The joy of 33 and a third

[Ferretfancy]

I think that modern recording techniques can often produce fine sound where chamber and instrumental music is concerned. I'm not so sure that this always applies in the case of orchestral works, especially if they are large scale, Shostakovich 8 for example. The careful choice of venue in older recordings, together with longer session time, fewer microphones and less mix down, could produce recordings which are still classics decades later.The rehearse /record methods so often used today, can lead to carefully assembled and patched performances which have a glacial perfection and no real life,not to mention ludicrously excessive dynamic range.
I know this is an old fashioned view, but give me the old Decca, Philips or EMI sound from the sixties where much of the standard repertory is concerned,if necessary warts and all.

[Ariosto]

So very 'second rate' that about 10 years ago Klaus Heymann - 'Mr Naxos' - offered Ted Perry ( now 'the late') an OPEN CHEQUE to buy out Hyperion.
Ted turned him down, of course.

Maybe ten years ago - but TP died and now in the recent few years they seemed to have lost their way. I'm not impressed with their choice of repertoire or their sound.

[Ariosto]

I think that modern recording techniques can often produce fine sound where chamber and instrumental music is concerned. I'm not so sure that this always applies in the case of orchestral works, especially if they are large scale, Shostakovich 8 for example. The careful choice of venue in older recordings, together with longer session time, fewer microphones and less mix down, could produce recordings which are still classics decades later.The rehearse /record methods so often used today, can lead to carefully assembled and patched performances which have a glacial perfection and no real life,not to mention ludicrously excessive dynamic range.
I know this is an old fashioned view, but give me the old Decca, Philips or EMI sound from the sixties where much of the standard repertory is concerned,if necessary warts and all.

Yes, I tend to agree with this analysis. It's too easy to edit now on computer and things are often over-hyped in the sessions, or even worse, in the sound processing later.

With chamber music it's good sometimes, but again, overhyped at other times. There are few producers/engineers these days that really know how to get a good sound. (But then some would say that was true in the past!)

[Roehre]

... now in the recent few years they seemed to have lost their way. I'm not impressed with their choice of repertoire or their sound.

I beg to differ, especially with their choice of repertoire.

[jayne lee wilson]

I think that modern recording techniques can often produce fine sound where chamber and instrumental music is concerned. I'm not so sure that this always applies in the case of orchestral works, especially if they are large scale, Shostakovich 8 for example. The careful choice of venue in older recordings, together with longer session time, fewer microphones and less mix down, could produce recordings which are still classics decades later.The rehearse /record methods so often used today, can lead to carefully assembled and patched performances which have a glacial perfection and no real life,not to mention ludicrously excessive dynamic range.
I know this is an old fashioned view, but give me the old Decca, Philips or EMI sound from the sixties where much of the standard repertory is concerned,if necessary warts and all.

What about BIS, CPO or (deep breath, say it with me) Musikproduktion Dabringhaus und Grimm? I could reel off dozens of impressively natural productions from these labels. Nor am I sure what a "ludicrously excessive dynamic range" is (any specific examples?). Isn't this dependent on performers, halls, equipment, rooms and even our dear old ears? Shouldn't producers and engineers simply give the best, most accurate account they can of what happens with an orchestra in a given performing space?
(And then leave it to us to manage the results - this is avowedly Robert von Bahr's philosophy at BIS).

[Ferretfancy]

What about BIS, CPO or (deep breath, say it with me) Musikproduktion Dabringhaus und Grimm? I could reel off dozens of impressively natural productions from these labels. Nor am I sure what a "ludicrously excessive dynamic range" is (any specific examples?). Isn't this dependent on performers, halls, equipment, rooms and even our dear old ears? Shouldn't producers and engineers simply give the best, most accurate account they can of what happens with an orchestra in a given performing space?
(And then leave it to us to manage the results - this is avowedly Robert von Bahr's philosophy at BIS).

I'll quote some examples of excessive dynamics later on, but it's been a long day! I've been careful in my posting not to tar every modern recording with the same brush, but I do feel that it's uncommon nowadays to hear a large scale orchestral recording where the balance allows you to recognise something of the sound of the hall in the way we once did with Kingsway Hall or the Sofiensaal. One example for me would suggest a comparison between the artificial balance on Petrenko's Shostakovich recordings and the exemplary sound achieved by Decca for Haitink's performances with the LSO and the Concertgebouw. There's really no contest.

[Ariosto]

What about BIS, CPO or (deep breath, say it with me) Musikproduktion Dabringhaus und Grimm? I could reel off dozens of impressively natural productions from these labels. Nor am I sure what a "ludicrously excessive dynamic range" is (any specific examples?). Isn't this dependent on performers, halls, equipment, rooms and even our dear old ears? Shouldn't producers and engineers simply give the best, most accurate account they can of what happens with an orchestra in a given performing space?
(And then leave it to us to manage the results - this is avowedly Robert von Bahr's philosophy at BIS).

I don't think we can generalise about older recordings or later ones, each period can have good and bad examples. I did vaguely know some of the old team at BIS centuries ago, when they made simple recordings in good acoustics using a Revox tape recorder. (This was in the late 1970's).

My experience today was a simple one, comparing, just by chance, two chamber music recordings. One made in 1981 (although I think some of the performances were probably recorded earlier in the late 1970's) - and a fairly new recording made digitally in the last 3 years or so. The playing may have been a little different, but the later recording by the Takacs on Hyperion bore no similarities to the earlier recording by Telefunken.

I have heard the Takacs live many times, close up and in various acoustics here in London, and have even played on one of the instruments myself. What I heard on the Hyperion recording bore no resemblance at all to the sound I would expect. And I am not even talking about the balance which I also thought questionable, as I have also played both the works in question.

One can of course justifiably differ about Hyperion's choice of general repertoire, and that is naturally down to personal taste. However, I would question the sound at least in this instance.

[Ariosto]

Hi Tony

I've just had a look at your profile and realised who you are. You must have changed your user name since I was last on these boards some 20 months ago.

I have had a listen to another Hyperion CD download that I have of the Takacs playing Brahms quartets and the recorded sound is a lot better. Not as good as the Alban Berg's old Telefunken recordings, but very acceptable. Talking of Naxos, i did not know that story about the offer to buy with an open cheque. However, i do like a lot of Naxos stuff and their wide ranging repertoire, and some of the artists although less well known are extremely good. I have a friend who produces recordings for them and he does a fantastic job. But there is a difference in the sound, and I'm wondering if it is the digital era, which I have always liked very much, or people with different ears and possibly training. Maybe just the times we presently live in. Each era brings its own + and - to the table.

Of course performers themselves have brought new sounds and nothing stands still. However, I have recently also transferred some unaccompanied Bach played by Nathan Milstein (and recorded in the 1950's) to CD. These recordings also have superlative sound and of course the playing is incredibly great, and in my opinion never been surpassed and probably not even equalled to date.

The fact that it is on my CD makes me think it is not the 16 bit CD at fault so much (if it is a fault) as the way we heard music and recorded it back in those far off days. Of course it is very easy now to stick a mike up and get a good recording in a passable acoustic in this digital era, but I wonder if this very fact makes it something too easy and then the results are far from satisfactory or flattering?

[clive heath]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY1O8YYjY2A

will give you Old-Etonian Humphrey Lyttleton's "Bad Penny Blues" in the 1955/6 hit. I'm not sure Chris Barber ever recorded it! I've a feeling Humph used it as a theme-tune for one of his programmes.

[Ariosto]

Sorry Tony - I tried to reply to your PM but the bloody thing got chewed up. Oh how I hate computers and all this crap software!

I don't know the person you mentioned personally but I know of him. (It's possible I've worked with him in some band but, not sure). I did mention the person I was referring to on my mangled PM, but better leave that on here, in a public forum.

Must try and hear those CD's you mentioned but I rarely listen to music these days as I'm too busy walking the dog. I used to go to the Wig Hall and the S bank and other concerts about 3 times a month but avoid those places like the plague now. Full of weirdo's - and that's just the audience ...

Not sure it's that much more civilised here at the moment, but I'm sure it is!

[Ferretfancy]

I said I would give an example of excessive dynamic range in an earlier post (36) Recently I went to the Barbican to hear Leila Josefowicz in Esa- Pekka Salonen's Violin Concerto. We had good seats, and the piece was very impressive. It opens with rapid but quiet passage work for the soloist alone, the sort of thing that is probably very difficult to play. Later in the concerto there were some massive climaxes, but the point is that every detail was as clear as the Barbican can deliver.

I liked the concerto enough to want to buy it, and luckily Leila Josefowicz recorded it for DG in 1912 with the composer conducting the Finnish RSO. I settled down to listen, setting the level carefully so that the opening violin solo was clearly audible but not too loud. The massive orchestral climaxes later in the work were then approaching the threshold of pain in my quite large living room. There was no distortion, simply exhausting sound level. Naturally, I would not expect the experience to be as I heard it in the live performance, but surely it is the responsibility of the engineers to deliver something which, while not lacking in impact, still gives a satisfying experience under domestic living conditions.

To hear what can be achieved, try listening to the opening of Simon Rattle's EMI recording of Szymanowski's King Roger. The first choral and orchestral climax is stunning, but the more moderate music that precedes it still makes an impact without verging on the inaudible. It can be done.

[Ariosto]

It's a trend Ferret - in pop music they pull it all up to half a Db below distortion (and sometimes over) - as this sells and is all the rage. Obviously you know, but it is routinely "normalised" - and as pop has little dynamic range it just all plays loud. So in the classical orchestral field they get the major climaxes 1 Db below distortion, and yet keep the quiet bits as low as possible. So they get an extreme dynamic range. You get the quiet bits just right on the Hi-Fi, and then you are blasted out of your seat with the three EF's. I may be wrong, but that's my theory anyway. In the past an LP could only deliver about 65 Db of dynamic range as you know, but now with 24bit recording we can get over 120 Db

[David-G]

I tend to find a similar problem when listening to Radio 3 on the Internet. Take the recent broadcast of "Die Frau ohne Schatten" for example. Trying to find a volume setting with which the quiet parts sounded quiet rather than near-inaudible, while the climaxes were not an assault on the ears, was difficult. And even when I just about found such a setting, the climaxes were still VERY loud; the perceived volume was equivalent to sitting in a good seat in the opera house where the full orchestral volume can be appreciated. Many people I know would not find this volume acceptable for domestic listening.

Do other people not have this problem?

[mangerton]

Do other people not have this problem?

I haven't had a problem with CDs, but I got a bluray of Gravity recently and was quite surprised by the very wide dynamic range when played through my hifi.

[kea]

What about BIS, CPO or (deep breath, say it with me) Musikproduktion Dabringhaus und Grimm? I could reel off dozens of impressively natural productions from these labels.

It seems like almost every time I hear a really good modern recording (as far as sound/engineering goes) of standard rep, it's on Harmonia Mundi.