|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.218.171.33
I'm eyeing the Decca and Mercury classical box sets. These are the ones with ca. 50 cd's each.
Does anyone own either (or both) and, if so, sonically what are your thoughts? I like the idea of a broad spectrum of classical music as offered by both but I want the recordings to also be ace.
Follow Ups:
Sound isn't an issue here. Between the two boxes you will find some of the best sounding recordings ever made.
What you will get with the Mercuries is some of the most under appreciated great performances ever recorded. And some of the most neglected repertoire.
Of course the obvious answer is to get both. But if you have to pick one I would suggest the Mercury box.
The early stereo EMI recordings are probably the best way to hear coincident miking in its purest form. In the notes for a First Hand Records reissue of early EMI stereo recording, Christopher Parker recording engineer from 1951-1987 writes the following:
"EMI favoured two cosine mics crossed at 90 degrees as the best way of reproducing accurately the apparent direction of a sound source when listening on two loudspeakers, thus enhancing the illusion of reality, the aim of recording, I suppose. But the M49 in cardioid tends to be more omni-directional at low frequencies than at high frequencies, so when the two are combined out-of-phase, to create the figure-of-eight, some bass is lost. Early in 1956, or perhaps before, equalizers were introduced to remedy this, and also to reduce a slight peak at two to three kHz. With these equalizers, and the "spreader" (to adjust the width of the image) we had several useful options. This may account for some of the variation in sound quality and in the character of the stereo image in the recordings of this time."
The best explanation of the various microphone techniques is by Robert E. Greene, linked below.
EMI issued many of these early recordings on 2-track Stereosonic tapes from 1955 to c. 1961. Chris, if you would like a list of these titles I can email it to you. I have heard many of them. Two of the most famous are Beecham's recording of Scheherazade and Peer Gynt. Other conductors include Cantelli, Klemperer, Karajan, Malko, Matacic, Mackerras, and other. A lot of the recordings have been issued on CD. The list will help to pick them out.
I can't guarantee the purity of all the miking, as there were other engineers involved, but you will get a good sense of what coincident miking sounds like from listening and from Parker's description. Of course, EMI changed the miking to include outriggers and spot miking, so later recordings reflect this.
It turns out that I do have a lot of those recordings that you mention. So would you say that all EMI classical recordings up to a certain year used coincident miking? And if so, what is that year? Or is that too broad a statement? I tried to do some research yesterday, but my results were inconclusive. I would guess that some European recordings that originally appeared in the US on the Capitol label might also have been recorded this way, such as the Kempe/BPO recordings, or the Firkusny/Susskind recording of the Beethoven Third Concerto?
As for Robert E. Greene, he and I got off on a bad foot several years ago when I dissed Kavi's Mahler Fifth on the Water Lily label (which REG had a hand in) - which BTW brings up another interesting point. Do you know of any modern (say, post-1990) recordings of large symphonic ensembles (orchestras) that have used pure coincident miking, other than the Water Lily recordings? I know there have been some binaural recordings, but that's not quite the same.
I would guess that the transition away from pure coincident miking occurred gradually through the 1960s. I've never seen any documentation about this. Certainly by the 1970s Palmer's recording style was much different, more similar to what RCA, Decca/London, and Mercury had done.
The early Kempe recordings from Europe and released on Capitol are coincident recordings. I don't know the Firkusny/Susskind recording, but other Susskind recordings were done in coincident miking and released on Angel.
I know of one Hollywood Capitol recording that was done with coincident miking. The liner notes describe it. It's Capitol SP 8484 called "The Cello Galaxy" dating from around 1958/59. It includes the Bachianas Brasileiras No. 1 and No. 5 with Felix Slatkin. The notes call the technique "Emisonic," but otherwise the setup was exactly what Palmer wrote. However, in No. 5 the soprano soloist Marni Nixon was allocated a third microphone that was blended in. So already there was some "cheating." The Hollywood String Quartet made only one stereo recording. It may have been a coincident recording, since both Slatkin and his wife Eleanor Aller appear on both recordings.
Sorry you tangled with REG. I've heard him speak live several times and don't always agree with him. I linked his website because he lays out the pros and cons of the different miking arrangements. I don't know of any other post 1990 coincident recordings. I have the Water Lily Mahler recording and tend more toward your point of view.
. . . that we don't have more recent examples of coincident miking of large ensembles aside from the Water Lily recordings. But I think it would take real courage for a company to do it, because wrong placement of the mikes is more disastrous with the coincident technique. (If it's wrong, the recording really can't be "saved" like a multi-microphoned or spot miked recording can.) It's understandable that no one is willing to risk the expense and loss if the recording turns out badly - which is a real possibility, since commercial audio engineers these days no longer seem to have the history and experience with coincident placement that their predecessors had decades ago.BTW, I remember that recording, "The Cello Galaxy"! It was one of the first selections I ordered when I was a member of the old "Capitol Record Club". Of course, I only had the mono version. ;-)
Edits: 07/07/12
I have both sets. The sound is quite decent for all of the recordings in both sets. The musical selections are more varied and interesting with the Decca set. There are more of the acknowledged great performances of particular works in the Decca set. Each of the Decca CDs packs a LOT of music--most are over 70 minutes in length, and quite a few exceed 80 minutes.
But, I'd still prefer any Mercury to a DGG multi-miked disaster - which not all were, mind.
Decca uses(d?) 3 omnis quite close together ( < 1 foot) in an array - the centre omni a bit back - called the 'Xmas tree.' I'd bet they'd make great candidates for a centre speaker or even that box of tricks you can still buy in the USA.
I'd put coincident stereo (2 or more channels) above either.
Note that a post in response is preferred.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
Actually that is wrong
A Decca Tree setup includes 3 omnidirectional microphones in a "T" pattern. The stem of the T faces the orchestra, and the left and right mics are placed about 6 feet apart. The third is placed 3 feet out and centered in front. To mix, the side mics are panned hard left and right, and the output of the centre mic is then sent to both left and right channels. The level of the centre mic is set sufficient to fill in the centre "hole" left by the widely spaced outer mics, but is not so high as to cause an overall mono sound to the recording.
The Decca Tree was originally used in orchestral situations, fitted on a tall boom and suspended high up in the air, roughly above the conductor. Three separate stands were sometimes used to set individual heights.
I used to use the Decca tree setup to record choral groups with three neumann U-47 mikes. Sounded really good
Alan
I still think it's more coherent than Mercury's spaced omnis.
Note that a post in response is preferred.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
Personally, I know of only two: the LA Philharmonic Sheffield recordings with Leinsdorf. I've always found the Water Lily symphonic recordings problematical. There's a lot less room for error with coincident microphone recordings - or so it would seem.
BTW, I think I like the Mercury spaced-omni recordings quite a bit more than you do, but I like the early Decca/London recordings too.
LSO Live are mostly TF's work. TF does use spots sometimes.HMU mostly, Alia Vox, Accent (Haydn's Seasons - old but good).
Many live concert broadcasts are simply miked. But FM in USA is pretty dire. It can't have gotten better since '97 and '98 when I was in Frisco and in 'Bawlmoor.'
I'll soon - I hope* - be recording for our local Artsound FM at 'classical' events. They use ORTF arrays and DAT, to which I'd like to add an omni under each cardiod, but needs a 4-track DAT / hard disk machine. This helps with bass and hall sound.
I'm also hoping to afford to buy a single capsule coincident mike, ideally one switchable between Mid-Side (M-S)#, as well as L & R.
#Mid-side produces a L-R and a L+R (mono) signal which can be de-matrixed just like FM is, and can give more or less hall sound / more distant or closer in post production / editing to stereo ( L & R ).
Very commonly used to feed direct into an FM transmitter, mono into the 19kHz carrie and L-R into the 38kHz carrier (which JBTW, is really more like an AM SingleSideBand transmission). Just one of the reason why good (directional) antennas matter for FM stereo.
Mid-side is the basis for single capsule Sound-Field mikes. As used by Nimbus for the recordings of the Hanover Band.
* Tummy troubles which we hope are just worsening side-effects of my current medications which my system is getting too used to. I'll be having tests - starting Monday.
Note that a post in response is preferred.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
Edits: 07/06/12
. . . are the Kenneth Wilkinson engineered recordings originally done for Reader's Digest, which, although excellent, I thought were not "pure" coincident stereo. As for Kimber, I thought those recordings featured the isomike recording process, which I would also not describe as coincident stereo. I also remember reading an interview with Tony Faulkner where he mentioned AFAIR that he also used spot mikes in addition to his basic stereo set-up. In any case, I'm with those in the post further below who find Hyperion recordings quite variable in quality - especially when it comes to orchestral works. Regarding Harmonia Mundi, I'll have to check that out - I must say that their large orchestral recordings do not sound minimally miked to me, but I could be wrong. Basically, I'm looking for "pure" coincident stereo recordings of large orchestral forces - with no "helper" mikes. BTW, I've heard that some of the early EMI stereo recordings were recorded in just this way, and I have an idea about some of them (the Markevitch Nutcracker Suite, for instance, now on Testament, and I think I read a reference to the Cantelli Brahms Third, also now on Testament - I haven't heard it myself), but it would be nice to know for sure.
I grew up with some of the Reader's Digest sets, and acquired a few more in recent years. When I found out that Wilkinson was the engineer for the European-recorded classical sets, a lot of things fell into place. They had never sounded like RCA's house sound; the soundstage was too "hemispherical" for lack of a better description, and placement was too precise. In fact, the sound is basically Decca sound. Same thing with the European recordings that RCA issued in their Soria series. Even on a different label, they sound like Decca recordings.
The Deccas are not coincident microphone recordings. See my above post
Alan
I was wondering about coincident microphone recordings in general.
I own the Mercury box and am very happy with it. No one will ever agree with the total inclusion of all the works. The sound is to die for. The producers had two shots at getting it right. Both Bob and Wilma were ultimate "ears" and didn't settle for anything short of their best. I would love the Decca set also.
If you like to sit in the front rows at a live performance, which is typically more exciting, get the Mercury set. They are more forward whereas the Decca sound is more laid back. They are, I think, just more fun for the audio reproduction if not so much for critically acclaimed performances.
I have both and I think the Decca is better. Not so much for the sound quality. They are both very good but different in that regard. But because it has more interesting musical choices.
I have the Decca set and am very pleased. Great variety of music and most in great sound. Many done by The legendary Ken Wilkensen. I own most of the cd's in the mercury set and it should also be very good. You can't go wrong with either
Alan
I just looked at the contents of both boxes. I don't have either one, but I have many of the recordings from both, many of which are among the most famous classical recordings ever.
Neither one is remotely near a representative anthology of the greatest classical music (however one might choose what is "greatest"). That's actually a good thing, since you can evaluate them solely on the strength of the recordings.
If you are a fan of Antal Dorati, Howard Hanson and Frederick Fennell, as I am, the Mercury collection kicks @#$. However, Decca has a far larger and more varied catalog and far more great recordings. That greater length and depth shows in its box, though this particular collection may not show Decca at it's very best (note the unfortunate inclusion of The Three Tenors). You get Ute Lemper and Radu Lupu side by side, Benjamin Britten, Pierre Monteux, Renee Fleming, Julius Katchen, Ernest Ansermet, the Takacs Quartet, AND Dorati -- and on and on. Wow.
Both boxes are excellent. Enjoy either one -- or both.
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: