Good classical music labels?

[hammeredklavier]

Pretty much all classical music is well recorded these days. But watch out for Nimbus. They used to use a distant miking technique, not sure if they still do, which was like listening through the wrong end of a telescope.

Some orchestras' "own label" recordings have not received plaudits for their sound quality, but I've not heard any myself.

Nimbus used to have this weird microphone system (forget what they called it) that tried to emulate real world listening experience by capturing the sound from a single point in space - that point in space often being, as you say, at the back of an empty and highly reverberant concert hall! One of my favourite recordings of the Bartok violin concertos was massacred this way (Gerhart Hetzel with Adam Fischer). If you think the acoustic properties of the room are more important than the actual performance then you'll like it! Although this seemed to be a characteristic of 'audiophile' recordings in those days: musicians set well back in rather echoey halls.

On the average though, most classical music is remarkably well recorded, considering the challenges, and most recent examples from the big labels are pretty stellar to be honest.

 

[tomek]

IMHO the best classical recordings ever made are "RCA Living Stereo" and "Decca Legends" series. Some of the recordings from the beginning of the "stereo" age are so good, that i am asking myself, whre is the technological progress if many of really old RCA or Decca recordings sounds much better than the recordings from last decades ...

My theory is, that recordings with two or three tube Neumann microphones, simple three channel tube mixer and good Ampex or Studer tape recorder can deliver the best possible quality. Also in those years "sound engineer" was a very good qualified person with good musical background ...

 

[Stunsworth]

I disagree totally. How would LESS distance sound better in larger listening rooms??

Different acoustics, greater distance from the speakers? I'm speculating on the reason they preferred closer recordings, perhaps it was just that they wanted to produce more 'spectacular' recordings for people who'd never heard an orchestra in the flesh? Whatever the reason there was a fundamental difference in the house sound of say CBS and EMI in the 50s and 60s.

they were recorded with the same mic placement/distance as the european colleagues

I'm not differentiating between the European and US Mercury recordings, I find many of them sound too close. Spectacular in detail, but unnatural. That's just my take, I'm not saying people aren't allowed to like them, it's just that I don't rate them as highly as yourself.

As for Tony Faulkner, on that we can agree. He has produced consistently superb recordings, often with just a crossed pair of microphones.

 

[Teddy Ray]

Nimbus used to have this weird microphone system (forget what they called it) that tried to emulate real world listening experience by capturing the sound from a single point in space - that point in space often being, as you say, at the back of an empty and highly reverberant concert hall! One of my favourite recordings of the Bartok violin concertos was massacred this way (Gerhart Hetzel with Adam Fischer). If you think the acoustic properties of the room are more important than the actual performance then you'll like it! Although this seemed to be a characteristic of 'audiophile' recordings in those days: musicians set well back in rather echoey halls.

On the average though, most classical music is remarkably well recorded, considering the challenges, and most recent examples from the big labels are pretty stellar to be honest.

it is called the *NATIVE B FORMAT*.

Nimbus-Halliday array used 1 DPA 4006 omni and two schoeps CMC68.

here it is.

 

[Teddy Ray]

IMHO the best classical recordings ever made are "RCA Living Stereo" and "Decca Legends" series. Some of the recordings from the beginning of the "stereo" age are so good, that i am asking myself, whre is the technological progress if many of really old RCA or Decca recordings sounds much better than the recordings from last decades ...

My theory is, that recordings with two or three tube Neumann microphones, simple three channel tube mixer and good Ampex or Studer tape recorder can deliver the best possible quality. Also in those years "sound engineer" was a very good qualified person with good musical background ...

the type of mics, the tape machine, and mixer.... are of little consequence.

the limitations of the TAPE TECH required that musicians be in perfect condition for a recording....tape was expensive(still is) as is engineer time, musician fees, etc.


the gear simply does not matter. what matters most is the musicians , then the engineer and venue.

record those same orchestras with the same limitations today with 3 DPA 4006TL (or Gefell Mk221) with a SSL or Soundcraft or Mackie Desk even through a good ADC.... and the sound will be as good or much better.


http://www.mil-media.com/LargeEnsembleListeningTest.html


far too much importance is placed on equipment. it doesn't matter.

 

[tomek]

the type of mics, the tape machine, and mixer.... are of little consequence.

the limitations of the TAPE TECH required that musicians be in perfect condition for a recording....tape was expensive(still is) as is engineer time, musician fees, etc.


the gear simply does not matter. what matters most is the musicians , then the engineer and venue.

record those same orchestras with the same limitations today with 3 DPA 4006TL (or Gefell Mk221) with a SSL or Soundcraft or Mackie Desk even through a good ADC.... and the sound will be as good or much better.


http://www.mil-media.com/LargeEnsembleListeningTest.html


far too much importance is placed on equipment. it doesn't matter.

If the equipement today is so good, why good recordings of the classical music are so rare ?

I think, that todays equipement is to complex, they are using to many microphones for the recordings. To many microphone are causing "phase" errors and one 12 or 24 channels mixer is worse than 2 or 3 channels mixer build with the same components. Also the use of tubes in the older recordings has benefits.

I am visiting often good classical concerts and sometimes it is recorded, than i am counting the microphones and when the orchester is bigger they are using up to ~60 !!! microphones. Absolut crazy. It means they have ~60 channels mixing and between each microphone there is some time delay, some phase difference.

For me it seems, that something like Decca tree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decca_tree

or ORTF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORTF_stereo_technique

can deliver the best performance.

Naim Audio for their "True Stereo" recordings is using only two microphones going directly into two tracks Nagra 4s.

They are also many other small labels using similar simple technique and getting better results than big labels with their "overkill" XX-channels hardware.

 

[Teddy Ray]

If the equipement today is so good, why good recordings of the classical music are so rare ?

I think, that todays equipement is to complex, they are using to many microphones for the recordings. To many microphone are causing "phase" errors and one 12 or 24 channels mixer is worse than 2 or 3 channels mixer build with the same components. Also the use of tubes in the older recordings has benefits.

I am visiting often good classical concerts and sometimes it is recorded, than i am counting the microphones and when the orchester is bigger they are using up to ~60 !!! microphones. Absolut crazy. It means they have ~60 channels mixing and between each microphone there is some time delay, some phase difference.

For me it seems, that something like Decca tree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decca_tree

or ORTF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORTF_stereo_technique

can deliver the best performance.

Naim Audio for their "True Stereo" recordings is using only two microphones going directly into two tracks Nagra 4s.

They are also many other small labels using similar simple technique and getting better results than big labels with their "overkill" XX-channels hardware.

good recordings aren't rare. I know what ORTF, NOS, Blumlein, XY, Jecklin, Faulkner Phased, etc are.. ive been recording classical (and other) music for a decade or so. The bottom line is that You do what the job requires, and not box yourself in to some arbitrary notion of "audiophile sound". or assume that a recording has a certain sound because "they used XXX equipment". Phase errors can be avoided if time is taken to properly set up, and the mics are time aligned, etc.

If you went to a major orchestra and told them that you were using some silly "purist stereo" technique to a terribly outdated 1/4 inch tape machine, youd get fired and probably never work again. The guys back then HAD to work that way and you can bet anything that if they had all the stuff available that we do now, thered be a lot more than 2-3 mics flying.

Tony Faulkner, Da Hong Seeto, Hudson Fair, Simon Eadon, Andreas Neubronner, Peter Langer, King, Teije Van Geest....all these men make fantastic modern recordings, and in ways that have little or nothing to do with how things used to be done.

Time has marched on. Turntables, Tape Machines, and Vinyl.... don't have a place in classical recording IMO. Which is why noone uses em for that purpose.
some tube mics sound great, but it is a bit illogical to assume that just because a microphone has some tube in it that it will automatically be better.

There aren't any benefits for "tubes" in recordings. There are benefits for good microphones...whether SS or tube.

it is wise to let go of nostalgia and entrenched notions and evolve with technology. Classical engineers have evolved a LONG way from how things used to be....

the "decca tree" gets bounced around a lot...but the thing is , it isn't any set /specified "technique". It varied..

 

[neilmack]

For recordings of early music I can particularly recommend the GLOSSA label. Also the Vivaldi series on NAIVE/OPUS III. Both have exciting, innovative performances in fine modern well-lit recordings.

The catalogue of the pioneering early music label L'Oiseau Lyre is currently being reissued by the Australian Eloquence label - both performances and recordings are top notch.

BIS offer consistently good orchestral recordings.