What's with Telarc?
Zooey1966
Is anyone else out there less than impressed with the sound quality of Telarc
recordings?? I realize their philosophy is to try and reproduce the concert
hall sound, without a lot or remixing or equalization. But for my money, their
lack of production leaves a very muffled, dull sound. Dare I say I prefer the
overly-mixed, processed-to-death sound of DG and Decca recordings (gasp!!)
Just curious. Please no hate mail from audiophiles.
Simon Roberts
Zooey1966 (zooe...@aol.com) wrote:
: Is anyone else out there less than impressed with the sound quality of Telarc
: recordings?? I realize their philosophy is to try and reproduce the concert
: hall sound, without a lot or remixing or equalization. But for my money, their
: lack of production leaves a very muffled, dull sound. Dare I say I prefer the
: overly-mixed, processed-to-death sound of DG and Decca recordings (gasp!!)
I find their sound extremely variable; until the new Levi Mahler 6 I had
never heard anything but dull fog from their Atlanta recordings, but this
new one sounds excellent (surprisingly good performance too). Some of
their Mackerras recordings (not the awful Mozart series) have good sound;
the new Fidelio from him sounds magnificent. But this unsatisfactory mix
is hardly what one would expect (or is it?) from what sells itself (or
used to) as an audiophile label.
Simon
John Grabowski
I agree they're very variable, and often thought the whole concept the
label was founded on was more hype than real, i.e., the concept looks
good on paper, but the proof is in the pudding. And many of Telarc's
recordings sound as though they stuffed the microphones with pudding
before the session started.
John
--
The movies are so rarely great art, that if we can't appreciate
great trash, there is little reason to go. --Pauline Kael
Paul Goldstein
Zooey1966 wrote:
>
> Is anyone else out there less than impressed with the sound quality of Telarc
> recordings?? I realize their philosophy is to try and reproduce the concert
> hall sound, without a lot or remixing or equalization. But for my money, their
> lack of production leaves a very muffled, dull sound. Dare I say I prefer the
> overly-mixed, processed-to-death sound of DG and Decca recordings (gasp!!)
>
No hate mail, but I don't agree at all with your view of Telarc. While
not invariably successful, on the whole I find their recordings as good
technically as anyone's, and usually superb. (The musical quality of the
disc is something else again, of course.) I do find, however, that you
have to turn up the volume considerably to hear most of their discs
optimally. This is because of the rather wide dynamic range they
capture. Failure to play Telarcs loud enough does result in muffled
sounding recordings - just like many wide-range, minimal-miked
recordings on various labels. The exact same phenomenon can be observed
in Nimbus' better orchestral recordings. Played at a normal level, they
sound muffled, bland, awful. Crank up the volume 50% and they bloom
into something fabulous. (I'm thinking of the Boughton-led Planets and
Scheherezade, by the way.)
Joe Sef
You tell'em Paul! Generally good sound - must be that too many peoples are used to
the 'compression on bust - tweaked silly' sound from Polygram and RCA.
JOE
Phoenix
On 05 May 1998 22:38:58 GMT, zooe...@aol.com (Zooey1966) wrote:
>Is anyone else out there less than impressed with the sound quality of Telarc
>recordings?? I realize their philosophy is to try and reproduce the concert
>hall sound, without a lot or remixing or equalization. But for my money, their
>lack of production leaves a very muffled, dull sound. Dare I say I prefer the
>overly-mixed, processed-to-death sound of DG and Decca recordings (gasp!!)
>
>Just curious. Please no hate mail from audiophiles.
As much as I value my accurate (read: overpriced high-end system),
Telarc's anemic stable of "artists" combined with their synthetic
"demo" style recording techniques makes better fodder for the tweakies
who listen to their stereo's -- in spite of the music -- than for my
personal listening preferences. DG, Decca, Philips, RCA, et al have
produced music, not sound effects, I'll take a late 50's AAD CD from
Decca or RCA over Telarc, thank you.
The tragic irony, though, is that Telarc is probably thriving while
the classical inventories of the above companies are in dismal
financial shape. Bummer, eh?
Phoenix
Ramon Khalona
Paul Goldstein wrote:
>
> Zooey1966 wrote:
> >
> > Is anyone else out there less than impressed with the sound quality of Telarc
> > recordings?? I realize their philosophy is to try and reproduce the concert
> > hall sound, without a lot or remixing or equalization. But for my money, their
> > lack of production leaves a very muffled, dull sound. Dare I say I prefer the
> > overly-mixed, processed-to-death sound of DG and Decca recordings (gasp!!)
> >
> > Just curious. Please no hate mail from audiophiles.
>
> not invariably successful, on the whole I find their recordings as good
> technically as anyone's, and usually superb. (The musical quality of the
> disc is something else again, of course.) I do find, however, that you
> have to turn up the volume considerably to hear most of their discs
> optimally. This is because of the rather wide dynamic range they
> capture. Failure to play Telarcs loud enough does result in muffled
> sounding recordings - just like many wide-range, minimal-miked
> recordings on various labels. The exact same phenomenon can be observed
> in Nimbus' better orchestral recordings. Played at a normal level, they
> sound muffled, bland, awful. Crank up the volume 50% and they bloom
> into something fabulous. (I'm thinking of the Boughton-led Planets and
> Scheherezade, by the way.)
This seems to be a current malady with digital recordings. Tintner's
Bruckner symphony recordings for Naxos suffer from a similar problem.
For example, if you listen to the 5th at the volume I would listen to
most recordings, I would miss the beginning entirely, yet you can't set
the volume too high due to the high dynamic range. The problem is even
worse in his recording of the 2nd where the recording sounds way too
loud at the very end if the volume is set at a reasonably high level to
enjoy most of the recording.
--
Ramon Khalona "Die Sechste ist die Keckste"
Carlsbad, California - Anton Bruckner -
Chuck Ross
In article <354FA2...@hotmail.com>, Paul Goldstein
<paulgo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Zooey1966 wrote:
> >
> > Is anyone else out there less than impressed with the sound quality of
Telarc
> > recordings?? I realize their philosophy is to try and reproduce the concert
> > hall sound, without a lot or remixing or equalization. But for my
money, their
> > lack of production leaves a very muffled, dull sound. Dare I say I
prefer the
> > overly-mixed, processed-to-death sound of DG and Decca recordings (gasp!!)
> >
> > Just curious. Please no hate mail from audiophiles.
>
> No hate mail, but I don't agree at all with your view of Telarc. While
> not invariably successful, on the whole I find their recordings as good
> technically as anyone's, and usually superb. (The musical quality of the
> disc is something else again, of course.) I do find, however, that you
> have to turn up the volume considerably to hear most of their discs
> optimally. This is because of the rather wide dynamic range they
> capture. Failure to play Telarcs loud enough does result in muffled
> sounding recordings - just like many wide-range, minimal-miked
> recordings on various labels. The exact same phenomenon can be observed
> in Nimbus' better orchestral recordings. Played at a normal level, they
> sound muffled, bland, awful. Crank up the volume 50% and they bloom
> into something fabulous. (I'm thinking of the Boughton-led Planets and
> Scheherezade, by the way.)
Sorry, but I agree with the original poster, altho your comments have
much validity. Listen to CDs from DELOS, who also makes superb
audiophile quality recordings and notice that most of them sound
really excellent without the variable qualities that Telarc does seem
to have. The DELOS discs sound superb at low listening levels but will
lack the intended impact that one would get from cranking the level
up really high. I believe DELOS records quite a bit more dynamic range
than Telarc does on many recordings and their CDs really sound low-
level unless you really crank them up. Listen to the Schwartz/Seattle
recording of "Billy the Kid" for a good example on the CD "Out West!"
--
Reason for leaving last job: They insisted that all employees
get to work by 8:45 am every morning. I couldn't work under those
conditions.
(Remove "keeno" to reply)
John Grabowski
Paul Goldstein wrote:
> No hate mail, but I don't agree at all with your view of Telarc. While
> not invariably successful, on the whole I find their recordings as good
> technically as anyone's, and usually superb. (The musical quality of the
> disc is something else again, of course.) I do find, however, that you
> have to turn up the volume considerably to hear most of their discs
> optimally. This is because of the rather wide dynamic range they
> capture. Failure to play Telarcs loud enough does result in muffled
> sounding recordings - just like many wide-range, minimal-miked
> recordings on various labels. The exact same phenomenon can be observed
> in Nimbus' better orchestral recordings. Played at a normal level, they
> sound muffled, bland, awful. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, doesn't that tell you something's wrong right there??? (Do you
have to "crank up" a symphony orchestra in a hall for the acoustics to
sound good?)
Andre T. Yew
Paul Goldstein <paulgo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I do find, however, that you
>have to turn up the volume considerably to hear most of their discs
>optimally. This is because of the rather wide dynamic range they
>capture.
I don't agree with this --- for my tastes, their recording quality is
rather variable. For example, a typical muffled Telarc recording
is the Shaw/Atlanta performance of the Mozart Requiem, which sounds
bad at any volume. But their Verdi Requiem by the same forces in the
same hall is by far more listenable (though a bit hard sounding). Their
Mahler 9 with Lopez-Cobos is quite a fine recording that I would put up
against anything from the more dedicated audiophile labels. It has a very
wide dynamic range, but does not sound muffled when played softly.
--Andre
--
PGP public key available
Paul Goldstein
John Grabowski wrote:
>
> Paul Goldstein wrote:
>
> > No hate mail, but I don't agree at all with your view of Telarc. While
> > not invariably successful, on the whole I find their recordings as good
> > technically as anyone's, and usually superb. (The musical quality of the
> > have to turn up the volume considerably to hear most of their discs
> > optimally. This is because of the rather wide dynamic range they
> > sounding recordings - just like many wide-range, minimal-miked
> > recordings on various labels. The exact same phenomenon can be observed
> > in Nimbus' better orchestral recordings. Played at a normal level, they
> > sound muffled, bland, awful. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Well, doesn't that tell you something's wrong right there??? (Do you
> have to "crank up" a symphony orchestra in a hall for the acoustics to
> sound good?)
>
> John
>
"No." What it tells me is that the recording in question is not
compressed the way virtually all big-label orchestral recordings are.
If our ears are calibrated to compressed recordings, and our volume
controls are set accordingly, uncompressed or less-compressed recordings
such as those by Telarc and Nimbus will sound dull at the pre-set
volumes. However, when the volume is increased one hears a far more
realistic simulacrum of an actual orchestra in an actual hall than you
hear when you listen to virtually any London, DGG, or Philips orchestral
recording.
I don't follow the logic of your second question. You don't have to
turn up the volume at a concert, so you shouldn't have to turn up the
volume to obtain optimal playback at home? Sorry, this makes no sense
to me.
By the way, issues such as these are of course every bit as subjective
as issues of performance quality. I like uncompressed orchestral
recordings better than compressed ones; others clearly feel otherwise.
Early in the digital era some of Fanfare's critics (Howard Kornblum, to
name one) persistently complained about the "excessive" dynamic range of
certain CDs. To me there is no such thing as excessive dynamic range -
I want CDs to come as close as possible to the dynamic range of a
concert. I have no trouble finding a volume level that allows me to
hear the pianissimi without being blown away by the fortissimi.
Chuck Ross
> Paul Goldstein wrote:
>
> > No hate mail, but I don't agree at all with your view of Telarc. While
> > not invariably successful, on the whole I find their recordings as good
> > technically as anyone's, and usually superb. (The musical quality of the
> > disc is something else again, of course.) I do find, however, that you
> > have to turn up the volume considerably to hear most of their discs
> > optimally. This is because of the rather wide dynamic range they
> > capture. Failure to play Telarcs loud enough does result in muffled
> > sounding recordings - just like many wide-range, minimal-miked
> > recordings on various labels. The exact same phenomenon can be observed
> > in Nimbus' better orchestral recordings. Played at a normal level, they
> > sound muffled, bland, awful. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Well, doesn't that tell you something's wrong right there??? (Do you
> have to "crank up" a symphony orchestra in a hall for the acoustics to
> sound good?)
This example is a complete non-sequitur. Recordings of excellent quality
are made to be listened to at the "correct" level. There is only one
"correct" level, and that is the level that the recording engineer
heard while making the live recording. If this recording is not played
back at or fairly near to the "correct" level, it will sound un-lifelike,
whether played too loud or too soft.
Recordings with great dynamic range _have_ to be level-limited on the
recording in order that the recording device does not overload at high
levels. Current digital recording absolutely requires that this be done,
or that compression be used somewhere along the line.
--
"My goal is to be a meteorologist. But since I possess no
training in meteorology, I suppose I should try stock brokerage."
(Remove "keeno" to reply)
Simon Roberts
Paul Goldstein (paulgo...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Maybe I'm not following you, but the answer to the first question is
: "No." What it tells me is that the recording in question is not
: compressed the way virtually all big-label orchestral recordings are.
: If our ears are calibrated to compressed recordings, and our volume
: controls are set accordingly, uncompressed or less-compressed recordings
: such as those by Telarc and Nimbus will sound dull at the pre-set
: volumes. However, when the volume is increased one hears a far more
: realistic simulacrum of an actual orchestra in an actual hall than you
: hear when you listen to virtually any London, DGG, or Philips orchestral
: recording.
I suppose, as you say, that this is all subjective, but recordings I
consider truly top notch (almost nothing from DG, by the way) don't sound
muffled and thick when played at low levels, they merely sound quiet or
perhaps somewhat recessed; that goes for the few Nimbus orchestral
recordings which you rightly say sound wonderful at high volumes and the
few Telarcs I think sound really good (e.g., the Mackerras Fidelio). The
Telarc recordings I don't like sound thick and muffled no matter at what
level I listen to them. Perhaps they merely accurately reflect what one
hears in the halls in question (but if so, why the change in Levi's Mahler
6?); if that's the case, so much for those halls....
Simon
Kalman Rubinson
Paul Goldstein (paulgo...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> Crank up the volume 50% and they bloom into something fabulous. (I'm
> thinking of the Boughton-led Planets and Scheherezade, by the way.)
Then you are also thinking of Nimbus, not Telarc.
Kal
Joseph M. Perorazio
A classic example of the Telarc muffled sound is their Robert Shaw Messiah
CD. The wonderful Atlanta Symphony Chorus virtually disappears amidst the
fog of whatever mixdown technology they used. A shame, too, because this is
one of the better non-period style performances I've heard.
Kalman Rubinson
And did not read the message carefully. Apologies.
OTOH, the Nimbus recordings referred to are quite different from the
offending Telarcs as well as from other Nimbus recordings. Those two
recordings have very low levels of ambient sounds and seem dull and flat
at low levels. They require turning up the wick to get a semblance of
context. OTOH, most other Nimbus recordings (Hanover Band, anyone?) have
an excess of echo and resonance which are not usually overcome by
increasing the playback levels.
Most recent Telarcs (some of the old ones were pretty good) lack presence
at any playback levels although they are smooth and undistorted.
Kal
Michael Wolverton
In article <uowx6TU...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
Joseph M. Perorazio <jpero...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>A classic example of the Telarc muffled sound is their Robert Shaw Messiah
>CD. The wonderful Atlanta Symphony Chorus virtually disappears amidst the
>fog of whatever mixdown technology they used.
When I listened to this recording, I felt the chorus disappeared only
in very convenient passages.
"For unto us a child is ..." <sound of violins playing 16th notes>
Maybe the Telarc engineers are better than we think.
