|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.95.255.93
In Reply to: RE: A second Mahler symphonies cycle thread, if you don't mind posted by vahe on August 12, 2012 at 10:13:54
This is one major reason why most symphonic musicians much prefer the older, analog recordings of Bruckner and Mahler symphonies. Another reason would be the better capturing of the many different subtle variations of instrumental timbres in these works, especially Mahler's - this is perhaps the single most important element of his orchestration, color. Abbado brings out these subtle color differences more than anyone else nowadays. I really wish there were analog recordings of all the great stuff he has done with the Lucerne Festival Orchestra.
Follow Ups:
Wasn't vahe saying that compressed dynamics compromised the effects that Bruckner (and Mahler) were after. But then you posted that most symphonic musicians prefer older analog recordings for this reason? And that analogue recordings better capture the subtle variations of instrumental colors? I don't think I agree with either of those statements at all, if that's what you really meant. As far as Abbado's recordings are concerned, I don't think any of his earlier recordings can hold a candle to the sound on most of his Blu-rays with the Lucerne Orchestra. (A couple of those blu-rays had production problems, so I don't mean them.)
Hi Chris - yes, I do indeed really mean that. This isn't really the place to get into an analog vs. digital debate, but I will say that I know very few (especially orchestral) musicians, and especially wind players, who would disagree (even the young 'uns hearing a good analog system for the first time). Analog recording most definitely resolves the timbres of our instruments, especially the subtle differences we work so hard at achieving, much better than digital recording does. I am convinced that much of the superiority of the older analog recordings, from the so-called Golden Age, has to do with the miking, too, not just the technology. They just hung one or two mikes out in the hall (or in the case of all those amazing Mercury recordings, about 18 feet above the orchestra). This results in a much more realistic sounding recording than today's multi-miking and multi-tracking. The remix almost never sounds like the real thing.
Now I'm not saying it sounds bad, mind. I'm merely saying that it is not as good. Digital recording technology has gotten better over time, yes. But the miking remains pretty much the same, unfortunately. And as I'm sure you know from experience yourself, a great many "recording engineers" out there still have no clue what they are doing. Almost all of them are very largely self-taught, and every single one, even if they use similar set-ups, will mix things completely differently, often with absolutely no thought to what the actual recording space sounded like (assuming it was done in a nice hall).
As for Abbado, no the recordings he did in the 80's, which were incredible performances, unfortunately did not sound very good, being done in the very early days of digital. This has unfortunately caused many audiophiles to ignore his performances/interpretations completely, which is a crying shame, as some of those are still some of the finest Mahler performances out there, especially the ones done with the CSO. The not so great sound isn't Abbado's fault.
I do agree with you on some points (especially re the simple, more holistic microphoning of the golden age recordings), but OTOH multi-microphoning has advanced beyond its initial (and too long lived!) primitive state (especially in the last few years) IMHO, and hi-rez digital pushes out the boundaries further still. And remember, vahe's original point was about dynamic compression, not microphoning. And there's no way these golden age recordings, good as they are, can compete with today's best digital recordings in that respect.
I have to relate an experience I had a week ago at the California Audio Show. In the room with the Wilson speakers (I think Robert Lang estimated the system cost to be about $400,000!), they were playing some golden age material on vinyl, such as the Curzon/Solti/VPO performance of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 1. It was SO frustrating for me, because, here was this deluxe, costly system used for a recording which, although very coherent, still robbed the woodwinds of their tonal body which I hear live as a listener (if I'm seated in a good spot) and which I also hear on modern digital hi-rez recordings. (OTOH, I know from other recordings of that vintage, e.g., Barbirolli's Brahms symphonies, that the thin sound of the VPO winds could easily have been a characteristic of the orchestra, no matter how they were recorded!) Still, it's just hard for me to believe that woodwind players would prefer this to a modern hi-rez digital recording in terms of the richness and subtlety of the wind section's tone quality.
I also agree with you about the sound quality of the Abbado/CSO recordings he did in the 80's. That was, in general, a very ghastly time for sound quality on DG.
BTW, for recent examples of what I mean with regard to well-recorded multi-microphoned digital, try to hear the (multi-channel if possible) Chandos 24/96 downloads of the major orchestral works of Debussy with Deneve and the RSNO, or the selection of Saint-Saëns orchestral works with Järvi and the RSNO. I would not have believed that multi-mirophoning could sound so good. And the woodwinds simply have a body in their tone on these new recordings that did not seem possible to capture in the golden age. Hard to believe, I know - but that's the way I'm hearing it now.
Hi Chris - I won't respond as detailed here, since there are complaints of the thread being hijacked, for which I apologize. All I will say is I cannot agree that miking is better now than it used to be - the more mikes they add, the less it sounds how it actually sounded, and the more the mix plays into it. These recordings where everyone in the orchestra has their own mike usually come out sounding nothing like the real thing - the blend is simply not correct. It creates many more problems than it solves - the most egregious thing being that the mikes are simply placed far too close to the instruments. There is also the issue that modern day digital recordings still routinely cut out all frequencies supposedly out of the range of human hearing, which many, including myself, feel has a detrimental effect on the sound. But this is already longer than I intended it to be - perhaps we can continue this conversation in another place - feel free to email me through the system here, if that's possible. Supposedly audigon has got rid of that feature, I don't know about this site.
Looks as if I can't contact you directly from here, but I think my e-mail link here will work - other inmates have contacted me directly, so I think the link to my e-mail account should still work.
Hi Chris - it wouldn't let me contact you directly, no. It suggested I post my email, but I do not want to do that, as retaining anonymity here allows me to be much more free in posts, especially here on the music forum, to be able to comment on recordings and orchestras, etc., without fear of offending colleagues. I hope you understand. If you are willing to post yours in response here, I will email you privately.
Sure - no problem. Here it is:
csalocks@stanfordalumni.org
Thanks, I'll be in touch!
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: