|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Today I picked up my Rega with the Blue Point Special MC Cartridge, grabbed me a copy of the only half an hour released Beatles 'Yellow Submarine' LP and speeded housewards. First spin was 'Das Lied von der Erde' with Walter/Ferrier and at the same time I'd put in the CD. The CD always sounded kind of crappy to me, leaving Ferrier with an emotional but not very beautiful voice in the sense of airless, something which is also present in some Callas-recordings and now this problem is cured. YES!The Beethoven 9 with Cluytens is also very okay, thank you Ears for recommending it, otherwise I'd never bought it eventhough it only costed $0,50. It's a very nice performance indeed and imo better than the Herreweghe we recently spoke about.
Grateful to all these people who I've met here in our Music Asylum Lane, who talked me into older recordings than the purely digital ones.
Rob
What?!
Which model? Does the amp have a "phono" input?
I gues that the new job is "working" well!
Regards,
Jorge
No it didn't have a phono input so I had to buy me a MC Phono cartridge Pre-amp Module which is implemented in the Myryad now and the turntable is a Planar 3 and I'm completely lost. Frequency response is 12 - 50,000 Hz.CD era has somehow ended,
Rob
Glad you liked the Cluytens's Ninth. Buy any of the Cluytens Beethoven symphonies with confidence. His cycle is consistently very okay. I did get the Herreweghe disc, and I like it, but for me it's still not the Holy Grail of Ninths. I read a comment that Beethoven's greatest music is better than it can ever be performed. I think this is what I'm running into with my search for the perfect Ninth symphony.
Today I heard it on vinyl played by Oistrakh with Cluytens conducting the French National Radio Orchestra in 1958 and it's very okay, the Oistrakh part as well as Cluytens with this mediocre or not-top orchestra(EMI). Again, I only heard about Cluytens as an opera-conductor, but he seems to be an underrated symphonic conductor. Hope I can find me more Beethoven/Cluytens on vinyl. People should be getting rid of it in this CD eraRob
I didn't know there was a Beethoven violin concerto recording by Oistrakh and Cluytens. If you can't find any vinyl, CDUniverse sells the full set of symphonies on CD for $20 on the Royal Classics label which I think may be a Dutch label. Mine are on Seraphim-EMI and include some overtures but I don't know if they are included in the Royal Classics set. Cluytens's Pastoral and Eroica are standouts in the cycle.
nt
Rob, have you compared the CD and LP versions of the same recording, and if so what have you found. In four or five instances where I have made the comparision, I have not noticed much difference. A little more noise in the LP and a slightly warmer frequency balance (Grado cartridge), but othere than that, there wasnt enough of a difference to get excited about one way or the other.
No, I haven't noticed that big a quality difference with decent pressings, either, though the balance may be different. I once took a couple of the early Telarc recordings, the Holst Band Suites and Stravinsky's Firebird Suite, and tried to equalize them to sound the same. With a boost of about 4 db on the 16 Khz slider on the LP, they sounded very similar. Nothing magical about it.Peter Paul & Mary's Greatest Hits is balanced less warmly on the CD, but the recording is so warm and fuzzy the CD still sounds wonderfully warm and fuzzy, but somewhat clearer.
You realize that you are taking a digital recording issued on vinyl (Telarc) and comparing it with the CD. Why don't you try a Mecury Living Presence or RCA Shaded Dog and compare that to the CD reissue? Or some of the wonderful early music recordings on French Harmonia Mundi and Astree. Just make sure that you are working from a true analog master.
Damn - don't mention Astree. If everyone finds out just how good those LPs are their price will go up! I"ve been picking those up for about $3.00 for mint copies.
Yes, I do realize that the Telarc's have digital masters.It is not that easy to be sure that any differences you perceive between the LPs and the CD versions are due to the digital medium, per se. For one thing, it is not that easy to be sure that you have the same recording. For example, the Telarc Drum recording was done Direct to Disc for LP, but the CD is made from an analog back up tape. As well, it could be that the mix was not done properly for the CD reissue.
In those cases where you have found the CD version to be inferior, how do you determine that it is the digital medium itself that is at fault, rather than something else?
Well, I have no 'original' red cover Mercury LPs, save for one of some of Haydn's Sun Quartets. That one is used, and is not in very good shape; plus, I do not have that one on CD. I do have some later Mercury pressings, Golden Imports, but I understand they were not the same as the original issues.
I have some of the old RCA recordings on CD, but I believe the CD version is superior in some ways. The pressings I have are noisier, for one thing. If I wish to listen to Reiner's recording of Rachmaninoff's "Isle of the Dead," I will go to the CD every time.
Again, I have Ernest Ansermet's recording of Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" on a London LP, and also on CD, which is superior.
I have never attempted to duplicate my LP collection on CD, except for a few favorite recordings. If the LP is good enough, why should I change it? If it is not, why not get some other version on CD?
On average, my CDs sound superior to my LPs. That's the long and short of it. Some of the very best recordings I have ever heard are on CD, so I have to conclude that the medium is capable of storing very fine recordings.
Well, that's just not been my experience. As far as assurance that it's the digital medium, the best I can do is take the LP vs the CD of the same performance, realizing that different masters could have been used.What's always missing on the CD version is the ambiance of the acoustical space - the overtones and decay of the note. Instruments sound less like themselves. I have always felt that this is due to the medium (discrete sampling of a continuous event, with numerical approximations filling in the space between the samples). These kinds of tonal and spatial differences should be consistent even if different masters are used.
Oh, before you ask, the digital and anolog equipment is of comparable quality. I use an Accuphase DP-75 CDP and the Koetsu/Graham/Linn/Lingo/Mana combo into the Aesthetix Io phono preamplifier.
My turntable sounds better than my CD player. All of my audiophile friends who have good turntables prefer the sound of LP's to CD's. I have some excellent sounding CD's but my best quality recordings are on vinyl.What I notice in my system using similar recordings is that LP has better ambience, more depth, the sound is more free of the speaker enclosures and the image is more palpable (a better illusion of someone in the room). Surface noise is rarely noticeable, even on quiet passages. CD also has a slightly harder sound which is less natural.
The problem with LP replay is that it takes care in assembling a TT system that works optimally (e.g. cartridge load capacitance and/or impedance, arm & cartridge matching, resonance control & isolation, synergy/balance). There are also a lot of adjustments for the cartridge, VTF, VTA, anti-skate, overhang, which a lot of people get wrong. Record care is important. To get good replay and minimize noise requires a certain level of equipment, along with the setup skills. I've never found justification for trusting dealers with any of the above, and the problem is compounded now by a serious lack of knowledge among dealers and audiophiles in the age of CD.
To Pat D:
You mention boosting the 16 kHz band on a record to give CD sound quality. It is not clear if you are saying the record's frequency response is off or if that is characteristic of your system. If it is a general rule in your system that LP's sound like CD's with a HF boost applied, then clearly something is wrong with your system. The other point I would raise is that a graphic equalizer destroys the phase integrity of a system and defeats the entire reason for being an audiophile i.e. to create an illusion of being there. With an equalizer you get all of the notes but lose the soul of the music.For reference, my table is a Heybrook TT2 with upgraded power supply, Alphason Xenon arm and Grado TLZ cartridge. I am presently evaluating an AT-OC9 and will be buying an OC9ML (BTW this is a good example of a cartridge which has been maligned by people who don't know how to use it). My CDP is Cambridge Audio Discmaster with Audio Alchemy DDE3 DAC, DTI (IS2 bus connection) and PS2 power supply. I paid exactly the same amount for my TT system and CDP. My preamp is a Bryston .5B with phono stage.
I think it would be proper for you to state what source equipment you use at home that helped form your judgement of CD vs LP, as Phil and I have done.
Dan
Your equipment looks to be very good. The Bryston preamplifier has an excellent phono preamplifier, and I have heard good things about the Heybrook turntable. The subjective reviewers seem to like your DAC, and in any case, I have no reason to fault it.Most of my best recordings are on CD, though I have a number of excellent ones on LP.
As for the rest, you say so many things I disagree with, it is hard to know where to begin.
In the first place, I simply said that I could equalize the two Telarc recordings to sound about the same in both formats, and that I applied the EQ to the LP version. The point is that the difference was mostly in the frequency response, and you have not shown any differently. Of course, if I turned the volume way up, the LP would be noisier than the CD, no question about it.
The cause of a difference in sound could, however, be any number of things, such as the master tapes used, or the mixing.
Again, since the only thing that was different was that I played two recordings in two formats, LP and CD, I see no basis whatever for concluding that there was something wrong with the "system." If you think it might have been the phono preamp, the one in my old receiver was very flat. I have some test records, and my cartridge goes not have any droop in the high end, either. The CDP was, of course, virtually ruler flat, tested with a Pierre Verany test disc.
Where you get the ideas that applying some EQ to the extreme high end is going to upset something you call "phase integrity," and that if it did, it would have an audible effect, I am not sure. TAS, Stereophile, UHF? Anyway, I see no reason to accept your opinion on this, and in any case, I do not use the EQ in my current system.
If we compare our experiences, then mine has just as much validity as yours or Phil's. If it comes down to a matter of taste or preference, then there's no argument. If you prefer LPs to CDs, I do not see how you can logically conclude that the digital medium at fault. How do you come to this conclusion? How do you eliminate other factors? I asked the same question above, and I believe Phil's answer is basically that he does not have a method for doing so. It is still possible that both of you are right, but neither of you has provided convincing reasons.
The system in question was my old one. It was with this that I had performed the test. The turntable was a BIC 980 with a Grado F3E+ cartridge, and the CDP was a Yamaha CDX-2. My receiver was a Harmon Kardon 730, and the speakers were Kef 104s (this was the old, large bookshelf type, 2-way with a passive radiator). The EQ was an ADC Sound Shaper II, original version. I can't remember whether I had the 12 guage wire at that time, but the interconnects were non-descript. If I were to repeat the test, I would pay somewhat more attention to level matching than I did then. The speakers were wide range and quite neutral, though not as neutral as the Quads, and could project a consistent image, with a wide and deep image, with many good recordings.
Now, let's see, someone is going to jump in and complain that this would not have sufficient "resolution," a nice optical image. Then, of course, I read another post, which I can't find, which says that all one has to do is find a decent $500 turntable and cartridge combination to blow away any CDP (that would be like the UHF position, wouldn't it?).
For playing LPs and CDs, my current system has a Denon DP-60L turntable with a Grace F9E cartridge; a Rotel RCD-965 BX CDP; a Quad 44 preamplifier; a Quad 606 amplifier (original version); Quad ESL-63 loudspeakers; a Paradigm PW-2500 subwoofer with a Mirage LFX-1 electronic crossover; old Angstrom 12 guage speaker cables about 23' long; and non-descript interconnects. I don't use the an equalizer with this system.Are you trying to play "my system is better than your system," Dan?
No, Pat, I'm not trying to play "my system is better than yours". I'm merely trying to understand why you might have the opinion that CD sounds better. This a very common opinion among the general public but an uncommon opinion among audiophiles. My opinion is that the public sees CD as having better sound because they upgraded from a $150 TT and abused records to a $150 CDP. At that level, I prefer CD too. At any audiophile price level, I prefer LP sound (as long as the LP is in good condition).I've heard it over and over again in our audio club. We'd be listening to CD's through someone's system, then switch over to LP. The difference, regardless of software, was always a relief. Yes, a relief, because what we assembled to hear was music, and what a good TT system gives you is great music. The systems in the club varied from Rega Planar 3/Rega Planet, to high level Micromega separates/Roksan TMS, and several points in between. Everyone's turntable sounded better than his CDP and was not considered contentious in any way.
Pat wrote < < Now, let's see, someone is going to jump in and complain that this would not have sufficient "resolution," a nice optical image. Then, of course, I read another post, which I can't find, which says that all one has to do is find a decent $500 turntable and cartridge combination to blow away any CDP (that would be like the UHF position, wouldn't it?). > >
Well, your old system was severely lacking in the resolution department wasn't it? ;~) I believe UHF's current position is that state-of-the-art LP and CD systems are quite evenly matched but they've tested a lot of CDP's they didn't like. Regarding the archived statement that a $500 TT beats any CDP, I'd have to hear that myself. I don't agree, although it may have been true early in the CD life cycle.
Frankly Pat, I think you have a problem in your turtable setup. How old is the stylus on the F9E? Nice cartridge, but I believe it's been out of production for over a decade. Does your tonearm have adjustable VTA? If not is the cartridge at least level? VTA and stylus shape have a lot to do with surface noise prominence. Elliptical styli are noisier in the groove than exotic shapes. Do you use a protractor and test record to optimize your cartridge settings? I'm not familiar with your table, but I'm not a fan of direct-drives. OTOH, some audiophiles liked the better Denons.
IMO, you have a lovely system that is in bad need of a high resolution source. Perhaps DVD-A or SACD will show you what you're missing.
Dan
Well, I do not know where you get your figures on preferences for CDs and LPs. A lot of audiophiles think CDs are generally superior, too. As you know, I don't think too much of UHF's general philosophy (they deliberately avoid level matching, for example), nor do their opinions on electronics carry any weight with me.It really does not make much difference to me what your audio club friends prefer. Often enough, when I am listening to an LP, I wish I had a good CD version. That's my experience. But of course, I got the LPs for the music, not because they were audiophile pressings. Even the best pressings will develop ticks and pops sooner or later.
In any case, even some of my cheap Naxos CDs beat most LPs by a long shot. The Royal Philharmonic reissued on CD by the Chesky label are usually extremely good, and I can't say I have ever heard an LP that was better. If I don't like the balance on a recording, the Tilt control on the Quad 44 is often very useful, but I am more likely to use it on an LP than on a CD. When we are talking experiences and preferences, mine are as good as yours.
Yes, the Denon turtable is set up right. It has a very good tone arm and extremely low flutter (I am quite sensitive to flutter, especially once I got a CD player). By the way, from what I have read, trying to match the vertical tracking angle of a record is a tricky business, since this varies somewhat LPs. By your own standards, you should not criticize equipment you have not heard, and the Grace F9E is considered by some to be a classic. My dealer says they can get the stylus replace, when needed, but I use Stylast. How do you know what you have is better?
Again, how do you know my old system was severely lacking in resolution? It sounded very good. Have you ever heard the old Kef 104 speakers? They still sound very good, and were always regarded as a pretty revealing speaker. The Quads are somewhat flatter, and almost any other speaker sounds a bit confused compared to them, which is not to say I don't like other speakers.
Again, the Rotel RCD-965 BX is well built and reliable, and tracks very well. It sounds much the same as other CDPs I have heard, and I have tried out quite a few. No one has shown me a CDP that sounds significantly better (if at all better, for I have not done many level matched tests, let alone a proper DBT).
If you like the sound of an LP better than the CD, it seems to me most likely that there is a frequency response difference, perhaps a dip in the upper midrange and a rise in the extreme highs.
Pat,I'm not sure why you think there is no "method" in Dan's comparison or mine. We can do no more that you can, save play the original LP and it;s CD reissue. In every case, the LP sounds much more like real music being played in a real space. The CD sounds artificial (which it is, a point I'll return to). We could carry this even further to different pressings of the same LP. Does a Shaded Dog 1S/1S sound superior or different to a Shaded Dog 15S/15S? Probably. I can't see that it matters (as I said before)that different masters might be used. Since every LP I own sounds more like real music than its CD reissue, the only conclusion I think is possible is that the current digital medium is the reason. Why?
Digital recording is discrete sample of a continuum. The intervals between the samples are approximated by numerical approximation algoritms that converge on a solution. Converge in this sense means "get in the neighborhood of". The algoritms are incapable of deriving an analytical solution, therefore some error terms 9truncation, round-off0 are always part of the solution, i.e part of the recording you are listening to on your CDP. This is what i mean by artificial. The interpolations between samples "fill in" the missing data using linear (straight line) apporximations, yet a sine wave is composed of millions of little straight lines connected together.
The result in these approximations is retention of the fundamental, but increasing diminuition of overtones. The spatial cues that we subliminally respond to when listening to an analog recording haver gone missing; there is no sense of real music in a real space. This is not a matter of preference, it is how the process works. If you return to the AES journals of the early eighties, you will find a large number of published papers that point out the shortcomings of the recently established industry standard of 16/44.
Now you may prefer CD because of it ease of use or its relative lack of surface noise and tape hiss, but as a reproducer of real music in real space, it's severely flawed. I have heard 78s that, for certain instrument, sound more real than any CD (or LP for that matter).
The Accuphase DP-75, if not the best, is certainly one of the best CDPs out there. It uses eight DACs per channel, and is the best CD sound I've heard to date. But a good LP on my Linn beats it every time. And every non-audiophile I've had over and done the comparison for left speechless with the lower jaw on their chest. Make of it what you will.
....And every non-audiophile I've had over and done the comparison for left speechless with the lower jaw on their chest. Make of it what you will.....What were they given to drink at these listening sessions Phil,hehehe
regards rod
I make of it that you prefer LPs to CDs. However, I don't generally do so.As to your method, I simply point out that you have not shown that it is the digital process itself that is at fault, rather than something in the production process.
Your account of the digital reproduction process is not a proof of sonic superiority. It is at best an explanation of it, if such superiority were established. I am not a techie, but as I understand it, the basic reason why CDPs do not produce stepped 44.1 Hhz square waves is simply that their frequency response is limited, filtered off, above the audible range. Square waves imply an extremely wide frequency response, so if you pass the square wave through a filter, it is rounded off.
You may say I prefer CDs because of their convenience, low noise, though you forgot the extremely low flutter, flat, consistent requency response, low distortion, and so on. But, I also like the sounds recorded on them. Analog and digital are recording, storage, and playback mediums, and the quality of the recording stored on them is of primary importance. I happen to think that the digital medium is better than the tapes and LPs, which is not to deny they are often good enough. Since some of the best recordings I have ever hear are on CD, I have no reason to doubt this.
I have heard a lot of music in real, acoustic space, and I perform some of it (and you could say that I'm an acoustic singer, not a mic' singer). As far as I'm concerned, CDs can produce at least as much of an illusion of music in real space as can LPs. As I say, when it comes to preferences and experience, mine are as good as yours.
but if you do not think my "account" of the digital process is proof, I suggest some remedial courses in calculus; numerical approximation theory and numerical models for ODEs and PDEs. It's fine to prefer it, but it's simply not accurate or real. You obviously are enamored of your delusions, but current digital technology is woefully inadequate for accurate music reproduction. Prefer it if you must, just don't reduce cogent arguments against the standard to "PREFERENCE".
Phil,My limited English prevents me from understanding what the hell you're talking about, but I surely agree. The last couple of days I've been thinking about selling my CD-collection, because it's no match to vinyl.
I'm only spinning records nowadays and everytime I hear a CD, over here, at work or where-ever I begin to smile and think: 'Go away, you digital bastard' and there's pain in my heart for not discovering vinyl earlier and not having listened to my father who always said he didn't like the 'sound' of CDs and refuted my arguments pro CD without any arguments just trusting his own ears as I tend to believe now. He always spoke about chilly and liveliness recordings and at the time I didn't understand him.....Am I ready to qualify for the audiophile-exams?
Rob
but it sure sounds like you're close;-).
a pronounced difference between LP and CD, I have to call your playback system into question. I've done sid-by-side comparisons with both jazz and classical recordings and it's absolutely no contest. I've even done them for "lay" acquaintances who were sure that CD was "perfect sound forever" and left them speechless with their mouths agape.Compare, for instance, Horenstein's Mahler 3rd on CD with the original Unicorn LP. Or Kleiber's Beethoven 5th referred to above with the CD issue (which is practically unlistenable). Or your beloved Beethoven quartets by the Vegh with the LP version (Valois). Strings in particular are poorly served by those shiny little drink coasters.
For opera, compare the Berstein Carmen on CD vs LP. Or Kleiber pere Wonderful recording of Le Nozze di Figaro. Even mono is better served. Casal's seminal reading of the Bach cello suites are lifeless on CD. The Great Artists of the Century series on Angel (COLH 16,17, & 18) breathe life back into these wonderful performances.
I can find no analogue recording that doesn't best it's CD reissue, and by a large margin for almost all. However, if you're convinced otherwise, I'll be happy to make an offer on your LP collection;-).
Which version of the Kleiber/Beethoven 5th are you talking about? The newer "Originals" version is markedly better than the earlier issue. It has been a long time since I have heard the LP.I did not say there was no difference between the LP versions and CD versions of recordings that I have listened to. I said the difference is small, and for me not worth getting too excited about in most instances. From what I have read, it seems that what differences that exist, are mainly euphonic distortions and frequency response abberations inherent in the physics of LP reproduction. In recordings like the Vegh/Beethoven quartets (I have heard the LPs), where the sound is mediocre to begin with, it is hard to get too excited about whatever difference might exist between the LP and CD. The CD version of the Yale Quartet recordings of the Beethoven quartets is much better than the LP version, although I suspect this is largely due to remastering (the frequency balance is much different). On the LP, I never noticed the little glitch in the climax of the slow movement of OP 132 where a bow inadvertantly brushes a wrong string. It is quite noticeable on the CD.
Speaker's Corner has reissued the Kleiber 5th on 180g vinyl as part of a 3 LP commemorative of DG's 100th anniversary.Au contraire, the Valois LPs of the Vegh are far from mediocre sound. Very natural string tone, lovely ambience.
I don't wish to start an argument, but to me, the difference between CD and LP is marked, even on less-than-audiophile quality LPs. And you seem to be reading from the proponents of digital literature. I've not read any objective article that makes such assertions. It's what the "bits-is-bits" crowd must say, since their preferred medium is only a reconstructed approximation (with error terms included) of the real thing.
But then Iam an anachronism who listens to outmoded recording technolgy over "flawed" transducers with amplifications devices that haven't been manufactured since V-J day. But it's strange - nothing i have ever heard on Cd has come close to persuading me the the performers are in the room with me. Yet on LP, that phenomenon recurs regularly.
Today I listened to some Telefunken LPs: Directly Metal Mastered and digitally recorded in the 80-ies and I couldn't get excited by them because they missed that analogue sound I recently discovered. I really like Teldec and Denon CDs, because they sound more analogue than other brands but for LPs I agree they should be analogue to show the enormous dynamics and development of single notes to a more convincing and therefore musical picture a CD still can't convey. Though the sound-quality of e.g. Shirley Horn's CD 'You won't forget about me' is quite remarkable, I still think I'll go nuts if it would have been recorded on analogue equipment and released on vinyl. You make me very curious about the Vegh-recordings, because on CD it's good and I love the performances but there just isn't a sense of a live-experience due to the bad mid-eighties remaster. I can imagine the LPs sound better doing more justice to the great performances, giving them more air and soundstaging.I really started to doubt the quality of my cdp, but after those Telefunken LPs I'm convinced I still have got a good one, since I prefer CDs over digitally recorded LPs. This weekend was some sort of catharsis, as well in a musical as in an 'audiophile' sense as far as I consider myself to be an audiophile.
Rob
I have a number of telefunkens, they can be recording of first rate - audiophile quality if you will. The DMM series was a definite step backwards - kind of like "Dyna-Groove" for RCA. Put an analog LP on you turntable and you'll begin to doubt your cd player again. :-)
Yeah, right now Bruckner 9 is spinning, Hamburg/Keilberth and it's an old analogue telefunken and it rules like a king in a castle. Very good indeed. Thanks for the warning, I'll keep it in mind, still a newbie you know....Rob
I think I'm agreeing with Phil, though I'm still a newbie. Like I said, Ferrier's voice has suddenly got more air, there's more room in it and you're not only hearing the harsh notes, you also hear what's above and beneath it and furthermore, the orchestra also is more vivid than I was used to on CD, but for my reference recording I've got to compare my beloved Klemperer CD with this old Walter.....Rob
About the 1936 Casals: amazing recording. I just listened to the first suite and I can't believe it's that old and mono. I felt like there was a cellist in my room and really the first owner of the box really spinned the LP a lot of times. The air around the cello is more truthful than the added air in the Wispelwey recording (Channel) therefore in the higher register, while the low stays truthful is more real.....
Paul my record-dealer already made me hear the Casals and it impressed me very much, but my cartridge seems to be a lot better then the Elys.Today, the luckiest man in the world,
Rob
Rob,*The air around the cello is more truthful than the added air in the Wispelwey recording (Channel) therefore in the higher register, while the low stays truthful is more real.....*
It doesn't sound like there is air ADDED in any way over my system.
Yes Zeff, it's a great recording and I still love it, but it's more the acoustics of that little church you're hearing than the tone of the cello itself. For CD it's still my reference recording, but Casals on vinyl really is more thuthfull because it lacks that kind of echo-effect which makes the Wispelwey 'sound' analogue. You just hear the cello and I didn't have time to find out where Casals recorded it, but the music just developes without having to add more atmosphere like Wispelwey does recording it in that church. (Perhaps the same church which is used by the Decca crew to play and re-record the Concertgebouworkest-recordings?) In short, on the old Casals you hear much more cello, in its violin- as well as in the bass-register while it never sounds screechy or 'woolen', which was to me a huge surprise for a 1936 recording.An explanation might be I chose to buy a warm cdp and you probably've got a more analytical one, not to mention my behemoths of Tannoys which by the way suit vinyl like handmade Armani.
Rob
Hello Rob,*but it's more the acoustics of that little church you're hearing than the tone of the cello itself*
Again, this isn't the case in my system. However, whenever there is something wrong in my system, and a little detail like the amp or cdp powerplug connected the wrong way around can already cause that, or lesser equipment is used (esp. when a not so good cdp is in the system) this recording can sound out of focus, out of phase with almost no imaging and indeed a bit over the top acoustic information of the recording venue.
If everything is up to it in a good system the Wisplewey recording should display very good focus on and detail of the cello and the church acoustics just add a little life and space to the sound and should never be too big or overwhelming. Needless to say I use the Wisplewey recording for system tuning and auditioning audio equipment.
The actual point of my reply was that your post might be interpreted as if there was some kind of fake acoustic information ADDED artificially to the recording. I don't think that is the case in this recording.
An entirely different matter is if it's diserable or appropriate to record a solo cello in a (thankfully small) church. But that is an issue, although quite interesting, I'm not addressing.
As to mono recordings, I quite like them too and they can give you much easier an impression of the interpreters actually standing in the room performing for you alone. I suspect this has a lot to do with good mono recording's ability to let the speakers completely disappear, leaving you only with a blob of music in the room detached from all audio equipment you are using. I find that sometimes very appealing but in the end it doesn't sound natural or true to life to my ears.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: