Thought we could have a thread where we nominate performances which we think are good/great/outstanding, but which (to our ears) have been poorly recorded, mixed or engineered.
I have two nominations - both of them recordings of Brahms' 'A German Requiem':
(http://cover6.cduniverse.com/MuzeAudioArt/Large/27/604127.jpg)
This one is terrific, but sounds (variously) hollow, flat and unbalanced. Twiddle with the EQ, and suddenly its beauty shines through. I actually took this recording into Nero 7 and gave it a working over: a 'tune-up' to bring out its colours, textures and contrasts. Something I'll soon also be doing with this recording:
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SMM035WSL._SS500_.jpg)
This English language version of Brahms' masterpiece affords an excellent opportunity for those who don't speak German to really hear and understand the work's texts. That is, once you bugger about with the EQ. If you leave it as it is, you get a sound that's inarticulate pretty much across the board (except for the soloists, who fare much better), yet oddly over-prominent (to the point of near distortion) in places in the mid-to-high frequency range.
What will YOU nominate?
(http://www.musicandarts.com/CDpages/CD1141.jpg)
Fortunately, it has the greatest Waldstein I have ever heard.
Fortunately, that performance of that work sounds OK.
Unfortunately, the Moonlight and a few others just sound terrible.
:-\
Aaaah! That's better. Just 're-engineered' that Jessop German Requiem. Sounds gorgeous now ... and much more natural. :)
Quote from: Mark on July 07, 2007, 04:43:33 PM
Aaaah! That's better. Just 're-engineered' that Jessop German Requiem. Sounds gorgeous now ... and much more natural. :)
Is there no end to your talents? ;D
Quote from: George on July 07, 2007, 04:53:22 PM
Is there no end to your talents? ;D
Dunno about that. ;D I just twiddled till I was satisfied, ran a test burn and it sounded much better. Now converting the new version to MP3. ;)
Quote from: Mark on July 07, 2007, 05:01:51 PM
I just twiddled till I was satisfied...
Me too, though it had nothing to do with music. ;D
(http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/535/41y13xy3h7laa240ev1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
The orchestra is recorded well but the singers are placed very irritatingly in the sound image. Bass Robert Pomakov sings in the right speaker. Soprano Olga Pasichnyk sings similarly in the left speaker. The stereo separation of singers is too large and 3D-depth of sound is missing. The singers are too close.
Quote from: Mark on July 07, 2007, 04:03:30 PM
Thought we could have a thread where we nominate performances which we think are good/great/outstanding, but which (to our ears) have been poorly recorded, mixed or engineered.
I have two nominations - both of them recordings of Brahms' 'A German Requiem':
(http://cover6.cduniverse.com/MuzeAudioArt/Large/27/604127.jpg)
This one is terrific, but sounds (variously) hollow, flat and unbalanced. Twiddle with the EQ, and suddenly its beauty shines through. I actually took this recording into Nero 7 and gave it a working over: a 'tune-up' to bring out its colours, textures and contrasts.
It would be interesting if you could post longer clips of that, "before Mark" and "after Mark", but without telling us, then we can listen to both and hear which one we think sounds better.
Quote from: Mark on July 07, 2007, 04:03:30 PM
What will YOU nominate?
Dunno. There are *way* too many badly engineered recordings out there and in here (in my collection, I mean). *Waaaay* to many just to "nominate" only a few.
*Waaaaaaaaaaaaay* too many.
It is much more interesting to talk about exceptionally good recordings. And why we find them so good. And maybe post clips of them to illustrate that. That would also be interesting because it might tell a lot of people what's wrong with their setups and how they could be improved.