-Michael
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wolverton "Is that clear?"
m...@cs.stanford.edu "No, but it's consistent!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Silverstein
Simon Roberts wrote in message
<6iqpsu$lti$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>I suppose, as you say, that this is all subjective, but
recordings I
>consider truly top notch (almost nothing from DG, by the way)
don't sound
>muffled and thick when played at low levels, they merely sound
quiet or
>perhaps somewhat recessed; that goes for the few Nimbus
orchestral
>recordings which you rightly say sound wonderful at high volumes
and the
>few Telarcs I think sound really good (e.g., the Mackerras
Fidelio).
What about Mackerras' Scherazade? I've heard the sound is
spectacular. That's a Telarc disc, isn't it?
Matty
Ward Hardman
Zooey1966 (zooe...@aol.com) wrote:
: Is anyone else out there less than impressed with the sound quality of Telarc
: recordings?? I realize their philosophy is to try and reproduce the concert
: hall sound, without a lot or remixing or equalization. But for my money, their
: lack of production leaves a very muffled, dull sound. Dare I say I prefer the
: overly-mixed, processed-to-death sound of DG and Decca recordings (gasp!!)
: Just curious. Please no hate mail from audiophiles.
I haven't gotten any Telarc recordings in years, but do have some of the
earliest digital efforts, including Maazel's Mussorgsky "Pictures at an
Exhibition" and Tchaikovsky fourth symphony. I am curious as to whether
Telarc's latest efforts still have the extremely powerful bass encountered
in the Mussorgsky: at any volume level above moderate my subwoofer would
emit loud crackling sounds as it was driven into clipping. (I have to play
Reiner's "Living Stereo" CD if I want a good loud experience.)
Another problem with Telarc was their meddling with the music in order to
produce "demonstration" effects. In the Tchaikovsky 4th, Maazel inserted
a tremendous cymbal clash and bass drum thud at the end of the opening
fanfares. I'm no musician, but a quick glance at my Eulenberg pocket
score showed *no* music at that point for either instrument.
An interesting effect relating to the quality of the sound system may
indicate that Telarc CDs require very expensive equipment to sound their
best. I had both Klemperer's EMI and Shaw's Telarc CDs of Brahms
"German Requiem," and on my system the Klemperer not only sounded
musically better than Shaw, but even sonically superior. On a friend's
high end system (big KEF speakers, as opposed to my DCM "Time Windows,"
etc.) the Telarc sounded so much better that it seemed musically enhanced
as well, while defects in the EMI engineering became annoyingly apparent.
MRPERMAN
>I suppose, as you say, that this is all subjective, but recordings I
>consider truly top notch (almost nothing from DG, by the way) don't sound
>muffled and thick when played at low levels, they merely sound quiet or
>perhaps somewhat recessed;
One DG CD that has truly top notch sound is Rostropovich's suites from the
Tchaikovsky ballets. Of the major labels I find London/Decca to generally have
the best sounding recordings. London seemingly did not suffer the growing
pains of other labels in the early 80s in the transition from analog to
digital. Among other labels I have a number of terrific recordings on Bis and
Chandos (though I know that some find Chandos to be too reverberant). I'm
frequently disappointed by EMI's newer releases. Sony has come a long way in
recent years and now puts out consistently good sound. All of this is, of
course, IMO.
Marc Perman
Simon Roberts
Matthew Silverstein (mesi...@unix.amherst.edu) wrote:
: Simon Roberts wrote in message
: <6iqpsu$lti$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
: >I suppose, as you say, that this is all subjective, but
: recordings I
: >consider truly top notch (almost nothing from DG, by the way)
: don't sound
: >muffled and thick when played at low levels, they merely sound
: quiet or
: >perhaps somewhat recessed; that goes for the few Nimbus
: orchestral
: >recordings which you rightly say sound wonderful at high volumes
: and the
: >few Telarcs I think sound really good (e.g., the Mackerras
: Fidelio).
: What about Mackerras' Scherazade? I've heard the sound is
: spectacular. That's a Telarc disc, isn't it?
If you're asking me, I haven't a clue; not my thing....
Simon
Alrod
> There is only one
>"correct" level, and that is the level that the recording engineer
>heard while making the live recording. If this recording is not played
>back at or fairly near to the "correct" level, it will sound un-lifelike,
>whether played too loud or too soft.
>
>Recordings with great dynamic range _have_ to be level-limited on the
>recording in order that the recording device does not overload at high
>levels. Current digital recording absolutely requires that this be done,
>or that compression be used somewhere along the line.
Sorry, but I have to disagree on both counts. The monitoring level in
the control room is often considerably higher than normal, simply in
order to hear mistakes in the inner voices that might pass unnoticed
at more reasonable volume.
And Telarc got famous in the first place for not compressing anywhere
along the line, in the tradition of Mercury's noninterventionist
recordings. Delos's sound is run by a Mercury alumnus, and for that
reason is also minimally miked and manipulated.
The major labels have always recorded for maximum acceptability - the
presumption is that their recordings must compensate for the lousiest
speakers in the marketplace. That's one of the reasons Sony has so
much trouble remastering older CBS recordings for CD - loudspeakers in
the 50s and 60s were opaque by today's standards and many recordings
were made coarse and strident to cut through.
Telarc, Delos and BIS, among others, engineer for high-end speakers,
and if yours aren't good enough, the recordings will not sound good.
The much-criticized "mush" on certain Telarcs disappears on better
speakers. Since Telarc uses so few mikes, they must determine mike
position and recording balances while everybody's there with the clock
is running - if they recorded 32-track as the majors do, they could
fix lost detail in the mix later.
Chandos recordings are made in open imitation of the classic
Decca/London sound of the late 50s and 60s, which is where the hall
airiness comes from. If you think about it, Chandos discs sound more
like "Golden Age" Decca/London than current D/L's do.
Alrod
Chuck Ross
In article <6ir3mh$ji4$1...@hole.sdsu.edu>, har...@saturn.sdsu.edu (Ward
Hardman) wrote:
>
> Another problem with Telarc was their meddling with the music in order to
> produce "demonstration" effects. In the Tchaikovsky 4th, Maazel inserted
> a tremendous cymbal clash and bass drum thud at the end of the opening
> fanfares. I'm no musician, but a quick glance at my Eulenberg pocket
> score showed *no* music at that point for either instrument.
This is not necessarily Telarc meddling with the score. At a live concert
of the CSO with Solti a few years ago, he played the Mahler First, and
when the big orchestral crash happens in the first movement, there was
an impossibly huge bass drum whump that literally made me jump a foot
off my seat, since I was not expecting that at all. I've never heard
a recording that did that, but I haven't seen the score. It was perfectly
OK with me...very effective!
Beecham also added lots of orchestral effects in his performances, such as
cymbals in Handel's "Messiah".
The cymbal clash and bass drum thud at the end of the opening fanfares
of the Tschaik 4th have been done before lots of times, and I for one,
love it! Most current recordings lack some of the excitement that produced.
Chuck Ross
nfna...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com (Alrod) wrote:
> > There is only one
> >"correct" level, and that is the level that the recording engineer
> >heard while making the live recording. If this recording is not played
> >back at or fairly near to the "correct" level, it will sound un-lifelike,
> >whether played too loud or too soft.
> >
> >Recordings with great dynamic range _have_ to be level-limited on the
> >recording in order that the recording device does not overload at high
> >levels. Current digital recording absolutely requires that this be done,
> >or that compression be used somewhere along the line.
>
> Sorry, but I have to disagree on both counts. The monitoring level in
> the control room is often considerably higher than normal, simply in
> order to hear mistakes in the inner voices that might pass unnoticed
> at more reasonable volume.
Where did I say that this was not so?
> And Telarc got famous in the first place for not compressing anywhere
> along the line, in the tradition of Mercury's noninterventionist
> recordings. Delos's sound is run by a Mercury alumnus, and for that
> reason is also minimally miked and manipulated.
When did I say Telarc compressed anything?
