Post by huizhu55 March 5, 2013 (21 of 64)
|
|
Saw this review on amazon. Anyone can confirm one way or the other?
Quote
The Tchaikovsky Fourth presented here, which Praga claims was recorded in Moscow on 24 April 1959, is actually a copy of Mravinsky's stereo recording for Deutsche Grammophon, recorded in London on 14-15 September 1960. Extraneous noises 15 seconds into the Scherzo and about 6 minutes into the Finale are proof. The DG and Praga movement timings are not identical, with Praga's timings consistently 2.1% shorter than DG's for each movement. But this just means that the tape players used by Praga and DG ran at slightly different speeds. I recommend getting the DG Original (search for the ASIN "B000E0W24S" at Amazon.com) instead of this fake from the Praga label.
End Quote.
|
|
|
Post by akiralx March 5, 2013 (22 of 64)
|
|
huizhu55 said:
The DG and Praga movement timings are not identical, with Praga's timings consistently 2.1% shorter than DG's for each movement. But this just means that the tape players used by Praga and DG ran at slightly different speeds. I recommend getting the DG Original (search for the ASIN "B000E0W24S" at Amazon.com) instead of this fake from the Praga label.
Sounds like William Barrington-Coupe has come out of retirement...
|
|
|
|
|
|
huizhu55 said:
Saw this review on amazon. Anyone can confirm one way or the other?
Quote
The Tchaikovsky Fourth presented here, which Praga claims was recorded in Moscow on 24 April 1959, is actually a copy of Mravinsky's stereo recording for Deutsche Grammophon, recorded in London on 14-15 September 1960. Extraneous noises 15 seconds into the Scherzo and about 6 minutes into the Finale are proof. The DG and Praga movement timings are not identical, with Praga's timings consistently 2.1% shorter than DG's for each movement. But this just means that the tape players used by Praga and DG ran at slightly different speeds. I recommend getting the DG Original (search for the ASIN "B000E0W24S" at Amazon.com) instead of this fake from the Praga label.
End Quote.
May be true, but the consensus seems to be that Praga improved on the sound. That is recommending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
huizhu55 said:
Saw this review on amazon. Anyone can confirm one way or the other?
Quote
The Tchaikovsky Fourth presented here, which Praga claims was recorded in Moscow on 24 April 1959, is actually a copy of Mravinsky's stereo recording for Deutsche Grammophon, recorded in London on 14-15 September 1960. Extraneous noises 15 seconds into the Scherzo and about 6 minutes into the Finale are proof. The DG and Praga movement timings are not identical, with Praga's timings consistently 2.1% shorter than DG's for each movement. But this just means that the tape players used by Praga and DG ran at slightly different speeds. I recommend getting the DG Original (search for the ASIN "B000E0W24S" at Amazon.com) instead of this fake from the Praga label.
End Quote.
This is not true. Interpretation/balance/duration all are different from the DG recording. BTW
Tchaikovsky: Piano Concerto No. 1, Symphony No. 6 - Richter, Mravinsky I suspect this 1956 Pathetique is the same as the DG mono recording.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox March 6, 2013 (25 of 64)
|
|
huizhu55 said:
Saw this review on amazon. Anyone can confirm one way or the other?
Quote
The Tchaikovsky Fourth presented here, which Praga claims was recorded in Moscow on 24 April 1959, is actually a copy of Mravinsky's stereo recording for Deutsche Grammophon, recorded in London on 14-15 September 1960. Extraneous noises 15 seconds into the Scherzo and about 6 minutes into the Finale are proof. The DG and Praga movement timings are not identical, with Praga's timings consistently 2.1% shorter than DG's for each movement. But this just means that the tape players used by Praga and DG ran at slightly different speeds. I recommend getting the DG Original (search for the ASIN "B000E0W24S" at Amazon.com) instead of this fake from the Praga label.
End Quote.
See my post No 16 of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, some fairly strange comments seem to be proliferating on this thread. Suffice it to say:
1) These are revelatory performances;
2) The Tchiakovsky is definitely genuine stereo, and pretty good stereo for the era at that. - I'll have another listen to the Schubert before commenting again.
3) Despite 'proof' to the contrary, this is NOT the same performance as the DG. It's better, and sounds way, way better as well - completely different balance and reading. It's way more natural sounding, without DG's grossly artificial balances, doesn't overload at the drop of a pin and doesn't scream with a mouthful of grit in tuttis.
It's a desert-island disc, frankly. At this price, it's a no-brainer. It's also the best-sounding Praga historic re-issue I have heard, by some distance. Frankly, some are dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonalogic said:
3) Despite 'proof' to the contrary, this is NOT the same performance as the DG. It's better, and sounds way, way better as well - completely different balance and reading. It's way more natural sounding, without DG's grossly artificial balances, doesn't overload at the drop of a pin and doesn't scream with a mouthful of grit in tuttis.
Which says nothing of it being a different performance than the DG recording from the 1960 stereo recording (not the 1956 mono recording that is on another DG disc which is in mono). You just stated a bunch things that speak to sound, but nothing of performance that would indicate it is different than the 1960 DG recording(which is the recording of contention from the Amazon site).
|
|
|
Post by huizhu55 March 6, 2013 (28 of 64)
|
|
Jonalogic said:
3) Despite 'proof' to the contrary, this is NOT the same performance as the DG. It's better, and sounds way, way better as well - completely different balance and reading. It's way more natural sounding, without DG's grossly artificial balances, doesn't overload at the drop of a pin and doesn't scream with a mouthful of grit in tuttis.
Just curious, are u comparing the Praga disc (sound quality wise) to the Universal shm-sacd or the esoteric SACD?
Just curious, are u comparing the Praga disc (sound quality wise) to the Universal shm-sacd or the esoteric SACD?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which says nothing of it being a different performance than the DG recording from the 1960 stereo recording (not the 1956 mono recording that is on another DG disc which is in mono). You just stated a bunch things that speak to sound, but nothing of performance that would indicate it is different than the 1960 DG recording(which is the recording of contention from the Amazon site).
Please read what I actually wrote. Quote - completely different... READING.
|
|
|
|
|
|
huizhu55 said:
Just curious, are u comparing the Praga disc (sound quality wise) to the Universal shm-sacd or the esoteric SACD?
No problem. I purchased the Esoteric but sold it, being profoundly dissatisfied with the SQ. The Universal was far superior, so I have kept it.
So, my SQ references for Mravinsky performances of Tchaik 4 are 1) Late DG vinyl 2) The DG RBCD and 3) The Universal SHM-SACD.
I have to say I think the Praga sounds better than all three. But that's just my opinion, of course.
|
|
