Dont Buy!!! EMI Great Recordings of the Century
Enigma NimrodŠ
Recordings of the Century Series this morning, it
is the Schubert's Quintet in C, D956 played by
Alban Berg Quartet. The whole series is remastered
by EMI's own "art" remastering process.
That is a digital recording dated 18-22.XII.82. I
don't know why they still process that DDD by
their greatest "art" remastering process.
When I listen the disc completely, I've found that
the interpretation is really great, but the
background is absolutely silent - or tooooo
silent. The string sound makes me feeling
extremely uncomfortable. I remember when I bought
all the discs of Beethoven's Late Quartets (same
Alban Berg, same recording location, same
recording period 82-84, NOT "art" remastered) from
RedLine, I feel the strings sound has still been
traced the "digital string" but acceptable.
This Schubert disc IS EXTREMELY UNACCEPTABLE. It
is NO resonance, FULL of digital string, MESSED
sound picture...
I had experienced the same case of some discs from
the Karajan Edition (with the same great "art"
remastering), I guess and feel that that "art" is
only served for the old analog recordings.
Ar... If there is any classical music recording
executive here, please listen, OK? YOU ARE KILLING
THE GREAT RECORDINGS in your GREAT RECORDINGS OF
THE CENTURY series...
Regards,
Enigma NimrodŠ
http://mehp.home.ml.org
NOSPAM...@homemail.comNOSPAM
[End of Message]
==================================================
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791)
Concerto for Piano and Orchestra Nr 23 in A Major
KV488: Vienna 2.III.1786
II. Adagio [7'14]
RealAudio 16K HTTP Streaming:
http://mehp.home.ml.org/adagio.ram
Maurizio Polini
Wiener Philharmoniker
Karl Böhm
==================================================
A Fanatical Toscaniniphile
<NOSPAM-...@homemail.com---NOSPAM> wrote:
>This Schubert disc IS EXTREMELY UNACCEPTABLE. It
>is NO resonance, FULL of digital string, MESSED
>sound picture...
your previous posts (about Sony 20-bit remapped versions) asking how
you make the comparisons to older editions that you so strongly warn
us against.
Unless you reply with the methodology I cannot possibly evaluate if
your opinion will be useful to me. Perhaps some others would want to
know how these comparisons are made, too. Then we can really judge,
for example, how you derived the conclusion that this particular CD
has a "MESSED sound picture" and perhaps even what a "MESSED sound
picture" happens to be.
I don't mean any disrespect. It is just that when I post comparisons,
I try to include at least SOME indication of the procedure I used to
draw the conclusions. Did I listen to the CD over the radio? Did I
use an XYZ machine? Did I use speakers? Phones? Telepathy? Did I
switch instantly back-and-forth using a second player to the identical
music in a previous transfer, with the levels matched? Did I hear the
offending CD a minute, an hour, a day, or a year later than the "good"
one?
If you were organizing and printing your opinions in a paper for a
good high school or undergraduate college class, you would be expected
to provide SOME inkling of how you draw forth your conclusions. We
are not held to this standard on the ng, but one must remember that
some of us practice such techniques of measurement and comparison in
our professional lives, and if you wish to reach US you will have to
provide more information in order to give weight to your opinion.
AFT
A Fanatical Toscaniniphile
four of the new "ART" series EMI CD's, to provide an exact opposite
"cancellation" of the Enigma comment, quoted below, that:
> YOU ARE KILLING
>THE GREAT RECORDINGS in your GREAT RECORDINGS OF
>THE CENTURY series...
To EMI from me:
You are HONORING the "Great Recordings" in your honest job of faithful
remastering. The ones I have heard sound better than ever. Keep up
the good work.
For example, I have synchronized two Sony CDP-350 players with copies
of the Furtwaengler 1951 Beethoven Ninth using EMI disk # CDH 7 69801
2, issued in 1984, with the "ART" transfer of the same performance on
EMI disk #5 66218 2, switching instantaneously from one machine to
another, using a Nakamichi 410 preamp and AKG headphones, and find
that the newer transfer is clearer, is lacking in the phony stereo
echo of the old one, and has more solid bass without the ripe
equalization boosts of the old one. I like this new transfer; I
respect it; I appreciate your current techniques of production; I look
forward to more; and this encourages me to buy them.
Cheers to EMI!
AFT
rkha...@adnc.com
Fictitious_Address@##SPAMBLOCKER##Juno.com (A Fanatical Toscaniniphile)
wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:05:09 +0800, "Enigma NimrodŠ"
> <NOSPAM-...@homemail.com---NOSPAM> wrote:
> >This Schubert disc IS EXTREMELY UNACCEPTABLE. It
> >is NO resonance, FULL of digital string, MESSED
> >sound picture...
> In case you may have missed it, I have "attached" a question to one of
> your previous posts (about Sony 20-bit remapped versions) asking how
> you make the comparisons to older editions that you so strongly warn
> us against.
>
> Unless you reply with the methodology I cannot possibly evaluate if
> your opinion will be useful to me. Perhaps some others would want to
> know how these comparisons are made, too. Then we can really judge,
> for example, how you derived the conclusion that this particular CD
> has a "MESSED sound picture" and perhaps even what a "MESSED sound
> picture" happens to be.
To be fair to EMI, the original LP issue of this recording [Schubert's String
Quintet with the Berg Quartet and Schiff] was considerably bright and the
latest digital remastering may have just made matters worse. This may be a
case where some surgical treatment of the original source may be called for.
Ramon Khalona
Carlsbad, California
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Paul Goldstein
I used to have the Berg Qt's Schubert Quintet in its original EMI issue. It
was pretty bad all around, including the glassy, uninvolving sound. (As
well as the glassy, uninvolving, mechanical performance.) So I don't think
this is a case of EMI ruining anything.
Simon Roberts
: I used to have the Berg Qt's Schubert Quintet in its original EMI issue. It
: was pretty bad all around, including the glassy, uninvolving sound. (As
: well as the glassy, uninvolving, mechanical performance.) So I don't think
: this is a case of EMI ruining anything.
No, they did it wrong the first time -- though if I remember right, the
disc coupling quartets 13/14 sounded even worse; hideously strident,
blaring, ugly sound that bears no resemblance to any string instrument
I've heard. I ditched both discs pretty quickly; whatever the merits of
the performances were completely ruined by the sound. I would be
surprised, though, if the remastering sounds worse.
Simon
Alrod
<NOSPAM-...@homemail.com---NOSPAM> wrote:
>That is a digital recording dated 18-22.XII.82. I
>don't know why they still process that DDD by
>their greatest "art" remastering process.
Because early digital on most labels is a series of miscalculations.
Over time, digital recordings have become much smoother and more
liveable, but the early ones are often beasts. The close microphoning
and treble emphasis that often produced satisfying analog recordings
were inappropriate for CDs, and some record companies made many
mistakes before developing new techniques better suited to the new
technology.
>When I listen the disc completely, I've found that
>the interpretation is really great, but the
>background is absolutely silent - or tooooo
>silent.
I don't understand this. Are we supposed to hear traffic noise, air
conditioning, cicadas? Or does toooooo silent mean that the room is
dead without natural-sounding reverberation?
>The string sound makes me feeling
>extremely uncomfortable. I remember when I bought
>all the discs of Beethoven's Late Quartets (same
>Alban Berg, same recording location, same
>recording period 82-84, NOT "art" remastered) from
>RedLine, I feel the strings sound has still been
>traced the "digital string" but acceptable.
Let's try to find other words for this. Harsh? Wiry? Scrape-y? Too
close?
>This Schubert disc IS EXTREMELY UNACCEPTABLE. It
>is NO resonance, FULL of digital string, MESSED
>sound picture...
OK, no resonance. That's helpful. Digital string? I can guess but I
may not guess right. Messed sound picture? Oh boy. Are the players
seated too close together in the center, or spread too far apart? Are
some instruments closer than others? Does the seating change from
movement to movement or moment to moment? Or is it to blurry to tell?
>I had experienced the same case of some discs from
>the Karajan Edition (with the same great "art"
>remastering), I guess and feel that that "art" is
>only served for the old analog recordings.
So you think that the analog issues are OK, but this digital one is
not? Why?
Alrod
Enigma NimrodŠ
<363e79b9...@news.mindspring.com>...
|On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:05:09 +0800, "Enigma
Nimrod©"
|<NOSPAM-...@homemail.com---NOSPAM> wrote:
|
|>That is a digital recording dated 18-22.XII.82.
