On 8/19/22 2:09 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:

> Bonus question: what makes Johanos/Dallas Rach Dances an audiophile
> recording? The noise levels on that are something else, and there's
> no hall to be heard.

Clarity from the close perspective and a dynamic liveliness give a "you
are there" illusion.

To me it sounds it like a rehearsal room recording. What makes it
audiophile? The unique sound signature makes it a touchstone for
comparison and the playback system has to be "just so" for the magic to
happen, and, maybe a synergy with vinyl which covered the noise?

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 4:25:30 PM UTC+2, MINe109 wrote:
> On 8/19/22 2:09 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Bonus question: what makes Johanos/Dallas Rach Dances an audiophile
> > recording? The noise levels on that are something else, and there's
> > no hall to be heard.
> Clarity from the close perspective and a dynamic liveliness give a "you
> are there" illusion.
>
> To me it sounds it like a rehearsal room recording. What makes it
> audiophile? The unique sound signature makes it a touchstone for
> comparison and the playback system has to be "just so" for the magic to
> happen, and, maybe a synergy with vinyl which covered the noise?

My idea on audiophile recordings and labels.
I have many (50+) of those so called audiophile recordings, this to make my audio system sound good, at least this is what I believed for many years. Already for a long time I avoid those recordings. Also, I experimented with (tube)amps, speakers, cables, different brand tubes, coupling caps, power supply capacitors (Black Gates, Slitfoil), 24 bit, DSD, gold-cds, non-oversampling DAC, etc.

A CD of LP in excellent sound does not need to be audiophile. For example BIS offers excellent recordings, but is not an audiophile label. It is simply a label with good recordings.
Meaning? An audiophile recording (or label) is to my opinion at first the recording technique is important, second the musician. Audiophiles recording do not offer a high standard musician, yes a professional musician, but no more. I truly believe, techniques = No. 1. So the approach is much different than a ‘normal’ label. A ’normal’ label wants the best interpretation in musical sense; second is the technique. And yes, a good quality label tries to the best on both, but (to me) audiophile labels are always (read: mostly) short on the musician.

Some labels as mentioned in this conversation / Google group.
BIS = not an audiophile label
Odine = not an audiophile label
MDG = not an audiophile label
Reference Recordings = an audiophile label
Tacet = an audiophile label
Sheffield = an audiophile label
Vox Turnabout (Johanos / Dallas / Rachmaninoff Dances) = not an audiophile label

I’ve listened to Johanos / Dallas / Rachmaninoff Dances. To my opinion this is no audio audiophile recording, some of those old Mercury recordings yes, but this one not. To my opinion it gets an ‘audiophile’ stamp, because Analogue Productions does offer a brand new 180 gram vinyl of this Johanos / Dallas / Rachmaninoff Dances release, this transferred to digital by Kevin Gray of Cohearent Audio Studio (minor noise reduction + newly A-D transfer). This makes it ‘audiophile’.
To me odd, because the original recording is not impressive, and from nothing you can not make more than that. Also what makes it ‘audiophile’ is the way the original recording is made. The recording was recorded with only four ribbon microphones directly onto a modified tape machine running at 76cm/sec. No mixer and no post-processing in the studio are used. I am sure these ‘four ribbon microphones’ will never be used or chosen by a record label these days.
Also … I can buy some nice DPA 4006 mics, but it does not give the guarantee that I can make myself a nice piano recording. Some years ago I anticipated in a solo piano recording and as main microphone two Bruel Kjaer 4040 mics were used. This is tube/FET mic with a limited production run of 100 pieces, very special mic. The reseller (sales person) was very negative on using this particular mic for piano solo recordings. I am sure he is right, he knows his products, but in the end the CD was chosen as ‘Recording of the Month’ by US leading magazine Stereophile and was also used in many test as reference CD of equipment costing $US 15.000 and more, and not because it sounded so bad, on the contrary the sound of the Steinway is exceptional.

Of course there are exceptions in audiophile labels / recordings. Many years ago US label DMP produced very nice jazz oriented CD productions, sound + music / musicians are very interesting.

My advice. An audiophile label or recording should be ignored by anyone who likes / loves music. If you like technology, do go for the audiophile recordings.

And to my opinion a very high expensive and high rated audio system is not always be able to ‘sound’ good. I truly believe some audio systems do ‘understand’ the music that has to be reproduced, and then I am not referring to soundstage, highs, mids, or bass response. In fact I am referring to pace / rhythm behavior, a different subject.

Wim

Suddenly a voice of reason in the bleak intellectual
wasteland this newsgroup has become since the
departure of several old timers.

Anyone who has ever heard a live concert by a top
tier orchestra and concutor performing in a great
hall understands that no sound system can come
close to the real live experience, no matter how
"audiophile", or even audiophile!

Thanks!

dk

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:30:51 AM UTC-7, Wim wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 4:25:30 PM UTC+2, MINe109 wrote:
> > On 8/19/22 2:09 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Bonus question: what makes Johanos/Dallas Rach Dances an audiophile
> > > recording? The noise levels on that are something else, and there's
> > > no hall to be heard.
> > Clarity from the close perspective and a dynamic liveliness give a "you
> > are there" illusion.
> >
> > To me it sounds it like a rehearsal room recording. What makes it
> > audiophile? The unique sound signature makes it a touchstone for
> > comparison and the playback system has to be "just so" for the magic to
> > happen, and, maybe a synergy with vinyl which covered the noise?
> My idea on audiophile recordings and labels.
> I have many (50+) of those so called audiophile recordings, this to make my audio system sound good, at least this is what I believed for many years.. Already for a long time I avoid those recordings. Also, I experimented with (tube)amps, speakers, cables, different brand tubes, coupling caps, power supply capacitors (Black Gates, Slitfoil), 24 bit, DSD, gold-cds, non-oversampling DAC, etc.
>
> A CD of LP in excellent sound does not need to be audiophile. For example BIS offers excellent recordings, but is not an audiophile label. It is simply a label with good recordings.
> Meaning? An audiophile recording (or label) is to my opinion at first the recording technique is important, second the musician. Audiophiles recording do not offer a high standard musician, yes a professional musician, but no more. I truly believe, techniques = No. 1. So the approach is much different than a ‘normal’ label. A ’normal’ label wants the best interpretation in musical sense; second is the technique.. And yes, a good quality label tries to the best on both, but (to me) audiophile labels are always (read: mostly) short on the musician.
>
> Some labels as mentioned in this conversation / Google group.
> BIS = not an audiophile label
> Odine = not an audiophile label
> MDG = not an audiophile label
> Reference Recordings = an audiophile label
> Tacet = an audiophile label
> Sheffield = an audiophile label
> Vox Turnabout (Johanos / Dallas / Rachmaninoff Dances) = not an audiophile label
>
> I’ve listened to Johanos / Dallas / Rachmaninoff Dances. To my opinion this is no audio audiophile recording, some of those old Mercury recordings yes, but this one not. To my opinion it gets an ‘audiophile’ stamp, because Analogue Productions does offer a brand new 180 gram vinyl of this Johanos / Dallas / Rachmaninoff Dances release, this transferred to digital by Kevin Gray of Cohearent Audio Studio (minor noise reduction + newly A-D transfer). This makes it ‘audiophile’.
> To me odd, because the original recording is not impressive, and from nothing you can not make more than that. Also what makes it ‘audiophile’ is the way the original recording is made. The recording was recorded with only four ribbon microphones directly onto a modified tape machine running at 76cm/sec. No mixer and no post-processing in the studio are used. I am sure these ‘four ribbon microphones’ will never be used or chosen by a record label these days.
> Also … I can buy some nice DPA 4006 mics, but it does not give the guarantee that I can make myself a nice piano recording. Some years ago I anticipated in a solo piano recording and as main microphone two Bruel Kjaer 4040 mics were used. This is tube/FET mic with a limited production run of 100 pieces, very special mic. The reseller (sales person) was very negative on using this particular mic for piano solo recordings. I am sure he is right, he knows his products, but in the end the CD was chosen as ‘Recording of the Month’ by US leading magazine Stereophile and was also used in many test as reference CD of equipment costing $US 15.000 and more, and not because it sounded so bad, on the contrary the sound of the Steinway is exceptional.
>
> Of course there are exceptions in audiophile labels / recordings. Many years ago US label DMP produced very nice jazz oriented CD productions, sound + music / musicians are very interesting.
>
> My advice. An audiophile label or recording should be ignored by anyone who likes / loves music. If you like technology, do go for the audiophile recordings.
>
> And to my opinion a very high expensive and high rated audio system is not always be able to ‘sound’ good. I truly believe some audio systems do ‘understand’ the music that has to be reproduced, and then I am not referring to soundstage, highs, mids, or bass response. In fact I am referring to pace / rhythm behavior, a different subject.
>
> Wim

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:30:51 AM UTC-7, Wim wrote:
>
> Some labels as mentioned in this conversation / Google group.
> BIS = not an audiophile label
> Ondine = not an audiophile label
> MDG = not an audiophile label
> Reference Recordings = an audiophile label
> Tacet = an audiophile label
> Sheffield = an audiophile label
> Vox Turnabout (Johanos / Dallas / Rachmaninoff Dances) = not an audiophile label
>

Add ProPiano to the list above for
their excellent piano recordings.

dk

Matteo Ciccitti, Ricercar and Canzoni, Challenge Classics. Very little studio processing like MDG recordings - the result is a distinctive and rather lean sound which I like very much. I like everything about this recording in fact.

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 9:35:06 AM UTC+1, Mandryka wrote:
> Matteo Ciccitti, Ricercar and Canzoni, Challenge Classics. Very little studio processing like MDG recordings - the result is a distinctive and rather lean sound which I like very much. I like everything about this recording in fact.

That’s Cicchitti.

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:30:51 AM UTC-5, Wim wrote:
> On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 4:25:30 PM UTC+2, MINe109 wrote:
> > On 8/19/22 2:09 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Bonus question: what makes Johanos/Dallas Rach Dances an audiophile
> > > recording? The noise levels on that are something else, and there's
> > > no hall to be heard.
> > Clarity from the close perspective and a dynamic liveliness give a "you
> > are there" illusion.
> >
> > To me it sounds it like a rehearsal room recording. What makes it
> > audiophile? The unique sound signature makes it a touchstone for
> > comparison and the playback system has to be "just so" for the magic to
> > happen, and, maybe a synergy with vinyl which covered the noise?
> My idea on audiophile recordings and labels.
> I have many (50+) of those so called audiophile recordings, this to make my audio system sound good, at least this is what I believed for many years.. Already for a long time I avoid those recordings. Also, I experimented with (tube)amps, speakers, cables, different brand tubes, coupling caps, power supply capacitors (Black Gates, Slitfoil), 24 bit, DSD, gold-cds, non-oversampling DAC, etc.
>
> A CD of LP in excellent sound does not need to be audiophile. For example BIS offers excellent recordings, but is not an audiophile label. It is simply a label with good recordings.
> Meaning? An audiophile recording (or label) is to my opinion at first the recording technique is important, second the musician. Audiophiles recording do not offer a high standard musician, yes a professional musician, but no more. I truly believe, techniques = No. 1. So the approach is much different than a ‘normal’ label. A ’normal’ label wants the best interpretation in musical sense; second is the technique.. And yes, a good quality label tries to the best on both, but (to me) audiophile labels are always (read: mostly) short on the musician.
>
> Some labels as mentioned in this conversation / Google group.
> BIS = not an audiophile label
> Odine = not an audiophile label
> MDG = not an audiophile label
> Reference Recordings = an audiophile label
> Tacet = an audiophile label
> Sheffield = an audiophile label
> Vox Turnabout (Johanos / Dallas / Rachmaninoff Dances) = not an audiophile label
>
> I’ve listened to Johanos / Dallas / Rachmaninoff Dances. To my opinion this is no audio audiophile recording, some of those old Mercury recordings yes, but this one not. To my opinion it gets an ‘audiophile’ stamp, because Analogue Productions does offer a brand new 180 gram vinyl of this Johanos / Dallas / Rachmaninoff Dances release, this transferred to digital by Kevin Gray of Cohearent Audio Studio (minor noise reduction + newly A-D transfer). This makes it ‘audiophile’.
> To me odd, because the original recording is not impressive, and from nothing you can not make more than that. Also what makes it ‘audiophile’ is the way the original recording is made. The recording was recorded with only four ribbon microphones directly onto a modified tape machine running at 76cm/sec. No mixer and no post-processing in the studio are used. I am sure these ‘four ribbon microphones’ will never be used or chosen by a record label these days.
> Also … I can buy some nice DPA 4006 mics, but it does not give the guarantee that I can make myself a nice piano recording. Some years ago I anticipated in a solo piano recording and as main microphone two Bruel Kjaer 4040 mics were used. This is tube/FET mic with a limited production run of 100 pieces, very special mic. The reseller (sales person) was very negative on using this particular mic for piano solo recordings. I am sure he is right, he knows his products, but in the end the CD was chosen as ‘Recording of the Month’ by US leading magazine Stereophile and was also used in many test as reference CD of equipment costing $US 15.000 and more, and not because it sounded so bad, on the contrary the sound of the Steinway is exceptional.
>
> Of course there are exceptions in audiophile labels / recordings. Many years ago US label DMP produced very nice jazz oriented CD productions, sound + music / musicians are very interesting.
>
> My advice. An audiophile label or recording should be ignored by anyone who likes / loves music. If you like technology, do go for the audiophile recordings.
>
> And to my opinion a very high expensive and high rated audio system is not always be able to ‘sound’ good. I truly believe some audio systems do ‘understand’ the music that has to be reproduced, and then I am not referring to soundstage, highs, mids, or bass response. In fact I am referring to pace / rhythm behavior, a different subject.
>
> Wim

A very interesting response, but I wonder if it doesn't point to an either-or looking at recordings when there are likely labels in the middle. Perhaps not "pure" technically, but tasteful. I don't know if that is true, but it seems likely.

Love the nuance with the Johanos answer. It's complicated.

Will come back to this later. Lots to think about here.

On 8/20/22 2:19 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> Suddenly a voice of reason in the bleak intellectual
> wasteland this newsgroup has become since the
> departure of several old timers.
>
> Anyone who has ever heard a live concert by a top
> tier orchestra and concutor performing in a great
> hall understands that no sound system can come
> close to the real live experience, no matter how
> "audiophile", or even audiophile!
>
> Thanks!
>
> dk
>
Yes!
Two examples, though neither meets all your criteria:

1. Some years ago,the Oregon Symphony performed V-W's 'London' Symphony.
At the end of the first movement there's a tremendous *whack* on the
bass drum, visceral in it impact. I had invited a friend who was a V-W
fan and an audiophile. In the silence before the second movement began,
he leaned over to me and said, "No sound system can do that!"

2. The first time I went to a concert at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam,
the first work on the program was the Leonore #3 Overture. It was also
the first time I'd ever heard a great orchestra in a great hall. My
reaction to the first chords was a gasp,followed by tears running down
my cheeks as I thought, "So THIS is what they mean."

One can achieve very good wound in one's listening room, but pretending
that it can really approach the Real Thing is folly.

Bob Harper

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:51:00 PM UTC-7, Bob Harper wrote:
>
> One can achieve very good wound in one's listening room,
> but pretending that it can really approach the Real Thing is
> folly.

The most economical and cost effective way to hear really
good sound in one's home is to listen through a pair of high
end professional headphones driven by a vacuum tube amp
such as the EAR 509 (note this requires creative wiring). This
also has the advantage of not scaring pets or neighbors. The
flip side is that some recordings may not sound natural as a
result of having been mastered and mixed from a different
perspective.

dk

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:51:00 PM UTC-7, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 8/20/22 2:19 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > Suddenly a voice of reason in the bleak intellectual
> > wasteland this newsgroup has become since the
> > departure of several old timers.
> >
> > Anyone who has ever heard a live concert by a top
> > tier orchestra and concutor performing in a great
> > hall understands that no sound system can come
> > close to the real live experience, no matter how
> > "audiophile", or even audiophile!
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > dk
> >
> Yes!
> Two examples, though neither meets all your criteria:
>
> 1. Some years ago,the Oregon Symphony performed V-W's 'London' Symphony.
> At the end of the first movement there's a tremendous *whack* on the
> bass drum, visceral in it impact. I had invited a friend who was a V-W
> fan and an audiophile. In the silence before the second movement began,
> he leaned over to me and said, "No sound system can do that!"
>
> 2. The first time I went to a concert at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam,
> the first work on the program was the Leonore #3 Overture. It was also
> the first time I'd ever heard a great orchestra in a great hall. My
> reaction to the first chords was a gasp,followed by tears running down
> my cheeks as I thought, "So THIS is what they mean."
>
> One can achieve very good wound in one's listening room, but pretending
> that it can really approach the Real Thing is folly.
>
> Bob Harper

- Technology is the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it.

Max Frisch

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 9:51:00 PM UTC+1, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 8/20/22 2:19 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > Suddenly a voice of reason in the bleak intellectual
> > wasteland this newsgroup has become since the
> > departure of several old timers.
> >
> > Anyone who has ever heard a live concert by a top
> > tier orchestra and concutor performing in a great
> > hall understands that no sound system can come
> > close to the real live experience, no matter how
> > "audiophile", or even audiophile!
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > dk
> >
> Yes!
> Two examples, though neither meets all your criteria:
>
> 1. Some years ago,the Oregon Symphony performed V-W's 'London' Symphony.
> At the end of the first movement there's a tremendous *whack* on the
> bass drum, visceral in it impact. I had invited a friend who was a V-W
> fan and an audiophile. In the silence before the second movement began,
> he leaned over to me and said, "No sound system can do that!"
>
> 2. The first time I went to a concert at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam,
> the first work on the program was the Leonore #3 Overture. It was also
> the first time I'd ever heard a great orchestra in a great hall. My
> reaction to the first chords was a gasp,followed by tears running down
> my cheeks as I thought, "So THIS is what they mean."
>
> One can achieve very good wound in one's listening room, but pretending
> that it can really approach the Real Thing is folly.
>
> Bob Harper

You should try to hear some Linkwitz LX21s

One reason an orchestral recording at home doesn’t sound like live is that the sound is really only coming from two sources (if it’s stereo - and the drivers are correctly timed) In the live experience, you move your head, the time the sound for each instrument takes to reach your ears changes . . .

Well engineered recordings can sound better than the live experience, less splashy . . .

On 8/21/2022 4:50 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 8/20/22 2:19 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>> Suddenly a voice of reason in the bleak intellectual
>> wasteland this newsgroup has become since the
>> departure of several old timers.
>>
>> Anyone who has ever heard a live concert by a top
>> tier orchestra and concutor performing in a great
>> hall understands that no sound system can come
>> close to the real live experience, no matter how
>> "audiophile", or even audiophile!
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> dk
>>
> Yes!
> Two examples, though neither meets all your criteria:
>
> 1. Some years ago,the Oregon Symphony performed V-W's 'London' Symphony. At the end of the first movement there's a tremendous *whack* on the bass drum, visceral in it impact. I had invited a friend who was a V-W fan and an audiophile. In the silence before the second movement began, he leaned over to me and said, "No sound system can do that!"
>
> 2. The first time I went to a concert at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, the first work on the program was the Leonore #3 Overture. It was also the first time I'd ever heard a great orchestra in a great hall. My reaction to the first chords was a gasp,followed by tears running down my cheeks as I thought, "So THIS is what they mean."
>
> One can achieve very good wound in one's listening room, but pretending that it can really approach the Real Thing is folly.
>
> Bob Harper

I've had that experience. I'm not 100% sure it's just the sound, but maybe also "being there." I've get a similar feeling walking into baseball or football stadium. All that grass does not come across on TV.

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 3:00:52 PM UTC-7, Mandryka wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 9:51:00 PM UTC+1, Bob Harper wrote:
> > On 8/20/22 2:19 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > Suddenly a voice of reason in the bleak intellectual
> > > wasteland this newsgroup has become since the
> > > departure of several old timers.
> > >
> > > Anyone who has ever heard a live concert by a top
> > > tier orchestra and concutor performing in a great
> > > hall understands that no sound system can come
> > > close to the real live experience, no matter how
> > > "audiophile", or even audiophile!
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > dk
> > >
> > Yes!
> > Two examples, though neither meets all your criteria:
> >
> > 1. Some years ago,the Oregon Symphony performed V-W's 'London' Symphony..
> > At the end of the first movement there's a tremendous *whack* on the
> > bass drum, visceral in it impact. I had invited a friend who was a V-W
> > fan and an audiophile. In the silence before the second movement began,
> > he leaned over to me and said, "No sound system can do that!"
> >
> > 2. The first time I went to a concert at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam,
> > the first work on the program was the Leonore #3 Overture. It was also
> > the first time I'd ever heard a great orchestra in a great hall. My
> > reaction to the first chords was a gasp,followed by tears running down
> > my cheeks as I thought, "So THIS is what they mean."
> >
> > One can achieve very good wound in one's listening room, but pretending
> > that it can really approach the Real Thing is folly.
> >
> > Bob Harper
> You should try to hear some Linkwitz LX21s
>
> One reason an orchestral recording at home doesn’t sound like live is that the sound is really only coming from two sources (if it’s stereo - and the drivers are correctly timed) In the live experience, you move your head, the time the sound for each instrument takes to reach your ears changes . . .
>
> Well engineered recordings can sound better than the live experience, less splashy . . .

But isn't 'impact' audio technology's weak point when it comes to large-scale music ensembles?

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 3:09:05 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 3:00:52 PM UTC-7, Mandryka wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 9:51:00 PM UTC+1, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > On 8/20/22 2:19 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > > Suddenly a voice of reason in the bleak intellectual
> > > > wasteland this newsgroup has become since the
> > > > departure of several old timers.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who has ever heard a live concert by a top
> > > > tier orchestra and concutor performing in a great
> > > > hall understands that no sound system can come
> > > > close to the real live experience, no matter how
> > > > "audiophile", or even audiophile!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > dk
> > > >
> > > Yes!
> > > Two examples, though neither meets all your criteria:
> > >
> > > 1. Some years ago,the Oregon Symphony performed V-W's 'London' Symphony.
> > > At the end of the first movement there's a tremendous *whack* on the
> > > bass drum, visceral in it impact. I had invited a friend who was a V-W
> > > fan and an audiophile. In the silence before the second movement began,
> > > he leaned over to me and said, "No sound system can do that!"
> > >
> > > 2. The first time I went to a concert at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam,
> > > the first work on the program was the Leonore #3 Overture. It was also
> > > the first time I'd ever heard a great orchestra in a great hall. My
> > > reaction to the first chords was a gasp,followed by tears running down
> > > my cheeks as I thought, "So THIS is what they mean."
> > >
> > > One can achieve very good wound in one's listening room, but pretending
> > > that it can really approach the Real Thing is folly.
> > >
> > > Bob Harper
> > You should try to hear some Linkwitz LX21s
> >
> > One reason an orchestral recording at home doesn’t sound like live is that the sound is really only coming from two sources (if it’s stereo - and the drivers are correctly timed) In the live experience, you move your head, the time the sound for each instrument takes to reach your ears changes . . .
> >
> > Well engineered recordings can sound better than the live experience, less splashy . . .
> But isn't 'impact' audio technology's weak point when it comes to large-scale music ensembles?

And even vocal muisc?:

https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/rec.music.classical.recordings/c/TBW1R9zXJb8/m/mkdMmgOuCgAJ

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 3:15:53 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 3:09:05 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> .
> > But isn't 'impact' audio technology's weak point
> > when it comes to large-scale music ensembles?
>
> And even vocal muisc?:
>
> https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/rec.music.classical.recordings/c/TBW1R9zXJb8/m/mkdMmgOuCgAJ

No technology can make singers sound intelligent.

dk

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 3:00:52 PM UTC-7, Mandryka wrote:
>
> You should try to hear some Linkwitz LX21s

Not even close to big electrostatics.

> One reason an orchestral recording at home
> doesn’t sound like live is that the sound is
> really only coming from two sources (if it’s
> stereo - and the drivers are correctly timed)
> In the live experience, you move your head,
> the time the sound for each instrument
> takes to reach your ears changes . . .

You appear to ignore frequency range and
dynamic range -- though they do not matter
at all for the firewood and BBQ kits you are
so fond of.

> Well engineered recordings can sound better
> than the live experience, less splashy . . .

I hereby award you the Grand Prize and Gold
Medal for the most idiotic statement ever
made in this newsgroup. Straight out of
Marc Zuckerberg's VR hallucinations.

dk

Dan Koren a formulé ce samedi :
> Anyone who has ever heard a live concert by a top
> tier orchestra and concutor performing in a great
> hall understands that no sound system can come
> close to the real live experience, no matter how
> "audiophile", or even audiophile!

Koko...Or the art of pushing open doors !...

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 3:09:05 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 3:00:52 PM UTC-7, Mandryka wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 9:51:00 PM UTC+1, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > On 8/20/22 2:19 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > > Suddenly a voice of reason in the bleak intellectual
> > > > wasteland this newsgroup has become since the
> > > > departure of several old timers.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who has ever heard a live concert by a top
> > > > tier orchestra and concutor performing in a great
> > > > hall understands that no sound system can come
> > > > close to the real live experience, no matter how
> > > > "audiophile", or even audiophile!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > dk
> > > >
> > > Yes!
> > > Two examples, though neither meets all your criteria:
> > >
> > > 1. Some years ago,the Oregon Symphony performed V-W's 'London' Symphony.
> > > At the end of the first movement there's a tremendous *whack* on the
> > > bass drum, visceral in it impact. I had invited a friend who was a V-W
> > > fan and an audiophile. In the silence before the second movement began,
> > > he leaned over to me and said, "No sound system can do that!"
> > >
> > > 2. The first time I went to a concert at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam,
> > > the first work on the program was the Leonore #3 Overture. It was also
> > > the first time I'd ever heard a great orchestra in a great hall. My
> > > reaction to the first chords was a gasp,followed by tears running down
> > > my cheeks as I thought, "So THIS is what they mean."
> > >
> > > One can achieve very good wound in one's listening room, but pretending
> > > that it can really approach the Real Thing is folly.
> > >
> > > Bob Harper
> > You should try to hear some Linkwitz LX21s
> >
> > One reason an orchestral recording at home doesn’t sound like live is that the sound is really only coming from two sources (if it’s stereo - and the drivers are correctly timed) In the live experience, you move your head, the time the sound for each instrument takes to reach your ears changes . . .
> >
> > Well engineered recordings can sound better than the live experience, less splashy . . .
> But isn't 'impact' audio technology's weak point when it comes to large-scale music ensembles?

And when it comes to the limitations of audio technology, what about vocal music?:

https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/rec.music.classical.recordings/c/TBW1R9zXJb8/m/mkdMmgOuCgAJ

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 3:49:48 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
>
> And when it comes to the limitations of audio technology, what about vocal music?:
>
> https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/rec.music.classical.recordings/c/TBW1R9zXJb8/m/mkdMmgOuCgAJ

No technology can make singers intelligent. Or quote bots.

dk

Jesús López Cobos recorded an excellent Mahler 7 with the Cincinnatians for TELARC. One of my favorites, and the engineering is, natch, outstanding. His Respighi is likewise underrated (a term I generally dislike—it's juvenile—but oh well, it fits here).

On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 10:43:28 AM, Fymido Lenito wrote:
>
> Is Ondine a true audiophile label? Like TACET? I don't doubt that Ondine produces some outstanding recordings (both sound and permormance wise).

No, Ondine is _not_ an audiophile label.

Can't believe no one has mentioned perhaps the greatest audiophile recording, from the standpoint of performance, in recorded history (that is to say, of the stereo era and on a niche audiophile label): Nojima Plays Liszt (Reference Recordings, 1987). Complete with indexing cues! So good Joyce Hatto plagiarized it! Rest in peace, Mr. Nojima.

