
post #91 of 944
2/24/05 at 5:04pm
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by LFF
|
|
Originally Posted by mikeg
Any idea when these were recorded? I've found that "reprocessed" old recordings (e.g., the new Living Stereo releases, and the new Mercury releases) mostly have inferior sound. Although these releases have outstanding performances, they lack outstanding sound.
|
| To my knowledge this is the third appearance of Karajan's 1963 Beethoven cycle available domestically on digital disc. |
|
Originally Posted by Bill Ward
[Quoted from the Amazon.com site.]
BW |
|
Originally Posted by mikeg
Thanks. What I'd really prefer are recent/modern high quality recordings, which are preferably available in SACD or DVD-A. Most of what I've seen discussed are performances that were recorded in the 1960's or earlier. Is the sound of these on par with what's recorded using more modern technology?
You may want to look on sites lie sa-cd.net for performances. But there is more to it than recording technology, if the performance isn't good, then all the DSD in the world won't cover that. Scott |
|
Originally Posted by scottder
You may want to look on sites lie sa-cd.net for performances. But there is more to it than recording technology, if the performance isn't good, then all the DSD in the world won't cover that.
Scott |
|
Originally Posted by mikeg
Although I agree about the importance of performance quality, at least for me, sound quality is equally important. I've been disappointed lately with some Living Stereo SACDs, and Mercury Living Presence SACDs, which were promoted as offering audiophile quality sound. Instead, I found the sound to second rate, bloated, and unresolved. I think that some of these great performances, which have been reissued as SACDs, are hyped as having outstanding sound, which they do not.
|
|
Originally Posted by Bunnyears
Well, I have to agree with Scott. Good sound is only the suit of clothes that goes over the body. If the body is deformed and badly shaped, the clothes can only highlight the deficiencies. If the body is well formed and proportioned it will still look great, even in a bad suit.
|
|
Originally Posted by scottder
Well, I wish you luck on that journey, the Living Stereo relreases are from fairly early on in the Stereo era, and recorded on analog equipment. I'm not sure what's available for modern perofrmances on SACD and the like, I think you'll find your selection sadly limited.
Scitt |
|
Originally Posted by mikeg
Do you mean that the best sounding SACDs can only be produced from performances that are recorded on yesteryears' analog equipment? Can't optimal sounding SACDs and DVD-As be produced from contemporary performances, using modern (probably digital) equipment?
|
|
Originally Posted by mikeg
Although I agree about the importance of performance quality, at least for me, sound quality is equally important. I've been disappointed lately with some Living Stereo SACDs, and Mercury Living Presence SACDs, which were promoted as offering audiophile quality sound. Instead, I found the sound to second rate, bloated, and unresolved. I think that some of these great performances, which have been reissued as SACDs, are hyped as having outstanding sound, which they do not.
I don't know - I would have to agree to disagree with you about that. I find that the Mercury Living Presence SACD's are indeed wonderful. I find them to be the exact opposite of what you said. - Just my opinion though. |