The Art of Wilhelm Furtwängler

[Renfield]

Which one is the most sonically outstanding? I know all famous versions have coughs and tape hisses...and all are mono, correct?

The Lucerne 9th, 1954, on Tahra. (AFAIK)

[Lethevich]

Also, I recently got the Bruckner set on Andromeda. Quality is mostly surprisingly good - I think it must have been cleaned - but 8 and 9 have definitely been cleaned, managing to be both quite shrill and a bit bottom heavy at the same time. Perhaps worst is the artificial stereo sound imposed on these two symphonies. WHY?
I think they usually copy from legit editions, where they can get away with it.

Indeed, that must be why their issues sound so terrible: they take a legit remaster, and then have to distort the recording to hide its origin. There is no way that this could ever produce a superior (or even equal) quality disc. Avoid at all cost, unless there is no alternative...

Oh, and bump! 0:)

[sam adams]

I originally posted this seperately but Que pointed me to this thread. I was wondereing if anyone has had a chance to get this:

http://www.tahra.com/nouveautes.php

Its the Furt LVB Lucerne 9th on SACD issued by Tahra. I was wondering if the SACD could improve the sound on a early 1950's recording that was already in great sound. I was considering getting the Legendary Post War LVB set by Tahra, but now I am wondering if they are planning on releasing this set in SACD format as well.

[sam adams]

Just a quick update: I e-mailed Tahra about the Furt Legendary Performances Set and was informed that they are not planning on doing that set in SACD, they also told me that the original set is no longer available either.

Looks like I need to try to find it used.

[M forever]

I was wondering if the SACD could improve the sound on a early 1950's recording that was already in great sound.

No, it couldn't. No matter how good the quality of the original is, no recording from that period has anything even close to the bandwidth that can be covered by a conventional CD, so "stepping up" from that transport medium to a (theoretically) slightly better one will not give you any improvement at all. That's kind of like when you can only go 50mph because the road is not very good, it won't make a difference if you have a car which can do 120mph or one which can do 150mph. OK, that's a strange comparison, but I think you know what I mean.

[scarpia]

No, it couldn't. No matter how good the quality of the original is, no recording from that period has anything even close to the bandwidth that can be covered by a conventional CD, so "stepping up" from that transport medium to a (theoretically) slightly better one will not give you any improvement at all. That's kind of like when you can only go 50mph because the road is not very good, it won't make a difference if you have a car which can do 120mph or one which can do 150mph. OK, that's a strange comparison, but I think you know what I mean.

Maybe I have tin ears, but have not noticed much of a difference between the 2 channel SACD layer and the CD layer of any hybrid SACD I have heard.  There was harshness in some early CD's because early digital recording equipment was far from optimized and because recording engineers had not figured out how to adapt their bag of tricks to the requirements of the new medium, but nowadays these problems have been largely solved.   I still like SACD because outfits that use DSD systems tend to be very serious about audio quality, and it is very nice to have center and surround channels to give a more enveloping sound field. 

My main complaint with modern digital recordings is that they are too bright (to much high frequency emphasis).  I am constantly listening with treble controls turned down or my equalizer with high frequency bands pushed down 3-6 db.  This, I suspect, is more of a marketing decision rather than a technical one.

[sam adams]

No, it couldn't. No matter how good the quality of the original is, no recording from that period has anything even close to the bandwidth that can be covered by a conventional CD, so "stepping up" from that transport medium to a (theoretically) slightly better one will not give you any improvement at all. That's kind of like when you can only go 50mph because the road is not very good, it won't make a difference if you have a car which can do 120mph or one which can do 150mph. OK, that's a strange comparison, but I think you know what I mean.

Thanks M, I had a funny feeling about that. I remember a few years ago some outfit put out Furt's war time recordings on SACD and I remember thinking how are they going to squeeze blood from that stone?

[M forever]

Well, as Scarpia pointed out, SACD masters are created by DSD recording which *theoretically* can represent the original analog recording better than a PCM encoded CD, but again, it doesn't matter because the quality of the original is way below what PCM can "capture", so *theoretically* there could be a difference, but only when we are talking about a very high quality analog recording, not anything that old (which doesn't mean they didn't make good recordings with the technology available back then, but the technologies were simply very limited). And even then, as Scarpia also pointed out, it is doubtful whether most people will hear a difference between CD and SACD with most material on most equipment, as extensive blind listening tests have proven. There are some slight quality differences which may become noticeable with very good material on very good equipment, but then again, most people wouldn't hear the difference even if they imagine they do...

[scarpia]

Well, as Scarpia pointed out, SACD masters are created by DSD recording which *theoretically* can represent the original analog recording better than a PCM encoded CD, but again, it doesn't matter because the quality of the original is way below what PCM can "capture", so *theoretically* there could be a difference, but only when we are talking about a very high quality analog recording, not anything that old (which doesn't mean they didn't make good recordings with the technology available back then, but the technologies were simply very limited). And even then, as Scarpia also pointed out, it is doubtful whether most people will hear a difference between CD and SACD with most material on most equipment, as extensive blind listening tests have proven. There are some slight quality differences which may become noticeable with very good material on very good equipment, but then again, most people wouldn't hear the difference even if they imagine they do...

Visual analogies are fun.   Imagine an old photo.  You make a copy on an old Xerox machine, it gets crumpled up in the bottom of your rucksack, you spill coffee on it, it gets ripped in half and you tape it back together.  Now you scan it on an ultra-high resolution flat-bed scanner.  Does that make it look better?  No, it just lets you see all of the flaws with ultra-high resolution.

[Josquin des Prez]

No, it just lets you see all of the flaws with ultra-high resolution.

But you get to see the rest in ultra-high resolution as well.

[M forever]

No, you don't. Scarpia's comparison is flawed. The "ultrahigh resolution" here would be the high frequency response which is simply not there - at all - above a certain point. So you don't get to "see" anything that you couldn't "see" on the other medium.

[scarpia]

No, you don't. Scarpia's comparison is flawed. The "ultrahigh resolution" here would be the high frequency response which is simply not there - at all - above a certain point. So you don't get to "see" anything that you couldn't "see" on the other medium.

The analogy is not flawed, you just have to assume that the picture, in addition to being damaged, is blurry.  When you zoom into the picture on your high resolution scanner you don't see the detail of the original image, you see all of the scratches on the blurry image with great detail.  The old recording in principle contains a remnant of all of the high frequency information, it is simply attenuated (blurred) and buried under noise and distortion.  When you reproduce it on SACD, you hear all of that distortion, clipping, pops, scratches and hiss with exquisite resolution, but you don't hear any more music, because it is the distortion, clipping, pop, scratches and hiss that is preventing you from hearing it in the first place.

[M forever]

The old recording in principle contains a remnant of all of the high frequency information

No, it doesn't. In the days before Dolby, everything in the high frequency bands that were too distorted was simply filtered off with very steep filters. That was the only form of noise reduction they had back then. Oops, you didn't know that? That's OK, few people do. But now you do.

[Bonehelm]

No, it doesn't. In the days before Dolby, everything in the high frequency bands that were too distorted was simply filtered off with very steep filters. That was the only form of noise reduction they had back then. Oops, you didn't know that? That's OK, few people do. But now you do.

And here we have know-it-all Mr. Monkeys Forever liberating the world from ignorance once again! Thanks Mr. Monkeys! +10 banana points!

[Que]

So, here it is, the new issue of the Lucerne LvB 9th!
(click picture for link to jpc)



Q

[Bogey]

So, here it is, the new issue of the Lucerne LvB 9th!
(click picture for link to jpc)



Q

Did they tinker with it any Que, or is it just a straight re-issue?

[George]

Did they tinker with it any Que, or is it just a straight re-issue?

I am curious too, though I suspect that SACD might be overkill for something that old.

[Bogey]

I am curious too, though I suspect that SACD might be overkill for something that old.

That raised an eyebrow at this end also Howard...just not seeing that.

[George]

That raised an eyebrow at this end also Howard...just not seeing that.

Could be just a marketing gimmick.

[Bogey]

Could be just a marketing gimmick.

....but without the SACD layer initiated, one is at least left with what some consider an incredible transfer of this 9th, without having to search high and low for their previous issue.  It is quite good, but I enjoy his 1942 (M&A) more.