Music Lane It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Music Lane ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Here's the "more"

Posted by Chris from Lafayette (A) on July 12, 2016 at 15:53:55

In Reply to: I might be missing something, but... I never got a satisfactory explanation re: Zenph posted by John Marks on July 12, 2016 at 08:33:25:

So Zenph "re-recordings" are derived from actual recordings (mostly 78's, although their first release was the Gould Goldbergs from the LP mono era), which are subjected to computer analysis and processing which outputs a file which can be played on an actual piano from today, which can then be re-recorded without all the noisy artifacts (hiss, surface noise, etc.) and limited frequencies and dynamics of the original older recordings. I bought three of them: the Gould ('55) Goldbergs, the Rachmaninoff (in my post above), and the "Spanish Masters" album where Granados and de Falla "accompany" Isabel Bayrakdarian and Zuill Bailey. I consider the last of these kind of hokey (despite the fact that it has the best average rating on Amazon of the three Zenph classical releases - go figure!) because, far from accompanying or collaborating with with the cellist and the singer, the pre-existing recordings of Granados and de Falla place their collaborators in rhythmic and dynamic straight-jackets - just the opposite of an actual collaboration. (Kind of like playing with the old Music Minus One discs!)

The Gould recording was frustrating because the Zenph processing was not really needed - that '55 technology, although mono only, was just not that bad! Another issue to many listeners (but not to me) was that the Zenph "re-performance" was made on a Yamaha piano, whereas Gould used a Steinway on the original.

I guess Zenph took this criticism to heart, because they used a 1904 instrument for their Rachmaninoff release. I was originally very disappointed in this release (on CD - it was never available on SACD), because I felt that the piano was lacking in power and its tone quality just seemed wan. Subsequently, a 24/96 quad download was made available (on the iTrax site and other sites), and my listening to this incarnation changed my opinion of the sound quality and the success of the processing rather dramatically - another instance where one's perception of the performance itself can be changed by how well the engineering on the recording has been executed. I also must say that criticisms of this recording, such as Farhan Malik's one-star review on Amazon, strike me as surprisingly naive: Malik goes into conniptions over how the performances on the Zenph recording do not have the same "character" as the ones on the original 78's. Well duh!!! Of course it's not going to sound exactly the same: the Zenph recording is of a different piano (even one it's one from 1904), in a different acoustic, recorded with a different microphone, etc., etc., etc. How could it NOT sound different? Nevertheless, it still bears the stamp of Rachmaninoff's playing (at least as I understand it from having heard all of his 78's).

To me, the extant Zenph catalogue represents the squandering of an opportunity, in the sense that every one of their three classical releases has some strike against it which has nothing to do with the Zenph process itself. Nevertheless, I hope that the Zenph process will continue to be developed and refined, resulting in the release of many more historic recordings which IMHO need this kind of technology. If I ran the company, I would:

• choose VERY old recordings which need the Zenph technology the most (IOW, something recorded in 1925, not 1955)
• choose the very best sounding modern pianos to "re-record" with, and not bother with antiquarian fetishes
• make all of my releases available in hi-rez, multi-channel technology (whether discs or downloads)

So, despite all this verbiage, John, I see that I haven't really answered your question, which was whether I approved of human intervention in the processing and release of these kinds of recordings - processing and "intervention" which could make them even better than they originally sounded (or even better than the original player executed them!). Like you, I don't have a problem with any of this, but also like you, I would like the process to be totally honest and transparent. The companies should let their potential buyers know what each process entails. And the claim that we are hearing, say, 100% Rachmaninoff via this kind of processing should contain enough weasel words so the buyers know what's up! In a way, this is not so different from Madeline's (my wife's) wish that all recordings should come with some basic information, such as how many edits were used in the final master - IOW, truth in advertising!

OTOH, we know that some piano rolls themselves (I'm back to piano rolls again) were subject, even at the time, to ex post facto processing which evened out the timing, etc., and made the piano roll performances even more super-human sounding than the real performances from the celebrated artists who recorded them! So, even as we bemoan modern artists' and engineers' addiction to editing, we should also remember that, in some respects, it has always been thus! ;-)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Amplified Parts

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---