I
|>don't know why they still process that DDD by
|>their greatest "art" remastering process.
|
|Because early digital on most labels is a series
of miscalculations.
|Over time, digital recordings have become much
smoother and more
|liveable, but the early ones are often beasts.
The close microphoning
|and treble emphasis that often produced
satisfying analog recordings
|were inappropriate for CDs, and some record
companies made many
|mistakes before developing new techniques better
suited to the new
|technology.
I understand that. For many labels I tried, ie
DGG, Philips, most of their reissues of the early
DDD recordings with (my own) satisfaction.
|>When I listen the disc completely, I've found
that
|>the interpretation is really great, but the
|>background is absolutely silent - or tooooo
|>silent.
|
|I don't understand this. Are we supposed to hear
traffic noise, air
|conditioning, cicadas? Or does toooooo silent
mean that the room is
|dead without natural-sounding reverberation?
Yes, your expression is right as I thought.
|>The string sound makes me feeling
|>extremely uncomfortable. I remember when I
bought
|>all the discs of Beethoven's Late Quartets (same
|>Alban Berg, same recording location, same
|>recording period 82-84, NOT "art" remastered)
from
|>RedLine, I feel the strings sound has still been
|>traced the "digital string" but acceptable.
|
|Let's try to find other words for this. Harsh?
Wiry? Scrape-y? Too
|close?
I need to say that, I am not a "Westerner", nor
European. I am a Chinese living in China. Please
don't hope that such meaningful adjectives or
superior words can be seen from my writings.
|>This Schubert disc IS EXTREMELY UNACCEPTABLE. It
|>is NO resonance, FULL of digital string, MESSED
|>sound picture...
|
|OK, no resonance. That's helpful. Digital string?
I can guess but I
|may not guess right. Messed sound picture? Oh
boy. Are the players
|seated too close together in the center, or
spread too far apart? Are
|some instruments closer than others? Does the
seating change from
|movement to movement or moment to moment? Or is
it to blurry to tell?
You asked questions more than me!
|>I had experienced the same case of some discs
from
|>the Karajan Edition (with the same great "art"
|>remastering), I guess and feel that that "art"
is
|>only served for the old analog recordings.
|
|So you think that the analog issues are OK, but
this digital one is
|not? Why?
|
|Alrod
This is the first time I want to quit writing
here, this NG. I think that my original writing
has not hurt anybody at all. I've written
questions or feeling for near half year, I am a
little unhappy this time in fact.
If anyone has not got the CD (EMI 724356694224)
(or the original CD), but claim that the
remastering could possibly enhance or maintain the
same as the original, its unfair.
To AFT, I don't mean any disrespect. I am using
Philips CD Player + Denon Amplifier + B&W Speakers
to listen those CD at midnight, but the most
important thing is that - I understand my hearing
and I can hear things. For the Alban Berg
Quartett's recordings, I've listen them from the
end of the analog to DDD era. My writing was only
based on the disc EMI 724356694224. EMI put the
art on the early DDD recording. Why they need to
REmaster their original? Just want to have the new
enhancement, from the new technology, of the
original, right?
That disc is the showcase of what art is stupid.
It minimizes/dead the noise, then reshape the
curve. As everybody knows, the early DDD
recordings have their "irregular" high frequency
curve (maybe the placement of the microphones made
things more worst), putting art on early
DDD+quartet is more and more emphasis their high
frequency. It is no help for that original DDD
tape, because they are sufacely in good silence
(even they have poor balance or positioning). The
result seems like putting the poor Dolby on the
top-trebled machine. The effect seems like sudden
dead then sudden treble yelling.
If art really helps, I don't know why the
producers in EMI doesn't put the art on the LvB
Late Quartets by the same AB Quartett (same period
of DDD, same location, or even same producer) on
their RedLine Series. Except one disc (analog)
which published on 1979, it sounds OK. I really
enjoy the acceptable sound and their
interpretation of those RedLine quartets.
"Wise man never ask". I think I better act to be a
read-only subscriber. I believe and always think
that music is something special for me to make
myself more happy or "enjoying" the sad, but not
"hate". I think I need to listen more and more
Mazart after I send this posting! This is what I
want to say.
