Beethoven: Symphony Nos. 5 and 7 - Pittsburgh

[jhwalker]

Any thoughts on this new release?

 

https://referencerecordings.nativedsd.com/albums/FR718SACD-beethoven-symphony-no-5-and-no-7?mc_cid=320b62b29c&mc_eid=9baeb2fb31

 

 

According to the notes, it was recorded and edited in DXD, but NativeDSD claims it sounds "better" in DSD (particularly the higher-rate options, presumably DSD256 or DSD128).

 

I have the capability to play any of these, and my normal practice is to try to download only the original, if possible, but being tempted by the "better" DSD version LOL

 

Anyone else?

[mansr]

According to the notes, it was recorded and edited in DXD, but NativeDSD claims it sounds "better" in DSD (particularly the higher-rate options, presumably DSD256 or DSD128).

 

I have the capability to play any of these, and my normal practice is to try to download only the original, if possible, but being tempted by the "better" DSD version LOL

 

Anyone else?

 

If you get the original DXD, you can always convert it yourself to any format you want.

[jhwalker]

If you get the original DXD, you can always convert it yourself to any format you want.

 

That's true, of course . . . but who knows if I have access to the "special sauce" that makes the NativeDSD conversion sound so good?

 

I think that's what I'll do, though - rubs me the wrong way to purposely buy something that is divergent from the original "master".

 

I'm traveling (so on a slow connection), but will let everyone know what I think when I finally get the files.

[mansr]

That's true, of course . . . but who knows if I have access to the "special sauce" that makes the NativeDSD conversion sound so good?

 

Indeed, you don't know what converter they used (probably something you can't afford). However, you can get a good converter cheaply or for free if you don't already have one. From what I've seen, AudioGate is probably best avoided. JRiver and Aui Converter do a better job, to name a couple. DSD encoding is not rocket science, and you don't need to pay the price of Pyramix or Saracon to get the state of the art.

[rodaguilera]

I enjoyed their Bruckner Symphony No. 4. Will pass this one as i have tons of Beethoven's symphonies cycles! But i think i would download it in DSD64 as i think it's most convenient to my DAC but usually i would go with the native DXD file.

[jhwalker]

I got the DXD version and just finished listening to it - it's definitely a sonic spectacular, as have been the first three recordings in this series!

 

While I could have wished for a bit more gravity in the 5th (it's a bit faster and less weighty than other versions I like), I'm still very pleased with the purchase.

[tailspn]

That's true, of course . . . but who knows if I have access to the "special sauce" that makes the NativeDSD conversion sound so good?

 

I think that's what I'll do, though - rubs me the wrong way to purposely buy something that is divergent from the original "master".

 

Glad you're enjoying it! The DXD edited master was converted to the three DSD bit rates using Pyramix, the same program that created the DSD64 cutting master used to create the SACD.

 

On the systems that have tried this, and other DXD mix versions of both DXD and DSD recorded projects, all agreed the 256fs was more realistic and natural sounding, compared to the DXD original edit master. There's enough interest in this listening experiment that NativeDSD is working a method of providing a two-for-one for anyone purchasing the DXD and any bit rate of the DSD. It requires some site coding that could not be accomplished by the newsletter date.

 

Send me a PM John, and the DSD bit rate you desire, and i'll send you a download link.

[mansr]

Glad you're enjoying it! The DXD edited master was converted to the three DSD bit rates using Pyramix, the same program that created the DSD64 cutting master used to create the SACD.

 

On the systems that have tried this, and other DXD mix versions of both DXD and DSD recorded projects, all agreed the 256fs was more realistic and natural sounding, compared to the DXD original edit master. There's enough interest in this listening experiment that NativeDSD is working a method of providing a two-for-one for anyone purchasing the DXD and any bit rate of the DSD.

 

I suspect such a difference might be more down to how the two formats are handled by your DAC than to any magic imbued by the conversion to DSD. With another DAC, the preference may be the opposite, so the two-for-one offer is great.

 

Consider a hypothetical DAC that runs the Pyramix DSD encoder internally. The two files ought to sound exactly the same there.

[tailspn]

I agree about the DAC's complete contribution to the effect, for there is certainly no increase in information in the DSD derivatives.

 

IMO, it how the different format data streams are processed in each DAC. However, what's more interesting is how an original DSD session file sounds compared to it's DXD conversion, with nothing done to it other than the conversion. In this case, there is information loss in the DSD to DXD conversion. To eliminate as many inaccuracies as possible, you need something like a Pyramix, that when listening supports the switching from a DSD project to a DXD within a second or two. Otherwise, you're left with your memories of which sounds what way.

 

Regardless, we've put up free examples of DXD session files and their DXD conversions in the Just Listen folder on NativeDSD.

[mansr]

I agree about the DAC's complete contribution to the effect, for there is certainly no increase in information in the DSD derivatives.

 

IMO, it how the different format data streams are processed in each DAC. However, what's more interesting is how an original DSD session file sounds compared to it's DXD conversion, with nothing done to it other than the conversion. In this case, there is information loss in the DSD to DXD conversion. To eliminate as many inaccuracies as possible, you need something like a Pyramix, that when listening supports the switching from a DSD project to a DXD within a second or two. Otherwise, you're left with your memories of which sounds what way.

 

Regardless, we've put up free examples of DXD session files and their DXD conversions in the Just Listen folder on NativeDSD.

 

The free samples are, if I understand correctly, recorded in DSD whereas the Beethoven mentioned here (according to the OP) was recorded in DXD. That might make format comparisons difficult or meaningless to relate between the two recordings.

[tailspn]

Yes, entirely different issue. I mentioned it just in passing, not as a comparison from one recording project to another. But in all cases, on my Merging system, regardless of the original recording format, the DSD playout sounds more natural than the PCM/DXD, and a greater difference if recorded in DSD. Especially the higher bit rates.

[barrows]

Yes, entirely different issue. I mentioned it just in passing, not as a comparison from one recording project to another. But in all cases, on my Merging system, regardless of the original recording format, the DSD playout sounds more natural than the PCM/DXD, and a greater difference if recorded in DSD. Especially the higher bit rates.

 

This is all really cool to consider, thanks to Native DSD for allowing all of these conversions and listening tests. The Merging hardware is all using ESS DACs, right? If so, I would expect the DSD to have a slight sonic edge, as the ESS DACs seem to sound better on DSD than PCM to me. But the differences do get closer, at least in my system, when feeding the ESS 352.8 PCM, as the ESS does quite a bit less processing to 8x PCM rates.

[jhwalker]

Glad you're enjoying it! The DXD edited master was converted to the three DSD bit rates using Pyramix, the same program that created the DSD64 cutting master used to create the SACD.

 

On the systems that have tried this, and other DXD mix versions of both DXD and DSD recorded projects, all agreed the 256fs was more realistic and natural sounding, compared to the DXD original edit master. There's enough interest in this listening experiment that NativeDSD is working a method of providing a two-for-one for anyone purchasing the DXD and any bit rate of the DSD. It requires some site coding that could not be accomplished by the newsletter date.

 

Send me a PM John, and the DSD bit rate you desire, and i'll send you a download link.

 

Thanks, tailspn!

 

I downloaded the DSD256 version this afternoon and gave it a listen vs. the DXD and DXD converted to DSD256 via HQPlayer this evening. First impressions:

 

 

• DXD - Sounds as if I'm standing just in front of the stage, very close to the conductor (can hear him grunting and breathing throughout). Initiation of tones is very sharp; e.g., the rasp of bow on strings, the blattiness of the brasses, etc., is very clearly preserved. Very exciting sound.
  
• DSD256 download - While it sounds very much the same (of course) I feel as if I were a few rows back in the hall now. Transients are not *quite* so sharp and, while I can still hear the noises the conductor makes, they are not so prominent. I also feel as if I hear more the ambience of the hall. In sum, it sounds closer to what a real performance sounds like in a real hall.
  
• DSD256 conversion via HQPlayer - Much as I would like to say otherwise, it sounds very close to the DXD version - certainly closer to that than the DSD download. It maintains a good deal of the DXD excitement, while rounding off the edges *just* a bit.
  

 

I'll emphasize this is what I heard with *my* equipment (since I'm mobile right now, it's USB from my MacBook Pro direct to iFi Micro iDSD, which supports both DXD and DSD256 natively), you mileage may vary.

 

Again, a very fine performance and recording. Having now listened to it several times over the past couple of days, it's growing on me

[tailspn]

Any thoughts on this new release?

 

https://referencerecordings.nativedsd.com/albums/FR718SACD-beethoven-symphony-no-5-and-no-7?mc_cid=320b62b29c&mc_eid=9baeb2fb31

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22205[/ATTACH]

 

According to the notes, it was recorded and edited in DXD, but NativeDSD claims it sounds "better" in DSD (particularly the higher-rate options, presumably DSD256 or DSD128).

 

I spoke with Mark Donahue of Soundmirror last evening, the recording engineer of all the Pittsburgh Symphony Reference Recordings PSO releases. He said all but the very first PSO Reference Recordings Fresh series were recorded at DSD256, and post processed in DXD. The very first, not yet released, was recorded in DSD64 using a Genex recorder.

[craighartley]

I spoke with Mark Donahue of Soundmirror last evening, the recording engineer of all the Pittsburgh Symphony Reference Recordings PSO releases. He said all but the very first PSO Reference Recordings Fresh series were recorded at DSD256, and post processed in DXD. The very first, not yet released, was recorded in DSD64 using a Genex recorder.

 

Oh! That's not quite how they're presented on NativeDSD is it?

"Based on our long experience of recording the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra in Heinz Hall, we chose five omnidirectional DPA 4006 microphones as our main microphone array. Supplementing those with “spot mics” to clarify the detail of the orchestration, we worked toward realizing the above goals. Extensive listening sessions with Maestro Honeck and orchestra musicians were crucial in refining the final balance. This recording was made and post produced in 64fs DSD on a Pyramix workstation to give you, the listener, the highest sound quality possible."

[tailspn]

Oh! That's not quite how they're presented on NativeDSD is it?

"Based on our long experience of recording the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra in Heinz Hall,"

 

Hi Craig,

 

Yes, that "about the recording" note is from the SACD booklet accompanying all releases to date in the Reference Recording Fresh! PSO series. It was written, and never updated after their first recording, recorded on a Genex GX9048 at DSD64, prior to the Horus Pyramix software supporting DSD. Mark stated that all subsequent PSO recordings were recorded on their Horus(s) at DSD256, and mixed and balanced in DXD. It's the DXD edited master offered at NativeDSD, along with the three DSD conversions.

[Boris75]

Will pass this one as i have tons of Beethoven's symphonies cycles!

 

+1

[craighartley]

Hi Craig,

 

Yes, that "about the recording" note is from the SACD booklet accompanying all releases to date in the Reference Recording Fresh! PSO series. It was written, and never updated after their first recording, recorded on a Genex GX9048 at DSD64, prior to the Horus Pyramix software supporting DSD. Mark stated that all subsequent PSO recordings were recorded on their Horus(s) at DSD256, and mixed and balanced in DXD. It's the DXD edited master offered at NativeDSD, along with the three DSD conversions.

 

Hi Tom,

 

Thanks for explaining. Will the DXD edited masters (or DSD256 conversions) of the other Pittsburgh albums (the ones so far available in DSD64) be forthcoming on NativeDSD? Maybe with some sort of retrospective 'combi' deal for those innocents who have already bought them all at DSD64?!

 

Best

Craig

[tailspn]

Hi Tom,

 

Thanks for explaining. Will the DXD edited masters (or DSD256 conversions) of the other Pittsburgh albums (the ones so far available in DSD64) be forthcoming on NativeDSD?

 

At this time we have only the DXD edited masters for the Reference Recordings Fresh! PSO Beethoven 5 & 7 (recorded in DSD256), and Utah Symphony Mahler 1 (recorded in DXD). If we can obtain the DXD edited masters for the remaining released Strauss, Dvorak & Janacek, and Bruckner, we will add these plus make the DSD128 and DSD256 conversions. We'll also add the DSD128 and DSD256 of the Utah Symphony Mahler 1 this week.

 

Yes, like the combi deal we currently have for all stereo plus surround releases, we'll offer both the DSD and DXD for a combination price of approximately 120% either. For anyone who has already purchased the DSD64 of these Reference Recordings and contacts NativeDSD, we'll send the desired available DXD or DSD bit rate free of charge, if we can obtain the DXD edited masters.

 

In speaking with the folks at Soundmirror, there are a number of projects ready to be released by Reference Recordings, and many more planned.

[Russell_L]

On the systems that have tried this, and other DXD mix versions of both DXD and DSD recorded projects, all agreed the 256fs was more realistic and natural sounding, compared to the DXD original edit master.

 

Interesting that the engineers at Northstar Recording (who do many of Challenge Classics' recordings) have also come to the same conclusion:

 

What is High Resolution Audio? | The Spirit of Turtle

 

I also downloaded the DXD version of the Beethoven 5/7 (feeling exactly the same way about original formats as John Walker does) but have only listened to #5 via headphones thus far. Sounded great to me, albeit perhaps a tad too close-up for my tastes. Interpretively, it's quite a wild ride (this is far, far from a routine, run-of-the-mill Beethoven 5th, that's for sure!!!), but ultimately falls a bit short of the greatest performances.

 

Russell

[craighartley]

At this time we have only the DXD edited masters for the Reference Recordings Fresh! PSO Beethoven 5 & 7 (recorded in DSD256), and Utah Symphony Mahler 1 (recorded in DXD). If we can obtain the DXD edited masters for the remaining released Strauss, Dvorak & Janacek, and Bruckner, we will add these plus make the DSD128 and DSD256 conversions. We'll also add the DSD128 and DSD256 of the Utah Symphony Mahler 1 this week.

 

Yes, like the combi deal we currently have for all stereo plus surround releases, we'll offer both the DSD and DXD for a combination price of approximately 120% either. For anyone who has already purchased the DSD64 of these Reference Recordings and contacts NativeDSD, we'll send the desired available DXD or DSD bit rate free of charge, if we can obtain the DXD edited masters.

 

In speaking with the folks at Soundmirror, there are a number of projects ready to be released by Reference Recordings, and many more planned.

 

Thanks Tom. That's typically helpful, thoughtful and informative. Fingers crossed you can get the DXD masters.

[barrows]

DL the DSD 128 right now, DSD 256 seems overkill to me, and the file size starts getting kinda crazy.

 

I suspect those with good R2R DACs to prefer the DXD, any MSB or Resolution Audio owners out there comparing?

[tailspn]

Interesting that the engineers at Northstar Recording (who do many of Challenge Classics' recordings) have also come to the same conclusion:

 

What is High Resolution Audio? | The Spirit of Turtle

 

Yes, and with Pyramix's new Album Publishing feature, which Bert van der Wolf of Northstar contributed his experience to Merging to create, multiple formats are so time efficient to produce. You simply load a DXD or DSD edited master and timing file to the timeline, select the output formats and rates desired, along with the destination folders, and click Start. Depending on the number of formats desired, it's a few minuets to well under an hour, and they're completed, named, and include metadata. Now the primary cost of offering multiple formats and sample or bit rates is storage and distribution costs for a download site.

[chrille]

Yes, and with Pyramix's new Album Publishing feature, which Bert van der Wolf of Northstar contributed his experience to Merging to create, multiple formats are so time efficient to produce. You simply load a DXD or DSD edited master and timing file to the timeline, select the output formats and rates desired, along with the destination folders, and click Start. Depending on the number of formats desired, it's a few minuets to well under an hour, and they're completed, named, and include metadata. Now the primary cost of offering multiple formats and sample or bit rates is storage and distribution costs for a download site.

 

Hello Tom it sounds exciting that they have more albums coming. But I am a bit confused regarding this release which was recorded in DSD 256, you say and edited in DXD ? And you got the DXD from them which you then converted back to DSD?

Why did they record it in DSD 256 edit and deliver to you as DXD masterfile instead of DSD 256?

I was under the impression that only edits were done in DXD on a DSD recording?

There seems to be a lot of unneccessary? converting done the the native? DSD 256 recording.

Why didn't they give you access to the actual master with this album and the others in this series?

Mark Donahue has stated that they record in DSD 256 since quite a while, hasn't he?

I won't be able to download it anyway for quite while because I will be on slow wifi connections here in Asia for months more.

How can lost information result in better SQ?

Sweetening ,softening yes. But better more accurate, truer to how it sounded live at sessions really?

Cheers Chris /Chrille in Sri Lanka

[tailspn]

Hi Chris,

 

There are two processes and schools of thought when it comes to high resolution acoustic music audio recording. One is to do a multi mic mix and balance in an analog mixing desk, and record/track that result, the other is to record/track individually all the microphones at their optimum signal to noise level, then mix and balance them in post production. When employing the latter, the currently available technology Digital Audio Workstations (DAW) only support mixing and balancing (which of course is over the full project length) in PCM. In Pyramix's case, that's 352,8KHz 24 bit (DXD)

 

The advantage of working from the inevitable DXD edited master, if the mixing and balancing in post are performed (as it is in the vast majority of multi-miced acoustic music recordings), is the conversion to other than DXD delivery products requires one less conversion remodulation. Each of the DSD delivery bit rates requires only one DXD > DSD conversion, rather than the usual DXD edit master >DSD edit master > DSD delivery bit rate chosen product.

 

Recording in DSD256, rather than DXD is largely an academic and production consideration choice with Pyramix and Hours. In either instance, the actual A/D conversion is operating at the same clock rate. The choice is where the DSD > DXD conversion is taking place; offline in post, or within the A/D converter system. The advantage of DXD recording is more microphone channels can be accommodated by Pyramix. The advantage of DSD256 recording is the original DSD session files are available for potential use if DSD mixing and balance, as well as other post requirements like EQ should become available in future DAW's. In either case of DSD or DXD recording, A DXD edited master is the first generation of any Pyramix post process mastering, when mixing and balance are performed in Post.

 

Chris, you are correct that a DSD recording mixed and balanced in analog prior to A/D conversion has only the edit crossfade intervals in DSD > DXD > DSD conversions.

 

To your question of how can lost information result in better SQ, it can't. But different formats (DSD/PCM) sound different on different DAC's. Therefore we offer the earliest generation possible of each.