[scottder]

I don't own a lot of classical...yet. But I am really enjoying the EMI "Great Recordings of the Century' Haydn/Boccherini CD. Great stuf IMHO

 

[augustwest]

For all around realistic natural sound quality I cast my vote for "Hyperion". With Decca/London as runner up. . . . By the way, I cast my vote for Deutsche Grammophon as the the worst & most inconsistant sound quality.

- augustwest

(another quality label that doesn't seem to be available for voting on is "BIS")

 

[EyEPoD]

I also like a few of my phillips albums (mostly Neville Marriner Mozart pieces)

 

[Calanctus]

I'd say Philips and Harmonia Mundi should both be on the list.

 

[mickelae]

i have a question...if most audiophiles who listen to classical music seem to agree deutsche grammophon produce poor quality albums, why is it that the most respected artists sign with them? if i were a recording artist, i would choose a label that would reproduce my sound most accurately. any thoughts?

 

[KR...]

Quote:

Originally posted by mickelae i have a question...if most audiophiles who listen to classical music seem to agree deutsche grammophon produce poor quality albums, why is it that the most respected artists sign with them? if i were a recording artist, i would choose a label that would reproduce my sound most accurately. any thoughts?

Well, most musicians don't care! Ever notice that most musicians are not audiophiles and in fact have only crappy systems, sometimes just a boom-box! They only care about live music and performing.

 

[adhoc]

a few points to note:

a. deutsche grammophon pays well. this i elucidated from the biography of vladimir horowitz and karajan (actually for the latter a collection of letters).

b. deutsche grammophon is (or was) a large (read: rich) company with artistic vision (read: rare). this too i elucidated from the 2 afore-mentioned biographies too.

c. deutsche grammophon is a company with a huge reputation and hence a huge ready market. connected somewhat to point a.

d. you must remember that most of deutsche grammophon's recordings are old stock (before 1990), hence the use of now-obsolete technology to record probably has affected the sound somewhat. every deutsche grammophon cd i own has recordings older than 1988. i own all the vladimir horowitz recordings on dgg. from 1985 to 1988, each recording (IMO) has progressively better sound.

 

[adhoc]

Quote:

Originally posted by KR... Well, most musicians don't care! Ever notice that most musicians are not audiophiles and in fact have only crappy systems, sometimes just a boom-box! They only care about live music and performing.

i think i must disagree with that. well, at least if we are talking about classical artistes.

there is NO other way to reach out to an enormous audience besides via recordings (and consequently through the radio). and well, if you're the cynical sort, then there's no faster way to gain fame, reputation and consequently earn tons of cash then through recordings, especially for classical artistes.

and look at the tons of money they spend to make acoustically perfect opera and concert halls. that must mean something, right?

iirc artists like perahia, horowitz and argerich have contract clauses allowing them to reject any recording they deem of low quality. but, then again, these are A list artistes.. so.

 

[DarkAngel]

Quote:

Originally posted by mickelae i have a question...if most audiophiles who listen to classical music seem to agree deutsche grammophon produce poor quality albums, why is it that the most respected artists sign with them? if i were a recording artist, i would choose a label that would reproduce my sound most accurately. any thoughts?

I would not agree with that general statement, I really don't like these discussions because all classical music is recorded at very high quality levels vs pop/rock music, it really isn't an issue that
should determine what classical CDs you buy IMO.......performance is much more important and much bigger variable.

DG did in general have a recording style that could sometimes produce brightly lit recordings......not so much in the 1990's but previously. But this is not true in general, I have many DG recordings that are excellent sound quality and would not hesitate for a second to buy DG recording.

When CDs first appeared from 1981-1986 all labels had a "rough patch" adjusting to new digital recording techniques and there are some poor recordings during this period......often though new remasters can transform them to good sound.

Some of the audiophile labels listed unfortunately use 2nd tier performers/orchestras which are very often outperformed by major players, I can afford any Classical CDs I want but really
own only a handful of the "audiophile" label CDs........I think many of the super cheap NAXOS label CDs have better performances vs audiophile labels.

Bottom Line:
Seek best performances, sound quality is really not big factor for most classical from 1958 to present (stereo age)

My collection in general using performance as criteria:
1)DG/Archiv
2)London/DECCA
3)EMI/Angel

 

[KR...]

Naxos is an audiophile label

 

[scottder]

I can see what DA is saying, I mean who cares if something was recorded in DSD if the performance isn't very good, then you just have good recording of a mediocre performance, and no amount of technology can change that.

Now we just need a time machine to go back and record some of those performances with modern equipment.

Scott

 

[KR...]

Well, while there are many audiophile labels that seem to only care about the recording process, I do not own any beautiful sounding sore feasts, trust me!

Beethoven - Symphony No. 9 in D Minor (Chesky) really is the best version ever made in performance and sound! (IHMO)

I put Mozart - Requiem (Telarc) and Shostakovich: Symphonies Nos. 5 & 9 (Telarc) against any other reading out there, these are just as good or better than most.

Respighi – Belkis, Queen of Sheba (Reference Recording) is beyond brillant in performance and sonics!

Listen to these CDs and then try to tell me it's only about the sound.

 

[Calanctus]

DA, thanks for weighing in with your perspective. I'm still a relative newb at classical, but I don't think I agree WRT older recordings...I just can't get into some of the poorly remastered stuff from the 60s, due to the sound quality. E.g. I have an SACD of Bernstein/Mahler 1 which I just don't much like because it does not sound good--performance is fine.

In my experience, what you say is true of modern classical recordings.

 

[EyEPoD]

Man i want to change my vote after hearing 1812 through telarc, wow.

 

[SporeTinte049]

2l.no