I am surprised by your review because this is almost entirely the opposite of my experience with the DG Original Source. I find them to be sonorous, spacious, and dynamic. The timbre and texture of the instruments I grew up playing sounds believable and space feels appropriate for the environments I attend to hear classical music live. (The tragic flaw of the series has been the close cut to the labels on Ma Vlast and Brahm's Piano Concerto.) I'm not hearing this 'heavy metal style compression' you are criticizing Emile Berliner for. Listening experiences aside, I do think it unfortunate that you misrepresent much of the recording and mastering process. You have acknowledged this partly in the video description, but essentially you are taking a conspiratorial tone by looking at a promotional video and making both mistaken and speculative claims. If you want to be a responsible critic you would email EBS for clarification of the signal chain. For example, suggesting that the Rite of Spring was mastered with a 'rock and roll edge' to appeal to a younger audience is nonsensical from the perspective of the technicians and DGG as a classical label. Describing quadrophonic recording as using 7 or 8 microphones when the Mastering Deep Dive video by EBS describe 4 microphones and their models suggests you are not carefully researching this process. You claim they are hard panning the rear microphones to the L and R speakers to enlarge the soundspace. Mallard and Meyer explain in the video (with a photo at 6:42) the passive mixer for the front and rear microphones - which doesn't have a L and R pan, only Front and Rear controls. From a recording engineer's perspective (all puns intended), they don't need to pan the signals hard left and right because the spatial mixing of the room has already been achieved by the microphone placement in the environment. Frankly, your whole explanation of the rear microphones causing 'crosstalk' when mixed in because their information is the 'polar opposite of the information you are hearing' is incoherent. Are you suggesting that the rear microphones are perfectly out of phase with the front microphones? Your thoughts are very disorganized and it does an injustice to your review. What you are NOT discussing as part of your audio reviews is your system. Most audiophiles I know make sure to describe their equipment along with the intentional decisions made in selecting their gear for specific qualities. This is because, not only is there no perfect audio system, but not every system is perfect at every genre of music. Even within classical music there is a difference between systems that perform better with solo and chamber pieces and not with orchestral. The fact you are criticizing orchestral releases and then hold up a record of string quartets at the end makes the case that you may not be fairly considering all aspects. Anyway, sorry for the long post. You said you wanted a dialogue so I apologize for my monologue.
Hello @johng.arkenberg1070 You do raise some interesting points which I will discuss, First I would say that of the thousands of classical LP's I own, re-issues included, like, Classic records SS 45, AP 45 and 33, original recording group, reference recordings, Impex, cisco, Analogphonic, King super analogue, etc. None of them possess the sound I am describing where the peaks are massive, the quiet parts are loud and the soundstage is extra wide, the recording process is one of give and take and it would be extremely difficult to capture especially with a minimal mic'ing process, especially considering that the original releases possessed none of those attributes and in some cases the original releases sounded "BAD" to begin with. Is it possible that EBS by taking original master tapes and running them direct to a lathe has achieved this and bested 70 years of recording technology? Is it possible that these 4 recordings are engaging a process so new and advanced and come slamming out of the speakers in a way I have never heard before and I am therefore just so awestruck that I am left grasping for threads to try and explain what I've just heard? It's possible, but rather unlikely. As for the discrepancies in the marketing content that they released, I mean, why not just use photographs of the actual equipment they are using? I mean the video is ABOUT the equipment and the process and they show different equipment than what they decribe. What if you went to my artist website and instead of my own work I posted photos of Delecroix and Titian, would you not find that odd and off putting? Also, in the photographs which they provide of the mastering sessions I can clearly see on the board that knobs have been turned and just out of curiosity, why would I need four technicians for a flat transfer? You can also look large amounts of photographs from DG recording sessions in the 70,s and count the number of microphones and also see photographs of the engineers and producers sitting at large portable 16 track mixing desks. In one photo I counted 8 microphones on the timpanis alone. Even the simplest Decca tree setup uses a minimum of 5 microphones. Each microphone receiving it's own leveling track where it runs through a mic pre where level is set and then