What equipment do you use?
Sun, Dec 12 2010, 3:47AM
#2
RE: What equipment?
...
Despite all the technical advances in the past 50 years I'm hard put to identify a consistent improvement in recording quality. In fact the overall standard seems to have slipped. Recording levels have crept up, particularly in rock and jazz music, and the whole industry appears to be catering to people looking for maximum impact rather than subtlety in their music. Andrew Everard posted an interesting mini-article, Nov. Gramophone I believe, about how the direction of the recording industry has switched towards convenience of access and use, away from a quest for higher recording quality. ....
I'm sorry to be the contrarian here but I really do feel that recording quality has, on average, greatly improved, especially in the last decade. Undoubtedly the average listener to music -- not a classical music listener to be sure -- has moved to MP3 or equivalent, but there is a strong body of audiophiles out here who have not been totally ignored by the recording industry.
I can give many examples of recently records that deliver much better sound than recordings of yore, e.g. the famous Mercury Living Presence or RCA Living Stereo.
You may have missed my point. I talked about consistency and the overall standard, not specific examples. And if you believe recording quality has on average greatly improved you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't hear any record label consistently reaching the standards of Lyrita of the 60s and 70s. Perhaps the best recording I've heard in recent years was the Hickox VW2 (original version). From Chandos, if I recall correctly, whose recordings are all over the map in my experience. Decca's Chailly Mahler cycle is inconsistent in itself, the recording of #2 a mess, #9 superb. Take your Yannick Nézet-Séguin example. On the same ATMA label, his recording of Mahler 4 is atrocious, so brash as to be just about unlistenable.
Today's technology should be able to produce spectacular recordings. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, and my fear is that producers aren't as interested in pursuing the holy grail of perfect, true-to-life recording because their market has changed. Sure, people like you and I may want the best but we're badly outnumbered by those who prefer cheap and convenient.
Sun, Dec 12 2010, 7:09PM
#3
RE: What equipment?
I'm afraid it's a matter of economic forces & rising costs. The days when Decca & EMI would take the late lamented Kingsway hall for a week to record say Gerontius or the War Requiem are sadly long gone as are the great recording teams; Legge & Larter, Bishop & Parker with EMI; Decca producers Culshaw, Smith & Minshull with engineers Wilkinson in London, Parry in Vienna & Wallace in Geneva. Haven't I read that a recent opera recording (was it Wagner) was the last such studio recording EMI said they would make? With the latter now a private equity company and the recent US court case does it have any future at all for serious classical recordings or has it lost the plot to the small newcomers?
Sat, Dec 18 2010, 2:33PM
#4
RE: What equipment?
I'm sorry to be the contrarian here but I really do feel that recording quality has, on average, greatly improved, especially in the last decade. Undoubtedly the average listener to music -- not a classical music listener to be sure -- has moved to MP3 or equivalent, but there is a strong body of audiophiles out here who have not been totally ignored by the recording industry.
I can give many examples of recently records that deliver much better sound than recordings of yore, e.g. the famous Mercury Living Presence or RCA Living Stereo.
You may have missed my point. I talked about consistency and the overall standard, not specific examples. And if you believe recording quality has on average greatly improved you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't hear any record label consistently reaching the standards of Lyrita of the 60s and 70s. Perhaps the best recording I've heard in recent years was the Hickox VW2 (original version). From Chandos, if I recall correctly, whose recordings are all over the map in my experience. Decca's Chailly Mahler cycle is inconsistent in itself, the recording of #2 a mess, #9 superb. Take your Yannick Nézet-Séguin example. On the same ATMA label, his recording of Mahler 4 is atrocious, so brash as to be just about unlistenable.
Today's technology should be able to produce spectacular recordings. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, and my fear is that producers aren't as interested in pursuing the holy grail of perfect, true-to-life recording because their market has changed. Sure, people like you and I may want the best but we're badly outnumbered by those who prefer cheap and convenient.
Well I think we might not argee, but I've certainly heard that financial considerations have constrained time & resources on the negative side of sound quality. I've never owned a Lyrita recording so I don't know the standard you're referring to. I do know that Mercury Living Sound, (as maybe a better know example), are great but a bit overrated.
I don't think you have a strong arguement challenging on the basis of examples versus overall results. Yes, I gave a number of examples but so did you. Most labels have been quite variable in results though some have been more consistent, e.g. Telarc. Naxos is an example, (from the smallish selection that I've owned), of an organization whose output has both improved and been more consistently good.
Sat, Dec 18 2010, 6:42PM
#5
RE: What equipment?
[/quote]
I don't think you have a strong arguement challenging on the basis of examples versus overall results. Yes, I gave a number of examples but so did you. Most labels have been quite variable in results though some have been more consistent, e.g. Telarc. Naxos is an example, (from the smallish selection that I've owned), of an organization whose output has both improved and been more consistently good.
[/quote]
Exactly!
Proving or disproving that recording quality has generally improved over a period of time would involve an extensive sampling exercise that I would guess neither of us have the money or inclination to undertake. All we can do is offer examples that show either point of view isn't universally tenable. I will offer, though, that the very best of today's recordings are better than those of yesterday. I'm just astounded at how close those old Lyritas run them.
And that's my frustration with today's recordings. They should be so much better. Naxos is a good example. So much of their output tends to be closely miked and dry, including the latest Petrenko Shostakovich 10. It's the best performance of this work since the ancient Svetlanov in my opinion, yet that old Melodiya sounds as good as the new issue, which has no 'air' around it. The Naxos Bax cycle was the same although it's quite possible that that was the recording Lloyd-Jones wanted, to match his analytical approach to these works. However, if you listen to the Naxos Arnold cycle you'll hear quite a variation in recordings from the sweeter sound given to 1-4, becoming brighter/brasher (and recorded at a slightly higher level) with #5. This closer sound, with high midrange boosted, can sound quite arresting in the car or on your mobile, but on high-end equipment it's abrasive.
Thu, Apr 14 2011, 6:39PM
#6
RE: What equipment do you use?
Just getting back into things since my Valve days with Radford STA 25 And Tannoy Lancasters 12" Monitor Golds original undoctored cones! Wish I had them both back! Now use .. Cyrus 8 XPD with Power Supply Marantz 600 SI CD with several upgrades sounds great.. Naim Ariva speakers Chord Rumor speaker leads.. Linn LP12 AND Syrinx PU2 with Osaki Moving coil .. Squeezebox Touch a new purchase quite amaxing for the money!
Mon, Apr 18 2011, 12:34AM
#7
RE: What equipment?
Tagalie refers to the sound of Naxos discs which really can be quite variable in my experience too no doubt because they use a wide range of venues, producers and engineers whilst the major companies too no longer have their own dedicated teams who knew and understood their recording venues intimately and I think this has lead to a general decline from the major companies. Tagalie refers to Lyrita recordings which were made by the well known Decca teams at their regular Kingsway Hall or Walthamstow Town Hall venues, hence their high standards.
I like Naxos's Marin Alsop Scottish Barber series but the sound could do with more warmth and richness and she gets better sound from Naxos in Bournemouth and London. I haven't heard the Petrenko Shostakovitch but if this was recorded in the Liverpool Philharmonic Hall Naxos should have done better. This is a good venue and EMI have secured very good sounds from there in the past.
One of the best Naxos CDs I've heard is Chloe Hanslip's Adams & Corigliano disc and I see this was done at Abbey Road but her Godard disc recorded in Slovakia sounds very good too and is a brilliant performance (having once visited Kosice it didn't strike me as somewhere likely to have a top quality professional symphony orchestra!).
Thu, Apr 21 2011, 7:36PM
#8
RE: What equipment?
Tagalie refers to the sound of Naxos discs which really can be quite variable in my experience too no doubt because they use a wide range of venues, producers and engineers whilst the major companies too no longer have their own dedicated teams who knew and understood their recording venues intimately and I think this has lead to a general decline from the major companies. Tagalie refers to Lyrita recordings which were made by the well known Decca teams at their regular Kingsway Hall or Walthamstow Town Hall venues, hence their high standards.
Good point. Just listening to the William Schuman cycle on Naxos there are some fine recordings. I realise these weren't originally recorded by Naxos but it's surprising nevertheless because much of what I've heard out of Seattle (e.g. the Piston 4th on Delos) received very lacklustre recordings. Change of recording venues or engineers? Who knows. In general I find the recording work Naxos has done in England - oddly not so much with Irish and Scottish orchestras - to be rather unsubtle, sometimes even harsh. As well as the Petrenko/Shostakovich and Lloyd Jones/Bax cycles, the Paul Daniel Walton series comes to mind.
Fri, Jul 1 2011, 7:07AM
#9
RE: What equipment do you use?
Currently using Arcam FMJ A32 amplifier and the SACD player D137 feeding Quad electrostatics, the 989s. For streaming I'm using the Touch's analogue output only, though I was aiming to get a good DAC to partner it.
But now I am considering the Naim NXR, particularly after Andrew's recent enthusiastic review. Trouble is, it's led me also to look at the SuperNait integrated amp!
I think they would make a great combination, but at something north of £6K, I would need a good trade-in.
I know the Cambridge Azur or the Oppo models wold be far cheaper, but the Naim looks irresistible. Comments welcome. please.
Mon, Aug 15 2011, 2:51PM
#10
RE: What equipment do you use?
I bought my system just over 3 years ago. After audtioning various brands, only once A v B. I stumbled upon Naim and Kudos. I have to say even after 3 years, am still pleased with the quality.
