Lots of classical recordings are horribly recorded, so it's the source that is the problem, not the physical media (the CD) itself.
68 responses Add your response
I'm mostly familiar with ECM from their jazz offerings, but Manfred Eicher is legendary for spending an hour and a half positioning a single microphone to record Keith Jarrett. Their early recordings of artists like Keith, Chick Corea, Ralph Towner, Egberto Gismonti, & Jan Garbarek are among the most important reasons I began this pursuit. More important than the fabulous sound quality, the music itself ranges so far & wide that neojazzical seems a more appropriate label. Naxos is another label with range, but with a focus on classical. Within that genre, they produce a quality discount product while still being able to go outside the "standards" repertoire, recording with less well known conductors, orchestras, & soloists. Of course, being less known is not the same as being less. Their success has demonstrated that, for both the music and the musicians. |
| Post removed |
@old_ears and @secretguy I don’t have a $hit load of Chesky discs (as opposed to MFSL & DCC of which I do own a $hit-load of), but I can think of a couple that I own that sound quite nice: Rebecca Pigeon/The Raven and I have a Sarah K CD (that I cannot think of the title of at the moment) that sounds excellent. |
Elusive disc did have a good sale on First Impression CDs level for $14.99 , LIM label is as good, For my taste this will compete with SACDs, The pure perfection series are even amazing, FIM has Decca box cd, wait when it go on sale. It goes 50% off. I have collected FIM and LIm label.This are Winston’s Ma collections works.. |
@clearthinker I agree about Chesky. I never heard one sound good. |
One other suggestion I can make in cases where someone has a great system but finds most recordings lacking is consider Ohm Walsh speakers. These do things totally differently. They present the music like a live performance on your room rather than as a conventional stereo speaker delivery of what is in the recording. These are for people who just want to enjoy all kinds of music effortlessly by placing the music in your room rather than just firing a recording at you. It just might be the ticket a true music lover is looking for. I have two pair in addition to others. |
I think the key point here is the assertion that certain recordings are “bad” to start with. Bad is a very subjective and general adjective. It will literally mean something different to everyone. Expectations matter. If you expect all recordings should sound the way you think they should that is the trap that many fall into or chasing something they want that does not exist. You will always be disappointed and lose interest Think of recordings as works of art. There are all kinds all different. Each has something to offer. If you have good vision you are in a position to best assess art visually. Same with a hifi. A good one gives you a clear view of the recording at hand. You either appreciate what it has to offer or not. Each is different though. Try to listen for what is there in the music that might be of interest. That allows one to find something to appreciate in more recordings. That’s what music lovers do. Whereas a hifi or technology lover will focus more on the imperfections and all recordings even the best have those. Recordings are what they are. You either value a recording in some way or you don’t. It’s all fine. Just don’t get caught on the merry go round where practically nothjng sounds the way you think it should or want it to. It is what it is. No hifi will change that. It can only let you hear how every recording is different, which I view as an interesting thing worth experiencing. Cheers! |
You can't make a direct correlation between record label and quality of sound. There are multiple variables here: the space in which the recording was made, the circumstances under which it was made (especially time constraints), and all the sound engineering and recording (type of microphones, placing of mikes, recording medium), etc. etc. So in the catalogues of all those labels you mention, there are at least some very good sounding CDs. Many smaller labels promote their sound as one of the bigger buying points, so they tend to curate the whole recording process more carefully. But even then there are no guarantees. How about Telarc? Have you tried some of their pioneering discs? |
@mapman this is the gear.. Luxman D03X, Mcintosh MC53(soon to be replaced with Luxman C900U) and Luxman M10X, through Magico A3's.. The good CD's sound like I am in a cathedral or a symphony hall with beautiful acoustics.. Here are some of the names that I find really terrible.. Duetsche Grammophon, Teldec, Hyperion, Musea, Sony Legacy, EMI, London.. I am also hearing that a good system is unforgiving of bad recording.. So not sure what to think.. DECCA sounds great.. |
Most classical CDs sound very good on a good modern system with a good dac and source. Certainly not noisy and anemic. I listen to them all the time. Vinyl too. Not always the case in the past. I’m talking most good quality gear in last few years. Digital has come a long way. Old digital hifi gear will no longer cut it in many cases when compared to new. Best to not fall too far behind. As always need good amplification and match to speakers and room for best results. New digital integrated or all in 1 amps are a good way to cut though the complexities of matching gear and cut to the chase. |
Most classical CDs sound very good on a good modern system with a good dac and source. Not always the case in the past. I’m talking most good quality gear in last few years. Digital has come a long way. Old digital hifi gear will no longer cut it in many cases when compared to new. Best to not fall too far behind. |
The great thing about getting to a happy place with your system, at least digital replay, is that it is a rare CD that sounds bad. As digital matures, more information than we ever thought possible gets pulled out of those pits. I recently randomly pulled two CDs off the shelf that I hadnt heard in years. The first was a Sony issue, early digital, of the Schuman PC and Quintet with Rudolf Serkin as the Pianist. Always loved the performance but was utterly blown away after not hearing it for a few years at how stunning the sound was. OK, the treble hardens a tad when pushed, but certainly amazing for 1959 recording. The second was a Naxos CD of the Beethoven and Mozart Piano and Wind Quintets and the Mozart "Glass Harmonica" Adagio as a throw in bonus. Again, my memory of most early Naxos issues was that that they were dry and not to sonically appealing, but this sounded magnificent. I really treasure my SACDs, Blu Rays and High Resolution downloads, but even plain vanilla Red Book CDcan sound so good as to be completely satisfying |
@clearthinker then again I .ight be right I never received payment for my reviews as was a common practice around the audio rags. I never had to be validated by some anthers ideas. The 850 and 860 in my opinion were never as good as the press made them out to be either.
Regards |
@rman9 ,I'm right there with you on the upgrade itch and don't feel bad about the rock you live under. It offers great insulation from the heat. 😄 I'm doing my level best to hold off on getting a newer and matching SACD player for my new integrated. My old one sounds fantastic with the new integrated and two different associates at MusicDirect told me that my 8 yr old SACD player is still a great sounding unit and that I wouldn't get that much of an upgrade with the newer one. You'd think they'd like to move more product but they've always been on the level with me, yet... All the best, |
Well the Wadia was pretty good with other recordings. Anyhow, you may not be right on these chips. The first three Wadia 16 reviews I turned up say 'Super'. 'Simply the best'. 'One of the best CD players ever made. Hmmm Choice of chips can be personal and a company like Wadia ought to be able to be trusted not to use turkeys. How come their engineers and listening staff couldn't hear the problem and you can? Digital audio using solid state components will always be an issue. All transistors were hard and grainy from the very get go and many still are. It's not so easy replicating an analogue experience with a stepped digital representation and a jittery clock interface. DACS are the main issue with digital sound and in my view the problem may never be solved. I'm not sure I've EVER heard a good digital recording of massed strings - these are really prone to hardness and especially grain. Many LPs have much more concert realism on this. One could say that using digital storage to listen to analogue sound is like starting with an apple, changing it into an orange and then changing it back to an apple again so we can eat it. Obviously the repeated conversions are likely to change the character of the apple and it may not be so good to eat. In my experience fiddling with stuff rarely improves it. On 'one duff disc' of course I hear what you say but if you pay a premium price for a bad recording/production/disc from what should be a reputable company, it kinda puts you off buying more. They don't tax returns - indeed I bought it in the US at a show and live in UK. It is important such companies as Chesky run very tight quality control for their own good as well as that of their customers. |
@nonoise I feel like I had been living under the rocks.. All these great options.. I am struggling to curb my itch to move from the D03X to D10X.. I need intervention.. |
@clearthinker yes the Wadia 16 had 1702 DAC chips every player that I owned or listened to with 1702 had a hardness and almost brightness to the top end. I picked a Wadia six because it had k63 DAC chips the Wadia 15 I believe had those chips as well if I remember correctly. To bad you never owned a player with the Ulta analog DAC chips in it.
Remember you cannot judge q whole label by one recording either.
Regards |
Reference Recordings ... https://referencerecordings.com/ try ... https://referencerecordings.com/recording/bernstein-candide-suite/ Anything on LINN ... especially any of the Kuniko marimba recordings ... https://www.linnrecords.com/artist-kuniko
|
On the face of it, a pertinent question but remember I said the Chesky disc was far worse than other CDs. So you can deduce the player paid other CDs satisfactorily. To answer your question the player was a Wada 16, an expensive leading high-end CD player at the time. CDs did play much better on it than on cheapo Japanese tin boxes. The Wadia was my first CD player. I have only had one other, an Audio Research CD9. It is a good bit better than the Wadia. |
@clearthinker what was your cd player at the time? |
OP
Regarding “so many choices”…the Classical Market used to be dominated by 3 or 4 “Major” labels—Columbia, RCA, EMI, DG,Phillips and Mercury-and their dominance was gradually broken up by budget and independent labels. The CD era really facilitated the growth (and now streaming) of these labels so now they now dominate the Classical Market. Many of them place a much greater priority on SQ than pop labels, because the goal is to capture the sound of a live ensemble, not some end product created at a mixing console. Another trend is to use concert performances for recordings, as this reduces studio costs. This presents more of a challenge to record accurately, but the performances tend to be more exciting. It may be worth sacrificing a bit of sonic accuracy for extra performing juice. |
The CD Red Book sampling rates simply aren't high enough. The standard was fixed in 1983 to be the bits that would give 80 minutes of programme and fit on a 5 inch disc at that time. Since then storage capacity has increased exponentially. CD should be abandoned. Anyway no digital system can eliminate dither and clock error. Get a record player.
@retiredfarmer Don't agree about Chesky CDs. I bought one (classical, can't remember what it was, I played it once and didn't get to the end) when the company was young (?30 years ago) and it sounded so bad I never bought another. Far worse than CD, even then. |
Plus one for ma recording s they are phenomenal! I would also give the jvcd xrcd and xrcd 11 a really high recommendation. Yes they play in any red book CDs. Xrcd was about the process of recording the cd. Mfsl are ok better than most regular CDs but in my opinion don't come close to the three former labels I talked about. I have a large group of the audiofile CDs I loved buying them. It slips my mind but the label that recorded Sara k I'd really good as well. In actual fact I would say of the ones I have I believe as a group I like the ma recording s the very best. They are stunning and in a tip of the line redbook cd player they are the most fluid sounding vinal type sound that I have found on CD. On other types of music country to be exact I have always liked rounder recordings. Also a stupid thing I did and was quite success with was buying CDs that were packaged in a cardboard cover somewhat like a lot jacket. Generally speaking I managed to stay away from awful recordings that way. If you are looking around a used CD store I find any packages like that are far more likely to be half decent than the ones packed in the jeweled case.
The higher the CD player was up the food chain the even better the reference cd recording s sound. A fuild dynamic tonally correct recording is even better on a top end player compared to a simmer player. I have owned a number of players over the years and bright CDs sound very bright on basic bright players but the sonic purity really shows with a top of the line player and recording mated together. Sheffield sound labs is another good label. Cheskey records is another great label. That is the one I was thinking of earlier that Sarah k recorded on. I have .any of that labels recording s.
Regards |
There are a lot of good suggestions here for quality CDs. I'd add Erato Records and Todd Garfinkle's boutique label MA Recordings. Sure, a lot of MA recordings are more in the ethnic genre than out-and-out classical, but they are scrupulously minimally miked & produced, and are recorded in atmospheric, off-beat, interesting locales. |
Many (but not all) BIS CDs are well recorded and mixed. They are not minimalist recordings but are clean. If you get them as downloads from eClassical.com, you can get a refund if you don’t like a particular release. Oddly enough, given their origin as the low-priced label, Naxos has released some excellent-sounding recordings. The series of Malcolm Arnold symphonies was recorded by Chris Craker with a minimalist technique. Most of their guitar recordings -- I am thinking of the Laureate Series -- are recorded by Norbert Kraft, himself a fine guitarist and someone interested in minimalist recordings. |
Vox Alia, BIS, Channel Classics, Harmonia Mundi, Astree, CPO, Chandos, Pentatone. . . there are plenty of labels that do terrific sounding classical recordings. Even the big labels like Sony, DG, etc. make nice sounding recordings. Many of the older LPs on such labels as DG sounded pretty crappy to me--thin and bright (e.g., 1970's DG recordings) and actually sound better in CD reissue form. Classical is one of the few genres where recording quality in the digital era sounds quite good to me. I listen mostly to my 3,000+ CDs of classical music much more than I do listening to my LPs of classical music. |
And once more (because my brain is working slow this afternoon) referring to what @stuartk typed: yes: definitely do a search on Music Direct’s site. Just type in SACD for your search engine and start scrolling through the pages. I have done that and seen quite a few classical releases on SACD hybrid. Just make SURE that if you order, what you order is DEFINITELY a hybrid (most of them are) and NOT a single layer SACD. As of late I have been trying to develop a taste for both classical and jazz, and as an example of the former, I recently bought a couple of remastered by "Living Stereo" and "Opus" that were both hybrids. (Before "Living Stereo" got into hybrid SACDs they were also doing the 20 bit rd book classical remasters, ’Witches Brew’ was one, so you might want to do a search on ebay using that as a search engine also.) |
@rman9 what @stuartk said related to the MFSL hybrid SACDs. I actually started listening to them (the red book layer) before I bought my SACD player, and some of them just blew me away due to the sonic quality (not just because I like the music as I have hybrids by other companies that I should like because of the music but they don't sound good). I assume it is the mastering that they did with those hybrids. But, as I typed previously, I am not sure that MFSL remastered any classical releases on SACD/red book hybrid. BUT, I did a search on ebay using "MFSL classical CDs" and there were quite a few that came up from the earlier days of MFSL. I would only say that I own a lot of the earlier MFSL red book remasters, and not all of them are spectacular. Lately, I have also been experimenting with the Japanese SHM remastered red book CDs and some of them (not all of them) sound pretty decent. You might do a search on ebay using "classical SHM CDs." Good luck on your quest for The Sound!
|
As someone who listens to classical about 80% of the time, favors physical media (CDs), and is married to a well-known classical musician, I will second the recommendations of Reference Recordings, MDG, & Pentatone as companies that produce generally high-quality classical recordings. I will add that ECM is often terrific as well, as are CSO Resound (the Chicago Symphony's label), and Channel Classics. |
@rman9 |