his mail from a few minutes ago:
Hello, Robert! Good to hear from you…and I’m not surprised you’ve found the postings irritating, especially, as I’m afraid it seems to be an individual listening to CD Review and hearing what they *want* to hear, and not what I actually said.
He misquotes me, and takes a single misheard sentence to which he’s added the word ‘too’ (which I didn’t say!) to ‘low level’ (which I did), and completely ignored the context in which I made the comment. Over a period of over 20 minutes, and around three excerpts from Mark Wigglesworth’s latest Shostakovich, I made it perfectly clear to anyone listening without an agenda that I was blown away not just by the performance, but also by what I though was an exceptionally good recording…
‘…so this really is a major achievement, and an extraordinarily vivid BIS recording, once you’ve adjusted for the low level.’
That’s what I actually said on air, after playing part of the 1st Andante from the 3rd Symphony (hence the low level comment, and having set my listening level by it, I didn’t change it for the rest of the disc).
I’ve taken the liberty of attaching the complete section of the script below in which I discussed the recording so that you can see for yourself. I think you probably realise that I rarely have anything but admiration for the quality of BIS SACD recordings, and if this individual thinks he can enlist me to fight his corner around this particular disc, then he’s utterly misguided! I meant exactly what I said, and once the overall listening level was adjusted for the quietest passages (Andante), I didn’t touch it…the dynamic range of BIS SACDs is something I welcome, not criticise. Carry on regardless!
Very best from London.
Andrew McG.
Interesting post, Yes I did not hear all of what Andrew McGregor said only caught the bit about adjusting for low level. . . However this still does not change my opinion of BIS discs. I did try to contact Andrew McGregor via the BBC web site but they make it impossible for listeners to reach him. Probably should have sent a letter to the BBC.
Edits: 06/18/12
There is absolutely nothing obvious about Andrew McGregor's BIS support, other than that we produce some good stuff (sorry, I couldn't help myself - you do know that BIS could stand for Bloody Interesting Stuff, no?). To say anything else is doubting Mr. McGregor's integrity, and I don't think that even you would do that - he is far too respected.
That you can't - or won't - change your opinion about our products is a given - how could you change it if you refuse to even listen?
Robert von Bahr
I am not allowed to edit, so I must make a new post to correct my mis-spelling of Andrew McGregor's name in the post above.
Done.
Robert
Mr. von Bahr,
First I wish to apologize to you if this post has turned into a put down of BIS. I think most of us here by and enjoy many of your recordings. I also have to turn up volume for your recordings. But I also have to do this for cd's produced by Reference Recordings. Both labels have one thing in common and that is a more distant recording perspective. A lot of us enjoy the very close up in your face sound of early Mercury, RCA, Decca and Telarc recordings. These recordings sound on the bright sound and produce what feels like a very live sound. To get this type of feeling with most of your recordings they need to be turned up a little louder and when you do this they sound very natural. I hope that most of us here will continue to buy and enjoy your fine recordings
Alan
Take a recording that you've purchased from them. Use one of the many programs out there to check for the highest level in the total file, not just one selection. If the digital level gets to 0dB (which is a mistake in level setting, but let's save that for another thread) or very close -- even in just one part of the recording, bissie is making an accurate statement -- see his comments below about the level setting that is done by his company -- and his label is not compressing the dynamics. If it is off (-4dB or a lower level), he has some 'splaining to do based on the comments he made.
If you -- or anyone else, for that matter -- are not willing to do this (SACD's can now be ripped, so that's not an excuse, but any recorder with a recording level display can be substituted for this task), you should stop your vendetta against BIS.
If your comments are about the Redbook tracks, then what you suggest is possible, as there is an absolute hard and fast level limit on PCM audio at 0 dBfs, i.e. +32767 and -32768 for Redbook. However, there is no such limit for DSD, just a "guideline" such as exists with analog media. As with magnetic tape, as the level is pushed above an arbitrary "0 dB" there is an increase in distortion, eventually resulting in either harsh clipping or with some converters "lock up" where the encoding fails disastrously with continuous loud noise. The point at which this happens depends on the particular music and internal details of the encoder, something that no one talks about as this is proprietary "black magic".
Purist recordings are those that are released in the original format with no processing at all, not even level changes. With these recordings the levels had better be very conservative, otherwise the original recording will be ruined by distortion. The best sounding SACDs are pure DSD recordings, made directly with no subsequent processing other than the equivalent of "razor blade editing". These often come with very low recording levels because that's the way the original was recorded, particularly at a live performance where the engineers may not know how much louder the musicians may play when an audience is present.
My volume control is calibrated in dB, so I know exactly how "loud" any given recording is. In general, those recordings that require turning up my volume control turn out to be higher quality recordings than those that have been artificially boosted. I have several dozen BIS recordings that I've downloaded from eclassical.com. Most are in 44/16 format, some 44/24 which sound better, and the newest ones in 88/24. These have what I would consider "ideal" levels for audiophile quality recordings, but BIS is really a budget label and doesn't use the most expensive state of the art equipment, and I would say that there better recordings can be "very good" but I've yet to hear one that I would call "excellent". By contrast, I have several Channel Classics downloads and these are all excellent recordings. Channel Classics uses the state of the art converters, whereas BIS has been using prosumer gear, such as RME.
If you want to look at dynamic range rather than peak levels, and this was the original issue with this thread, then it is possible to determine this for any format, since one is working on a relative difference, e.g between fortissimo vs. pianissimo . For a large scale orchestral worka this is typically in the range of 45 to 50 dB. Back in the early 1960's this kind of dynamic range was available on pre-recorded 2 and 4 track open reel tapes.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I know what you're referring to, but I did say it was a topic for another thread. The limit that SONY suggests for DSD is -6dB. I believe Cookie Marenco and Barry Diament, among others, master below that. And with PCM, the hard limit is above the limit for distortion-free conversion in most D-A converter (-3dB seems to be the max peak level from the discussions that I've read).
Crap. That's another thread, damn it!
Anyway, the point was that bissie said his label masters the recording such that the level, which I interpret as at least one peak, will reach 0dB. Even if the music only reaches 0dB once in an entire recording, end of discussion. The rest of the music can average -20dB and he's still giving an accurate representation of what his company does. If no peak ever reaches 0dB, or at least very close to it, there's a bit of explaining to do.
Now, if I misinterpreted what he said here at AA , I welcome him to correct me/clarify and urge him to set the record straight.
I have a few dozen BIS recordings, these are in the form of 44/24 or 44/16 downloads from eclassical.com. I picked my most recent purchase, Symphony of Psalms and Rite of Spring. Bissie is correct, the 0 dBfs was reached in the Rite of Spring in 44/16 format. Using short term RMS measurements I measured the dynamic range of this recording to be 50 dB, and the signal to noise ratio about 55 dB. (The "signal" was music that started quietly, I took care not to measure hall reverberations.) In a room that is decently quiet there is no problem hearing pianissimo passages with this recording that a few seconds later become 50 dB louder Fortissimo. (This wasn't possible for me last week, but I have since moved two noisy computers out of my listening room.)
I believe that Cookie does most if not all of her master recordings on tape and transfers to DSD at a later stage. This gives her the luxury of keeping her levels down as she gets a chance to make adjustments as needed on a second pass over her tapes. This isn't possible when recording direct to dSD since there is no way to increase the level without a generation loss of sound quality. I have DSD recordings that light up the "red" 0 dB lights on my Mytek DAC, but there is presently some debate as to what these lights mean with DSD. It seems likely that these recordings are 1 or 2 dB over the Scarlet book "0".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Apart from Disbeliever's obvious bias against us (here and elsewhere), there are a couple of things I would like to have the answers to from a discerning group such as the one here:
1) why is it - just because "everyone else" are compressing their recordings - that people think that the real thing (and that IS what we present) is recorded at too low a level? What is so difficult to grasp in the notion that the loudest part of the recording is at top allowed technical level on the disc, and the rest simply is - original??
2) What's the point of inventing superior sound carriers, like SACD, if the recording engineers desperately undermine their advantages by NOT using the original dynamics?
3) This kind of devious and inaccurate rumour-spreading (someone did write "no smoke without a fire") is actually harmful, not only to us, but also to the art of recording in general. I think people will have to make a choice:
- either go for manipulated recordings, made to measure for the ones without a good equipment, without good listening conditions or without the time available to really listen, or
- go for the real thing, unadorned, unadultered, unchanged, with the possible disadvantages there are (yes, you do have to have decent equipment, decent listening rooms, time and interest).
I have been in the business for almost 40 years, and I can truly claim to have been totally honest all this time, when it comes to what we present. I represent our recording to be honest and true, and, by Jove, they are. If the public don't like it, well, that will not change my mind. I owe that much to the Artists and the music they play.
Robert von Bahr, bissie, CEO, BIS Records, robert@bis.se
Robert - I agree that classical recordings should be uncompressed, and I follow the logic of what you do in your own recordings. But, it seems a stretch to extend your logic to some of the other fine labels in hi Rez classical recording. It seems you do that by inference rather than by actual knowledge. Or, am I wrong in that assessment?
Many of those, like Channel, Telarc, Pentatone, anything done by Polyhymnia or Sound Mirror and others, all use DSD recording and mastering, unlike you. I am not sure if that makes a difference as far as compression goes or not. Either with DSD or PCM, it seems to me that there is such a huge range of possible dynamics over the low noise levels inherent in hi Rez, that they might simply be choosing average levels lower than yours. It seems to me they could be doing this without compression and without much sonic consequence. Of, course, how they adapt that to the CD layer of hybrid recordings, may be another story, and may well involve some compression. I do not know, and actually, I do not care, as I never listen to the CD version.
In any case, I count BIS as one of the best labels out there and, unlike our poor misguided disbeliever, who appears to have a serious dynamic headroom problem in his system and in his feeble brain, I generally find them a pleasure to listen to.
Fitz LOL at your flattering the arrogant Robert and at the same time questioning the dynamics of his discs which are out of step with all others. Furthermore I am not your poor misguided Disbeliever. Fortunately I am not feeble poor or misguided as far as recordings are concerned.
I genuinely respect Robert and his recordings, and I have no plans to stop buying them or give them away out of mindless pique. I have no problems with his choices of levels on the recordings. I merely questioned his conclusions that all other classical labels must necessarily compress theirs. He says they must by the laws of physics. I hear no audible evidence of that, so I question his conclusion. But, that's it. My position and my statements are totally consistent, as you would find if you could actually read and comprehend English.Meawhile, dear Gerald, you continue to make the most collosal ass of yourself in public. I do not know of a single forum in which you have any credibility whatsoever. And, this exchange, initiated by you makes that once again clear to all. Take your meds. Or, maybe you need see a physician to get some. You will feel better, and so will the rest of us.
Edits: 06/16/12
Fitz LOL at your flattering the arrogant Robert and at the same time questioning the dynamics of his discs which are out of step with all others. Furthermore I am not your poor misguided Disbeliever. Fortunately I am not poor or misguided as far as recordings are concerned.
Fitz I LOL at your flattering the arrogant Robert and at the same time questioning the dynamics of his discs which are out of step with all others.
Edits: 06/16/12
You are the one who is out of step with reality. You are ignorant about recording technology and what goes on inside the "sausage factory" at many record labels. It is also likely that you don't go to enough live concerts to know what actual musical dynamics sound like.
It is this ignorance that is the reason why audiophile recordings are rare. The great unwashed masses don't know what music is supposed to sound like, and as a result those of us who do must suffer. If the masses weren't ignorant then the major labels would make better recordings and the pop/rock world would still be selling listenable recordings.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I admit I know very little re recording technology, however I do know what I hear and that is I find BIS SACD discs out of step with all the other major labels for playback volume levels especially with their claim that they are the only one with uncompressed dynamics So they are right and all the other majors are wrong ? I have not read any CD/ SACD reviews complaining re lack of dynamics from other labels.Good luck to those who have no problem with BIS playback levels. I shall not be buying any more BIS discs which even the BBC say need volume level adjustment.
Edits: 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12
Disbeliever said: "I admit I know very little re recording technology, however I do know what I hear and that is I find BIS SACD discs out of step with all the other major labels for playback volume levels especially with their claim that they are the only one with uncompressed dynamics So they are right and all the other majors are wrong ? I have not read any CD/ SACD reviews complaining re lack of dynamics from other labels.Good luck to those who have no problem with BIS playback levels. I shall not be buying any more BIS discs which even the BBC say need volume level adjustment."
I know that I have been advised to just let it go, but I cannot have someone quoting me as saying something I haven't said.
The logic I will not repeat yet another time is unassailable. Mr. Disbeliever obviously does either not understand it, or is disbelieving. I have talked to a number of colleagues that do admit to taking down the very loudest parts in order to get the general (average) level up. I have never said that everyone does it, nor would I ever accuse (if that is the correct word) them of doing so. I just maintain that the logic points in that direction, IF Mr. Disbeliever is correct when he states that all other labels have a louder average level. I have even admitted that in some cases it is possibly preferrable to adjust the levels for easy listening at the consumers' homes. It is a matter of basic honesty with me not to do so, advisable or not, and that's an individual choice, good or bad. It is at least honest that Mr. Disbeliever confesses to knowing "very little" about recordings (surprise, surprise!!), but, if that is so, why doesn't he skip the "Dis" in his moniker and listen to someone that does know a bit or two??
It is almost pathetic that he refers to BBC in almost every post. The situation is VASTLY different with a radio producer, who has to cater to people with perhaps small radios or car radios in an analogue broadcasting system, rather than the audiophile, sitting at home with a decent system. I cater for the latter.
So, to cap: if listening pleasure or ease with the consumer is the main goal, there is no right or wrong. So I certainly don't say that all the others are wrong. However, if the goal is to present what the Artists did, adding or subtracting nothing, then "my way" is the only possible one. As soon as the recording engineer starts twiddling the controls, he is usurping the power of the musicians. Logic, Mr. Disbeliever, logic. Try it sometime. It is not that difficult, but infinitely rewarding.
Robert von Bahr robert@bis.se
phew ! Bissie with regard to the BBC you should understand that the program I refer to is CD review, Presenter & reviewer Andrew McGregor Broadcast every Saturday morning, FM on BBC Radio 3. This programme is for classical CD/SACD only, they play latest releases also older ones to determine what they say is the best performance for building a CD library/collection It is extremely unlikely that listeners are using small radios or car radios, this is a program aimed at classical only audiophiles and connoisseurs.It was on this program that I heard Andrew say the levels of BIS SACD needed adjustment. He has never before as far as I am aware made such a comment re any other label, IMO this substantiates my complaint...
Edits: 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12
Disbeliever,
You seem to be saying that you prefer your audio system to sound like FM radio. That's clearly a personal preference on your part. Perhaps that is why not one single person has posted in your support in this thread. You should have just left this one alone and not posted originally. It has shown you in really poor form.
You should have left Mr. McGregor out of things too.
Absolute Nonsense
Your comment is a complete summation of all your posts in this thread, for sure.
This is of course what I usually expect from you Nonsense nothing changes. .
So, are you out of words now and just repeat yourself?
Look, while you may feel smug and arrogant, you've shown yourself as a total idiot with this thread. You should have left it all alone. You received no support from anyone for your views, only derision. You can deny this all you want, but it's all there in print for anyone to read.
Idiot,I have never said or even implied that I prefer FM radio to my audio system. Do you not understand English. what is wrong in repeating what Andrew McGregor of CD review says about BIS that the levels require adjustment. Get Knotted ,if you know what that means.
I knew you would have something cute in response, and in frustration.
I think the above posting from Mr. McGregor has clarified the issue.
If you don't like the BIS recordings, fair enough, just leave all the other stuff out. You should have just left it all alone.
If you had experience with more than a few SACD's, which I doubt from your irrational position, you would realize that many more than BIS require level adjustment. All here have conceded BIS disks need to be turned up. There is no argument about that. But, many others - I mentioned Praga, but also Harmonia Mundi and quite a few others - need to be turned down. So, you are still ignorantly assuming there is only one correct level, which does not square with the facts. So, get ready to give a whole lot more disks away and enlarge your petty vendetta against a lot more labels.
In any case, only a lunatic would raise such an outrageous and repeated fuss - a whole thread's worth of tirades - over a simple thing like having to adjust the playback level. One commentator on the radio mentioned this, and you have gone totally bonkers, hostile even to experienced audiophiles who are only trying to give you a rational perspective based on much more experience than you obviously possess.
Gerald, you are reaching new lows of credibility and sanity. You need serious help. You are quite simply a nut case, childishly vying for attention rather than engaging in rational discussion. But, in the process, you publically embarrass yourself to a degree which is simply mind boggling. Are you not aware of this? Apparently not.
Healthy skepticism, implied by your moniker, is good. But, that is the opposite or what you are. You are an irrational true believer in only a narrow set of arbitrary ideas, which you hold uncritically against any larger perspective. Once again, you have snatched one belief and doggedly denied the wisdom from many others here, whose experience on the matter far exceeds your own.
I have no problem with SACD on Channel Classics,, Chandos, Decca. Exton,EMI,Hyperion, Living Stereo, Linn, Opus3, Pentatone, Philips, Reference Recording,Sony, Telarc, 2L , Naxos when they produced them. Surely more than a few as you wrongly say, only problem I find is with BIS.
