I prefer a little bit less 'gynecologic' sound; capturing room ambience, a wider (and maybe less laser-like) imaging projection, and not so much fine detail (I prefer to see the whole face and not just magnified pores, so to speak.)

There still seem to be pretty darn good recordings showing up, but what you mention was the topoic of conversation at CES one night as we were quaffing and solving the world's problems...

As to why a change may have been afoot...

This initially seemed to happen with CD, too. I can recall my first CD demo and could not believe how well it seemed to capture all the stuff I did NOT really want to hear. Maybe there is an arc we are still seeing play out - people are recording such detail because they can.

I also wonder if classical recordings are being mic'd differently, with two channel being more of an after-thought, with the mixes not favoring 2.0 systems. (Pure conjecture and conversation.)

In other genres, who knows, the compression can be such that hall ambience cues are lost to 'loudness.'

Maybe it's an audiophile thing - those who buy these recordings are prone to like a more clinical presentation?

Maybe the recordings are the same, but our systems are becoming overly analytical?

Looking forward to this thread!

Quote:
I also wonder if classical recordings are being mic'd differently, with two channel being more of an after-thought, with the mixes not favoring 2.0 systems. (Pure conjecture and conversation.)

Mebbe. I have not noticed this trend with multichannel classical releases.

Kal

I have to admit that I haven't noticed the trend you describe, in fact most of the recent recordings I've enjoyed that spring to mind fall somewhere on the other end of the continuum from nicely balanced (don't even think about it) to noticably 'wet'. That said, much of what I have been listening to recently happens to have been on labels like Hyperion, ECM, HM & JT, all of which enjoy quite strong reputations for the quality of their recordings.

However I have noticed this effect on a number of digital remasterings of analog recordings. Unfortunately I don't have LPs of the specific discs where I noticed this, so it is difficult to say whether it is a characteristic of the original release (and therefore likely of the original mix) or whether it is a result of the digital remastering, or possibly even an artefact of some attendant noise reduction.

I noticed this most recently on the Argerich Bach disc (1979 recording, ADD CD). The acoustic is so dry as to have an almost parched 'sun bleached' feel. This is quite exciting intially, but like most forms of spotlit detail tends to become fatiguing after a while. Is it just the way this was mixed or is it a result of the digital remastering or the 'Original-Image Bit-Processing'? (Gotta love DG's innovative interpretation of English hyphenation rules!)

Anyone out there with the LP who can comment?

Quote:
I have to admit that I haven't noticed the trend you describe, in fact most of the recent recordings I've enjoyed that spring to mind fall somewhere on the other end of the continuum from nicely balanced (don't even think about it) to noticably 'wet'. That said, much of what I have been listening to recently happens to have been on labels like Hyperion, ECM, HM & JT, all of which enjoy quite strong reputations for the quality of their recordings.

However I have noticed this effect on a number of digital remasterings of analog recordings. Unfortunately I don't have LPs of the specific discs where I noticed this, so it is difficult to say whether it is a characteristic of the original release (and therefore likely of the original mix) or whether it is a result of the digital remastering, or possibly even an artefact of some attendant noise reduction.

I noticed this most recently on the Argerich Bach disc (1979 recording, ADD CD). The acoustic is so dry as to have an almost parched 'sun bleached' feel. This is quite exciting intially, but like most forms of spotlit detail tends to become fatiguing after a while. Is it just the way this was mixed or is it a result of the digital remastering or the 'Original-Image Bit-Processing'? (Gotta love DG's innovative interpretation of English hyphenation rules!)

Anyone out there with the LP who can comment?

Excellent points!

I think we are having overlapping experiences.

Quote:
I also wonder if classical recordings are being mic'd differently, with two channel being more of an after-thought, with the mixes not favoring 2.0 systems. (Pure conjecture and conversation.)

If this is a trend - and I am not sure it is from my own recent classical purchases - it might be because the optimal miking for a 2-channel recording will be too wet/reverberant if those two channels are used for the front L and R in surround. Conversely, if the two-channel mix comprises the front L and R channels of an optimally miked 5-channel recording, it will be too dry.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Maybe the recordings are the same, but our systems are becoming overly analytical?

I don

It just might be the case, rgibran. After changing speakers recently, my classical CD's sound dryer than they did before, which I tend to think derive from a costlier tweeter, and to a smaller degree a better woofer and crossover too. There could be a number of reasons, and some of them may never be clear to us. But what the heck, personally I enjoy it.

Quote:
Have others noticed the current trend in classical ensemble recording is to capture a drier, more close-up sound?

Could you give some examples?

I think that more classical recordings on Cds SACDs, etc. are made in live concerts now. Cheaper.

it is my sense that such concert recordings are of better quality than live recordings were in the past. Close up mike location probably helps minimize audience noise.

Bill

Quote:

I have been thinking about trying to come up with specific examples after I posted. I would need to go back and review my last year or so purchases to do so and I am not sure it would help as there are always outliers (very wet and very dry) and I just have an impression, nothing objective.

Some recent recordings that I've found unpleasantly airless are the Mieczyslaw Weinberg String Quartet series by the Danel Quartet on CPO. I usually like CPO recordings, and they tend to be "wet", but not here. Great music, though.

Quote:
It just might be the case, rgibran. After changing speakers recently, my classical CD's sound dryer than they did before, which I tend to think derive from a costlier tweeter, and to a smaller degree a better woofer and crossover too. There could be a number of reasons, and some of them may never be clear to us. But what the heck, personally I enjoy it.

You changed cables as well!

Those good for nothins may have done one thing that far outweighs the numerous good things the new cables do?

it is definitely a bad trend. Has been happening for a few years now. Less of the Living Stereo Warmth and Hall Sound, more of the Telarc Sterility, classical recordings leaning more toward the pop/studio sensibility, loudness wars trickling down from the secular realm... Extremely anemic signal chains(the token millennia/dpa/prism Trifecta of stale) coupled with overly zealous editing(one classical engineering hotshot friend of mine bragging about doing over 150 edits in a single piano movement)

tubes and transformers taken out... blech

I had them(4006 trio and 4003 high voltage)

but I do not care for them when compared to say, Schoeps or my reference, the Gefell mk221s with Josephson c617 bodies

Quote:
Telarc Sterility

Which are the sterile Telarc recordings? I think many of their recordings from Cincinatti -- Dukas, Turina, Bruckner 6 & 7, Mahler 3 -- have been wonderful.

eh...anything after jack renner left telarc.

Micheal Bishop...his work does nothing for me.

Bishop always talks about some new equipment he has..he seems to always have the "latest and greatest" .. but, I just dont like his work at all. Jack Renner was a much better engineer, in my opinion. Telarc's sound quality went way downhill after he left. but yeah, Bishop uses nice stuff...typical mics(dpa senn mkh 8XXX, schoeps, millennia, sonoma workstation, blah blah..all that gear wasted on that sound. )

I forgot to mention that Micheal Bishop is no longer with Telarc, but has his own production company, five four...so I cant blame him for telarcs sound any more...(I stopped buying telarc records after about the 12th Micheal Bishop produced sonic letdown arrived on my doorstep)

http://www.recording.pro/

http://www.recording.pro/about/equipment

the AEA is pretty nice, although ive never needed a "ribbon" preamp. My normal pres(DAV, Pendulum, Electronaut, ADL 600) always pushed the coles 4040s and beyers 160/130 with ease.

Quote:

Buddha mentioned that the topic was recently discussed at one of the conventions. I would love to know what came up during this discussion.

Interestingly, Telarc's name figured prominently.

I cannot recall specific recordings, but people were mentioning certain Telarc periods - based on the machinery more than the person, as I recall.

One person said this new 'clinical' phenomenon went all the way back to the DG recordings as of the late 70's...so I have gone back through many of my LP's from that era and perhaps he was right. There did seem to be a trend toward "coolness" in some of those. I wouldn't have thought to call it a trend, and would have put it down to 'recording to recording variation,' myself. I still like them...and I am not sure if I would have ever found this 'problem' with them without the idea being planted in my head.

Going way over my head, someone else mentioned the Academy of St Martin in the Fields and thought that their work was an example of recording for individual detail vs. 'wholistic' sound. I have no idea if this is apt and claim no personal insight on that part of the discussion!

In general, I listened to people name examples of the trend; with the idea that there is a trend itself being non-controversial.

One recording that I recall specifically was Dorati's "The Miraculous Mandarin" on Decca.

This is the cover:

I have this disc and always thought that I just didn't dig the piece. This thread has reminded me to back and give it another listen to see if I can hear what people were saying. This was a highly regarded recording back in the day - perhaps even a Stereophile "Recording of the Month?"

I haven't played it in so long, I can't say if I agree but I will dig it out next time I am in Las Vegas and report back.

Just grab the DAV BG two pack...Mick can add extra gain.

Cheap and sounds fantastic.

Quote:

One recording that I recall specifically was Dorati's "The Miraculous Mandarin" on Decca.

This is the cover:

I have this disc and always thought that I just didn't dig the piece. This thread has reminded me to back and give it another listen to see if I can hear what people were saying. This was a highly regarded recording back in the day - perhaps even a Stereophile "Recording of the Month?"

I haven't played it in so long, I can't say if I agree but I will dig it out next time I am in Las Vegas and report back.

I have not played it in quite a while either but this has always been one of my favorite recordings of TMM. Outstanding detail as well as very good soundstaging and integration, from memory.

Kal

Quote:

Quote:
Just grab the DAV BG two pack...Mick can add extra gain.

Cheap and sounds fantastic.

I have heard many wonderful things about D.A.V. It hadn't occurred to me just to give him a call and ask what he can do. <head slap>

Excellent thinking and I would still have phantom available when I want it.

Thanks!

Yep. Mick is a veritable one-stop shop..he can do anything, I mean **anything** when it comes to audio electronics.

I was on the preamp merry go round(millennia, dacs, lavry, GML, Grace, neve, api, blah blah) before discovering DAV, which I then augmented with Pendulum. a combo to die for..

mick@davelectronics.com

davelectronics@tiscali.co.uk