Post by Castor January 31, 2005 (11 of 67)
|
|
Dinko said:
I lost count of the number of Scheherazades I have heard on CD and radio. I tried to rate them; tried to pick out "the best"; compared them one to another, sometimes minute by minute; looked at the score; listened again; compared some more; and finally, the only conclusion I've come to regarding this work is that every single one of these recordings has something going for it. Even Gergiev's, which I think is one of the most boring, has some very nice touches. It all depends on which mood one is in. Since we're throwing names out in the open, I'll add that the ones I listen to most often are Jansons, Ormandy (Columbia/stereo), Yuasa and Temirkanov.
No one has yet mentioned the version by Serebrier and the LPO on Reference Recordings RR-89. Terrific HDCD sound and great notes by Serebrier in which he explains how every other conductor has got it wrong and his interpretation is right!
|
|
|
Post by sgb February 12, 2005 (12 of 67)
|
|
sgb said:
FWIW, Classics Today recommends the Spano/Atlanta on Telarc as the best performance and the best sound available.
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=388
I suppose there's no accounting for taste after all.
My interest piqued by the stellar review quoted at the arkivmusic link above, I ordered a copy of this from Amazon and have just finished listening to it.
I first noted that the recording is DSD - which means, of course, that Telarc could release this as an SACD if there was a market for it. Now that I have listened to it, I would say that this one would quickly rise to the top of my SACD want list.
While the sound quality is typical Telarc, the performance is, as the reviewer notes, among the best I've ever heard.
|
|
|
Post by tream February 18, 2005 (13 of 67)
|
|
Listened to the Reiner for the first time last night. Wonderful sound (sounds like a real orchestra in a real hall), beautiful playing by the CSO, not 100% certain about the interpretation yet-there were times that the playing, while beautiful, sounded a little mechanical to me. First impression only. I don't have a long list of favorite Scheherazades, though-it is one of those pieces that I heard often in my youth (the Haitink, which was considered back in those days to be a top choice) and don't often feel a need to hear it again.
|
|
|
Post by Castor February 19, 2005 (14 of 67)
|
|
tream said:
Listened to the Reiner for the first time last night. Wonderful sound (sounds like a real orchestra in a real hall), beautiful playing by the CSO, not 100% certain about the interpretation yet-there were times that the playing, while beautiful, sounded a little mechanical to me. First impression only.
My first impressions match yours. Most exciting finale I have ever heard, but I did not care for the way Reiner moulds the tune in the 3rd movement. Other interpreters let it flow more naturally. This is my only quible.
The fill-up,(Stravinsky Song of the Nightingale) is even better than the Dorati recording on MLP in both sound quality and performance.
|
|
|
Post by bmax March 25, 2009 (15 of 67)
|
|
As with all "Living Stereo" discs it is incorrect to call them Multichannel. Buyers will regret the absence
of sound from the rear speakers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bmax said:
As with all "Living Stereo" discs it is incorrect to call them Multichannel. Buyers will regret the absence
of sound from the rear speakers.
No, it isn't (at all incorrect). They are listed as 3-channel recordings and by definition that is multichannel. And fact is, the SACD itself tells you what it is unlike some of, if not all, the Hyperion discs. Hyperion led to believe the Rachmaninov PCs with Litton were more than 4 channel recordings by not listing what they were other than multichannel.
|
|
|
Post by DSD March 25, 2009 (17 of 67)
|
|
bmax said:
As with all "Living Stereo" discs it is incorrect to call them Multichannel. Buyers will regret the absence
of sound from the rear speakers.
Multichannel refers to more than two channels. It is incorrect to call them surround sound as you are correct there are no rear channels.
BTW we need a modern recording of Scheherazade on SACD preferably DSD. The Philips Gergiev SACD from a 24 Bit 48kHz PCM master was terrible Rimsky-Korsakov: Scheherazade, Borodin, Balakirev - Gergiev.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no SACD player and generally rip CDs to my computer to send digitally to a fairly decent sound system.
Do I get better sound quality by paying extra for this SACD over the CD issued earlier? What about mp3 downloads of the recording at Amazon?
I would so appreciate any advise you audiophiles may wish to share.
Thanks!
Gary
|
|
|
Post by Johnbs November 26, 2011 (19 of 67)
|
|
GaryMilczarek said:
I have no SACD player and generally rip CDs to my computer to send digitally to a fairly decent sound system.
Do I get better sound quality by paying extra for this SACD over the CD issued earlier? What about mp3 downloads of the recording at Amazon?
If you just rip the CD, the SACD in general has no benefit (unless the CD layer has also been improved as part of the reissue).
Even a standard CD *is* much better than mp3 from Amazon or aac files from iTunes
If you have a Home Theatre system with a player that plays SACDs (many reasonable price bluray players do), then you can have the extra benefits of SACD sound quality and surround sound.
John
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir November 27, 2011 (20 of 67)
|
|
Listening to the SACD layer on a player which plays SACD will be far superior to the CD or the CD layer on the hybrid--regardless of ripping. MP3s are dreadful. What John was saying was that if you buy a SACD and rip the CD layer, there is no improvement over the CD you already had. So far, SACD layers are not rippable. (Rippable???)
|
|