Regards,
Marco LAU
Enigma Nimrod©
A. F. T.
<NOSPAM-...@homemail.com---NOSPAM> wrote:
>This is the first time I want to quit writing
>here, this NG. I think that my original writing
>has not hurt anybody at all. I've written
>questions or feeling for near half year, I am a
>little unhappy this time in fact.
Alrod and I understand and appreciate that English is not your native
language, and I shouldn't speak for him, but in my case I do not wish
to discourage you from posting here, as I too have felt that way from
time to time when something I wrote was "piled" on.
Do not stop posting here on account of this particular issue, please!
>If anyone has not got the CD (EMI 724356694224)
>(or the original CD), but claim that the
>remastering could possibly enhance or maintain the
>same as the original, its unfair.
Precisely right, and I do not have the CD (I had the old set of the
Beethoven Quartets by the Alban Berg, and have heard the Death &
Maiden quartet at least twice, but do not own it.) I recall exactly
what Ramon mentioned: the sound of these early EMI digitals was
substandard: poor, "metallic", lacing in accurate and realistic
dynamic range down to the level of room tone (i. e. cut short abruptly
at a certain amplitude); fatiguing and harsh. Even my LP copy of the
Death and the Maiden, digitally mastered but transferred to analogue
vinyl, sounded poor (though it seemed to have more "air" because of
the vinyl record grind, which adds a spurious noise signal that passes
for 'low level ambience'; I have written about this long ago in
discussing LP sound.)
What I reacted to was the blanket dismissal of the ART transfers of
all the EMI recordings: you stated that EMI were ruining them and that
no one should buy them. You used ONE example, and did not explain how
you listened to it and compared it to the older version you preferred.
>To AFT, I don't mean any disrespect. I am using
>Philips CD Player + Denon Amplifier + B&W Speakers
>to listen those CD at midnight, but the most
>important thing is that - I understand my hearing
>and I can hear things.
I don't understand your hearing, and nobody else on the ng understands
it or ANYBODY ELSE'S HEARING! Therefore, we have ways of
communicating meaningful common shared concepts, utilizing the
terminology current in the audiophile press. While I might not, as an
engineer, be able to provide a technical definition for "harsh",
"tizzy", "blurred" or "congested", these terms have been used so many
times to describe recordings that all of us have heard that we can
agree to their colloquial meaning. I would prefer a slightly more
expanded description than "congested" for example (since I understand
much of the mechanism of audio system overload distortion, or audio
limiter artifacts) but I *HEAR* "congestion" just the way everybody
else on the ng does: the examples of congested sound that others have
posted sound that way to me, too.
However, I don't hear "MESSED" sound since I don't know what it is. I
accept your explanation that you do not have a large English
vocabulary to describe the subtleties that you perceive and can
explain in your own native tongue.
I would suggest only that you indicate if you have done a close A-B
comparison of the recordings, or not. I am not too worried if you
can't find the precise ideal English word to describe what you hear; I
am only worried that I cannot duplicate your comparison method so that
I can decide if I hear the same defect that you report.
If you have not used an A-B comparison, then I will consider your
report of deficiencies in the modern ART transfers to be interesting,
to be thought-provoking, and to be worth my time to confirm. I will
make an attempt my own way to confirm it, by the means that I usually
employ, as well as an attempt by YOUR method, if I can find out what
it is.
I fully respect your hearing, your discernment, your listening skills,
and your ability to express what you think and feel. I do NOT doubt
anything you said, your veracity, your musical comprehension, your
intellect, your capability to discern details and shades of
difference. But I do not take orders from other people about
subjective artistic matters; I prefer to be guided by their full
expression of informed opinion. Often I experiment, I discover, and I
learn this way. Often I confirm the well-formed opinions of others,
and I find that I am in agreement. On other occasions, I make my
tests and I fail to agree; but now I have an informed opinion AS WELL
AS an appreciation for the opposite viewpoint of an informed person.
However, as regards your urgent, absolutely direct order for us NOT to
buy ART transfers, based on your opinion, you MUST surely expect at
least some of us to ask for further information.
(I have posted such things here myself, for example in regard to fake
stereo. I have also included all my own biases, references, and
philosphical points of departure, and exactly how I have made
comparisons. Then, someone who does not share my point of view can
just read my opinions, say to herself "That's interesting! Another
diatribe from AFT" and pass on to the enjoyment of a fake stereo Iron
Noodle issue.)
