Reference Recordings Fresh series.

[kennyb123]

Regarding Reference Recordings in general I have to say that although sometimes a bit overdone in the bass as you say, the Prof Johnson PCM 176.4 and older analogue RR recordings are clearly better,more realistically balanced than any of the RR fresh which sound closer and drier than I have ever heard any of these works live or in recordings.

 

Extremely helpful information. Thanks.

[Axiom05]

I didn't find the Tchaikovsky/Dvorak to be bass light, but bass can be so system/room dependent. The gong does sound fantastic. Other than the comment about the bass and not mentioning the heavy breathing, I pretty much agree with the review. So many recordings contain "vocalization" from the conductor that the reviewer may not have thought it out of the ordinary. Some reviews even fail to mention Sir Colin Davis' "singing" which is extremely evident in his recordings. While not relevant to this recording, I also find the stomping or dancing on the podium characteristic of some conductors really annoying.

[chrille]

I didn't find the Tchaikovsky/Dvorak to be bass light, but bass can be so system/room dependent. The gong does sound fantastic. Other than the comment about the bass and not mentioning the heavy breathing, I pretty much agree with the review. So many recordings contain "vocalization" from the conductor that the reviewer may not have thought it out of the ordinary. Some reviews even fail to mention Sir Colin Davis' "singing" which is extremely evident in his recordings. While not relevant to this recording, I also find the stomping or dancing on the podium characteristic of some conductors really annoying.

 

Good to hear that you too agree about the bass. I have no problem at all with it apart from the dryness and lack of air in general from these recordings.

And while I am at it again I may have been a bit overharsh in my criticism regarding the Beethoven album in the post above!

Although even drier than the Tchaikovsky via my system. Or is it just Beethovens scoring?I was exaggerating a bit to make my point when I said "Beethoven in anechoic chamber".

It is more like different sections of the orchestra are playing in my room at different times with little sense of any acoustic around what they are playing, except at full tuttis.

But as with the understated,though very well played Tchaikovsky, I have to say that I find Honeck´s unorthodox take on both Beethoven symphonies,quite exciting.

And yes ,apart from the missing singing of Sir Colin Davis, these live recordings are a bit similar to LSO Live´s infamous Barbican dry acoustics imo.

But there I can at least confirm personally,that it is a rather terrible dry boxy acoustic. In these cases I can´t .

[Kal Rubinson]

Hello Kal I agree regarding the bass.

Great.

The interpretation is imho a bit low key and understated which I also noted in my initial post.

I guess Gramophone got it a bit right there at least.

A bit. It is overall more relaxed but has a sufficiently wide dramatic range although not in the Mravinsky camp.

I suppose it opens up a bit acoustically played in its mch form?..........................................

Quite disappointing in stereo I have to say.Not only via speakers but equally so or even more so, via headphones.

I sure hope it sounds more naturallly balanc ed in mch than in stereo.

Cannot say. I listen to stereo only when MCH is not available and I never listen to headphones except on an airplane.

I wish they´d made a recording version with only the main stereo pair and no spot mics at all!

I have no interest in listening to the conductor´s or the players´ breathing here either.

To hear what DSD 256 is possibly really capable of I hold higher hopes from Jared Sacks and his upcoming Mahler and Mendelsohn recordings from Budapest.

Not relevant to stereo listeners but to the MCH flock:

NADAC Player running Roon Multi-Channel @ Quad DSD (DSD256)

[chrille]

Great.

A bit. It is overall more relaxed but has a sufficiently wide dramatic range although not in the Mravinsky camp.

Cannot say. I listen to stereo only when MCH is not available and I never listen to headphones except on an airplane.

Not relevant to stereo listeners but to the MCH flock:

NADAC Player running Roon Multi-Channel @ Quad DSD (DSD256)

 

Hello again Kal,thanks for the link.It sounds promising and I should of course have mentioned Tom Caulfield as the engineer behind these DSD 256 sessions in Budapest.

Mea culpa Tom.

I´d really love to hear Tom´s purist five mics mch Mahler 3 take from Budapest.

One of the most convincing demos of mch against plain stereo for me so far was when I came down to the monitoring room in the basement, with the live sound in the hall in very fresh memory after hours there, to hear DSD 64 raw playbacks.

Jared first played the takes in stereo and then with the flip of a switch played the same again in mch.

The difference in sound was very noticable indeed. The stereo sounded flat and honestly a bit disappointing compared to what I had been hearing live in the hall.

MCH on the other hand was much closer to what I heard live during five days of recording Mahler 5 .

 

I am fully aware of the advantages of MCH over plain stereo.

 

But in my case and I suppose many others here I am pretty heavily invested in stereo.

 

To get the low distortion and truly realistic SQ I am spoilt by from my already expensive stereo pair of electrostatic speakers and big very powerful eqully low distortion stereo amp,I would have to invest another 20000€ or so to get similar SQ with MCH as I have now in stereo.

A full MCH highend system will have to wait for me until I find the perfect house with a room at least twice the size of my current listening room,which is a mere 35sqm.

Five two meters tall and bulky,50kg each, electrostatic speakers are more than I could fit comfortably without removing the fireplace and blocking my splendid lakeview main window of my room.

And frankly puristically ,Blumlein or Decca tree simply mic´d stereo can sound very realistic too, with great depth huge lifelike soundstage and very low distortions.

My 900 watts per channel amp into my electrostatic speakers are capable of SQ easily beating any midfi boombox mch system of which I have heard too many to even be bothered.

Although I care a lot about spatial accuracy,my main concern with HIFI is to recreate the timbre and tonality of acoustic instruments playing in a real hall with as low distortion as possible.

In that respect I have to say that in spite of their dryness in stereo, both Tchaikovsky and Beethoven RR are very realistic via my present system.

Back on topic regarding Tom´s DSD 256 recordings, I sure hope there will be a stereo version of them as well. According to at least one other person in your link it sounds excellent that way too.

There is no reason it shouldn´t.

And as far as I know there will also be a binaural version of Mahler´s 7th in DSD 256.

Regarding Mahler´s 3rd I really don´t need yet another version of it as such.

I already own Solti´s 60s still good for its age DECCA/LSO LPs set and on SACD both the Telarc and the Chailly DECCA sets.

So if Mahler´s 3rd would only be released for download in its DSD 64 format, I would skip it.

But when and if it becomes available in Tom´s simply mic´d verson both stereo and mch ,I will buy it asap.

If simple miking could work such still amazing wonders in the late 50s and early 60s, I see no logical reason why it wouldn´t do so today too.

 

Cheers Chris just about to listen to a contemporary symphonic giant´s symphonies 4 and 5 recorded with a DECCA tree main pickup, in stereo.

[Kal Rubinson]

But in my case and I suppose many others here I am pretty heavily invested in stereo.

You are with the vast majority.

 

Back on topic regarding Tom´s DSD 256 recordings, I sure hope there will be a stereo version of them as well......According to at least one other person in your link it sounds excellent that way too.......There is no reason it shouldn´t.

I doubt it: "It remains to be seen what Jared decides to do with this surround optimized version, which Channel Classics owns. His original thinking was to do a rough edit, to at least preserve the conductors artistic wishes, and offer it as a download. It is special sounding, primarily due to the DPA4041SP mics and their closer placement to the orchestra. It works in surround due to the spaciousness cues that the five channels present, enhancing the depth of the orchestra, rather than being hindered by it when collapsed to stereo."

[chrille]

You are with the vast majority.

 

I doubt it: "It remains to be seen what Jared decides to do with this surround optimized version, which Channel Classics owns. His original thinking was to do a rough edit, to at least preserve the conductors artistic wishes, and offer it as a download. It is special sounding, primarily due to the DPA4041SP mics and their closer placement to the orchestra. It works in surround due to the spaciousness cues that the five channels present, enhancing the depth of the orchestra, rather than being hindered by it when collapsed to stereo."

 

Unfortunately I suspect you are right.

In spite of the fact that even Jared has said that MCH is just "the icing on the cake".

But I hope he doesn´t ditch the mch DSD 256 version at least. And I think it unwise to ditch either.

I would listen to the "vast majority" as you put it above, when I stated my stand and reasons for not gong mch yet.

And in my experience stereo can sound excellent too with good depth and width and very truthful realistic timbre and tonality.

It would be interesting to know the ratio of albums downloaded in stereo versus mch from native DSD.com.

I have lots of albums with such realistic 3D sound in plain stereo that I sometimes even think who needs mch when stereo via speakers can sound this realistic.

All one needs to confirm how good simple mic´d stereo can sound is to listen to virtually any of the LIVING STEREOS on LP or SACD to realize once and for all that it can sound superb indeed.

Or any of the late 50s or early 60s EMI Blumlein LPs.

Thin and lacking in dynamic range compared to the best of today´s digital, but soundstage-wise still amazing!

Plenty of real depth,width and clarity too.

I have been trying to figure out why for example the RR Tchaikovsky 6 has less air and spatial information in plain stereo than even the 1955 LIVING STEREO SACD!

Timbrally and tonally and low distortion wise and dynamically, the most recent RRs are basically SOTA.

But too dry and lacking in depth in plain stereo. My guess comparing them to both historic two mics recordings and some contemporary live recordings that DO NOT sound as dry over-damped and flat via my system at least is that it seems with the RRs they have put all the mics both the main stereo mics and judging from concert photos in the booklets ,INSIDE the stage box /platform of the Pittsburgh hall.

If those photos are indicative of how the orchestra was mic´d,no wonder both Tchaikovsky and Beethoven sound a bit too dry close up and lacking in air compared to many classic DECCA TREE or Blumlein or more importantly the ongoing series of live recordings from the Boston Symphony,where again judging from the concert photos included in the booklets indicate a main pair and spot mics above and slightly BEHIND the conductor instead of inside the "platform box".

The RR photos reveal A LOT OF SPOTMICS inside the box and VERY CLOSE too some instruments.

Looking at the spotmics used for Dusk to Dust, some mics are pointing right into the instruments at less than a metre!

Again,no wonder that the result becomes a bit synthetic via a resolving system.

The audible patches in the fabric become disturbing. I want it all stitch free.

The three BSO LIVE titles Shostakovch´s 5,8,9,and 10 symphonies and Sibelius´2nd sound MUCH more open and with better spatial cues and depth than any of the timbrally true, but muffled over-damped and dryish RR´s do in stereo. And the BSO LIVE are only 24/96.

Not SOTA DSD 256 or DXD.

Sometimes I even suspect that maybe Rob Watts has got a point when he says that DSD sounds flat compared to PCM in stereo.

Then again raw DSD 64 or straight transfers to DSD64 as the LIVING STEREOS show no lack of depth on my system.

I am not religiously bound to any of the two.

 

My current take is that , sensible ,not overkill spotmiking or too close miking, matters MUCH MORE for the final result than recording format imo.

Keeping it simple and lettting the conductor decide the balance of the orchestra in the hall.

The less interference,the fewer mics,the better imho.

If it could be done that way with excellent results already in 1955 why not today?

 

Meanwhile I am looking forward to the binaural DSD 256 Mahler 7.

[bmoura]

Unfortunately I suspect you are right.

In spite of the fact that even Jared has said that MCH is just "the icing on the cake".

But I hope he doesn´t ditch the mch DSD 256 version at least. And I think it unwise to ditch either.

 

Speaking of Tom Caulfield's work in DSD 256 Surround, be sure to check out the new Yarlung Multichannel DSD 256 recording of the music of James Matheson. New this week.

 

http://yarlungrecords.nativedsd.com/albums/YAR25670DSD-james-matheson