Best recording label for recording sound

[DavidW]

It seems that anytime, we tend to contemporaneously think that the sound quality is best "now." But decades later, we acknowledge variable sound quality in the same recordings retrospectively.

I don't agree with that.  In the 80s many people did not at all like the harsh, bright sound of those recordings.  In the 00s many people didn't like the spotlight miking making orchestral music sound unnatural and not concert hall like.

[Jo498]

This depends. There are innovations that mostly seem improvements. But I think that people realized already in the 1970s that some early stereo recordings were actually sounding better than some of the contemporary multi-miked ones and the digital sound of the 1980s sparked controversies. There was the fraction totally in favor of CDs and digital sound and others realizing the problems of some early (and not so early) digital recordings. Even DGs "4D" in the mid-late 1990s was controversial.
The overall level is much higher today (or basically since 20 years or so) and poor recording quality is quite rare, I think.

[Mirror Image]

For me, I still love the sound of those older 60s stereo Columbia recordings (especially the Stravinsky recordings). I prefer these to any modern recording truth be told, but one simply can't ignore the advancement in technology and, with this in mind, I have to give major props to BIS, Ondine, MDG, CPO, Hyperion, Harmonia Mundi, etc. I prefer the older Chandos recordings to the newer ones (mainly 80s to mid 90s or so). Supraphon has come a long way, but I still like the sound of many of their older recordings. Teldec is another label that always had great sound to me. Deutsche Grammophon and Decca are variable, but have both had high points. I especially like the 60s DG recordings --- Karajan's Sibelius, for example, sounds excellent to me. Anyway, I think this about covers it.

[André]

When it comes to orchestral recordings the hall/venue is very important and must be properly understood by the sound engineers. Philips had mastered the acoustics of the Amsterdam Concertgebouw to perfection. When Decca took over their recording contract at the beginning of the 1980s, the sound changed markedly, losing brilliance in the upper frequencies as well as reducing the reverb of the hall. While still pretty good, it lost a degree of vividness and became slightly dull.

In the old days, a recording company assigned the same engineers to an orchestra/hall, producing outstanding and consistent results - like DGG and the BP with Günter Herrmanns and Klaus Scheibe, or RCA with Lewis Layton. Over the years orchestral recordings from DGG or EMI have become extremely variable. Fine engineering cannot be taken for granted anymore, regardless of the label.

[Artem]

That's true. I think Haitink's Mahler in Amsterdam in the 70s is really well recorded.

[Brian]

Over the years orchestral recordings from DGG or EMI have become extremely variable. Fine engineering cannot be taken for granted anymore, regardless of the label.

I actually think that Deutsche Grammophon is one of the worst labels at present for recorded sound. Their orchestral recordings in the last 10-15 years strongly favor live concert settings recorded by freelancers or orchestra employees and licensed to DG by the artists. The results can be extremely variable, as you said.

There are exceptions; for example, the Vikingur Olafsson solo piano recitals are fabulous sounding.

[amw]

Deutsche Grammophon/Decca does not, as far as I know, actually "make" recordings anymore; almost everything is licensed. Sony/RCA and Warner/Erato are in similar positions, and Naxos already licences a fair proportion of its new releases. I'm not sure how long it will take for other labels to follow suit, but for the most part, it seems to be the future of recording.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

I prefer the older Chandos recordings to the newer ones (mainly 80s to mid 90s or so).

Interesting!

I don't agree with that.  In the 80s many people did not at all like the harsh, bright sound of those recordings.  In the 00s many people didn't like the spotlight miking making orchestral music sound unnatural and not concert hall like.

Thank you for your response and explanation. It's good to know!

[MusicTurner]

BIS recordings tend to have good sound, but IMO there are also exceptions. Some of them have very recessed orchestral sound, or a very recessed soloist in concertos. Such as the Schnittke violin concertos, for example. Also in several Vänskä recordings. I doubt the sound is better on hi-end audio equipment.

[relm1]

Something that drives me nuts is when a conductor and orchestra sound really poor in one label and the very same combo sound excellent in another label.  Gergiev/Mavrinsky come to mind.  I hate their label's sound and hearing them just now on Deutsche Grammophon they sound wonderful.  I've come to realize, for great audio, it isn't about great conductor and orchestra but great conductor + great orchestra + great label.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

It seems that anytime, we tend to contemporaneously think that the sound quality is best "now." But decades later, we acknowledge variable sound quality in the same recordings retrospectively.

I am continually amazed at how wonderful many of the older recordings sound--how natural, sometimes lush, full, glorious...well, I could go on and on.  A lot of it, I think anyway, is due to the know-how of the engineers....knowing which mikes to use, where to place them, recording venues, pressings, materials to use to make the masters and the commercial LPs, etc., etc.  Just my inexpert 2-cents worth. 

PD

[Mirror Image]

I am continually amazed at how wonderful many of the older recordings sound--how natural, sometimes lush, full, glorious...well, I could go on and on.  A lot of it, I think anyway, is due to the know-how of the engineers....knowing which mikes to use, where to place them, recording venues, pressings, materials to use to make the masters and the commercial LPs, etc., etc.  Just my inexpert 2-cents worth. 

PD

Indeed. This is a textbook example of a recording that is as close to perfection as you can get:



As I wrote earlier, you just can't beat the sound of these 60s stereo Columbia recordings. I also love the sound of those RCA Living Stereo recordings, which I neglected to mention in my earlier post.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Indeed. This is a textbook example of a recording that is as close to perfection as you can get:



As I wrote earlier, you just can't beat the sound of these 60s stereo Columbia recordings. I also love the sound of those RCA Living Stereo recordings, which I neglected to mention in my earlier post.

I'll have to do some digging around upstairs; I might have that recording as part of a boxed-set.  I know that I don't have it on LP (alas).

This is one of my favorites that I own on LP--the singing, music and the recording. 



PD

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Yes, I like the recording sound of these old albums (Columbia, RCA, Mercury.)  I will check the Orpheus.

[Carlo Gesualdo]

Archiv produktion: for rustic old sound of the 50'' they may or not be charming, but me Adam DE La Halle and my Luca Marenzio/Carlo Gesualdo are fabulous

Everest for same reason, perhaps because I admired Paul Boepple skill got to vinyl of the Dessof Choirs. One Lassus match whit Josquin works one is Palestrina Sacred works.

[vandermolen]

Lyrita
Ondine
CBS/Sony
Chandos
Dutton (for historical recordings)
BIS

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Early pressings of Everest are to die for!  Their CD transfers were quite good too.

PD

[vandermolen]

Early pressings of Everest are to die for!  Their CD transfers were quite good too.

PD

agreed.

[Carlo Gesualdo]

Early pressings of Everest are to die for!  Their CD transfers were quite good too.

PD

P.D dear lady indeed, Everest old pressing are godlike good, thanks for commenting , thanks Jeffrey  too , have a nice day 

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Early pressings of Everest are to die for!  Their CD transfers were quite good too.

PD

agreed.

+1.