Edits: 06/18/12 06/18/12 06/18/12 06/18/12 06/18/12
Disbeliever said: "I admit I know very little re recording technology, however I do know what I hear and that is I find BIS SACD discs out of step with all the other major labels for playback volume levels especially with their claim that they are the only one with uncompressed dynamics So they are right and all the other majors are wrong ? I have not read any CD/ SACD reviews complaining re lack of dynamics from other labels.Good luck to those who have no problem with BIS playback levels. I shall not be buying any more BIS discs which even the BBC say need volume level adjustment."
I know that I have been advised to just let it go, but i cannot have someone quoting me saying something I haven't said.
The logic I will not repeat yet another time is unassailable. Mr. Disbeliever obviously doesn either not understand it, or is disbelieving. I have talked to a number of colleagues that do admit to taking down the very loudest parts in order to get the general (average) level up. I have never said that everyone does it, nor would I ever accuse (if that is the correct word) them of doing so. I just maintain that the logic points in that direction, IF Mr. Disbeliever is correct when he states that all other labels have a louder average level. I have even admitted that in some cases it is possibly preferrable to adjust the levels for easy listening at the consumers' homes. It is a matter of basic honesty with me not to do so, advisable or not, and that's an individual choice, good or bad. It is at least honest that Mr. Disbeliever confesses to knowing "very little" about recordings (surprise, surprise!!), but, if that is so, why doesn't he skip the "Dis" in his moniker and listen to someone that does know a bit or two??
It is almost pathetic that he refers to BBC in almost every post. The situation is VASTLY different with a radio producer, who has to cater to people with perhaps small radios or car radios in an analogue broadcasting system, rather than the audiophile, sitting at home with a decent system. I cater for the latter.
So, to cap: if listening pleasure or ease with the consumer is the main goal, there is no right or wrong. So I certainly don't say that all the others are wrong. However, if the goal is to present what the Artists did, adding or subtracting nothing, then "my way" is the only possible one. As soon as the recording engineer starts twiddling the controls, he is usurping the power of the musicians. Logic, Mr. Disbeliever, logic. try it sometime. It is not that difficult, but infinitely rewarding.
Robert von Bahr robert@bis.se
I, too, am mystified about all of this. I've read reviews and comments that have said "It is recorded at a lower level" and "I had to crank up the volume" like it was an imposition or a recording defect. I'm sure that most have noticed that chamber music is recorded at a higher level than a Mahler symphony. You just have to get useded to setting the volume at an approximate level for the music you are about to listen to. I know that when I put on a BIS recording, the volume control has to start at a higher setting. I believe Telarc is this way, too.
I also try to keep my listening reasonable when family is in the room, so I usually wait until I'm alone to enjoy your new Rite of Spring in its fullest glory!
You must be doing something right in that you're still in business! Just don't expect to please everyone.
No Telarc is not the wrong way only BIS
I would be much more impressed, Mr. Disbeliever (what a moniker...), if you only once actually answered my logical reasoning. If I put the loudest part at the loudest allowed level (zero dB) and let all controls stay untouched during the whole recording, how can my results in dynamic respect be anything but original and therefore true? That you write that "BIS is wrong" is utter drivel, as long as you don't answer the question of what is wrong with my reasoning. If my colleagues claim that they leave the dynamics untouched as well, their dynamics, all things being equal, would be exactly as mine. If they're not, as you claim, logically there follows that they must have tampered with the dynamics. When you point me at the fault in my reasoning, I will start respecting your opinion. For the time being I claim it is opinionated, biassed drivel.
To Fitzcaraldo ("Robert - I agree that classical recordings should be uncompressed, and I follow the logic of what you do in your own recordings. But, it seems a stretch to extend your logic to some of the other fine labels in hi Rez classical recording. It seems you do that by inference rather than by actual knowledge. Or, am I wrong in that assessment?").
This is pure physics, not opinion. Pure logic and nothing else. I am not claiming that we do better recordings than our colleagues, but, if in fact their "average level" is louder than ours (which is another way of describing a smaller dynamics, given that our top level invariably is 0 dB), then the conclusion about dynamics is unavoidable. That I personally happen to know, from talks with leading colleagues in the business, that it is a fairly common occurrence to "smooth out the edges" makes me even more sure, but isn't logically necessary, and, since those "confessions" were made in privatum, I cannot divulge who said so.
You also write "choose an average level". This is not, with us, true. We don't choose any level except the top one. All other levels are set by the Artists and the music they're playing. On the contrary, if any producer "chooses", that is *actively influences*, ANY level, be it average or other, he has necessarily tampered with the dynamics, which latter no longer is original. This conclusion is based on logic and is also linguistic.
I don't mind in the least if people have problems with our original dynamics. It is the only way I can truthfully present and represent the Artists and what they did. But I do mind being called (indirectly) a liar by the "Disbelievers" of this world. It would suffice entirely, if he had written that he is disturbed by the dynamics and/or the sound quality. That's legitimate. To imply that we are actively tampering, e-x-t-e-n-d-i-n-g the dynamics is bollocks, pure and simple. 'nuff said.
Robert
Robert posts regularly over on SACD net but because he's lost his password for this forum, he's asked someone to post this response for him:
"We set the top level. That top level is zero dB. The rest is done by the composition and the artists, NOT US.
Exactly what in this is difficult to understand?
If others in the same repertoire have a "higher average level", then either their artists aren't playing with the same dynamics or - more likely - the recordings are compressed. That's all there is to this "question"."
So all the other labels have got it wrong and BIS is the only correct one !
Disbeliever: IF the repertoire is the same or similar, and IF the artists are equally "dynamic" in their playing, and IF the other labels have a higher "average level", then YES!!!!! Their recording dynamics is tampered with (read: compressed).
This is not a question about whose recording is the best, this is pure physics. We don't interfere in the dynamics of the artists/repertoire, we faithfully reproduce what they produced. The loudest part of the recording is set to zero (allowed top level). The rest is what it was. If you don't like it, too bad.
But I am tired of reading your drivel, Mr. Disbeliever. If you want to go through life listening to what a recording engineer thinks you should like rather than the real thing, yes, do abstain from our products. Easier for both of us.
Robert (von Bahr, bissie, CEO, BIS Records, Sweden)
Mr BIS how many more times do I have to post my drivel that the problem experienced does not exist with all other labels that I know of, you are saying that Channel Classics, Chandos, Pentatone, Sony Hyperion, Decca , LSO Live 2L etc have all got it wrong and you are the only correct one, Get Knotted.
Edits: 06/16/12
Yes, he is correct. And some of the engineers on those other labels should be shot for using compression, IMHO.
Levels on Channel Classics have been very low on some recordings, e.g. Lazic Schubert. Another one that's low is the Mahler 5 on Water Lily Acoustics. Both excellent recordings if one knows how to twist a knob clockwise.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Yes, I am saying that, all other things being equal, if we have the same repertoire, the artists play equally loudly, and there is a difference in the average level, yes, Mr. Disbeliever, they have tampered with the dynamics. If there is a difference in dynamics, and since I KNOW that we haven't changed anything, they must have. Basic logic 1 A. And, since, without naming names, I happen to know that quite a lot of labels do do that, I feel even more justified is stating this - obvious - fact.
I am not putting any real value opinion into this. I can understand that, if an SACD contains one huge crash and the rest is "normal", the temptation is there to diminish the crash, so that the rest will appear to be louder in comparison with it. It is just that I am an absolute, and I have forbidden that practice. However understandable, it is a lie.
If you have this problem with BIS and not with the others, then either they compress, or our Artists play more wildly. There are no other answers.
Robert von Bahr
Interesting,... Mr BIS is accusing all other labels of dishonesty in that they are compressing dynamics and he is the only one that gets it correct. Even Andrew McGregor of BBC CD review says levels on BIS discs have to be adjusted and I find this simply spoils the enjoyment of the music. One example is BIS Romeo & Juliet no enjoyment in listening because the quiet passages get far too low in volume, not easy to know if it is the conductor or the recording engineer who gets it wrong or both for that matter as I suspect in this instance.
Edits: 06/16/12 06/16/12 06/16/12
No, Mr. Disbeliever, I don't find it at all interesting. I find it sad.
Sad that you accuse me of barefaced lying - our recording engineer has NOT tampered with the dynamics, basta! Your repeating it doesn't make it any more truthful, but it does put eggs on your face.
Sad that you cannot follow simple logic on a level of a 10-year old. Last time (I am a born optimist):
If there is a difference in dynamics and therefore the average level, and all other things being equal, and we have NOT tampered with the dynamics, then follows that the others have. QED.
Mind you, I am not making statements about the quality of our recordings vs any other labels'. I am not saying that my view re dynamics objectively is better, and there may very well be some substance to some complaints (especially from someone that has to broadcast on an analogue net). But I AM saying that we want to present the truth, and we DO present the truth, and nothing but, as far as dynamics are concerned. If you don't like it, stay clear.
