Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Suspicious Minds -- '69 Anthology DSD reissue

Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:17 am

Reissued on DSD, along with "MSG" 2 CD set and Aloha 2 CD both DSD transfers from original masters and carefully re-mixed and issued on the mainstream label Sony/BMG. How bout it Ernst ?

Re: Suspicious Minds -- '69 Anthology DSD reissue

Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:23 am

moodyblue1 wrote:Reissued on DSD, along with "MSG" 2 CD set and Aloha 2 CD both DSD transfers from original masters and carefully re-mixed and issued on the mainstream label Sony/BMG. How bout it Ernst ?


damn, don't teaze me with a thread titled like that again, ya hea?

geez...

Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:36 am

At least I got your attention ..... :wink: :wink:

Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:39 am

Were you thinking of the studio tracks from '69, or the live stuff ?

Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:40 am

ColinB wrote:Were you thinking of the studio tracks from '69, or the live stuff ?




I was referring to the 1999 release of the 2 CD anthology, so yes..it would be the studio material. Definitely in need of the DSD treatment.

Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:45 am

Right, thanks !

Thought you must mean that, but your mentioning of MSG & Aloha as well threw me off track !

Re: Suspicious Minds -- '69 Anthology DSD reissue

Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:34 am

moodyblue1 wrote:Reissued on DSD, along with "MSG" 2 CD set and Aloha 2 CD both DSD transfers from original masters and carefully re-mixed ...

How is this supposed to work?

Also, that DSD drivel is nothing but a mere commercial gimmick. No more, no less. DSD doesn't have the least bit of an effect on regular 44.100 KHz / 16bit redbook CDs.

Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:29 pm

see-see-rider -

You wrote:
DSD doesn't have the least bit of an effect on regular 44.100 KHz / 16bit redbook CDs.


Do you know, that's exactly the thought that crossed my mind.

Sat Aug 13, 2005 2:09 am

ColinB wrote:see-see-rider -

You wrote:
DSD doesn't have the least bit of an effect on regular 44.100 KHz / 16bit redbook CDs.


Do you know, that's exactly the thought that crossed my mind.

And it's true ... :lol:

Re: Suspicious Minds -- '69 Anthology DSD reissue

Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:06 am

see-see-rider wrote:
moodyblue1 wrote:Reissued on DSD, along with "MSG" 2 CD set and Aloha 2 CD both DSD transfers from original masters and carefully re-mixed ...

How is this supposed to work?

Also, that DSD drivel is nothing but a mere commercial gimmick. No more, no less. DSD doesn't have the least bit of an effect on regular 44.100 KHz / 16bit redbook CDs.


Dead right.

When will some people learn that "improved" sound is basically down to mastering - and not DSD!

Re: Suspicious Minds -- '69 Anthology DSD reissue

Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:21 am

see-see-rider wrote:Also, that DSD drivel is nothing but a mere commercial gimmick. No more, no less. DSD doesn't have the least bit of an effect on regular 44.100 KHz / 16bit redbook CDs.


DSD is actually not a gimmick at all, have you ever listened to the "Close Up" box set (considered by many Elvis fans simply the best sounding Elvis box set bar none).

The first three discs on "Close Up" were all produced from DSD transfers (of course it helped to have Vic Anesini on board to do the mastering), and so have most of the single-disc compilations BMG has issed over the years (e.g. "Ultimate Gospel", "Love Elvis", etc.).

Need more convincing? Check out the Billy Joel remasters on Sony and compare them to their predecessors. You'll get a real sense how much closer DSD can come to reproduce the actual sound on the mastertape.

Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:33 am

I suggest you check out a few audio sites and learn what DSD is.

It does not or can not add any better sound to red book CD.

However if it is transferred from reel to reel tape with great care, as Vic does, then whatever final medium is used DAT or DSD then it will appear better. But this has nothing to do with DSD per se.

The better sound is due to :-

A - More care and skill with transfer.
B - More skill and care during mastering.

Look upon DSD as a long term digital storage medium - with the sound quality of such a nature it can be used as for SACD or DVD and downgraded for CD.

Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:15 am

I really would like to see a proper mixed cd from the alternate aloha cd. The one we have is so bad mixed.

Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:31 am

I don't care about DSD unless we're talking SACD. I agree that DSD don't do much for CD:s.

Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:12 pm

DSD was not invented in the 80`s and 90`s.
This is the timeperiod that mostly all of Elvìs masters where transferred from analog to digital.DSD is just an gimmick from Sony.
They are good at that.
:wink:

Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:48 pm

KiwiAlan wrote:I suggest you check out a few audio sites and learn what DSD is.

It does not or can not add any better sound to red book CD.

However if it is transferred from reel to reel tape with great care, as Vic does, then whatever final medium is used DAT or DSD then it will appear better. But this has nothing to do with DSD per se.

The better sound is due to :-

A - More care and skill with transfer.
B - More skill and care during mastering.

Look upon DSD as a long term digital storage medium - with the sound quality of such a nature it can be used as for SACD or DVD and downgraded for CD.



Regarding A/D transfer vs. mastering:

DSD *is* the technology that BMG currently employs for all of their analog-to-digital transfers (aside from FTD). DSD samples at 2.8 MHz with a 1-bit depth and many audiophiles agree that it is much better suited to bring out the nature of analog recordings than the best 24-bit/96kHz PCM transfers have been able to in the past.

Regarding the mastering, I tend to think that most BMG CD's released in the 80's and 90's did not have bad transfers per se but mainly suffered from being de-noised to death, which occurred as a result of digital artifacts created by early PCM transfers, that BMG wanted to eliminate (and which do not occur to that degree with DSD).


In my opinion the transfer is *much* more important in the chain than post-transfer mastering. A good transfer in the first place will require little or no mastering at all ("less is more"). I believe that's what BMG has finally learned now, judging from a dozen or so DSD reissues they have produced over the last few years, all of which I'm very happy with.

BMG's partnership with Sony has really created a paradigm shift for how they operate; while in the 80's and 90's most of their "skill and care" was devoted towards the mastering process (and little on the transfer) these roles have now completely reversed, the result being phenomenal advances in sound reproduction, even down to the medium of the CD.

Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:55 pm

thenexte wrote:
KiwiAlan wrote:I suggest you check out a few audio sites and learn what DSD is.

It does not or can not add any better sound to red book CD.

However if it is transferred from reel to reel tape with great care, as Vic does, then whatever final medium is used DAT or DSD then it will appear better. But this has nothing to do with DSD per se.

The better sound is due to :-

A - More care and skill with transfer.
B - More skill and care during mastering.

Look upon DSD as a long term digital storage medium - with the sound quality of such a nature it can be used as for SACD or DVD and downgraded for CD.



Regarding A/D transfer vs. mastering:

DSD *is* the technology that BMG currently employs for all of their analog-to-digital transfers (aside from FTD). DSD samples at 2.8 MHz with a 1-bit depth and many audiophiles agree that it is much better suited to bring out the nature of analog recordings than the best 24-bit/96kHz PCM transfers have been able to in the past.

Regarding the mastering, I tend to think that most BMG CD's released in the 80's and 90's did not have bad transfers per se but mainly suffered from being de-noised to death, which occurred as a result of digital artifacts created by early PCM transfers, that BMG wanted to eliminate (and which do not occur to that degree with DSD).


In my opinion the transfer is *much* more important in the chain than post-transfer mastering. A good transfer in the first place will require little or no mastering at all ("less is more"). I believe that's what BMG has finally learned now, judging from a dozen or so DSD reissues they have produced over the last few years, all of which I'm very happy with.

BMG's partnership with Sony has really created a paradigm shift for how they operate; while in the 80's and 90's most of their "skill and care" was devoted towards the mastering process (and little on the transfer) these roles have now completely reversed, the result being phenomenal advances in sound reproduction, even down to the medium of the CD.

thenexte - Thanks for this. If I may I'd like to ask you one question:

In your opinion where's the difference between transferring an analog source directly to PCM and transfering it to PCM after having copied it to some other digital format like DSD before?

Master tape ---> PCM (16bit / 44,100 KHz Redbook CD)

Master tape ---> DSD (storage medium) ---> PCM (16bit / 44,100 KHz Redbook CD)

:?: :?: :?:

Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:34 am

see-see-rider wrote:In your opinion where's the difference between transferring an analog source directly to PCM and transfering it to PCM after having copied it to some other digital format like DSD before?

Master tape ---> PCM (16bit / 44,100 KHz Redbook CD)

Master tape ---> DSD (storage medium) ---> PCM (16bit / 44,100 KHz Redbook CD)


DSD samples at 2.8 MHz with a 1-bit depth (it was conceived as a storage archival medium for analog tapes that will soon disintegrate, so it was designed to capture as much of the original signal as possible).

Even downconverting such a signal to CD will yield significantly better results than the first conversion, as that will create many digital artifacts that even good mastering cannot completely mask or eliminate.


Practically no-one masters in the 16-bit domain anyways, and many mastering tools internally employ up to 64-bit signal processing to reduce signal loss occured during such processing. It absolutely makes sense to have an input signal with a greater bit-depth (e.g. 24-bit) before any processing is applied.

The best way to learn about DSD is probably by listening to some the DSD recorded Telarc classical SACD's in surround sound. They will reveal nuances of instruments that PCM recordings just cannot reproduce. I am not sure though that we will ever see Elvis SACD's, as there is probably a very limited market for such releases.

Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:47 am

thenexte wrote:
see-see-rider wrote:In your opinion where's the difference between transferring an analog source directly to PCM and transfering it to PCM after having copied it to some other digital format like DSD before?

Master tape ---> PCM (16bit / 44,100 KHz Redbook CD)

Master tape ---> DSD (storage medium) ---> PCM (16bit / 44,100 KHz Redbook CD)


DSD samples at 2.8 MHz with a 1-bit depth (it was conceived as a storage archival medium for analog tapes that will soon disintegrate, so it was designed to capture as much of the original signal as possible).

Even downconverting such a signal to CD will yield significantly better results than the first conversion, as that will create many digital artifacts that even good mastering cannot completely mask or eliminate.


Practically no-one masters in the 16-bit domain anyways, and many mastering tools internally employ up to 64-bit signal processing to reduce signal loss occured during such processing. It absolutely makes sense to have an input signal with a greater bit-depth (e.g. 24-bit) before any processing is applied.

The best way to learn about DSD is probably by listening to some the DSD recorded Telarc classical SACD's in surround sound. They will reveal nuances of instruments that PCM recordings just cannot reproduce.

Well, that's fine but in the end we're talking about PCM recordings here. :roll:

I mean, am I getting anything wrong here, or what? Please explain it to me. I'd like to learn for of course I'd support anything concerning Elvis' CDs that makes them sound more close to the original master tape ...

Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:20 am

This is me at my most ignorant.

I remember Kevan phoning me a few months ago and I was talking about sounds transferred from 78rpm and why it was better at the beginning than the end etc etc and he was being very polite in reply but I was way out of my depth with the lingo and the basics of understanding the concept of sound as a medium in a digital format.

I love reading the above info, thanks for that thenexte, but despite reading it and reading it again I'm not getting it to sink in. I feel expasperated with this because I want to understand it and I just cant seem to get it to stick. The info doesn't relate to isteslf very well so as I can put it all into perspective with itself.

Yours,
A very frustrated audiophile wannabe

Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:42 am

Steve_M wrote:This is me at my most ignorant.

I remember Kevan phoning me a few months ago and I was talking about sounds transferred from 78rpm and why it was better at the beginning than the end etc etc and he was being very polite in reply but I was way out of my depth with the lingo and the basics of understanding the concept of sound as a medium in a digital format.

I love reading the above info, thanks for that thenexte, but despite reading it and reading it again I'm not getting it to sink in. I feel expasperated with this because I want to understand it and I just cant seem to get it to stick. The info doesn't relate to isteslf very well so as I can put it all into perspective with itself.

Yours,
A very frustrated audiophile wannabe



How about this for an analogy:

Let's equate PCM 16-bit/44.1kHz to the standard television format (480p), while DSD 1-bit/2.8MHz could be equated to high-definition television (1080i), which simply provides a higher resolution, resulting in the ability to display many more colors, have better contrast ratio, etc.

Let's say you watching a signal recorded in HDTV on a standard TV, the picture will still be a lot better than had that same signal been simply recorded in standard TV format. However it will only truly *shine* if being played back on a HDTV TV set that is able to display the full resolution.

Same holds true in the audio realm. A DSD source (even a non-native one, e.g. transferred from an analog tape) will sound better when being downconverted to redbook CD and played back on a CD player than had the same signal just been transferred to PCM CD in the first place.

However the optimum setup to enjoy a DSD recording would be through an SACD player (the equivalent of the HDTV set here), which would require that the material is made available on the SACD medium in the first place (SACD's being equivalent to HD-DVD's here).

Now for the discussion of HD-DVD vs. blu-ray or SACD vs. DVD-Audio that's a whole other can of worms...

Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:52 am

Can you get a can of worm or does it have to come with more than one ? :lol:

Okay, so it's a density thing going on here, and one is compatible with the other but the equipment is key to the result as much as the source.

Can you elaborate on PSD and other abbreviations as to what they stand for ? I'm sure the names will be fairly self explanatory, just need to get the basics without the lingo to get this fully.

Thanks very much, I appreciate it.

Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:05 am

see-see-rider wrote:Well, that's fine but in the end we're talking about PCM recordings here.


It is my understanding that all the DSD reissues by BMG are *not* sourced from the older PCM transfers (which were done in the early 90's) but from recent DSD transfers of the original mastertapes (of course, these DSD transfers need to be down-converted to comply with PCM redbook, but that's really irrelevant here).

Exceptions to this rule are 30#1, 2nd to None and the entire FTD catalog (although the EIB album was a DSD transfer according to Sebastian). In a lot of cases these new DSD transfers were also able to take advantage of newer generations of mastertapes that were not available previously, resulting in much improved sound quality.

I strongly believe BMG is currently archiving *all* of the original album mastertapes to DSD (simply out of a necessity to get one last good transfer before some of these tapes might disintegrate). I am sure future reissues of these albums will be sourced from these DSD archives and not from the old PCM transfers (which were used for many Elvis collections in the 90's, including the 29-CD set issued by Timelife).

Just compare the first three albums reissued this year with the same material as being found on the 50's box set (which came out in 1992), there's a big difference in sound!

Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:11 am

Can we have some small laymens defs for the following:
PCM
DSD
SACD
The other one
The other one I've forgotten
The other one I don't even know of

Why does the color of a book have any bearing >> "redbook" whats that all about ?

And also on a serious note but from the other end of the spectrum, our ears are how good ? Can we physically actually appreciate anything higher than a certain standard ?

Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:25 am

Steve_M wrote:Can you get a can of worm or does it have to come with more than one ? :lol:

Okay, so it's a density thing going on here, and one is compatible with the other but the equipment is key to the result as much as the source.

Can you elaborate on PSD and other abbreviations as to what they stand for ? I'm sure the names will be fairly self explanatory, just need to get the basics without the lingo to get this fully.

Thanks very much, I appreciate it.


For a DSD vs. PCM discussion see also http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surroun ... e_07.shtml. Those are just really two different analog-to-digital conversion techniques that audio engineers apply to approximate the analog signal in the digital realm.

There's a whole bunch of audio engineers that will tell you that a 192kHz sampled PCM signal will sound very similar to a DSD sampled signal, but unfortunately the standard employed by DVD-Audio discs (which is based on PCM) is only half of that (96kHz), at least for surround music.

Both of those audiophile formats (SACD and DVD-A's) never really got off the ground (format war anyone?), but SACD now seems to be firmly established now in the classical and jazz realm with a number of boutique labels. More about those at http://www.highfidelityreview.com