Sinopoli Mahler cycle remastered
Ludwig
Gerard
> Now with AMSI
Is that any advantage?
As far as I've heard Eloquence DG recordings, it was an disadvantage.
Bob Harper
what those complaining object to. Any idea?
Bob Harper
Fugue
Mr. Mike
<fromgoogle....@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>http://www.amazon.de/dp/B003LQSHBO/
No bargain for shipping at 14 euros (this is default shipping rate to
North America for CDs!).
Gerard
Artificial sound, artificially "ambient" - compared to other remasterings:
inferior sound.
Steve de Mena
The TOTAL cost is EUR 32,45 ($39.62) and you're whining??
It always amazes me when people whine about shipping costs and ignore
the big picture. When Amazon US has this for $50 or more with "FREE
SUPER SAVER SHIPPING" they'll think they are getting a better deal.
Steve
AN
My understanding is AMSI issues are encoded for surround sound
listening via Prologic II which may make listening in stereo less
satisfactory as you may get the synthesised rear ambience added to the
front. I do have the Beethoven/Gulda box and no complaints.
Ward Hardman - why lobotomy is still legal in the USA
> On 6/3/10 7:13 PM, Mr. Mike wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:29:35 -0700 (PDT), Ludwig
>
> >>http://www.amazon.de/dp/B003LQSHBO/
>
> > No bargain for shipping at 14 euros (this is default shipping rate to
> > North America for CDs!).
>
> The TOTAL cost is EUR 32,45 ($39.62) and you're whining??
>
> It always amazes me when people whine about shipping costs and ignore
> the big picture. When Amazon US has this for $50 or more with "FREE
> SUPER SAVER SHIPPING" they'll think they are getting a better deal.
>
> Steve
You don't mind a bit of whining yourself though, eh, Demeanour?
M forever
There is no "whining" in that statement. He just pointed out that the
total cost is still very low, even with 14 Euro shipping.
M forever
> If they were remastered in multi-channel SACD, then I'd be interested!
How could they effectively "remaster" this in true multi-channel SACD
when the microphones during the recording sessions were set up for a
stereo recording? Yes, maybe they put some ambience mics in the room
and added them to the final mix (although the church they made these
recordings in, or at least most of them, is already quite reverberant
as it is), but the microphone layout probably was not made with a
format in mind that didn't even exist at the time. But even if that
was possible, the recordings sound pretty good as they are, and I
don't think the effort and time involved in really "remastering" them
is not something that would be worth investing for a re-release in a
budget box, especially not in these times.
Gerard
> On Jun 3, 7:25 pm, Fugue <48fug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If they were remastered in multi-channel SACD, then I'd be
> > interested!
>
> How could they effectively "remaster" this in true multi-channel SACD
> when the microphones during the recording sessions were set up for a
> stereo recording?
Where they?
>
> Yes, maybe they put some ambience mics in the room
> and added them to the final mix (although the church they made these
> recordings in, or at least most of them, is already quite reverberant
> as it is), but the microphone layout probably was not made with a
> format in mind that didn't even exist at the time.
Did multi-channel not exist at the time? How come that PentaTone has been
issuing mult-channel recordings made even at the time before?
> But even if that
> was possible, the recordings sound pretty good as they are, and I
> don't think the effort and time involved in really "remastering" them
> is not something that would be worth investing for a re-release in a
> budget box, especially not in these times.
If "AMSI" has been applied on these recordings, then something has been changed
"in these times".
mark
> M forever wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 7:25 pm, Fugue <48fug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If they were remastered in multi-channel SACD, then I'd be
> > > interested!
>
> > How could they effectively "remaster" this in true multi-channel SACD
> > when the microphones during the recording sessions were set up for a
> > stereo recording?
>
> Where they?
>
>
>
> > Yes, maybe they put some ambience mics in the room
> > and added them to the final mix (although the church they made these
> > recordings in, or at least most of them, is already quite reverberant
> > as it is), but the microphone layout probably was not made with a
> > format in mind that didn't even exist at the time.
>
> Did multi-channel not exist at the time? How come that PentaTone has been
> issuing mult-channel recordings made even at the time before?
>
I think you're right here.
Back in 1976 or so, I attended the sessions for the Cleveland
Orchestra recording of Porgy and Bess. The Decca team used a 48-
microphone set-up, with 16 "trees" each holding 3 mics. Some were
directional, some not. The 16 trees were placed all over the stage at
Masonic Auditorium. Some were in front of the orchestra, some were
used to spotlight instruments, some were in the hall in front of the
orchestra, some were behind the orchestra.
The Decca team recorded this on 16-track tape and had the ability on
the spot to mix down to 4-track or 2-track for playback.
I'd imagine that they could go back to that 16-track tape today and
produce a pretty good surround sound release.
M forever
> M forever wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 7:25 pm, Fugue <48fug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If they were remastered in multi-channel SACD, then I'd be
> > > interested!
>
> > How could they effectively "remaster" this in true multi-channel SACD
> > when the microphones during the recording sessions were set up for a
> > stereo recording?
>
> Where they?
Very likely. They were definitely not set up with SACD multi-channel
in mind as that format didn't even exist back then.
