|
|
|
Just a quick note to say that after re-listening to this disc after reading andrewb's review, I do not find the sibilants enunciations on this disc to be a problem but he is right to say that they are audible. I took this to be the microphones picking up the diction of the TS accurately - as I wasn't there and haven't heard them in concert for a little while (I aim to see them within the month however) I might be wrong in thinking that this is a characteristic of the TS. I have also checked with other discs that the TS have made and the audibility of sibilants does seem to be a "feature" they are willing to release and, indeed has gained them many awards not to mention fans.
I've updated my review to make note of this - it was just something that really didn't cross my mind...
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp February 18, 2006 (2 of 6)
|
|
Polly,
I don't know whether this might apply to the disc you're reviewing, but another factor in sibilance is the recording environment. A hall that's smaller and brighter than normal can cccertainly ssssseem to elongate those sssss's, which is then heard as being 'more sibilant.'
When they renovated Severance Hall in Cleveland a few years ago, they replaced a mostly-wood "shell" on stage with a lot more metal, and vocal sibilants have not sounded 'right' to me there since.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Popp said:
Polly,
I don't know whether this might apply to the disc you're reviewing, but another factor in sibilance is the recording environment. A hall that's smaller and brighter than normal can cccertainly ssssseem to elongate those sssss's, which is then heard as being 'more sibilant.'
When they renovated Severance Hall in Cleveland a few years ago, they replaced a mostly-wood "shell" on stage with a lot more metal, and vocal sibilants have not sounded 'right' to me there since.
Thanks for the info Dan. I had a quick listen to several other TS recordings (different venues) and this seems to be the "house sound". When I see them in Bristol where the accoustic is very fine, I will be able to judge whether this is "how it should be" or not...
|
|
|
Post by synthy February 18, 2006 (4 of 6)
|
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
Thanks for the info Dan. I had a quick listen to several other TS recordings (different venues) and this seems to be the "house sound". When I see them in Bristol where the accoustic is very fine, I will be able to judge whether this is "how it should be" or not...
I saw them live in Boston just this past December at the very large Jesuit Urban Center/Church of the Immaculate Conception. In this setting, the acoustics swallowed up most of the sibilance...all I could hear were faint "sss" sounds that barely broke up words. I would guess their approach for performing live is to keep the s sounds very short yet loud and crisp, so as to get through. In close miked recordings in smaller spaces, as you guys have said, I imagine the proximity combined with early reflections would exaggerate this. That being said, their older recording of John Taverner's Dum transisset sounded almost exactly like they did when they sang that piece live this December. So, I agree it's probably their "house" sound.
|
|
|
Post by andrewb February 19, 2006 (5 of 6)
|
|
Do the Tallis Scholars and Gimell have a house sound? I have had the impression on previous CD releases that sibilants were more present on their recordings than others. However, having just listened to excerpts from about 10 of their CDs I am not so sure.
Sibilants are strongly present on some occasions, for example the Sanctus on track 5 of the de Rore disc, but on the whole, and comparing with others, they are reasonably good, although in this respect they do fall well short of being excellent.
I also know that I have listened to a Tallis Scholar recording, and other groups, and thought it very fine, only to listen a few months later and find my enojoyment ruined by the sibilants and wonder why I did not hear them before.
Which makes me think that as well as performance, hall acoustics, recording engineer and equipment, the other important factor is the mood of the listener.
Hearing choral groups live the sibilants do not seem to intrude, unless one deliberatly starts to listen for them, but at home the conditions are more stringent - repeated hearings, no audience noise, no visual impact - all these make a difference.
However, I still find this SACD of the Tallis Scholars to be frustating, it is wonderfully clear compared to their previous CDs, but the sibilants are so many and so highlighted and on so many tracks, that I find this to be the worst of my Tallis Scholars discs. Try the first two minutes of the Sanctus on track 4, this is the worst example, if you can accept this then you will probably not have any difficulty with the rest of the disc.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp February 22, 2006 (6 of 6)
|
|
andrewb said:
Which makes me think that as well as performance, hall acoustics, recording engineer and equipment, the other important factor is the mood of the listener.
Andrew,
It's also possible that your hearing perception actually changed in the intervening period. Maybe you had a slight head cold the first time which had cleared up by the second time. Maybe your hearing was fatigued the first time but your ears were "fresh" the second time. Listening Fatigue is a phenomenon that makes people push volumes louder and push treble higher after prolonged exposure to loud sound. Our hearing mechanism actually does get "tired."
Also, just concentrating on the sibilants almost guarantees that you will hear them more prominently.
I guess if it continues to bug you, you could try putting a piece of tissue paper over the tweeters when you play this disc!
|
|
