After suffering through a Haydn 88, Beethoven Leonore n. 3 and Ravel Rapsodie Espagnole in such execreble sound that I could barely listen, all of a sudden the final performance of this 3,3, 1952 concert was a pleasant surprise. Decent sound, very moving performance.
On Myto. I always thought of this as a reliable label specializing in opera. This release has zero liner notes and was "produced by Archipel."
On 3 Nov, 23:37, "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
> After suffering through a Haydn 88, Beethoven Leonore n. 3 and Ravel > Rapsodie Espagnole in such execreble sound that I could barely listen, all > of a sudden the final performance of this 3,3, 1952 concert was a pleasant > surprise. Decent sound, very moving performance.
> On Myto. I always thought of this as a reliable label specializing in > opera. This release has zero liner notes and was "produced by Archipel."
You got me curious, since I had home tapings (from RAI broadcasts in the early 1990s), more recently transferred to CDR, of 3 of the items on the Myto CD (not the Beethoven). I've now listened to the Myto.
As I had it, the Haydn was a more brilliant, less bass-boomy recording, more tiring to listen to but more "present". I get the idea Myto have filtered it drastically. Probably the not-very-wonderful original recording could be presented in better light than either mine or Myto's
In the Ravel and Strauss, the differences between my taping and the Myto are smaller but again I get the idea Myto used a bit more filter.
I agree the Strauss is the best recording, with clear timps and a well- defined bass-line, but I think you exaggerate the defects of the others, even the Beethoven where fortissimos are dominated by distorted timps and blaring trumpets (but below fortissimo the sound is passable). Surely we've all suffered far worse sound than this where historical interest is high and I found the Myto CD quite listenable.
As to why the recordings are so variable when from the same concert, I can only suggest that the engineers realized the distortion and reset the levels and microphone positions during the interval. I think you can hear them fiddling with the level at the beginning of the Ravel.
Myto's claim that the recordings are "from the original tapes" raises my eyebrows. Firstly, if such tapes were made available under a licensing agreement with RAI, the disc should bear the logo "RAI TRADE" and it doesn't (the logo appears on Arts Archives issues, for example, and quite a number of DVDS).
Also, I question whether the "original tapes" exist. I read long ago on the cover of an LP transfer of Furtwängler's Turin Tchaikovsky 5 that the performance was recorded on tape, after which it was transferred to large 78 rpm shellacs for broadcasting purposes and (incredibly) the original tapes were destroyed. I don't know if RAI systematically did this in all cases, but if you listen to the Myto CD on headphones you can hear quite clearly various crunches and clicks suggesting a disc, not a tape, source.
> On 3 Nov, 23:37, "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
> > After suffering through a Haydn 88, Beethoven Leonore n. 3 and Ravel > > Rapsodie Espagnole in such execreble sound that I could barely listen, all > > of a sudden the final performance of this 3,3, 1952 concert was a pleasant > > surprise. Decent sound, very moving performance.
> > On Myto. I always thought of this as a reliable label specializing in > > opera. This release has zero liner notes and was "produced by Archipel."
> You got me curious, since I had home tapings (from RAI broadcasts in > the early 1990s), more recently transferred to CDR, of 3 of the items > on the Myto CD (not the Beethoven). I've now listened to the Myto.
> As I had it, the Haydn was a more brilliant, less bass-boomy > recording, more tiring to listen to but more "present". I get the idea > Myto have filtered it drastically. Probably the not-very-wonderful > original recording could be presented in better light than either mine > or Myto's
> In the Ravel and Strauss, the differences between my taping and the > Myto are smaller but again I get the idea Myto used a bit more filter.
> I agree the Strauss is the best recording, with clear timps and a well- > defined bass-line, but I think you exaggerate the defects of the > others, even the Beethoven where fortissimos are dominated by > distorted timps and blaring trumpets (but below fortissimo the sound > is passable). Surely we've all suffered far worse sound than this > where historical interest is high and I found the Myto CD quite > listenable.
> As to why the recordings are so variable when from the same concert, I > can only suggest that the engineers realized the distortion and reset > the levels and microphone positions during the interval. I think you > can hear them fiddling with the level at the beginning of the Ravel.
> Myto's claim that the recordings are "from the original tapes" raises > my eyebrows. Firstly, if such tapes were made available under a > licensing agreement with RAI, the disc should bear the logo "RAI > TRADE" and it doesn't (the logo appears on Arts Archives issues, for > example, and quite a number of DVDS).
> Also, I question whether the "original tapes" exist. I read long ago > on the cover of an LP transfer of Furtwängler's Turin Tchaikovsky 5 > that the performance was recorded on tape, after which it was > transferred to large 78 rpm shellacs for broadcasting purposes and > (incredibly) the original tapes were destroyed. I don't know if RAI > systematically did this in all cases, but if you listen to the Myto CD > on headphones you can hear quite clearly various crunches and clicks > suggesting a disc, not a tape, source.
> Chris Howell
These companies are very keen on the "original tapes" logo which may be true if they've knocked off wholsale a remastering from another label which did have access to them, but which is patently untrue when the original "tape" was an acetate.
> After suffering through a Haydn 88, Beethoven Leonore n. 3 and Ravel > Rapsodie Espagnole in such execreble sound that I could barely listen, all > of a sudden the final performance of this 3,3, 1952 concert was a pleasant > surprise. Decent sound, very moving performance.
> On Myto. I always thought of this as a reliable label specializing in > opera. This release has zero liner notes and was "produced by Archipel."
You got me curious, since I had home tapings (from RAI broadcasts in the early 1990s), more recently transferred to CDR, of 3 of the items on the Myto CD (not the Beethoven). I've now listened to the Myto.
As I had it, the Haydn was a more brilliant, less bass-boomy recording, more tiring to listen to but more "present". I get the idea Myto have filtered it drastically. Probably the not-very-wonderful original recording could be presented in better light than either mine or Myto's
In the Ravel and Strauss, the differences between my taping and the Myto are smaller but again I get the idea Myto used a bit more filter.
I agree the Strauss is the best recording, with clear timps and a well- defined bass-line, but I think you exaggerate the defects of the others, even the Beethoven where fortissimos are dominated by distorted timps and blaring trumpets (but below fortissimo the sound is passable). Surely we've all suffered far worse sound than this where historical interest is high and I found the Myto CD quite listenable.
As to why the recordings are so variable when from the same concert, I can only suggest that the engineers realized the distortion and reset the levels and microphone positions during the interval. I think you can hear them fiddling with the level at the beginning of the Ravel.
Myto's claim that the recordings are "from the original tapes" raises my eyebrows. Firstly, if such tapes were made available under a licensing agreement with RAI, the disc should bear the logo "RAI TRADE" and it doesn't (the logo appears on Arts Archives issues, for example, and quite a number of DVDS).
Also, I question whether the "original tapes" exist. I read long ago on the cover of an LP transfer of Furtwängler's Turin Tchaikovsky 5 that the performance was recorded on tape, after which it was transferred to large 78 rpm shellacs for broadcasting purposes and (incredibly) the original tapes were destroyed. I don't know if RAI systematically did this in all cases, but if you listen to the Myto CD on headphones you can hear quite clearly various crunches and clicks suggesting a disc, not a tape, source.
Chris Howell
"I read long ago on the cover of an LP transfer of Furtwängler's Turin Tchaikovsky 5 that the performance was recorded on tape, after which it was transferred to large 78 rpm shellacs for broadcasting purposes and (incredibly) the original tapes were destroyed. I don't know if RAI systematically did this in all cases,"
I think that is exactly what also happened to the RAI Furtwangler Ring - the original tapes were destroyed. Wagner fan
On 7 Nov, 09:27, "wagnerfan" <wagner...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "I read long ago > on the cover of an LP transfer of Furtwängler's Turin Tchaikovsky 5 > that the performance was recorded on tape, after which it was > transferred to large 78 rpm shellacs for broadcasting purposes and > (incredibly) the original tapes were destroyed. I don't know if RAI > systematically did this in all cases,"
> I think that is exactly what also happened to the RAI Furtwangler Ring - the > original tapes were destroyed. Wagner fan
It's unlikely the tapes were destroyed - due to its cost it was probably reused.
|
