Thread: Audiophile, Music Lover, and obfuscation (Now here to free up the Korngold thread for Korngold)

Posts: 34
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 next

Post by Windsurfer July 9, 2010 (21 of 34)
mahlerei said:

windsurfer

As 'horribly tireseome' as those who insist that if it isn't on SACD it doesn't exist or isn't worth listening to? Yes, I know the feeling.

??? Is this sa-cd.net? I would not have expected someone entering a site that identifies itself as "The Super Audio CD |SA-CD| SACD Reference" to regard the phenomenon you are pasting above, as unexpected and if I found it tiresome, maybe I wouldn't bother visiting it rather than show so much aggression toward those who express the attitude that seems to have set you off.

You listen in stereo don't you?

Post by Cherubino July 9, 2010 (22 of 34)
Passionate opinions, enthusiastically defended - good.
Intrenched opinions, angrily insisted upon - not so good.

Post by mahlerei July 9, 2010 (23 of 34)
windsurfer

Yes, I do listen in stereo. I don't have the wherewithal - or the space - for MCH gear, I'm afraid :( Besides, the bulk of my music collection is made up of CDs collected over the past 25 years or so. The list of SACDs is growing though, and I do try to review a few of those each month.

Post by seth July 9, 2010 (24 of 34)
Windsurfer said:

For me I have to work too hard to hear Schnabel play Beethoven - I have to fill in too many blanks.

So basically, you won't listen to non-multi channel SACD recordings because it's too hard to "fill in the blanks" so that it sounds like live music in your head?

Post by tailspn July 9, 2010 (25 of 34)
Stereo gives me a headache.

Post by flyingdutchman July 9, 2010 (26 of 34)
tailspn said:

Stereo gives me a headache.

And what of mono?

Post by tailspn July 9, 2010 (27 of 34)
Thank you for asking. Mono is great to me. Three and five channel even better. Much better.

Two channel stereo has a fundamental problem which bothers me. 90+% of stereo recordings are made with spaced omni microphones, plus lots of spot mics. When listening, the center image is derived by the ear/brain combination from both equal amplitude and timing cues coming from two spaced speakers. The problem is the timing cues are wrong compared to the amplitude cues, because of the additional delay of center located sources being picked up by spaced (6' typically) mics, instead of one centrally located. This creates a contradiction between the correct amplitude and incorrect timing cues for the image presented, which I think the mind equates as noise. In mine, a headache. Western Electric's original stereo (?) research was three channel, as were many of the early stereo recordings. I think this was an attempt to solve that conundrum. Basically, I don't believe panning works for an spacial acoustical event.

Way back in the late 50's Westminster Records did demo's at audio shows using three channel program content to introduce stereo via tape. These demos were from Ampex 1/2" tape machines and three banks of JBL speakers. They actually ran wall to wall, and the sound was stunning!

Post by flyingdutchman July 9, 2010 (28 of 34)
tailspn said:

Thank you for asking. Mono is great to me. Three and five channel even better. Much better.

Have you heard some of the Talich mono releases of Dvorak and Smetana? What do you think? Not in SACD, but RBCD. If you can recommend some mono, that would be great. I think there are some gems I may not have seen. I also recently bought Firkusny's Dvorak Piano Concerto with Szell/Cleveland. That is a great recording.

Post by seth July 9, 2010 (29 of 34)
flyingdutchman said:

Have you heard some of the Talich mono releases of Dvorak and Smetana? What do you think? Not in SACD, but RBCD. If you can recommend some mono, that would be great. I think there are some gems I may not have seen. I also recently bought Firkusny's Dvorak Piano Concerto with Szell/Cleveland. That is a great recording.

In my opinion, mono works best with solo piano. I don't know why, but with stereo the problem of the piano being too closely mic'd and sounding unpleasantly forwarded seems to be exacerbated. I bet a lot of people wouldn't realize that Serkin's 1957 Diabelli Variations was recorded in mono. It has a very good crisp sound.

Some of the best orchestral mono recordings I have were made by Austrian Radio in the '60s. The soundstage can be a bit shallow, but by no means does it sound like you're listening through a straw.

Post by jdaniel July 11, 2010 (30 of 34)
Windsurfer said:



I had a friend in high school who once admitted to me that maybe he preferred some old highly distorted LPs and was afraid to hear the same music in an undistorted version because it would come across as smaller. This hero worship of performances past, this denial that anyone today can do nearly as well is something I find horribly tiresome. Do you guys love the music or some idol(s) from the past

I do not deny that some performances are much more arresting than others. Its just that I would MUCH rather go to a live concert with today's artists than stay home listening to stereo from the 50s and 60s or worse mono from earlier. Even stereo from this century.

The nearness to reality of modern multi-channel recordings properly reproduced is phenomenal. And to reiterate, for me a live concert is ALMOST always better than any recording. The single exception I can recall is a performance in the Troy Music Hall of Vivaldi's Four Seasons with Joshua Bell and the Academy of St Martin in the fields. Should have been a winner but Bell IS boring.

Thanks for the heads-up about Tchutev.

Regarding your friend, hmmm. I don't doubt the presence of faux connoisseurs who equate hiss with "greatness," but that's a little too easy of a dismissal. Sometimes what these alleged "heroes" of the Past do is deceptively-simple: they play the hell out of the music.

I've still not heard a La Mer more thrilling than Toscanini's, and what does one do if one wants the clarion accuracy of Nilsson's Wagner...but balanced with feminine softness? All we've sadly got is pre-'55 Flagstad. (And Rita Hunter in English.) Markevitch's first Rite of Spring? Karajan's Cosi?

Ironically I find "live" music to sound the most "artificial" after a lifetime of home listening, including 5-channel. As a regular attendee of Davies Hall in SF, my friend and I were amazed at how "soft-grained" Stravinsky's orchestration of Rite sounded (those chugging strings) as we involuntarily cocked our heads forward. The only instruments that approached "room-filling sound" were the piccolo, bass drum, snare and pipe organ.

50's and (early) 60's stereo is perhaps the most astonishing of the stereo era. (Ansermet in Geneva Hall, for instance). In any case, I don't want to overstate the Mono portion of my collection; we're looking at maybe 5%? But to be without some of these performances!

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 next

Closed