Carlos Kleiber Beethoven 24/96 Studio Master vs 24/88.2 download

[acousticsguru]

I'm currently doing listening tests comparing USB and FireWire converters, cables, HDs, player softwares, internal vs external clocking, upsampling etc. in an effort to add satisfactory computer playback to my existing setup. In doing so, I've been, among other, downloading music I own on red-book CDs, one of them Carlos Kleiber's legendary DG recording of Beethoven's 5th and 7th Symphonies.

 

Must admit I realized too late what I bought, and that I'd never compared these two downloads if I'd read into what they consist of earlier. As it says most clearly in the SACD release's liner notes, the analogue master was transferred to 24/96 PCM, in other words, what's on the DSD layer was upsampled from 96 kS/s (non-integer, one might add). The commercially 24/88.2 download is an integer downsampling of the upsampled DSD. The 24/96 original is also commercially available as the so-called "Studio Master" download.

 

To make this short, I compared them on my current reference setup (MBP into Weiss AFI1 via FireWire, single wire AES into a dCS Delius DAC direct or Dual AES via a dCS Purcell Upsampler, in which case everything gets upsampled to 24/192 - all clocked externally by an Antelope Isochrone Trinity clock, which as an aside is what really makes all the difference apart from the fact that Purcell upsampling will improve the SQ of either download). The difference between the two downloads is anything but subtle.

 

The 24/96 Studio Master download is preferable in every respect, in particular low end extension, palpability, body, timbre, detail resolution, spatiality, atmosphere, sheer forcefulness and punch, as well as, quite simply, the sense of being there. The 88.2 download, which doesn't sound bad by and in itself, comes across as anemic in direct comparison.

 

OK, enough of my rambling… Maybe this will be of use to prospective buyers. The recording is a must-have, regardless of the format, I mean literally, it would improve the quality of one's life to listen to it as MP3 than not at all.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[ted_b]

Makes perfect sense. Always buy that which is closest to the master. Where is the 24/96 original available from? Are you absolutely sure the 24/96 is the real deal?

[acousticsguru]

Makes perfect sense. Always buy that which is closest to the master. Where is the 24/96 original available from? Are you absolutely sure the 24/96 is the real deal?

 

Actually, all sources with the exception of one appear to have the 24/96 "Studio Master". The lowest price I've found was here:

 

Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 5 & 7 | Ludwig van Beethoven par Interprètes Divers - Télécharger et écouter l'album

 

Needless to say, I can't say if these sources get their "Studio Master" downloads from the labels direct as they claim, or if they're merely smarter and ripped theirs from the long out-of-print DVD-A. By the way, if you own either the SACD or its rip, have a look at the liner notes - ironic that the provider of the 88.2 download does not appear to have read them...

 

In the meantime, I've also compared both rips to the DG Originals redbook CD (including downsampling them to 16/44.1 using the dCS Purcell - after all, it's not unlikely the dCS 972 was used in the process at the time, and except for the Purcell's better housing and Dual AES capability, they're identical) - the similarity of the respective sonic imprint, at least to me, would be enough to tell the story: yes, I firmly believe the so-called "Studio Master" is the real deal (or as close as we're likely to get).

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[CatManDo]

As far as I know, the Universal Classics 24/96 downloads available on HDtracks and Qobuz are from the transfers the Emil Berliner Studios made before 2004, in a big project to archive all the Deutsche Grammophon, Decca and Philips masters. At that time they also made demos to show the lack of difference between hi-rez PCM and DSD (see quote below)

 

The 24/96 remastered CDs released in the last 10 years come from these transfers, as well as the Universal Japan SACDs released some time ago. (The latest Universal Japan SHM-SACDs are made from new DSD transfers of the original tapes)

 

I bought two of the 24/96 downloads (Mahler 8/Solti, Carmina Burana/Jochum) and was underwhelmed by the improvement over previous CD masterings. They sounded very much alike. DR value was also identical.

 

2002/2003 Much ado about nothing: The experts and parts of the Hi-Fi/High End scene are at cross purposes over the new recording format DSD, on which the Super Audio CD is based, and possible advantages of this format in comparison to PCM, as it is used for CD and (in its high-resolution variety) for DVD-Audio, the rival format of SACD. Whereas the discussion is marred by the use of unsuitable comparisons and untenable marketing slogans, EBS really undertakes to compare the formats. They are the first (and perhaps the only) team worldwide to do so. During the recording of Mahler´s 2nd Symphony (Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Gilbert Kaplan, released on Deutsche Grammophon CD 474 380-2, SACD 477 594-2) in the Musikvereinssaal, Vienna, the whole recording sequence is carried out by using both PCM and DSD technology following the microphone. To exclude sound variations by different A/D converters, the team uses special converters capable of dealing with both formats. The result of the subsequent listening comparisons by double-blind test is as straight-forward as sobering: There is no difference whatsoever.

