Post by seth September 28, 2005 (1 of 23)
|
|
Performances on this disc are all excellent, even the Bartok which there are a zillion recordings of.
From my 'inside sources' I've heard mixed things about the audio quality. It doesn't seem like a hall issue since their live Schumann cycle done a few years ago came out pretty well. The problem is most likely that this was Polyhymnia first recording; only afterwards could they make adjustments. Since last May, when this disc was recorded, Polyhymnia has made slight but significant changes to their mic setup. The placement is pretty much the same (with some adjustments), but all the mic's are closer to the orchestra and two have been added pointing out into the hall, bringing the total number up to 16.
|
|
|
Post by terence May 17, 2006 (2 of 23)
|
|
interesting. i certainly find the sound veiled in impact in the review i've just posted.
i wonder is the more recent tchaikovsky 5 disc any better?
|
|
|
Post by seth May 17, 2006 (3 of 23)
|
|
terence said:
interesting. i certainly find the sound veiled in impact in the review i've just posted.
i wonder is the more recent tchaikovsky 5 disc any better?
I would say the sound quality is a solid four stars. I think the sound on the Tchaikovsky disc is noticeably better, more spacious and transparent.
I see you listened in surround. I don't have surround, but I know a lot of people who think the stereo layer is superior.
The issue I think some people have with the sound is that it sounds natural, that is, it's not the recorded sound that gives your system a work out like Decca's sound. Listen, for instance, to how unforced yet clear and realistic the tam-tam is. And for best enjoyment, you'll need to turn up the levels up slightly higher than normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
I would say the sound quality is a solid four stars. I think the sound on the Tchaikovsky disc is noticeably better, more spacious and transparent.
I see you listened in surround. I don't have surround, but I know a lot of people who think the stereo layer is superior.
The issue I think some people have with the sound is that it sounds natural, that is, it's not the recorded sound that gives your system a work out like Decca's sound. Listen, for instance, to how unforced yet clear and realistic the tam-tam is. And for best enjoyment, you'll need to turn up the levels up slightly higher than normal.
Seth - Ahhhg - now I will have to listen to the stereo layer to see if I think it is superior.
I saw terence's review and post and just now had to listen to the Bartok again to verify my first impression that (like you seth) the sound is worth a solid four stars.
I goosed the volume up a little, not much, just a little.
I have to say that I have revised my impression of both the sound and the performance. The performance for me is the best I have. Better than (Oh heresy!) Reiner, better than Kocis, better than my RBCD of the Boulez.
The sound is also the best I have, maybe the best I ever heard anywhere. It is NOT "HI-FI" it is totally NATURAL !
There is a quality about it that is unusual, but I certainly don't call it veiled and especially not "clouded". I think what terence is hearing is the sound of the hall. Halls can take what is played in them and (like a living thing) add their own voice!
YES Bruce has finally gone off the deep end - right?
Wrong! I still have all my marbles. But seriously, I suspect (only suspect - because I have yet to enjoy the privilege of hearing a concert in Verizon Hall) that the sound you hear on this disc is much the sound you would hear in a live concert in that venue. I personally think, and of course this references back to my listening room and equipment, that the sound is absolutely wonderful. Its not your up close Tudor sound (and I do enjoy my Schubert symphonies on Tudor), and I can well imagine that on some systems it may not reproduce well at all.
Here, the sound was all I could ever ask for. I have the Tchaikovsky and look forward to hearing it!
|
|
|
Post by terence May 17, 2006 (5 of 23)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
There is a quality about it that is unusual, but I certainly don't call it veiled and especially not "clouded". I think what terence is hearing is the sound of the hall. Halls can take what is played in them and (like a living thing) add their own voice!
windsurfer if you like it, that's all that really matters ultimately. but i'd be interested in further explanation of what you think is "unusual" about the recording.
for me, it's one of the most disappointing SACDs i've heard sound-wise, given the quality of the participants. possibly because i DON'T actually think it's SACD's primary task to give you "the sound of the hall" - far too many halls i've listened to music in are simply not up to that kind of sonic scrutiny (i.e. they may be OK for one-off concerts, but not for repeated listening of the same programme - they have things wrong with them that repeated CD listening uncomfortably emphasises). if this philly recording gives "accurate" hall sound, then i'd have to conclude the hall's not terribly exciting (what do philly concert regulars think of this, i wonder?).
BUT my real feeling is that hi-fi engineers have the opportunity to do something much more exciting than merely mimic a particular hall acoustic - they can actually create something entirely different, and in many respects better. this is what telarc have done in many of their MC recordings, which seem to me to totally understand the quite different circumstances of the home vs. the live concert listener.
i don't want to listen to the bartok/eschenbach again - it's simply too drab and frustrating a realisation to listen to repeatedly. the telarc/jarvi/stravinsky SACD by contrast really DOES bear repeated listenings, and for much of the time is sonically alluring, and truly exciting.
|
|
|
Post by Edvin May 17, 2006 (6 of 23)
|
|
16 mic´s. Is it Phase four?
What I find appealing in Kocsis is the real sense of the Hungarian rhythms, it´s Magyar. Most recordings sound very much like the Eschenbach, a bit on the slow side and not very exciting at all. It is well groomed and behaves nicely, something i don´t think has much to do with the spirit of Bartok, even in this late piece. The new Järvi is even more boring, but then, you know what i think of him.
If you want really good sound try the new Mahler 6 from RCO Live. It is even better than the Rach/Strav.
The Ondine sound is dull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edvin said:
The Ondine sound is dull.
Ha - maybe on your system buddy, but by no means is it dull on mine!
I have the Kocis and it was my favorite, (and mind you I am surely not throwing it in the trash!) until today when I gave the Ondine a further, slightly louder listen. The sound here was fascinating, very smooth, very clean, certainly not veiled though I can see how on another system it may turn out seeming so. There was, I think, somewhat less high frequency content than we are used to. Very much but not quite the same as I hear in my seat in Symphony Hall. That seat is almost on the corner of the second balcony (center) but faces forward and is a first row seat. It is about 80% of the way back from the stage. I think the recording here has just a little less high frequency content than what I hear in that seat and it is certainly credible that it is characteristic of what you would probably hear in Verizon Hall.
My speakers may be a little on the bright side compared to most.
|
|
|
Post by Edvin May 17, 2006 (8 of 23)
|
|
I know what you think surfer, you were quite clear the fist time. Stop being such a teacher, and I´m not at all sure that I´m your buddy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edvin said:
I know what you think surfer, you were quite clear the fist time. Stop being such a teacher, and I´m not at all sure that I´m your buddy.
awwwww...
|
|
|
Post by Edvin May 17, 2006 (10 of 23)
|
|
Grrrrrrrrrrrrowl..
|
|
