Piau and Manoff's recital mixes songs in German, French, and English that, in some manner, address either the mythological creature, The Chimera, or the dreams and illusions around which aspects of our lives—sometimes our entire lives—revolve. Quoting classic lines from Joni Mitchell's "Both Sides, Now,"—It's life's illusions I recall / I really don't know life at all," Manoff writes, in the hardbound, superbly presented CD package that includes numerous color replications of historic representations of the Chimera,
The chimera is perhaps a portal opening onto a dialogue with our demons, the ages of our lives, the coming and going, the understanding and not understanding at all.
While mixing mythological representations with amorphous concepts may seem a mystifying rationale for a recital program, there's no question about the level of the duo's artistry. One listen to Piau's absolutely exquisite rendition of Carl Loewe's "Ach neige, du Schmerzenreiche," which opens the program, will convince you of the soprano's impeccable phrasing, subtlety of nuance, and ability to convey the deepest of emotions while retaining the refined beauty of her vocal production. Here and throughout the recital, Piau's high notes are islands of beauty of savor over and over. Manoff, who never calls attention to herself, plays as one, breathing with Piau's every slight change of dynamics or tempo.
Some of the recording's 23 tracks, including Debussy's three Fètes Galantes, I, Robert Schumann's "Die Lotosblume" from Myrthen, and Poulenc's five Banalités, will be relatively familiar to lovers of art song. Even if you don't know the entire Banalités, it is likely you've heard its "Hôtel," which ends with that most banal of carcinogenic lines by Apollinaire, which translate as "I don't want to work, I want to smoke."
Most ear-opening will be four settings of poems by Emily Dickinson: Robert Baksa's "Heart! we will forget him" and André Previn's Three Dickinson Songs. While I first heard the latter on the premiere recording on which Previn accompanies Renée Fleming, for whom he wrote them, I must confess that it is Piau and Manoff who have first led me into their beauty. In addition, at the risk of possibly being slaughtered by legions of Fleming followers—if there's such a thing as reviewer's insurance, I had better sign up before this review is published—it is Piau's high notes that soar with greater freedom and beauty.
Everyone will have their favorites, of course. As beautifully as Piau performs Fètes Galantes, I'd never wish to be without renditions by Dame Maggie Teyte (who coached with Debussy), Elly Ameling, Frederica von Stade, Karina Gauvin, and a host of other greats. No one can match Teyte's incomparable freedom of tempo in these songs, let alone convey the inherent sadness and mystery in her voice—qualities that are intensified by her unique use of downward portamento and hollow lower range.
Taken as a whole, however, this is a treasurable recital. The selections may not be as accessible as Arleen Auger's choices on her Love Songs recital with Dalton Baldwin—do not miss their rendition of Copland's setting of "Heart, We Will Forget Him"—but their refinement, and the refinement of their interpretations, will appeal to discriminating listeners. As with Jamie Barton's All I Wander recital, which recently won a BBC Music Magazine award, this recital deserves a place on every vocal lover's "best of" shelf.
This official clip intersperses interviews in French with exquisite singing.
COMMENTS
You got me clicking away with that kind of Bait declaration, I gotta hear this !
Nice to have some French stuff sitting around.
I won't be trowing any of this "out the widow" either.
It helps that they are using some very nice microphones.
Thanks
Tony in Michigan
Lucky you, having such amazing hearing. The Boston Audio Society (xiph.org) concluded with controlled tests that humans cannot hear the difference between the Red Book that you disdain above and these so-called 'hi-rez' files, given the same original source material.
The problem is that "controlled tests" cannot discern very subtle sounds, for several reasons. Just one reason is because of where and how the tests are conducted, when the subjects are not fully relaxed. Here is a link that explains in more detail why so-called blind tests can't find the near-subliminal differences:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-143#LSVE1iTpzKwhMaq2.97
Has anyone except perhaps Tony even bothered to listen to the music?
This recording is exquisite. The first track alone will cause many a lieder lover to hold their breath because the emotion, and the way the voice is used in service of the music, are so astounding. I hope, once the smoke clears, that you can find the time to turn everything else off and just take a listen.
jason
This is interesting. There are moments when I think I'm hearing Maggie Teyte on a 2018 recording.
I played Teyte for the publicist of Seattle Symphony yesterday, and then played the first track from this recording in the evening. I find their voices very different. But there's no finer compliment to a soprano than to say that she reminds you of Teyte.
I didn't pick up any of that when I listened to the samples, but after playing a couple of songs from the album, I thought of Teyte, so I listened to her for a little bit. I wasn't thinking of any particular similarities, one reason being that I'm not extremely familiar with her work. Still, there was something - like Piau was channeling Teyte in a small way. As a long time participant in Whole Life Expos, we relate to things like that.
Edit (2nd play): It was the Poulenc where I first made the association.
I am listening now and it is indeed a treasure ! Thank you. Discovering new music is always such a joy ( you may want to also add to your footnote that Europeans can also stream it at 24/96 as I am now, and/or purchase on Qobuz )
Regards
I am streaming Chimere now - all elegance ebullient spirit and sincerity - beautiful and tender and . . .
you are my favorite music writer !
As expected, the soundstage is wider, and the colors more saturated.
USPS is a little slower than Qobuz.
Hopefully, in this lifetime.
The Boston Audio Society (xiph.org) concluded with controlled tests that humans cannot hear the difference between the Red Book that you disdain above and these so-called 'hi-rez' files, given the same original source material.
First note that a formal test cannot "prove" a negative, only show that under the circumstances of the test, no difference could be detected. And if you are referring to the Meyer-Moran test, both the test's circumstances and the analysis of the results appeared to be inadequate.
See my essay on this and related subjects at www.stereophile.com/content/simple-everything-appears-simple.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
John, one of the interesting things about that slide, and I don't know if this is statistically significant or not, but the younger group and non-audiophiles were biased to choose incorrectly (worse than coin flipping). I wonder if this is a function of recognizing what they typically consume.
can YOU hear the difference between Red Book and hi-rez? That is what counts.
hr
I CAN hear the difference between poor MP3 and 16/44.1. Having said that some so-called lo-rez stuff can sound great; I'm listening to Soma FM right now through a Jitterbug/Dragonfly combo from the PC and sent to some dinky little Ruark desktops. Sounds bloomin' marvellous!
Oh, and I have to live with low-level tinnitus singing in my 61 year-old ears....dang.
Of course we have accurate methods and instruments to carefully evaluate Sound Quality, it's why we are spending our time here with kindred souls.
Tony in Michigan
ps. those with Gear from Best Buy will always have a hard time evaluating.
"We are Family" .......... Sister Sledge :-) ...........
Given how fractured and disfunctional families are today, not a good recommendation.
Ok ........ Stay "United" ........ by Brian Tyler :-) ..........
about "rarely" reviewing Red Book quality recordings because hi-rez audio is so much fuller and natural may set this up for some debate about the topic and take the focus off of the main purpose of the article.
kind of implies that Red Book quality recordings are somehow "not worthy", which IMHO is ridiculous.
I agree that the differences are subtle such that actual clinical standard experiments and testing would show little (if any) significant preference among the formats.
Since I own and enjoy a good selection of single rate and double rate DSD files, I do hear a difference and if given the choice would prefer that format.
However, the quality of the recording and mastering greatly eclipses the gains found between Red Book and DSD, IMHO. A well recorder, well mastered Red Book recording will alway sound better than an average or sub-optimal recording in DSD format.
There are just too many quality, incredibly sounding recordings in the Red Book format to be so dismissive about it.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Hi-Five :-) ............
"kind of implies that Red Book quality recordings are somehow "not worthy", which IMHO is ridiculous" is obviously a false inference, given the fact that I have reviewed this CD. My shelves are filled with CDs. I also use CDs and 16/44.1files to evaluate equipment and reference them in my reviews.
Having said that, In my experience, in the digital realm, hi-rez delivers a more complete and satisfying musical experience. (Note that this recording is available in hi-rez in Europe.) Nor do I find the differences subtle, at least on my reference system. Hence, I attempt to review hi-rez most of the time. It's really that simple.
Once again, I hope that people take the time to listen to this recording. It is very, very special.
jason
Yes, about a better recording and/or mastering usually being more important than the difference between 44.1 and higher resolution. The tricky part is to make sure when a CD-quality and high-res version are available at the same time, that if you're inclined to just one of those, that what you get is from the same or better master.
..that for reasons unknown “hi-res” editions generally tend to sound "better" – though I know for sure that under certain conditions ANYTHING can sound "better"
Higher sampling rate = smoother reconstructed sound wave that is closer to analog = more lifelike reproduction.
Higher bit rate = more room for timbral information = greater sonic accuracy and more lifelike reproduction.
Loving classical music, and being discriminating in one's taste, is not the same as being elitist.
Now, to repeat Herb's question. Can you, Graham, hear the difference between redbook and hi-rez?
I'd also love to learn what equipment you use.
I’m inclined to believe that the main reason for any claimed “hi-res” superiority is that almost all current red book editions are downscaled versions of the original PCM or DSD; properly recorded and mastered genuine 16/44.1 files can sound as colorful and spacious as it gets.
So, a new generation of "direct to Redbook", in the same way we had "direct to disc (LP)" in the 1970's? Could that actually work?
Edit: Giving this more thought, about the reduction of a 24/176/192 master to 16/44 for CD, an analogy came to mind - reduction of a photographic image from, say, 36 mp to 12 mp. A smart photo enlarger program will do smart reduction as well as enlarging. A dumb program could simply take every third pixel from the 36 mp image and save it to the smaller file, but those might not be the best pixels. The question I asked myself is, would a 12 mp original image be as good (everything else being equal) as a 36 mp image smart-reduced to 12 mp? My experience says no, and so I wonder if a 16/44 file reduced from a 24/176/192 master might not have greater potential than a file where all but the 44 khz data is discarded right at recording time?
Interesting points ......... A MQA-CD could be (may be) the answer? ........... HDCD probably did similar thing, may be? .........
Stumbling around in the dark is never a good answer. The CD is 36 years old. Technology has evolved by leaps and bounds since 1982. Computer processers were single core running at 4.7 mhz then, and today we have multi-core processors at a thousand times faster clock speed, with throughput 5-10 thousand times faster. Hard disks were $1000 per megabyte then - they're 0.004 cents per megabyte today, so you get about 27 million times more memory for the dollar. In 1982 the CD was "just good enough", or to be generous, "slightly more than just good enough". Why would anyone want to be held back by such a primitive standard?
True ...... The reason why I was saying MQA-CD is because, it can be played on millions of already existing CD players ....... That was the idea behind HDCD also ......... To be commercially successful, MQA-CDs should be priced around $10 to $15, for the general public ........... Audiophiles are still buying hybrid SACDs at higher cost ........
To add to the above, 10 years from now, nobody is gonna buy anything ............. We will all be streaming ............
Where have you been getting your education? Who exactly promised you that the streaming services that let you play the SAME THING two or three times would only charge you once?
Who promised you that your internet would function 100 percent perfectly day and night without interruption?
Who promised you that ALL of your favorite music would be online at your fingertips ALL of the time?
Who promised you that those tracks you have with murky copyrights would nevertheless be fully supported by your streaming host?
I'm tired of the BS excuses. Cite your sources for this Nirvana of music service.
Things may change 10 years from now ........ 5G (wireless) is on it's way, for example ...........
Who cares if things change? Streaming at its core (from the investor point of view, which is where money talks and BS walks) is not much different from Student Loan Debt that prevents students who are economically disadvantaged from getting ahead. Or debt-laden 3rd world countries from achieving democratic parity. Streaming is about putting people on a system where they continuously pay to hear what they previously used to own.
The old way, the honest way, was to upgrade the hardware and the sampling and then sell people really improved systems. With streaming, the incentive to give the public anything better will disappear. Oh sure, the big Telcos and IPs will promise you "fibre optic" or carbon nanotubes and all sorts of new things that you don't need, but what you won't get (*ever*) is fully reliable service. And the incentive to improve the quality of the music will take a backseat, or be scuttled entirely.
I despise my telco and IP, as do most people judging by their ubiquitous one-star reviews. Why would I want those companies handling my music? Oh I see - the music would be "handled" by good people and it would only be "filtered" through the IPs and telcos. Uh-huh. Ever hear of buyouts, consolidations, monopolies?
Qobuz is already streaming in 24/96 in Europe ........ Qobuz says it is coming soon (in 2018) to America .........
Do you have a point, or are you just arguing ad nauseam?
Yes, all sorts of businesses sell all sorts of vaporous things. So what?
Like they say ......... Let us wait and see, what happens :-) ..............
"Let us wait and see, what happen"
A reminder for those who forget history - bad things happen when good people stand by and wait to see what happens.
"Millions of already existing CD players"
Would that be analogous to "Millions of already existing floppy drives"?
Or "Millions of already existing PCMCIA slots on laptops"?
Or "Millions of already existing horses to pull buggies"?
The point is to just let go....
..audio is mostly about time; improper sampling of the original samples is a malicious form of irremovable "jitter"
"Improper sampling" implies that there is also "Proper sampling". But "proper sampling" has to be defined by existing standards. The thing is, if we were creating CDs for the first time in 2018 with our current technology, nobody in their right mind would suggest 16/44 sampling.
Saying "in their right mind" might seem inflammatory, but I doubt that more than 1.5 percent of audiophiles would support kicking off digital CDs for the first time with 16/44 sampling. So while there may be justification for 16/44 through technical argumentation, the truth is that people make excuses for it just to avoid change.
I'd suggest that we set aside for the moment the abundance of 16/44 recordings and gear to play those recordings, and imagine that we're beginning CD production with 2018 technology, and how much energy we would like to expend to convince everyone involved that 16/44 sampling is all we need. I think most reasonable people would not be willing to swim up that stream.
True .......... Modern DAWs can do 32bit floating point, for recordings ...............
we’ve been fortunate enough that digital audio encoding kicked in (and consequently evolved) at a time when high fidelity still appealed to the masses. Had it initially appeared nowadays I fear that mp3-something would be the original format for all intents and purposes..
There are different recording companies and engineers. I see much of the pop music being automated, but there is still a significant audience for the real thing. Just look at the support for large symphony orchestras.
The automation people and their customers would indeed be fine with MP3, but the rest of us would not.
The good news is (great news in fact) that the wide proliferation of quality digital recording gear and distribution means that regardless of the existence of the schlock industry, we would have our own hi-fi industry with little interference from the automators. The pressures would be there certainly, but the pressures against more-or-less independent digital creators would be far less than the pressures to reduce or eliminate symphonies due to cost considerations.
"Stressed Out" ......... Twenty One Pilots :-) ..........
Miss those good old days :-) ...........
Bob Dylan: "I've been ten thousand miles in the mouth of the graveyard."
Bryan Ferry: "I've been ten thousand miles in the mother of graveyard."
"Gravy (For My Mashed Potatoes)" ......... Dee Dee Sharp :-) ..............
Also, "The Times They Are A-Changin' " ..........Bob Dylan :-) ............
I have rather sat on the fence on this one as I have to live with tinnitus and I have just shuffled north of 60 years of age. I am reluctant to plunge in to the hi-rez world as I have perhaps read too much about and remain unconvinced. My equipment is appropriately rather humble at present; Shure 1840s, Ety ER4s and both Dragonfly Red and Black. Nearly all my classical library is encoded in ALAC format; either ripped from CD or purchased online as FLAC (then converted) or ALAC. I am currently looking to buy a desktop headphone amp and the Audiolab M-DAC Mini is at the top of the list. With this or the 'Flies, I could at least sample 24/96 but would I be able to hear the difference...? Bah, humbug!
I wish I could give you a definitive answer. Not being in your head, however, I cannot.
Where do you live? Do you have a store nearby, or audiophile friend, or audiophile society, or audio show that you can visit where you can compare redbook with hi-rez (and hi-rez MQA)? I've got a Dragonfly Red, and it plus a good pair of headphones can pass a fair amount of information.
I live in the most isolated city in the world - Perth, Western Australia!
There is a branch of Addicted To Audio (big Aussie hi-fi retailer) round the corner so I could always pop in there. Thanks for the suggestion. I'm rather worried that I WILL hear a difference and that I'll have to start buying all my favourite music in a higher resolution and an app to run it from my iDevices or PC. It's easy to see how 'audiophiles' get hooked...
You can always get a subscription to either Tidal (hi-rez in MQA) or Qobuz (hi-rez in PCM) and stream to your hearts content. That is the least expensive way to go.
If you ever get to the Pacific Northwest, I would be happy to ruin you by playing music on my reference system. I cannot be held responsible for the consequences, however.
I really appreciate that you've responded, and have been honest about your situation. You're in a very different place than the skeptics who seem to hang on their computers, waiting to pounce on any positive statement about cables or MQA.
You can always email me through our letters address. You can also find me on Facebook. If you message me, I'll send my email address. I'd love to keep track of your journey into hi-rez.
jason
and based on my experience one can easily hear that natural easy-going sound of hi-res PCM files on decent budget gear as well – in fact even more so than on many a top-end system which more often than not tend to render everything larger than life. Genuine DSD files on the other hand (a real rarity to be sure for technical reasons much like genuine 16/44.1) are the closest ever digital came to pure analog – but definitely not my cup of tea for all that’s worth. My hearing is still intact for the time being but with poor prognosis since I switched from neighbour unfriendly hi-end rigs to "be played at maximum volume" late night headphone sessions.
Since this review will soon disappear from the home page, I'd better respond now. I fully sympathize with and understand the statement, "many a top-end system which more often than not tend to render everything larger than life." The is one of the reasons why, in my reviews as well as in the speaker reviews that we publish, we often comment about proportion.
As someone who attends live performance, I'm very aware of what instruments tend to stand out and loom large, and which ones are more recessed. I'm equally conscious of the proportions and balance between them. Similarly, I'm aware of the left hand and right hand on the piano, and which notes should be dominant musically at any given time.
With that awareness, I'm able to judge which speakers and electronics get it "right" - even which sound engineers get it right - and which make a mess of proportion. I think this is much easier to do when you use live acoustic music as your reference. The recording review I'm about to write for the October or November issue of Stereophile will discuss balance of voices and instruments in the context of recordings of Berio's Sinfonia.
" Streaming is about putting people on a system where they continuously pay to hear what they previously used to own "
Um ...no, there is a bit more to it than that . I have never heard of or owned any Sandrine Piau before I read Jason's review . After reading his review , after a few clicks with my fingers, I was listening in glorious 24/96 . Another click, then I was reading the full colourful booklet with all the wonderful illustrations on my ipad while listening late into the night . Then today ...another click ....purchase ! So now I have it on my drive , just incase the internet disappears or Qobuz's cave of servers explode :) Up until about a year ago I was anti-streaming but then I gave it a try and I am hooked . In fact I do not think I have had so much fun in my audio/music life . To be able to read reviews like Jasons and make a few clicks and then be able to hear it AND purchase it is fun and joy X10000 ! I can honestly say I have discovered more new music that I now love in the past year than I have in my whole life and now I pay for 3 different services ( Tidal/Qobuz/Spot ) as each have their strengths..... and yes I still purchase things I really like , either digitaly or physicaly , even on vinyl sometimes ;) I do not think music lovers have ever had it better ... more choice is good . I just thought I would say this as I get the impression you are against streaming , I would try it ... I really think you would have fun . Ok , there are 35 other Sandrine Piau albums I have never heard at my finger tips that I look very forward to digging into now .... this should take a few weeks !
Regards
I'm not against streaming any more than audiophiles would be in favor of returning to DRM. But streaming has the potential** for DRM, as much as the much-feared MQA has the potential for DRM.
For me the greatest music service, albeit it did NOT provide downloadable high-res tracks, was the original Napster. Why? Because it provided something far more important than streaming or mere downloads. It allowed me to search for a particular artist and title, and then would show me a list of persons who had that track. From there, I could click on each user and see their collection and sample it.
You have to understand what that means - I could find people directly who liked what I like, and find new music vastly more efficiently than any commercial music service. No other service could ever compete with that. Connecting to music lovers' collections directly instead of connecting to a machine - it could have been done in a way that did not allow illegal file sharing, but for some reason it wasn't done.
**The potential for DRM lies in the fact that you would never know if the tracks at the streaming host are DRM'd or not. At least not until you attempt to download one, convert it, copy it etc. And it seems very likely to happen when we near the point that actual downloads fade away.
Never minding the issues I just described, if I devote a modest amount of time to reading music reviews by reviewers I trust, then I can find an occasional album I will enjoy that way. But I will never be able to connect emotionally to those reviewers as I have with a number of Napster users circa 1999-2001. The interface to Napster wasn't to reviewers, it was directly to people and their music that I related to - like sharing music with friends and neighbors, but thousands of them.
I don't mention this Napster "stuff" to bore you or to pine for that which has been lost. I mention this to explain how small is the benefit I get from the best reviews, or conversely how much time would be wasted with me browsing through a huge library of music on a machine that doesn't connect to my soul in recommending new music that I'd *really* like. For you see, I cannot predict what I'd really like until I find it by accident, or unless I connect to someone personally who shares a special set of tunes with me. A machine could never do that in a way that minimizes my wasted time. I had access to Tower, Amoeba, Sam the Record Man, etc. etc., but they were little different from the streaming machine.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources |  |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 Stereophile
