|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
169.229.148.138
In Reply to: George Duke-Telarc/Heads Up sign him up now! posted by Robert C. Lang on February 25, 2007 at 21:55:12:
nt
Follow Ups:
For me Barber's "Toccata Festiva" and Poulenc's "Organ Concerto" are an unqualified success. I have no other reference for the Barber except for the Linn recording (see comments below on the "Toccata Festiva" and "Organ Concerto"). I really enjoyed the Linn Recording but the Ondine recording improves on every aspect including the capture of a "vernacular" feel and even trumps the Linn in the organ power department (here the Linn organ is no slouch)I do have 5 or 6 recordings of the Poulenc "Organ Concerto" and have heard it live. I was not happy with the Linn recording of this concerto even though I "tried" to like it. The Philadelphia Ondine recording addresses every weakness that I point out in my comments on the Linn recording. Based on a single hearing I would say that the Ondine is the very best I've heard with respect to tempo, tension, balance (very difficult not to overwhelm the strings and timpani) and sheer power. The Linn recording is superior in capturing the timpani but it is top tier in this regard.
After two hearings I am finding the Saint-Saens to be an acquired taste. But I think I'm going to like it. Let me put it this way, if Eschenbach's interpretation is the "correct" one then *every* other interpretation I have heard (7 or 8), recorded and live, must be wrong. Yet I'm compelled to listen again!
What makes this interpretation so different for me are the wacky (to me) tempos. The first two movements are slow/deliberate almost to a fault (compared to other interpretations). But I was finding appealing, an effective build up, of sorts, for the following two movements, especially the colossal finale. But then, giddiyup! With no warning the third movement (Allegro moderato) bolts to a jarring gallop, which could serve to diminish the finale.
But the finale is not compromised in any way. But frankly, the Organ Symphony finale done well is not beholden to the rest of the symphony however it is performed. And in the case it is powerful, on point, and stupendous. For sheer power it probably does not match the Telarc Philadelphia, which may have been a bit hyped in the bass (circa 1980). But it is *far* more legible.
I listened to the Saint-Saens performance first and am really glad I listened to it twice before making comments, because I was not impressed the first time around. And for sure I need to listen a few more times before I draw firm conclusions. At first I was really thinking that the performance was irreparably disjointed. And I have not entirely renounced that first impression. Was it under rehearsed or was it over rehearsed? It just did not seem right. In addition, I did not know or I had forgotten that this was a live performance and initially found all the noises a bit puzzling and disconcerting during the quiet sections (this is much less of a factor for the Barber and the Poulenc where are fewer quiet passages).
Robert C. Lang
.
I rarely even think to look/listen for the recording type designation any more. In this case the pamphlet doesn't say. Whether DSD or PCM the sound is ”very good" but would not make my "top ten". Sound quality for the Saint Saens disc is not in the same league as, say, Fischer's Mahler 2. But I would think that the Saint-Saens disc was technically so much more difficult to pull off successfully given the "organ factor" and perhaps because it was a live venue. I suspect recording type to be a lesser factor here. So, while the "sound quality" may fall a bit less than top tier the "sonics" (pyrotechnics) are clearly top 10 material.You'll be happy to hear that the noises I referred to during the quiet passages gives the recording a distinct vinyl flavor :)
Robert C. Lang
Ha ha very funny. Most of my records are CD-quiet. You just need a smaller needle.
...I know it's an imperfect world out there, but to introduce the brave new world of SACD, then record the vast majority of performances in PCM and then convert them to SACD and sell them as SACDs...I find this vaguely annoying. I believe only about 700(?) SACDs available are "pure" DSD?
Sure, I wish that all SACDs, and reaching higher, all new recordings period were DSD multi-channel SACDs. I believe you've made it known that you wish all new recordings were vinyl. But neither of us will get our wish in the near future, more than likely never ever.So, we have to make the most of the hand we are dealt. I say this to you in all honesty, the Golden Age, for me, with respect to the quality of music reproduction in my home, is right now. Not 25 years ago, not 10 years ago, not with vinyl, CDs, or two-channel SACDs, but right now, today. The best recorded music I have ever experienced is sourced with multi-channel SACDs, whether they are PCM or DSD. Might there be better? Sure, but I have not heard it. And I'm always auditioning. True I am about to spring for a new turntable set up, which will certainly improve the quality of my vinyl. But it will come no way near the reproduction quality I'm experiencing with nearly all my multi-channel SACDs.
I have learned in the last nearly two years that the trump card is not DSD, but instead is SACD multi-channel.
nt
Unusually (for me), I haven't gotten this disc yet, but will be doing so very soon.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: