|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.197.223.203
I just ordered it!I'm wondering has anyone else had a chance to listen to it, as its the first I've heard it was even coming (been under a rock!) The Fisher's cycle is getting closer to completion (I still need to get the 6th) I'm really looking forward to hearing it.
Follow Ups:
. . . I meant to mention that I did obtain and listen to this album about a week and a half ago.
As I was listening, I blurted out to my wife in the adjoining room, "Jared has really outdone himself this time!". Madeline has been clued-in as to who Jared is for quite a while, so she knew what I was referring to, but she replied with a skeptical focus on other aspects of my remark:
"Your voice is shaking!. . . Your lips are quivering!. . . You're getting all teary-eyed - and all this because of SOUND QUALITY??? You can't be serious!"
I cannot tell a lie - she had me nailed! The irony! I, who viewed with contempt the guy who came up to Haitink after a performance of the Resurrection Symphony and bragged that he had been weeping, was now reduced to the same maudlin emotionality myself! And she was right - it WAS because of the sound quality! I just can't describe how wonderful it was - the sheer stability of the orchestral image, the evocation of the exact size and tone quality of the wind instruments, the resinous quality of the bowing, the extension and natural balance of the bass, the ratio of direct to reflected sound, the uncongested openness of the orchestral textures. It was all so. . . moving!
Since I was so choked up by the sound quality, perhaps there might be some (legitimate!) skepticism concerning my remarks about the performance. But too bad - here goes: much of the discussion thus far has centered on the speed and timing of Fischer's interpretation - everyone agrees he's on the quicker side of the ledger. Folks seemed initially worried about the last movement in particular: that it was an andante instead of a held-back adagio. But the consensus of the reviews so far is that Fischer does indeed pull off his faster tempo while still conveying the music's profound evocation of peace and resignation - something that Mahler did so well, but nowhere better than in this last movement of the Ninth. BTW, I concur with this consensus, and I do not at all feel as if I'm being hustled along.
I was actually more anxious about the inner movements as far as speed was concerned: the Landler/Waltz second movement is definitely a part of the symphony where I don't want any hustling going on, and Fischer is definitely tilting towards my limit, at least in places. But he gets such great articulation from his players, that I became convinced by his approach. It's certainly not the way I'd want to hear it all the time, but in the context of an overall performance as well structured as this one, I can deal with it!
The third movement, Rondo-Burleske, is another movement where I tend not to like interpretations where the tempos are too fast for the players to articulate cleanly. (You hear that, Herbie?) I haven't checked actual timings here, but, subjectively, it seems to me that Fischer, while on the fast side of things, is not TOO fast for his players to articulate their notes expressively, and moreover, to get some sneering and sarcasm into some of those motives which become transformed into profound utterances in the last movement. Again, Fischer's approach to the third movement would not necessarily be my preference for most of my listening to this work, but he does carry it off very convincingly.
In some ways, I like Fischer's interpretation of the first movement the best - his flowing tempo avoids undue emphasis on that "heart murmur" motive (oodle-oodle-oodle oodle-oodle-oodle - jeez, I hate that Ben Zander lecture on his Telarc album of this work!), and, to my ears at least, his fluent approach lends greater coherency to the work than we often encounter.
So, overall, I like the performance a lot, but I wouldn't rate it quite as highly as I do the sound quality, which IMHO is at a state-of-the-art level.
I'm with you on the sound quality, but I can't get excited about the interpretation. As I've mentioned before, the performance seems too planned which robs it of passion and emotion especially in the first and last movements. Maybe the sense of glossiness is because of how good it sounds. No rough edges; too beautiful. Just my two cents....
. . . and beauty at all costs. It's possible that we may be after different things in this music - I did give it only 4 stars for performance however, so perhaps we're not so far apart in our reactions.
Chris, in AA terms this is an old thread, but by chance can you tell me which 9th you think is the out and out 5+ star combination of performance AND sound quality?
I'm not Chris, but I want to jump in: I find the Gilbert performance tops in sound quality, heartfelt, beautifully played. The Fischer performance in surround sound has a more distant reproduction of the orchestra that I find tends to obscure a lot of the detail, in contrast to the Gilbert, which has plenty of detailed without sounding excessively multi-miked.
To me, the Fischer performance was like a well-played runthrough. Luckily, I borrowed it from a library and didn't have to pay for it.
Going down a few notches in sound quality, the Haitink/ACO live performance from the OOP Kerstmatinees box set is phenomenal, and with better sound than the Phillips commercial recording. I know it was issued on DVD as well--never ran across that.
Chris I echo your assessment of Fisher's Mahler's 9th, its dead on! I've listened to it three times and each time I came to the same conclusion which was simply "he pulled it off" aware of what some said about the faster tempo and while yes, it was faster it seemed correct. The recording? I could simply gush for days about it! I consider (subjectively of course) the 1st & 2nd some of the best recordings known to man. What I found on the 9th is it possess (finesse and sheer power) the best of those mentioned above with a noted ability at the same time to convey so many stable layers in a recording, just impeccable .
Yes! its state of the art level indeed.
Yes, I talked a lot about this over on ComputerAudiophile back before we released it on NativeDSD in May. Jared is very proud of this (he is of all of them, but this one especially). When he stayed at my home after Axpona I had the chance to hear the session recordings from this, both in multichannel and stereo (and a chance to show off my system to Jared). It's really quite amazing (the recording, that is :) ). And Jared love my setup...so all is good.I get to go and help in Budapest in September. We do Mahler 7 then. Wish us luck.
Edits: 07/17/15
Yup! Jealous as well! even a fly on the wall would suffice just to be in the room.
I don't know the Fischer recording (I have several of his other Mahlers) but I really, really like this one:
I also really like the Gilbert recording. It's a passionate performance, very well played. In SACD surround, the recording is very transparent without being obviously multi-miked, yet with plenty of atmosphere.
I'm slowly becoming a huge fan of BIS recordings!
Thanks
Sorry to say, I am don't like the sound of almost all the newer BIS recordings that have been made at 96/24 using RME gear.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I'll give you an example. I have two BIS recordings of the Ravel Tombeau. The new one is a new 96/24 RME recording, "Solitaires" by Kathryn Stott, the old one is a 44/16 recording by Yukie Nagai, made on the PCM-F1. I also have a Linn recording of the same piece by Artur Pizarro, that one in 88/24.
I listened to all three recordings yesterday. My preference is the Yukie Nagai, both sonically and musically.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I have other recordings of all three of the pianists you mention - just not Tombeau de Couperin. BTW, if you don't mind one further question, what is RME (or RME gear)?
RME is a manufacturer of pro audio gear.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony,
We can put many declarative statements to express our opinions about recording technology, gear or any other particular issue. But i remember your rave comments about inferiority of 44.1 recordings to the ones of any higher sampling rate. And now, suddenly, quite opposite statement. While i agree with you, that some older 44.1 BIS recordings sound exceptionally and sometimes better than the new ones recorded in 96, i don't see any reason to blame RME gear. BIS is using RME gear for a long time, enough to check the list of equipment used they print in every CD booklet. BIS records in multichannel now, while the older recordings were done in stereo only, so it might be related to the way they mix and process (or maybe over process) the recording. By the way, i don't find any harshness in these new recordings, they are very 'smooth' sounding and more 'vinyl' like. Yes, they sound a bit different, but what the point to blame RME if there are other unknowns in this puzzle?
My comment about 44/16 are based on direct comparison of the same recording in different formats. There can be good, even very good, recordings in the 44/16 format, but they would have been better if made in a digital format with higher resolution.
I've seen several record labels switch from 44/16 to 96/24 in recent years when there was ready availability of equipment and software than runs at 192/24. I can conclude that these record labels are more concerned with cost than quality and/or lack the ability to discern subtle differences. I'm not sure what the situation is with BIS.
RME gear is priced and marketed to the prosumer market. It is not competing against the first rate mic preamp and converter vendors. I have yet to hear recordings credited with using RME gear that had first rate sound. Perhaps it is possible, but the people who can hear the subtle differences needed to consistently produce first rate recordings are not compromising on their equipment.
