This double CD:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wagner-Overt...8540583&sr=8-1
claims to be DDD.
The first disc was recorded in 1990 but the second was recorded in 1972
at Abbey Road.
Surely digital recording started much later than this. Can anyone remember?
The first disc is OK but the second sounds like it was mastered on a
portable cassette deck.
Perhaps I'll take it back to Zavvi and get my three pounds back. :-)

--
Eiron.

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
This double CD:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wagner-Overt...8540583&sr=8-1
claims to be DDD. The first disc was recorded in 1990 but the second was
recorded in 1972 at Abbey Road. Surely digital recording started much
later than this. Can anyone remember?

First I saw of them was mid '70s.

The first disc is OK but the
second sounds like it was mastered on a portable cassette deck. Perhaps
I'll take it back to Zavvi and get my three pounds back. :-)

If made in '72 there's no reason why it shouldn't sound excellent.

--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2008-08-12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Eiron wrote:
This double CD:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wagner-Overt...8540583&sr=8-1
claims to be DDD. The first disc was recorded in 1990 but the second was
recorded in 1972 at Abbey Road. Surely digital recording started much
later than this. Can anyone remember?

First I saw of them was mid '70s.

When I looked up the history of digital recording a while ago I believe
I saw that Denon produced a commercial LP in 1972 that was digitally
mastered.

The first disc is OK but the
second sounds like it was mastered on a portable cassette deck. Perhaps
I'll take it back to Zavvi and get my three pounds back. :-)

If made in '72 there's no reason why it shouldn't sound excellent.

A professional 1972 analogue recording should certainly sound
excellent. I regard the mid-60s to be the point after which not to
worry about sound quality.

Recordings from the late 50s can vary from excellent to execrable. But,
I am actually listening right now to some 1955 vintage Wagner (Decca).
It's miraculously good.

However, I have no idea how good (or bad) a 1972 digital recording from
Abbey Road would sound.

--
John Phillips

In article , John Phillips
wrote:


Recordings from the late 50s can vary from excellent to execrable. But,
I am actually listening right now to some 1955 vintage Wagner (Decca).
It's miraculously good.

Although I am not a fan of Wagner, I'd agree with the general point. Two of
the best stereo recordings I've recently acquired on CD are

1) A Prokofiev/Tchaikovsky CfP CD (Prokofiev 1st & 7th, etc). These were
amongst the first commercial stereo recordings EMI made, in 1955. Sounds
superb.

2) A Szell/Cleveland collection on CBS, Includes recordings like one of the
Pictures at an Exhibition (1963) and Capriccio Espagnol (1958) that also
sound excellent.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Eiron"

This double CD:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wagner-Overt...8540583&sr=8-1
claims to be DDD.
The first disc was recorded in 1990 but the second was recorded in 1972 at
Abbey Road.


** The famous Abbey Road studios has a web cam permanently set and aimed at
that zebra crossing immortalised by the cover pic on the eponymous 1969
Beatles album.

Take a look.

http://www.abbeyroad.com/visit/#




...... Phil

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , John Phillips
wrote:


Recordings from the late 50s can vary from excellent to execrable. But,
I am actually listening right now to some 1955 vintage Wagner (Decca).
It's miraculously good.

Although I am not a fan of Wagner, I'd agree with the general point. Two of
the best stereo recordings I've recently acquired on CD are

1) A Prokofiev/Tchaikovsky CfP CD (Prokofiev 1st & 7th, etc). These were
amongst the first commercial stereo recordings EMI made, in 1955. Sounds
superb.

2) A Szell/Cleveland collection on CBS, Includes recordings like one of the
Pictures at an Exhibition (1963) and Capriccio Espagnol (1958) that also
sound excellent.

And here's another recent purchase with substandard sound quality:
http://www.emiclassics.co.uk/release.php?id=12886

Of course there are many excellent older recordings but the duff ones
are the ones you remember....

--
Eiron.

In article , Eiron
wrote:


And here's another recent purchase with substandard sound quality:
http://www.emiclassics.co.uk/release.php?id=12886

Of course there are many excellent older recordings but the duff ones
are the ones you remember....

That isn't really so in my case. I tend to remember the good recordings and
performances. Perhaps because I re-listen to them and get to know them, but
discard lousy recordings.

However I do tend to recall the tendency of some companies to sell
recordings with factory faults, etc. So have strong memories of EMI LPs and
the levels of added rice crispie effects.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 2008-08-14, Eiron wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , John Phillips
wrote:

Recordings from the late 50s can vary from excellent to execrable. But,
I am actually listening right now to some 1955 vintage Wagner (Decca).
It's miraculously good.

Although I am not a fan of Wagner, I'd agree with the general point. Two of
the best stereo recordings I've recently acquired on CD are

1) A Prokofiev/Tchaikovsky CfP CD (Prokofiev 1st & 7th, etc). These were
amongst the first commercial stereo recordings EMI made, in 1955. Sounds
superb.

2) A Szell/Cleveland collection on CBS, Includes recordings like one of the
Pictures at an Exhibition (1963) and Capriccio Espagnol (1958) that also
sound excellent.

And here's another recent purchase with substandard sound quality:
http://www.emiclassics.co.uk/release.php?id=12886

I have the 1955 Vittorio Gui / Glyndebourne Mozart Marriage of Figaro
(also on CFP, 1991 digital mastering). Super performance but the
sound could be better.

However, I do wonder if recent signal processing solutions are better
at removing the "bad bits" from older recordings.

I think there may be a more recent re-mastering of the above (on EMI
released 2006 and specifically described as "remastered"). So I am
tempted to check it out to see if it's better.

Of course there are many excellent older recordings but the duff ones
are the ones you remember....

The well-known 1958 "Sofia Recital" by Sviatoslav Richter is a divine
performance but it sounds as if it is spliced together from (at least)
two boot-leg cassette tape recordings by audience members (yes - I know
that's too early for CC but that's what it sounds like). And Richter
makes an enormous fluff in the opening promenade of Mussorgsky's Pictures
at an Exhibition (piano original) as he "warms up". But it's still
a masterpiece.

--
John Phillips

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , John Phillips
wrote:


Recordings from the late 50s can vary from excellent to execrable.
But, I am actually listening right now to some 1955 vintage Wagner
(Decca). It's miraculously good.

Although I am not a fan of Wagner, I'd agree with the general point.
Two of the best stereo recordings I've recently acquired on CD are

1) A Prokofiev/Tchaikovsky CfP CD (Prokofiev 1st & 7th, etc). These
were amongst the first commercial stereo recordings EMI made, in 1955.
Sounds superb.

2) A Szell/Cleveland collection on CBS, Includes recordings like one
of the Pictures at an Exhibition (1963) and Capriccio Espagnol (1958)
that also sound excellent.

And here's another recent purchase with substandard sound quality:
http://www.emiclassics.co.uk/release.php?id=12886

Of course there are many excellent older recordings but the duff ones
are the ones you remember....

Makes you wonder what was going on. A pro 1/4" machine from the early '50s
is perfectly capable of giving a respectable recording - even by today's
standards. I'd say it's likely the master has been lost and it's from some
copy or other. Or the tapes have been badly stored.

--
*Middle age is when it takes longer to rest than to get tired.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.