Upon further search I found the flowing:

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2008/12/02/bso_launches_its_own_music_download_service/

They look like offer two formats: MP3 at 320kbps this is a crap and multi-channel WMA Lossless. The WMA Lossless is 88/24 and this might be interesting if it goes 2 channels. Only God knows why those fools decided to go it in 6 channels. I am sure the BSO people consulted with some kind of “industry specialist”  and that fucking idiot pointred them into 5.1 channels direction. Very sad!

There are a few other concerns that I have. 

1)     What source BSO used for their WMA 6-channels – was it the BSO archives take or it was juts copy of BSO CD. I think it is the last one.

2)     How much Dolby 5.1 processing destroys sound?

3)     If it future BSO will be releasing in WMA format their current events then will the feed be edited before porting to  WMA

4)     Does Dolby hjave a way read or to extract 2 channels from the file?

It is a recursive subject at my site that the sad state of music/audio industry is not due to some cosmic or social reasons but due to the very specific and very idiotic actions of very specific individuals who run the industry. Here is the case to point.

A few months BSO started their service offering to download live BSO performances. A few days ago I have downloaded one performance. It was not MP3 but WMA Lossless, about 6 Gigabytes of music. What can I say? Listening what they did with sound it is too late to argue with them – all the is necessary to do with those people who made it is to take a grenade launcher and kill each single person who ever was involved in the production of those files. It is beyond being laughable of bad. What they did was lately a cultural terrorism and they keep any single people who got the files as a hostage. Ok, let not to kill them – let to cut their fucking hands off in order they never were able to touch any other recording…

What the most shocking in this whole story that no one from BSO of course has nothing to do with it. I am sure the BSO contacted some local “professional” audio studio that “pressed” for them the files. I am sure that the idiots who work there are “highly qualified”, perhaps well decorated by industry “recognition”. Well, do you want to understand what I mean? Invest $12 and download let say the Mahler 6 as I did. I will see what kind songs you will sing what you hear THAT.

Romy the Cat wrote:

It is a recursive subject at my site that the sad state of music/audio industry is not due to some cosmic or social reasons but due to the very specific and very idiotic actions of very specific individuals who run the industry. Here is the case to point. A few months BSO started their service offering to download live BSO performances. A few days ago I have downloaded one performance. It was not MP3 but WMA Lossless, about 6 Gigabytes of music. What can I say? Listening what they did with sound it is too late to argue with them – all the is necessary to do with those people who made it is to take a grenade launcher and kill each single person who ever was involved in the production of those files. It is beyond being laughable of bad. What they did was lately a cultural terrorism and they keep any single people who got the files as a hostage. Ok, let not to kill them – let to cut their fucking hands off in order they never were able to touch any other recording… What the most shocking in this whole story that no one from BSO of course has nothing to do with it. I am sure the BSO contacted some local “professional” audio studio that “pressed” for them the files. I am sure that the idiots who work there are “highly qualified”, perhaps well decorated by industry “recognition”. Well, do you want to understand what I mean? Invest $12 and download let say the Mahler 6 as I did. I will see what kind songs you will sing what you hear THAT.

I have a local guy contacted me over weekend who downloaded BSO file and found them very appropriately sounding. He wanted to know why he and I had such a drastic different view about the quality of BSO files. So, I send hism my file and he send me his, our original WMA files had the same MD5 hash value.

His file did play orders of magnitude better then mine. After further investigation I realized that my WaveLab 6, while it plays the 5ch BSO files internally converts 5ch into 2ch and do a lot of other pressing that absolutely ruin sound. He, in contrary opens the 5ch files by multichannel editing software SoundForge 9, manuals copy two channel into a new 2ch file and saves it – how more idiotic shall it be? I wonder how many of BSO file buyers can play them in original ruined by multichannel processing 5ch version and how many will get the same result as I do by playing it by 2ch players.

With the size of the files that they offer it might be a good 88K version in two channels instead of 5ch in 22kBs. I also need to note that despite that those “properly extracted” two channels file sounded much better them my files but they did not sound appropriate to me as it was very well auditable results of heavy DSP processing.

After a few complains of mine to BSO about the ridiculousness of this new digital files programs (the ways how BSO does it) they apparently got sick from me and game me a phone of BSO New Media Manager. I spoke with him today but I literally was not able to bitch about anything as the news he gave to me exceed all my expectations and made me almost horny.

Richard, (it was his name) was not only familiar and well understood all problems that I intended to complain about but he had a ready to go solutions. Get this. BSO is about to release two new downloadable uncompressed formats: 44/16 and 88/24. The prices for 88/24 are plans to be very aggressive – even lover that the 5-chenal files now.  Furthermore the 88/24 file will be available not only for the newest James Levine collaboration with BSO but also for selected BSO archives! Holly cow!

The first batch of the new Levine’s recording in 88/24 BSO wikll make available on April 6. I asked them do not remove the walk-in and applauds from the recordings and to start the files from the few seconds before of the door for a conductor is opened. They might even comply with it!!! OK, we are going somewhere…

Romy the Cat wrote:

I got the new BSO 88/24 files them briefly listened a few fragments. Generally I do like them and they are nothing like the 320kbps multi-channel WMA that BSO marketed before. My fear that the files might have issues with tone turned out to be not necessary – tonally the files are very fine. They have no compression, dynamic like hell, colorful and very good balanced. They are better than I expected and very good files, at least the AIFF files. BSO shall be crazy to release them for $9, I suggested to BSO to make them for $30-$40 and the quality the BSO delivered proofed that I was right. Anyhow, whatever BSO does now is truly priceless gift. Now, a few aspects of criticisms: 1)      The recordings are started from silences but I would like to have the recording stated from the moment when the conductor’s door it open.   2)      I would prefer to have option to download sliced file or one single large file with dropped markers or without any dividers.   3)      I do have problems with the fact that the BSO files a bit too sharp and overlay boldly contrasty, not too much but it there. I wonder what A/D was working there….   4)      I do feel that some aspects of “magic” that took place sometimes during some of those performances got substantially reduced or eliminated in those recordings. My live FM file have it, the BSO files I feel have it less.   Regardless of my criticism, the BSO is congratulated. Let others to follow and please buy the BSO 88/24 files: let them to know that what they do is the VERY right direction to go.

clarkjohnsen wrote:

As one who frequently listens to both weekend broadcasts, I'd like to know which one is uploaded. Do they tell us? Or could it be... a compendium?

Romy the Cat wrote:

Do not get me wrong, I do like the BSO files sound but I also admit that it is not as good as it might be. The Cat

Mark Donahue wrote:

Mani, Yes, the files were created using the HDCD Model 1 AD converter and you will actually get improved audio if your DA converter properly decodes the HDCD (Even at 88.2 kHz /24 bit!) There is information about the filtering and dithering used in the AD conversion process encoded into the master that allow the DA converter to optimize its own reconstruction filter.  If you can turn off the HDCD decoding you will find a significant decrease in the spatial imaging and overall imaging acuity. After extensive listening tests to all the available DSD sample rate converters and many of the top tier AD converters (Meitner, dCS, Prism, Lavery and Mytek) we concluded that the Pacific Microsonics conversion was the best available means of converting the DSD source material to 88.2 PCM. We're glad you're enjoying the new releases.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Now how much better would be if people abandon that idiotic SACD/DSD and Mark Donahue would record BSO right in PCM at 88.2 kHz/24bit or 172.2 kHz/24bit format? Then the files that we get will be as close to raw master files as it might be.

• "tonally the files are very fine"
• "They have no compression, dynamic like hell, colorful and very good balanced."
• "what they do is the VERY right direction to go."
• "Absolutely wonderful files"
• "The files blew my FM files out water"
• "Macondo can’t handle dynamic of the BSO Ordinal files."

• "... any 'edited' file, a file with bit-rate change, a sampling rate change, a format change are not the representative of what digital is all bout but rather the evidence how much possible to screw up digital without recognizing it."
• "I have seen people who refuse to do 88kHz to 44kHz conversion but instead they D/A 88kHz files and then A/D the feed to 44kHz as they feel that it has less damage to Sound then DSP 88kHz to 44kHz."

It is not US’s Fox News  and not Stereophile and there is no need to pull the fractions of "stupid" soundbytes to prove any agendas. Anyone whoever are frequent this site know in context of what the said was said. Most important that I know what I said and how I thought and frankly I think that my thought process is incredibly consisting. I ma saying it not because I feel a need to defend my view but because it is what it is. Let see.

Yes, the BSO files do actually very good but as I always say: are they sound as good as they could sound?

The very next day after I heard the BSO files I posted (all my posts are still there):

“The Mahler is a bit too wicked and unfriendly with some strange imaging/stereo transformation/corruption…”

“What to my surprise I learned is that FF compression and FM noise (dither) makes Macondo to sound more even in a way to image more interesting.”

Pay attention that I found the imaging on BSO files not up to the pair with the rest qualities of those files and in some cases even my FM recordings of those concerts (that not even contestable with  BSO 88/24 files)  to be very much contestable or even better in term of imaging. It was not my fantasy or my will to criticize the BSO files but my knowledge how BSO shell sound recorded

Today in your post Mark Donahue said: “If you can turn off the HDCD decoding you will find a significant decrease in the spatial imaging and overall imaging acuity.”

Condensing that I do not use HDCD-able Pacific to play the BSO files do you see a consistency in my and his comments? Pay attention that Mark Donahue is the individual who in charge of all BSO life broadcasts and he very well know the rule of the game; in fact he owns the game…

Did you pay attention that at the very same day I heard the Mr. Donahue’s file I posted the following post:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=10195

… where I stressed that the properly applied compression might be beneficial. The reasons I did it because I found the uncompressed BSO files a bit disturbing as some dynamic aspects tear performing space apart.

Do not forget that BSO was recorded by “American recording techniques” many closed up microphones, miced-up sections and so on. It was not 2 mics dummy head recording where distanced allow some natural phase randomization. The instruments sound a bit hot and “space” managed by art of mastering and mixing instead the art position and playing.  I am not against the “American recording techniques” and the Soundmirror did fine job to mix the BSO sound…. but pay attention – I was complained that it was now there due to unreasonable and a slight uncontrolled use of dynamics.  What it turned out to be after all is that SoundMirror implied that “proper” BSO mixing only with HDCD’s compression activated. Well, I do not know how many folks out there with 88kHz and HDCD but since you do have this option then be judge yourself and take under consideration that 99.9999% of listeners will play them like I do – without the HDCD.

Regarding the SACD to PCM conversion – I do not know.  I have no idea what is out there but the fact that the conversion go over analog is ridicules. Particularly I feel that it is ridicules because the best SACD players of today play SACD disks and right there convert the stream into 344KHz and do further PCM not SACD decoding. I wish SoundMirror do not use SACD at all, record in PCM and if the Morons want to have SACD then make them from PCM files. BTW, if I am not mistaken up to recently all editing in SACD was done by silent conversion of DSD to PSM and then conversion back.

And the last. Whden I said about “VERY right direction to go” I meant my delight that BSO file went away from the idiotic 5 channel format that they started with and let us to have 88K 2ch stereo. As I posted at AA (now the dirt have deleted the AA those posts) I made my best to crash BSO sever the first few days after the 88K 2ch stereo files become available. I sent an insane amount of notifications about the BSO new options. My objective were to swamp BSO sever with orders, to make this server to choke with traffic, to send BSO the message that when they make right actions then the customers will come. I wish BSO do more or it, I wish they signed guest conductors to the deal and I wish 20-30 orchestras around the word do the same what BSO did with their 88K 2ch adventure. If it were so then we have a perfect model how orchestras and listeners might exists without the stupid music industry… BTW, I was a person who advised them the price the files $30-$40 per concert.  So, I do feel that BSO went to very right direction.

However, could the Sound of the BSO file be better?  Yes, it is and I feel that reconsidering the use the HDCD compression might be a first step.  Anyhow, I see no hypocrisy in what I advocate but rather very constrictive and very specific criticism. Be advised that you will not hear any single public voice out there who would offer any constrictive criticism about BSO sound quality. The Morons see 88kHz and they immediately have own brain and sense blackouted and they are willing to kiss the files in the asses. The exchange of stupid drooling is not my definition of collaboration and education…. but is you read my site for a while then you might know it…