What is a recording label/company providing the best quality of recording sound in general iyo? I know it depends on time period, music format, instruments, etc. Also, any opinion on the recording sound of Chandos, CPO, and BIS? Which do you like best? Any Naxos recording with good/effective recording sound?
Quote from: Dry Brett Kavanaugh on August 12, 2021, 07:02:06 AM
What is a recording label/company providing the best quality of recording sound in general iyo? I know it depends on time period, music format, instruments, etc. Also, any opinion on the recording sound of Chandos, CPO, and BIS? Which do you like best? Any Naxos recordings providing a good/effective recording sound?
Thanks to matured digital technology recorded sound quality has been 100 % about the skills of the sound engineer(s) for the last 25 years or so. Any label can produce great recorded sound and for example 21st century recordings done by Naxos are often very good. Same with Chandos, CPO, and BIS. Two labels which I find stellar are Mirare and Sony.
I'd add Ondine, Alba, and Dacapo. But I agree with 71dB that standards are very high these days, apart from the occasional clinker. So this doesn't really guide my purchase decisions nearly as much as repertoire and artists do
Generally speaking on an across-label basis, I'd agree with BIS, Tacet, Reference Recordings, Ondine as being a cut above even in today's standards.
But standards generally speaking are very high. I agree with all the prior comments on that.
There are some labels which accept recordings offered to them by third-party producers or by performers who license the rights to the label. In these cases, the label cannot always uphold its normal standards. This is common on MSR Classics, Avie, and Onyx (though Onyx is usually very high quality), and is also somewhat common on Deutsche Grammophon and Naxos. It also happens on BIS, but on BIS the referrer is usually the producer/engineer, not the artist.
On these labels, you can generally tell by the producer name or fine print copyright; for example, Naxos employs people like Norbert Kraft, Tim Handley, and Sean Lewis - guarantees of a top-notch modern recording - but occasionally you'll see a release that's been recorded somewhere like a college recital hall in Oklahoma (as recently happened in the Scarlatti series) which the label may have had less involvement with.
One label I find frequently disappointing is Hyperion's solo piano engineering style. There are definitely exceptions, but as a whole Hyperion favors closeup piano recordings which take a bit of color and resonance away in favor of intimacy and clarity.
The older cpo were often produced by some of the people who later became MDG.
But both cpo and Naxos have productions from different teams and sources, including co-productions with European broadcasting stations. For their more recent recordings, the sound is usually very good, but it is varying because of this. Oehms/Arte Nova recordings are also often from German/Austrian radio and generally very good, especially for a comparably cheap label.
Older (up to early 1990s or so) Naxos (and also Marco Polo, some of which was later re-issued on Naxos) could have worse than average sound, probably due to cheap conditions in Eastern Europe (not true for all things produced in Eastern Europe, of course).
Quote from: Dry Brett Kavanaugh on August 12, 2021, 07:02:06 AM
What is a recording label/company providing the best quality of recording sound in general iyo? I know it depends on time period, music format, instruments, etc. Also, any opinion on the recording sound of Chandos, CPO, and BIS? Which do you like best? Any Naxos recording with good/effective recording sound?
MDG
A lot depends on what you mean by best recorded sound. Do you mean the most realistic, the most truthful sound. Or do you mean one which has been engineered to produce the most polished and beautiful sound. I am firmly in the former camp. I want the sound of my music at home fo resemble the sound of music in a concert.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 12, 2021, 08:57:21 AM
The older cpo were often produced by some of the people who later became MDG.
But both cpo and Naxos have productions from different teams and sources, including co-productions with European broadcasting stations. For their more recent recordings, the sound is usually very good, but it is varying because of this. Oehms/Arte Nova recordings are also often from German/Austrian radio and generally very good, especially for a comparably cheap label.
Older (up to early 1990s or so) Naxos (and also Marco Polo, some of which was later re-issued on Naxos) could have worse than average sound, probably due to cheap conditions in Eastern Europe (not true for all things produced in Eastern Europe, of course).
I don't buy much Naxos, and most of my Naxoi are the older vintage, often with less than ideal sound.
All the older Naxoi I pulled off the shelf seem to have been recorded in the performers' home countries (UK, NL, H). So I suspect that the most Naxos provided was engineering; performers would have been responsible for at least the venues.
Agree with many of the comments above. We really do live in an age in which excellent recorded sound is (or should be) almost a given.
If I had to choose one label for sound quality alone, my vote would go to Reference Recordings, by a hair. One example is this Rachmaninoff disc with Eiji Oue and the Minnesota Orchestra, from 2001. It's hardly a favorite, performance-wise (not awful, just "meh"), but the sound quality is extraordinarily vivid and present.
https://referencerecordings.com/recording/rachmaninoff-symphonic-dances/
--Bruce
For sound that meets my personal standards, my favorites are BIS and Winter & Winter. W&W are fabulous, as well as mainly recording music and players I really like, a great combination. :)
8)
ZIG ZAG
AEON
CALIOPE
COVELIO
LINN
BIS
Musique en Wallonie
ORF
CHRISTOPHORUS
Channel Classics, Linn Records and Reference Recordings
DIVOX, Aeolus
I'm fond of the BIS and MDG sounds. Modern day Naxos has excellent sound, pre-2000, maybe less so. For older labels I've always really liked the old Philips analog sound, and the Columbia sound. I love the RCA Victor Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence stuff, too, though far from what anyone would call state of the art nowadays.
