On 20/06/07, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I recall reading about one of the Rubinstein
> recordings, Brahms #1 IIRC
> both mono and stereo versions were made at the same
> time, the stereo record being mic'ed much closer and
> making the piano sound hard and brittle
Whatever you read, I can tell you absolutely that the piano sound in
this recording is not "hard and brittle".
The recording was made back in April 1954, when only two channels were
being used, so you can't expect perfection. I would describe the sound
as warm rather than analytical.
Intending to just make a quick check, I put the SACD version on, and
ended up listening right through. The performance is superb and the
sound quality very good indeed. The whole thing was a joy to hear. (I
listened on Quad ESL-63 speakers, with an amplifier made by Musical
Fidelity). The piano is well balanced with the orchestra.
I haven't heard any of the other issues, LP or CD (I normally listen to
the version by Curzon and Szell, or to a live recording by Sokolov). I
think any problems would lie with either stereo disc cutting equipment,
or the mastering engineer(s) or the monitors they used, and not with the
The CD layer on the SACD is good too.
> Joe Salerno
> Industrial Video Services
> David Lennick wrote:
>> Just compared three copies of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto with
>> Emil Gilels and Fritz Reiner conducting: original mono LP (LM 1969),
>> "Living Stereo" CD, and 1970s English pressing on "Camden Classics"
>> CCV 5016 from Victrola master (VICS 1039). Interesting results. The
>> CD is muddy, distant, over-reverbed and very unpleasant. The Camden
>> Classics/Victrola is running slow, horribly distorted and full of
>> dropouts. The original mono LP sounds .. bloody fabulous!
Can't comment on this as it hasn't come out on SACD. My bet is that the
mono LP is closer to the master tape than the others. People will
"improve" the sound.
[log in to unmask]