|
|
|
Yannick Nézet-Séguin’s Ein Heldenleben on BIS seems to draw conflicting interest. For performance as well as for its sound. Opinions clearly vary according to personal taste and, to a certain extent, on performing practice. With so many recorded versions available, comparison is easy and famous conductors have set the parameters. If a new version does not comply and ‘does not fit the generally accepted mould’, it will be difficult to compete in such a field. The long and the short of it seems to be that for some Nézet Séguin does not live up to what is expected: His Hero is too small. ‘So many tastes so many views’ is welcome. Moreover, it is interesting to note that reviewers have their own ‘reference recording’. This is a bonus, as it acts as a yardstick by which to measure the intrinsic value of their view. But I do wonder why some critics are so overly critical and why one of the US ‘big five’ (The Philadelphia Orchestra) would choose someone who is not able to conduct a decent Heldenleben as its next music director and why he is on the Gramophone list of the ten most promising young conductors? Or is the recording team to blame? The other controversial issue.
Robert von Bahr (Bissie) has given an account of BIS’ recording practices on this site and has, for all I know, never made it a secret that the recordings are made in PCM and only the final result transferred to DSD. Even if some disagree, it does not mean that the artistic quality has been tampered with, as others do: How is it possible that a string quartet sounds like a chamber orchestra? Why does one get so much low noise rumble if there are no low tones in the music? I am grateful that BIS, in producing the way they do, and in doing so, is able to issue so many SACD's with highly interesting repertoire. And, reading a review of this disk on the site of Len Mullenger (len.mullenger@musicweb-international.com), I can understand Bissie’s outrage. The reviewer did, indeed, punch below the belt. Unwillingly so, I hope. I, too, did not think this recording was up to the usual high standard. But using formulae like the recording level being ‘ridiculously low’ (why must something that sounds not good to the ears of a reviewer be ridiculed?) is ‘not done’.
|
|
|
Post by bissie August 4, 2011 (2 of 15)
|
|
Since the link, provided by Adrian Cue isn't correct (he provided an email address) I will here print my (slightly edited) note to the Editor. I don't do it because I want to take a debate from musicweb to sa-cd.net, but because this discussion, rather this misconception about low-level recordings has been repeated so many times that I have grown thoroughly tired of it.
BIS recordings are NEVER low-level, as far as dynamics go. We are one of the very few companies that is honest as far as dynamic range is concerned. I am really upset by the many persons who write about technicakl things they simply don't have a clue about. Here is my objection (and the correct link):
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2011/Aug11/Strauss_Heldenleben_BIS1880.htm
A note from Robert von Bahr
One ground rule is never, but never to get into a debate with a critic - they invariably get the last word, mayhaps a very acerbic one at that.
But I have to throw caution to the winds here, when I read your review of BIS-SACD-1880 Ein Heldenleben with the Rotterdam Phil under Yannick N-S, and I am going to take you to task.
I have no objection whatsoever to your opinions about the music-making or your several comparisons - they are your respective yours to make, and I can just say de gustibus non discutandum...
But when you start to write about technical details you write erroneously
Specifically, your comments on on low-level recordings. Quotes:
...not helped by a very low level recording...
...And why is the recording level ridiculously low, robbing the music of all its bite and – later – its bile?...
...As for the sonics, BIS seem to have lost the lead they established with their earlier SACDs; I do hope they return to form some time soon....
Well, the answer is the following: The recording level is NOT ridiculously low, or, actually, low at all. However, you do make the same mistake that most of the general public do, but which you shouldn't, and that is that you compare an honest, original-dynamic recording with all the compressed, manipulated and faked recordings out there.
If you cared to measure the peaks of this recording, you'd find that they go up to the maximum allowed. Indeed you write yourself ...And despite some thrilling tuttis... (how can they be thrilling, if they are desperately "under-recorded"??). The peaks of basically all other recordings also reach that same maximum. However, the extended dynamic range (that's a technical term, meaning the decibel difference between the loudest and softest passages of a given recording) that is part of the 24-bit recording and SACD reproduction systems makes it possible to encapsulate what the composer wrote and the artists performed, without any alterations, level-wise. (Possibility, though, doesn't make for actual actions, as most other companies have shown through their fake and manipulated recordings.) Simply put: we define the loudest crash of the whole SACD, put that at 0 dB, and let the rest be in peace, i.e. what is being performed.
The obvious advantage is that you get a recording with the absolutely correct dynamic range and audio level, as performed by the Artists.
The equally obvious disadvantage is that the AVERAGE level will be lower than on recordings which have been compromised, either electronically or by hand, meaning that their dynamic range has been diminished, i.e. compressed, which all is another way of saying that our recording has a vastly superior dynamic range, to be literal, precisely as vastly superior as you perceive the level to be ridiculously low!!
Yes, I do concede that our system of recording gives the equipment of the listener a tougher workout. You have to crank the amplifier up and have good speakers in order to enjoy the recording to its fullest capacity. It is for those discerning people that we make our recordings. I do concede that this makes it all but impossible to listen to the recording in a car, in a noisy ambience or in the shower, or wherever you may choose to listen to it outside of a good listening room.
Having said that, I also have to state that I find the value of true honesty, honesty to the composer's score, honesty to the Artists and honesty to their playing, to FAR outweigh the disadvantages mentioned above.
Conversely I find the compression of recordings, so rampant in this day and age, presumably to fit mp3 media, to downsize the music to fit boom-boxes or computer soft-speakers, to enable listening in any ambience, thus depriving the music of any likeness to what was actually performed, to be scandalous, and I am flabbergasted that a critic, as well-known as you, firmly deprives himself of any technical credibility by yielding to that misconception and the writing of the quotes above.
Our recording accurately shows the dynamic range, on a medium that so allows, that the Artists intended and actually performed. You may disagree with what they did, how they played, the colour of the conductor's hair, or whatever, but you can not write as you did and get away with it. Now let's see, if you, or your Editor, have the integrity of an English gentleman and own up to your mistakes.
Thank you for reading - Robert von Bahr, CEO, BIS Records
Read more: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2011/Aug11/Strauss_Heldenleben_BIS1880.htm#ixzz1U54jMQGh
|
|
|
Post by Peter August 4, 2011 (3 of 15)
|
|
Adrian Cue said:
...... But using formulae like the recording level being ‘ridiculously low’ (why must something that sounds not good to the ears of a reviewer be ridiculed?) is ‘not done’.
"Ridiculously" as in "Ridiculously low" is an English expression meaning "very low indeed". I think you are taking the meaning literally. The expression doesn't imply literal ridicule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Bissie, I did give the wrong link. And let me say once again that I, for one, do not doubt the sincerity of BIS. Yes, some recordings are better than others. That is normal. As a matter of fact, I own quite a number of yours and I can only encourage you to continue, since many of us are lovers of music and we do appreciate honesty as far as the recorded sound is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Peter August 4, 2011 (5 of 15)
|
|
bissie said:
Since the link.......................
.............Thank you for reading - Robert von Bahr, CEO, BIS Records
This is an unhappy episode.
Having read many of this reviewer's articles on musicweb, I note he has written a good deal about BIS. Indeed, several of his reviews are "rave" reviews......
....and in the interest of balance I think it worth providing these quotes from just one article:
"Kudos to all involved, especially the BIS engineers, who have produced another astounding disc."
"Sensibly the BIS engineers haven’t gone for a hifi spectacular, but have produced a recording of considerable range and sonic impact."
"An exhilarating symphony this, and another triumph for Vänskä, his players and the BIS engineers. Even in an age of high-resoution recordings this must count as one of the finest recordings in the cycle."
"‘Luosto’ is simply wonderful and will be one of my discs of the year."
"The BIS team have done a very good job of conveying the special feel of a live performance without compromising on sound quality."
The whole article can be found here:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/Aho/Aho.htm
and it may prove productive to search all of this reviewer's contributions, especially about releases on BIS, before suggesting that, due to his opinions on BIS 1880, that he "firmly deprives himself of any technical credibility by yielding to that misconception and the writing of the quotes above."
|
|
|
Post by bissie August 4, 2011 (6 of 15)
|
|
Peter said:
This is an unhappy episode.
Having read many of this reviewer's articles on musicweb, I note he has written a good deal about BIS. Indeed, several of his reviews are "rave" reviews......
(...)
and it may prove productive to search all of this reviewer's contributions, especially about releases on BIS, before suggesting that, due to his opinions on BIS 1880, that he "firmly deprives himself of any technical credibility by yielding to that misconception and the writing of the quotes above."
If you read my comment, I say absolutely clearly words to the effect that I respect his opinions and wouldn't dream of discussing them. NB: OPINIONS.
When it comes to technical FACTS, which are completely wrongly depicted with him and with several others, who don't understand what they're talking about, I have no patience.
All the quotes Peter has brought forward from this reviewer are OPINIONS. I don't have any quarrel with them, nor with his very negative OPINIONS about the Heldenleben's playing and/or interpretation.
But I don't want to read hogwash about dynamic ranges and "low-level" recordings, indicating that we don't have a clue about what we're doing. Not from him, nor from anyone. These have now become so numerous, feeding on each other, that I finally have had to take a firm stand and explain why they're so sorely mistaken. Our recordings save the actual dynamics for posterity. We don't lie, we don't alter, we don't change. If other recordings of the same material sound louder on an average, it is because they're tampered with, compressed, tops smooooothed out, so that the mezzo-forte feels louder. You as consumers must decide what you want. I know what I want to give.
This discussion has mushroomed up several times since we started the practice of serving up "Original Dynamic Recordings" in the '80:s, and has been laid to rest, just to show up again. I am tired of it - it would seem that every new generation is totally unable to learn basic physics. It is not against that reviewer per se - he is a good guy - but the general ignorance and inability to think.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter said:
"Ridiculously" as in "Ridiculously low" is an English expression meaning "very low indeed". I think you are taking the meaning literally. The expression doesn't imply literal ridicule.
I know that, but 'very low indeed' is just as unjust, because (in this case) it is simply not true. Have you listened to it? Do you have a volume control? By the way, who are you? I could not find more than that you are 'X'. Not very forthcoming, is it?
But I do like many of your reviews, so don't take offence to what I am saying. (As you guessed, English is not my native language, so be pleased that you don't have to say what you want to say in French). What I don't like, is people raving about past recordings, well played though they are, but that is not the issue here, which sound a lot less real than what BIS has on offer. And, by the way, I did take note of all the good things the reviewer you referred to had to say about BIS (do you know him, or is it you?).
|
|
|
Post by Peter August 4, 2011 (8 of 15)
|
|
bissie said:
If you read my comment....... It is not against that reviewer per se - he is a good guy - but the general ignorance and inability to think.
Robert
I did indeed read your comment - what I cannot understand is your not taking the reviewer's comments about his perception of the recording of the Strauss being low level, together with his comments about many recordings of just one other composer. He has heaped praise on other BIS projects' sound quality, but not this one.
You say his positive comments are all opinions but the rare negative one is a symptom of his ignorance. Low-level or not, the full range does not appear to him to have been achieved successfully across the board, but it does appear to do so in spades in so many of your other productions. I can offer no opinion here as I have not heard the recording in question, but it is clear that the perceived low level was not apparent in the Aho SACDs. I am not going into detail of his reviews of other BIS releases; had he made the "low level" comment in the majority of those you may have had grounds for questioning his ability to assess sound quality.
Whatever the semantics are here, and whatever the reasons there are for this, we are left with in this case the situation that the recording quality did not impress the reviewer. While this is clearly upsetting for you, I doubt very much that your trying to undermine his credibility is the solution.
I am not going to make any further comment on this site but hope the situation can be sorted out soon.
|
|
|
Post by bissie August 4, 2011 (9 of 15)
|
|
Peter said:
I did indeed read your comment - what I cannot understand is your not taking the reviewer's comments about his perception of the recording of the Strauss being low level, together with his comments about many recordings of just one other composer. He has heaped praise on other BIS projects' sound quality, but not this one.
You say his positive comments are all opinions but the rare negative one is a symptom of his ignorance. .
Whatever the semantics are here, and whatever the reasons there are for this, we are left with in this case with the situation that the recording quality did not impress the reviewer. While this is clearly upsetting for you, I doubt very much that your trying to undermine his credibility is the solution.
And, Peter, you're still missing my point:
this - or any - reviewer can think whatever he wants about any aspect of the recording or performance, and I have no quarrel with his opinions, positive, negative or indifferent.
But he goes far beyond that, as do some people on this site. He claims not that the recording sounds bad (well, actually he does that, too, and that is OK) but that it is plagued by a technical fault that influences the recording, and that technical fault it doesn't have. Period. The loudest place is as loud as SACD allows, and the rest is what it was.
The habit by basically every company to reduce the dynamic range by compressing, for all the wrong reasons (in my view) has become the norm. I am fighting that norm - and have since the inception of CD, and will continue to present to the public what the musicians actually did, not what yielding to people's bad audio equipment or listening behaviour makes other recording engineers think they need to adjust to. This is a very big difference, it is a pivotal point of philosophy, and not a simple question of semantics. Previously we have been hailed to the sky for this, but now it would seem that the conformation and the adjustment and nearing pop music dynamic standards are becoming the norm, and THAT, in my view, is a great pity indeed.
Yes, I am elitist. So are our Artists - elits. They're worth nothing less than to be presented with what they did, not what a Walkman listener in a car thinks he needs.
Robert
|
|
|
Post by wehecht August 4, 2011 (10 of 15)
|
|
I found it very difficult to arrive at a proper playback level for this recording (six partial or complete playings were necessary), but once I did it snapped into focus quite nicely. Ultimately I chose a volume setting 3db above what's typical for large orchestral works in my room. This is a db or two more than some BIS recordings and a db or two less than others. The key for me was to find the level at which the quiet passages sounded natural, and everything fell into place from there. In that regard it helps to be listening in a dead quiet room(as I am right now at midnight), then Im Abendrot is absolutely magical.
|
|