Quote from: vers la flamme on August 12, 2021, 01:09:24 PM
I'm fond of the BIS and MDG sounds. Modern day Naxos has excellent sound, pre-2000, maybe less so. For older labels I've always really liked the old Philips analog sound, and the Columbia sound. I love the RCA Victor Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence stuff, too, though far from what anyone would call state of the art nowadays.
Yes that living stereo series is just amazing!
Quote from: Mandryka on August 12, 2021, 09:50:47 AM
A lot depends on what you mean by best recorded sound. Do you mean the most realistic, the most truthful sound. Or do you mean one which has been engineered to produce the most polished and beautiful sound. I am firmly in the former camp. I want the sound of my music at home fo resemble the sound of music in a concert.
Very good point! Probably the former is a good presentation of performance while the latter is a nice presentation of works/compositions.
Quote from: vers la flamme on August 12, 2021, 01:09:24 PM
I love the RCA Victor Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence stuff, too, though far from what anyone would call state of the art nowadays.
+1. I love their thick sound!
Quote from: T. D. on August 12, 2021, 09:53:27 AM
I don't buy much Naxos, and most of my Naxoi are the older vintage, often with less than ideal sound.
All the older Naxoi I pulled off the shelf seem to have been recorded in the performers' home countries (UK, NL, H). So I suspect that the most Naxos provided was engineering; performers would have been responsible for at least the venues.
Many of the 1990s Naxos recordings were done in some church in Budapest and are a bit reverberant. E.g. many of the Kodaly or Eder Quartet recordings. They are still decent, the sound will not distract most listeners, I think. In fairness one should admit that in the 1980s and 90s major labels or expensive independents didn't always have great sound either. More recent Naxos usually have better sound but as they are from so many sources, it is impossible to tell in general.
Quote from: Brian on August 12, 2021, 08:41:58 AMOne label I find frequently disappointing is Hyperion's solo piano engineering style. There are definitely exceptions, but as a whole Hyperion favors closeup piano recordings which take a bit of color and resonance away in favor of intimacy and clarity.
Solo piano music in general seems to be challenging to record, because piano is so large instrument. When the object radiating sound is larger than the distant of the microphone, it is near field which has its own characteristics (sound from different parts of the instrument arrive to the microphone at differing time delay and with differing distance attenuation. When the microphone distance is much larger than the instrument size, it is far field. The time differences and distance attenuations are very small and the instrument is a point source. Of course the further away you are the more reverberation plays a role in the overall sound. Also, people want the piano sound stereophonic, lower notes on the left and higher notes on the right. That is impossible recording from a distance. Solo violin music is much easier, because you can go much closer to the instrument before you are in the near field and nobody expects solo violin sound anything else than than a monophonic sound source. The spatiality comes from early reflections and reverberation.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 13, 2021, 01:38:00 AM
In fairness one should admit that in the 1980s and 90s major labels or expensive independents didn't always have great sound either.
Yes I think in general the best sounding recordings came from the 70s and the 00s to present time.
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.
Quote from: Dry Brett Kavanaugh on August 13, 2021, 05:41:12 AM
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.
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.
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. :D
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.
That's true. I think Haitink's Mahler in Amsterdam in the 70s is really well recorded.
Quote from: André on August 14, 2021, 07:26:25 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 14, 2021, 06:37:01 AM
I prefer the older Chandos recordings to the newer ones (mainly 80s to mid 90s or so).
Interesting!
Quote from: DavidW on August 13, 2021, 08:41:59 AM
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!
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.
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.
Quote from: Dry Brett Kavanaugh on August 13, 2021, 05:41:12 AM
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
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on August 16, 2021, 04:56:55 AM
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:
(https://albumart.primephonic.com/s900/886445699005.jpg)
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.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 16, 2021, 06:30:52 AM
Indeed. This is a textbook example of a recording that is as close to perfection as you can get:
(https://albumart.primephonic.com/s900/886445699005.jpg)
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. :)
(https://img.discogs.com/NP94N83yWlDcxQ7WmlU0EslgqNI=/fit-in/300x300/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/R-7308797-1438543026-3629.jpeg.jpg)
PD
Yes, I like the recording sound of these old albums (Columbia, RCA, Mercury.) I will check the Orpheus.
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.
:)
Lyrita
Ondine
CBS/Sony
Chandos
Dutton (for historical recordings)
BIS
Early pressings of Everest are to die for! Their CD transfers were quite good too.
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on August 24, 2021, 03:17:11 AM
Early pressings of Everest are to die for! Their CD transfers were quite good too.
PD
agreed.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on August 24, 2021, 03:17:11 AM
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 :)
I should've mentioned Wergo in my initial post. I've always loved the sound of their recordings. CD Accord and Dux are two other labels that have extremely high standards in fidelity.
My renewed list:
Columbia 1950-60s.
Decca mono
RCA Before 1965
Mercury
Command Classics
Boy, yeah, for older stuff I LOVE Mercury Living Presence. Also the 1970s combination of the LSO and EMI; all the Previn recordings sound turbocharged.