The levels I refer to are the absolute digital levels that must NOT go
over 0vu or distortion is inevitable. For wide-range recordings that are
not compressed, this requires a generally lower overall level on the
recording, which results in the requirement to raise the level on playback
to achieve good room-filling dynamics. Also, if you're not careful, it
can also produce speaker-breaking sound levels.
> Telarc, Delos and BIS, among others, engineer for high-end speakers,
> and if yours aren't good enough, the recordings will not sound good.
> The much-criticized "mush" on certain Telarcs disappears on better
> speakers. Since Telarc uses so few mikes, they must determine mike
> position and recording balances while everybody's there with the clock
> is running - if they recorded 32-track as the majors do, they could
> fix lost detail in the mix later.
Check out the Telarc Brahms 4th/Academic Festival Overture with Andre
Previn for a really good example (bad example?) of a dull-sounding,
muffled Telarc recording, regardless of speakers. Mine are Thiels,
by the way.
Anonymous
Alas, not one of the blathering posters here has
commented on Telarc's chamber music recordings.
The Cleveland Quartet disc of Beethoven Op 18 #6,
and Op 59 #1 is of "demonstration" quality. The
rest of their cycle is top-notch as well.
Telarc's engineers know what they're doing. I
wonder if the posters here know what to listen
for... <sigh>
Chuck
Brian C. A.K.A. 'CHIP'
Chuck Ross wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, but I agree with the original poster, altho your comments have
> much validity. Listen to CDs from DELOS, who also makes superb
> audiophile quality recordings and notice that most of them sound
> really excellent without the variable qualities that Telarc does seem
> to have. The DELOS discs sound superb at low listening levels but will
> lack the intended impact that one would get from cranking the level
> up really high. I believe DELOS records quite a bit more dynamic range
> than Telarc does on many recordings and their CDs really sound low-
> level unless you really crank them up. Listen to the Schwartz/Seattle
> recording of "Billy the Kid" for a good example on the CD "Out West!"
>
> --
> Reason for leaving last job: They insisted that all employees
> get to work by 8:45 am every morning. I couldn't work under those
> conditions.
>
> (Remove "keeno" to reply)
I've found most Delos discs to be rather lifeless.... I would attribute this more
to the performances than to the recording technique... neither of which are to my
liking. I've bought several Delos discs over the years just to be quite
disappointed afterward..... needless to say, I have no Delos discs in my collection
at this time. The Telarc issue is quite different... I've found some of their
discs to be quite incredible. Copland's "Appalachian Spring" with Atlanta/Levi is
probably the most underrated performance ever recorded. Also Vaughan William's' "A
London Symphony" RPO/Previn is quite well recorded and has a weighty impact. and
Rimsky-Korsakov's "Scheherazade" Mackeras/LSO is stunning in its recorded power and
beauty ....matched to a red hot performance from the LSO.
On the filp-side, I've found several of their recordings and performances to be
quite disappointing.... Holst's "Planets" RPO/Previn remains one of my favorite
performances, but the recording is just a big let down..... One I'd rather not
remember was Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique" Zinnman/Baltimore ( I think) this was
a absolute non-starter..... Plus until just recently it seemed all they released
were Cincinnati Pops albums which in my opinion ...if you have one of those you
have them alll.
For overall sound quality and dedicated performances , I find it hard to beat many
of the Chandos BBC Philharmonic Issues released over the past few years.... Just
check out the outstanding Dutilleux and Hindemith recordings with Torterlier at the
helm.... The Dutilleux Symphonies are stunningly good to say the least... I also
like the sound ASV Gaudeamus has produced in their recordings with The Cardinall's
Musick and The Clerks' group. Specific discs of merit in this series include
(Fayrfax: Missa O quam glorifica, The Cardinall's Musick, CD GAU 142) and
(Ockeghem: Missa Fors Seulement, The Clerk's Group, CD GAU 168)
--
***************************************************
This message direct from The Interstellar Toxic Jelly Consortium, to be
henceforth
referred to as ITJC. Any information provided or received in this message
becomes
the sole property of ITJC. If for any reason the information in this document
should
be used for reasons outside those contained in the ITJC mission statement the
user should request prior written consent from ITJC.....
Brian W. Camp A.K.A. "CHIP"
***************************************************
Simon Roberts
Alrod (nfna...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com) wrote:
: Telarc, Delos and BIS, among others, engineer for high-end speakers,
: and if yours aren't good enough, the recordings will not sound good.
: The much-criticized "mush" on certain Telarcs disappears on better
: speakers. Since Telarc uses so few mikes, they must determine mike
: position and recording balances while everybody's there with the clock
: is running - if they recorded 32-track as the majors do, they could
: fix lost detail in the mix later.
If the "mush ... disappears on better speakers" why would they need to
"fix lost detail in the mix later"? And if that's the sole explanation
(I do most of my critical listening through what are generally
regarded as high-end headphones), why is it that I never hear the blankets
of fog that pervade some Telarc recordings on BIS and Delos (or other
labels which offer sound I consider excellent), and why is it that many
Telarc recordings seem to lack that flaw completely (sounding quite
wonderful), all through the same system?
Simon
Alrod
>> The much-criticized "mush" on certain Telarcs disappears on better
>> speakers. Since Telarc uses so few mikes, they must determine mike
>> position and recording balances while everybody's there with the clock
>> fix lost detail in the mix later.
>If the "mush ... disappears on better speakers" why would they need to
>"fix lost detail in the mix later"?
Because many listeners are so used to artificial spotlighting of inner
voices in recordings. In live performance, detail gets lost all the
time - it's called blend. However, in recordings it's considered a
sign of incompetency.
In life, our visual sense dominates our aural by 90-10. In the absence
of visual cues, the major labels routinely serve up a wholly synthetic
orchestral sound picture.
The producer Andrew Kazdin said in an interview that he prepared for a
recording session by buying all the major CDs of a work, noting the
different details audible on each one, then attempted to bring them
ALL out in his recording. No wonder nobody knows what an orchestra
sounds like.
>Check out the Telarc Brahms 4th/Academic Festival Overture with Andre
>Previn for a really good example (bad example?) of a dull-sounding,
>muffled Telarc recording, regardless of speakers.
Andre Previn's live performances are dull and muffled - if any of his
recordings ever sparkle, I'd attribute it to the engineers. (And why
would anyone want to hear his Brahms?)
Of course not all Telarcs are well balanced. Not all of ANY label's
recordings are well balanced - well, maybe Keith Johnson's, but I'm
not a Serebrier fan.
Alrod
Don Drewecki
The dull, muffled sound you've heard may a consequence of several
things: First, and most likely to me, is the use of spaced
omnidirectional microphones. Home speakers are not omnidirectional, and
neither are our ears. Moreover, the original patents for stereo diverge:
The Bell Labs patent from the early '30s specify THREE mikes going into
THREE channels, a kind of "curtain of sound" approach, best appreciated
in theaters, and at a distance from the speakers.
The EMI/Blumlein patent is for TWO microphones and TWO speakers,
intended for home reproduction. The irony is that most spaced omni
recordings involve just two mikes, but not the ones specified by
Blumlein, which are cardioids or figure-8s.
My main point is that while omnis are used because their adherents claim
they sound more "musical" -- whatever that means -- you can't get a
clear, precise, exact image as you can in the Blumlein pattern.
It's also possible that they're using A>D/D>A converters that suck. For
me, a lot of classical music is recorded dogmatically, and many labels
or broadcasters are more than happy to accept the "soft-focus" effects
of spaced-omni miking, because that's what's politically correct. Amd
there are enough suck-up audio and music writers who buy into this crap.
Dorian, for example, has put out some of the worst sonics I have ever
heard on CDs, and yet they have all the politically correct equipment.
For my money, BIS sounds better than virtually every other label in
terms of sonic accuracy and clarity, balanced by "naturalness" and
"warmth", subjective terms to be sure. Telarc is not as great, but
still better than Dorian.
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Norman M. Schwartz
Alrod <nfna...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com> wrote in article
<3551dc79...@news.mindspring.com>...
> Because many listeners are so used to artificial spotlighting of inner
> voices in recordings. In live performance, detail gets lost all the
> time - it's called blend.
That very much depends upon your seat location. I always hear more detail
live than in any recording.
> In life, our visual sense dominates our aural by 90-10. In the absence
> of visual cues, the major labels routinely serve up a wholly synthetic
> orchestral sound picture.
I can't agree here either. Many times I've experienced a very clear
prominent sound and have to search about visually, usually in vain, to
determine it's source.
Norman
John Grabowski
Chuck Ross wrote:
> This is not necessarily Telarc meddling with the score. At a live concert
> of the CSO with Solti a few years ago, he played the Mahler First, and
> when the big orchestral crash happens in the first movement, there was
> an impossibly huge bass drum whump that literally made me jump a foot
> off my seat, since I was not expecting that at all. I've never heard
> a recording that did that, but I haven't seen the score. It was perfectly
> OK with me...very effective!
If I recall (help me Deryk!) Deryk Barker discusses a Bernstein
recording on that symphony that also has said thump.
> "My goal is to be a meteorologist. But since I possess no
> training in meteorology, I suppose I should try stock brokerage."
Boy, I like that quote!
John
...who just fired his broker
John Grabowski
Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> Paul Goldstein (paulgo...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> : Maybe I'm not following you, but the answer to the first question is
> : "No." What it tells me is that the recording in question is not
> : compressed the way virtually all big-label orchestral recordings are.
> : If our ears are calibrated to compressed recordings, and our volume
> : controls are set accordingly, uncompressed or less-compressed recordings
> : such as those by Telarc and Nimbus will sound dull at the pre-set
> : volumes. However, when the volume is increased one hears a far more
> : realistic simulacrum of an actual orchestra in an actual hall than you
> : hear when you listen to virtually any London, DGG, or Philips orchestral
> : recording.
>
> consider truly top notch (almost nothing from DG, by the way) don't sound
> muffled and thick when played at low levels, they merely sound quiet or
> perhaps somewhat recessed; that goes for the few Nimbus orchestral
> recordings which you rightly say sound wonderful at high volumes and the
> Telarc recordings I don't like sound thick and muffled no matter at what
> level I listen to them. Perhaps they merely accurately reflect what one
> hears in the halls in question (but if so, why the change in Levi's Mahler
> 6?); if that's the case, so much for those halls....
>
> Simon
I have or have had some Telarcs where inner lines weren't recorded,
probably because of the minimlaist miking technique. Listen to one of
their very first CDs--the Beethoven Emperor with Ozawa/Serkin (okay, so
in my youth I didn't have taste)--and you'll hear counterpoint missing
in the first movement.
As for the murky issue--I hear it too, whether the volume is high or
low, headphones or no. I don't hear this on other audiophile labels. I
have Telarc choral music where the choir is so fuzzy I can't understand
any of the words without them in front of me.
John
Stephen Rinker
Alrod wrote in message <3551356f...@news.mindspring.com>...
>Sorry, but I have to disagree on both counts. The monitoring level in
>the control room is often considerably higher than normal, simply in
>order to hear mistakes in the inner voices that might pass unnoticed
>at more reasonable volume.
>
>And Telarc got famous in the first place for not compressing anywhere
>along the line, in the tradition of Mercury's noninterventionist
>recordings. Delos's sound is run by a Mercury alumnus, and for that
>reason is also minimally miked and manipulated.
>
>
Alrod,
You raised a lot of interesting points here.
Telarc use microphone techniques very similar to those on the "Classic"
Mercury Recordings. Namely spaced Omnidirectional microphones.
I would say that in location recordings where the listening environment
cannot be relied upon, engineers and producers increasingly rely on
headphones for monitoring.
Stephen.
Stephen Rinker
Don Drewecki wrote in message <6it840$i...@lecture.its.rpi.edu>...
>
>The dull, muffled sound you've heard may a consequence of several
>things: First, and most likely to me, is the use of spaced
>omnidirectional microphones. Home speakers are not omnidirectional, and
>neither are our ears. Moreover, the original patents for stereo diverge:
>
>The Bell Labs patent from the early '30s specify THREE mikes going into
>THREE channels, a kind of "curtain of sound" approach, best appreciated
>in theaters, and at a distance from the speakers.
>
>The EMI/Blumlein patent is for TWO microphones and TWO speakers,
>intended for home reproduction. The irony is that most spaced omni
>recordings involve just two mikes, but not the ones specified by
>Blumlein, which are cardioids or figure-8s.
>
>My main point is that while omnis are used because their adherents claim
>they sound more "musical" -- whatever that means -- you can't get a
>clear, precise, exact image as you can in the Blumlein pattern.
>
>Don,
I think the reason some people, myself included, claim Omnis to be "more
musical" is that they are generaly considered to have superior sound
quality.
Clearly when a microphone is designed to have directional properties you
compromise is overal sonic performance. I have no desire to re rum the old
arguments of pro/against Blumein. As you say some fabulous recordings have
been made using those techniques. But it's horses for courses is'nt it ?. As
long as the results serve the music well.
One of the most successful (Not used by Telarc) techniques is the "Decca
Tree" Three Omnis Mounted in a array. The Solti Ring for example.
Stephen
Mark Koldys
In article <199805080004...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
dib...@aol.com (Diberto) wrote:
> One of my worst DDD recording I have ever heard is
> the Telarc Franck Organ works.......from the first time I heard
> it, I couldn't believe the amount of hiss and white noise I was
> hearing.
Are you sure that wasn't the mechanical noise of the organ and the air
blowing thru the bellows??
"A long life is only extra time for more trouble" -- Charlie Chan
Brian C. A.K.A. 'CHIP'
Don Drewecki wrote:
> For my money, BIS sounds better than virtually every other label in
> terms of sonic accuracy and clarity, balanced by "naturalness" and
> "warmth", subjective terms to be sure. Telarc is not as great, but
> still better than Dorian.
> --
> Don Drewecki
> <dre...@rpi.edu>
Just don't buy those awfully muffled Scriabin Symphony discs on BIS.... quite
embarrassingly bad!!!!
However... the BIS Martinu Symphonies with Jarvi are quite well recorded and
played.
And as posted earlier, if you want balance and clarity check out the
Dutilleux Symphonies on Chandos (CHAN 9194)!!!
BTW... For those who have posted highly in Delos' favor.... I believe Delos'
own John Eargle named the Dutilleux disc above his favorite disc (In terms of
engineering) which he did not himself engineered. It's in this month Stereo
Review (Maybe April or May issue... I did not check) .... for those of you
who dare to read such a populist mag.
Donald Patterson
Andre T. Yew wrote:
>
> Paul Goldstein <paulgo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >I do find, however, that you
> >have to turn up the volume considerably to hear most of their discs
> >optimally. This is because of the rather wide dynamic range they
> >capture.
>
> rather variable. For example, a typical muffled Telarc recording
> is the Shaw/Atlanta performance of the Mozart Requiem, which sounds
> bad at any volume.
I don't it is muffled because of Telarc. It's muffled
because of Shaw.
--
Don
)**********************************************(
)* Don Patterson *(
)* Asst. Principal Trombonist *(
)* "The President's Own" *(
)* United States Marine Band *(
)* don...@erols.com *(
)**********************************************(
http://www.marineband.hqmc.usmc.mil
)**********************************************(
)* DCP Music Printing *(
)* Professional Computer Music Typeset *(
)* Music Arrangements *(
)* don...@erols.com *(
)**********************************************(
The views expressed are my own and in no way
reflect those of "The President's Own" United
States Marine Band or the United States Marine Corps.
Diberto
One of my worst DDD recording I have ever heard is
the Telarc Franck Organ works.......from the first time I heard
it, I couldn't believe the amount of hiss and white noise I was
with headphones.
Tony Movshon
"Matthew Silverstein" <mesi...@unix.amherst.edu> writes:
> What about Mackerras' Scherazade? I've heard the sound is
> spectacular. That's a Telarc disc, isn't it?
Actually, it's not one of their best -- close-miked, harsh, and
bass-shy.
In my experience, Telarc is consistently at their best recording in
Cincinnati.
Tony Movshon
Center for Neural Science New York University
http://www.cns.nyu.edu mov...@nyu.edu
Alrod
>> Because many listeners are so used to artificial spotlighting of inner
>> voices in recordings. In live performance, detail gets lost all the
>> time - it's called blend.
>
>That very much depends upon your seat location. I always hear more detail
>live than in any recording.
That was not my experience comparing Szell and the Cleveland live vs.
those in-your-face Columbia recordings. Spot mikes are six feet or
less from the players - you are much farther away in the auditorium,
which changes the character of the sound.
If you are hearing more detail, it may be due to the fact that you are
hearing the sound in space bouncing all around the hall, whereas
stereo attempts (in vain) to contain all the information in two
channels in front of you. The fact remains that most classical
recordings spotlight detail through artificial manipulation.
>> In life, our visual sense dominates our aural by 90-10. In the absence
>> of visual cues, the major labels routinely serve up a wholly synthetic
>> orchestral sound picture.
>
>I can't agree here either. Many times I've experienced a very clear
>prominent sound and have to search about visually, usually in vain, to
>determine it's source.
In what hall, and where are you sitting? That sounds to me like quirky
room acoustics. The person sitting next to you may not be hearing that
same clear, prominent sound. In any event, it does not legitimize
using 25 or more mikes with varying tonal qualities on an orchestra,
altering the musical balance continually during taping and then
rebalancing again during the mixdown process.
It's fun when done right, but it's not always done right. And it's
never accurate.
Alrod
Norm Strong
In a previous article, dib...@aol.com (Diberto) says:
>2.163.199.19!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
It's miked way too closely. The white noise is actually air leaks
because the organ needs work.
A much better recording of Franck--on the same organ--is Peter Hurford's
on London. The mikes are pulled back, and the wind noise is less apparent.
--
Norm Strong (no...@scn.org)
2528 3lst S. Seattle WA 98l44
Don Drewecki
Stephen:
What IS the definition of "superior sound quality"? If you mean an
additional bottom octave of bass, then just say so. As for the Solti
Ring, yeah, it "sounds great", but does it sound "real"? No, but I
consider it the analogy of fancy cinematography.
The whole point of coincident techniques is that you really do hear
where every instrument is on the stage, very clearly and naturally. And
then you let the conductor do the balancing with his/her ears. Of
course, the sound of omnis can be improved if a conductor divides their
violins across the stage, but most of them don't.
Facts are facts. Omnis may be fine for discrete three-channel
recordings as Bell Labs patented in the 1930s. Cardioids and figure-8s
are the way to go for home stereo over two speakers. And I'm talking
about true and realistic sound, not the London variety. I concede that
London Records have always sounded better than Dorians or many Telarcs.
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
DGSyr
>It's miked way too closely. The white noise is actually air leaks <BR>
>because the organ needs work. <BR>
><BR>
>A much better recording of Franck--on the same organ--is Peter Hurford's <BR>
>on London. The mikes are pulled back, and the wind noise is less
The organ (at St-Sernin, Toulouse) was restored a couple of years ago.
Presumably the wind leaks are now taken care of.
David Enos
Stephen Rinker
Don Drewecki wrote in message <6j02k6$k...@lecture.its.rpi.edu>...
>
>Stephen:
>
>What IS the definition of "superior sound quality"? If you mean an
>additional bottom octave of bass, then just say so. As for the Solti
>Ring, yeah, it "sounds great", but does it sound "real"? No, but I
>consider it the analogy of fancy cinematography.
>
>Don,
Iike you I have heard some fantastic results using simple Coincident
microphone teqniques. If it works your onto to winner! But I also heard some
simply dreadful results where sheer dogma has taken over. As I have already
said, surely the aim is to serve the music well. If results sound
artificial, something is wrong. But I suppose what sounds "artificial" is
also a matter of opinion. Personaly I just love those sixties Decca
recordings.
Have you heard any of those Inbal/Denon Mahler Recordings? A few were made
with just two Omni mics, The engineer took months experimenting with the
ideal placement.
Regards
Stephen
Kalman Rubinson
Don Drewecki (dre...@rpi.edu) wrote:
> What IS the definition of "superior sound quality"? If you mean an
> additional bottom octave of bass, then just say so. As for the Solti
> Ring, yeah, it "sounds great", but does it sound "real"? No, but I
> consider it the analogy of fancy cinematography.
Of course. If you read the statements of the producer, John Culshaw, you
would see that the intention was to create an alternative reality suitable
for the recorded medium rather than to attempt to reproduce a stage
production.
Kal
Don Drewecki
Stephen:
The dogma is the other way around. Virtually all concert broadcasts and
recordings are done with spaced omnis, and perhaps with close-up
"accent" cardioids. I am one of the few freelancers who can actually
say he is doing his recordings (at Troy Savings Bank Music Hall and
Union College Memorial Chapel) according to the approach developed by
Alan Blumlein in the 1930s. An approach specifically put together for
home listening, over two speakers.
At home, I find most spaced omni recordings are terrible. The Boston
Symphony's live broadcasts (on WGBH, WCRB and WAMC) are the worst
example: They do not in any way replicate what I've heard at Symphony
Hall or Tanglewood. Other orchestras are just as badly miked, again,
because of dogma. But these engineers have done it this way for years,
with no alternative setups allowed or embraced, even for short periods
of time. Same for Chicago and elsewhere -- all terrible.
My ethic is realism. If the orchestra screws up or the conductor has
lousy ears, the recordings should capture it faithfully. As for Denon,
I will give the Inbal recordings a try -- but that's my point: You must
work even harder with omnis because positioning them is trickier.
I do it exactly as they did it sixty years ago: Suspend the single mike
about three or four rows behind the conductor, two or three feet above
his head, and let him do the balancing. Bad as the acoustics were,
Toscanini's NBC broadcasts in Studio 8H were done exactly that way, and
many of those recordings are clearer and more detailed than most
commercial recordings today done with omnis, including Telarc's and
Dorian's.
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Alrod
> I am one of the few freelancers who can actually
>say he is doing his recordings (at Troy Savings Bank Music Hall and
>Union College Memorial Chapel) according to the approach developed by
>Alan Blumlein in the 1930s.
Don, in the interests of full disclosure, you should have told us
you're in competition with Dorian when you trashed their recordings in
the Telarc thread. Dorian's are hardly the basic bedrock of my
collection, but I happen to like the ones I've heard. I don't like to
think that readers may be scared away from their catalog just because
you have an insect up your posterior.
And to say that "facts are facts" is in this case merely an assertion.
I've heard good and bad recordings made with cardioid and omni mikes.
Blumlein, ORTF, Jaecklin, Decca/London tree, Mercury 3-omni, all are
capable of both fine and atrocious results. The technical approach is
less important than the taste of the production team.
>At home, I find most spaced omni recordings are terrible.
That terrible characterization is not a fact, it is an assertion of
taste. You may even be right, but let's call it by its right name.
>My ethic is realism. If the orchestra screws up or the conductor has
>lousy ears, the recordings should capture it faithfully.
Well, that's one ethic, though it is not clear if your belief system
applies to editing as well as to microphone balance. However the
marketplace is more tolerant of contradictory assertions than you, and
realism has more than one definition.
>Bad as the acoustics were,
>Toscanini's NBC broadcasts in Studio 8H were done exactly that way, and
>many of those recordings are clearer and more detailed than most
>commercial recordings today done with omnis, including Telarc's and
>Dorian's.
