|
|
In his review of this, krisjan says:
"I was expecting more than I got with this recording."
I am puzzled - thinking as I do that this one is nigh near perfect in sound and in what the musicians give us. Krisjan mentions a lot of out of phase information. I wonder how that plays out in what I consider the superb MC mix?
|
|
|
Post by brenda October 11, 2006 (12 of 17)
|
|
Windsurfer said: I am puzzled - thinking as I do that this one is nigh near perfect in sound and in what the musicians give us.
dear w/s, personally, I was underwhelmed, finding this recorded too closely and the performances lacking the subtlety of, say, the Beaux Arts Trio. B
|
|
|
|
|
“Krisjan mentions a lot of out of phase information” – may I suggest that Kristjan mixes up “out of phase” and “non correlated”. Out of phase means two signals with identical amplitude and phase but with a 180 degr phase shift. Non correlated means no or little relation in amplitude and phase, which sounds completely different.
|
|
|
Post by krisjan October 14, 2006 (14 of 17)
|
|
"Out of phase" does not necessarily mean "180 degrees out of phase". Yes, I do mean non-correlated phase and it is indeed present to a high degree between the stereo channels of this recording.
|
|
|
Post by Edvin October 14, 2006 (15 of 17)
|
|
Pentaman is very silent these days. Answers please! Also, why have you removed the sound effects from the Tosca recording?
|
|
|
|
|
These last few days, I have compared this recording and that from Florestan Trio. The difference is quite substantial. I think I have to listen to them more to write about but I couldn't wait to say something about this enchanting recording. Or it might be better to write before I get accustomed to either of them. Florestan Trio's performance often sounds humble, fragmented and old-fashioned. It just sounds as if it's recorded in the 80s. What is the problem? It seems very obivous to my ears. Whenever(especially in the longer movements) they change gears(dynamics and tempo etc.) according to the notations or to the length of notes on the score, they fail to make shifting natural like a lame driver. Besides, they don't have enough energy and fire in 'allegro energico con fuoco.' 'Molto allegro e agitato' isn't as gripping as in F/G/MS's hands. On the other hand, Fischer/Gilad/Muller-Schott, their performance sounds more professional, impassionate, intimate, and spontanieous. It's coherent in the big picture and makes more sense. 'Molto allegro e agitato' is played as real 'molto allegro e agitato' and 'allegro energico con fuoco' is energetic and sparkling with fire. about the sound, The violin and cello are placed in wider soundscape than BAT's or Florestan Trio's. this one is more heavy in the bass. I don't know if this is natural. I'm just thinking uh... it would have been better if the piano sounded sharper.
|
|
|
|
|
This has just "won" BBC R3's Building a Library choice for the first trio. I can't dissent from that conclusion and would add that, if anything (as it has grown on me over the years), the performance of the second trio is even more remarkable.
|
|