Furtwängler 1944 Bruckner 8th
MHaxthause
I found several contributors who ranked the Furtwängler 1944 8th at or near the
top. I own the March 15 1949 performance on M&A, which along with the Giulini,
is my favorite among several recordings, but I would like to buy the 1944
version. But as I seem to recall from earlier postings and print reviews, there
have been pitch problems with most versions. What is the best transfer
currently available?
Thanks in advance for any information!
Mark Haxthausen
Fredric J. Einstein
> but I would like to buy the 1944 version. But as I seem to recall from earlier postings and print reviews, there
>have been pitch problems with most versions. What is the best transfer
>currently available?
I have heard the M&A Bruckner 8th and actually have the DG Japan
release (which was included in the massive 34 CD collection of
Furtwangler's complete works for Polydor/DG). The DG Japan version is
dead on pitch-wise and also has much superior sound to the M&A. In
fact, the sound is excellent, even by 1950's standards.
I believe that the DG Japan version (catalog number POCG-2346) is
pretty hard to find. You might want to try the "Furtwangler CD
Exchange" web site. The M&A version (catalog number CD-764) is still
available I believe.
Fred
Tony Movshon
> Recently browsing through Dejanews looking for postings on Bruckner recordings,
> I found several contributors who ranked the Furtwängler 1944 8th at or near the
> top. I own the March 15 1949 performance on M&A, which along with the Giulini,
> is my favorite among several recordings, but I would like to buy the 1944
> version. But as I seem to recall from earlier postings and print reviews, there
> have been pitch problems with most versions. What is the best transfer
> currently available?
As far as I know, there isn't a really good transfer available at the moent.
The best ones are/were the Japanese Toshiba/EMI and the DGG. They each have
problems. The Toshiba is quite clear and on pitch but has some objectionable
flutter distortion, especially at the start of the finale. The DGG is also
on pitch and fairly clean, but sounds duller than the EMI. Neither of these
is readily obtainable, though used copies come up from time to time.
The M&A transfer is available, but is said to be off-pitch and of inferior
quality; I haven't heard it.
EMI Japan has begun reissuing a new series of Furtwangler recordings. Perhaps
this one will show up again. Or, even better, maybe Tahra will release it.
--
Tony Movshon mov...@nyu.edu
Center for Neural Science New York University
Simon Roberts
: The best ones are/were the Japanese Toshiba/EMI and the DGG. They each have
: problems. The Toshiba is quite clear and on pitch but has some objectionable
: flutter distortion, especially at the start of the finale. The DGG is also
: on pitch and fairly clean, but sounds duller than the EMI. Neither of these
: is readily obtainable, though used copies come up from time to time.
: The M&A transfer is available, but is said to be off-pitch and of inferior
: quality; I haven't heard it.
It may be off-pitch (I can't remember) but I prefer the sound to the
(to these ears, anyway) dull sounding Japanese EMI.
Simon
David7Gable
Messieurs Movshon and Roberts,
What more accessible Furtwaengler Bruckner 8's do you like and why?
-david gable
Simon Roberts
: Messieurs Movshon and Roberts,
: What more accessible Furtwaengler Bruckner 8's do you like and why?
I should probaby defer to Tony (and Henry Fogel, if he's around, and
others). The only one I know is the 1944 peformance on M&A and other
labels referred to earlier which has the electricity and almost
frightening intensity typical of his WWII performances (it's quick, too;
one of he few performances of ii that are actually fast). I haven't
listened to it in a while so I can't be more precise. I've not heard the
performance released a year or so ago by Testament, which has been
described as not as intense as the 1944. If there are others, I've either
not heard them or forgotten....
Simon
HenryFogel
The Japanese EMI is the only one that is correctly pitched, though it suffers
from some flutter and a rather muddy overall sound. It is almost impossible to
find. The Japanese DGG CD transfers actually vary in quality. I have not heard
POCG-2346, but am told it is on pitch. POGC-50078 is very slightly sharp, and
has slight flutter noticeable on sustained woodwind notes, but is fairly good.
