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

Thanks for your message containing a lot of wisdom. I always thought that the Johannos Dallas Symphonic Dances was "audiophile" because J,. Gordon Holt lauded it in the Stereophile. I ran out and bought two copies and never heard anything special. The Sheffield lps are audiophile because they were direct-to-disk. Others are audiophile because hi-fi hucksters said so and used them for their dems. For my money certain recordings sound much better than average. They tend to be on the labels you mention and to be SACDs or Blu-Rays. But there are no guarantees, except word of mouth. So I'll investigate DK's recommendation of ProPiano. Keep the recommendations coming.

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 2:19:13 AM UTC-4, dan....@gmail.com 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
Her studio Traviata is one of my favorites and not only for her. Beautiful woman - when I saw the Traviata video from RAI I wrote to her and she was kind enough to send me an autographed photo of her as Violetta. Also a wonderful Nanetta in the Falstaff video Randy

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 1:03:49 PM UTC-7, randy wolfgang wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 2:19:13 AM UTC-4, dan....@gmail.com 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
> Her studio Traviata is one of my favorites and not only for her. Beautiful woman - when I saw the Traviata video from RAI I wrote to her and she was kind enough to send me an autographed photo of her as Violetta. Also a wonderful Nanetta in the Falstaff video Randy

https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/rec.music.opera/c/h_mKJSlb1lA

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 5:55:05 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> 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).

The Proprius label out of Sweden made some amazing-sounding choral recordings. Cantata domino was one, from 1976.

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 3:13:53 PM UTC-5, Oscar wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 5:55:05 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> >
> > 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).
> The Proprius label out of Sweden made some amazing-sounding choral recordings. Cantata domino was one, from 1976.

Cantate domino was in every high-end stereo store of the late 70s, along with Mehta's Planets with the LA Phil.

I find choral music damnably difficult to record well. Bass drum whacks are now relatively to achieve in a home setting. Along this thread about vocal recordings, I remember reading about an ECM recording of Part's The Deer's Cry with vox clamantis. The engineer, Igor Kirkwood, mentions how he did it here: https://tinyurl.com/yckapnwe ECM seems to offer above-average recording quality. Has any one in this group heard this recording?

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 . . .

If 'splashy' has anything to do with 'shrillness', the following 2022 article says:

- But sometimes the shrillness of something is its greatest sign of life...

https://www.splicetoday.com/music/classical-music-has-become-a-dead-language

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 . . .

- Men often applaud an imitation and hiss the real thing.

Aesop

On 8/21/22 3:07 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> 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.

Absolutely.

BobHarper

Linn is considered an audiophile label, I think, especially since they're attached to an equipment company, and they have quite a few excellent recordings. In addition to the classical stuff, I strongly recommend their complete songs of Robert Burns, performed by first-tier Scottish folk musicians. Alas, they no longer sell them as a box, and it's necessary to shell out for each of the 11 CDs individually. Worth it though.

In article <45a40120-b41b-45eb-9c8b-39756fb28880n@googlegroups.com>,
Peter <dormanp@gmail.com> wrote:
>Linn is considered an audiophile label, I think, especially since
>they're attached to an equipment company, and they have quite a
>few excellent recordings.

Their releases by Gothic Voices & Phantasm are some that I value
highly in medieval & viol consort music....

On 8/23/2022 7:12 PM, Peter wrote:
> Linn is considered an audiophile label, I think, especially since they're attached to an equipment company, and they have quite a few excellent recordings. In addition to the classical stuff, I strongly >recommend their complete songs of Robert Burns, performed by first-tier Scottish folk musicians. Alas, they no longer sell them as a box, and it's necessary to shell out for each of the 11 CDs individually. >Worth it though.

I have no opinion of Linn as an audiophile label. But based on this, from their web site, I might conclude that in the waning days of vinyl they may well have been. Since the migration to CD, it looks like all bluff. Correct me if I'm wrong.

https://www.linnrecords.com/about

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/23/2022 7:12 PM, Peter wrote:
>
> Since the migration to CD, it looks
> like all bluff. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What is the "bluff" you are referring to?

dk

On 8/23/2022 10:48 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 8/23/2022 7:12 PM, Peter wrote:
>>
>> Since the migration to CD, it looks
>> like all bluff. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> What is the "bluff" you are referring to?
>
> dk

Did you read it? What did you think?