> > Yes, maybe they put some ambience mics in the room
> > and added them to the final mix (although the church they made these
> > recordings in, or at least most of them, is already quite reverberant
> > as it is), but the microphone layout probably was not made with a
> > format in mind that didn't even exist at the time.
>
> Did multi-channel not exist at the time? How come that PentaTone has been
> issuing mult-channel recordings made even at the time before?
Multi-channel formats have existed since the late 30s, there have been
many, many different kinds of formats. But that doesn't mean that all
"multi-channel" is the same.
> > But even if that
> > was possible, the recordings sound pretty good as they are, and I
> > don't think the effort and time involved in really "remastering" them
> > is not something that would be worth investing for a re-release in a
> > budget box, especially not in these times.
>
> If "AMSI" has been applied on these recordings, then something has been changed
> "in these times".
Just running the recordings through that processing involves very
little work. Even you could do that. That's not "remastering" the
recordings from scratch.
M forever
Possibly. But doing that would take a lot of time and work and would
be pretty costly. A lot of these "surround" "remasterings" are just
processing steps in which the finished recording is run through an
encoder which derives the "surround" information based on the phase
relationships of the signal contents. I am sure you know what I mean.
How far back in the hall were the ambience mics?
mark
IIRC, the singers for the recording were placed behind the orchestra
on the stage. The orchestra was placed on the floor of the auditorium
- quite a few rows of seats had been removed to accommodate the
seating of the orchestra. I believe a few ambiance mics were
positioned in the balcony of the theater. I also remember large canvas
tarps being strategically placed over seats to manipulate the reverb
to the liking of the Decca engineers.
A lot of ingenuity went into working effectively in that "naturally
great place to record."
And, yes, were Decca to decide to make this into a surround job today,
they would just dump the stereo tracks into a computer program and
accept whatever came out.
Gerard
> On Jun 4, 4:47 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen @hotmail.com> wrote:
> > M forever wrote:
> > > On Jun 3, 7:25 pm, Fugue <48fug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > If they were remastered in multi-channel SACD, then I'd be
> > > > interested!
> >
> > > How could they effectively "remaster" this in true multi-channel
> > > SACD when the microphones during the recording sessions were set
> > > up for a stereo recording?
> >
> > Where they?
>
> Very likely. They were definitely not set up with SACD multi-channel
> in mind as that format didn't even exist back then.
"set up with SACD multi-channel in mind" is not what I wrote.
There have been other multi-channel formats (like quadro). Those recordings were
not simply "set up for a stereo recording".
>
> > > Yes, maybe they put some ambience mics in the room
> > > and added them to the final mix (although the church they made
> > > these recordings in, or at least most of them, is already quite
> > > reverberant as it is), but the microphone layout probably was not
> > > made with a format in mind that didn't even exist at the time.
> >
> > Did multi-channel not exist at the time? How come that PentaTone
> > has been issuing mult-channel recordings made even at the time
> > before?
>
> Multi-channel formats have existed since the late 30s, there have been
> many, many different kinds of formats. But that doesn't mean that all
> "multi-channel" is the same.
Nobody said so. But if it was multi-channel, it was multi-channel.
>
> > > But even if that
> > > was possible, the recordings sound pretty good as they are, and I
> > > don't think the effort and time involved in really "remastering"
> > > them is not something that would be worth investing for a
> > > re-release in a budget box, especially not in these times.
> >
> > If "AMSI" has been applied on these recordings, then something has
> > been changed "in these times".
>
> Just running the recordings through that processing involves very
> little work. Even you could do that. That's not "remastering" the
> recordings from scratch.
Again: nobody said so.
M forever
> M forever wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 4:47 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen @hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > M forever wrote:
> > > > On Jun 3, 7:25 pm, Fugue <48fug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > If they were remastered in multi-channel SACD, then I'd be
> > > > > interested!
>
> > > > How could they effectively "remaster" this in true multi-channel
> > > > SACD when the microphones during the recording sessions were set
> > > > up for a stereo recording?
>
> > > Where they?
>
> > Very likely. They were definitely not set up with SACD multi-channel
> > in mind as that format didn't even exist back then.
>
> "set up with SACD multi-channel in mind" is not what I wrote.
> There have been other multi-channel formats (like quadro). Those recordings were
> not simply "set up for a stereo recording".
Yes, they were. DG did definitely not make them with "quadro" in mind.
> > > > Yes, maybe they put some ambience mics in the room
> > > > and added them to the final mix (although the church they made
> > > > these recordings in, or at least most of them, is already quite
> > > > reverberant as it is), but the microphone layout probably was not
> > > > made with a format in mind that didn't even exist at the time.
>
> > > Did multi-channel not exist at the time? How come that PentaTone
> > > has been issuing mult-channel recordings made even at the time
> > > before?
>
> > Multi-channel formats have existed since the late 30s, there have been
> > many, many different kinds of formats. But that doesn't mean that all
> > "multi-channel" is the same.
>
> Nobody said so. But if it was multi-channel, it was multi-channel.
Not all multi-channel is the same.
> > > > But even if that
> > > > was possible, the recordings sound pretty good as they are, and I
> > > > don't think the effort and time involved in really "remastering"
> > > > them is not something that would be worth investing for a
> > > > re-release in a budget box, especially not in these times.