Naim and Kudos aren't cheap, but you get what you pay for.
My system is as follows;
CD Player Naim CD5x
Preamp Naim NAC 122x
Power Amplifier Naim NAP 150x
Power Supply (To improve quality of CD Player & Preamp) Naim Flatcap 2x
Loudspeakers Kudos Cardea C10s
Speaker Stands Partington Dreadnaughts
I purchased my system from Signals, who are situated in Bucklesham, near Ipswich. They could not have been more helpful, and they know their stuff. They not do come with the hard sell. The audition was polite and casual. The quality was obvious. What struck me as well, was the reproduction of the "Vintage." CDs I had brought along.
If I were to recomend a HiFi dealer, it would be Signals.
Tue, Aug 16 2011, 7:00AM
#11
RE: What equipment do you use?
Congratulations on a great system. Having experience of Naim products years ago, I'm guessing it sounds amazing. I agree that a good dealer is well worth supporting. It is pleasing that the British hi-fi industry, with the likes of Naim and Linn, can prosper with products of such high quality despite straitened times.
I stuck with Linn myself, but I'm sure there's very little in it at this level. Be prepared to spend a bigger chunk of your life listening to music. I know I have since my major upgrade a couple of years ago, after enjoying my previous (Linn) set-up for nearly two decades! A sound investment indeed. (Oops!)
Vic.
Tue, Aug 16 2011, 5:11PM
#12
RE: What equipment do you use?
Hi Vic,
Yes, the quality is superb, and a friend of mine who is into HiFi etc; thinks it was he who recommended Naim to me. Not so, another mate of mine, who also is a HiFi buff. Suggested a trip down the Tottenham Court Road, while in London. At that time Spendor was my preferred speaker brand.
We listened to a Naim set up with some Spendor speakers, and it sounded really good. Put another brand with the same speakers, and Naim just knocked the other brand six!! My mate who I was with, had purchased a new set of headphones from Signals. He mentioned, they only pick what is the best in their opinion. From their own research. Of course Naim is their preferred brand, but their speaker preferences differed from mine.
The rest is history, but what I will say, is the voice reproduction is superb. If there are any opera lovers, who are upgrading, or starting afresh. Look at, or listen to Naim and Kudos combined.
Naim - the quality speakes for itself.
Kudos - the Cardea C10s have the Seas Crescendo tweeters, " this is almost certainly the finest tweeter in the world."
Opera lovers - here it is!
Fri, Aug 26 2011, 2:04PM
#13
RE: What equipment do you use?
Digital source : Mac Mini + iTunes + 2 x 500GB hard drive (all files in WAV format)
CD / DAC : Quad 99 CDP-2
Pre-amplifier : Krell KRC-3
Power-amplifier : 2 x Quad 909 (bi-amping)
FM Tuner : Kenwood KT 5020
Speakers : Neat Motive 1
Headphone amp : Creek OBH 11 SE
Headphones : Grado SR325, Shure SRH840, Sennheiser PX100
Tue, Aug 30 2011, 10:18PM
#14
RE: What equipment do you use?
Int.Amp - Music Hall a35.2
CDP - Music Hall cd25.2
Turntable - Pro-ject debut III
Speakers - CANTON Karat 720
Thu, Nov 24 2011, 12:14AM
#15
RE: What equipment do you use?
In the less cash stricken days it was
Pink Triangle Orion Grace f9e
PT/Pip pre- EAR 509s
Magnaplar SMGa
Circumstances led to less listening and dead equipment , with my 1979 Rega being re-instated with my RCL Small Loudspeakers [ LS35a with attitude ] which I love .
I have given up on Hi-Fi with a convenient 1st Generation Linn Classik Movie , budget Graham Slee phono stage into the RCLs or mid range Sennheisers .
However , Arthur at Funk [ nee Pink Triangle ] has taken away the ancient PT for a full refurb with FX-R arm / Grado Prestige green which should liven things up a bit .
Ironically , I love playing ancient mono lps on my system !
Don't have any of the above for comparison. I very rarely purchase a new recording of the standard repertoire because I prefer older styles of both performance & recording (can't stand period instrument Mozart for example - bought the G award winning Figaro by Jacobs out of curiosity but have never got very far with it as I always end up taking it off and putting on Barenboim, Boehm or Gui). I did get Natalie Clein's beautifully played Elgar but thought the recorded sound inferior to Du Pre on CD, or best of all on Testament's LP.
Does it need a Hungarian I wonder to do justice to Bartok (should we have a post for "are nationals best in their own music?"). w d bailey likes the new Fischer: I find it difficult to choose between the Dorati LSO, Solti LSO (both on CD) and the Reiner Chicago (on Classic Records LP).
One newish CD that did impress me for both performance & recording was Chloe Hanslip's Adams & Corigliano disc, made I think at Abbey Road.