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 7:54:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/23/2022 10:48 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 8/23/2022 7:12 PM, Peter wrote:
> >>
> >> Since the migration to CD, it looks
> >> like all bluff. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > What is the "bluff" you are referring to?
>
> Did you read it? What did you think?

Of course I read it. This is the plain
truth. No bluff at all. Anyone who
believes digital recordings are in
general "better" than analog ones
not only has no ears, but also no
brains and no understanding of
Physics and Acoustics. One can
indeed find counter-examples in
both directions, however Ivor is
right on the spot. Remember he
is someone who actually designs
and builds both analogue and
digital audio products for 50
years (Linn was founded in
1972).

Digital recording is clearly more
convenient, more expedient and
more economical. The artifacts
are easier to store, package and
market, etc... The industry has
done a phenomenal job of
brainwashing customers.
What else is new?

dk

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 8:09:08 PM UTC-7, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 7:54:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 8/23/2022 10:48 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >> On 8/23/2022 7:12 PM, Peter wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Since the migration to CD, it looks
> > >> like all bluff. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > What is the "bluff" you are referring to?
> >
> > Did you read it? What did you think?
> Of course I read it. This is the plain
> truth. No bluff at all. Anyone who
> believes digital recordings are in
> general "better" than analog ones
> not only has no ears, but also no
> brains and no understanding of
> Physics and Acoustics. One can
> indeed find counter-examples in
> both directions, however Ivor is
> right on the spot. Remember he
> is someone who actually designs
> and builds both analogue and
> digital audio products for 50
> years (Linn was founded in
> 1972).
>
> Digital recording is clearly more
> convenient, more expedient and
> more economical. The artifacts
> are easier to store, package and
> market, etc... The industry has
> done a phenomenal job of
> brainwashing customers.
> What else is new?
>

Edit:
"The music and recording industry
has done a phenomenal job of
brainwashing customers into
believing they also "sound better".

dk

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 2:45:59 AM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/23/2022 7:12 PM, Peter wrote:
> > Linn is considered an audiophile label, I think, especially since they're attached to an equipment company, and they have quite a few excellent recordings. In addition to the classical stuff, I strongly >recommend their complete songs of Robert Burns, performed by first-tier Scottish folk musicians. Alas, they no longer sell them as a box, and it's necessary to shell out for each of the 11 CDs individually. >Worth it though.
> I have no opinion of Linn as an audiophile label. But based on this, from their web site, I might conclude that in the waning days of vinyl they may well have been. Since the migration to CD, it looks like all bluff. Correct me if I'm wrong.

hopefully you have consulted your dictionaries for this.
In the real world however, Linn is a fine company. Their LP12 is a turntable classic; I have a pair of their 'Keilidh' floorstanding speakers, they're great, 25 years old now. and their products aren't audiofool expensive. They're not cheap either; Linn employees make a living. I also have a bunch of their cds and they are indeed exceptional in that they're very well recorded, the repertoire is interesting, and the performers are great.
Linn is in short the genuine article and it makes you wonder what it says about you that your gut reaction reaction is 'bluff'.

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 9:08:10 PM UTC-7, Herman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 2:45:59 AM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> hopefully you have consulted your dictionaries for this.

You mean his rabbies?

> In the real world however, Linn is a fine company. Their
> LP12 is a turntable classic; I have a pair of their 'Keilidh'
> floorstanding speakers, they're great, 25 years old now.
> and their products aren't audiofool expensive. They're
> not cheap either; Linn employees make a living. I also
> have a bunch of their cds and they are indeed exceptional
> in that they're very well recorded, the repertoire is interesting,
> and the performers are great. Linn is in short the genuine
> article and it makes you wonder what it says about you
> that your gut reaction reaction is 'bluff'.