Scientists express this type of skepticism and intend NO personal
disrespect. Perhaps we have a cultural difference of the west and the
east getting into this, too. But here in the west, when one discusses
the technological, scientific aspect of a sound recording, we expect
some kind of repeatability in the testing or evaluation process so
that we can individually verifty. When we can use your listening
technique AND verify that we agree with what you say, we will probably
decide not only to stop buying EMI ART CD's, but also to tell EMI to
stop what they are doing, just as you have done.
If we CANNOTt repeat your listening test, since we have not been told
how to do it, many of us will NOT simply take your word for it and not
do as you tell us to do.
That is NOT evidence of any personal disrespect to YOU. It is the
"scientific marketplace of ideas" model at work in western
technological society.
AFT
A. F. T.
Recently in a discussion thread there were conflicting opinions
expressed by myself and others regarding the "sound quality" of
Furtwaengler and Toscanini recordings.
I became tired of reading (and writing) merely an emotional and
subjective reaction to the good and bad recordings, so I took some
time to analyze about a dozen or more versions of the Haydn
Variations. I reported in some 700 lines the method I used to make
the comparisons (employing simple audiophile-grade equipment anyone
can obtain), my estimated measing errors, and a report on the musical
dynamic range, hall resonance decay, and octave band equalization
differences (with respect to a modern benchmark reference.) I
included a precise description of how I made the comparisons so that
someone else could duplicate my method or devise a better one.
I found some interesting and highly surprising things that
contradicted my own personal emotional musical biases; I reported them
completely and honestly.
Tony Movshon has made some tentative comparisons by another method,
and privately reported a deviation in one direction in certain data,
and a confirmation of another datum that he at first questioned.
This is what I consider the proper means of presenting a vivid,
strongly worded, and deeply felt conviction about something you
believe that others should take action about.
When you have personally achieved the status of an authority we can
fall back on the short-cut process of saying "Enigma is surely right
about this, and I am sure that if I investigate I shall agree." To
become such an authority, you must provide us with the means to
evaluate your expertise, to confirm it, and to use it as a future
source for authoritative, repeatable analysis. If anyone (myself
included) fails to do this, we can expect our opinons to be analyzed,
questioned respectfully, and subjected to independent testing for
verification.
We have several "authorities" here on the ng. I value Alrod's
opinion; Alain Dagher's; David Gabel's; Don Drewecki's; Ducky's; Mark
Obert-Thorn's; Marc Perman's; Ramon Khalona's; Samir Golescu's; Seth
Winner's;Tony Movshon's (and so MANY others!) and have recently
discovered Ray Hall and added him to my 'group' of intelligent
individuals I wish to click on and sample in regard to opinions about
music and performance. They have, at one time or another, posted a
significant body of opinion, method of reasoning, and an explanation
of personal biases and gestalt, so that I know "where they're coming
from" and I want to know what they think in case I have overlooked
something about an issue under discussion. They can counter a
question with a counter-argument, provide followup data, and enable me
to clarify what I may have mis-perceived or improperly understood. I
would be only too happy to add Enigma to this list, if I knew how to
verify his strongly-held convictions, or to "calibrate" them against
any differing ones that I may have.
AFT
rkha...@adnc.com
Please do not over-react by not continuing to post your opinions or to ask
questions. Quite frankly, you made a blanket statement about a whole segment
of EMI's recordings based on a sample of ONE (and even that one was disputed
since the original source was at fault!) It is understandable to feel as you
did when one of our favorite recordings gets botched up by the labels, but to
go from that to ask for a boycott of ALL of their recordings is a bit extreme
(let's chide them for what they choose NOT to reissue instead! :-)
I am sure many feel as I do, that your opinion here is valued and welcome.
But we do have disagreements, and sometimes, as we delve deeper into them, we
learn a thing or two about the original and subsequent subjects. I hope you
reconsider and that you join us when you feel better.
With friendly regards,
Alrod
<NOSPAM-...@homemail.com---NOSPAM> wrote:
>"Wise man never ask". I think I better act to be a
>read-only subscriber.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Your posts are always welcome. The
questions were not to make you feel bad, but to help me understand
better.
Alrod