The best labels for the best sound in classical music

[zenpmd]

Thanks all, this is very useful and to clarify yes I was talking about recording quality, not performance quality, since presumably there is some consistency across the former on a label while the latter is clearly artist dependant.

 

One particular thing I was interested in was dynamic range too, so its good to see BIS are good in that respect. Who else is known to have great DR, who also, is known to have a lot of compression?

 

Talking of BIS, SO MANY of their performances seem exceptional!

[Axiom05]

Thanks all, this is very useful and to clarify yes I was talking about recording quality, not performance quality, since presumably there is some consistency across the former on a label while the latter is clearly artist dependant.

 

One particular thing I was interested in was dynamic range too, so its good to see BIS are good in that respect. Who else is known to have great DR, who also, is known to have a lot of compression?

 

Talking of BIS, SO MANY of their performances seem exceptional!

 

In my experience, any well produced classical recording will not be subject to compression. Dynamic range issues are not something I ever worry about when buying classical recordings.

[PopPop]

And to add DaCapo: Dacapo Records - Classical and new music from Denmark's national label

 

I have purchased CDs from DaCapo and have been very pleased. Their new web has site most of the catalogue available for download in high-res, unfortunately the music sampler has a bug and you are not able to listen snippets of the recordings. I hope that gets fixed soon

[mourip]

I also find Channel Classics, PentaTone, Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo SACDs to also have quite realistic bass, as well as realistic midrange and highs.

 

+1

 

...for Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo and add Decca from the 60's to that. Great sound and performances even at 16\44.

[Norton]

I'd second Chandos, Linn, Pentatone. I'll add in LSO live for top quality well priced contemporary recordings and I also love Telarc, although I know some would disagree.

 

Maybe it's because I'm also a vinyl fan, but I really recommend analogue transfers of the classic recordings from Decca, Mercury and RCA. The SQ on some of these (DECCA

Solti Mahler symphonies for example) bests any modern digital recording I have heard.

Also for fans of British music only, the SQ on Lyrita is stunning (again mostly analogue recordings).

[Iain]

Impressive maybe, but like Telarc they have a tendency to produce a sound that appeals to audiophile tastes, i.e. they often have such a powerful bass that seems unrealistic to me. I like those recordings, but I don't see them as a true reflection of the sound you can hear live.

 

I think the level of recording quality in classical labels is generally very high today. The most important limitation comes from the fact that recordings are now often done live, which requires a more close-up recording to reduce audience noise. Many productions by top stars on big labels (Rattle on EMI/Warner, Grimaud or Mutter on DG, and many more) sound average for that reason.

 

On the other hand, I found Pentatone, BIS and Channel to produce the most consistent high quality sound. But there are many other small labels with state of the art sound, and none really stands out.

 

I would have agreed to this over two or three years ago, but I've been focused on ARS Produktion since then. They have consistent performance and recording quality, that I haven't seen in years. My number one title in my collection was released from them in 2014.

Ars Lounge

 

Now, I hope they will soon have downloads available, as I no longer purchase physical SA-CD media due to storage space limitations.

 

Some people focus on the recording format (PCM or DSD), but IMHO this is just a detail that hardly affects the end result. Until only a few years years ago, BIS recorded in 24/44 PCM, while 24/96 was already the standard. The sa-cd.net forum had a big BIS fanbase (BIS owner Robert von Bahr posted there), and many people where shocked when they heard about this, but funnily nobody ever complained about "low-rez PCM sound" on BIS SACDs recorded in 24/44, while many say CDs are generally unlistenable because of the 16/44 limitations.

 

Indeed!

 

It's all down to mastering and production quality. If a title has terrible sound quality, blame the mastering engineer and recording acoustical environment, not the format in which it was recorded

 

Read all about that here:

Sound On Sound | Recording Techniques | Audio Technology | Music Production | Computer Music | Video Media

[zelbir]

I'll second the previous comments about Channel Classics, Pentatone, and Harmonia Mundi. To be clear, I do not disagree about the other labels mentioned in this thread...I just do not have experience with them to have an opinion based on my ears and system....

[thomahawk]

I have done extensive comparisons of records for some specific classical work and I must say, unknown little record labels, like those the orchestras own, mostly produce much better records then the big well known labels do.

 

I mean for chamber music, small ensemble, also Decca, Emi, RCA, DG, Chandos etc. make records that are good enough for an Audiophile like me, but those are not so difficult to do. It's their recordings of big orchestral works that often disappoint. I would buy highly praised, awarded records of those labels and and up not being satisfied because the sound becomes foggy and noisy the more instruments play most of all at fortissimo parts. Don't take me wrong, I am not talking about the interpretation here, which is mostly great, only about the sound quality, which honestly often does bother me more.

 

During my comparisons I found for example that the Mahler records (Tilson Thomas) of SFS media (produced by the San Francisco Orchestra itself) surpasses all records of Pentatone, Naxos, RCA, Decca, Emi, DG, Chandos and anything else I could find.

 

Same thing with Holst's The Planets. Vernon Handley and the Royal Philharmonic on the RPO produced record have so much more dynamic and detail then any other record I tried, including Rattle, Boult, Dutout, Levine.

 

Bruckner Symphonies: the winner is Skrowaczewski, Yomiuri on Denon. Not an unknown brand but one that does never advertise or anything as far as I know, it's just there, and these Denon records surpass any big orchestra recordings of any work I have ever heard!

 

I also found that you can not generally go for a brand. It may have an excellent record of one work but a meager one of another work, even if it is from the same year. This even applies to SFS media or Denon, not everything is on the same level.

 

Listen to excerpts on my magazine website at http://www.ecliptic.ch/audiophile

[AnotherSpin]

With Classical music I am never able to fix attention to technical quality parameters for long. The merits of performances/interpretations are much more important, imho. I must admit, some of my very best loved performances are recorded on labels which seldom considered as exemplar, such as EMI or DG. And, not everything recorded by Channel Classics, Telarc or Linn is interesting to me. Also, some of the best versions are available in archival quality which is very far from current expectations.

[Kurt]

German labels CPO and Haenssler Classics turn out some fine sound recordings, as well.

[thomahawk]

39 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

With Classical music I am never able to fix attention to technical quality parameters for long. The merits of performances/interpretations are much more important, imho. ...

 

For me it is a mix of both. I can not really enjoy a good performance if the sound does not reveal enough details, the instruments are too far away or instrument sections badly balanced (strings close but basses or winds far away etc) or a remaster that went through filters and ended being harsh and oversharpened. On the other hand, I had cases where the recording was pristine but tempi or something else way off. Either way for me is not enjoyable.

 

But it is far more the case (in big orchestra works) that it lacks in sound quality then it does in interpretation. Of course interpretation is also a question of personal taste.

[FIndingit]

Harmonia Mundi in the early 90's was wonderful. That means the most famous Les Arts Florissants' recordings of opera, i.e. Atys. Listen for example to a recording of the music for the play Le Malade Imaginaire.

 

Some of those recordings used pre-emphasis, i.e. David & Jonathas by Charpentier.

 

And 60's Decca of course, highlights for example Britten's Peter Grimes (available 24/96) or his Noye's Fludde.

[austinpop]

Some of the Everest Tape Transfers from the late 50s are jaw droppingly good in sound quality.

 

A couple other labels, perhaps already mentioned, are BR Klassik and Tudor.

[Hugo9000]

I would say that in my experience, BIS is the most consistently pleasing with regard to detail, clarity, and dynamic range.  They manage to avoid congestion in heavy passages such as parts of Rachmaninov's Symphony No. 2 (I have each recording of that symphony that BIS has released, and they are all exemplary in that regard), where so many other labels fall short for me.

 

Chandos is quite consistent as well, with only a handful of recordings in my collection being less than great, sound quality wise.  Hyperion at their best is nice, but they were definitely hit and miss in the mid 1980s (their Howard Shelley series of the complete solo piano music of Rachmaninov, for example).

 

EMI was mostly awful in my view in the 1960s and 70s (Karajan's recordings with them are generally very muddy compared to his work with DG, for example).  I think EMI France's recordings of Barbara Hendricks (many recital albums from the 80s and 90s, I own all but two, I think) were quite good, and I have no complaints about EMI's recordings of pianist Leif Ove Andsnes.

 

I only have one release by Reference Recordings, Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde.  It is my favorite performance of those I own or have heard, but I wish it had been done by BIS, as it doesn't seem natural to my ears.  It is one of those HDCD releases, whether that negatively impacts it in any way, I can't say.  My Denon DVD-2910, can process HDCD encoded discs, however, so I suppose it shouldn't be a problem.  I wish they would release it on Blu-ray audio or SACD or something, rather than the silly HDCD format.

 

I am primarily stuck with RCA, as my favorite artist is Leontyne Price.  Although their engineers and producers in those years were friends of hers, they didn't always treat her voice as she deserved, so the recordings are all over the place.  Some were extraordinary for the time, others anything but.  However, I'll take what I can get when the performances are so gloriously beautiful.

 

 

[AnotherSpin]

4 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

[...]

I only have one release by Reference Recordings, Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde.  It is my favorite performance of those I own or have heard, but I wish it had been done by BIS, as it doesn't seem natural to my ears. 

[...]

 

 

 

Manfred Honeck recordings for RR are fabulous. Beethoven 5 and 7 are so good! It is almost not possible to believe someone could step forward with a new version of these myriad times recorded pieces in so convincing way.

[semente]

I've only bought a single RR and whilst good-sounding I found it overly spectacular as in artificial. Besides HDCD has problems when played back in a normal CD player.

 

Channel Classics and BIS are closer to being realistic but still use multi-mic'ing for large ensembles.

Simpler 2- or 4-mic recordings sound the most natural in my experience, some old BIS and Telarc recordings, Denon, Dorian, Water Lilly. I'm sure there will be others too.

 

Philips, Decca (and even DG) have made some fine recordings as well.

I always choose recordings for the music/performance, not the sound quality.

[thomahawk]

Right, for any recording the most important part is what they did with the mics. In regard of a natural soundstage, the two mic approach is always the best. And this works especially well with chamber music, small ensembles. But not so well with the big orchestra. It depends what your listening preference is: If you prefer the far away sound from within the audience, then the two mic approach is still a good choice. The mics can be positioned so that the wide spread sound sources are not a problem.

 

But this kind of recording is not for me. I am the listener type who is used to be within the orchestra, and what I want in a recording is the closeup sound, where you can practically feel the vibrations of each of the strings and you can identify different instruments and even the different players (chamber orchestra sound quality but with the big orchestra). On big orchestra works this can only be achieved by using many microphones. The best Holst's "The Planets" recording ever made (Handley, RPO) for example used 48 mics.

 

 

----------------------------

See my extensive Audiophile Magazine reviews about records of some specific Classical works at www.ecliptic.ch/audiophile

[AnotherSpin]

3 hours ago, semente said:

[...]

I always choose recordings for the music/performance, not the sound quality.

+1

[Kal Rubinson]

7 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

Manfred Honeck recordings for RR are fabulous. Beethoven 5 and 7 are so good! It is almost not possible to believe someone could step forward with a new version of these myriad times recorded pieces in so convincing way.

 

The Honeck/Pittsburgh recordings for RR are part of their "fresh!" series (https://referencerecordings.com/genre/fresh).  The symphonic ones are outstanding and were produced by Mark Donahue, Dirk Sobotka and John Newton of Soundmirror, Boston.  In particular, I find their multichannel releases superior to those from the original RR series.