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-7, Oscar wrote:
>
> Can't believe no one has mentioned perhaps the greatest
> audiophile recording, from the standpoint of performance,
> in recorded history (that is to say, of the stereo era and on
> a niche audiophile label): Nojima Plays Liszt (Reference
> Recordings, 1987). Complete with indexing cues! So good
> Joyce Hatto plagiarized it! Rest in peace, Mr. Nojima.

Old hat. And not quite as good as the story has it.
Nojima was a great octave shooter, but no match
musically for Richter, Cziffra, Berman or Sofronitsky.
Or even for Polina Leschenko or Fabienne Jacquinot.

Solo piano recordings are not the best vehicles to
evluate recording quality, because everything is so
easy to control -- leaving aside that people do make
mistakes in tuning, mike placement, mixing and what
not.

What is REALLY difficult to pull off is recording large
choirs with orchestra, organ and soloists in spaces
with high reverberation such as large churches. That
is far more difficult than recording octave shooters in
small to medium halls.

My reference for such recordings is Poulenc's Gloria
recorded by EMI in 1961 at l'Église Saint-Étienne-du-Mont
with the ORTF conducted by Georges Georges Prêtre with
Rosanna Carteri as soloist. This has appeared several
times on LP as well as on CD. I used often to show the
dramatic difference between a good LP and any CD on
the same equipment. If one collect sLPs and does not
have it already, one should run to buy it if one can find it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wdbj1jkdGo

BTW Rosanna Carteri was a phenomenal soprano who
should be known much better than she is.

dk

OOn Monday, August 22, 2022 at 6:51:58 AM UTC+1, Oscar wrote:
> Can't believe no one has mentioned perhaps the greatest audiophile recording, from the standpoint of performance, in recorded history (that is to say, of the stereo era and on a niche audiophile label): Nojima Plays Liszt (Reference Recordings, 1987). Complete with indexing cues! So good Joyce Hatto plagiarized it! Rest in peace, Mr. Nojima.

Haven’t heard Nojima’s Liszt but there was another extraordinary Liszt recording - Raymond Lowenthal’s Hexameron (And Allan Etudes I think.) Its yonks since I heard these things though, not my sort of music any more.

On 8/22/2022 2:19 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-7, Oscar wrote:
>>
>> Can't believe no one has mentioned perhaps the greatest
>> audiophile recording, from the standpoint of performance,
>> in recorded history (that is to say, of the stereo era and on
>> a niche audiophile label): Nojima Plays Liszt (Reference
>> Recordings, 1987). Complete with indexing cues! So good
>> Joyce Hatto plagiarized it! Rest in peace, Mr. Nojima.
>
> Old hat. And not quite as good as the story has it.
> Nojima was a great octave shooter, but no match
> musically for Richter, Cziffra, Berman or Sofronitsky.
> Or even for Polina Leschenko or Fabienne Jacquinot.
>
> Solo piano recordings are not the best vehicles to
> evluate recording quality, because everything is so
> easy to control -- leaving aside that people do make
> mistakes in tuning, mike placement, mixing and what
> not.
>
> What is REALLY difficult to pull off is recording large
> choirs with orchestra, organ and soloists in spaces
> with high reverberation such as large churches. That
> is far more difficult than recording octave shooters in
> small to medium halls.
>
> My reference for such recordings is Poulenc's Gloria
> recorded by EMI in 1961 at l'Église Saint-Étienne-du-Mont
> with the ORTF conducted by Georges Georges Prêtre with
> Rosanna Carteri as soloist. This has appeared several
> times on LP as well as on CD. I used often to show the
> dramatic difference between a good LP and any CD on
> the same equipment. If one collect sLPs and does not
> have it already, one should run to buy it if one can find it!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wdbj1jkdGo
>
> BTW Rosanna Carteri was a phenomenal soprano who
> should be known much better than she is.
>
> dk

I think this misses the point a bit. A label that makes mistakes in tuning, mike placement, mixing and what not is, by definition, not an "audiophile label."

Is there a label that consistently makes successful vocal recordings in reverberant churches then THAT is an audiophile label (unless it screws up other types of recordings).

If there is no consistency, then the concept of audiophile label is an false myth, as has been suggested.