Best mastered recordings


I've noticed, here recently, that often times the difference in redbook, HDCD, etc, doesn't hinge as much on the final quality product/disc but more the way the recording was recorded and mastered. Specifally, I've found that I can take the same recording (Saint-Saens Symp No3) on three different labels (EMI, Telarc and Deutsche Grammophon), yet they all sound different, to some degree. I've noticed, for this particular recording, EMI and Telarc sound similar but distinctive. Yet, compared to DG, they don't match up. In fact, when compared to a borrowed SACD version of the same recording, the DG sounds more closely to its higher resolution counterpart.

To my point. Am I the only to conclude such a thing? If not, has anyone else found which recording labels produce the better recordings in comparison to others? What were your overall findings?

Regards,

Craig
cdwallace
Lots of reasons why recordings sound different...to many people with input, different rooms, different mic's, different mic placement...ect...lots and lots of reasons.

Check out some of these recording sessions using Royer Labs ribbon Mic's....lots of pics, and even sound bites....you'll get the idea.

Also, some of the Stereophile recordings go into different Mic types, and setup...you can order these recordings from Stereophile.

http://www.royerlabs.com/

Dave
Gents, maybe there is a slight misconception that should be clarified. I understand the differences between one recording to another. Teams, musicians, etc...they all will play their own role in making the final product distinctive. Maybe I should have been a little more decisive in my word selection. (KR4 - sorry if I portrayed myself as an idiot, but looks are deceiving.)

Nevertheless, it seems others beside myself understand that even though recordings differ one to another, its hard to overlook the fact that some labels do a better job at recording the venue than others. Even to the degree that some labels do a better job at capturing a bad performance. I would hope thats why we purchase products from those labels; we feel they do a better job at capturing the moment better than others.

Its also more evident that I am not the only to think one company produces a better "final product" than another. In addition, some producers/recording teams/performers do a better job as well.

Rcprince - thanks for the insight on label philosophies. Thats one thing I hadn't considered. This "shows" in the examples of recording techniques you mentioned, and how they change from label to label.

Thanks for the constructive conversation, gents.
Craig--what I find interesting, and it shows how different people hear things, is that it seems you preferred the DG recording, where I have rarely liked their recordings. I will admit, though, that they do make musically involving recordings on occasion, as sometimes spotlighting an instrument in the mix might better let the emotion of the music come through. Shadorne and others bring up the good point of the recording engineer (I would add the producer too) being of importance. In the classical field some of the people I look for are Mohr-Layton (the original RCA team from back in the 50s), Wilma Cozart-Bob Fine (from the old Mercuries), Kenneth Wilkinson (London/Decca, some RCAs, from the early days of stereo), John Eargle (Delos), Peter McGrath/Tony Faulkner-Robina Young (Harmonia Mundi; Faulkner has done work for others as well), Woods/Bishop-Renner (Telarc), Keith Johnson (Reference Recordings), Kavi Alexander (Water Lily--he is the most purist of this bunch, and quite frankly there are times where his approach might not appeal to me), Craig Dory (Dorian) and the Nicrenz/Aubort team from Vox. EMI had and has a number of good recording teams as well, I just don't recall their names, the engineer I know from there is Simon Woods, who used to be our New Jersy Symphony's CEO, and his recordings were quite good. All of these teams use different techniques to record an orchestra, both from their basic philosophies but also depending on the piece, the venue, the size of the ensemble, the artists (don't think for a minute that Heifetz or Rubenstein didn't want themselves to be spotlit!), etc., and what they come up with may not necessarily sound like what you'd hear in row K of the concert hall, but I think they all have done a good job of getting the bulk of the event on record for us.
I really like Bernie Grundman's work. I also like Stan Ricker.

Indeed how could I have missed Bernie/Stan off from my list of good audio engineers....