[Jud]

9 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

Manfred Honeck recordings for RR are fabulous. Beethoven 5 and 7 are so good! It is almost not possible to believe someone could step forward with a new version of these myriad times recorded pieces in so convincing way.

 

Thank you - I will definitely be interested in hearing at least the 7th. 

[Jud]

7 hours ago, semente said:

Simpler 2- or 4-mic recordings sound the most natural in my experience, some old BIS and Telarc recordings, Denon, Dorian, Water Lilly. I'm sure there will be others too.

 

Philips, Decca (and even DG) have made some fine recordings as well.

I always choose recordings for the music/performance, not the sound quality.

 

Dorian has many gems. Same with BIS.  I don't have many Water Lily, but what I have are good.

 

Recording and performance quality are not always exclusive.  Jordi Savall's recordings of the Brandenburg concertos use period instruments (quieter), and the recording quality is excellent. As a consequence, you can hear subtleties of the interplay between the various parts of the orchestra - not only point and counterpoint, but 5 and 6 different parts all intertwining with each other. For me this was a revelation of Bach's true brilliance. You could call it a marvelously skillful and subtle performance, but it is the recording quality that allows it to be heard. 

 

Edit: For anyone who wants to check out the Savall Brandenburgs, my personal feeling is that the First and Second are very good; that it is the Third where you begin to realize you are listening to something extraordinary; and the rest is bliss, especially the Sixth. 

[austinpop]

On 6/24/2018 at 11:11 AM, Jud said:

Recording and performance quality are not always exclusive.  Jordi Savall's recordings of the Brandenburg concertos use period instruments (quieter), and the recording quality is excellent.

 

Jud, what version would you recommend? How about this SACD release: https://www.amazon.com/Bach-J-S-Brandenburg-Concertos-Nos-1-6/dp/B0035GU9WK/ ?

[Jud]

52 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Jud, what version would you recommend? How about this SACD release: https://www.amazon.com/Bach-J-S-Brandenburg-Concertos-Nos-1-6/dp/B0035GU9WK/ ?

 

The SACD contains both DSD (if you're able to rip) and CD versions, and a quite nice little booklet.  Then, depending on the software you have, you could if you like upsample to DSD256 (for Mac) or DSD512 (Windows or Linux) on- or offline.

 

Presto Classical in the UK offers for download the 16/44.1 version that's also included on the discs.  No nice booklet; again, you can upsample to DSD256 or DSD512 if you like.

 

Edit: The Presto download is $13.

[austinpop]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

The SACD contains both DSD (if you're able to rip) and CD versions, and a quite nice little booklet.  Then, depending on the software you have, you could if you like upsample to DSD256 (for Mac) or DSD512 (Windows or Linux) on- or offline.

 

Presto Classical in the UK offers for download the 16/44.1 version that's also included on the discs.  No nice booklet; again, you can upsample to DSD256 or DSD512 if you like.

 

Yes, I went ahead and ordered the SACD. I've got the whole Oppo ripping process grooved by now, so that's no issue at all!

 

I guess what I was really asking is what the original recording format and sample rate was. These days, I remain agnostic on the whole DSD/PCM debate. I try to purchase music in their native recording format/rate where possible. That's one of the nice things about BIS recordings bought from eClassical - they tell you what the recording format  and sample rate was.

 

That said - buying SACDs and ripping is also a favorite path of mine.

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Yes, I went ahead and ordered the SACD. I've got the whole Oppo ripping process grooved by now, so that's no issue at all!

 

I guess what I was really asking is what the original recording format and sample rate was. These days, I remain agnostic on the whole DSD/PCM debate. I try to purchase music in their native recording format/rate where possible. That's one of the nice things about BIS recordings bought from eClassical - they tell you what the recording format  and sample rate was.

 

That said - buying SACDs and ripping is also a favorite path of mine.

 

The original release was on CD in 1993. That early my speculation would be that the recording equipment wasn't delta-sigma and therefore there's no DSD original version. I don't know that there would even have been a 24-bit PCM version to make the SACD from.