 
|
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 |
68.37.3.136
I always find it a little bit humorous when critics talk about Naxos' bargain price . If there were no content on the label that I had interest in I would probably just ignore it. The maddening thing for me though is that some of the performances are absolutely first rate, but the recorded sound gets in the way of my enjoying a superior effort by the musicians. The music & performers are not mediocre why should the production value be ? It must be true that most of the microphones being used today are just not up to the task .
Follow Ups:
No label, in my recollections, makes digital recordings that I think are constantly superior to the norm. For there are still too many uncertainties in regard to what makes a good recording.
I'm pretty sure Telarc, Reference Recordings and Chesky would not necessarily agree (nor, perhaps, would fans of these labels).
Just like high-end gear.... Most of it isn't much better than the mainstream stuff....
...whether you're being serious or not. One COULD make a case that you don't need to go "all the way to the stratosphere" to get fantastic sound (which would mirror the audiophile label dismissal -- for example, I've got a few Naxos recordings that are SOTA (Alsop Barber). OTOH, a label like Reference Recordings is special -- almost in a catagory by itself -- and I wouldn't dismiss the idea that some labels DO get it right most of the time, and more often than others.
I've sold, swapped, or given away far more classical DG recordings on grounds of indifferent sonics than I have of Naxos. In fact I can't think of a single Naxos recording I've "let go" because I was irritated by the sound quality.Such wild and unsubstantiated generalisations are unnecessary and damaging. Thank god we've got one recording enterprise that is intent on recording and expanding the classical repetoire. The so-called majors have been running for cover for a long time now, only putting out reissues or classifying the likes of Hayley Westenra and Charlotte Church as classical artists.
In retrospect (also having gone back & listened to a few releases in my collection) I may have been a little tough on the Naxos label as a whole. I guess I would still prefer more midrange presence ,but some of the recordings are pretty nice. Getting off suject, DG seems to go through cycles of good to horrid sound going all the way back to the days of vinyl.
I agree with you FULLY -- DG 1980's basically suck (there are a few exceptions). I think they utilized the entire decade as a testing ground in preparation for their "DG Originals" campaign, which basically started the "remaster" craze. Unfortunately, most of these remasters ARE substantially better than the first issues, so I scoop 'em up. There's a fine line between an overt conspiracy, a calculated mis-step and an outright improvement (however unpleasant the result, such as the need to repurchase).
I never got many of the original DG reissues, and not with much luck, I think.On the other hand, London/Decca reissues often were excellent, so they seemed to have known very early how to do it well. And since I was (and am) something of an Ansermet fan, I got quite a few of their reissues. London Weekend Classics are often quite nice.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
I agree with Thornhill and SE that many of the more recent Naxos recordings are excellent. I would put it back to the early 90's, though. Prior to that, it's best to check the reviews.As M. Lucky points out, other labels have variable sound quality. I think Naxos does very well.
One can find out how good the recordings are the same ways in which one finds out for other labels: reviews, listening to a copy from the library, friends' recommendations, and so on. The Naxos catalogue (you can view it on line, too) shows which recordings have received high ratings from the Penguin Guide and some magazines.
And as frankz50 says, improving the system generally makes recordings sound better. I look for speakers that will sound good with most recordings. AS well, my Quad preamp has a "Tilt" control.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Given Naxos's massive output, I think it's unreasonable to expect uniform excellence, but of the recordings I own, since the late '90s the recording quality has been consistently very good. Just the other day I was listening to their Walton Violin Concerto with Kang/Daniel/English Northern Philharmonia - the sound is wonderfully full blooded (though I will concede that the sound of most of their recordings do not have as much presence as this one).
It's a sign that they at least paid close attention to the making of the recording. The other tip is to only buy Naxos from 1995 and later. It's not a "hard and fast rule", but it WILL keep you away from the majority of their lower quality recordings, since they've gotten better over time.
"It's a sign that they at least paid close attention to the making of the recording."I would have thought they would have slacked even further, under the notion that the "24-bit master" on the label would sell itself. Not to mention more potential sales with a future re-release.
That you consider the use of newer/higher quality recording technology to be an overt indication of LOWER QUALITY recordings? Or, are you saying that they are "trying to get one over" on consumers? I mean, BOTH are possible, but have rarely been the case in my experience. Recordings that state 20/24 bit on the label ARE usually better sounding -- again, in my actual experience. I mean, we COULD just offer up opinions based upon conceptual speculation -- or brand the whole thing as crap due to Digital Disease (the root cause of EVERYTHING right)? It's all a digital conspiracy to you, I suppose.
Unless there is a more-effective dither application by means of 24-bit masters, the CD is always 16 bits, and the sonic benefits of a higher-rez master are at best marginal.As long as the dither is applied to minimize losses when truncating the data, the resolution of the master doesn't really make much difference. As long as it's never worse than the media itself during any part of the process.
.
.
nt
I highly recommend his Bruckner Symphony recordings on Naxos.Do a search and I'm sure you will come up with lots of info regarding the quality of recordings on this label, the good and the ugly! :)
Can you mention a specific recording that you've found sub-par? I've often thought a specific recording had a sonic aberration, only to discover later, that my system was partly at fault. In other words, each upgrade or tweak miraculously improved ALL my recordings, including some that I thought had high-end problems.
I have a large collection of Naxos discs - but I have sold some that were unsatisfactory. Their track record is fairly good however. But before I can recommend any, I'd need to know more.
Superb piano sound and outstanding interpretations.
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
