|
|
|
Mahler's Third Symphony has received a number of fine recordings. In terms of the sound, Honeck's version with Pittsburg is by far the finest of all. For those who demand surround sound, however, I believe this recording is only in stereo. Ah, but what stereo. The recent recording by Nott and, of course, the Chailly recording are both very fine, both as to interpretation and sound, but the Exton recording of Honeck and Pittsburg wins the sound derby and knocks it out of the ballpark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
Being that the third is my favorite Mahler symphony, I'm adding it to my wish list based on your recommendation, even though I've been quite happy with Mahler: Symphony No. 3 - Chailly. But is Honeck's a live performance, and if so, is there applause, like the well received (and reviewed) Mahler: Symphony No. 1 - Honeck?
It is live, but no applause at the end or discernible audience noise.
|
|
|
Post by seth December 25, 2011 (3 of 51)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Mahler's Third Symphony has received a number of fine recordings. In terms of the sound, Honeck's version with Pittsburg is by far the finest of all. For those who demand surround sound, however, I believe this recording is only in stereo. Ah, but what stereo. The recent recording by Nott and, of course, the Chailly recording are both very fine, both as to interpretation and sound, but the Exton recording of Honeck and Pittsburg wins the sound derby and knocks it out of the ballpark.
At the risk of thread-jacking, generally speaking I have a hard time believing that a stereo recording sounds better than a surround sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
At the risk of thread-jacking, generally speaking I have a hard time believing that a stereo recording sounds better than a surround sound.
Yes, well have a listen and decide for yourself among the Mahler 3's. The powerful and powerfully recorded Pittsburg brass may bowl you over, regardless of the number of channels. Your assumption that all surround recordings are inherently superior to stereo recordings seems absurd on its face. But, as they say, de gustibus non est disputandum.
|
|
|
Post by krisjan July 2, 2012 (5 of 51)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
Just posted a mini-review, compelled by the fact that sonic-wise this is the best 3rd I have ever heard.
Your profile indicates that you are a headphone listener. Is that how you assessed this SACD? You make no mention of it in the review which is why I checked "not helpful". Headphone listening is very different from speakers and I suggest you make that clear in your reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
canonical said:
Tough crowd.
How so? The fact remains, you listen to headphones and you get a different sound than by listening to regular speakers.
|
|
|
Post by seth July 2, 2012 (8 of 51)
|
|
"Actually, after listening to Honeck's fluid 3rd, it sounds like Chailly suffers from a certain heavy-handedness and a much drier acoustical environment."
The Amsterdam Concertgebouw sounds drier than Heinz Hall (I assume that's where the PGH recording was made)? I haven't heard the Honeck recording, but IMO the Chailly record perfectly captures the Concertgebouw's generously reverberant acoustics without being muddy like some of the RCO Live recordings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
The recording in question is in stereo. I listen in stereo through headphones, as do most recording engineers and producers when monitoring the production of the majority of SACDs listed on this website.
The major reason for that is to avoid having the speakers playing anywhere near the performance being recorded. OTOH, the mastering engineers use speakers.
But that's not here or there: The difference in aural presentation between a pair of headphones and a pair of speakers is much larger, imho, than any differences among speakers or among headphones. Comments about imaging and soundstage would be specific to one type of listening.
|
|
|
Post by seth July 2, 2012 (10 of 51)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
Being that (1) I was making a specific comparison between two recordings, and (2) you haven't heard one of two being compared, your post pretty much exemplifies your inability to understand this and many others issues discussed on this site.
You were the one who mentioned another recording and used that as a reference point for your comparison, which I and many other people don't think sounds dry, leaving us to wonder what you consider dry. Further, you said that the Chailly recording suffers from a "much drier acoustical environment." The Amsterdam Concertgebouw is widely considered to be one of the best three concert halls in the world (Boston and the Musikverein being the other two).
But simply, maybe this variance is simply due to the difference of listening on headphones vs speakers.
But let's remember, I'm an idiot and your a genius, so anything I have to say is of zero value.
|
|
