Post by big sur March 20, 2011 (11 of 31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Music Man said:
Another label in this vein is http://chesky.com/
Agreed. But their classical releases are very much a mixed bag.
|
|
|
Post by Johnno March 21, 2011 (15 of 31)
|
|
Why did the "Living Stereo" SACD releases stop? I cannot believe it was lack of demand. I have them all (well, only "Turandot" of the operas) and would have continued buying them as there were so many "gems" still to be done.
Ditto with the Mercurys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johnno said:
Why did the "Living Stereo" SACD releases stop? I cannot believe it was lack of demand. I have them all (well, only "Turandot" of the operas) and would have continued buying them as there were so many "gems" still to be done.
Ditto with the Mercurys.
IMO, they were priced extremely well......they were hybrids which did not necessitate a separate RBCD release and a lot of them were mch (well, three channel).......ALL the ingredients for a successful launch.
I suppose they weren't great money makers and with all the record companies downsizing their staffs, I would imagine they didn't have the personnel available to do the mastering.
As far as the Mercurys......Harry Pearson of the Absolute Sound was NOT enamored with the first batch and publicized it in his magazine (even though he said the second batch of releases was "better") and they were also reasonably priced but after the first six years of SACD releases, I'm sure it was their opinion that SACD was becoming a niche market and was simply not worth the effort.
There is a lot of money in SACD reissues and I am confident that both labels will eventually emerge as pricey SACDs (to make it worth everyone's efforts.....with the exception of the consumer)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
IMO, they were priced extremely well......they were hybrids which did not necessitate a separate RBCD release and a lot of them were mch (well, three channel).......ALL the ingredients for a successful launch.
I suppose they weren't great money makers and with all the record companies downsizing their staffs, I would imagine they didn't have the personnel available to do the mastering.
As far as the Mercurys......Harry Pearson of the Absolute Sound was NOT enamored with the first batch and publicized it in his magazine (even though he said the second batch of releases was "better") and they were also reasonably priced but after the first six years of SACD releases, I'm sure it was their opinion that SACD was becoming a niche market and was simply not worth the effort.
There is a lot of money in SACD reissues and I am confident that both labels will eventually emerge as pricey SACDs (to make it worth everyone's efforts.....with the exception of the consumer)!
Yes, a rare example of fair pricing - but things move on.
I'd now happily pay twice the original asking price per disc to see these series - especially the LSCs - continue.
So would many folk, I suspect.
Do they not realise this?
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir March 30, 2011 (18 of 31)
|
|
I got this in the mail yesterday. I totally agree that the sound quality is amazing-- especially considering that the Copland pieces were recorded in 1957. I enjoy Gould as a composer. But his interpretations of these and the Grofe are extremely mannered. I do recommend this disc because it's fun to listen to-- But if you want to hear how these works shold be played, there's Copland, Bernstein (a Copland acolyte), Ormandy, Slatkin. If you search, you can still find the Bernstein SACD (non-hybrid).
|
|
|
Post by Iain March 30, 2011 (19 of 31)
|
|
Jonalogic said:
A jolly good question.
And no, your ears are not deceiving you. On high quality system, this observation just slaps one in the face.
IMHO, a simple answer (ho-ho) - simplicity.
These Liivng Steros are minimalist recordings with two mikes, simple mixers, all-valve electronics and an analog recorder.
In recordings, less is more. The best piece of electronics is no electronics.
So instead of what's been lost, the more salient issue is what's been added in many modern recordings. The answer? A load of junk...
More mikes, more electronics, more mixers, more post-processing, equalisation, reverb, gain-riding, tweaky or just unnecessary DSP, PCM recording with inadequate bitrates and just plain tinkering etc all make for worse sound. And most of these, IMO, are band-aids for fundamentally deficient recording practice.
Evidence from the modern era - the most mikes, mixng and post-processing was and is done by the companies with the worst SQ - DG, Exton, LSO Live, Membran.
Conversely, companies who maintain a minimalist approach - such as Proprius and Opus 3 - can consistently produce results with the see-through transparency and natural quality as evidenced in many (but not all) of the old doggies.
QED.
Indeed.
First SACD i purchased in 2009 was:
Chopin: Ballades & Scherzos - Rubinstein
Everytime I listen to it, I'm continually impressed by the dynamic, natural sound of each piece; Rubinstein's performance here is unsurpassed. I think I need more of these Living Stereo SACD's as it's the only Living Stereo title I currently have.
That said, me thinks you complain too much of LSO Live sound. Once is enough to get your point across.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iain said:
First SACD i purchased in 2009 was:
Chopin: Ballades & Scherzos - Rubinstein
Everytime I listen to it, I'm continually impressed by the dynamic, natural sound of each piece; Rubinstein's performance here is unsurpassed. I think I need more of these Living Stereo SACD's as it's the only Living Stereo title I currently have.
I know I've posted this elsewhere, but this is about the best piano recording I've ever heard. You can hear Art releasing the damper pedals.
Doug
|
|