EMIL BERLINER STUDIOS | About us | Chronicle

[acousticsguru]

As far as I know, the Universal Classics 24/96 downloads available on HDtracks and Qobuz are from the transfers the Emil Berliner Studios made before 2004, in a big project to archive all the Deutsche Grammophon, Decca and Philips masters. At that time they also made demos to show the lack of difference between hi-rez PCM and DSD (see quote below)

 

The 24/96 remastered CDs released in the last 10 years come from these transfers, as well as the Universal Japan SACDs released some time ago. (The latest Universal Japan SHM-SACDs are made from new DSD transfers of the original tapes)

 

I bought two of the 24/96 downloads (Mahler 8/Solti, Carmina Burana/Jochum) and was underwhelmed by the improvement over previous CD masterings. They sounded very much alike. DR value was also identical.

 

 

EMIL BERLINER STUDIOS | About us | Chronicle

 

How could there be a DR difference? The DVD-A, the "DG Originals" CD and the SACD (see liner notes among other) are all based on the same 24/96 PCM master. But that is the point: why get any other download than precisely that 24/96 master?

 

The remainder is irrelevant: of course they made their own comparisons at the time. But this is one legendary analogue recording they apparently never digitized in anything "better" - no matter how you slice it, it won't get any better unless we team up, break into DG's archive vault, and show the world how to make a better HiRes-remastering (which by definition is always possible - but beside the point).

 

Also, have you compared the Mahler and Orff to the Decca "Legends" and DG "Originals" CDs, respectively? To reiterate, how could the DR be different? Those CD appear to have been downsampled from the 24/96 masters we now get (surprise, surprise…) to buy as "Studio Master" downloads.

 

This is the whole point of the matter: there aren't any new remasterings. Not since they've made those 24/96 PCMs. Even the Japanese SACD releases are based on an additional batch of 24/96 PCM remasterings done in 2011. There do not appear to be any DSD remasterings.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[ted_b]

As far as I know, the Universal Classics 24/96 downloads available on HDtracks

 

Which ones are those? The Kleiber discussed here is a 24/88 download at HDtracks, and that math is usually a flag for DSD-to-PCM rip, which, as David pointed out, would be a 24/96 to DSD to 24/88 copy. Argh!

[CatManDo]

The CDs could have been more compressed, that's why I compared the DR values.

 

The latest Universal Japan SHM-SACDs claim to be new DSD transfers from the analogue tapes, made by Classic Sound in London, at least as far as the Decca recordings are concerned (Classic Sound was founded by former Decca engineers)

[acousticsguru]

Which ones are those? The Kleiber discussed here is a 24/88 download at HDtracks, and that math is usually a flag for DSD-to-PCM rip, which, as David pointed out, would be a 24/96 to DSD to 24/88 copy. Argh!

 

Thanks goodness there are people out there with the ability to be short, sweet and to the point (= where's that "blush" emoticon button when one needs it…?)! And I second: AAARGH!!

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[acousticsguru]

The CDs could have been more compressed, that's why I compared the DR values.

 

The latest Universal Japan SHM-SACDs claim to be new DSD transfers from the analogue tapes, made by Classic Sound in London, at least as far as the Decca recordings are concerned (Classic Sound was founded by former Decca engineers)

 

What's irritating is that it - again - says "Emil Berliner 2011" remasterings… Any DRM comparisons on those (initial 2010 as well as later batches)? Reaching the point where I want proof before I buy anything more…

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[acousticsguru]

The CDs could have been more compressed, that's why I compared the DR values.

 

The latest Universal Japan SHM-SACDs claim to be new DSD transfers from the analogue tapes, made by Classic Sound in London, at least as far as the Decca recordings are concerned (Classic Sound was founded by former Decca engineers)

 

Have you read this:

 

EMI Remasters Its Classical Catalog for SACD | Stereophile.com

 

Quote (emphasis mine):

 

"You're frankly not going to hear that much difference between the two, because some of the recordings are pretty vintage. In that sense, the improvement we've got in these versions, as opposed to previous CD versions, is in making the initial analog-to-digital conversion. And we've chosen to do that in the PCM domain. We did it at 96kHz/24-bits, clearly because it's almost impossible for us to remaster and use our remastering processes in the DSD format. We can only work in the PCM format. So we produce a finished, remastered 96kHz/24-bit file, and then that gets transferred into DSD format to author the SACD. Some people will say that's pointless, that's not true SACD. Well, I'm not going to argue. It's the way we do it, and we do it for valid reasons."