Assuming that clarity and detail are the sole primary virtues. That
remains debatable.
Alrod
John Grabowski
Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> Alrod (nfna...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com) wrote:
>
> : Telarc, Delos and BIS, among others, engineer for high-end speakers,
> : and if yours aren't good enough, the recordings will not sound good.
> : speakers. Since Telarc uses so few mikes, they must determine mike
> : position and recording balances while everybody's there with the clock
> : fix lost detail in the mix later.
>
> If the "mush ... disappears on better speakers" why would they need to
> (I do most of my critical listening through what are generally
> regarded as high-end headphones), why is it that I never hear the blankets
> of fog that pervade some Telarc recordings on BIS and Delos (or other
> labels which offer sound I consider excellent), and why is it that many
> Telarc recordings seem to lack that flaw completely (sounding quite
> wonderful), all through the same system?
>
> Simon
More importantly, if Telarc is supposed to give it to us closer to how
it sounds in a real live concert, how come I don't have this "fuzz"
problem when I go to hear a real live orchestra (even in the Academy of
Music in Philly! :-) ???
John
--
I have a feeling if there were a way to make movies without people,
George [Lucas] would do it. --Mark Hammill
Matt Kennel
On 7 May 1998 01:44:49 GMT, Ward Hardman <har...@saturn.sdsu.edu> wrote:
:An interesting effect relating to the quality of the sound system may
:indicate that Telarc CDs require very expensive equipment to sound their
:best. I had both Klemperer's EMI and Shaw's Telarc CDs of Brahms
:"German Requiem," and on my system the Klemperer not only sounded
:musically better than Shaw, but even sonically superior. On a friend's
:high end system (big KEF speakers, as opposed to my DCM "Time Windows,"
:etc.) the Telarc sounded so much better that it seemed musically enhanced
:as well, while defects in the EMI engineering became annoyingly apparent.
I agree with this. Telarcs can sound ''muddied'' because there seems to be
more reflected sound and hall-texture. If your speakers are not good, this
gets mashed up. If your speakers are good, though, the ambiance and the
direct sound disentangle, and the result is something very natural and much
more like a real live performance in a real hall. I have Magnaplanar
2B's---not totally state of the art, but quite good and open and excellent
for classical.
Really, the hyper-precise ''imaging'' and "this instrument is right *here*"
clarity of conventional recordings is *NOT* realistic. Go to a concert,
and really try to remember the perception of the sound field.
It's true that no recording or reproduction system ever comes that close
to live orchestra, but with good playback, the Telarc style of recording
can be very good. It's an 'idealistic' recording style.
I'm personally thinking of the Berlin Phil, ''ring without words''
medley/suite on Telarc.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD -
* "People who send spam to Emperor Cartagia... vanish! _They say_ that
* there's a room where he has their heads, lined up in a row on a desk...
* _They say_ that late at night, he goes there, and talks to them... _they
*- say_ he asks them, 'Now tell me again, how _do_ you make money fast?'"
Don Drewecki
I trashed Dorian because I think their recordings are terrible. I grew
up just seven blocks away from the Music Hall, have heard numerous
concerts and rehearsals there since 1967, and in my experience, Dorian's
recordings largely do not reflect the sound in that hall. I might add
that I was born and raised here in Troy, right down there on Second
Street.
The finest recording I have heard there is the ambisonic recording we
at WRPI made there in 1987, with front and back channels active. It was
far more realistic than Dorian's stuff. Just listen to that recent
recording of Andres Diaz and Samuel Sanders performing Brahms cello
sonatas -- horrid, unlistenable sound.
I still insist that spaced omni recordings are dreadful, for the most
part. The Music Hall's ambience can help blend a coincident recording
very nicely without loss of spatial information. I don't hear it
elsewhere. That definitely sounds like a self-serving statement, but I
assure you it's how I feel. The BSO's broadcasts sound wooden, and
always did. Chicago? Muffled. The same characteristics people are
mentioning here in relation to Telarc
Of course, it could also be the use of Wadia A>D and D>A converters that
some of them are using -- converters that have been the subject of
vehement criticism in some of the scientific journals. Still, it's what
I feel. Call it self-serving if you like.
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
John Grabowski
Matt Kennel wrote:
> It's true that no recording or reproduction system ever comes that close
> to live orchestra, but with good playback, the Telarc style of recording
> can be very good. It's an 'idealistic' recording style.
Pity their roster of artists isn't 'idealistic' or even very good.
John
--
...The only thing that works is the fucking helicopter battle...
--Francis Ford Coppola's personal writings during
the editing of Apocalypse Now.
Curtis Croulet
I realize I'm late to the party, but FWIW, I'm generally very pleased
with Telarc's recordings - but I don't have the discs cited in this
thread for poor sound. In any event, I would not consider any of those
in my collection to sound "muffled".
On the other hand - a couple of nights ago I happened to play Monteux'
BMG recording of Tchaikovsky 5 with the BSO. Except for the prominent
tape hiss, most noticeable at the beginning, I think the sound is as
realistic and satisfying as anything I've ever heard. This was recorded
in 1958.
LAMBSETOTS
Re: Telarc recording in Cincinnati.
It may be a well kept secret, but our hall is fabulous for recording. The sound
quality is fairly neutral, with just the right amount of reverberation. The
hall and stage are pretty spacious, too. The conditions seem to be just right
for capturing a pleasant audio illusion.
JL
Curtis Croulet
> [Monteux] also
> divided the violins on either side of the front of the stage
This is the case in the previously-mentioned BSO Tchaikovsky
5th...greatly to the advantage of the piece IMHO. I've never understood
why the practice of dividing the violins fell out of favor. Most of the
old-line conductors cited as heroes by the modern generation used a
divided layout.
Donald Rice
I love the Monteux recordings of the Chaikovsky symphonies - and for that
matter all of the BSO recordings of that era. My visits to Tanglewood
allowed me to hear live the beautifully differentiated and elegant woodwinds
and the clarity of the brass, sweet strings etc. which are reflected in
those recordings. I remember particularly Monteux conducting the 7 veil
dance from Salome and being physically knocked back in my seat! He also
divided the violins on either side of the front of the stage and in his
recordings one can hear the dialogues much more clearly as a result.
I would add Munchs "La Mer" and "Escales" as well as the Saint-Saens organ
sym. as exhibiting similarly appealing sound quality.
DR
Simon Roberts
Curtis Croulet (curt...@pe.net) wrote:
: > [Monteux] also
: > divided the violins on either side of the front of the stage
: This is the case in the previously-mentioned BSO Tchaikovsky
: 5th...greatly to the advantage of the piece IMHO. I've never understood
: why the practice of dividing the violins fell out of favor. Most of the
: old-line conductors cited as heroes by the modern generation used a
: divided layout.
It seems to be coming back, at least sometimes: Rattle regularly does so
(to wonderful effect on his new Mahler 4), Sinopoli sometimes does,
Mackerras usually does, Kleiber sometimes does/did, most of the HIPsters
do....
Simon
Ryan Hare
Simon Roberts (si...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
The Seattle Symphony always does. IIRC, the original idea to place the
violins together came from this century, something to do with recording
techniques. It would be great if someone knowledgeable about the history
of this could provide some details.
Ryan Hare
rh...@u.washington.edu
John Grabowski
Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> Curtis Croulet (curt...@pe.net) wrote:
> : > [Monteux] also
> : > divided the violins on either side of the front of the stage
>
> : This is the case in the previously-mentioned BSO Tchaikovsky
> : 5th...greatly to the advantage of the piece IMHO. I've never understood
> : why the practice of dividing the violins fell out of favor. Most of the
> : old-line conductors cited as heroes by the modern generation used a
> : divided layout.
>
> It seems to be coming back, at least sometimes: Rattle regularly does so
> (to wonderful effect on his new Mahler 4), Sinopoli sometimes does,
> Mackerras usually does, Kleiber sometimes does/did
Does? When does Kleiber conduct these days (years)?
John
--
Movies are becoming like dinosaurs -- their bodies are getting bigger
and bigger and their brains are getting smaller and smaller.
--Sue Mengers, Hollywood agent
(the scary thing is she said this many years ago!)
Simon Roberts
Ryan Hare (rh...@saul3.u.washington.edu) wrote:
: Simon Roberts (si...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
: : It seems to be coming back, at least sometimes: Rattle regularly does so
: : (to wonderful effect on his new Mahler 4), Sinopoli sometimes does,
: : Mackerras usually does, Kleiber sometimes does/did, most of the HIPsters
: : do....
: The Seattle Symphony always does. IIRC, the original idea to place the
: violins together came from this century, something to do with recording
: techniques. It would be great if someone knowledgeable about the history
: of this could provide some details.
I hope someone does; I've heard similar explanations -- including for the
change in seating detectable on Reiner's stereo Chicago recordings; except
for the first one or two, like Heldenleben, the violins are all on the
left.
Simon
Donald Rice
Simon Roberts wrote:
I read somewhere some time ago ... that Stokowski began the practice of massing
the violins in Philadelphia to enhance the lush string sound he wanted. They are
on the left so all the sound holes face toward the audience. The poor violas
placed on the right are lost completely in most standard modern orchestral
placements. That's about all I can recall about that article.
DR
Tony Movshon
rh...@saul3.u.washington.edu (Ryan Hare) writes:
> Simon Roberts (si...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
> : Curtis Croulet (curt...@pe.net) wrote:
> : : > [Monteux] also
> : : > divided the violins on either side of the front of the stage
> : : I've never understood
> : : why the practice of dividing the violins fell out of favor. Most of the
> : : old-line conductors cited as heroes by the modern generation used a
> : : divided layout.
>
> : It seems to be coming back, at least sometimes: Rattle regularly does so
> : (to wonderful effect on his new Mahler 4), Sinopoli sometimes does,
> : Mackerras usually does, Kleiber sometimes does/did, most of the HIPsters
> : do....
>
> The Seattle Symphony always does. IIRC, the original idea to place the
> violins together came from this century, something to do with recording
> techniques. It would be great if someone knowledgeable about the history
> of this could provide some details.
I don't think the placement of all violins to the left has to do with
the constraints of recordings, so much as with a desire for greater
weight and homogeneity of string tone. If the 2nds are placed on the
conductor's right, their soundboards face away from the audience and
the sound is somewhat attenuated. This is a problem that can be
overcome more easily in a recording (judicious microphone placement)
than in the hall, though it seems to me that slightly overpopulating
the seconds compared to the firsts ought to do it in live performance.
However, I do believe in at least one case (Reiner/CSO), the
conductor's preference for divided violins in early stereo recordings
was changed at the behest of the recording people. You can hear
divided violins in the mid-50s CSO recordings, and massed ones after
about 1959.
Another virtue of divided violins is that the cellos and/or violas then
get more favored positions for projecting their sections into the hall.
Like others in this thread, I usually prefer divided violins. Other
current conductors who sometimes or always divide them include Pletnev
and and Salonen. In the early stereo era, Boult and Klemperer almost
always divided their violins.
John Grabowski
Donald Rice wrote:
>
> Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> > Ryan Hare (rh...@saul3.u.washington.edu) wrote:
> > : Simon Roberts (si...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
> >
> > : : (to wonderful effect on his new Mahler 4), Sinopoli sometimes does,
> > : : Mackerras usually does, Kleiber sometimes does/did, most of the HIPsters
> > : : do....
> >
> > : The Seattle Symphony always does. IIRC, the original idea to place the
> > : violins together came from this century, something to do with recording
> > : techniques. It would be great if someone knowledgeable about the history
> > : of this could provide some details.
> >
> > change in seating detectable on Reiner's stereo Chicago recordings; except
> > for the first one or two, like Heldenleben, the violins are all on the
> > left.
> >
> > Simon
>
> I read somewhere some time ago ... that Stokowski began the practice of massing
> the violins in Philadelphia to enhance the lush string sound he wanted. They are
> on the left so all the sound holes face toward the audience. The poor violas
> placed on the right are lost completely in most standard modern orchestral
> placements. That's about all I can recall about that article.
> DR
Indeed that's the explanation I recall from the book "Those Fabulous
Philadelphians," about the history of the Philly O. Arguably from some
kinds of music it works (i.e., BIG lush Romantic pieces, what Stokie
often does so well).
John
--
"Let's Dance," and that's no idle invitation, ladies and gentlemen,
because it comes from Benny Goodman and his Orchestra, who take
their responsibilities *very seriously* in purveying good music
to the dancing public. And now, and original arrangement by
Benny Goodman of "Jingle Bells."
--Announcer from a Goodman band broadcast, 1935.
Curtis Croulet
> The Seattle Symphony always does. IIRC, the original idea to place the
> violins together came from this century, something to do with recording
> techniques. It would be great if someone knowledgeable about the history
> of this could provide some details.
The old Opus magazine had an article about this. I'll dig it out. I
recall not being satisfied with the offered reasons for lumping the
fiddles together, although I think the article's author was clearly in
favor of the divided layout.
Kang Howson-Jan
In article <6jger3$888$1...@news.nyu.edu>, to...@cns.nyu.edu (Tony Movshon) wrote:
>I don't think the placement of all violins to the left has to do with
>the constraints of recordings, so much as with a desire for greater
>weight and homogeneity of string tone. If the 2nds are placed on the
>conductor's right, their soundboards face away from the audience and
>the sound is somewhat attenuated. This is a problem that can be
>overcome more easily in a recording (judicious microphone placement)
>than in the hall, though it seems to me that slightly overpopulating
>the seconds compared to the firsts ought to do it in live performance.
>However, I do believe in at least one case (Reiner/CSO), the
>conductor's preference for divided violins in early stereo recordings
>was changed at the behest of the recording people. You can hear
>divided violins in the mid-50s CSO recordings, and massed ones after
>about 1959.
>
>Another virtue of divided violins is that the cellos and/or violas then
>get more favored positions for projecting their sections into the hall.
>
>Like others in this thread, I usually prefer divided violins. Other
>current conductors who sometimes or always divide them include Pletnev
>and and Salonen. In the early stereo era, Boult and Klemperer almost
>always divided their violins.
Tony,
I just attended a CSO concert conducted by your main man, Welser-Most :^)
The violins were placed antiphonally, but the violas were next to the 2nds,
i.e. soundboards facing away. I personally prefer them next to the 1sts.
What you write about the balances might be true in recordings, but I found
that seeing them on stage allowed me to follow the music much better--mentally
adjusted the balance because I could see that the violin parts were not the
same. In any case, I hope the divisi violins do come back.
Kang Howson-Jan
Simon Roberts
ccs.uwo.ca>Distribution:
Kang Howson-Jan (khows...@zdnetmail.com) wrote:
: I just attended a CSO concert conducted by your main man, Welser-Most :^)
: The violins were placed antiphonally, but the violas were next to the 2nds,
: i.e. soundboards facing away. I personally prefer them next to the 1sts.
: What you write about the balances might be true in recordings, but I found
: that seeing them on stage allowed me to follow the music much better--mentally
: adjusted the balance because I could see that the violin parts were not the
: same. In any case, I hope the divisi violins do come back.
On recordings anyone can reproduce this effect easily enough (well, sort
of; with the violins pointing away they sound a bit different), but one
of the more interesting features of Solomon's recording of Schumann syms
1/4 is that he follows what he claims was the Leipzig practice
and has the first violins on the right, seconds on the left -- something
Gardiner doesn't do. I wonder who's right....
Simon
: Kang Howson-Jan