I would expect to get criticism from people that try to listen to a cheap boombox while showering, or from people who regard classical music as nice background, but in THIS Forum, where people are audiophiles and presumably interested in the correct sound and true dynamics, that feels really odd, and that's putting it mildly. Very mildly. Why do you buy SACD:s, if you don't want the full Monty? mp3 would suit you admirably (we can provide them as well...)
Robert von Bahr
Yes I am certainly taking your very good advice and staying well clear of BIS SACD's giving those few I have to a Charity Shop. , However I will still be buying those I like from all the other labels as they cause no problems, yours IMO are not fit for purpose due to the levels problem not experienced from all the other brands that you say are compressing dynamics.
Edits: 06/16/12 06/16/12 06/16/12
Erm it's no secret that most labels do apply dynamic range compression. It became very fashionable in the last couple of decades. Why did they do it? Maybe to make it easier for radio handle with their dynamic range limitation, or maybe to make an easier licensing deal supplying musak for shopping malls. But this is not what the artist intended and is literally changing the music. It's like changing the artists original sheet music dynamics notations and making everything "pp".
Respect and praise for BIS for not doing this.
"Erm it's no secret that most labels do apply dynamic range compression". This may or may not be true,. I do not buy any more BIS SACD's because I have to constantly adjust the levels which spoils the performance, futhermore it is not always possible to know if it is the recording level that is at fault or the conductor, This annoyance for me does not exist from ALL the other major labels. Even Andrew McGregor of of BBC CD review mentioned BIS levels on Air and then trys to cover it up after getting an email from Bissie.
Edits: 06/30/12 06/30/12 06/30/12 06/30/12 06/30/12 06/30/12
I see on SA-CD.net that Claude says Pentatone & Channel Classics are the best labels, I can well understand why he has omitted BIS.
You write nothing but nonsense.
Further, you write out of context. How typical of you.
I loved your new Gershwin album (see link below), but I'm a multi-channel kind of guy.
Yes, we're working on it. Shouldn't be that long.
Robert
.
BIS has released a well over 100 sacd's. You've made a rather general comment on BIS sacd's. Perhaps you could be a little more specific as to which ones you are referring to.
BIS has been releasing sacd's for 10 years or so and they've all been recorded in 24 bit, other than a few early ones done in dsd, and they've all had the same theoretical dynamic range. Did it take you 10 years to write your post, or did you just come upon this more recently?
Also, why is it that you feel you need to constantly adjust the volume? The obvious assumption is that you find the loud parts too loud and you cannot hear the quiet passages, but is there something else to it for you.
Also, I have a large number of BIS sacd's and have no issue with the dynamic range once I properly adjust the volume at the beginning of the disc. I have found that I have increase the decibel level 2-4 dbs., in comparison to many other discs, to get the best sound. And in the odd instance when I have felt it necessary to make an adjustment I didn't get all bent out of shape like you apparently feel.
I have already posted several times the problem I find with all BIS SACD discs, I much prefer the way Channel Classics & others are recorded, I shall buy no more BIS discs.
Fair enough, then it is all, or is it just all that you own and have listened to. There is a difference!
BIS has chamber recordings, solo piano recordings, and others that are not likely to have the great dynamic range you are complaining about.
Nevertheless, why has it taken you 10 years or so to come to your assesment?
I'm not trying to upset your stubborn grumpy old bastardness, just trying find out which ones you find objectionable.Oh btw, I think you've made a great post praising the dynamic range of BIS sacd's!
Edits: 06/14/12
I only have BIS orchestral recordings, to be sold off SAP and shall buy no more.
If they are as bad as you claim, then you should just give them to your local op shop. Selling them for money is a bit dishonest if you are truthful to your posting.
According to you they are OK . I am going to give them to a local Charity Shop.
Well, yes, I find them okay. Pity that it's not the same for you as I think there are many fine performances on BIS, especially recently.
This thread reminds me that my listening room background noise level goes up dramatically during the summer due to the hum of the air-conditioning unit in my room.The hum masks quieter noises. I did not know that the Oppo BDP-83 had obtrusive fan noise at first because I purchased and began using it during the summer.
Similarly, I moved into the new (listening) room during the summer and was not intially aware of a problem with ground loop hum and the hum of compact flourescent lightbulbs in the room (because these noises were drowned out by air conditioning noise).
I was in for a shock the following fall when the air-conditioning went off and all the spurious noises were revealed.
The ground loop problem was difficult to completely cure but I have been able to reduce the ground loop noise. I solved the humming flourescent bulbs by keeping the lights off during listening sessions.
Moreover, I work around the Oppo's fan (which is really loud in a low noise environment) by letting the player rest and cool down when it comes on. I can use my other players while the Oppo cools.
As for the BIS recordings...I certainly enjoy them more in a low noise environment (quiet passages in BIS recordings were drowned out by air-conditioning noise), but my main concern with BIS recordings is that up until very recently, they were not hi-rez, and as a result have (had) a chalky (think of the sound of chalk on a board), sand-papery quality that I don't hear in true hi-rez recordings (which sound silky and saturated with tone color in a way that most BIS recordings and all low rez PCM recordings do not).
I have noticed an improvement though with the most recent recordings (which sound like true hi-rez), such as the Respighi Pines with the Sao Paolo Philharmonic and the Bruch Concerto recording with Vadim Gluzman. The BIS people have said that all post-2009 recordings are indeed hi-rez. The Audessy spectrograph program could prove this, as can a listening session.
Incidently, Vadim Gluzman on evidence of his BIS Bruch recording turns out to be one of the most amazing violinists that I have heard in years. The passion, the beauty, the singing tone, the searing intensity, the drama that he creates with his stradivarius violin would cause the current crop of babes (Fisher, Benedetti, Jansen etc.) to weep and retire immediately from violin playing (should they ever hear him). Gluzman simply blows everyone else out of the water. His playing reminds me of Menuhin, Heifetz and Perlman in their prime and combined into one man!
Edits: 06/10/12 06/10/12
I recently heard Gluzman with the San Antonio Symphony do the Tchaikovsky. One of the best performances of this old war horses I have ever heard. He has recorded the Tchaikovsky and I highly recommend it
Alan
Thanks for the recommendation. I will have to check out Gluzman's Tchaikovsky recording.
****This thread reminds me that my listening room background noise level goes up dramatically during the summer due to the hum of the air-conditioning unit in my room.****I understand completely. Air conditioning is not required and is a rarity in my area. But I do have the same type of issue. In the winter when the forced air furnace fan sometimes becomes far too audible for some classical music. (Regrettably, I did not anticipate that when I took out the ancient gravity furnace). I have adjusted my music listening in the winter so that I listen to more jazz, R&B, and music with less ultra-quite passages and more classical music the rest of the year.
With respect to Respighi’s "Trilogy", I find the recording to be more than adequate but not "outstanding" and not just because it has one of the wimpiest sounding pipe organs in recent memory. Is that a real pipe organ in the dirge movement of the "Pines"? Come on.
With respect to "dynamic range", BIS recordings don't seem to have more of this coveted characteristic than any other quality recordings. The BIS recordings I own tend to be more of the spectacular "war horse" variety and these compositions, as a group, tend to emphasize dynamic contrasts more than others in the general classical music repertoire. (This does not at all suggest that the BIS inventory leans toward "spectacular war horses").
While on the whole I find my modest collection of BIS recordings to be fine I far more enjoy the sound of Pentatone, Channel Classics, Telarc and others to be audibly and consistently better.
Robert C. Lang
Edits: 06/10/12 06/10/12
Until the Respighi and Bruch discs came my way, I would say that I have overall been disappointed in the sound quality of the BIS SACD recordings in my collection (Beethoven's Symphonies with Vanska, Freddy Kempff's Pictures at an Exhibition, a volume of Mozart Concerti with Brautigaum and a few others).
Robert - I think I agree with you in general about BIS recordings. I find them to be one of the better teams, but I would not give their sound the very highest ratings. Agreed that, once again in general, the results achieved by teams/labels such as Channel, Pentatone, Polyhymnia, Sound Mirror and a number of others are usually superior and remain my favorites sonically. Overall, I would give BIS at least a solid B, though, with some examples better than that. I have no hesitation about buying them.
Having said that, the recent Sibelius/Vanska/Minnesota disk on BIS is part of their new direction in recording at 96/24. I find that disk to be superior to the other BIS recordings I have and, in fact, one of the best orchestral recordings I own. Possibly, that is just the increase in sampling frequency, but I am sure BIS made a number of other engineering changes in the process, which may or may not have been even more significant. In any case, the volume still needs to be turned up to appreciate it, as with all BIS's I am familiar with.
I think an exchange we had a year ago about the BIS "The Sounds of Sibelius" over at SA-CD.net is especially on point in this thread:
Post by Oakland March 29, 2011 (303 of 460)
reply | reply with quote
After a bad stumble out of the starting blocks I now most thoroughly enjoy this disc. For the first work, “Karelia Suite”, which I am very familiar, a substantial underpinning of rhythmic bass is an absolute requisite. But upon first listen I was completely under whelmed by the presentation. I was thinking “where’s the beef”, more specifically where’s the bass?!
I initially thought that this was a 5.1 mix and that perhaps the bass was being redirected to a subwoofer that I don’t have in my 5.0 system. I switched to two channel but the bass was still anemic. And the program notes confirmed that this was, indeed, a 5.0 mix.
As it turns out the fix was utterly simple. Boost the volume!, which I figured out by the second composition, “The Wood-Nymph”; not by much mind you, but just enough for the music to fill in. I had lazily retained the volume level of the previous disc from a previous listening session and had not bothered to make adjustments. The initial volume level “seemed” adequate but wasn’t. I don’t want to give the impression that I had to play “Sound of Sibelius” excessively loud for optimal play back. *Not at all*; the volume required was just moderately loud as with most any Romantic type orchestral composition. It’s only that this disc was probably recorded at a slightly lower level than the previous disc I had listened to. Turning the volume up 3-6 db (my guess) really snapped the music into focus
The frequency range of this disc, top to bottom, is as well balanced as can be asked and the bass is magnificent, neither understated nor overstated. The dynamic range, too, really hits the bulls eye.
The performances are well done. In addition to “Karelia Suite”, I am quite familiar with the “Swan of Tuonela”, “ Valse Trist”, and, of course, “Finlandia”. I enjoyed them all and the “Wood-Nymph” was an eye opener.
Robert C. Lang
Response post by Fitzcaraldo215 March 30, 2011 (307 of 460)
Robert you are entirely correct, and this should have been underscored before. There are no level standards in music recording, though it usually seems labels have a standard house level they use fairly consistently. My limited experience with BIS is that they require at least 3-4 dB higher playback level than, say, Telarcs, Polyhymnias, etc. Other labels go the other way. Pragas seem to require 6 dB of cut relative to those same labels or about 10 dB less than the BIS's I am familiar with. I do not know of other labels that are cut at as low a level as this recording. It's also true of the superb Neschling, Sao Paolo Respighi disk and other BIS's.
It's not a problem, of course, unless you do not make the proper adjustment on playback. And, the most notable impact of this if the level is not set properly is likely to be "anemic" bass, because of the way we hear - Fletcher-Munson, et al. Having a digital volume readout is quite useful in this regard. I now usually know at least where to start searching for the right volume setting before even pushing play as a function of the label.
Robert C. Lang
Surely if you increase the volume at the start of a quiet passage on a BIS disc, the loud bits get too loud and have to be turned down and repeated again again & again, this is why I find BIS discs unacceptable will sell mine and never buy another.Seems the only thing I agree with Fitzcalrado is the superiority of mch high rez over stereo both vinyl & digital.
Edits: 06/12/12
Try this. As I am sure your Sony AVR has a digital volume readout, play a Channel, Telarc, Pentatone, etc. Note the volume setting. Increase that by 4 dB and play a BIS. Tweak the resulting volume as necessary up or down. It should not take much, less than 1 dB, probably, either way. This should get you to a comfort level much more quickly. Make a mental note of the level you liked for the BIS. Use that as the starting point next time you play a BIS. Get fancy and put a sticky label on the case of the disk with your final volume setting if you wish.
This is not guaranteed to work every time, and might only work for orchestral material. As we know, since time immemorial, small ensemble and chamber music usually is recorded at much higher levels by comparison. So, they often need a lower setting than orchestral music. Hence, my caution to you about Praga. Their string quartets, etc. need to be turned down by 6dB, typically, vs. "normal" orchestral music.
Get to know the tendencies of different disks and labels in terms of playback and remember those tendencies to use as a starting point. Yes, the ear is the final arbiter. But, trying to do everything just by ear alone takes time. Use your digital volume readout to get you in the ballpark of the right level. Then, usually, only minor tweaking will be necessary.
It is not as if this is a new game. I have been doing it since way back with my LP's long before digital readouts by remembering volume control position - 9 o'clock, 8, 10, or whatever as a starting point. So, for me, this has been an almost unconscious process that I do instinctively to get maximum enjoyment out of my music.
Yes you are right my Sony AVR does have a digital readout, that I can not see from my seating position, so I use a pair of binoculars, have to be very carefull when switching from disc to tuner which requires much lower volume. I do not have to write down the setting for each disc ,I can still remember the correct dB nos. for many
discs. Basically I agree 4dB more is required for BIS , however I still find I have to adjust more frequently than with any other label.
Edits: 06/12/12 06/12/12
Poor you.
Perhaps the solution to your problem is a preamp with remote volume control. If you can read the settings remotely then you can jot down notes as to the best settings for any particular recording and use these to avoid trial and error when playing a disk multiple times. Getting the best playback volume is absolutely critical to getting good sound. Being within 1 dB of the optimum for each recording is probably the most important system tweak that one can do after getting good speaker and listening positions. There have been audiophile orchestral recordings that some reviewers panned and others praised. IMO it came down to taking the trouble of finding the correct playback volume. (I have in mind the Water Lily Acoustics Mahler 5.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Seems you missed my last post
Adjust the volume for the loudest passages, not quiet passages. Do that and you'll be just fine.
Robert C. Lang
Hi Robert
I have tried your suggestion but still more use of the vc is required than with any other label.
We each get to like the recordings we choose to like for whatever reason. But, I agree completely with Chris from a lot of listening experience with 44 and 48k 24 bit recordings. Sampling frequency is way overrated as a determinant of final sound quality, but bit depth is much more crucial in getting us to hi Rez. I have heard some unreleased masters in 44/24 in the same evening I heard some pure DSD played directly to analog masters. Was either a slam dunk winner? No way. They were fully comparable. Do I think 48k/24 Blu-ray sounds decidedly inferior to SACD, 96 or 192k PCM. Very slightly, perhaps. But, they sound pretty good to me in their own right. Again, hardly a slam dunk. If you did not know what was playing, I seriously doubt you could identify which was which..
By the way, Audyssey is incapable of producing spectrographs of signal. It must have been some other tool. But, I think the ultrasonic noise shaping hump of SACD is sonically of not much consequence. That s the only real aberration in the response curve for SACD.
"I think the ultrasonic noise shaping hump of SACD is sonically of not much consequence."
I agree with you, but it may be system dependent. The ultrasonic noise factor for SACD depends on the noise shaping used in production and the filtering used in playback. Perhaps even more critical is the ability the equipment downstream of the DAC to deal with this high frequency noise.
I am playing Channel Classics DSD downloads through a Mytek Stereo192-DSD DAC into Focal near field monitors, with advertised response to 40 kHz. The Mytek offers three DSD filters, rolling off at 50 kHz (default), 60 kHz and 70 kHz. It took very little time for me to realize that the best sound was to be had with the 70 kHz roll off, presumably because the high frequencies did not bother this system, which has 4 way electronic crossovers. (Don't ask me why I hear this difference. If am in my late 60's and can only just hear sine waves at 14 kHz.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
...but both of the BIS SACD's you cite (Resphigi and Bruch) are 44 kHz/24-bit native recordings. So, whatever it is you are hearing that makes these "hi-rez", it is not due to high sampling frequency. As Chris already pointed out, the higher bit rate adds considerably to the realism of digital recordings. In my world, they are "hi-rez" - they sound terrific.
Regarding BIS's move to 88+ kHz sampling rate, that was done "recently" and there have been only a few SACD's of chamber music released with that native sampling rate (Vol. 12 of the LvB piano music being one example - BIS 1883). However, BIS now seems committed to doing all their new recordings at the higher sampling rate so it won't be long before their release schedule exhausts the last remaining 44 kHz recordings in their pipeline and the flow of 88+ kHz releases continues unabated.
When you say that until recently, BIS reocrdings were not hi-rez, are you yet another listener who's hung up with sampling frequency? I read over at SA-CD.net how horrified some listeners were when it was revealed that some BIS SACD's were recorded at 24/44.1. But then when it came time to identify which recordings were recorded at that resolution and which were recorded at 24/96 (in Vanska's set of Beethoven symphonies), I believe only one listener got it right! This was clearly a case of people listening with their eyes.You do know too that when you double the sampling frequency, you double the resolution, but when you go from 16 bits per sample to 24 bits per sample, you increase the resolution by 256 times, since each bit added doubles the resolution.