 

If you go through their list of equipment used, you'll understand why they "can't"…

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[CatManDo]

That concerns the EMI reissues. Abbey Road Studios have a rather heavy-handed restoration process, which requires PCM processing. There is a 25min video on Youtube where engineer Simon Gibson explains what he does.

 

 

They even go so far as playing the processed PCM transfer through a DAC, applying some EQ with a vintage analogue equalizer, and then digitize it again.

 

Tape --> A/D conversion 24/96 --> digital editing/processing --> D/A conversion --> analogue EQ --> A/D conversion 24/96 --> DSD conversion --> SACD mastering

 

They developped that procedure for the 1940's Furtwängler recordings, which due to their age required some digital cleaning. They kept it then for the newer recordings, which sound much better. I doubt this is the only way to do it.

 

Audiophile labels have a different approach, they just play back the tape and record it to DSD (for SACD release). There is no reason classical labels couldn't do the same. Pentatone RQR or RCA Living Stereo SACDs were mastered that way.

[acousticsguru]

That concerns the EMI reissues. Abbey Road Studios have a rather heavy-handed restoration process, which requires PCM processing. There is a 25min video on Youtube where engineer Simon Gibson explains what he does.

 

 

They even go so far as playing the processed PCM transfer through a DAC, applying some EQ with a vintage analogue equalizer, and then digitize it again.

 

Tape --> A/D conversion 24/96 --> digital editing/processing --> D/A conversion --> analogue EQ --> A/D conversion 24/96 --> DSD conversion --> SACD mastering

 

They developped that procedure for the 1940's Furtwängler recordings, which due to their age required some digital cleaning. They kept it then for the newer recordings, which sound much better. I doubt this is the only way to do it.

 

Audiophile labels have a different approach, they just play back the tape and record it to DSD (for SACD release). There is no reason classical labels couldn't do the same. Pentatone RQR or RCA Living Stereo SACDs were mastered that way.

 

Sorry, preparing dinner and typing at the same time. I realize Universal isn't EMI. I should really have added this: I'd MUCH rather have someone who knows what they're doing remaster the whole classical music back catalogue to 24/96 PCM than someone who doesn't have a clue (nor ears, or both) use the Holy Trinity's own equipment...

 

Which brings me to the question: do you find (all) the RCA LSC DSD remasterings wholly satisfactory?

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[acousticsguru]

Audiophile labels have a different approach, they just play back the tape and record it to DSD (for SACD release).

 

I have reliable insider information that no such thing exists: what one really needs is the original tape recorder, the original azimuth alignment, and a highly gifted Ampex/Studer tweaker.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[EuroChamp]

Dear David,

 

thank you very much for clearing up the situation in this particular download. As a great admirer of Carlos Kleiber I will definately buy the 24/96 at linnrecords.com

 

I am a little bit sad now that I have to pay twice for the same album in the supposed identical high definition quality. But of course I never questioned that the 24/88 was a DSD > PCM transfer.

 

Have a nice evening,

Bernhard

[acousticsguru]

Dear David,

 

thank you very much for clearing up the situation in this particular download. As a great admirer of Carlos Kleiber I will definately buy the 24/96 at linnrecords.com

 

I am a little bit sad now that I have to pay twice for the same album in the supposed identical high definition quality. But of course I never questioned that the 24/88 was a DSD > PCM transfer.

 

Have a nice evening,

Bernhard

 

Welcome to the club! It's ironic that as an audiophile one spends so much hard-earned money over the years, but that the equivalent of a Gin & Tonic or two (depending on where one is at) can still make one fuming mad or at least wish there would be a money-back guarantee acquiring a blatantly nonsensical product…

 

By the way, makes me wonder, is this only the second time you buy a copy of Carlos Kleiber's Beethoven 5th & 7th in some format or other? If so, you must be very, very young indeed…

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

[Bob Stern]

Because the master tapes are deteriorating, newer remasterings may not be better.

[CatManDo]

I don't think that's a relevant factor here.

 

The Kleiber recordings are from the 1970's, and the DG studio equipment/archiving was always state of the art,so the tapes should be in good shape.

 

When tapes deterioted, it is either because storage/handling was not good (happens with small labels occasionally) or when there was a specific problem with the tape material used, making the tapes deteriorate expectantly fast

 

In any event, there was no new transfer of the Kleiber tapes after the one's made 10 years ago. There can of course be a new remastering made from the previous transfer.

[EuroChamp]

Hi David!

 

I'm in the 'club' for some decades now, but not always interested in Beethoven.

 

You can not justify a bad deal with the argument, that is was not really expensive in absolute terms. You don't want to know, what I spent for some thousand albums. :-)

 

What makes me wonder, where does hdtracks get their stuff from - from DG? The ones sell a 24/88 version, which comes from a DSD>PCM conversion, others offer the 24/96 version.

We all know that most of the SACDs out there have their origin in the PCM format. They only exist, because they wanted to force the SACD sales-volume. Why does hdtracks and others offer these HD albums in DSD>PCM24/88 and not in the 24/96 - direct from the studios? I do NOT say that it is hdtracks fault.

And now, newest gimmick are some DSD/A converters. These devices encourage the well-known download-sites to force DSD again. I'm not sure if we 'clubmembers' really need this in fact new format. Maybe they can sound very well. But their primary goal is $$$. Don't get me wrong, I am pro best SQ, we all are. The vinyl comeback is a similar story, primary goal here is copy protection. Try to route the signal from the turnable to an A/D converter an back again D/A and then compare both outputs. You will realize, PCM can sound astonishing analog.

But back to topic, we should search for the best format for each particular album.

... and now it is 24/96 for Kleibers interpretation of Beethovens symphony. :-)

 

Greetings from Austria, Bernhard

[Boris75]

Welcome to the club! It's ironic that as an audiophile one spends so much hard-earned money over the years, but that the equivalent of a Gin & Tonic or two (depending on where one is at) can still make one fuming mad or at least wish there would be a money-back guarantee acquiring a blatantly nonsensical product…

 

I felt exactly the same as you two weeks ago: in the end, it is music, not sound, I am after, which left me wondering why I had spent so much on gear and whether it might not make sense to spend more on music instead. But I wanted to check that I was right and calculated the purchase cost of my record collection: to my great surprise I found out that it is higher than the cost of my gear. I had convinced myself that I had spent more on gear because pieces of hardware are big-ticket items, but when I did the maths I realised that buying record after record cost me more money. My upshot is that it is even more important to be conscious of the price of records than to be conscious of the price of equipment. I am now double-checking the online download stores before purchasing to make sure that I do not overpay.

[firedog]

This one seem especially odd. HDT used the SACD/DSD source when a better PCM source was available, and other labels licensed it.

 

Not really blaming HDT - they probably didn't even know what they had - but they seem to be lacking in initiative to offer the 88k conversion when it was possible to get the 96k.

[Synfreak]

Has anyone even checked if the 96/24 version (LINN, HighResAudio ...) is NOT derived from the SACD (as the HDTracks 88,2/24 download)?

[EuroChamp]

No, not at the moment. But I will buy it.

The LINN version will be correct. Don't think about Linn upsampling the 88kHz to a 96kHz file - that would be the definite jackpot! ;-)

[dl2]

I have the SACD disk, the sacd layer source is 96/24 PCM, but my rip is 1bit/2,8 Mhz

[ted_b]

I have the SACD disk, the sacd layer source is 96/24 PCM, but my rip is 1bit/2,8Mhz

 

Of course, so is mine. The point is that the SACD is derived from 24/96 PCM, so it's better to find the original PCM (surround content notwithstanding). This argument is just like in 99% of BIS's SACDs (9 of his catalog are DSD-recorded) the majority of the BIS SACD catalog are 24 bit recordings, and Robert has made them (the PCM originals) available on the eclassical website. Way better to hear 24/44.1k original than the DSD transfer (theoretically..of course if your DAC has a sweetspot at DSD or some other sample rate so be it). My Meitner is a true 1 bit DAC, but the original 24/44.1k's sound better than the DSD, in all likelihood cuz one less conversion step. Duh! Net/net, go for the originals.

[dl2]

Of course, so is mine. The point is that the SACD is derived from 24/96 PCM, so it's better to find the original PCM (surround content notwithstanding).

 

all sacd's, - even the dsd recordings is mastered as pcm( also some dxd recordings used for few sacd disks is 24/352,8 khz, so is 24 bit not 1 bit )

anyway, the 1bit sound is different from pcm in our gears.