A third Japanese DGG transfer, 431 878, is similar, perhaps identical, to
50078. The sound is more vivid and clear than the Japanese EMI. Music & Arts
CD-764 is similar to the DGGs in quality of sound, but even a hair more sharp,
and with slightly more noticeable flutter. I think that this is the strongest
Furtwangler performance of this work, particularly for its integration of tempo
relationships and overall thrust and power.
However, there is another, almost as strong a performance, in better sound and
more easily available. That is from March 14, 1949, in a fine transfer on
Testament SBT 1143. This performance was given specifically as a recording for
broadcast -- with no audience, thus no audience noise (though it was a straight
performance, not a recording session in the traditional sense).
On the next day, March 15, 1949, Furtwangler repeated the performance but with
an audience -- and a remarkably noisy one; some of the coughing is very, very
distracting to the listener, and, one senses, perhaps to him as well. The
performance doesn't have quite the tension of the March 14th reading. It is
available in EMI's historic Bruckner set (EMI 5 66210).
The March 10, 1954 performance that has circulated is considerably less
powerful than any of the earlier ones, and at times seems to wander a bit.
Furtwangler was already quite ill by this time, and his conducting in 1954
could be inconsistent.
Henry Fogel
Fredric J. Einstein
>The Japanese EMI is the only one that is correctly pitched, though it suffers
>from some flutter and a rather muddy overall sound. It is almost impossible to
>find. The Japanese DGG CD transfers actually vary in quality. I have not heard
>POCG-2346, but am told it is on pitch. POGC-50078 is very slightly sharp, and
>has slight flutter noticeable on sustained woodwind notes, but is fairly good.
I can assure you that POCG-2346 (which came with the 34 CD Japanese
"big box") is exactly on pitch throughout. It also has sparklingly
(what an adjective!) wonderful sound quality.
If you want a copy, E-mail me and I'll see if I can run off a few
(it'll cost for media and postage however -- no fancy labels either).
Fredric Einstein
Tony Movshon
> However, there is another, almost as strong a performance, in better sound and
> more easily available. That is from March 14, 1949, in a fine transfer on
> Testament SBT 1143. This performance was given specifically as a recording for
> broadcast -- with no audience, thus no audience noise (though it was a straight
> performance, not a recording session in the traditional sense).
It is probably superfluous to add that I agree with Henry here. The 1949
performance on Testament is very fine, vintage Furtwangler. But is must be
said that, as with so many other of the wartime recordings, neither 1949
nor any other Bruckner 8th quite matches the intensity of the wartime one.
--
Tony Movshon Center for Neural Science
mov...@nyu.edu New York University
Tony Movshon
> >Henry Fogel wrote:
> >The Japanese EMI is the only one that is correctly pitched, though it suffers
> >from some flutter and a rather muddy overall sound. It is almost impossible to
> >find. The Japanese DGG CD transfers actually vary in quality. I have not heard
> >POCG-2346, but am told it is on pitch. POGC-50078 is very slightly sharp, and
> >has slight flutter noticeable on sustained woodwind notes, but is fairly good.
>
> I can assure you that POCG-2346 (which came with the 34 CD Japanese
> "big box") is exactly on pitch throughout. It also has sparklingly
> (what an adjective!) wonderful sound quality.
The copy that came with my Japanese "big box" (33 CDs in my case, what am I
missing? The bogus Haydn 104, perhaps?) is POCG-9492. It was issued in 1996,
but is (c) 1979. My conviction from sampling other items from this set is
that DGG has only issued one transfer of each Furtwangler item (though many
times over in some cases). So this discussion about the merits of different
DGG issues of this performance is a little confusing.
For the record, I'd put the DGG 8th about midway in the scale of wartime
Furtwangler transfer quality. It is neither as marvelous as the Tahra
Beethoven
5, nor as execrable as everyone's Bruckner 9. I wouldn't call it "sparklingly
wonderful", even so; the distortion and compression at climaxes are something
of a trial. My guess is that it's a second- or third-generation copy of a
great-sounding original.
Fredric J. Einstein
(1927 perhaps??) and a lecture by Furtwangler. Perhaps you have a
different incarnation of the 33/34 CD collection than I have? I
bought mine from Abend in Japan in early 1999. It was the second
issue of the original set, with some elements (such as the Beethoven
Symphony Nbr 4 on disc 9) changed from the original issue (perhaps the
Bruckner was another one?) . Unfortunately, the set (whether its the
33 or 34 CD version) is no longer available from any source.....
BTW: Many of DG's issues on CD are quite inferior to the LP issues
that they made of the same material. One example of this is the LP of
Bach/Mozart/Beethoven works from 1929-37 issued by DG Japan (catalogue
nbr MG 6017) which is quite superior to the CD issues that I have on
the Japanese big box.
I heard none of the "distortion" or "compression at climaxes" on my
copy (which is labelled POCG-2346). I also played along on the piano
from the score at several places throughout the disc and found it to
be right on pitch. I am listening on a Sony SCD-1 SACD player,
Marantz 7C preamp, and Marantz 9 vacuum tube amplifiers. Although
I'll agree with you that it isn't as wonderful as the Tahra Beethoven
5th, it certainly sounds great to my ears, certainly not a "second or
third generation copy". I happen to be a big Bruckner fan, so I
would probably notice problems with a particular recording, especially
of this piece. I found nothing to object to on the DG issue.
If you can, send along some specifics (track and time) of where you
heard objectionable distortions.
Fredric Einstein
JRsnfld
I remember being surprised to see a Haydn 104 (BPO, 1942) on Lys--is this the
same "bogus" recording? Is it not Furtwangler?
--Jeff
Tony Movshon
Correct; the Haydn 104, like the wartime Dvorak 9 that was for a time also
attributed to Furtwangler, turned out to be someone else. The Dvorak was
conducted by Kabasta, but I forget who did the Haydn.
The Rockenbauer/Dan discography (http://www.fornax.hu/wfsh/disco.html) lists
a Haydn 104 from the Teatro Colon in 1950, but I've never seen it.
Tony Movshon
> The 34th CD was a bonus CD which included a very early Beethoven 5th
> (1927 perhaps??) and a lecture by Furtwangler. Perhaps you have a
> different incarnation of the 33/34 CD collection than I have? I
> bought mine from Abend in Japan in early 1999. It was the second
> issue of the original set, with some elements (such as the Beethoven
> Symphony Nbr 4 on disc 9) changed from the original issue (perhaps the
> Bruckner was another one?) . Unfortunately, the set (whether its the
> 33 or 34 CD version) is no longer available from any source.....
You're right -- I had forgotten the bonus disc. I got mine from the same
source around the same time, so it's odd that the number is different.
What is the copyright date shown for the Bruckner 8th in your set?
> I heard none of the "distortion" or "compression at climaxes" on my
> copy (which is labelled POCG-2346). I also played along on the piano
> from the score at several places throughout the disc and found it to
> be right on pitch. I am listening on a Sony SCD-1 SACD player,
> Marantz 7C preamp, and Marantz 9 vacuum tube amplifiers. Although
> I'll agree with you that it isn't as wonderful as the Tahra Beethoven
> 5th, it certainly sounds great to my ears, certainly not a "second or
> third generation copy".
Almost everything we have from the wartime RRG archives is at least a
second generation copy, typically one made near the time from the
original, edited to add commentary, and then distributed for broadcast.
Most of the RRG tapes that came back from Moscow are said to be these
distribution copies. The Tahra LvB 5 *must* be from the original master,
and it would be very interesting to know where they got it. A comparison
between the Tahra and the DGG issue of the same performance is an object
lesson in what happened when the tapes were copied in 1943.
Different listeners have different tolerance for distortion and limiting;
mine happens to be low. To me, the distortion is quite audible throughout
the performance whenever the dynamics exceed mf; listen to the halo of hash
around the trumpets in the first big climax, for example. And there's
nothing wrong with my equipment. The distortion is not nearly as severe
as in the WF Bruckner 9th, but it's quite bad enough.
> If you can, send along some specifics (track and time) of where you
> heard objectionable distortions.
It's not where I am right now, but I will do so tomorrow. But it's not
hard to hear.
The same or worse distortion is on the Toshiba/EMI transfer, by the way.
MWKluge
>JRsnfld wrote:
>> >The bogus Haydn 104, perhaps?<
>>
>> I remember being surprised to see a Haydn 104 (BPO, 1942) on Lys--is this
>the
>> same "bogus" recording? Is it not Furtwangler?
>
>Correct; the Haydn 104, like the wartime Dvorak 9 that was for a time also
>attributed to Furtwangler, turned out to be someone else. The Dvorak was
>conducted by Kabasta, but I forget who did the Haydn.
>
>The Rockenbauer/Dan discography (http://www.fornax.hu/wfsh/disco.html) lists
>a Haydn 104 from the Teatro Colon in 1950, but I've never seen it.
>--
The Haydn 104 issued by DG was conducted by Alfons Dressel, and appeared on an
early Mercury LP in 1950 with the proper attribution. Mercury licensed the
tape from the Bavarian Radio.
The Haydn 104 from the Teatro Colon is authentic Furtwangler. Disques Refrain
issued it on CD in Japan.
Mark K.
HenryFogel
The only genuine Haydn 104th by Furtwangler is with the Teatro Colon Orchestra,
from April 14, 1950, in fairly dismal sound quality and with less-than-superb
orchestral playing. It is likely to be of interest only to Furtwangler
completists or those who study the conductor's work fairly intensely. The
performance has only circulated in Japan, on the Tanaka label as an LP, and on
two CD issues - Disques Refrain DR 920032, and Music Bridge MB 4401.
The Haydn 104 that is alleged to be a 1944 Berlin Philharmonic performance, and
has circulated on many labels (DGG, Dante LYS, Melodiya, Russian Compact Disc,
as well as Discocorp in the LP days) is in fact a recording made by the Munich
Radio Orchestra under Alfons Dressel.
Henry Fogel
Mr. Know-it-all
Tony Movshon wrote in message <39BAFD8C...@nyu.edu>...
>HenryFogel wrote:
>> However, there is another, almost as strong a performance, in better
sound and
>> more easily available. That is from March 14, 1949, in a fine transfer on
>> Testament SBT 1143. This performance was given specifically as a
recording for
>> broadcast -- with no audience, thus no audience noise (though it was a
straight
>> performance, not a recording session in the traditional sense).
recording.
Is this correct and if so, is it true for the March 14?
Ramon Khalona
on Sept. 2nd we had a contest. The first participant to correctly identify all 11
composers that welcome Bruckner in heaven (in Otto Boehler's silhouette, "Bruckner
Arrives in Heaven", that was used as the cover for our writeup) won a copy of this
particular transfer on a single CD. An esteemed member of this newsgroup was the
lucky winner.
I also feel that this one is the most intense performance of this symphony by
Furtwanegler, followed by the EMI 8th from 15 March 1949 (despite the uncooperative
audience). The 14 March 1949 performance (on Testament) is a tad less exciting,
IMO, but not much less so, and the sound is *much* better than any other B8 by
Furt., so in terms of most acceptable performance/sound combination, the Testament
issue gets the nod.
RK
Fredric J. Einstein
wrote:
>
>Almost everything we have from the wartime RRG archives is at least a
>second generation copy,
Any record or CD ever made is a "second generation copy"! What's your
point? There's always a copying phase for adding equalization,
editing, etc. No LP or CD ever made (except for a few direct-to-disc
recordings made in the early 80's) are "first generation"
>I The Tahra LvB 5 *must* be from the original master,
>and it would be very interesting to know where they got it. A comparison
>between the Tahra and the DGG issue of the same performance is an object
>lesson in what happened when the tapes were copied in 1943.
>
You're unfortunately incorrect about the 5th Symphony. DG's issue
(back in 1988/89) was taken from a 15 IPS copy made for Sender Freis
Berlin by Melodiya, the Russian record company which was in possession
of the original 30 IPS masters. A couple of years later, Russia
returned the original 30 IPS master tapes from Russia to Germany which
are now archived at DG in Hannover.
The Tahra Beethoven is sourced from the 30 IPS original whereas that
particular DG was sourced from the 15 IPS copy. DG never remastered
it after getting back the original 30 IPS masters since it wasn't one
of the works that was under exclusive copyright to DG (the Beethoven
was basically in the public domain).
The Bruckner was from a different set of tapes that DG mastered later,
after the 30 IPS originals were returned. They also have "exclusive
rights" to issue this work. Thus the Bruckner is from the 30 IPS
originals and it "ain't gonna get any better than that". That's also
why Tahra (who are very careful about copyrights etc as opposed to
M&A) have never issued the Bruckner.
>Different listeners have different tolerance for distortion and limiting;
>mine happens to be low.
Being an "audiophile" and also being VERY familiar with that work, my
tolerance is extremely low for distortion and clipping etc. However,
on the Bruckner 8th, there ARE none of these undesirable qualities,
therefore I don't see your point.
>To me, the distortion is quite audible throughout
>the performance whenever the dynamics exceed mf; listen to the halo of hash
>around the trumpets in the first big climax, for example.
I listened at bar 226 where I believe you're referring (the "first big
climax"). Not there Sorry.
Fred
Tony Movshon
> >second generation copy,
>
> Any record or CD ever made is a "second generation copy"! What's your
> point? There's always a copying phase for adding equalization,
> editing, etc. No LP or CD ever made (except for a few direct-to-disc
> recordings made in the early 80's) are "first generation"
You are certainly aware that I didn't mean that, since you seem to have
read the rest of the message.
> >I The Tahra LvB 5 *must* be from the original master,
> >and it would be very interesting to know where they got it. A comparison
> >between the Tahra and the DGG issue of the same performance is an object
> >lesson in what happened when the tapes were copied in 1943.
>
> You're unfortunately incorrect about the 5th Symphony. [snip]
"Incorrect"? I believe that in [snip] you reiterated my point -- the Tahra
is from the original, the DGG from a copy.
> The Bruckner was from a different set of tapes that DG mastered later,
> after the 30 IPS originals were returned.
I don't think so. The tapes were "redicovered" in Russia in 1989, and
returned in 1991. The Japanese DGG issue is (c) 1979, and was presumably
made from an earlier (dare I say "second-generation"?) copy.
> They also have "exclusive
> rights" to issue this work. Thus the Bruckner is from the 30 IPS
> originals and it "ain't gonna get any better than that". That's also
> why Tahra (who are very careful about copyrights etc as opposed to
> M&A) have never issued the Bruckner.
Interesting. But what about Toshiba EMI? Surely they would respect any
exclusive rights held by DG?
> >Different listeners have different tolerance for distortion and limiting;
> >mine happens to be low.
>
> Being an "audiophile" and also being VERY familiar with that work, my
> tolerance is extremely low for distortion and clipping etc. However,
> on the Bruckner 8th, there ARE none of these undesirable qualities,
> therefore I don't see your point.
All Magnetophon recordings, even the "gold standard" Beethoven 5, have levels
of distortion that are clearly audible and easily seen in a spectral analysis;
you certainly don't need to be an "audiophile" to hear it. Most also suffer
from "squashed" dynamics due either to limiting or to tape saturation, though
the Beethoven 5 and Bruckner 8 are relatively free of that problem. You can't
seriously mean that the Bruckner has "none of these ... qualities", since they
are intrinsic to the medium.
> >To me, the distortion is quite audible throughout
> >the performance whenever the dynamics exceed mf; listen to the halo of hash
> >around the trumpets in the first big climax, for example.
>
> I listened at bar 226 where I believe you're referring (the "first big
> climax"). Not there Sorry.
You don't have to be an "audiophile" to hear the distortion, nor do you need
fancy equipment. Cue up the climax between 13:27 and 13:44 in the first
movement. Every trumpet blast audibly saturates the tape. If you read the
track into a spectral analysis program (I used Cool Edit 2000), you can
easily see scads of energy at frequencies up to 20 kHz during those moments.
Since the bandwidth of the original recording probably did not go much beyond
12-14 kHz, these are all distortion products. If you look at the structure of
the spectrum, you see distortion peaks at harmonics of the trumpet note that
suggest at least 10-20% distortion (just a rough estimate).
If you're not in a position to duplicate that analysis, I can easily send you
pictures.
It's important not to blow this out of proportion. For 1944, the sound is
very good. If it's indeed from the 30 ips master, then that master is inferior
to the Beethoven 5, but still not dreadful. But to claim that it's free from
distortion stretches creduily; it's not.
Now, if you can find me someone to remaster the Bruckner 9 from the 30 ips
source, I'll be forever in your debt ...
Fredric J. Einstein
wrote:
>"Incorrect"? I believe that in [snip] you reiterated my point -- the Tahra
>is from the original, the DGG from a copy.
>
You obviously didn't read my posting. I said that your "history" of
the copying of these tapes was in error. The degraded sound wasn't
from the 1943 copying, it was from the fact that Melodya sent over the
Beethoven 5th as a 15 IPS copy of the original 30 IPS tape.
>
>I don't think so. The tapes were "redicovered" in Russia in 1989, and
>returned in 1991. The Japanese DGG issue is (c) 1979, and was presumably
>made from an earlier (dare I say "second-generation"?) copy.
>
The DG issue was not mastered in 1979. That was their "Circle-P"
copyright date. The 1979 LP issue of this material was from some
unknown source, not the RRG tapes or the Russian 15 IPS copies. The
DG in the Japanese set was from the 30 IPS tapes.
I really don't have time or interest to argue with you further. I
grew up and left college and now work for a living. If you want to
hear distortion, fine.
Tony Movshon
> I really don't have time or interest to argue with you further. I
> grew up and left college and now work for a living. If you want to
> hear distortion, fine.
I'm all grown up, thanks. And at least I know what distortion is.
Tag Gallagher
Can anyone say how good the Lys versions are compared to the 1949 EMI,
the 1949 Testament, and the 1944 M&A (and other assorted
difficult-to-get masterings)?
George Murnu
>
> The Haydn 104 that is alleged to be a 1944 Berlin Philharmonic performance, and
> has circulated on many labels (DGG, Dante LYS, Melodiya, Russian Compact Disc,
> as well as Discocorp in the LP days) is in fact a recording made by the Munich
> Radio Orchestra under Alfons Dressel.
>
> Henry Fogel
So for the curious, what are the merits of Dressler's performance?
Thanks,
George
Tony Movshon
> > The Haydn 104 that is alleged to be a 1944 Berlin Philharmonic performance, and
> > has circulated on many labels (DGG, Dante LYS, Melodiya, Russian Compact Disc,
> > as well as Discocorp in the LP days) is in fact a recording made by the Munich
> > Radio Orchestra under Alfons Dressel.
>
Very limited. It's a heavy-handed performance in the old style, and I could
not hear any special merit in it. I was rather pleased to learn that it was
not Furtwangler, since I so much enjoy his 88.
MWKluge
>So for the curious, what are the merits of Dressler's performance?
>
>Thanks,
>
>George
It is a decent, Kapellmeister view if the score, no more. Its most distinctive
features were the odd treatment of the grace notes in the slow movement, and
the coupling on the old Mercury issue - a superb performance of Symphiny 82
under a truly fine Haydn conductor, Hans Rosbaud. Dressel (not Dressler) did
record a more interesting performance of Schubert's Sixth Symphony, which also
appeared on an early Mercury LP.
Mark K.
Steven Clarke
mhaxt...@aol.com (MHaxthause) wrote:
> Recently browsing through Dejanews looking for postings on Bruckner
recordings,
> I found several contributors who ranked the Furtwängler 1944 8th at
or near the
> top. I own the March 15 1949 performance on M&A, which along with the
Giulini,
> is my favorite among several recordings, but I would like to buy the
1944
> version. But as I seem to recall from earlier postings and print
reviews, there
> have been pitch problems with most versions. What is the best
transfer
> currently available?
>
> Thanks in advance for any information!
>
> Mark Haxthausen
>
There is a French DG (445 415-2) twofer issued in '94 of the '44
performance of the Bruckner 8th symphony with the Bruckner 4th symphony
from '51. I find the sound to be execelent but I can not tell if the
pitch is off.
Steven Clarke
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
HenryFogel
It begins and it ends. That's about it. The performance is square,
uninflected, and without anything to distinguish it. When it was thought to be
by Furtwangler, some used it as "proof" that he couldn't conduct Haydn well
(though his DGG 88th is lovely).
Henry Fogel
George Murnu
Thanks Henry, Mark, and Tony for reply - and by the way, I also love
Furtwangler's Haydn 88.
Regards,
George
rkha...@adnc.com
si...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Simon Roberts) wrote:
> Tony Movshon (mov...@nyu.edu) wrote:
>
> : The best ones are/were the Japanese Toshiba/EMI and the DGG. They
each have
> : problems. The Toshiba is quite clear and on pitch but has some
objectionable
> : flutter distortion, especially at the start of the finale. The DGG
is also
> : on pitch and fairly clean, but sounds duller than the EMI. Neither
of these
> : is readily obtainable, though used copies come up from time to time.
>
> : The M&A transfer is available, but is said to be off-pitch and of
inferior
> : quality; I haven't heard it.
>
> It may be off-pitch (I can't remember) but I prefer the sound to the
> (to these ears, anyway) dull sounding Japanese EMI.
When I first bought the EMI-Toshiba issue of this, I had the same
reaction, that it was dull compared to the DG. After several listenings
however (and an interesting discussion about acoustic pitch perception
with my friend Dave Griegel), I came to the conclusion that the sharper
pitch of the DG and M&A issues increased the sense of tension and
excitement in my perception of the music. Listen to the EMI several
times (finding the time is the tough part) and let it sit in your
consciousness. Then go back to the DG and you will realize how much
sharper it sounds.
Ramon Khalona
rkha...@adnc.com
david...@aol.com (David7Gable) wrote:
>
> Messieurs Movshon and Roberts,
>
> What more accessible Furtwaengler Bruckner 8's do you like and why?
The best starting point is surely the one on Testament. It offers the
best sound, it's readily available and it is very well played. You can
work your way from there.
RK (poorly impersonating M & R)
Ramon Khalona
> rkha...@adnc.com wrote:
>
> : When I first bought the EMI-Toshiba issue of this, I had the same
> : reaction, that it was dull compared to the DG. After several listenings
> : however (and an interesting discussion about acoustic pitch perception
> : with my friend Dave Griegel), I came to the conclusion that the sharper
> : pitch of the DG and M&A issues increased the sense of tension and
> : excitement in my perception of the music. Listen to the EMI several
> : times (finding the time is the tough part) and let it sit in your
> : consciousness. Then go back to the DG and you will realize how much
> : sharper it sounds.
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure that's a result I want....
>
Then don't listen to them for 10 years. Age is the great equalizer (if the
CDs haven't bronzed by then).
RK
Tag Gallagher
releases?
Simon Roberts
: When I first bought the EMI-Toshiba issue of this, I had the same
: reaction, that it was dull compared to the DG. After several listenings
: however (and an interesting discussion about acoustic pitch perception
: with my friend Dave Griegel), I came to the conclusion that the sharper
: pitch of the DG and M&A issues increased the sense of tension and
: excitement in my perception of the music. Listen to the EMI several
: times (finding the time is the tough part) and let it sit in your
: consciousness. Then go back to the DG and you will realize how much
: sharper it sounds.
Hmm. I'm not sure that's a result I want....
Simon