add to wish list | library


15 of 17 recommend this,
would you recommend it?

yes | no

Support this site by purchasing from these vendors using the paid links below. As an Amazon Associate SA-CD.net earns from qualifying purchases.
 
amazon.ca
amazon.co.uk
amazon.com
amazon.de
 
amazon.fr
amazon.it
 
jpc

Discussion: Strauss: Don Juan, Tod und Verklarung, Till Eulenspiegel - Honeck

Posts: 98
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next

Post by samayoeruorandajin November 2, 2013 (1 of 98)
The great thing here is that whereas Exton didn't know how to record in MCH and reverted to stereo, RR is recording the orchestra here in glorious MCH.

Post by wehecht November 2, 2013 (2 of 98)
samayoeruorandajin said:

The great thing here is that whereas Exton didn't know how to record in MCH and reverted to stereo, RR is recording the orchestra here in glorious MCH.

Indeed! If, as indicated in another thread, engineering is by SoundMirror I think we're in for a real treat. Their Pentatone Brahms 3rd and 4th from Pittsburgh were excellent.

Post by Euell Neverno November 19, 2013 (3 of 98)
samayoeruorandajin said:

The great thing here is that whereas Exton didn't know how to record in MCH and reverted to stereo, RR is recording the orchestra here in glorious MCH.

How glorious is the sound? Castor knocked off a half star. I did order this disc to see if the stereo tracks are good. Castor had some reservations or preferences, if you will, concerning the performance as well. We'll see.

Sometimes, however, it seems that the mch mavens here would rather have a mch recording over stereo, regardless of merit. Kal's post, for example, implied great benefits from the Pittsburgh switch from Exton to RR without having ever sampled so much as one of Exton's outstanding Pittsburgh Mahler recordings. While I certainly understand the preference for mch, the bias against ever listening in stereo is a bit puzzling frankly.

Post by Kal Rubinson November 19, 2013 (4 of 98)
Euell Neverno said:

Sometimes, however, it seems that the mch mavens here would rather have a mch recording over stereo, regardless of merit. Kal's post, for example, implied great benefits from the Pittsburgh switch from Exton to RR without having ever sampled so much as one of Exton's outstanding Pittsburgh Mahler recordings. While I certainly understand the preference for mch, the bias against ever listening in stereo is a bit puzzling frankly.

Guilty as charged. I have several thousand LPs, more CDs than LPs and over 2000 SACDs.DVD-As. Frankly, my interests now fall into 2 categories. The first is new music that I have not yet discovered and the second is great multichannel recordings of excellent/great performances. I already have too many "great" recordings in stereo. It certainly applies to Mahler as I have multiple sets in every format already, including several in excellent ones in multichannel.

Is the Honeck Mahler superior in performance to most of what I have? From what I have heard, nope. It is fine and would be greatly appreciated at a concert but doesn't rise to anywhere near the top of those already in my collection.

Have I bought new stereo recordings since my adoption of multichannel? Sure. New music and outstanding (imho) performances, old and new.

Post by wehecht November 19, 2013 (5 of 98)
Kal Rubinson said:

Guilty as charged. I have several thousand LPs, more CDs than LPs and over 2000 SACDs.DVD-As. Frankly, my interests now fall into 2 categories. The first is new music that I have not yet discovered and the second is great multichannel recordings of excellent/great performances. I already have too many "great" recordings in stereo. It certainly applies to Mahler as I have multiple sets in every format already, including several in excellent ones in multichannel.

Is the Honeck Mahler superior in performance to most of what I have? From what I have heard, nope. It is fine and would be greatly appreciated at a concert but doesn't rise to anywhere near the top of those already in my collection.

Have I bought new stereo recordings since my adoption of multichannel? Sure. New music and outstanding (imho) performances, old and new.

That makes two of us. This could have been my response almost word for word.

Post by Euell Neverno November 19, 2013 (6 of 98)
Kal Rubinson said:
I already have too many "great" recordings in stereo. It certainly applies to Mahler as I have multiple sets in every format already, including several in excellent ones in multichannel.

Is the Honeck Mahler superior in performance to most of what I have? From what I have heard, nope. It is fine and would be greatly appreciated at a concert but doesn't rise to anywhere near the top of those already in my collection.

Don't have enough Strauss to satisfy though, eh?

Honeck's Mahler has its virtues, but notably the Exton sound is among the very best. Arguably, the engineering of the Fischer Mahler 1 is even better in some respects, but the Exton sound at Pittsburgh is indeed quite fine. I have always liked Professor Johnson's recordings, but Sound Mirror acting apparently on his behalf will have a tough time beating what Exton has been able to do at Heinz Hall, albeit in mch as well as stereo.

Incidentally, notwithstanding his often explicit markings, Mahler is one of those fellows whose compositions seem to be subject to a significant level of divergence of interpretation. Matters of taste seem to enter in a great deal. So, what is best?

Post by Kal Rubinson November 19, 2013 (7 of 98)
Euell Neverno said:

Don't have enough Strauss to satisfy though, eh?

Honeck's Mahler has its virtues, but notably the Exton sound is among the very best. Arguably, the engineering of the Fischer Mahler 1 is even better in some respects, but the Exton sound at Pittsburgh is indeed quite fine. I have always liked Professor Johnson's recordings, but Sound Mirror acting apparently on his behalf will have a tough time beating what Exton has been able to do at Heinz Hall, albeit in mch as well as stereo.

Incidentally, notwithstanding his often explicit markings, Mahler is one of those fellows whose compositions seem to be subject to a significant level of divergence of interpretation. Matters of taste seem to enter in a great deal. So, what is best?

I do have a fair amount of Strauss and better performed but not so well performed/recorded in MCH.

I won't argue with your other points. My choices are personal and do not exclude the likeliness of differences of opinion.

Post by Euell Neverno November 19, 2013 (8 of 98)
Kal Rubinson said:

I do have a fair amount of Strauss and better performed but not so well performed/recorded in MCH.

Might be the case with Homeck's Mahler as well? - although not in mch.

Post by rammiepie November 19, 2013 (9 of 98)
Euell Neverno said:

Might be the case with Homeck's Mahler as well? - although not in mch.

The Better the Sound.....the more lackluster the performance.

Bless J. Gordon Holt (of STEREOPHILE Magazine fame) for those precious words!

Post by Euell Neverno November 19, 2013 (10 of 98)
rammiepie said:

The Better the Sound.....the more lackluster the performance.

Bless J. Gordon Holt (of STEREOPHILE Magazine fame) for those precious words!

Fortunately no correlation. If it were true, Kal would still be playing 78's

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next

Closed