I agree, that would be interesting, and a good way to find out about new recordings to put on the wishlist... :)
I have a lot of bad ones too. Some I'm almost embarrassed to have! ;D
Okay, here's what part of the original English adaptation (second of the two CDs in my OP) sounds like:
Before Mark (http://rapidshare.com/files/41724243/Before_Mark.mp3.html)
And here's how it sounds now I've 'tweaked' it to my own satisfaction (and taste, naturally):
After Mark (http://rapidshare.com/files/41725836/After_Mark.mp3.html)
Now, I'm not saying that what I've done is 'better', 'superior' or any other superlative. No doubt the 'experts' here will think I've made it too bright and clinical. But to my ears, the vocals are clearer and less congested in my 're-engineered' version than they are in the original. This is partly due to an EQ tweak, and partly due to a 20% increase/widening of the stereo image. Personally, I can hear each word far more crisply and articulately (even those sung by the choir) in my version than I can in the original. And as I bought this recording in order to better get to know the meaning of the texts in this great work, I figure it makes sense that I should be able to hear each word as clearly as possible.
Feel free to hurl abuse or heap praise accordingly. ;D
Khachaturian Piano Concerto on Naxos. So disappointingly recorded / produced that I gave it away to a charity shop.
It would have been better if you had just called the clips A and B, but anyway, after spotchecking here and there, I tink your version does actually sounds slightly better, a little "brighter" but the degree of brightness really reaching the end user also has a lot to do with the playback chain anyway, but actually really a bit clearer and more transparent.
I am positivey surprised. Usually when people do stuff like that at home, the results are pretty bad, sometimes really abysmal (like that one guy who "remasters" recordings and posts them on RMCR and Operashare all the time, his "remasterings" are absolutely horrible and totally destroy the recordings).
I have a problem with the text though. Why are they singing in English? It's called "Ein Deutsches Requiem" and there is a reason for that. I think while you are at it, you should redub the vocal parts with the correct text.
Quote from: M forever on July 08, 2007, 07:49:02 AM
It would have been better if you had just called the clips A and B, but anyway, after spotchecking here and there, I tink your version does actually sounds slightly better, a little "brighter" but the degree of brightness really reaching the end user also has a lot to do with the playback chain anyway, but actually really a bit clearer and more transparent.
I am positivey surprised. Usually when people do stuff like that at home, the results are pretty bad, sometimes really abysmal (like that one guy who "remasters" recordings and posts them on RMCR and Operashare all the time, his "remasterings" are absolutely horrible and totally destroy the recordings).
I have a problem with the text though. Why are they singing in English? It's called "Ein Deutsches Requiem" and there is a reason for that. I think while you are at it, you should redub the vocal parts with the correct text.
Thanks, M.
RE: the text, Lord alone knows why Shaw adapted the original. But Shaw's dead now, so we can't expect him to give an answer here any time soon. ;D
Quote from: techniquest on July 08, 2007, 07:42:31 AM
Khachaturian Piano Concerto on Naxos. So disappointingly recorded / produced that I gave it away to a charity shop.
Nominating old Naxos discs is like shooting fish in a barrel. Whatever they were doing from 1988 - 1998 (and in a few cases, since then), it was seriously bad.
I have a couple of Infinity Digital discs from that period that sound like they were recorded in a bathtub. ::)
Quote from: brianrein on July 08, 2007, 01:13:13 PM
Nominating old Naxos discs is like shooting fish in a barrel. Whatever they were doing from 1988 - 1998 (and in a few cases, since then), it was seriously bad.
The only exceptions to that rule being:
1) Naxos have made some terrific recordings dating from at least the mid-90s onwards (too many to enumerate, actually);
2) Some 'Naxos' titles from their early years aren't recordings made by them at all, but licensed from other labels. And some of these sound pretty good.
It's not badly, recorded, just old:
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41KXKPNYWQL._AA240_.jpg)
incredible CD, not the best recording. They even apologize in the booklet about the pops and stuff during the 9th sonata:
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/21QKJNS4RBL._AA130_.jpg)
I agree somewhat about the Klemperer. It can distort terribly when the chorus gets going. Only, less so now that I bought a second copy. Rather bizarrely, the first copy I had of that GRoC reissue distorted dreadfully. I got rid of it. Then I bought it again, and now the distortion barely seems to occur. I'd love to know what the original recording sounds like. ???
Mark,
I'm not a stickler on sound quality and recordings at all.
But if one label deserves an honorary place in the "Recording Quality Hall of Eternal Shame" it is Nimbus. In the recordings I know of them (not too many - I avoid Nimbus like the plague) the amount of reverb defies any description. Sounds like the recording studio was/is in an empty swimming pool.
And the issues in their historical recording series, recorded with the use of a giant horn, sound ludicrous too! 8)
(http://www.wyastone.co.uk/nrl/images/pv_horn.jpg)
Q
Que, this CD says Nimbus ain't all bad - a terrific recording (and performance):
(http://cover6.cduniverse.com/MuzeAudioArt/Large/45/405645.jpg)
Quote from: Mark on July 09, 2007, 01:30:22 AM
Que, this CD says Nimbus ain't all bad - a terrific recording (and performance):
Maybe their previous, insane, recording engineer has been safely institutionalised! ;D
Q
Quote from: brianrein on July 08, 2007, 01:13:13 PM
Nominating old Naxos discs is like shooting fish in a barrel. Whatever they were doing from 1988 - 1998 (and in a few cases, since then), it was seriously bad.
Many Naxos CDs from early 90s are very good. It's the first 5 years 1988-1993 that was miss and hits.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 09, 2007, 04:57:01 AM
Many Naxos CDs from early 90s are very good. It's the first 5 years 1988-1993 that was miss and hits.
That's true actually. Some (like the Suk Serenade disc) sound fantastic - but most is rather rotten. (On the old GMG I received a PM asserting that the Slovak State Philharmonic was not, as I had claimed, the worst orchestra ever. If this is true, they have just been captured by well - I hesitate to even call them engineers.)
Recent Naxos discs have frustrated me too. For instance, what is
wrong with Havard Gimse's piano in the Grieg concerto? (Incidentally, the latest Grieg disc, Vol. 3, has possibly the best sound I've heard on a Naxos orchestral disc.)
Quote from: brianrein on July 09, 2007, 12:09:45 PM
Recent Naxos discs have frustrated me too. For instance, what is wrong with Havard Gimse's piano in the Grieg concerto?
Er ... what
is wrong with it? Try it in the DVD-A version, DTS setting. That'll change your mind, I'm sure. ;)
Naxos sure has a bad rep. on sound quality, but I've never thought it poor. Actually, some that I have possess outstanding and clear sound. At any rate, I never reject a Nimbus on the basis of expectations of inadequate sonics.
The worst moder-era piano sonics I've ever heard come from Decca/Ashkenazy. What were they thinking?
Quote from: Que on July 09, 2007, 01:28:36 AM
In the recordings I know of them (not too many - I avoid Nimbus like the plague) the amount of reverb defies any description. Sounds like the recording studio was/is in an empty swimming pool.
Maybe they should even out their record by making a few alternative recordings inside that felt sock that was the NBC studio where Toscanini recorded most of his stuff.
Quote from: O Mensch on July 11, 2007, 01:01:49 PM
Maybe they should even out their record by making a few alternative recordings inside that felt sock that was the NBC studio where Toscanini recorded most of his stuff.
Oh, man. That made me laugh so hard. Especially the 'felt sock' part. ;D
There was a label called Everest in the days of LP that tended to produce positively awful recordings. I had a Tchaikovsky symphonic cycle that was so bad I sold it to a used record shop for 50 cents a copy, and what was worse was that there were some great performers on it, including conductor Hans Swarowsky (a Vienna Conservatory professor whose pupils included Zubin Mehta and Claudio Abbado), the London Symphony Orchestra, and composer-conductor Eugene Goossens. The bad sound, and several big cuts, were especially regrettable on the Goossens/LSO reading of the Manfred Symphony; the Londoners played flawlessly and excitingly and the interpretation was simply perfect, but the sound spoiled everything.
RCA is known for great inconsistency in its recordings. I've got an Ormandy/Philadelphia reading of Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy and Prometheus on LP (the notorious Dynagroove) that is almost unlistenable despite the performance's beauty and perfection. More recently, I was very dissatisfied with a Günter Wand/NDR-Sinfonieorchester Bruckner 3rd on RCA; shallow, tinny sound, especially regrettable for Wand's Bruckner.