|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.188.250.219
In Reply to: RE: ??? - I'm not following posted by learsfool on August 13, 2012 at 17:14:09
I do agree with you on some points (especially re the simple, more holistic microphoning of the golden age recordings), but OTOH multi-microphoning has advanced beyond its initial (and too long lived!) primitive state (especially in the last few years) IMHO, and hi-rez digital pushes out the boundaries further still. And remember, vahe's original point was about dynamic compression, not microphoning. And there's no way these golden age recordings, good as they are, can compete with today's best digital recordings in that respect.
I have to relate an experience I had a week ago at the California Audio Show. In the room with the Wilson speakers (I think Robert Lang estimated the system cost to be about $400,000!), they were playing some golden age material on vinyl, such as the Curzon/Solti/VPO performance of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 1. It was SO frustrating for me, because, here was this deluxe, costly system used for a recording which, although very coherent, still robbed the woodwinds of their tonal body which I hear live as a listener (if I'm seated in a good spot) and which I also hear on modern digital hi-rez recordings. (OTOH, I know from other recordings of that vintage, e.g., Barbirolli's Brahms symphonies, that the thin sound of the VPO winds could easily have been a characteristic of the orchestra, no matter how they were recorded!) Still, it's just hard for me to believe that woodwind players would prefer this to a modern hi-rez digital recording in terms of the richness and subtlety of the wind section's tone quality.
I also agree with you about the sound quality of the Abbado/CSO recordings he did in the 80's. That was, in general, a very ghastly time for sound quality on DG.
BTW, for recent examples of what I mean with regard to well-recorded multi-microphoned digital, try to hear the (multi-channel if possible) Chandos 24/96 downloads of the major orchestral works of Debussy with Deneve and the RSNO, or the selection of Saint-Saëns orchestral works with Järvi and the RSNO. I would not have believed that multi-mirophoning could sound so good. And the woodwinds simply have a body in their tone on these new recordings that did not seem possible to capture in the golden age. Hard to believe, I know - but that's the way I'm hearing it now.
Follow Ups:
Hi Chris - I won't respond as detailed here, since there are complaints of the thread being hijacked, for which I apologize. All I will say is I cannot agree that miking is better now than it used to be - the more mikes they add, the less it sounds how it actually sounded, and the more the mix plays into it. These recordings where everyone in the orchestra has their own mike usually come out sounding nothing like the real thing - the blend is simply not correct. It creates many more problems than it solves - the most egregious thing being that the mikes are simply placed far too close to the instruments. There is also the issue that modern day digital recordings still routinely cut out all frequencies supposedly out of the range of human hearing, which many, including myself, feel has a detrimental effect on the sound. But this is already longer than I intended it to be - perhaps we can continue this conversation in another place - feel free to email me through the system here, if that's possible. Supposedly audigon has got rid of that feature, I don't know about this site.
Looks as if I can't contact you directly from here, but I think my e-mail link here will work - other inmates have contacted me directly, so I think the link to my e-mail account should still work.
Hi Chris - it wouldn't let me contact you directly, no. It suggested I post my email, but I do not want to do that, as retaining anonymity here allows me to be much more free in posts, especially here on the music forum, to be able to comment on recordings and orchestras, etc., without fear of offending colleagues. I hope you understand. If you are willing to post yours in response here, I will email you privately.
Sure - no problem. Here it is:
csalocks@stanfordalumni.org
Thanks, I'll be in touch!
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: