Outstanding Pure DSD256 Downloads with some DXD thrown in...

[Rushton]

First, please allow me to share a bit of background for what I hope will become a continuing conversation among friends... I've been away from the What's Best Forum for a number of years and recently returned to explore what I've been missing. What I see here are a lot of folks passionate about superb sound quality in their music playback. And I love that! Back in my vinyl days, I had a passion for searching out better pressings and finding great 45rpm reissues because those got me closer to what I heard when listening to excellent 15ips 2-track tapes (when I had the opportunity to hear those). I never added R2R tape to my audio, I was vinyl-only at home. Instead of more than one media, I invested my audio budget into the best turntable, tonearm, phono stage choices I could identify and pay for. Over the decades, I built a vinyl library of over 8,000 carefully selected LPs. But, then came retirement, downsizing, moving to a city to be nearer family, and becoming an apartment dweller.

My wife (who is my constant listening partner) and I chose to transition to all-digital files for our post-retirement, downsized, future life with music. Our principal enjoyment today is in very high resolution digital: DSD256 and DXD. As I worked past mourning the loss of my vinyl, I found that very high resolution digital recordings, with an excellent DAC, assuaged the angst. With David Robinson's encouragement as a means of therapy, I started writing music reviews for Positive Feedback, and I have developed email relationships with a lot of digital recording and mastering engineers. Let's just say I've gotten my feet on the ground and am now very happy with my digital library. And because I enjoy the conversation about music and high quality reproduction, I've been looking to see where, or if, I can make a contribution. I didn't see another thread here that focuses on very high resolution file downloads originally recorded and released in Pure DSD256, with the occasional outstanding DXD release, so I offer this thread to hopefully become a place for that sort of conversation.

By way of diving in, I'll make a few comments that I hope folks reading this thread with take in the spirit with which they are intended: kindly. And I hope others will add to this start and share some of the DSD256 and DXD albums you are listening to that are just amazing. So, with apologies to many of you for whom this next bit may be old-hat, let me share some baseline information for any newcomers to this world of very high resolution downloads.

Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) technology and DSD (actually 1-bit Pulse Density Modulation or PDM) technology are significantly different. If you are familiar with PCM, you really cannot transfer any of your understanding of PCM to the very different world of DSD (PDM). For example, many will already understand that moving a file from DSD64 to DSD256 is a modulation. It is not a conversion. There is no resampling, no upsampling. The file continues entirely in the DSD domain. DSD is so very different from PCM that many people who are used to upsampling in PCM don't appreciate how seamless a DSD modulation is. Sure, there is no additional information being included when remodulating from DSD64 to DSD256, but doing so is not in anyway futzing with or harming the signal. In fact, this is exactly how my Playback Designs MPD-8 DAC operates, designed by one of the masters of DSD technology Andreas Koch. In fact, the MPD-8 modulates well beyond DSD1024 internally so that by the time it converts to analog, the signal is almost an analog signal already. More and more DACs are now designed to process the signal this way. See my interview with NativeDSD's mastering engineer, Tom Caulfield, for a better explanation of all of this:

An Interview with NativeDSD's Mastering Engineer Tom Caulfield

There may be some exploring this thread who use only physical media. For you so situated, I hope you will someday acquire (or borrow) a well designed DAC that can process DSD256 files because it is at this level that the DSD magic really begins to show itself. I have many DSD64 files from SACDs, and also many 44.1kHz PCM files, but my happiness comes from the aural density and resolution that really only shows up at much higher resolutions.

With respect to DSD256, I'd be remiss not to note that most albums released in DSD256 have been mastered in DXD. They thus have gone through the decimation of PCM processing. Many of you may have heard the statement that it is not possible to mix in DSD, that you have to take the file to analog or to PCM in order to mix it. That is a myth. It IS possible to mix in DSD (or multi-bit PDM) thus keeping the file entirely within the DSD domain. Mixing entirely within the DSD domain is what Gonzalo Noqué of Eudora Records has been doing for at least the past four to five years. Below are links to some articles about the process and some free downloadable sample files so you can hear the sound quality differences for yourself.

Mixing in Pure DSD - No PCM Allowed (free downable sample files included that will allow you to hear the same DSD256 original recording mastered DXD and then output to DSD256, versus that same recording mastered completely within the DSD domain with no PCM)

NativeDSD will also consider a file mixed in analog to be Pure DSD, identifying to general categories of Pure DSD processes, as discussed here:

Get the Master Tape Listening Experience with Pure DSD256, Free Sample Downloads Included

And, if you are willing to entertain downloading files for music listening, here is a list I recently posted at Positive Feedback of My Top of the Pile Pure DSD256 releases for audio quality:

Pure DSD256: My Top of the Pile

Pure DSD256 from Analog Tape: My Top of the Pile

And, just to offer something more to chew on about why I get so excited about DSD256 recordings:

Pure DSD256 - What We Hear

I'll follow this post with some posts of outstanding Pure DSD256 and DXD recordings to which I've been listening. I hope you will share yours.

 

[Rushton]

To start things off, I will recommend this album from Eudora Records. It was was recorded to DSD256 channel trackings and then mixed entirely in the DSD domain. It would be categorized as a Pure DSD256-Direct Mixed album. No PCM, not even a trip to the analog mixing board. Entirely in the DSD domain. And the sound quality is exceptionally pure and transparent.

Review HERE, with a free sample download to compare the same file in both Pure DSD256 and in DXD. You can listen in your own system and decide for yourself which you prefer.

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

So far I have found that the benefits of DSD do not outweigh PCM. The fact that you can't mix/master it without converting it to PCM is my experience as to why most DSD sound "better" than PCM.

The engineer is not messing with the original recording in a lot of the cases with EQ's, compressors, etc. Most are just published as is in PCM. Have heard little to no difference between formats having tried both.

 

[Rushton]

Welcome, Believe High Fidelity. Thanks for sharing some thoughts.

There is a value equation at work here for sure. You say "the benefits of DSD do not outweigh PCM." Okay. That's fair.

But not everyone comes to that same value determination.

For some recording engineers, mastering engineers, and producers, the sound quality that can be achieved in Pure DSD is worth the additional effort when the requirements of the project allow for it. They produce recordings in both formats, but are gravitating to Pure DSD for projects as possible.

Examples? Gonzalo Noqué of Eudora Records (100% Pure DSD releases for the past 4-6 years), Robert Hunka of Hunnia Records (most releases in Pure DSD for the past three years), Jared Sacks of Channel Classics/Pelle D'oca/Just Listen Records, the Hazelrigg Brothers for their own releases, Tom Peeters of Cobra Records, Frans de Rond of Sound Liaison (one release so far and determined to make all future releases this way), to list a few.

So, what kinds of projects are possible? Any.

you can't mix/master it without converting it to PCM

But, in fact, you can. This is a myth, always has been. It is just not convenient because there are no Digital Audio Workstations to make life easier as there are in PCM.

The album Homeland posted above from Eudora Records (Gonzalo Noqué) contains Falla's The Gardens of Spain and Grieg's Piano Concerto in A -- both complex challenging works for full orchestra and piano soloist. Sixteen microphones including the ambient microphones for surround, as I recall. It was mixed and equalized entirely in the DSD domain (or multi-bit PDM to be more precise, of which DSD is the single bit subset). The album is Pure DSD256-Direct Mixed. No PCM. The one thing it is missing? Compression. There is no compression, the dynamics are completely wide open and unconstrained. Gonzalo considers no compression to be a virtue for any true high resolution recording. Of course, compression is ubiquitous for commercial releases from other labels.

Folks who might wonder why not just do the mixing in DXD and release in DSD256 should listen to the samples Gonzalo provided to share as a free download. In each of four different tracks including different combinations of instruments, Gonzalo shares the DXD mixed and then the DSD Direct Mixed version of each track. I encourage everyone with an interest in this topic to download the samples from the link in this article at Positive Feedback:

Mixing in Pure DSD - No PCM Allowed (free downable sample files included that will allow you to hear the same DSD256 original recording mastered DXD and then output to DSD256, versus that same recording mastered completely within the DSD domain with no PCM).

Please consider listening to these samples and sharing what you hear.

 

[Rushton]

This album is the first release by Jared Sacks on his new label Pelle D'oca. (Jared is the founder of Channel Classics.) It is mixed and mastered purely in the DSD domain. No PCM. Jared says Pure DSD releases are direction he plans for all future Pelle D'oca releases. Review

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

Very well written response. I will return in kind.

For some recording engineers, mastering engineers, and producers, the sound quality that can be achieved in Pure DSD is worth the additional effort when the requirements of the project allow for it. They produce recordings in both formats, but are gravitating to Pure DSD for projects as possible.

All of the benefits of DSD as a native recording platform are perceived and are likely not real from a sound quality perspective IME. I can't deny that 90+% of DSD sounds great. This is why in my own journey in music production started there with Merging and Pyramix. Not every interface can do DSD, but all interfaces that can do DSD can do PCM. So why not try both side by side?

Where I ended is that the real differentiator was the engineer and not the format. DSD engineers and producers care about sound quality. Most recording and mastering engineers or producers have no idea what we hear on a high level hifi system. I think we can agree there are too many albums destroyed as a result. So whatever they do, I would likely not do unless I can prove that it is better on my hifi rig. I have not made that conclusion as others have.

And on that point, without control of the content the only logical step was for me to do my own recordings and find out for myself. Citing others works and conversions vs controlling the signal chain, start to finish, including the conversion software made it easy to test.

But, in fact, you can. This is a myth, always has been. It is just not convenient because there are no Digital Audio Workstations to make life easier as there are in PCM.

This is both true and not true. There are a few "things" you can do, but it is very basic. And to reiterate, that is a good thing for most engineers as evidenced by this comment you made here:

The album is Pure DSD256-Direct Mixed. No PCM. The one thing it is missing? Compression. There is no compression, the dynamics are completely wide open and unconstrained. Gonzalo considers no compression to be a virtue for any true high resolution recording. Of course, compression is ubiquitous for commercial releases from other labels.

He can hear the detriment. Most don't hear engineers don't.

--They just mess up the sound with the never-ending plugins like compression, filters, limiters, etc.
--Their mastering rigs can't compete with what we use to evaluate their recordings
--The goals of the album release may have to more with things like LUFS and not quality as the core driver

This may be different today as finally Pyramix was updated after such a long time. But from what I can tell it is not worth trying again just yet.

You mention the Hazelrigg Bros. I loved their albums and reached out Geoff to do a modern comparison of his mic'ing technique vs my own for piano. That is where I have been spending the last year doing almost exclusively. Unfortunately, while he does care about the quality of sound (the key differentiator) he did not want to participate in my experiment.

If you hear a difference then that is all that matters. For me, I do not.

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

One additional footnote:

DSD being the native language of Delta Sigma DACs could be a valid argument of DSD being better. If your DAC is better optimized for DSD than PCM, it would be very easy to see it sounding better on that particular DAC.

 

[Rushton]

--They just mess up the sound with the never-ending plugins like compression, filters, limiters, etc.
--Their mastering rigs can't compete with what we use to evaluate their recordings
--The goals of the album release may have to more with things like LUFS and not quality as the core driver

Excellent reply, Believe High Fidelity. Thank you.

I quote the above segment of your post because I agree so much with this statement. So often, having more tools leads to using those tools because they are available, leads to poorer sound outcome for the discerning listener who cares about sound quality.

All of the benefits of DSD as a native recording platform are perceived and are likely not real from a sound quality perspective IME.

And here I would disagree. From a sound quality perspective, at the level of DSD256, the sound quality improvement over PCM is real to my ears and very worthwhile. And, yes, there are many PCM recordings that I really enjoy. For example, Bert van der Wolf records entirely in DXD and has done so since it was first available to him. And it Bert has recorded something, I want to hear it because it will have been beautifully recorded with excellent microphone technique being applied.

And still, when I am able to do head to head comparison of DXD to DSD256, I always prefer the more natural timbre and transparency of the DSD256. Most often, I only get to hear that comparison from the tools used in mastering the track. A DXD mixed version compared to a Pure DSD mixed version of the same tracking channels. I keep trying to finagle from the recording engineers samples that I can share because hearing the difference for oneself is the only thing that will ultimately matter.

Where I ended is that the real differentiator was the engineer and not the format. DSD engineers and producers care about sound quality. Most recording and mastering engineers or producers have no idea what we hear on a high level hifi system. I think we can agree there are too many albums destroyed as a result.

We are very much of like mind here. I agree. I recall a comment from Frans de Rond (Sound Liaison) in which he lists the steps needed for a great recording: First the music, Second the musicians, Third an excellent room with good acoustics, Fourth choice of microphones and microphone placement relative the musicians and the room, and Fifth don't mess up the sound you capture from the microphones. The format in which you choose to record is the least of these requirements.

And, for me, when we have all the other elements right, then choice of format, mixing, and final release are what moves a recording from very good to outstanding; it can make a great recording utterly delectable. Pushing the envelope to achieve the best ultimate sound quality possible is what I'm talking about in these posts. How can we move the state of the art forward, not settle for adequate and saleable.

I once asked Gonzalo Noqué (Eudora Records) what he hears in Pure DSD256 samples that he allowed me to make available for free download. He replied:

"All three samples are period instruments. It's difficult to put into words the differences I feel/hear. But, in my view there's a feeling of easiness and finesse with the DSD256 mixed with HQPlayer [Pure DSD256 Direct Mixed]. The DXD processed files feel a bit closer and tense in comparison, while the HQPlayer mixed files have a more refined and organic sound, with the relationship with the acoustics of the recording venue better felt. I hope the article does not give the idea that I am a kind of DSD evangelist trying to convince people, as this is something very far from my nature. Acoustics, choice of microphone and placement of them is what makes a recording really good. The DSD processed in the Pure DSD domain is the icing on the cake. Please, have a listen to the samples and let me know what you feel/hear." Get the Master Tape Listening Experience with Pure DSD256

For folks following along, here is another set of comparison files. These are from an earlier article about the Homeland album in which Gonzola graciously agreed to let me share the same track from both 1) the Pure DSD256 final release and 2) the same track in a DXD final edit. I can't post the download link directly here, but here is a link to the article from which you can then download them: Free Sample Download

Enjoy! Tell us what you hear.

 

[Rushton]

If your DAC is better optimized for DSD than PCM, it would be very easy to see it sounding better on that particular DAC.

I agree. That is certainly the case with the Teac UD501 DAC in my wife's office system. In our primary system, whatever format is the edit master typically sounds the best.

 

[Rushton]

Pure DSD256-Analog Mixed... This is the other category of Pure DSD files. It includes both DSD transfers from tape and recordings with tracking channels in DSD, mixed through an analog mixing console, then converted from the console back to DSD. There are lots of current recording released using this Analog Mixed category of process. The point here is that no PCM processing is involved at any stage of the recording. The signal is always in either analog or DSD. And, the value of this process for many recording/mastering engineers is that they have available to them the full range of mastering tools.

An example are the Pure DSD256 recordings that Hunnia Records has been releasing over these past 3-4 years. The channel tracking is DSD256, the mixing is through a Studer 962 Analog Mixing Console and a Massenburg GML8200 Analog Equalizer, and the analog output from the console is converted once again to DSD256. Here are some excellent example of the results of this recording and mixing chain in albums across multiple genre:

Hunnia Records - Delightful Discoveries in Pure DSD256

And the following recent releases:

 

[Rushton]

This afternoon's pleasure in Pure DSD256-Analog Mixed processing...

Direct, simple, and immensely challenging in the end. Piano, bass, drum kit. Add two stereo microphones. Track in DSD256 using vacuum tube microphone preamplifiers into a Merging Technologies Hapi AD converter. Mix in the analog domain using a custom analog tube mixer, tube equalizer, and tube compressor with a vintage EMT plate reverb. Output to DSD256.

No edits, no overdubs. What you hear is what they played in the studio in complete unedited takes. Just completely engaging. And extraordinarily well done.

Music of Jimmy Page and Roger Plant, arranged for a trio.

 

[Audiocrack]

First of all thank you for all your interesting reviews of many dsd 256 and dxd files in the last few years. Many of the recording companies you reviewed and like - such as 2l, Channel Classics, Bert van der Wolf’s recordings, Eudora Records and TRPTK (to name just a few) - are favourites of mine as well. Actually many years ago I started a thread on WBF regarding the beautiful recordings made by Bert van der Wolf for (mainly) Challenge Classics.

As regards your (clear) preference for pure dsd recordings I have two questions. First of all: might this preference of yours be (partly) explained by your audio set up and in particular your dac? I am asking this because in my audio set up - with inter alia the Wadax reference server and Wadax reference dac - I generally prefer dxd recordings to dsd recordings (but please also see my second remark/question). In this regard: would it be possible that you list the various components of your audio system?

Secondly, generally I (clearly) prefer the sound of files in their original recording format. So for example: Bert records (usually) in the dxd format and for his recordings the dxd files sound in my audio system better casu quo more realistic (and just to be sure: I attended one of his recording sessions of the lovely Prokofiev recordings with James Gaffigan as conductor)- in particular more open, with better dynamics and more command - than the dsd 256 files. And I compared a lot of dsd 256 and dxd files of Bert’s recordings. So is not the general ‘rule’: original dxd recordings sound better in their dxd format while original (pure) dsd recordings sound better in their dsd format?

 

[Rushton]

Thank you, Audiocrack, for your kind appreciation of my reviews of DSD256 and DXD recordings. I very much appreciate you commenting about these. You and I share a great liking for the excellent releases that have come from these labels over the years.

You pose good and reasonable questions. I'll try to offer clear answers.

First, it could be that my preference for Pure DSD256 files may be influenced by my DAC. As noted in my profile, where I've listed all of my audio equipment, my DAC is a Playback Designs MDP-8 designed by Andreas Koch. Internally it converts all incoming files to DSD and then modulates the signal well beyond DSD1024 before converting to analog. As a result, I never hear a DXD file that is not converted in this fashion by the internal operation of this DAC. However, I clearly hear differences between DXD and DSD256 when compared in as much an "apples-to-apples" manner as I can accomplish.

At the same time, I greatly value the excellent pure DXD recorded releases from Bert, Thomas Wolden (Lawo), and Morten Lindberg (2L), just to name a few recording engineers I think we both value highly. Bert has long been convinced of his preference for DXD, once giving me a long treatise about why in response to one of my many email conversations with him. Although, I've not talked with him about this since he has aligned with the new Master Fidelity equipment.

But, I do not think my choice of DAC is determining my preference for Pure DSD256 versus DXD. There are too many concurrences from people using a broad variety of other equipment. Brendon Heinst (TRPTK), for example, has for several years now shifted away from DXD for his tracking channels and uses DSD256 instead because, he told me, "it sounds better." In a blog post on his website he says, "At TRPTK, we generally record our artists’ performances in DSD256 for its natural sound quality, specifically with our Merging Technologies Hapi MkII A/D-converters. Since processing in DSD is a very difficult and impractical process, the DSD signal is then converted into PCM..."

Frans de Rond (Sound Liaison) has come to the same conclusion and is shifting to Pure DSD256 recording for future projects following his experience making the album, In Essence. You can read his comments here.

Jared Sacks (Channel Classics) and Tom Peeters (Cobra Records) and Robert Hunka (Hunnia Records) have made the same shifts to DSD256. First doing their tracking channels in DSD256 with mixing in DXD, and now shifting their mastering process to release in Pure DSD256.

So, I don't think I'm just being influenced by my choice of DAC. I think there are audible differences that more recording and mastering engineers are hearing.

Second, I agree about listening to the format in which the edit master was created. If the edit master is DXD, then I typically prefer listening to the DXD file because that sounds better to me in my primary system. This is not always the case, but is usually. I've spent much more time discussing my listening experience with this, and providing some sample file comparison downloads, in the article Choosing the Best Sounding File Format with Free Sample Downloads.

And finally, my complete equipment list. As posted in my profile:

DAC: Playback Designs MPD-8
Amp: HeadAmp Blue Hawaii SE electrostatic headphone amplifier
Headphones: Stax SR-900S (two pairs)
JRiver Media Center

That's it. When I retired and downsized, my wife and I made a complete shift to digital files and headphones.

 

[Rushton]

Today's listening contribution is the new release from LSO Live of the Shostakovich Symphony No. 13 "Babi Yar,” performed by Gianandrea Noseda and the London Symphony Orchestra. I said from the outset that we should include discussions of outstanding DXD downloads, and this release in DSD256 and DXD (Stereo, MCh) HERE clearly makes the grade.



I'm in the process of writing up my thoughts about the performance (which I think is outstanding), but clearly the recording engineers, Jonathan Stokes and Neil Hutchinson, have gotten a firm handle on the notoriously difficult acoustics of the Barbican Hall, London.

Recorded in 2023 with channel tracking in DSD256 but mixed in DXD, this recording balances all of the massive forces on stage very well. The bass soloist, Vitalij Kowaljow, is not spotlighted and sounds integrated into the orchestral space. But his voice is nonetheless very clear, very distinct, very easy to hear the Russian text. Chorus and Choir similarly are captured with excellent resolution. And both sing the Russian text with clarity, in keeping with the best traditions of British choral groups. Whether their Russian intonation is accurate I will leave others to comment on. To me it sounds very convincing.

For what it may be worth, I'm listening to the DXD 24-bit edit master.

 

[Audiocrack]

Today's listening contribution is the new release from LSO Live of the Shostakovich Symphony No. 13 "Babi Yar,” performed by Gianandrea Noseda and the London Symphony Orchestra. I said from the outset that we should include discussions of outstanding DXD downloads, and this release in DSD256 and DXD (Stereo, MCh) HERE clearly makes the grade.

View attachment 156043

I'm in the process of writing up my thoughts about the performance (which I think is outstanding), but clearly the recording engineers, Jonathan Stokes and Neil Hutchinson, have gotten a firm handle on the notoriously difficult acoustics of the Barbican Hall, London.

Recorded in 2023 with channel tracking in DSD256 but mixed in DXD, this recording balances all of the massive forces on stage very well. The bass soloist, Vitalij Kowaljow, is not spotlighted and sounds integrated into the orchestral space. But his voice is nonetheless very clear, very distinct, very easy to hear the Russian text. Chorus and Choir similarly are captured with excellent resolution. And both sing the Russian text with clarity, in keeping with the best traditions of British choral groups. Whether their Russian intonation is accurate I will leave others to comment on. To me it sounds very convincing.

For what it may be worth, I'm listening to the DXD 24-bit edit master.

Thank you! My favourite recording of this grand symphony - sonically speaking - is the (rather) recently released dxd Pentatone recording:

Shostakovich - Symphony No. 13 " Babi Yar " - Pentatone

www.pentatonemusic.com

Any thoughts of how these two recordings of the Babi Yar symphony compare to each other from a sonic point of view?

 

[Rushton]

Any thoughts of how these two recordings of the Babi Yar symphony compare to each other from a sonic point of view?

I have the Pentatone release in my "to listen to" pile, but have not yet done so. Given that it is recorded by Erdo Groot (Polyhymnia International B.V.), my expectation is that the sonics are excellent. And I'm fully expecting the performances to be top drawer. I'll report back when I've had a chance to listen.

So many wonderful recordings... Great to share thoughts and suggestions!

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

Here are a couple of my own recommendations:

https://www.nativedsd.com/product/6220683-upheaval/ (DXD)




https://www.prostudiomasters.com/album/page/49181 (Tape to PCM)

 

[Rushton]

Here are a couple of my own recommendations:

https://www.nativedsd.com/product/6220683-upheaval/ (DXD)

Your recommended album, Upheaval, on the Our Recordings label is a really nice album. Great recommendation. I particularly like Nadia Boulanger's Trois pièces that concludes the album, and her sister Lili's Nocturnes is similarly delightful. Thanks for the reminder to pull this out again for listening today!

 

[Rushton]

Does everyone here subscribe to the Sound Liaison newsletter? If you don't, I recommend it. Frans and Peter often include some very interesting articles discussing their thoughts about the recording process and working with musicians. In the most recent newsletter, Frans discusses what he looks for as he's working on a recording. With his permission, Positive Feedback reposted that article here:

If it Makes Me Dance, It's a Keeper - by Frans de Rond of Sound Liaison

 

[Rushton]

Any thoughts of how these two recordings of the Babi Yar symphony compare to each other from a sonic point of view?

Audiocrack, I spent some time today listening to both in short comparative segments. They are both excellent performances and both are very nice sonically. The sound is different reflecting more the difference in the recording venues than any material quality difference in the sonics. If I were picking nits, I'd say the inner detail resolution in the LSO Live recording is greater, but that may be as much about the drier acoustics of the Barbican than anything else. Both have nice soundstage, nice overall clarity, good frequency extension, and wide dynamic range.

As to the performances, the LSO perhaps plays with more technical precision and ensemble. I like the bass soloists in each performance. And the choruses (choirs) do a great job in both. And I find the interpretations from Noseda and Karabits to be very similar. Interestingly, the overall timing of both recordings is within a hair of each other (58:13 vs 58:11), with trading timings on individual movements.

If I had to pick one, I'd probably say the Noseda/LSO would be my preference just for the slightly greater precision and clarity. But the differences are very minor. I'd be very happy living with the Karabits/RNO. In fact, I left one movement running as I was typing this and completely lost track of which album was playing.