Post by terence September 8, 2006 (21 of 29)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
My answer to him is that with the right equipment this kind of recording can really create the illusion of having "transported the listener into the concert hall".
With lesser equipment, perhaps the illusion is less startling. If you have been underwhelmed with what you have heard as multi-channel, maybe you should look forward to some better equipment, and do some serious shoppping, because for those who cherish the concert hall experience, the multichannel experience, such as is to be had on this particular recording, can be quite wonderful.
as someone who has constantly upgraded equipment for the past 20 years or so, i think that windsurfer is right - it VERY much makes a difference what equipment you are using. it can alter not just your overall listening pleasure, but also your perception/opinion of a particular piece of music or a particular performance of it.
that's not surprising really - the same is true of live performance. where you are in the hall ("good" seats or "bad") can have a major effect on your impression of the concert in question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
With respect, it's nothing to do with the quality of the equipment (why do so many get so distracted by this?) but the expectations the listener has of how the instruments are positioned. I would go so far as to say, for those who are not coming from a audiophile background (and it is my fervent hope that many do not so that the customer base for this great format expands), ANY multi-channel setup is a startling illusion for those used to stereo.
It may be that Rudy A-Traxx would or has really enjoyed the approach that Tacet adopts (very successfully IMHO but also undoubtably very controversially for many here and elsewhere) of being on-the-podium/in-the-orchestra (albeit with some very strange layouts) rather than in-the-audience.
I would have heartily agreed with you concerning equipment and perhaps I should have stated quality of set up rather than equipment. I visited a store east of here that I used to regard very highly an asked to play some sacds in mch. They were not set up to do it however were accomodating. Their equipment was easily worth 5 or 6 times my own and my friend and I were surprised that my setup sounds better. Perhaps the rear channels were not loud enough but we were underwhelmed to say the least the speakers were B&W with the $20,000 usd per pair for front left and right. So here I shoot my own argument down if one interprets it equate expensive with "quality of".
If, like Rudy A-Traxx, one is using Bose loudspeakers all around, which produce their own Synsetheis of ambience, Typical Mch SACDs might sound blurry or something compared to more traditional speakers. That was why I phrased the sentence the way I did.
|
|
|
Post by Julien November 10, 2007 (23 of 29)
|
|
What a bad Rudy A-Traxx did! I hope he would understand now.
We have here one of the finest Malher performances AND recordings we are gifted with on SACD, and his stupid rating for a comment that should have been in the discussion makes it look dull. It certainly unduly prevented many people from buying it.
Review to come.
|
|
|
Post by Claude November 11, 2007 (24 of 29)
|
|
Julien said:
What a bad Rudy A-Traxx did! I hope he would understand now.
We have here one of the finest Malher performances AND recordings we are gifted with on SACD, and his stupid rating for a comment that should have been in the discussion makes it look dull. It certainly unduly prevented many people from buying it.
Not if they *read* the reviews.
I certainly don't buy SACDs based on the average rating on this site, also because many discs are overrated (5 star ratings galore).
|
|
|
Post by TerraEpon November 11, 2007 (25 of 29)
|
|
Claude said:
Not if they *read* the reviews.
I certainly don't buy SACDs based on the average rating on this site, also because many discs are overrated (5 star ratings galore).
Eh, with a five point review system, there's very little wiggle room. IMO five means "IMO it was fully worth buying".
As for what Julian said, well, he's the same person that claims people shouldn't review discs where they don't like the music, IIRC...
-Joshua
|
|
|
Post by zeus November 11, 2007 (26 of 29)
|
|
TerraEpon said:
As for what Julian said, well, he's the same person that claims people shouldn't review discs where they don't like the music, IIRC...
This is my comment. It's in the review guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by Claude November 11, 2007 (27 of 29)
|
|
TerraEpon said:
Eh, with a five point review system, there's very little wiggle room. IMO five means "IMO it was fully worth buying".
IMHO, five stars means "excellent", but discs which are only "good" or "very good" (3-4 stars) can also be fully worth buying.
|
|
|
Post by stateser December 4, 2008 (28 of 29)
|
|
Hmm, I bought it before finding you all. Was not a fan of Abbado Mahler until I heard DG's Abbado 6th and fell in love. The clarity and subltly were astounding. So, saw the 5th today and snatched it up. Played on the same equipment and thought my word the SACD sound here is not remarkable, especially the first violins. Big disappointment for me. Will be much more cautious at looking at what is actually DSD and not repackaged 24 bit.
|
|
|
Post by Domimag March 31, 2011 (29 of 29)
|
|
You should try the Blu-ray "Mahler/Abbado/5/Lucerne" by EuroArts
It is so so much better (artistic and sound) with a real multichannel 5.1 and a dream orchestra !
and with the video ;-)
|
|
