|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.222.105.47
In Reply to: RE: Thanks for all that! posted by rbolaw on July 12, 2016 at 17:07:04
But, like you, I was favorably impressed with the Zenph Gould Goldbergs (but not everybody, even on this board, was similarly impressed) and, once I heard it in hi-rez quad, I liked the Rachmaninoff album too. So for me, whatever was lost or sacrificed was less than what was gained in the fullness of tone and dynamics as well as the freedom from noisy distractions.
Follow Ups:
Yes, but of course, one could get a brand spankin' new high rez Rachmaninoff recording by someone else rather than listen to cleaned-up pseudo Rachmaninoff himself. If they're audibly altering the performance, what's the point?
For example, I can see how switching Gould's 1955 Goldbergs to a Yamaha piano could annoy people. But perhaps because Gould himself ultimately switched to Yamaha, it doesn't overly offend my ears. Also, I suspect that when the source material sounds better, and the original Gould Goldbergs does sound pretty good, the Zenph result is better. But I'd guess the earlier, higher noise, higher distortion 78s might not work out as well, at least in terms of accurately reproducing the original, which is what many care about most for historical material.
And I think it's perhaps overstating it to call the Zenph versions "pseudo Rachmaninoff".
was, Zenph might produce an excellent-sounding result that nevertheless is somehow audibly different from the original in some systematic way or ways. Some would be happy with that, others may reject it. You and Farhan Malik might differ. I didn't mean to make a value judgment on something I haven't heard.
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: