|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.14.180.171
In Reply to: RE: But Mel - why do you listen in stereo? Wouldn't mono be good enough? ;-) posted by Chris from Lafayette on September 14, 2021 at 14:32:20
Why stereo? HP put it best: Because I have two ears.
As for music intended to be in the round. It's such a small fraction of my listening, I'd be a fool to compromise my two channel listening for it. As for the Berlioz, it sounds fine here as it is. Some of the best recordings of it are in 2 channel. Besides, I'm not in the Virtual Reality business.
Anyway, you're the last person from whom I expect to hear about composers' intentions. Recall that Bach did not intend the Goldbergs for a New York Steinway B. I could go on . . . . and on . . . just as you often do on the subject.
As for the grapes. Rest assured, I can reach any I want.
Frankly, I think you give Karajan much too much credit in the article. My recollection of the era is that the last thing he attempted to do was to recreate the most natural recorded sound. DG's microphoning over the Karajan years has been some of the worst multi-miking in the industry and subject to constant criticism in the audiophile press. Some of that was due to Karajan himself IIRC. Consider, for example, that he recorded the complete Beethoven Symphonies 3 times. But it is the earliest set that is coveted by audiophiles. It was done before he had the authority to get his hands on the mixer!
IMO there are much better recordings, as recordings, from the golden era to subject to these sorts of processes--even as I abhor this sort of manipulation. But Karajan is still the big name and will bring in the big bucks, such as they are in the classical music world. So they will sell the same Karajan legacy yet again.
Follow Ups:
. . . rather irrelevant, don't you think? After all, our two ears are receptors of sounds, while sounds themselves can certainly originate in way more than just two places. And yet, somehow, we know whether these sounds/sources originated in front of us, above us, or behind us. And if the sounds originated above us or behind us (and this can apply to reflected sounds in the hall just as much as to the direct sounds of a Berlioz or Gabrieli), then stereo is not going to give us as much of the truth as we can get from MCh surround, or, even better, Dolby Atmos. ;-)
As for Bach, I think that there's a misconception that he intended his music to be associated with only a single instrument or a single instrumental color. After all, a Marcello Oboe Concerto became a concerto for solo keyboard in Bach's hands. A Vivaldi Concerto for Four Violins became a concerto for four keyboards. A movement for unaccompanied violin became an orchestral sinfonia in one of the cantatas. And, is it just me, or do I detect a certain hubris in the claim that Bach would not never have approved of a Steinway B in a performance of the Goldbergs? ;-)
As for DG's multi-microphoning, yes, I agree with you that they made some primitive sounding recordings by hanging forests of microphones at the recording sessions. However, I think the worst of this occurred from the mid-70's to the mid-80's, and that the 60's Karajan/Sibelius recordings were better in this respect than the DG recordings in that later decade. You're also right about the '62 set of Beethoven Symphonies being better in this respect - but that's the same period as when he recorded the Sibelius Symphonies for DG too.
But let's say that you're right and, even in the 60's, DG had their forests of microphones in use. That's the amazing thing about these newest remasterings: whatever the number of microphones DG used originally, these Dolby Atmos remasterings make the recordings sound newly minted and, yes, natural. The new remasterings have truly found an art which conceals the art - to the extent that I now prefer Karajan's 70's Beethoven set after literally decades of preferring his '62 set! As for this new Sibelius set, don't just argue a priori - listen for yourself. (And preferably do it up right - on a proper Dolby Atmos set-up!)
On your first paragraph, I pass. We've said our pieces.On your second, I never said that Bach did not change instrumentations, etc. We, of course, know what he actually did. But it takes a certain specialized back-to-the-futuristic clairvoyance, a talent I lack, to insist upon Bach's approval of the Steinway B. We do know what he actually did countenance and you seem to reject those historically based performances at every turn. So I did take your "intent of composers" with a grain of salt, as it is VERY selective.
Re: the Karajan, as you point out in the article, not every music lover is in agreement. You may think it's a silk purse, but I guess I'll never know. I'm not going to re-purchse my Karajans and I'm certainly not going to indulge in the "Atmos" even if someone I admire has made himself part of its marketing plan.
Edits: 09/15/21
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: