Post by Peter March 7, 2006 (1 of 5)
|
|
After buying so many SACDs I suppose I should be grateful I've had just the one disappointment so far. The above recording compares very unfavourably with a now unavailable Denon CD with the same programme conducted by Jean Fournet.
The Cincinnati Orchestra is closely recorded in a rather airless and cramped acoustic firmly set between the speakers, with what sounds like too few violins; the performances are rough, insensitive and unidiomatic. In comparing the two recordings (and with the memory of Weller on Decca) I really didn't want to go on listening to the Lopez-Cobos recording of the symphony, whereas Fournet grabs your attention.
This SACD is stereo only (my listening practice) so my reaction is not due to missing surround. Were this a Mercury recording from the 1950s I would be disappointed. The Denon sounds better (to me) with a seat in row 20, which I know for some will be too far back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter said:
After buying so many SACDs I suppose I should be grateful I've had just the one disappointment so far. The above recording compares very unfavourably with a now unavailable Denon CD with the same programme conducted by Jean Fournet.
The Cincinnati Orchestra is closely recorded in a rather airless and cramped acoustic firmly set between the speakers, with what sounds like too few violins; the performances are rough, insensitive and unidiomatic. In comparing the two recordings (and with the memory of Weller on Decca) I really didn't want to go on listening to the Lopez-Cobos recording of the symphony, whereas Fournet grabs your attention.
This SACD is stereo only (my listening practice) so my reaction is not due to missing surround. Were this a Mercury recording from the 1950s I would be disappointed. The Denon sounds better (to me) with a seat in row 20, which I know for some will be too far back.
I have been considering a review of this disc and it would probably be even less kind that your opinion of it.I also noticed a slight hardness of tone (what their is of it) and was astonished to see a " quality" review of this recording.Im comparing the symphony with a French conducter as well and have to state that I agree the conducter and recording engineers dont seem to have any idea of what these works can sound like.I was less than enthusiastic about a later well reviewed disc by the same pairing. This is not the first or possibly the last of the Telarc recordings I will have moved on.I dont really see the point of patriotic reviews/This disc caused me to revert back to vinyl and even a CD which was sonically a relief.The only early bad membran Ive retained was better..
I have made a mental note to bring up the subject of house sound from each of the labels which should be intuitive but Ive also received RVW Sea symphony on the same label and it is in a different world..Dave
|
|
|
Post by Edvin March 7, 2006 (3 of 5)
|
|
Peter said:
After buying so many SACDs I suppose I should be grateful I've had just the one disappointment so far. The above recording compares very unfavourably with a now unavailable Denon CD with the same programme conducted by Jean Fournet.
The Cincinnati Orchestra is closely recorded in a rather airless and cramped acoustic firmly set between the speakers, with what sounds like too few violins; the performances are rough, insensitive and unidiomatic. In comparing the two recordings (and with the memory of Weller on Decca) I really didn't want to go on listening to the Lopez-Cobos recording of the symphony, whereas Fournet grabs your attention.
This SACD is stereo only (my listening practice) so my reaction is not due to missing surround. Were this a Mercury recording from the 1950s I would be disappointed. The Denon sounds better (to me) with a seat in row 20, which I know for some will be too far back.
I have to congratulate you Peter on having only one disappointment with SACD. I have had quite a few myself. A lot actually.
|
|
|
Post by seth March 7, 2006 (4 of 5)
|
|
Peter said:
The Cincinnati Orchestra is closely recorded in a rather airless and cramped acoustic firmly set between the speakers, with what sounds like too few violins;
That sounds a bit like Telarc's recording of Prokofiev's R&J Suites, also with Cincinnati.
|
|
|
Post by DSD March 7, 2006 (5 of 5)
|
|
Very strange, this is one of my very favorite SACDs for Sonics and especially performance. I have never heard a Sorcerer's Apprentice as exciting as this one and I have heard a lot! This is my first exposure to the the Symphony in C.
The SACDs I've been disappointed so far sonically, are most of the Membrams (too shrill, too many microphones) LSO Live (all 4 I tried sounded terrible even worse than dreadful redbook CDs) and some individual titles I've mentioned before.
I feel Telarc's Dukas' SACD is sound more realistic in 2 channel than many of the modern Telarc SACDs. Could it be because this one was actually recorded with 2 channel in mind? For me this one is just about as perfect as they come.
I love this SACD, WOW! Please more like this one Telarc!
Happy listening,
Teresa
|
|