Edits: 06/10/12
I am well aware of these facts just as I am equally aware of what my ears tell me. Perhaps the problem is not dynamic range per se but the presence of a digital brickwall filter at half the sampling frequency.I am not picking on BIS as many other labels have produced non hi-rez SACDs.
I think its telling that the publication of Audissey spectrographs was banned at SA-CD.net after they began to be discussed on that site. The record companies seemed terrified that their secrets were out the bag and available for the world to see (in addition to hearing).
Edits: 06/10/12
Agreed that this thread is surreal. Agreed also that BIS tends to use a lower average level than most other producers. But, unlike many here, I do not think this is in any way connected to dynamic range. Robert, bissie, implied that over at sa-cd.net. But, I find that to be false. I do not find the dynamic range of BIS recordings to be any better than that of many other recordings. Nor, do I think that Channel, Pentatone or a host of other excellent recording teams apply any dynamic compression, unlike many producers of rock music. Regardless of whether the recordings were made in DSD or in PCM/24 bit, there is an ample superabundance of dynamic headroom in the recording and playback stages, much more than humans can actually hear, especially in almost all home listening rooms.
It is just about the producers' choices of average level. The notion that there is a "correct" level is simply naive and presumptuous, if not downright moronic. Unlike the movie business where there is one, no standard level has ever been established in the music recording business. It has been that way since time immemorial. Producers are therefore completely free, especially with hi Rez media, to choose whatever average levels they wish, knowing that a simple volume adjustment on playback will bring everything into proper focus. The notion that BIS is wrong and everyone else is right is plain stupid.
I find it true on virtually all recordings that I must tweak the volume setting for optimum playback level that satisfies me. What on earth is the big deal about turning it up somewhat more for a BIS? There is absolutely no downside, no stress on the playback system to turn the volume up a few dB more for a BIS than you do for the others to achieve the same subjectively optimum level. And, I personally find that adjustment to be worthwhile, as there are many excellent sounding recordings in the prolific BIS catalog, in many cases adding unique hi rez Mch repertoire not duplicated on any other label.
Bissie statement of purpose is I think similar to the one stated on all
CIMP recordings (CIMP is a jazz label)
On all their cd's it states the following.
Digital recordings allows for a vanishing low noise floor and great dynamic range. The compression of the dynamic range is what limits the “air” and life of many recordings. Our recording capture the full dynamic range one would experience in live concert. We set our levels so that the maximum signal will not overload the recorder. This means that the average level will always be lower than you are used to.. You will find that if you set your levels to the loudest passages to be reasonably loud the rest will fall into place. You may find passages when the signal is almost inaudible, please resist the temptation to turn the volume up, this is the way it sounded when it was recorded. The quieter your system and the lower the noise floor of your listening room, the more impressive they will be
I am a little confused when they say that the dynamic range limits the "air"
Anyway I never was impressed with CIMP recordings, pretty good yes but nothing extraordinary.
Yes, like bissie's statement, it is hogwash. There is way, way more dynamic range in hi Rez than anyone needs or can hear. Recording at lower average levels by a few dB has essentially no effect on that. Turn up the volume a bit, and it is essentially the same.
Why do they do it?? They surely have more experience about recordings than all of us put together.
If anyone would name two or three BIS recordings that have "excessive" dynamic range if they match some of the ones that I have I will look at them with an editor and look at what is going on. Most of the BIS recordings that I have are 44/24 downloads of the masters, some 88.2/24, prior to conversion to DSD. It would be interesting to compare some of the DDD and ADD or AAD recordings.
Some of the Channel Classics DSD downloads are even "worse" in the sense that the peak levels are low. However, with DSD there is no way to increase the volume over the original recording level without loss of resolution and one wants conservative levels in the first place to minimize the chance of the recording being ruined by overload. Even with PCM there is some loss of resolution in performing volume adjustments during the production process, so once a recording has been made one it is best to leave it "as is" and let the customer make necessary volume adjustments, unless one is selling recordings to idiots. (The exception would be if there are technical flaws in a recording requiring processing, e.g. EQ, in which case one may as well increase the peak levels since there will be no further loss of resolution by doing so if one is using one's tools correctly.)
If your room, neighbors, system or ears are not up to snuff you can always listen to chamber music, some of which was written to be background music and should be performed with limited dynamics.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Dunno. You would have to get bissie to go deeper than the party line about dynamic range. I suspect it might be a carryover from their CD recording days. But, they have a perfect right to do it as they see fit. It's really not a big deal, except, for some reason, some warped people cannot bring themselves to increase the volume and would rather complain about it instead.
In the absense if an exact standard, if every other single label in the business were using just one single average volume setting on every single recording, and BIS were the only outlier, it would be a different story. But, that is not the case. It is true in my experience, though, that BIS is typically recorded somewhat lower in level than most anyone else on SACD by maybe 4 dB or so without actually measuring it precisely. As I said elsewhere, there are other labels where I have to consistently turn them down even more than that to be comfortable. Who is right? Everyone and no one. Only your own ears and trusy volume control can tell you that.
If that is what you are used to doing when you put music on. I do a lot of casual listening so regular amounts of compression are fine but when I am really focused on what I'm listening to I can enjoy a more realistic dynamic range.
I think one of the impediments to wide dynamic range audio is that the quiet moments really require a quiet room. Not much difference from trying to play a good CD on a car audio system - CD's with good dynamic range sound terrible. You can't hear any of the quiet music at all when you are driving.
My challenge with hearing the quieter passages is caused by tinnitus . Therefore I do sometimes increase the volume in order to hear . Also I use hearing aids and I'm grateful I can still enjoy listening to music at all .
I think I have a solution for you..
All you need to do is find yourself an inexpensive Technics Direct Drive TT & see if you can find as many of the RCA Dynagroove LPs as possible . This should definitely solve your problem with having to deal with overly dynamic recordings.
If your posting was a test to see if we could tell you were " pulling our legs " , do I win something ?
Yes like TL you win a prize for posting nonsense. As Jazz 1 says BIS is the only label receiving complaints re sound levels and asks should all labels follow BIS route ?
Edits: 06/10/12 06/10/12
I have over three dozen BIS reocordings and I have had no problem with their dynamic range. Most have good sound, some very good. I suggest you try the Reference Recordings orchestral recordings, especially the Firebird. That should do a good job of toasting your inadequate system.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 06/16/12
I have the BIS SACDs for several of the Vanska/Minnesota performances of Beethoven symphonies. Symphony 9 starts very softly as Beethoven intended. If I have the volume turned up enough to just hear it in my 1300 sq. ft listening room, I am pinned to the back of my chair when the music gets fortissimo. I am certain there is at least that much dynamic range when I hear B9 in the concert hall, but I am MUCH farther from the sound source in a vastly larger space, so the effect is literally not so much in my face. So I suspect BIS has it right, but it's enough of an annoyance that I usually choose a different recording (with better singers!).
So, let me get this straight: you're complaining about the VOLUME LEVEL of BIS SACD's? And that the dynamic range is TOO wide? Surely you jest!
The fact remains that BIS is the only label I know where people find problem with volume and dynamics.
Are we know saying that all the other labels do it wrong?? and that they should follow the BIS route??
and not touch dynamic level. That's what Hi-Rez means as well. SACD format has about 120 db dynamic range according to Sony. Does it mean too much for Hi-Rez inmates?
most speakers, except Hi Eff horns fall into the 80-90 DBmW range. so achieve 120 DB on an 84 DBmW speaker requires two channels amps that can pump out 26900Ws to move that piston enough to go that loud...the most power amps in the big iron range top out around 600W so you are already a bit short on the top... We listen about 6-15 feet from the speakers, so subtract 3 db for every doubling of the distance you could be down 18 db easily form the 120 db max. there you lost 18 on top. let go to the bottom...a good microphone has a noise floor of 20 dB. and may be able to get up to 130 dB on the top. so there you already lost 10 on the bottom, a quiet studie has a noise floor around 30 dB...so you lost 30 there so the practical dynamic range of a good recording made by the best mike of the lodest sound has a reproducible dynamic range of about 84 db...ok leave a little room and you could swing a 90 DB on an exceptional system. A listening room has a higher noise floor than a studio say 35 or 40 db...so another 10 db loss. so the realistic dynamic range that one can reproduce without fiddling with volumes is about 70 to max 80 DB but then you really have to perk up your ears to hear the stuff down there on the bottom through the tinnitus you just acquired listening to the fortissimos :)a solo harp or violin in a large concert hall will be in the neighborhood of 80 db peak a player has to really push it, a piano may be banged up to 90 db a full orchestra at the finale of Wagner's may peak at 120 :) normal sound level of a solo instrument will be around 60 db. the noise floor in a good concert hall is 35-40 db. so making recordings where the dynamic range extends beyond 70 dB is not only hard but almost impractical
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
Edits: 06/12/12
There is absolutely no reason why recordings of acoustic music should have any compression whatsoever. Any decent system should be able to deal with this The biggest problem isn't with the recordings, its with the culture of compressed music and multi-tasking. People should listen to orchestral music with 100 percent of their attention. I used to turn off my refrigerator so as to lower the room noise level.
Fifty years ago I used to wish that the idiot engineers and producers who occasionally compressed recordings would be murdered. Now I see that there are many "music lovers" who are in need of the same treatment.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
not advocating for compression, just stating the realities of recordings, room acoustics, and real dynamic range of music. 70 to 80 db is pretty much all you get on playback, even if your hi res digital chain has a stated S.N of 120 db. Any wider range will make you reach for the volume control to either compensate for room noise or distortion. It would also be interesting to get some real dynamic range numbers for various pieces as they are performed in real environments. Having a very wide dynamic range available to the recording engineer is a good thing, make it possible to make the recording sound as realistic as possible. Pretty certain almost nothing has that wide a dynamic range :). As a practical matter the peaks should be as close to the max signal level as possible thus allowing the quietest passages to be well above the noise flow of the system, and give the quiet passages the maximum possible resolution. Compression is a non linear function therefore is a form of distortion.
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
Reading this thread I do not think that anybody is asking for compressed music. I think that they just find BIS SACD's to be at level that are a little low. I never heard anybody complaining about "Living Stereo" SACD's even if they are probably compressed. The fact is that BIS seems to be the only label that is controversial. I also do not find BIS SACD's to be more dynamic than the other labels. In my opinion they sound less dynamic.
The "Living Stereo" recordings should not be used as a reference to discuss dynamic range. They are great recordings, to be sure, but they show the technical limitations of the era.
The classic RCA "Living Stereo" recordings were made on magnetic tape. Because of limited dynamic range in this pre-Dolby period most of these recordings had fortissimo passages at high levels, which caused the tape to dynamically compress these peaks. In extreme cases, there is tape saturation distortion. This is obvious in the Reiner Mahler 4, for example, where tape distortion is present in every format of this recording that I have, starting with pre-recorded tape and LP. (I don't have the SACD.)
IMO, it is inappropriate to use any analog tape sourced recordings from this era as a benchmark for natural dynamic range. What you hear is not what the musicians played unless you are also hearing a lot of tape hiss, indicating that the engineer preferred noise over distortion and compression. When I was in college I worked at a radio station and used to record Boston Symphony concerts over leased lines live from Symphony Hall and Sanders Theater. The tapes we made (using Ampex full track 601 and 350 recorders) were never equivalent to the live microphone feed because of noise, distortion and dynamic compression. Today, one can achieve a high level of transparency with digital recordings, e.g. with DSD128.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I do not worry about technicalities; I just enjoy what sounds right to me.
And Yes I do have a preference for vintage performances and sound.
Lots of "Living stereo" sounds more exiting to my ears, even with all the warts.
It is like audio gear specs! do they give you an idea of how it will sound?
From my experience; no.
No, there was a big discussion of it in Gramophone about six months ago when several letter writers complained about the same thing, and they weren't talking about BIS but CDs in general.
I have often seen letter writers in Gramophone making the same complaint. "Oh, dear, the quiet passages in my CDs are too quiet. and then it gets too loud. I have to keep turning the volume up and down. Those darn record producers." Then they often go on to say that they don't have that problem with their FM tuners." They like compressed music. Fits in with their mostly small houses, small rooms, and small speakers. They have no conception that wide dynamic range is supposed to be a good thing,
Norwegian 2L has a wide enough dynamic range on both SACD & Blu-Ray, no need to continually adjust the volume once set. I agree early BIS RB CD's were very good, I just do not care for their SACD discs sound levels. No one as far as I am aware complains about lack of dynamic range on well known labels.
Edits: 06/10/12 06/10/12 06/10/12 06/10/12
Complaining about supposedly too much dynamic range!
No, I am complaining about unacceptable engineering for Home listening, if the others can get it correct why not BIS .I can see from various Posts that I am not alone .Thank you.
Edits: 06/10/12
Why don't you just compress your music?
Large DR is a good thing for most of us.
DR Why don,t you just compress your music ? another nonsense post. I have to repeat the problem only exists with BIS , I do not want to have to continually turn the volume up & down during an entire performance. No enjoyment in doing this for me, this is the downside that does not bother Fitzcalrado 215.BIS sounds very good on BBC FM radio 3 CD Review every Saturday morning,,either because they get compressed by the medium yet still sound quite dynamic,but probably the BBC have the technical ability to even out the dynamics, so I am misled into buying the disc and only find the problem when I play it at home. The solution for me No more BIS discs until they engineer them like all other labels which do not have this problem, no one as far as I know complains about lack of dynamics from Channel Classics, Pentatone, Decca, 2L etc.
Edits: 06/10/12
compression of several folders nonsense? It is easy. I think it is you who are making nonsense out of a non audiophile issue.
Perhaps you should go bac to digital radio.
Quite frankly I have no idea as to what you are on about, especially non audiophile issue ? this is an audiophile issue.Never before heard Andrew McGregor presenter of CD Review Building a Library say re BIS once you have adjusted the levels its allright, so even this very experienced presenter & reviewer remarks on BIS sound levels.
Edits: 06/11/12
I think you are pretty much alone on this one, though you might not be the very only one.
Just listened to a Naxos recording of Copland's 3rd symphony. In the beginning of the 3rd movement there is some playing that is so soft you can barely hear it. Then in the 4th movement there are orchestral climaxes that will threaten to destroy your system. I find this absolutely thrilling and mirrors what I heard live a couple of weeks ago when the San Antonio symphony did the Copland 3rd. Give me this type of dynamic range any day
Alan
Chris, you obviously haven't been keeping up. Don't you know that folks spend many, many hours of their lives getting their volume controls set to the exact, proper position? Then they go out and buy a BIS SACD, and they find out that for it to sound good they have to actually change the volume control setting. Those evil bastards at BIS!
As I seemed to be the only one, I shut up...
JB
They are rarely bad, in actual fact I find them pretty good altough I do perfer other recordings such as Channel Classics, Pentatone, Chandos etc.
But I suppose that it is a matter of tastes.
But I have to admit that in the good old RBCD days BIS was hard to beat.
I really do like the sounds of the other brands you mention.
SACD or RBCD, never really like the Bis sound, bar a few exceptions. I actually returned a Bach passion by Suzuki because it was plain awful.
I find Bis totally hifi-ish and absolutely, utterly unnatural. I can't fault their dynamic range, it's their inability to capture a natural tone that bothers me. Give me a good Telarc, Reference Recording of Channel Classics anytime.
As you say, maybe it's a question of taste...
JB
Edits: 06/09/12
Minimal compression is beneficial for home playback systems, most, and that includes some of the better high end systems that I am familiar with, simply can not cope with the dynamics of a symphony orchestra.
That said, I am glad that we have BIS, my only problem with BIS is their choice of orchestras that they record, wish we could hear Vienna Philharmonic uncompressed but that is not going to happen.
On my two channel home system I have come fairly close to reproducing BIS dynamics with minimal compression, the solution is to use power amplification that offers 10 times more power than is needed for the loudest passages and the speakers must be bi-amplified to avoid congestion at louder passages, I have a DIY speakers with dual 15” for the low end and a three way upper end based on older JBL studio monitors, like any speaker the name of the game is compromise, this one with 99-96 dB sensitivity will handle BIS, (our closest neighbor is 250 feet away).
Speakers with variable sensitivity such as B&W’s, (and I do have B&W's) where the real sensitivity drops down dramatically at higher volumes are ideal for BIS as they introduce their own audio signal compression at louder passages making the uncompressed signal somewhat tolerable.
I am primarily into classical, half of all my SACD’s are solo piano, my ultimate BIS test recording is Rachmaninov sonata #2 played by Sudbin, if you think orchestral dynamics are tough try this one at full volume.
Vahe
No compression should ever be used for any classical recording. If the producer wants to limit the dynamic range he should inform the musicians, not the engineers. They can make appropriate adjustments that will preserve their artistry. Engineers will butcher things.
I noticed the absence of speaker compression almost immediately after getting my tri-amplified Focal near field monitors. This correct reproduction of the Fortissimo passages was a huge improvement over any previous sound reproduction that I'd had. Now the limit on playback volume is just my ears. I do have an issue on warm days with fan noise from my computers during pianissimo passages. This wasn't a problem in February, but I will have to fix this before August when the fans rev up to higher RPMs.
I have the Sudbin Rachmaninov in the original (44/24) format. The dynamics are pretty amazing. However, I prefer the Sudbin Scriabin album, same format. Another very nice piano recording I just got is the Lazic Schubert B flat major piano sonata from Channel Classics in a 2 channel DSD download from the Channel Classics web site. Lazic has a very nice piano tone and gets lots of volume out of the instrument without banging on it.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Another BIS piano recording that you should try is Mussorgsky Pictures performed by Freddy Kempf, the last two movements of Pictures are simply scary.
Again, glad we have BIS.
Vahe
Yes and you can download the Sudbin Rachmaninov No 2 in it original unaltered 24/44 format (upconverted for SACD, unfortunately) for all of $4.43 at BIS's eclassical website.
"Minimal compression is beneficial for home playback systems, most, and that includes some of the better high end systems that I am familiar with, simply can not cope with the dynamics of a symphony orchestra.
If this is the case then the system is inadequate for the music being played. A system should reproduce music undistorted at live concert levels, e.g. row 20 in an orchestral hall. If it can't, then complain about the system, not the recordings. With uncompressed acoustic recordings, there is another issue that must be addressed, and that is room noise. Room noise needs to be low enough that it doesn't interfere with listening to quiet passages.
Most of the BIS recordings are good, some very good. They are not often excellent, i.e. audiophile grade, but then most audiophile recordings are made with second rate music and/or musicians and so are useful only for system calibration purposes.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"A system should reproduce music undistorted at live concert levels, e.g. row 20 in an orchestral hall. If it can't, then complain about the system, not the recordings. "
Really was not complaining about BIS, did you by any chance read the rest on my post?
Vahe
Tony Lauck says:
"A system should reproduce music undistorted at live concert levels, e.g. row 20 in an orchestral hall. If it can't, then complain about the system, not the recordings. "
Should all the BIS buyers own a high end system?? If so a warning label should be on the cd cover.
A few of my classical music friends that do have modest system complains about the BIS volume settings.
Should all the BIS buyers own a high end system?? If so a warning label should be on the cd cover.
"
And speaking of warning, Telarc used to place warning labels on their early recordings both vinyl and early RBCD, but this was not audio signal compression related issue, it was primarily to stop woofer blow ups because of their super exaggerated BOOM BOOM bass drums which became Telarc’s signature house sound.
No such problems with BIS, theirs is true high fidelity, do not mess with the signal, you can always blame the orchestras for the dynamic range that they produce or the playback systems that can not cope with it.
And then there is the popularity of vinyl, an entire generation of old timers that got used to the limited dynamics of this antique format and would not accept anything different, even if it happens to be the real thing.
Vahe
BTW, BIS also used to have stickers on their early CD's, with warnings about their wide dynamic range.And if I may weigh in on the home sound pressure levels issue, I've checked my system with a SPL meter, and I do not exceed 90 DB, and yet a have no problem with hearing the softer portions of BIS recordings. This whole discussion just sounds crazy to me - although some posters, such as you, Tony, Fitz, et al, have injected some sanity back into the discussion. ;-)
Edits: 06/10/12
What Tony Lauck says is absolute nonsense ,you cannot reproduce Concert Hall levels in a normal domestic Home environment.
Edits: 06/10/12
"What Tony Lauck says is absolute nonsense ,you cannot reproduce Concert Hall levels in a normal domestic Home environment."
I do this every day for most kinds of classical music from solo piano through Mahler Symphonies. About the only classical music that I can't reproduce at concert levels are organ fundamentals. My near field monitors are rated at a peak SPL of 118 dB at my listening distance.
I listen in a small room, formerly a bedroom. I live alone and there are no neighbors within hundreds of feet most of the time, so I play the music as loud as I like. Volume is constrained only by my desire for the music to sound unamplified and for my ears to remain undamaged.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
and your ears are still OK ??
I tend not to like loud music, especially in a smallish room.
I also do not like live loud music, when going to listen to live classical music I prefer sitting near the back.
Once I measured at what level I was listening to classical orchestral music and the peaks where around 90db at the listening position and this was pretty loud. My speakers are efficient (92db) thus in theory I was only using less than 1 watt of power with the volume control about 50% open.
I do not listen at 118 dB. This figure comes from the manual for my monitors. The manual also includes a warning about possible hearing damage.
I play most recordings at a volume setting about 20 dB lower than what the system is capable of, which means instantaneous peaks just under 100 dB and fortissimo orchestral passages at an average of 85 dB, about the same level you describe. Anything louder for more than a short period will result in hearing loss. However, I know that the system still plays cleanly after increasing the gain by 20 dB from this usual setting, but I have to be in the hallway outside the door at the back of the room at this point.
The confusion comes from the difference between peak power and average power. For a sine wave, this difference is 3 dB. For a typical recording of a symphony orchestra this difference is more like 20 dB. The better the recording the more power will be required to handle peaks. A typical current pop/rock recording will have a ratio below 10 dB, which means that you can destroy your hearing while creating 1/10th the greenhouse gases. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Stvnharr is right, it is their declared intent to retain as full a dynamic range as they can. I find that if I set the quiet passages of big works (Shostakovich for example) to be only just audible, then the range works in my environment and on my system. BIS SACDs are remarkably consistent, and good, considering they use a large number of different engineers. Any new BIS issue is worth considering and I often buy them.
Dave
Nothing wrong with the discs, it's just you.
As Robert has stated, Bis uses no dynamic compression in their recordings.
Your post indicates that you would like some. Guess you'll have to look elsewhere to get that.
Its not only me ,even the BBC have commented on the low volume, no other label that I know of has this annoying nuisance of continually having to adjust volume I shall do my best to avoid BIS recordings in the future.
Edits: 06/09/12 06/09/12
You do not have to adjust the volume at all, if you set it properly to begin with.
You just want to do so.
You often comment on how good your audio system is......
If it is really as good as you suggest, then you should be able to just set the volume properly at the beginning of the disc and let it be.
You can avoid Bis all you want. It is you that will be missing something, not Bis.
What, it's annoying and an inconvenience to turn up the volume control? Also, stay away fro Praga Digitals and others because you will only be annoyed at having to turn the volume down. But, God gave us volume controls for a reason that seems to have escaped you.
I don't have this issue with my Praga Digitals, and to those who are not pleased with the quality of their BIS SACD's all I can say is I sure love mine.
To each each own. I love Praga recordings, I never found a modern BIS SACD that blows me away.
Maybe I am old fashioned but some of the early BIS RBCD's still sound better than the modern SACD's recordings.
My BIS reference is still the old "4 seasons" recorded by Robert himself.
These where the good old days. No volume control problems at all.
The only thing that blows me away is the wind.
And I don't mean all the hot air that passes on audio forums, but the actual wind.
The "blows me away" phrase is just one of those trite overused audio phrases that says absolutely nothing.
You don't like "Blow me away" so OK I'll use another term such as "Knocked my socks off"
Edits: 06/10/12
I tend to not like any of the audiophile terms as they are essentially meaningless, though the users of such tend to think the terms are very much spot on and all the other users of such tend to nod in agreement.
Very transparent of you.
I have the same problems on some of their SACD's (not all of them)
They claim that they are recording in a way to give the listeners the maximum dynamics without any compression. Which is maybe true but to me it can be problematic. The strange thing is that it is not the same on all recordings. Lot's of my friends also have the same problems and actually avoid BIS recordings.
I do not have any problems with any other labels, SACD's or RBCD's
They have been many discussions about it on this board and SA-CD.net
As they say there is no smoke without fire.
There are no standard recording levels in music recording. Yet there is a playback level that sounds right with each recording. Yes, BIS uses a much lower typical level than most other producers, so they are atypical, but usually consistent within the label. But, all is well if you merely turn up the volume control to get a level that sounds right to you. I honestly do not understand the fuss. It is what we have had to do since the LP, not just with BIS, but with many other recordings.
On my system a "typical" setting for Channel, Polyhymnia, Telarc, etc. might be about -12 on my prepro. BIS sounds right at about -8 or -8.5, and they typically require this volume crankup more than just about anyone else. At the other extreme, Pragas might require about -18, and the Melba Bach Organ Sonata Recording about -22 or -23. Your optimums may differ even on a relative basis.
The BISs sound excellent to me if volume is properly adjusted. That is what volume controls are for. But, we really have to do it over quite a wide range on a recording by recording basis. Over time, you get to memorize just where to set things even before pushing play. But, fine tuning may still be necessary.
I find far more adjustment is required with BIS than any other main stream label.. Hardly any adjustment is necessary with Channel,Classics, Pentatone, Telarc Decca, LSO Live, Opus 3 etc once a track starts usually no further adjustment is required on my system, not so with BIS, Currently using the Quad QSP amplifier fed from the pre-out of the Sony DA5400ES receiver(UK version) XA5400ES player sound is excellent with SACD, RBCD FM radio.
Edits: 06/09/12 06/09/12
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: