|
|
|
I have this disc and I don't think I listened to it more than once, despite liking the music very much. Why? PN said it all when he said:
"There are moments when the sound becomes quite fierce"
Yes, indeed there are! So for those who like myself, have somewhat tender ears regarding high frequency distortions, be forewarned. There is little value in a great performance if the sound is so bad you wince frequently while listening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsurfer said:
I have this disc and I don't think I listened to it more than once, despite liking the music very much. Why? PN said it all when he said:
"There are moments when the sound becomes quite fierce"
Yes, indeed there are! So for those who like myself, have somewhat tender ears regarding high frequency distortions, be forewarned. There is little value in a great performance if the sound is so bad you wince frequently while listening.
In fairness to Capriccio, there are not that many moments when I found it intolerable - perhaps to be avoided if you have a particularly bright or revealing set up...
|
|
|
Post by Peter December 2, 2006 (3 of 8)
|
|
I've enjoyed this disc very much and haven't noticed much digititis if any, really; there's some lovely playing by the Dresden Staatskapelle in a warm acoustic.
|
|
|
Post by Claude December 2, 2006 (4 of 8)
|
|
Thanks for the review, John.
Why do you give this SACD 4 stars for the sound, when you notice such obvious flaws (although only some passages seem to be concerned)?
In my view, the rating scale should be used to reflect the difference between poor, acceptable, good and very good recordings. If problematic recordings get 4 stars, we will need a 6th star in the scale to keep a rating distance between them and the really excellent recordings :-)
|
|
|
Post by Chris December 2, 2006 (5 of 8)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
In fairness to Capriccio, there are not that many moments when I found it intolerable - perhaps to be avoided if you have a particularly bright or revealing set up...
If like me you find it intolerable, albeit only for moments,
I find it typically overbright harsh grating PCMish and quite unlistenable. Why did you give it 4 stars for sound???
Played next to Channel Classics stunning Mahler 2nd it sounds pretty horrible in comparison on my system.
I have a tubed system which is very transparent and revealing ie with good resolution, but no artificial brigthness and it clearly lets me hear the diference between a good recording and a mediocre or downright bad one. This Cappriccio definitely belongs in the BAD category.
I have an old early sixties DGG Kubelik Lp of the same overtures that both musically and soundquality-wise hammers this disc.
On the other hand two other Cappriccios Zemlinksky´s Lyric Symphony and Bartok´s Piano concertos are both good to excellent although a bit overmiked IMO.
What are you using for your reviews?
It would be good all reviewers here actually lets readers know that.
SACD is after all a high rez format and to me at least, sound quality actually matters a lot.
All the best Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
I gave four stars for sound because I was feeling generous; in the cold light of day, it doesn't deserve such a high rating & I have adjusted this accordingly. I would caution that some of the "edge" to the sound is the orchestra themselves - if you encourage woodwind to almost "overblow" and strings to be more "rustic" then there will be a bit of edge no matter what medium is used especially when it is as closely miked up as this. Don't forget also, that at this time the recording was made, this orchestra was somewhat isolated from the general tone burnishing developments in the West.
For the most part, the digititus (such there is some) doesn't detract from the great playing (and largely very good conducting), so I don't feel a great need to take many stars away. I should have said "unpleasant" not "intolerable" in my original post - apologies for the mix up.
On the point of what my equipment is; I will never reveal this because I do not want to enter into a "mines better than yours" competition with anyone else nor do I want to put off a potential convert to SACD with thinking that one must spend at least £x. I have, what I and my friends think is, a good set-up and my first (far cheaper) set-up allowed me to identify errors on at least one disc that others with far more expensive equipment failed to hear. This is because the most crucial part of listening cannot be purchased - the ears that each of us is born with.
|
|
|
Post by Peter December 2, 2006 (7 of 8)
|
|
I think it deserves 3.85725 stars for sound. The star system here doesn't allow for accurate enough ratings. I also gave 4.833333333..... for performance.
Frankly, the number of stars is less important than the comments in the review. It's quite clear from this thread that some find the sound quite good, while others find it unlistenable, which I assume merits no stars whatsoever. That really is quite a spread! What star system can cope with such diverse opinions?
In forty years of review reading and listening to records, the number of instances where the reviewer's opinion differs from mine, whether in matters of performance or recording or both, is a large number. Does this matter? I don't believe so. Tastes differ. I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist every time someone dares to have an opinion different from mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter said:
I think it deserves 3.85725 stars for sound. The star system here doesn't allow for accurate enough ratings. I also gave 4.833333333..... for performance.
First Peter I agree with (almost) everything you said; the exception is that I would only give the recording quality 3.1416 stars.
|
|
