Post by seth April 27, 2012 (41 of 57)
|
|
wehecht said:
As I've read through the thread I note that posters have singled out a number of discs that I think are perfectly acceptable, and others that I think are actually quite good (the Mozart multi-piano concertos for example). Everyone of us hears something different when we play a given recording. Our playback gear is different and our listening environments are nothing like each other. Some of us listen in stereo, others in mc, some on headphones and others on speakers, and even if we could equalize all of these factors we wouldn't agree on what sounds good. Some of us like a conductor's perspective and others would prefer to hear the piece as if we were seated in the first balcony. The conversation could go on and on and never reach consensus.
I guess what I'm saying is that a thread like this is sort of like an eclair or cream puff: very tasty and alot of fun, but not to be taken seriously because there's no real nutritional value.
This raises an interesting issue.
When the Water Lillies came out I was the lone voice of dissent on a few forums. Some audiophiles scoffed at me, explaining that I needed equipment of a certain high caliber to properly playback these recordings. In other words, my system wasn't expensive enough.
I thought this was a pretty bogus argument. Labels like Channel Classics routinely win praise from listeners with a wide spectrum of playback equipment. A good recordings should sound good relatively to other recordings played on the same system. Same is true with bad recordings. After all, we evaluate recording quality by making comparisons to other recordings.
I would argue that what really changes from listening environment to environment is not the equipment, but the listener. Listeners have different aesthetic tastes when it comes to recorded sound. Some people like bright sounding recordings, some wants tons of bass, some are stereo purists, etc.
But in the case of the Water Lilly disc I cited, I strongly believe it's just garbage :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evil is much more fascinating than good, as this thread again demonstrates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I believe that Seth brings up some very valid points.........after being in audio for as long as I can remember there are so many variables.....why one recording would sound great and another NOT so mellifluous.
Do expensive players and accompanying pricey cables, speakers, amps, etc. reproduce sound better than MUCH less expensive systems...........MOST probably because you can't fool everybody and even people of means have their limitations and know when they're being fooled.
In my long audio journey I have been amazed at how the listening room......height, width and length and quality of construction materials play a massive role in how different sounds are reproduced. One minute I'm luxuriating in aural bliss and the next minute I hear something that just isn't right. Is it my player, is it the disc or is it a combination of ALL of the above.
Water Lilly has enjoyed success for years as an audiophile darling label and although I do have a few of their recordings I will NOT come out and say that they are among my very favorite recordings. They certainly sound wonderful but no better than what I've heard from the major labels on a good day.
I do think room enhancements are a major consideration when designing a listening room and really do wonder why they are probably absent from a vast majority of listening venues. Just plopping down speakers until they render a convincing sound stage is really NOT sufficient as these room enhancements uncannily help to convey a much wider, deeper soundstage and more convincing bass response and those that have overripe treble/midrange responses would be wise to at least investigate the possibility that their systems do need some type of help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pgmdir said:
My most irritaing SACD sound-wise is the Nott M2, which seems to be mostly liked around the Forum. Mahler: Symphony No. 2 - Nott. It's like fingernails on a blackboard to me. The performance is fine, but...
My gosh,
I just got and played that for the first time on Wednesday and I thought it was GREAT!
I wonder if I would hate it if I heard it at your place and vice - versa?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsurfer said:
My gosh,
I just got and played that for the first time on Wednesday and I thought it was GREAT!
I wonder if I would hate it if I heard it at your place and vice - versa?
Ditto......re: the Nott M2
A superb intepretation and the SQ is perfection.
Maybe it's time for some serious room correction devices and/or an upgraded SACD player!
dCs and Playback Designs for EVERYONE! And then we can eliminate a need for this thread because EVERYTHING will sound great..........but the problem is nobody will be able to afford the software because of the expense of paying for the hardware.
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir April 27, 2012 (46 of 57)
|
|
Hey guys, I acknowledge that many think the Nott M2 is great sounding. I only meant to join in the discussion in a light way. It is not my intention to dissuade anyone from getting it.
I judge audio quality in comparison to the thousands of other silver discs I have. I am usually pretty tolerant about sound quality. The issue with the Nott is something I've not encountered before on modern discs. It is like clipping, but I can't imagine that being the case. Doesn't matter. I'll no doubt trade it or sell it.
Didn't mean to cause a fuss over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pgmdir said:
Hey guys, I acknowledge that many think the Nott M2 is great sounding. I only meant to join in the discussion in a light way. It is not my intention to dissuade anyone from getting it.
I judge audio quality in comparison to the thousands of other silver discs I have. I am usually pretty tolerant about sound quality. The issue with the Nott is something I've not encountered before on modern discs. It is like clipping, but I can't imagine that being the case. Doesn't matter. I'll no doubt trade it or sell it.
Didn't mean to cause a fuss over it.
Saying No to NOTT because HE's NOT your cup 'o tea is certainly your perogative.
But the suspicious "clipping" was NOT a fault of the disc or NOTT.........could be your player or a bad disc.
File under: He Loves Me NOTT...or, I've Got Plenty of NOTThing!
The Twisted kNOTTs we weave.........
You were expecting, maybe, the sheriff of NOTTingham?
|
|
|
Post by emaidel April 28, 2012 (48 of 57)
|
|
I have to confess ignorance: how does one refer to a link of a recording, as most of the responders to this thread have? I'm still stuck in the dark ages, referring to discs in the manner that I do.
Insofar as discs sounding different on one system than on another, I have the following observations: over time, I've upgraded my system significantly with various tweaks, each of which has made a difference, and in synergy with one another, have made a very large difference. Afterwards, I take out the duds in my collection and see if now they sound any good.
While all discs sound better, the duds are still duds. And I left one out: Robert Spano's fine performance, but dreadfully recorded "Ein Deutches Requiem" on Telarc. I eagerly anticipated this disc, as its release was repeatedly delayed for "technical" reasons, and because it used a Sanken microphone, capable of recording 100KHZ.
There is absolutely nothing I can do to make this recording sound any good. It's dull, and to quote another poster, sounds as if recorded behind a thick curtain, and overly bass-heavy. That's a real shame too, since it's one of my favorite pieces of music.
|
|
|
Post by steviev April 28, 2012 (49 of 57)
|
|
Carmina Burana, Chandos, Richard Hickox.
Dynamic range is excessive and unrealistic. I must continually ride the gain so that quiet passages have any presence and loud passages won't hurt my ear(s). The disc is flawed in this respect no matter which layer is played.
I recently saw this work in concert and never once had to use my earplug (one of my ears has nerve damage) and also never strained to hear the quieter sections. Chandos should have compressed the dynamics on this recording. I know... heretic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
steviev said:
Carmina Burana, Chandos, Richard Hickox.
Chandos should have compressed the dynamics on this recording. I know... heretic!
I own that and never bothered to listen to it. Now I definitely will !
Thanks, you heretic! :)
|
|
