Kurtisjeffers, the posting does say, (I quote) "Some of the RCA remasters from late 1950s are better than any recordings made today! Any other comments on this subject.......". I think Carl did just that. The recording he is speaking of is from that era, and is an excellent performance. I understand why you prefer CD, and I certainly understand why you prefer a performance at Severance Hall, but this is not only a music site, but an audiophile site as well. The comments concerning format are generally passionate, as this is the next most important thing, aside from the performance itself. So if someone here wants the same quality performance as you, but prefers a format that they believe is superior, it is not wrong. In a sense it is an attempt to share. Much like the postings that perhaps claim that the Black Crows are better than anything classical or maybe that Bartok is superior to Ray Charles.
Classical Audiophiles Rejoice!
The audio quality of recordings now available has recently made huge gains with various remastering techniques used by major labels to greatest recordings in their past catalog, and released at mid price! EMI "great recordings of century" uses ART (Abbey Rd tech.), DG uses original image bit processing, Sony uses SBM (superior bit mapping), RCA "living stereo" uses UV22 super CD encoding, DECCA "legends" uses 24bit/96khz digital transfers, etc etc. Even budget lines like Naxos have very good sound! For example I am now listening to Mahler 2nd Sym EMI label Klemperer/Schwarzkopf remastered using ART. I had original CD, and sound was average at best for 1963 recording. What a transformation now, huge gains in every dept.....much larger gain than a Gold CD gives to average recording. Mahler 2 on one CD, mid price, excellent sound quality, great performance with SCHWARZKOPF! Some of the RCA remasters from late 1950s are better than any recordings made today! Any other comments on this subject.......
- ...
- 24 posts total
- 24 posts total