Rabbinical bluff?

I have been a Linn customer and owner since the 1970s.
The LP12 has stood the test of time better than any other
turntable I have seen, heard or owned.

Linn's commitment to customers is unequalled in the hifi
industry. The products are solid, practical, and reasonably
priced for the level of quality and service they deliver.

dk

On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 11:39:16 PM UTC+1, 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 . . .
> - Men often applaud an imitation and hiss the real thing.
>
> Aesop

The deafeningly loud splashy harsh sound of many live music events has no reference whatsoever to the finished and highly polished overdubbed multi-track product created in a studio. The recordings are mic’d with certain priorities that usually minimise the hall effects, get a better instrument balance/blend etc.

In article <7f88230c-b71c-4bf9-b9bb-2864e133f4e4n@googlegroups.com>,
Mandryka <howie.stone01@gmail.com> wrote:
>The recordings are mic’d with certain priorities that usually
>minimise the hall effects, get a better instrument balance/blend
>etc.

Yes, balance/blend can be an issue, and one way to solve it has
been mic'ing. (This is also a reason that period instruments are
explored... different balance.)

On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 9:31:38 PM UTC-7, Mandryka wrote:
>
> The deafeningly loud splashy harsh sound of many live music
> events has no reference whatsoever to the finished and highly
> polished overdubbed multi-track product created in a studio.
> The recordings are mic’d with certain priorities that usually
> minimise the hall effects, get a better instrument balance/
> blend etc.

Are you promoting processed cheese ?!?

dk

One company to check out is Pristine Classical.
https://www.pristineclassical.com/.

On 8/23/2022 11:09 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 7:54:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 8/23/2022 10:48 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2022 7:12 PM, Peter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since the migration to CD, it looks
>>>> like all bluff. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> What is the "bluff" you are referring to?
>>
>> Did you read it? What did you think?
>
> Of course I read it. This is the plain
> truth. No bluff at all. Anyone who
> believes digital recordings are in
> general "better" than analog ones
> not only has no ears, but also no
> brains and no understanding of
> Physics and Acoustics. One can
> indeed find counter-examples in
> both directions, however Ivor is
> right on the spot. Remember he
> is someone who actually designs
> and builds both analogue and
> digital audio products for 50
> years (Linn was founded in
> 1972).
>
> Digital recording is clearly more
> convenient, more expedient and
> more economical. The artifacts
> are easier to store, package and
> market, etc... The industry has
> done a phenomenal job of
> brainwashing customers.
> What else is new?
>
> dk

OK. So the source of their "audiophilia" is that that record in analogue and only then convert to digital (and that they do it well). Correct?

I can understand analogue recording having more detail than digital (even audiably), but is this detail not lost or degraded when you slap the recording on a CD?

On 8/24/2022 12:08 AM, Herman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 2:45:59 AM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 8/23/2022 7:12 PM, Peter wrote:
>>> Linn is considered an audiophile label, I think, especially since they're attached to an equipment company, and they have quite a few excellent recordings. In addition to the classical stuff, I strongly >recommend their complete songs of Robert Burns, performed by first-tier Scottish folk musicians. Alas, they no longer sell them as a box, and it's necessary to shell out for each of the 11 CDs individually. >Worth it though.
>> I have no opinion of Linn as an audiophile label. But based on this, from their web site, I might conclude that in the waning days of vinyl they may well have been. Since the migration to CD, it looks like all bluff. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> hopefully you have consulted your dictionaries for this.
> In the real world however, Linn is a fine company. Their LP12 is a turntable classic; I have a pair of their 'Keilidh' floorstanding speakers, they're great, 25 years old now. and their products aren't audiofool expensive. They're not cheap either; Linn employees make a living. I also have a bunch of their cds and they are indeed exceptional in that they're very well recorded, the repertoire is interesting, and the performers are great.
> Linn is in short the genuine article and it makes you wonder what it says about you that your gut reaction reaction is 'bluff'.

Although my remark had no question mark, it was clearly a question and as such undeserving of your nastiness.

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 5:52:23 PM UTC-4, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/23/2022 11:09 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 7:54:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 8/23/2022 10:48 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>> On 8/23/2022 7:12 PM, Peter wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the migration to CD, it looks
> >>>> like all bluff. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >>>
> >>> What is the "bluff" you are referring to?
> >>
> >> Did you read it? What did you think?
> >
> > Of course I read it. This is the plain
> > truth. No bluff at all. Anyone who
> > believes digital recordings are in
> > general "better" than analog ones
> > not only has no ears, but also no
> > brains and no understanding of
> > Physics and Acoustics. One can
> > indeed find counter-examples in
> > both directions, however Ivor is
> > right on the spot. Remember he
> > is someone who actually designs
> > and builds both analogue and
> > digital audio products for 50
> > years (Linn was founded in
> > 1972).
> >
> > Digital recording is clearly more
> > convenient, more expedient and
> > more economical. The artifacts
> > are easier to store, package and
> > market, etc... The industry has
> > done a phenomenal job of
> > brainwashing customers.
> > What else is new?
> >
> > dk
> OK. So the source of their "audiophilia" is that that record in analogue and only then convert to digital (and that they do it well). Correct?
>
> I can understand analogue recording having more detail than digital (even audiably), but is this detail not lost or degraded when you slap the recording on a CD?
Actually they do more than just digitize and slap on a CD - they do something to the sound that gives more air around the performance, brings out details and often sounds so much improved from the original mono sound that its hard to believe. There is a reason why the esteemed Henry Fogel often gives their remasterings rave reviews.He wrote that their recently remastered version of the famous Decca 1951 mono Bayreuth Parsifal is so good, he's not sure he doesn't actually prefer it to the beautiful 1962 stereo version of the same opera from Bayreuth. I think their Callas remasterings are preferable to the latest EMI incarnations. Some like the effect and some don't. Whatever you like. It has nothng to do with the old "electronic stereo" or Breitklang issues. Randy

On 8/24/2022 10:07 PM, randy wolfgang wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 5:52:23 PM UTC-4, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 8/23/2022 11:09 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 7:54:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2022 10:48 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/23/2022 7:12 PM, Peter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the migration to CD, it looks
>>>>>> like all bluff. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the "bluff" you are referring to?
>>>>
>>>> Did you read it? What did you think?
>>>
>>> Of course I read it. This is the plain
>>> truth. No bluff at all. Anyone who
>>> believes digital recordings are in
>>> general "better" than analog ones
>>> not only has no ears, but also no
>>> brains and no understanding of
>>> Physics and Acoustics. One can
>>> indeed find counter-examples in
>>> both directions, however Ivor is
>>> right on the spot. Remember he
>>> is someone who actually designs
>>> and builds both analogue and
>>> digital audio products for 50
>>> years (Linn was founded in
>>> 1972).
>>>
>>> Digital recording is clearly more
>>> convenient, more expedient and
>>> more economical. The artifacts
>>> are easier to store, package and
>>> market, etc... The industry has
>>> done a phenomenal job of
>>> brainwashing customers.
>>> What else is new?
>>>
>>> dk
>> OK. So the source of their "audiophilia" is that that record in analogue and only then convert to digital (and that they do it well). Correct?
>>
>> I can understand analogue recording having more detail than digital (even audiably), but is this detail not lost or degraded when you slap the recording on a CD?
> Actually they do more than just digitize and slap on a CD - they do something to the sound that gives more air around the performance, brings out details and often sounds so much improved from the original mono sound that its hard to believe. There is a reason why the esteemed Henry Fogel often gives their remasterings rave reviews.He wrote that their recently remastered version of the famous Decca 1951 mono Bayreuth Parsifal is so good, he's not sure he doesn't actually prefer it to the beautiful 1962 stereo version of the same opera from Bayreuth. I think their Callas remasterings are preferable to the latest EMI incarnations. Some like the effect and some don't. Whatever you like. It has nothng to do with the old "electronic stereo" or Breitklang issues. Randy

OK. I retract my speculation about them bluffing. I feel cleansed.