>
> > > If "AMSI" has been applied on these recordings, then something has
> > > been changed "in these times".
>
> > Just running the recordings through that processing involves very
> > little work. Even you could do that. That's not "remastering" the
> > recordings from scratch.
>
> Again: nobody said so.
Yes, you said so.
Steve de Mena
> M forever wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 7:25 pm, Fugue<48fug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If they were remastered in multi-channel SACD, then I'd be
>>> interested!
>>
>> How could they effectively "remaster" this in true multi-channel SACD
>> when the microphones during the recording sessions were set up for a
>> stereo recording?
>
> Where they?
>
>>
>> Yes, maybe they put some ambience mics in the room
>> and added them to the final mix (although the church they made these
>> recordings in, or at least most of them, is already quite reverberant
>> as it is), but the microphone layout probably was not made with a
>> format in mind that didn't even exist at the time.
>
> Did multi-channel not exist at the time? How come that PentaTone has been
> issuing mult-channel recordings made even at the time before?
PentaTone was able to do this because Philips was experimenting with
Quadro recordings (and quite extensively).
I don't know what the common "workflow" is with the major labels, if
they commonly record multi-track and create a stereo mix, or if they
just record to two tracks during the sessions. And what bitrate was
common (24bit/96Khz?) That would tell us if it was feasible for them
to issue a true multi-channel SACD. I think we can probably assume
that we are not going to get a complete Mahler cycle remixed from
multi-tracks to SACD for $20 or so. And there is not enough market to
do it in a cost effective manner.
Steve
Steve de Mena
The difference being that the PentaTone Philips Quadro recoridngs were
engineered at the original sessions with the idea of 4-channel
release, so they really used this effectively in some recoridngs, i.e.
Mahler 8th with Haitink.
Steve
M forever
Unless we get the greatest living expert in the music industry to
"remaster" these recordings and "liberate the music from the audio".
Or you can just do that yourself with any basic audio editor. Just
lower the level enough and then play around with the EQ until it
sounds really shitty. Of course, you won't be able to reach the same
levl of genius Ansermetniac operates on. Nobody can.
Fugue
ambient mics and were using more than two channels, then they could do
what Pentatone is doing.
Gerard
That was actually the question.
If DG did not record it that way, fine.
But in that time (and before) recordings have been made that way, even if M
fever does not agree with that idea.
Gerard
> On Jun 4, 5:39 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > M forever wrote:
> > > On Jun 4, 4:47 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen @hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > M forever wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 3, 7:25 pm, Fugue <48fug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > If they were remastered in multi-channel SACD, then I'd be
> > > > > > interested!
> >
> > > > > How could they effectively "remaster" this in true
> > > > > multi-channel SACD when the microphones during the recording
> > > > > sessions were set up for a stereo recording?
> >
> > > > Where they?
> >
> > > Very likely. They were definitely not set up with SACD
> > > multi-channel in mind as that format didn't even exist back then.
> >
> > "set up with SACD multi-channel in mind" is not what I wrote.
> > There have been other multi-channel formats (like quadro). Those
> > recordings were not simply "set up for a stereo recording".
>
> Yes, they were. DG did definitely not make them with "quadro" in mind.
That was actually the question.
If DG did not record it that way, fine.
But in that time (and before) recordings have been made that way, even if you
don't agree with that idea.
>
> > > > > Yes, maybe they put some ambience mics in the room
> > > > > and added them to the final mix (although the church they made
> > > > > these recordings in, or at least most of them, is already
> > > > > quite reverberant as it is), but the microphone layout
> > > > > probably was not made with a format in mind that didn't even
> > > > > exist at the time.
> >
> > > > Did multi-channel not exist at the time? How come that PentaTone
> > > > has been issuing mult-channel recordings made even at the time
> > > > before?
> >
> > > Multi-channel formats have existed since the late 30s, there have
> > > been many, many different kinds of formats. But that doesn't mean
> > > that all "multi-channel" is the same.
> >
> > Nobody said so. But if it was multi-channel, it was multi-channel.
>
> Not all multi-channel is the same.
Nobody said so.
>
> > > > > But even if that
> > > > > was possible, the recordings sound pretty good as they are,
> > > > > and I don't think the effort and time involved in really
> > > > > "remastering" them is not something that would be worth
> > > > > investing for a re-release in a budget box, especially not in
> > > > > these times.
> >
> > > > If "AMSI" has been applied on these recordings, then something
> > > > has been changed "in these times".
> >
> > > Just running the recordings through that processing involves very
> > > little work. Even you could do that. That's not "remastering" the
> > > recordings from scratch.
> >
> > Again: nobody said so.
>
> Yes, you said so.
Nobody said so.
Gerard
> On 6/4/10 1:47 PM, Gerard wrote:
> > M forever wrote:
> > > On Jun 3, 7:25 pm, Fugue<48fug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > If they were remastered in multi-channel SACD, then I'd be
> > > > interested!
> > >
> > > How could they effectively "remaster" this in true multi-channel
> > > SACD when the microphones during the recording sessions were set
> > > up for a stereo recording?
> >
> > Where they?
> >
> > >
> > > Yes, maybe they put some ambience mics in the room
> > > and added them to the final mix (although the church they made
> > > these recordings in, or at least most of them, is already quite
> > > reverberant as it is), but the microphone layout probably was not
> > > made with a format in mind that didn't even exist at the time.
> >
> > Did multi-channel not exist at the time? How come that PentaTone
> > has been issuing mult-channel recordings made even at the time
> > before?
>
> PentaTone was able to do this because Philips was experimenting with
> Quadro recordings (and quite extensively).
Sure. But in theory it could have been the case that DG did such a thing too, in
that time.
>
> I don't know what the common "workflow" is with the major labels, if
> they commonly record multi-track and create a stereo mix, or if they
> just record to two tracks during the sessions. And what bitrate was
> common (24bit/96Khz?) That would tell us if it was feasible for them
> to issue a true multi-channel SACD.
AFAIK PentaTone uses analog quadro recordings.
>
> I think we can probably assume
> that we are not going to get a complete Mahler cycle remixed from
> multi-tracks to SACD for $20 or so. And there is not enough market to
> do it in a cost effective manner.
>
Of course not. The whole set is labelled as "AMSI" - wich is an artificial thing
that sounds artificially.
I have no idea why DG is issuing this - they easily could have reissued the
previously existing box set without any alterations.
Steve de Mena
Again, PentaTone isn't "doing" anything. They are issuing Philips own
"Quadro" four-channel masters on SACD. (4.0 - no Center Channel or
sub-woofer channel).
PentaTone also issues their own modern-day 5.1 SACDs, which I don't
think anyone here was referring to (probably because no one buys them? HA)
I was thinking about the Sinopoli recordings after I posted what I
did...and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of big budget sessions from
the last 10-25 years have been recorded with the eye to releasing in
multi-channel at some point in the future. Just a possibility.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> Steve de Mena wrote:
>> On 6/4/10 1:47 PM, Gerard wrote:
>>> M forever wrote:
>>>> On Jun 3, 7:25 pm, Fugue<48fug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> If they were remastered in multi-channel SACD, then I'd be
>>>>> interested!
>>>>
>>>> How could they effectively "remaster" this in true multi-channel
>>>> SACD when the microphones during the recording sessions were set
>>>> up for a stereo recording?
>>>
>>> Where they?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, maybe they put some ambience mics in the room
>>>> and added them to the final mix (although the church they made
>>>> these recordings in, or at least most of them, is already quite
>>>> reverberant as it is), but the microphone layout probably was not
>>>> made with a format in mind that didn't even exist at the time.
>>>
>>> Did multi-channel not exist at the time? How come that PentaTone
>>> has been issuing mult-channel recordings made even at the time
>>> before?
>>
>> PentaTone was able to do this because Philips was experimenting with
>> Quadro recordings (and quite extensively).
>
> Sure. But in theory it could have been the case that DG did such a thing too, in
> that time.
I think we would have heard about this by now. Sure, it's possible.
But I don't think it is some secret someone would take to their grave.
>
>>
>> I don't know what the common "workflow" is with the major labels, if
>> they commonly record multi-track and create a stereo mix, or if they
>> just record to two tracks during the sessions. And what bitrate was
>> common (24bit/96Khz?) That would tell us if it was feasible for them
>> to issue a true multi-channel SACD.
>
> AFAIK PentaTone uses analog quadro recordings.
>
>>
>> I think we can probably assume
>> that we are not going to get a complete Mahler cycle remixed from
>> multi-tracks to SACD for $20 or so. And there is not enough market to
>> do it in a cost effective manner.
>>
>
> Of course not. The whole set is labelled as "AMSI" - wich is an artificial thing
> that sounds artificially.
> I have no idea why DG is issuing this - they easily could have reissued the
> previously existing box set without any alterations.
I actually have a number of the same titles in AMSI and non-AMSI
variations, I should do an A/B of some of them sometime.
Steve
herman
Marriner and the AStMiF, and the first thing I noticed was that it
really takes some effort to engage with music, and part of this was
the soundstage is as flat as a sheet of paper. These recordings were
originally made in the early seventies, a good era for wonderful
sound.
Bob Harper
(snip)
> I actually have a number of the same titles in AMSI and non-AMSI
> variations, I should do an A/B of some of them sometime.
>
> Steve
A report on that A/B would be most helpful, even (or especially) if it
winds up making nonsense of some of the speculation in this thread.
Bob Harper
Gerard
>
> I actually have a number of the same titles in AMSI and non-AMSI
> variations, I should do an A/B of some of them sometime.
>
> Steve
I don't have much both in a "normal" issue *and* in an AMSI version.
I remember a few Beethoven overtures with Karajan - there is an Eloquence AMSI
CD with those, and there are different other CDs with one of two overtures as
filler.
IMO the AMSI versions were inferior: a vague, not-clear, not-direct sound image.
No improvement over the non-AMSI versions.
However, I didn't hear the Sinopoli Mahler set in the Eloquence reissue. So I
cannot say how much AMSIfied this is. Or what could be "bettered" to the
original issue. These were digital recordings AFAIK.
Hurwitz writes about "strange sonics (often too reverberant with peculiar
balances)"
( http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=6125 )
If they are really too reverberant, AMSIfication will do no good at all.
Gerard
Some will always say that any difference "heard" is a placebo effect, because
they hear it differently.
M forever
I think that depends a lot on the label and also where and with whom
they made the recording. Decca for instance indeed made a lot of
really nice recordings in the in the early 70s (and indeed in any
other era) but at the same time, they also made those really nasty
sounding harsh, screechy recordings in Chicago. Similarly, DG produced
some bad sounding stuff in Berlin with Karajan, but many of the
recordings they made in Vienna in the 70s sound very good.
M forever
> Steve de Mena wrote:
>
> > I actually have a number of the same titles in AMSI and non-AMSI
> > variations, I should do an A/B of some of them sometime.
>
> > Steve
>
> I don't have much both in a "normal" issue *and* in an AMSI version.
> I remember a few Beethoven overtures with Karajan - there is an Eloquence AMSI
> CD with those,
Are you sure that CD is "AMSI"? Not all Eloquence releases were.
Gerard
You could have seen that yourself if you had looked at the sites the OP
mentioned (URL's in the first post of this thread).
MiNe 109
<68615a4e-e700-4bfd...@a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:09 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksenþ@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Steve de Mena wrote:
> >
> > > I actually have a number of the same titles in AMSI and non-AMSI
> > > variations, I should do an A/B of some of them sometime.
> >
> > > Steve
> >
> > I don't have much both in a "normal" issue *and* in an AMSI version.
> > I remember a few Beethoven overtures with Karajan - there is an Eloquence
> > AMSI
> > CD with those,
>
> Are you sure that CD is "AMSI"? Not all Eloquence releases were.
<http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/yellowlounge/comment-main.htms?LOUNGE=
5&TOPIC=2601>
A poster on this DGG forum refers to the "Karajan Beethoven overtures
AMSI CD" as having "very poor sonics".
There's also a post from the remastering studio:
AMSI I (Ambient Surround Imaging) has been developed in order to convert
stereo masters/material to (Dolby-Prologic) surround compatible formats.
A Dolby-Prologic Decoder is required for simulating the surround effect.
Such decoders are available in most of the standard amplifiers, as it is
in yours.
A computer-based process uses phase-shifts in the stereo material, which
results in a surround effect for the back loudspeaker channel as well as
for the centre channel.
By means of different specific processes the effect is even improved.
The best possible tuning of the Prologic amplifiers can be achieved with
disabling the additional DSP effects as "stadium", "theatre", etc. Only
this makes sure that the listener has the same conditions as in a
mastering or postproduction studio.
As the successor process we have developed AMSI II:.
AMSI II is a process that depicts stereo audio material into 5.1
Surround Sound, ready for storage on DVD Audio, DVD Video or SACD.
And we have found, for instance, that AMSI II and DVD Video make an
ideal pair: we add the AMSI II-processed Surround version (Dolby AC3
and/or DTS) to the original stereo sound track of DVD Videos.
--
Ideally AMSI shouldn't affect the stereo signal at all, but if the
surround information has been dubbed onto the original stereo wouldn't
that mess up the Prologic decoding as well?
It's also possible I'm misunderstanding the context, the question at
hand and the technical issues!
Stephen
M forever
What are you talking about? I asked if you were sure that Karajan CD
you mentioned was AMSI.
M forever
> In article
> <68615a4e-e700-4bfd-ab23-561c2eaab...@a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 9:09 am, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksenþ@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Steve de Mena wrote:
>
> > > > I actually have a number of the same titles in AMSI and non-AMSI
> > > > variations, I should do an A/B of some of them sometime.
>
> > > > Steve
>
> > > I don't have much both in a "normal" issue *and* in an AMSI version.
> > > I remember a few Beethoven overtures with Karajan - there is an Eloquence
> > > AMSI
> > > CD with those,
>
> > Are you sure that CD is "AMSI"? Not all Eloquence releases were.
>
> <http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/yellowlounge/comment-main.htms?LOUNGE=
> 5&TOPIC=2601>
>
> A poster on this DGG forum refers to the "Karajan Beethoven overtures
> AMSI CD" as having "very poor sonics".
True, and that confims that the CD was indeed AMSI, but he also goes
on to say: "but the DG Galleria set does, too" so that statement
doesn't really tells us much about the quality compared to the non-
AMSI release.
Well, I don't quite understand your last question. Can you rephrase
that?
herman
>
> I think that depends a lot on the label and also where and with whom
> they made the recording. Decca for instance indeed made a lot of
> really nice recordings in the in the early 70s (and indeed in any
> other era) but at the same time, they also made those really nasty
> sounding harsh, screechy recordings in Chicago. Similarly, DG produced
> some bad sounding stuff in Berlin with Karajan, but many of the
> recordings they made in Vienna in the 70s sound very good.
Obviously these Brendel / Marriner Mozart ctos were recorded by
Philips Classics. They only pasted the Decca label on it to mess with
Tepper's mind.
M forever
LOL! Yes, you are right. Those were originally on Philips. Actually
Philips seem to have had more reliably consistet sound quality than
Decca or DG. There were some that I found were a little on the
distant, reverberant side (like some of their recordings made in the
new Gewandhaus), but not really "bad", and generally, Philips had that
somewhat smoothened sound quality - bot overall, I can't really think
of anything produced by Philips that was as bad as Decca's Solti sound
and DG's Karajan sound, among others.
herman
It looks like there is a tendency in the reports to talk about a
rather flat and dead sound to these AMSIzed recordings - which no
doubt sound great if put them thru a surround system if you are
foolish enough to have one.
Gerard
Of course it was. It still is.
MiNe 109
<2860967f-3e77-4dab...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > AMSI I (Ambient Surround Imaging) has been developed in order to convert
> > stereo masters/material to (Dolby-Prologic) surround compatible formats.
> > A Dolby-Prologic Decoder is required for simulating the surround effect.
> > Such decoders are available in most of the standard amplifiers, as it is
> > in yours.
> >
> > A computer-based process uses phase-shifts in the stereo material, which
> > results in a surround effect for the back loudspeaker channel as well as
> > for the centre channel.
> > By means of different specific processes the effect is even improved.
> > ...
> > --
> >
> > Ideally AMSI shouldn't affect the stereo signal at all, but if the
> > surround information has been dubbed onto the original stereo wouldn't
> > that mess up the Prologic decoding as well?
> >
> > It's also possible I'm misunderstanding the context, the question at
> > hand and the technical issues!
>
> Well, I don't quite understand your last question. Can you rephrase
> that?
I don't really understand how Prologic is stored/enabled on two-channel
recordings. If the PL decoder reads phase-shifts, could processing
increase those phase-shifts to increase the sense of space in
two-channel playback and to make decoding easier ("the effect is even
improved")?
That would definitely change the sound quality, especially combined with
eq change.
Stephen
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:775c04df-a150-4ed9-bbb3-
08d167...@g7g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
;--)
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
M forever
I don't know exactly how AMSI works and how it is supposed to
"enhance" surround decoding, but I am guessing it is something like
what you suspect.
The principles behind ProLogic encoding/decoding are actually fairly
simple. You take four channels - L C R Sr - and feed them into the
encoder.
The L and R channels are left as they are. The C channel is attenuated
by 3dB and then fed into L and R (because it now appears in both these
channels it would be 3dB too high if not attenuated).
The Sr channel is attenuated by 3dB, too. Then it is bandpass filtered
to shve off frequencies below 100Hz and above 7kHz; that's because
typical surround speakers in theaters back then weren't very effective
at reproducing anything outside that band anyway and low frequency
bursts could actually damage them.
Then an modified version of Dolby B noise reduction is applied and
finally the Sr channel is phase sifted by +90 degrees and fed into the
L channel as well as phase shifted by -90 degrees and fed into the R
channel.
The L and R channels which contain the C and Sr information are called
Lt and Rt - Left total and Right total.
The decoder then compares the Lt and Rt signals and if signal
components are at the same frequency, level and phase, it concludes
that must be the C information, so it subtracts it from Lt and Rt and
routes it to C. If frequency and level are the same but the phase is
180 degrees apart between Lt and Rt, it subtracts it and feeds it into
the Sr channel.
That's just the basic principle of operation, of course. In reality,
it's more complex and dynamic than that, but basically, that's how it
works.
> That would definitely change the sound quality, especially combined with
> eq change.
>
> Stephen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
MiNe 109
<9e3c068a-0a3f-4167...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks! I've seen the basics a number of times over the years but now
they're sinking in.
So, if I understand correctly, the AMSI sound quality problems could be
independent of the surround information encoding. If so, too bad for
those with high quality surround systems as well as two-channel
listeners if these reissues aren't successful.
Stephen
Steve de Mena
> On Jun 5, 11:48 am, MiNe 109<smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <68615a4e-e700-4bfd-ab23-561c2eaab...@a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> M forever<ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Steve de Mena wrote:
>>
>>>>> I actually have a number of the same titles in AMSI and non-AMSI
>>>>> variations, I should do an A/B of some of them sometime.
>>
>>>>> Steve
>>
>>>> I don't have much both in a "normal" issue *and* in an AMSI version.
>>>> I remember a few Beethoven overtures with Karajan - there is an Eloquence
>>>> AMSI
>>>> CD with those,
>>
>>> Are you sure that CD is "AMSI"? Not all Eloquence releases were.
>>
>> <http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/yellowlounge/comment-main.htms?LOUNGE=
>> 5&TOPIC=2601>
>>
>> A poster on this DGG forum refers to the "Karajan Beethoven overtures
>> AMSI CD" as having "very poor sonics".
>
> True, and that confims that the CD was indeed AMSI, but he also goes
> on to say: "but the DG Galleria set does, too" so that statement
> doesn't really tells us much about the quality compared to the non-
> AMSI release.
I personally don't care for the sonics of a lot (but not all) of the
Jesus-Christus Kirche Karajan recordings from the 60s/early 70s.
Steve
M forever
There is some more in-depth information here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y8ljmuk
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ptav9f
> So, if I understand correctly, the AMSI sound quality problems could be
> independent of the surround information encoding. If so, too bad for
> those with high quality surround systems as well as two-channel
> listeners if these reissues aren't successful.
I don't know. I don't know how AMSI works, but I suspect they somehow
"reverse encode". You can play any 2-channel stereo recording through
a surround decoder no matter if it's "surround encoded" or not and
since the C channel is already "implicitly" present in a stereo
recording in the form of a "phantom center", it will usually steer the
right information to C while diffuse, phase-shifted information makes
its way to the Sr channel. So reverb, applause, stuff like that
already typically shows up in the Sr channel in a way which makes
sense, actually.
So maybe they play the recordings through a surround decoder to
retrieve the information which naturaly would be steered to Sr,
"enhance" it - maybe by rasing the level very slightly and then re-
encode the 4 channels into 2.
That's just speculation, of course. It would be interesting to read
some detailed info about the process but I couldn't find anything. I
don't thik I have an "AMSI" CD either so I don't know if I can carry
out a A-B comparison against a "non-AMSI" CD.
M forever
It depends on the vintage. I think the ones made in the early 60s
sound very good for the time, e.g. the first Beethoven cycle. So do
some non-Karajan recordings made there, e.g. Böhm's Zarathustra or
Maazel's Mendelssohn symphonies which actually sound outstanding for
the time, so the problem with the later Karajan recordings is
definitely the screwed-up mastering "esthetic", not limitations of the
venue or available equipment.
MiNe 109
<21d5e221-f718-44b5...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is some more in-depth information here:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/y8ljmuk
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/ptav9f
Thanks for the links. I'll consider this source authoritative!
> > So, if I understand correctly, the AMSI sound quality problems could be
> > independent of the surround information encoding. If so, too bad for
> > those with high quality surround systems as well as two-channel
> > listeners if these reissues aren't successful.
>
> I don't know. I don't know how AMSI works, but I suspect they somehow
> "reverse encode". You can play any 2-channel stereo recording through
> a surround decoder no matter if it's "surround encoded" or not and
> since the C channel is already "implicitly" present in a stereo
> recording in the form of a "phantom center", it will usually steer the
> right information to C while diffuse, phase-shifted information makes
> its way to the Sr channel. So reverb, applause, stuff like that
> already typically shows up in the Sr channel in a way which makes
> sense, actually.
I've heard applause change channels on the theater system. I guess it
hits a threshold and gets steered to the surrounds.
> So maybe they play the recordings through a surround decoder to
> retrieve the information which naturaly would be steered to Sr,
> "enhance" it - maybe by rasing the level very slightly and then re-
> encode the 4 channels into 2.
> That's just speculation, of course. It would be interesting to read
> some detailed info about the process but I couldn't find anything. I
> don't thik I have an "AMSI" CD either so I don't know if I can carry
> out a A-B comparison against a "non-AMSI" CD.
That was my guess, though I didn't explain it very well. I do have some
Prologic cds, but most are pop recordings (or rerecordings) bought
inexpensively out of curiosity. I think there are some classical titles,
too, but most of my oddball classical cds are binaural.
Goodness! I was reminded of the Delos Music Surround Spectacular and
found it available on mp3 at Amazon. No telling what mp3 encoding will
do to the surround info.
Stephen
M forever
I have some RCA CDs of Strauss with Maazel and the SOBR which are
labeled as "Dolby Surround". I have never played them on a surround
system though. Mostly because I don't have one. This surprises a lot
of people who know me because installing sound systems in movie
theaters and studios is one of the things I do in real life, so they
all think I must have a "high end" home theater setup. But I don't. I
rarely watch movies at home anyway and I mostly listen to music on
headphones.
Anyway, if a recording is mixed for and encoded in Dolby Surround,
there is no problem at all. It is 100% stereo compatible.
Correspondingly, any stereo recording with two channels can be played
back through a surround system alhough the effect may not be the same
as with one that was specifically mixed in that way.
It is potentially more problematic when recordings are "enhanced for
Dolby Surround" as with this process. In the meantime, I found out
that I have the Eloquence CD of Beethoven overtures with Karajan and I
was able to compare the Fidelio overture with the same recording on an
earlier Galleria release. And yes, there is a difference, but it is
very slight and probably only with headphones.
Check for yourself. Here is the same recording, once with "AMSI" and
once without. Which one is which? Which sounds better?
Exhibit A
https://download.yousendit.com/OHo2SkhkRkVWRCt4dnc9PQ
Exhibit B
https://download.yousendit.com/OHo2SkhkRkVVbTgwTVE9PQ
> Goodness! I was reminded of the Delos Music Surround Spectacular and
> found it available on mp3 at Amazon. No telling what mp3 encoding will
> do to the surround info.
Probably nothing. As we have seen here recently, most people are
thoroughly confused by what mp3 actually does and what it doesn't, and
how it works. The amazon mp3s are 256kbps, that is a high enough
bitrate for that purpose.
MiNe 109
<a08b00f6-3bf9-4cc1...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Check for yourself. Here is the same recording, once with "AMSI" and
> once without. Which one is which? Which sounds better?
>
> Exhibit A
>
> https://download.yousendit.com/OHo2SkhkRkVWRCt4dnc9PQ
>
>
> Exhibit B
>
> https://download.yousendit.com/OHo2SkhkRkVVbTgwTVE9PQ
'A' sounds like descriptions of the typical Galleria sound (if there
really is such a thing I couldn't say): bright, washed-out,
light-weight. 'B' seems clearer, fuller, less background noise but
seemed higher in level at first switch. After a couple of minutes, I
start hearing 'sames' instead of 'differents' and all bets are off. I
might recommend B over A for a first-time purchase but I wouldn't change
one for the other. The descriptions above were my initial impressions
and were forgotten once the music-making was under way.
The performance builds well, but I really disliked the opening woodwinds
for lack of precision and shape. The latter is likely K's (or
Beethoven's) idea of placidity or calm and I'm willing to accept it as a
legitimate view of the score. I just didn't enjoy the sound first time
around.
The overall dynamic scheme may show some compression or gain-riding but
I thought the climax well-handled. You'd think something could be done
about the obvious edits (for instance at 2:02)
I listened on the computer through an M-Audio Fasttrack Pro and Grado SR
80 headphones.
Amazon shows one copy left at $67.99. Other sellers are more reasonably
priced.
Stephen
Steve de Mena
> Maazel's Mendelssohn symphonies which actually sound outstanding for
> the time, so the problem with the later Karajan recordings is
> definitely the screwed-up mastering "esthetic", not limitations of the
> venue or available equipment.
I agree completely.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> Check for yourself. Here is the same recording, once with "AMSI" and
> once without. Which one is which? Which sounds better?
>
> Exhibit A
>
> https://download.yousendit.com/OHo2SkhkRkVWRCt4dnc9PQ
>
>
> Exhibit B
>
> https://download.yousendit.com/OHo2SkhkRkVVbTgwTVE9PQ
>
>> Goodness! I was reminded of the Delos Music Surround Spectacular and
>> found it available on mp3 at Amazon. No telling what mp3 encoding will
>> do to the surround info.
>
> Probably nothing. As we have seen here recently, most people are
> thoroughly confused by what mp3 actually does and what it doesn't, and
> how it works. The amazon mp3s are 256kbps, that is a high enough
> bitrate for that purpose.
I'll guess "A" is Galleria and "B" is AMSI. I hear a slightly
brighter EQ in the frequency range of the woodwinds and high strings.
Not a whole lot of difference between the two...just to me a more
consistent (not "better") sound throughout the frequency range on "A".
Computer -> Pro Tools Digidesign 003 Rack -> Sennheiser HD 595 headphones
Steve
operafan
> Did multi-channel not exist at the time? How come that PentaTone has been
> issuing mult-channel recordings made even at the time before?
PentaTone is reissuing Phillips multichannel recordings that were made
at that time as 4.0 surround recordings. They were intended to be
issued in one of the multiplexed 4-channel LP formats that were on the
market at the time. There were 3 different systems in use for encoding
these recordings so they could be issued as LP's that could be played
by 2-channel equipment or decoded into 4-channel by people who owned
the right equipment. Unfortunately, quad LP equipment didn't sell
well, so many of these 4.0 recordings were only issued as 2-channel
LPs.
What PentaTone is **not** doing with these old recordings is
concocting surround channels. They are there on the master tapes. The
Living Stereo SACDs have no surround channels (because RCA didn't
record any), but most have 3.0 front channels.
Gerard
> On Jun 4, 4:47 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_driksen兀hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Did multi-channel not exist at the time? How come that PentaTone
> > has been issuing mult-channel recordings made even at the time
> > before?
>
> PentaTone is reissuing Phillips multichannel recordings that were made
> at that time as 4.0 surround recordings. They were intended to be
> issued in one of the multiplexed 4-channel LP formats that were on the
> market at the time.
Sure.
That confirms what I wrote.
>
> There were 3 different systems in use for encoding
> these recordings so they could be issued as LP's that could be played
> by 2-channel equipment or decoded into 4-channel by people who owned
> the right equipment. Unfortunately, quad LP equipment didn't sell
> well, so many of these 4.0 recordings were only issued as 2-channel
> LPs.
>
> What PentaTone is **not** doing with these old recordings is
> concocting surround channels. They are there on the master tapes. The
> Living Stereo SACDs have no surround channels (because RCA didn't
> record any), but most have 3.0 front channels.
Like the Mercury SACD's, I suppose.
Thornhill
> On Jun 3, 7:25 pm, Fugue <48fug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If they were remastered in multi-channel SACD, then I'd be interested!
>
> How could they effectively "remaster" this in true multi-channel SACD
> when the microphones during the recording sessions were set up for a
> stereo recording? Yes, maybe they put some ambience mics in the room
> and added them to the final mix (although the church they made these
> recordings in, or at least most of them, is already quite reverberant
> as it is), but the microphone layout probably was not made with a
> format in mind that didn't even exist at the time.
Exactly. Labels like BIS have separate microphones setup for the
stereo and multichannel mixes. They don't record for surround sound
and then mix-down for stereo.
Surround sound is much more then ambient sound in the rear channels. A
well done surround sound recording will use the rear channels to help
spread the stereo imaging wider, beyond just in-between your front
speakers (note: I'm NOT describing making it sound like the musicians
are all around you).