Post by zeus September 10, 2003 (1 of 8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by nucaleena September 12, 2003 (2 of 8)
|
|
zeus said:
First SACD from the Audite label. For more details see:
http://www.audite.de/
After seeing stephens note i checked with amazon.uk and got a superb price (of £5.50, about $US8.20, same in Euros) from a marketplace seller called windsong-services. They may have multiple copies and anyone interested can follow the link from this site, or go to amazon uk and enter the disc title in search or else try "marketplace@windsong-services.co.uk" (they have a few other SACD titles at decent prices but not at quite so good a discount as the Saint Saens). Have ordered a copy for myself, will let you know what i think.
|
|
|
Post by nucaleena September 15, 2003 (3 of 8)
|
|
nucaleena said:
After seeing stephens note i checked with amazon.uk and got a superb price (of £5.50, about $US8.20, same in Euros) from a marketplace seller called windsong-services. They may have multiple copies and anyone interested can follow the link from this site, or go to amazon uk and enter the disc title in search or else try "marketplace@windsong-services.co.uk" (they have a few other SACD titles at decent prices but not at quite so good a discount as the Saint Saens). Have ordered a copy for myself, will let you know what i think.
Looks like a dud site, - got sent wrong disc, they aparently don't have the Audite disc they advertised and just blame amazon for confusion. Sorry about the bum steer. Will have to find it elsewhere
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monteverdi wrote a glowing review of this disc, then followed by perhaps an even more glowing review of the Munch. My question is this:
IF you already have the Munch, do you need this disc because the sound on this much, much more recent recording is better? Is it better?
I know the Munch is a great performance (I have it) with pretty decent sound, but I would expect more high frequency extension, greater detail, better dynamics from a new recording, plus the "surround" effect which when properly implemented really does "transport the listener to the concert hall" (or recording venue as the case may be).
So: Is the Audite worth getting for sound quality if you have the Munch and would like a more life-like sound?
|
|
|
Post by Castor February 19, 2006 (5 of 8)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Monteverdi wrote a glowing review of this disc, then followed by perhaps an even more glowing review of the Munch. My question is this:
IF you already have the Munch, do you need this disc because the sound on this much, much more recent recording is better? Is it better?
I know the Munch is a great performance (I have it) with pretty decent sound, but I would expect more high frequency extension, greater detail, better dynamics from a new recording, plus the "surround" effect which when properly implemented really does "transport the listener to the concert hall" (or recording venue as the case may be).
So: Is the Audite worth getting for sound quality if you have the Munch and would like a more life-like sound?
I have both and have to say that the Munch leaves the Audite standing. The LF is much stronger and firmer on Munch and the very reverberant church acoustic on the Wildner adds an unfortunate glassy sheen to the strings. Having said that, the Wildner has interesting couplings but would not be my first choice for Saint-Saens.
The Pentatone RQR version also is worth hearing.Good 4 channel sound.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Daland February 19, 2006 (6 of 8)
|
|
I fully agree with Castor. The Audite disc was a bitter disappointment (all the more so as the Kubelik SACDs issued by that label are very good in both interpretative and sonic terms).
A modern 5.1 surround recording is not yet available. But the Pentatone 4.0 disc (Rotterdam PO, Edo de Waart) is a good option. Of the two stereo SACDs in my collection I find the DG disc with Barenboim and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (Universal Japan) to be the most satisfying and the most spectacular. It is quite expensive, but includes some more pieces by Saint-Saens like the Danse macabre and the Bacchanale from "Samson et Dalila". These are analog recordings dating from 1976-1981.
The other stereo SACD features Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra plus a number of organ pieces performed by Michael Murray. I haven't played this disc for some time, so I'm not quite sure about its relative merits or demerits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daland said:
I fully agree with Castor. The Audite disc was a bitter disappointment (all the more so as the Kubelik SACDs issued by that label are very good in both interpretative and sonic terms).
The other stereo SACD features Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra plus a number of organ pieces performed by Michael Murray. I haven't played this disc for some time, so I'm not quite sure about its relative merits or demerits.
I appreciate your and Castor's input. Regarding the Ormandy, if you have not played it for a long time and don't remember its virtues, I would guess it doesn't have many, otherwise you would have treated yourself to them.
I guess Audite has a varied track record. I have their Saint Saens Piano Concertos and boy, those are impressive recordings...natural uncompressed full lovely sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tough call: I like the Barber Toccata very much on the Audite: makes the Linn version seem a little flaccid, though the Linn organ has deeper bass while the Audite organ is more tart. The rhythmic snap and explosive percussion of the Audite orchestra is hard to forget.
|
|