If you know of any great sounding recordings made with RME gear of music that might interest me, I would be interested in hearing them.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
With regard to BIS recording/releasing 24/96 recordings rather than 24/192, Robert has made statements over on SA-CD.net that he believes that people can't easily hear even the difference between 24/44.1 and 24/96, and he once challenged listeners there to guess which of the Osmo Vanska / Minnesota Orchestra performances of the Beethoven Symphonies were in 24/96 and which were in 24/44.1. (This set was recorded during BIS's transition from 24/44.1 to 24/96.) Of the many "audiophiles" who guessed, only 1 or 2 got it right. So I think he's content with 24/96 from a philosophical point of view, rather than a "cost" or "quality" point of view, and I don't see BIS ever moving to 24/192 or higher.
Speaking personally, I don't think he's off the mark, even though I have some wonderful 24/192 recordings and downloads in my collection (2L, Sono Luminus, and the Chandos Toronto Scheherazade). Another problem for me with BIS is that eClassical is not yet offering hi-rez multi-channel downloads, so I'm a little less conversant with their recent recordings over the last couple of years. (For the most part, I'm not buying the SACD's if the masters are PCM, especially if the hi-rez PCM downloads are available.) The last word I heard from Robert is that eClassical is now doing beta testing of hi-rez multi-channel downloads - they've been promising this for years, but they're apparently now very close.
If he had better quality equipment and/or were better able to perceive subtle differences, he would hear these differences. The best audio can be found on other download sites and it is made by better engineers. (How do I know they are better? Their recordings have better sound.) These engineers use 192/24 or higher sampling rate formats.
If BIS were primarily interested in sound quality they would use the best available gear and formats compatible with their style of production. They would know who the best recording engineers are and would be familiar with the equipment they use. They would not be assuming that many of their customers can't hear differences that they themselves can not hear. If they were concerned with quality they would want all their customers to be happy with their sound quality.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I have had problems with the dynamic range of some BIS recordings and after the attack by Robert & Andrew Mcgregor who incorrectly supported BIS despite AM saying the volume had to be increased when playing a disc on BBC 3 CD review. , I now avoid all BIS discs.
A large dynamic range has always been a characteristic of live classical music. BIS has always recorded in such a way that the listener gets the dynamic range produced by the musicians. This is true of early BIS recordings as well as later ones, and has little to do with formats. I have never heard a BIS recording or any other recording of classical music that had too much dynamic range. There is something wrong. I suggest tracking it down.
If the dynamic range is too much for you, then there are several possibilities. First, your room may be too noisy to hear the quiet passages and you are forced to crank up the volume to unnaturally loud levels. Second, your system may lack the ability to reproduce undistorted peaks cleanly. Third, your ears may not support listening to classical music as it was intended to be heard. Go to a live classical concert and sit in row 10 or row 20 and if it is unpleasantly loud, that could be the problem (depending on the concert hall).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This is all absolute nonsense, the problem I experience with some BIS discs seldom occurs with any other brand, I have never said there was too much dynamic range it is the balance that is the issue. I am often asked for my opinion on SQ. because I have a lot of experience with Live v recorded sound. I no longer buy BIS discs.
Edits: 08/02/15 08/02/15 08/02/15
You posted this:
"I have had problems with the dynamic range of some BIS recordings..."
and then posted this (re BIS) as a response to another post: "I have never said there was too much dynamic range it is the balance that is the issue."
Hubh???
Huhh? even the presenter of CD review Andrew McGregor said re a BIS disc he was about to play that in the quiet passages you will have to increase the volume, then later denied it ,said I misheard him after contact by Robert ? ? ? .
Edits: 08/03/15 08/03/15 08/03/15
In response to my asking you about these contradictory statements of yours about BIS:
"I have had problems with the dynamic range of some BIS recordings..."
vs.
"I have never said there was too much dynamic range it is the balance that is the issue."
...you posted this, which makes no effort to reconcile these statements:
"even the presenter of CD review Andrew McGregor said re a BIS disc he was about to play that in the quiet passages you will have to increase the volume, then later denied it."
"Dynamic range" refers to the decibel range between soft and loud sounds. "Balance" means other things, such as one channel louder than the others, some instruments louder than others, etc. What are you trying to say about BIS recordings?
In your terms problems with the dB range between soft & loud sounds that I do not find with other brands, which is why I no longer buy BIS discs.
Edits: 08/03/15
Now I know that you WERE referring to dynamic range, which you find excessive on BIS discs. I don't know how much you listen to symphonic music live or whether you have hearing loss that makes it hard for you to hear soft sounds, but there is a huge dynamic range in the concert hall that is often compressed on CDs. I don't think BIS is adding dynamic range that isn't already there; rather, I suspect you are more comfortable with the compressed dynamic range on some other recordings.
I do know what you mean--I have several of the BIS recordings of the Beethoven symphonies (Vanska, Minnesota), and when I can clearly hear the softest parts, the loudest sections of the music are uncomfortably loud.
I completely agree only with your last para. Are you saying that all Classical SACDs except those from BIS are compressed ?
Edits: 08/04/15 08/04/15
You wrote: "Are you saying that all Classical SACDs except those from BIS are compressed ?"
No, of course not. I never said anything about "all classical SACDs." I recall we had a prior exchange on AA in which you insisted on putting words into my mouth. Let's move on...
I am not putting words into your mouth but the implication I get from you is that all brands apart from BIS ( which I no longer buy) are compressed. Incidently there is absolutely nothing wrong with my hearing, otherwise why would people in the Trade ask my opinion on SQ.
Disbeliever wrote: "I am not putting words into your mouth but the implication I get from you is that all brands apart from BIS (which I no longer buy) are compressed."
I don't think you understand the difference between IMPLY and INFER. The former term refers to what someone is saying, while the latter refers to a conclusion drawn by a reader or listener.
To IMPLY means to strongly suggest the truth of something not directly stated. I didn't imply anything about all brands (other than BIS). I said only what I meant.
To INFER is to derive by reasoning from evidence. You drew an inference about what I thought about all non-BIS brands from my guess that you might prefer the compressed sound on other recordings. That's what I wrote. I did not say or even suggest anything about ALL non-BIS recordings. You are responsible for your inference, which is incorrect. I have certainly not even heard all non-BIS SACDs, so of course I would not make any statement about all non-BIS brands. Now can you please move on?
until he's told us yet again that he no longer buys BIS discs.
Why would people consult you on SQ? Because they know even less than you about it, and they have not yet discovered how naive and off target your views are.
I never adjust the volume control while listening to a recording of classical music.Once I note the volume control setting that is appropriate for a particular album I just dial that in. Indeed, when getting a new album from an unfamiliar record label, after the first few notes sound and I make an initial volume adjustment I look at the volume control setting and I know whether the recording was butchered to accommodate inferior equipment. BIS does not do this.
It is possible to make a recording louder by limiting the peaks. Then it is possible for the engineers to "turn up" the volume so that the limited peaks just fit on the disk. This is how inferior recordings are made. This allows inferior equipment to play these recordings without running into distortion at the loud settings while keeping the quiet portions loud enough to hear. When you play one of these compressed recordings you do not hear what the artists played. Fortunately, most classical record labels use only a little volume compression and the better quality ones don't use any. The situation is completely different with pop music, where all musical dynamics are removed in the interest of making the playback loud.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Having to adjust the volume control while listening to Classical music only occurs with some BIS SACD discs. When I increase the volume of quiet passages, the loud ones become too loud,and then I have to adjust the volume down, I am not prepared to accept this issue not found from all the other well known brands.. The BBC CD presenter did say this was necessary before he played a BIS disc. Because you never adjust your volume control this is your choice. I no longer buy or want to buy BIS discs.
Edits: 08/03/15 08/03/15
Back in day when I played LPs on the college radio station we had to adjust the volume for each album we played so that we would meet FCC regulations. This was no different when playing LP records on my home stereo. The volume control had to be adjusted for each album to get the same sound quality.
I hate to say it, but it is people like you who are too lazy to adjust a volume control who are responsible for commercial companies butchering recordings so that they can get revenue from lazy clueless people.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I do not remember having to continually adjust the volume when I used to play LPs. Not a question of laziness, just not necessary.
Edits: 08/03/15 08/03/15 08/03/15
The SACD.net community is probably in Robert's very sight lines as representatives of BIS's intended audience, and many of the posters there were full of self-satisfied, even arrogant notions about their own "golden ears". If only one of two listeners of an audience like that can tell the difference between 24/44.1 and 24/96, then I'd say that that in itself is pretty revealing. As I mentioned before, I'm not up on most of the latest BIS releases, although my general impression of the company is very favorable, based on a considerable number of earlier releases (i.e., older than a couple of years) I've heard.
The notion of a "best" recording engineer or "better sound" has to be pretty subjective too. Speaking for myself, I like to try to correlate my listening impressions to what is known on a more objective level if I can, and I get the impression that you do too (maybe moreso than I do!). Some subjectivists have no use for this type of correlation however, so this whole notion of "best" gets to be pretty shaky, depending on whom you're talking to.
BTW, over time, much of the "golden ears" contingent over on SA-CD.net has dropped off the site, especially since the site's founder had the effrontery to allow discussion and listings of blu-ray audio too! The dismissive attitude towards others' hearing tends to rear up in discussions these days much less than it used to. I notice that here too (with the exception of the Computer Audio board - LOL!).
I can't close this post without mentioning that one of the greatest recordings I know of (subjectively!) in terms of engineering is the Finlandia DVD-Audio of the Toronto Symphony playing the Sibelius Lemminkainen Suite - at the "lowly" resolution of 24/44.1.
Tony, how do you know that the differences you hear are related to the recording device and not to other factors, such as the mics and their positioning, the piano, room acoustics, etc.?
"Tony, how do you know that the differences you hear are related to the recording device and not to other factors, such as the mics and their positioning, the piano, room acoustics, etc.?"
I don't.
Probably the biggest difference is the pianists. (But the three pianos were also different makes.) One can get a lot of sound out of a piano without harshness without "banging". I know. I was an amateur pianist in my school days and played some Ravel. I was married to a pianist for more than 40 years. My late wife could get incredible volume out of her Steinway B without it sounding harsh. However, to the extent that the things that I hear are actually on the recordings and are not caused by the limitations of my equipment and my aging ears, I still lay the blame (or credit as the case may be) on the engineers making the recording and the people they work for (if different) who own the record label. They select the microphones, the venue and position the microphones, etc... If they can hear a problem they can correct it. If they can't then the problem remains on the final product, unless by virtue of DS luck problems cancel out. Different gear has its characteristic sound. Thus the Channel Classics recordings made with the Grimm ADC sound distinctly better than those made by the same engineer using other DSD ADCs. In the case of the early BIS recordings, many of them are exceptionally good, for whatever reason, I can not say.
You will find a link to my wife's 1977 recital in Jordan Hall where she plays Ravel's Gaspard de la Nuit. Enjoy. This was a Steinway D (concert grand) same make and model as on the new BIS recording.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
nt
When Jared visited a few of us at my house a couple of years ago, he mentioned that there were no plans to complete a Fischer Mahler cycle - in particular, they did not plan to do the Eighth. As far as I know, that's still the case.
As for this new Ninth, I haven't heard it yet myself, although reports I've read state that Fischer moves the last movement along at a pretty good clip (as he did in his Bruckner Seventh not too long ago). Sometimes that works (as it did in the Bruckner IMHO), sometimes not.
I'm going to have a minority opinion on this album. I find the first and last movements too fast, robbing them of depth and emotional power. Sometimes I believe Fischer to be the conducting equivalent to the pianist Pollini -- everything seems planned down to the last millisecond. It's beautiful but shallow.
After listening to Fischer's ninth, a session with either Giulini/Chicago or Levine/Philadelphia (to name just two) is an extraordinary emotionally satisfying experience.
Just listened to the 9th with Celibidache. Very emotional.I have listened to a bunch of Fischers recordings and am usually bored by him.
Alan
Yes, Bruckner
Alan
I've heard the pace is a bit quick as well! Hopefully it works out. I do hope they decide to complete the cycle.
got 4 stars/5 in BBC music this month
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: