 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.26.190.141
Do people mostly collect DGG records for music and performance merits rather than sound quality? I have a fairly large collection of DGG, spanning from early tulips to digital in the 1980's. But I have never been impressed by their sonic virtues. They are not necessarily bad, but generally are just mediocre compared to other leading labels. Occasionally one gets something like Bernstein's recording of the complete opera Carmen, which sounds fantastic, but from a sonic perspective, it is so uncharacteristic of DGG. It seems odd that the recording engineers in Hanover were just way behind those at Decca, EMI, or RCA and Mercury. Did they just not care much about sonic qualities but focus more on music instead? But I thought people like Karajan cared a lot about sound, and he had DGG record most of his recordings for decades! But his better-sounding recordings are typically from Decca and some from EMI.
Follow Ups:
Never liked their sound quality. Their groove level modulation is very low so noise level seems higher than most.
That would be down to the cutting engineer rather than the producer or tonmeister. The low groove amplitude is of course much more demanding of vinyl formulation and pressing quality, but on the whole I have not found the "quiet cuts" to be a problem as far as rumble or vinyl swoosh is concerned (they are not audible in my system except perhaps during totally silent periods where the musicians are totally silent) Apart from the odd tick or pop, mine are generally very good.
The low amplitude cuts would be a conscious choice partly to extend the life of the cutting head (reduced heat dissipation) but mainly to reducing the cutting and replay distortions associated with a high amplitude cut. There is of course the obvious advantage of a longer playing time on a side (up to 35 minutes or so) in relation to the available real estate for the groove envelope, but the vast majority of sides are much shorter and this allows for the innermost groove to be kept as far out as possible so the distortion due to horizontal tracking error is minimised. The last advantage is wider bandwidth (which will be related to my earlier point about heat dissipation in the cutting head and life expectancy).
Different engineers will make different compromises of course, but I don't believe that my DG records are any different to Philips or Chandos or Hyperion. All my classical records tend to be very quiet!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi,
Yes, I agree with many of the slightly negative issues with DGG. Usually I buy them for the artists performances.
eg Amadeus String Q playing Beethoven String Quartets on the 1st Ed Red Labels. The sound stage is not balanced and no where as big or sonically good as the Decca issues of The Weller SQ playing Beethoven.
Bob
"You have to leave something to your imagination"
I collect them because the thin sound quality on a lot of the pressings reminds me of listening to classical music on WQXR (kabong) on our Telefunken Caprice table radio. It's a very subjective thing.
The truth is that I collect them because I enjoy the cheezy paper thin jackets with incomprehensible German liner notes that I can't read.
There are some performances though, that are my gold standard- like Karajan's Beethoven #5 and Eugen Jochem's Haydn Military Symphony....
My DG records are generally of very good recording quality. Of course there are exceptions; but, say, compared to EMI over the same period, I would say that DG is generally more consistent.
Best regards,
Right you are....the Bernstein Carmen is WONDERFUL....the but many DG's are not.
My experience suggests the following three sub groups exist:
1. Red Stereo Tag on Cover, Tulips and "Alle Hersteller" on label
Usually excellent sound, usually reverse polarity.
2. No red tag. Tulips and either "Made in Germany" or "Alle Hersteller"on label
May or may not be reverse polarity. Often poor sound either way.
3. No tulips.
Always poor sound regardless of polarity.
As mentioned below, the poor sounding ones are thin, bass shy, and lack soundstage.
Not my favorite label, but the red tags can be special. The Alle Hersteller monos can be very good also.
I don't find any of them unlistenable, but I like the sound of my Tulips, of which I have quite a few. I have some digital albums that sound good to me too. Maybe I am easily satisfied! My current preamp has tone controls, which did make quite a difference in my ability to enjoy less than perfect recordings.
Dave
This is one of my best sounding DGs.
Not only great sound but great performances of both the 4th and the 5th. Back in the '70's, I belonged to a record of the month club. I think it was called "The International Preview Society". One of their selections was this record but they sent out an Italian pressing. Even the Italian pressing was excellent. I later sought out and acquired a "Tulips" version. All in all, a wonderful record
DGs are not my favorites either. But one is: the Giuliani Mahler 9th. It's big, bold and has plenty of powerful bass. Plus, Giulini captures its heart. This is one I play a LOT!
For me, DG did some of the best-sounding classical LPs ever. However, I have to agree with the poster who criticized Karajan's recordings, especially the later ones, as over produced. Also, the Philharmonie (built in 1963) does not seem to be the best recording venue imho. Karajan's most praised Beethoven cycle is the first one, and only one completed before the Philharmonie opened.
Try the DG Boston Symphony Chamber Players LPs, for example. Also, David Atherton's Kurt Weill LP with the London Sinfonietta. Those are considered "audiophile" by some pundits. Or some of the Bohm / Vienna Philharmonic LPs. Or the Amadeus String Quartet.
For over fifty years I have tried to really like DGG sound reproduction. Not much luck and generally I buy for the specific artist.
"David Atherton's Kurt Weill LP with the London Sinfonietta. Those are considered "audiophile" by some pundits."
Yes, the Atherton is good but the Nonesuch LP is much better, IMHO. The CD of the Nonesuch lacks bass, of all things. On second thought, maybe I should try to find the Atherton on LP.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
The Nonesuch has been a reference for natural instrumental tonalities for me for a few decades.
I've not heard the Atherton/DG but considered the Nonesuch even better that the Reference Recording version which I did hear.
"The piano ain't got no wrong notes." Thelonious Monk
I think the Reference Recording SQ is better, significantly better. It's hard to say that for the Nonesuch is very, very good. The Reference performance, though, is stiff and almost too perfect. The Nonesuch is freer and sounds more extemporaneous, like a great pit orchestra.
about the "stiffness" in the Chicago RR as I remember it. At least some of my reaction is likely simply enjoying the performances much more on the Nonesuch.A friend who was a musician had the RR and that's where I heard it. After he heard my Nonesuch version he ask for my help in finding an LP copy as it was out of print by that time.
"The piano ain't got no wrong notes." Thelonious Monk
Edits: 02/19/17
Thanks.
I only ever heard OF the Reference LP.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
Depends on the transfer.
(Very) early 'Tulips' with 'LAB' in the deadwax can be remarkably fine (ie: 1958 Schubert Lieder/Seefried SLPM 136009; as did a 1959 Bartok Bluebeard SLPM 138030 transfer) but, through the 60's, they can sound (very) inferior indeed due to damped dynamics + limited HF giving an added sense of 'distortion'.
Some early '80's can sound filtered compared to a mid-'70's of the same, whilst a digital remaster can sound excellent (Mozart 4 Horn C/Karajan); so there's really little consistency...and a label only really lusted-after by oriental fetishists/asset strippers (Mravinsky/Schneiderhan/Fournier..et al).
As a musician, to me performance comes first and foremost. I personally haven't noticed any particular "trend" in the sound balance. There are badly balanced recordings from all companies. Decca (under Culshaw) certainly did have very excellent recordings and the sound balance certainly depends on the producer. Do you have Richter playing Beethoven Piano Concerto Nr 3 (138 848)? I definitely wouldn't have thought it sounde thin at all!
Vinyl replay being analogue will be coloured by your turntable, cartridge, alignment accuracy (including SRA), phono stage, speakers and amp, so at the end of the day, if the DG records don't sound the way you expect them to compared to a different company, it doesn't necessarily mean that DG records are flawed unless you were present at the recording session and sat with the mastering engineer during mixdown. You are listening to what the tonmeister is trying to achieve in the sound balance as well as non-linearities in the monitoring equipment. If there is a sufficient mismatch between your playback equipment then they will doubtless sound "off". They don't on my system "in general".
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Agree with banpuku. Copies I have/had sound thin, mostly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."
I have quite a few DG recordings that sound great. Most of them are with conductors other than Karajan. For example, Bohm's Eroica with BPO & Okko Kamu's Sibelius Sym. No.2. I do agree a lot of DG recordings lack warmth or are bass shy.
My experience parallels yours. Sonically DG does not perform well in my system and I avoid them unless there's a specific performance/artist that In want to hear. My experience of Philips is the exact opposite with great recordings and performances. Of course, the early Telarcs remain unequaled IMHO.
Sim
Sim
I concur with your observation. Most of my DG lips are modest with regards to sonic quality. Most of the LPs have a thin sound to them. Also, many have reverse polarity and can sound better by reversing the polarity on your speakers which is a huge PIA. SurFace noise is usually very good, but the tonal balance is forward in the upper Midwest and treble region.
Like many here, I thought my DG records and tapes (especially the open reel tapes) sounded very ... ordinary. Or worse. Then I got speakers that were polarity-coherent (all drivers wired the same way, minimal or no crossover) and an Aesthetix Calypso linestage with polarity (phase) switching on the remote. Big difference.
All of my DGs were recorded in inverted polarity. More than just about any other label I have, they responded to the polarity switch by opening up the sound and giving it a general "rightness." I agree that changing polarity by switching speaker cables is a royal PIA but almost worth it in the case of DGs. IF (big if) your speakers reveal polarity changes in the first place. Most won't, including my current speakers.
Very interesting Dave.....I'll try it and listen. Thanks
...the latest, most complex equipment. Think of dozens of microphones feeding into huge mixers with lots of knobs and dials. Karajan loved them - the more knobs and dials the better! That was the problem.
I think the word is "over-mic'ed" -- the sound is very clean and detailed but there is zero ambient information giving the impression of the instruments performing in number of acoustically-isolated chambers. Little of wht the golden-ears call "air." I have a rather large reverberant room and a fairly energetic system and, though DG never sound *bad* per se, I tend to avoid them. They do however encompass some of the world's greatest conductors and outstanding orchestral performances so they're hard to avoid.
It gives a certain sound but, it does not remind you of the symphony at all. I go 8 times a year to the symphony and have for 15 years or more. DG has great artists sort of( Am I the only one sick of the Karajan symphonies? I actually tossed a Beethoven DG CD across the room the other day it was so awful.) and that is what they are famous for IMO. Abbado, Argerich, Pollini, etc. and plenty of Opera stars as well(not my thing so cannot name them easily). Richard
Almost half of my classical collection is on DGG, and I listen to almost none of it. When my system wasn't very revealing, it sounded good, but as I bought better gear, they started sounding worse. They were all close mic'ed and the instruments were just all over the place, never in spatial relation to each other. My Spica TC-50s would create an image and disappear with most music, except there was no image to create with DGG.
The early CDs were even worse. Violins just screeched, like nails on a blackboard. This is not an exaggeration. As an early adopter of CD, I was always talking up the merits of the format. But my few Karajan CD even I couldn't stand. (And it turns out the rest of what I bought in that first year is really bad too.)
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
