Post by steviev May 21, 2013 (11 of 14)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Can't answer that question, but agree, after also acquiring some of the CPO series, that a little Atterberg goes a long way.
Yep. I skipped Volume 1 in the Chandos series, but I plan on grabbing whichever volumes have Symphonies 2 and 3, my favorite Atterberg symphonies by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by stokitw May 22, 2013 (12 of 14)
|
|
tream said:
I started collecting the CPO series of Atterberg's symphonies a number of years ago and stopped after a few volumes when I realized that the music made no lasting impression on me. Does Jarvi bring these to life in a way that those recordings didn't?
A LOT.
Jarvi takes a very different approach. This interpretation of symphony No.6 is quick, tense, and engaging. Unlike any existing recording including Toscanini.(you may find Toscanini on youtube) This version reminds me how Bernstein promotes Mahler with lots of excitement other conductors cannot recreate. Even if we have 100 versions of Atterberg's symphonies someday, Jarvi's interpretation will still be mentioned by Atterberg fans.
I have to admit that I was having doubt when I know this SACD is by Jarvi, and I think I owe him an apology..
|
|
|
Post by Chris May 22, 2013 (13 of 14)
|
|
wehecht said:
Regardless of the recording technology employed John is right about the metallic quality of exposed upper strings as when, for example, the folk-like fiddling finds its way into the rhapsody at various points (about the 1'15" mark of track 4 would be indicative). I'm one who believes that these matters relate more to the quality of the venue (in this case excellent) and the engineer's art than the techology employed. I've heard both fabulous and awful recordings in every level of pcm from 24/44.1 to dxd and the same holds true of dsd. Come to think of it I've never heard an awful recording in dxd, but the Nielsen 3rd on Nielsen: Symphonies Nos. 2 & 3 - Gilbert pretty well demonstrates that a poor venue can compromise the almost preternatural clarity of which dxd is capable.
I agree with you that too close miking is more often responsible for stridency than sampling rates.
High density DSD or high sampling rate also matter but to a lesser degree than miking and venue imho.
I also have to add that Swedish folk style fiddling can sound pretty strident and metallic regardless of sample rates used.
I may be very unpatriotic but I rarely listen to it.
There are some wonderful exceptions but far too often the "high register grinding" has a tendency to make the wonderful instrument the violin sound pretty awful imho.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox May 22, 2013 (14 of 14)
|
|
Chris said:
While I too lament the fact that some teams unfortunately still insist on recording at 44. or 48khz sampling rates. Correct me if I am wrong,but didn't you quite recently mistake a 24/44.1 recording as DSD?
You hailed the SQ of a recording that I strongly suspected was and which also later turned out to be made in lowly 24/44.1. In this case you say it "shows". But would you really have been able to HEAR it if it hadn't been revealed.
You hear "metallic screeches" on this higher sampling rate recording,but miss them on an even lower sampling rate recording from the Philharmonie?
Are you really sure that you can consistently hear any difference betwen higher and lower sampling rates and DSD?
Or can you only hear it when you already know it beforehand?
Can't get them all right every time... but I'm getting there!
|
|
