|
|
|
Every LSO Live recording I own sounds awful. It is not the halls fault. I have been in Barbican and it is not dry. Multi mike mono? I listen in two channel. Ccomments.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox August 2, 2012 (2 of 57)
|
|
Too much wood, too many baffles and too many near field reflectors from the weird design of the auditorium and restricted stage.
The Barbican Centre is IMO one of the most ugly and ill considered concert halls in the world but always blessed with excellent music making thankfully.
|
|
|
Post by Arnaldo August 2, 2012 (3 of 57)
|
|
ruxtonvet said:
Every LSO Live recording I own sounds awful. It is not the halls fault. I have been in Barbican and it is not dry. Multi mike mono? I listen in two channel. Ccomments.
Regardless of the Barbican's acoustics, a major contributing factor to LSO Live's subpar SQ is Classic Sound's engineering. Similarly, they've managed to sabotage the Mariinsky label, which had started brilliantly with a couple of titles engineered by Soundmirror. My review of Stravinsky: Oedipus Rex, Les Noces - Gergiev contains a fitting definition of every Classic Sound recording I've auditioned:
"... There is no depth whatsoever to the stereo soundstage and the diffuse focus robs the singers of whatever musical impact they might be trying to achieve. It actually sounds like the engineers simply hanged their microphones randomly over the audience and went for a cup of coffee while the performance dragged on..."
As a rule, I try to avoid anything touched by Classic Sound like the plague, opting instead for superb (stereo) recordings engineered by the Soundmirror, Polyhymnia and Exton teams, as well as by the lone-wolf Jared Sacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ruxtonvet said:
Every LSO Live recording I own sounds awful. It is not the halls fault. I have been in Barbican and it is not dry. Multi mike mono? I listen in two channel. Ccomments.
Awful is going a bit far, but I agree that the prolific LSO Live label is a distinct underperformer, typically rating about a C grade compared to many other labels worthy of an A or B. It is a shame, really, because it is a top notch orchestra with some fine conductors, although I increasingly find Gergiev to be overrated.
Most people fault the hall, unlike you. But, there is another major factor. They use the decidedly mediocre Classic Sounds Ltd. engineering team, which might contribute even more to the mediocre sound. I know you listen in stereo, but they also do an inferior job with Mch, eschewing the use of discrete center channel miking.
When you compare the results achieved with the Mariinsky Orchestra by the excellent Sound/Mirror team, inexplicably replaced on that label by Classic Sounds, you are witness to what inferior engineering can do.
I do not like to be disappointed, so, personally, I just do not buy them. Along with the erratic Exton, they are my #1 labels to avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fitzcaraldo215 said:
Along with the erratic Exton, they are my #1 labels to avoid.
Funny. Of the few Exton recordings I own, all have outstanding sound, the best engineering by far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Funny. Of the few Exton recordings I own, all have outstanding sound, the best engineering by far.
Eh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main secret of ClassicSound produced SACDs that they should be played loud or not at all. I do that and they sound wonderful, high volume really affect listening experience in their case, sound really blossoms.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox August 3, 2012 (8 of 57)
|
|
current93 said:
The main secret of ClassicSound produced SACDs that they should be played loud or not at all. I do that and they sound wonderful, high volume really affect listening experience in their case, sound really blossoms.
Absolutely correct. The dynamic range of these recordings is so much greater than most. It depends what people imagine they are looking for and whether they have ever sat in The Barbican.
The reality is that orchestras rarely sound anything other than amorphous in concert unless you happen to be lucky and find a golden seat. Hi fi people invariably want wide sound-staging and precise spatial accuracy whereas faithful instrument timbres are all that really matters to music lovers.
|
|
|
Post by DSD August 3, 2012 (9 of 57)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Funny. Of the few Exton recordings I own, all have outstanding sound, the best engineering by far.
I would say about half of my Exton SACDs have sounded excellent. Especially Respighi: Church Windows etc. - Ashkenazy and Rachmaninov: Complete Symphonies & Orchestral Works - Edo de Waart which are among the best sounding SACDs I've ever heard. The only really bad ones were from Kobayashi, who is a loud grunter and I find it very annoying.
However my favorite SACD companies are Telarc, Chesky, AudioQuest, DMP, FIM, Groove Note, Audio Fidelity, Analogue Productions, MFSL, Channel Classics and PentaTone.
|
|
|
Post by DSD August 3, 2012 (10 of 57)
|
|
ruxtonvet said:
Every LSO Live recording I own sounds awful...
I only bought four LSO Live SACDs but they are among worst sounding SACDs I've ever heard. Being DSD recorded is not enough, everything matters! I sold them and will never go near one again.
|
|
