Sharing has concluded.



Thanks for your support
& participation, it was fun!

Many thanks. I am not very familiar with this work but your obvious passion makes me think it must be worth checking out!

Many thanks!

Many thanks. I am not very familiar with this work but your obvious passion makes me think it must be worth checking out!Indeed, it is. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42753709/Photobucket/nod.gif

This was the first Mahler Symphony that I heard, when I was 16 years old (I'm 50 today), and it was the Solti-Chicago Symphony recording I heard that day. I had never realized until that moment what the true expressive potential was for orchestral music and also what an orchestra/choir was capable of doing (with all due respect for Beethoven's 9th, which I had heard previously). I've been a fan of orchestral music since I was a small child, but ever since that day when I heard the Solti Mahler 2nd, I've been an even bigger fan in particular of the Mahler Symphonies. They are, in my view, the pinnacle of artistic music. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42753709/Photobucket/nod.gif

Thanks for the great share.

This is a very interesting post and I cannot thank you enough for providing something like this!

But I also have two question: was there a 2-channel layer on the SACD and would you be willing to provide it as well? And what program did you use to resample DSD to PCM? :)

was there a 2-channel layer on the SACDEvery SACD I've ever seen includes a standard CD audio stereo layer along with the SACD Surround layer.
would you be willing to provide it as well?

Here ya go:
https://mega.nz/#!Z8BWBbKQ!LIu8rtRfEVtg9jdwEMXU5cEvllr6olSiHMovx1S-QXA
And what program did you use to resample DSD to PCM? :)The first step is to use the "Sony Playstation 3 method" to extract a usable .iso image of the SACD. Next, I use Foobar Media Player to extract the Surround layer to usable .wav files. (I have Foobar set at 176kHz/24 bits for this step, so the initial extraction is rather gigantic, usually around 8-9 gigs per SACD.) After this, I used Adobe Audition to re-sample the extracted .wav files to a more manageable 96kHz/24 bits, plus, in the case of this album, I also had to add an extra sixth channel, as I explained in the OP, so that players like WinAmp will be fooled into thinking it's a normal 5.1 Surround Sound file. I also used Adobe Audition to analyze the entire album's maximum peak point and used this to turn up the volume for the entire album to .01 decibel short of where the album would peak out. (In the case of this album, the maximum peak for the whole album was -5.36 decibels, during the ending climax, so I therefore turned up the volume for the whole album 5.35 decibels. That way, volume consistency is maintained throughout the album, and there is no clipping, while still providing the strongest possible gain for media players to work with.

The last step, after doing all this, was to use dPoweramp to convert the .wav files into .flac files with the .flac compression set at the highest level so that the upload/download would be the smallest possible size. (Not to mention that it also takes up less room on my hard disk when I save the final product into my own collection.)

(Incidentally, if you or anybody else can suggest a better and/or more efficient way of doing this, I'm always willing to learn better ways of doing things.)

Every SACD I've ever seen includes a standard CD audio stereo layer along with the SACD Surround layer.

I own two that don�t contain any CD layer at all. And I own several that don�t have a multichannel layer ;)


Here ya go:
https://mega.nz/#!Z8BWBbKQ!LIu8rtRfEVtg9jdwEMXU5cEvllr6olSiHMovx1S-QXA

Thank you... but I�m sorry, I should have been more precise: I meant the 2-channel DSD layer. My bad.


The first step is to use the "Sony Playstation 3 method" to extract a usable .iso image of the SACD. Next, I use Foobar Media Player to extract the Surround layer to usable .wav files. (I have Foobar set at 176kHz/24 bits for this step, so the initial extraction is rather gigantic, usually around 8-9 gigs per SACD.) After this, I used Adobe Audition to re-sample the extracted .wav files to a more manageable 96kHz/24 bits, plus, in the case of this album, I also had to add an extra sixth channel, as I explained in the OP, so that players like WinAmp will be fooled into thinking it's a normal 5.1 Surround Sound file. I also used Adobe Audition to analyze the entire album's maximum peak point and used this to turn up the volume for the entire album to .01 decibel short of where the album would peak out. (In the case of this album, the maximum peak for the whole album was -5.36 decibels, during the ending climax, so I therefore turned up the volume for the whole album 5.35 decibels. That way, volume consistency is maintained throughout the album, and there is no clipping, while still providing the strongest possible gain for media players to work with.

The last step, after doing all this, was to use dPoweramp to convert the .wav files into .flac files with the .flac compression set at the highest level so that the upload/download would be the smallest possible size. (Not to mention that it also takes up less room on my hard disk when I save the final product into my own collection.)

Very thorough answer, thank you for that :)

And a very quality conscious approach, so kudos to you.

Did you filter out the DSD quantization noise (foobar's DSD component includes an option for this)? Because if it�s kept, it might destroy treble tweeters.

I should have been more precise: I meant the 2-channel DSD layer. My bad.Oh, OK, no prob. I wouldn't have any idea how to extract the 2-channel DSD layer, sorry. Any suggestions on how to go about it?
And a very quality conscious approach, so kudos to you.Thanks. I try to keep the quality as high as reasonably possible, just for myself if no other reason. (I'm very picky about sound quality. I see old reviewers talking all the time about the newest, hot recording from such-and-such orchestra/conductor, and "yeah, it's great, but it's still not as good as _____ back 'in the day' when they 'really knew' how to play music..." and I just can't relate, because the sound quality on those old recordings is often so crappy.)
Did you filter out the DSD quantization noise (foobar's DSD component includes an option for this)? Because if it�s kept, it might destroy treble tweeters.I was not even aware of that issue until you mentioned it just now, but after reading what you said, I Googled "Foobar DSD quantization noise" and found a new, improved DSD/SACD filter that should do the job nicely - so I'll have that for future projects. (In fact, later today, I'm going to upload Mahler's 5th with Michael Tilson Thomas/San Francisco in Surround Sound, so that'll be the first "guinea pig". Thanks for bringing that to my attention. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42753709/Photobucket/nod.gif

Oh, OK, no prob. I wouldn't have any idea how to extract the 2-channel DSD layer, sorry. Any suggestions on how to go about it?

The DSD/SACD component within foobar can be configured if it should look for 2-channel or multichannel within an ISO. Open 'Preferences' -> Tools -> SACD -> select 'Stereo' within 'Preferable Area'.


Thanks. I try to keep the quality as high as reasonably possible, just for myself if no other reason. (I'm very picky about sound quality. I see old reviewers talking all the time about the newest, hot recording from such-and-such orchestra/conductor, and "yeah, it's great, but it's still not as good as _____ back 'in the day' when they 'really knew' how to play music..." and I just can't relate, because the sound quality on those old recordings is often so crappy.)

Same here. Many reviewers are old guys, having a certain preference for the sound they grew up with. And since it�s human to regard everything we already know as 'good', they will view anything that resembles their experiences made as a teenager as good as well. And of course, orchestras or artists can still play music these days, it�s just different music so they cannot relate anymore. It�s just a generational problem. The difficulty is to find out whether the reviewer is an old fart with tons of experience AND preferences or a young guy lacking any of those and as a result always proclaiming the newest release to be the best. Add to that how conductors views' might have changed. Listen to Beethoven interpreted 50 years ago vs. today, you�ll find the older interpretation to be much more 'romantic'.


I was not even aware of that issue until you mentioned it just now, but after reading what you said, I Googled "Foobar DSD quantization noise" and found a new, improved DSD/SACD filter that should do the job nicely - so I'll have that for future projects. (In fact, later today, I'm going to upload Mahler's 5th with Michael Tilson Thomas/San Francisco in Surround Sound, so that'll be the first "guinea pig". Thanks for bringing that to my attention. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42753709/Photobucket/nod.gif

The DSD quantization noise is so high that it can destroy things, sadly, it�s true. And one of the reasons why I�m ashamed to have bought so many SACDs. DSD is a one way street and I didn�t know. Not helping are tons of audiophiles who nowadays proclaim DSD as the next best thing when it not even was 16 years ago.

The DSD/SACD component within foobar can be configured if it should look for 2-channel or multichannel within an ISO. Open 'Preferences' -> Tools -> SACD -> select 'Stereo' within 'Preferable Area'.Oh OK, then yes, I do remember seeing a 2-channel layer. I'll see what I can do with that after I finish with the Thomas-San Francisco Mahler 5th.
Same here. Many reviewers are old guys, having a certain preference for the sound they grew up with. And since it�s human to regard everything we already know as 'good', they will view anything that resembles their experiences made as a teenager as good as well. And of course, orchestras or artists can still play music these days, it�s just different music so they cannot relate anymore. It�s just a generational problem. The difficulty is to find out whether the reviewer is an old fart with tons of experience AND preferences or a young guy lacking any of those and as a result always proclaiming the newest release to be the best. Add to that how conductors views' might have changed. Listen to Beethoven interpreted 50 years ago vs. today, you�ll find the older interpretation to be much more 'romantic'.Agreed to everything you said here.
The DSD quantization noise is so high that it can destroy things, sadly, it�s true. And one of the reasons why I�m ashamed to have bought so many SACDs. DSD is a one way street and I didn�t know. Not helping are tons of audiophiles who nowadays proclaim DSD as the next best thing when it not even was 16 years ago.What do you see as the future of classical music audio? The industry seems to have hit a muddy dead end for the moment.

What do you see as the future of classical music audio? The industry seems to have hit a muddy dead end for the moment.

Difficult to answer. I�ve turned into a cynic, so what follows might sound pretty negative.

When it comes to classical music, I think that nowadays, money rules much more than artistic quality. I don�t know if my impression actually reflects the truth or if it�s just... my impression. So many labels used to do in-house engineering and mastering, all of them have disbanded those departments within the last 15 years. Money makers performing tried and tested stuff are much more important than anything else, for example new classical music. After all, we really really really really need the 90th version of Mahler's 5th or Mozart's 41th, don�t we? But who needs music by Jennifer Higdon or Michael Gandolfi? At college you still learn that short term profit is the ultimate and holy goal. In the real world, people have slowly been realizing that being on the lookout for fast cash only will destroy any company in the long run. I don�t know when companies will start to look into long term development again. Until then, it might look bleak for commercially released classical music. Because if they aren�t promoting new classical music, what will they do within the next 20 years? They could still discover artists that are relatively unknown, of course. Someone like Gli�re, Rautavaara, Nielsen or Martinhu. Take the latter: I only know one release that presents all of his symphonies (edit: turns out there are roughly 3 or 4). It�s from 1988 with conducting by Neeme J�rvi. Not one a major label. Same with Gli�re and Rautavaara. Small labels no one knows.

No, instead, on DG, Decca and others you will just get another compilation featuring Anna Netrebko and her huge tits.

Add to that reviewers who exaggerate so much in their reviews that one cannot take them serious. And how will the listener buy something he laughs about? In fact, I myself have attempted to satirize them with this: Hans Zimmer - Hannibal (http://forums.ffshrine.org/showthread.php?t=203833&highlight=).

The recent HiRes craze is another example. Labels are obviously hoping for the same surge in sales that happened when the CD finally took hold in the early '90s and people were re-buying their vinyl albums again as CD. But they were hoping for the same when the SACD and DVD Audio were released 16 years ago. And it didn�t happen.

So they think that this time they will be supported by companies producing the hardware to play back those HiRes files who then go on and make countless dubious or ridiculous claims, fueled by dumb audiophiles (who have more money than brains) who confuse dynamic compression and data compression (which is sometimes done - on purpose - by others too, for example Harman/Kardon). Sadly, no one knows the true state of the industry as the numbers for HiRes downloads aren�t official. Sony has made the rather dubious claim that since 2014, HiRes downloads make up 50% of the revenue for digital music sales. That can mean that the numbers are high or that the margin for HiRes is way higher (I assume the latter).

Effectively, I don�t know how well or bad labels are selling. They have been known for either exaggerating or downplaying figures. Will all of this help the art? I fear not. What will the future bring? After all this talk... still no idea. So feel free to regard my answer as hot load of nothing :D

on DG, Decca and others you will just get another compilation featuring Anna Netrebko and her huge tits.WHERE CAN I LOCATE THIS FINE RELEASE?????? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42753709/Photobucket/biggrin1.gif

Seriously though, you've filled in quite a bit more detail than I could have offered, but everything you said squares with what I've been seeing around the industry myself. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42753709/Photobucket/madyes.gif

I have a suspicion that one of the big factors in the next few years (at least as far as classical recordings go) will be the orchestras' in-house labels, where it's do-or-die and they don't have Taylor Swift et al to keep the major house labels going even while they run their classical department into the ground and on a deficit. As the orchestras see what their local audiences are responding to (especially regarding new and fresh literature), they might take the lead in issuing such new music and perhaps, somewhat re-vitalizing the industry, even if only in a small way.

But I'm only thinking aloud here. Regardless, thanks for sharing your thoughts. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42753709/Photobucket/sad.gif

I have a suspicion that one of the big factors in the next few years (at least as far as classical recordings go) will be the orchestras' in-house labels, where it's do-or-die and they don't have Taylor Swift et al to keep the major house labels going even while they run their classical department into the ground and on a deficit. As the orchestras see what their local audiences are responding to (especially regarding new and fresh literature), they might take the lead in issuing such new music and perhaps, somewhat re-vitalizing the industry, even if only in a small way.

Very true. I used to listen to recordings by the Atlanta Symphony a lot, back when they were still regularly published on Telarc. Concord Music bought it in 2005 and in 2009 cut several jobs, including their own engineering department. From that moment on, they effectively stopped releasing new classical music, ending all contracts with orchestras. Clearly, Concord Music was only interested in Telarc's jazz division. It took the Atlanta Symphony a while to sell their own recordings but since a few years I�ve bought several releases by them.

Let�s hope they will continue to provide good recordings in the future.

Thanks bobtheknob for another great Mahler post. I own the 1990 Kaplan LSO CD and will be interested in comparing the two versions.

I own the 1990 Kaplan LSO CD and will be interested in comparing the two versions.I personally think the LSO recording is actually a somewhat better performance, because it has more of a sense of "discovery", since Kaplan was obviously making his first recording, plus all the performers had the novelty of recording with this upstart publisher-turned-conductor who the world had hardly heard of yet, so it was all a new experience on various levels for all of them. You can sense that energy while you're listening to the recording, even though the engineering is clearly not as advanced as what DG did for Kaplan-Vienna.

By the time Kaplan recorded it again with Vienna, he had it pretty much down to a science, and the Vienna Philharmonic gets excited by pretty much nothing anyway, so it does have a few spots where there's more of another-day-at-the-office sense than you'll ever find on the LSO recording.

In spite of this, the Kaplan-Vienna recording is still one of the best, simply because of Kaplan's deep understanding of the piece.

Thank you share!

Thank you so much for this great recording!

> (Incidentally, if you or anybody else can suggest a better and/or more efficient way of doing this, I'm always willing to learn better ways of doing things.)

I'm not an audiophile, I don't play with audio editors, but I have researched a lot about formats, sampling rate, in the last years. So take everything with a grain of salt.

For downsampling, I would recommend using sox with VHQ settings (equivalent to linear phase, 99% passband), which is free, and it's as good as iZotope. Both are regarded as the best applications for that purpose (I suppose you have already seen this site: http://src.infinitewave.ca/ ). For dithering, sox also allows using the gesemann noise-shaped curve, which is modelled after the absolute threshold of hearing, so it should be the most "transparent" dither curve available [1] [2] [3]

Also I would personally stick with Redbook format, because there is no such thing as "resolution" in audio, and 16/44,1 contains all the frequencies any human ear can hear, and with proper dither you will have much more dynamic range than the usual 96dB number you see in every discussion. I guess you have read [4] too, but anyway, I post the link. I have a lot of 24/96 and 24/192 files that I badly need to convert to 16/44.1, so much wasted space...

If you want to change the gain, I would use ReplayGain rather than edit the audio data itself. Of course, that requires the player has ReplayGain support...

[1] https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,47980.0.html
[2] http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/downsample-convert-hi-res-24-bit-to-16-bit-with-audacity-or-foobar2000.403739/#post-11629531
[3] http://sox.sourceforge.net/SoX/NoiseShaping
[4] http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

thanks Bob!

This package is now restored and is available again for download.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42753709/Photobucket/cigar-1.gif

May I have the links for SACD Audio 2-Channel Lossless: 96kHz/24-bit, please?
Thank you so much!

May I have the links for SACD Audio 2-Channel Lossless: 96kHz/24-bit, please? Thank you so much!Link(s) sent, happy listening. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42753709/Photobucket/music.gif

Links received.
Thank you so much, Bob!

Hi Bob, may I get 5.0 Surround Sound - 96 kHz/24-bit - FLAC, please ? Thank U :)

can i have a link for the hi def stereo please,thanks

Hi Bob, may I get 5.0 Surround Sound - 96 kHz/24-bit - FLAC, please ? Thank U :)No problem, your wish is my command........
http://rr-bb.com/images/smilies/Date%20Setting.gif
Ta daaaah! Link(s) sent, happy listening. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42753709/Photobucket/music.gif

GThanks in advance for the great link.

Links well received ! Thank U Bob :)

Thanks in advance for the great link.You need to actually read my post in this thread, especially the giant red print that I would have thought nobody could possibly miss, and then follow the instructions you find there. It is very important that you read my instructions in all my threads, because depending on what kind of disk I'm posting, the procedure for you to get the music is frequently different from one thread to another.

Hello, I would like a link to SACD Audio 2-Channel Lossless

thank you very much

Hello, I would like a link to SACD Audio 2-Channel Lossless thank you very muchNo problem, your wish is my command........
http://rr-bb.com/images/smilies/Date%20Setting.gif
Ta daaaah! Link(s) sent, happy listening. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42753709/Photobucket/music.gif

I recommend Klemperer's classic version of this masterpiece...

I recommend Klemperer's classic version of this masterpiece...I don't.

Some people think Klemperer was too slow - I suppose it's all a matter of personal enjoyment.

Klemperer was a fine Mahler conductor (other than the 7th Sym, that is).

For me it's a matter of ancient, constricted sound quality versus more modern/realistic sound.