through the EQ's where adjustments are made to achieve a cohesive blend between tracks. The tracks are then summed down to 2 stereo tracks or in this case 4 quad tracks as a master. You are confusing microphones for master tracks. No one in their right mind would assume a recording of the quality of the rite of spring could be achieved using 2 microphones in front of a full orchestra and 2 microphones in the mid hall. You may be correct that my assumption of hard panning may be incorrect, but the rear hall mics would naturally have a wider stage than the microphones that are closer to the instruments and is therefor displaying an unnatural soundstage. Also, you are confusing crosstalk with polarity. Crosstalk is when one channel of the tape bleeds into an adjacent channel on the tape, which is why you always record drums on 1-8 and vocals on 14-16 for example. Polarity refers to the time domain at which sound waves intersect and either align or cancel one another out. In this case, like throwing a stone into a swimming pool, the waves closest to the stone will be a direct reflection of the energy produced by the stone where as the waves that bounce off the edge of the pool and reflect back in will interact with all other waves in the pool, sometimes adding to energy sometimes decreasing energy. This is what I hear when I listen to the Trout, I hear frequencies jump out and recess which for me, and I only speak for me, sounds unnatural and is distracting to my enjoyment of the piece. Here is a quote from the Engineer that recorded 50 of these 70's quad DG recordings refering to the amount of channels used and the polarity of the recordings. "Two of the above (Carmen and Treemonisha) were originally recorded in 16-track, which, after editing in that format, I mixed down to 4-track quad and 2-track stereo. The stereo versions of these productions were released on LP originally, and then were subsequently re-released on CD. There they lived happily for several decades until, at my instigation, they were recently re-released by PentaTone on SACD -- both in my original stereo and my original quad mixes. All of my other DG quad productions were very intentionally made for that medium. Some were made in 8-track, which were then mixed down to stereo and quad, and some were originally recorded 4-track, with that being the final quad mix." ""I want to emphasize that all of my quad recordings (opera, symphony and pops) had rear tracks which were fully loaded. Furthermore, the rear tracks were loaded in such a way that, when folded into the front tracks at a 1-to-1 ratio, the resulting two-track mix was the ideal stereo mix. Thus, when preparing the quad tapes for SACD release, there must be no rebalancing or any alteration of the levels of any of the four tracks. Doing so would result sometimes in loss of actual direct instrumental sounds, and at the very least would produce a misbalance of direct to reflected sound." Thomas Mowrey, New York, 4/20/15 He clearly states that no additional processing can occur or it will compromise the phase. So why the EBS talk about remix, EQ,Compression and added reverb. Just to note I'm pretty sure I did not say "polar" opposite, if I did I was incorrect to use that term, Polar opposite would result in complete cancelation of direct instruments and all you would be left with is the ambience. These recordings are "goosed up" in a way I have never heard before in the ouvre of classical recordings. The question is do they sound good? to some yes, to some no, It's subjective what each of us prefers, I just prefer a more natural sound. SYSTEM: VPI Prime, 10.5 in. JMW tonearm w/ Nordost valhalla internal wiring. Sumiko starling cartridge EAT tube phono preamp w/ NOS mullard ECC83/12ax7 tubes w/ sbooster MKII Linear power supply Hegel H390 Sunfire Bob carver signature Architectural subwoofer Klipsch cornwall IV Kimber tonearm cable and interconnects Nordost Baldur bi-amp speaker cables Nice chatting with you and have a beautiful day, X Greg
Thanks for sharing your insights, especially those from the technical perspective. I also concur about the overall “tense” listening experience after playing all 7 titles so far. This DGG “Original Source” series, though controversial, is so much fun and exciting for all sorts of reason. I’ll keep buying. P.S. it’s worth noting that during the recent 6 party panel TH-cam discussion, when asked which record she wanted to remaster/reissue the most, Sydney Meyer said “A Night at the Opera/Queen”!
@@FLOWERINGSPIKES Thanks a lot for following up. Can’t wait for your report, especially your thoughts on how Sidney Meyer cut the side 3 of the 2LP set, towards the end groove. Some people said it’s crazy but I think it’s gutsy.
Thank you for this excellent review. I didn’t enjoy the series either, but I couldn’t quite pinpoint why. The sound just didn’t resonate with me, and I almost felt guilty for not liking it since everyone else seemed to love it. Your review helped me understand why it didn’t work for me, and now I don’t feel guilty anymore! 🙂 I’ve sold the ones I owned and won’t be buying any future releases.
I enjoyed your thoughts on this topic. I don't have enough of a sampling to comment on the series. The one I tried, the Stravinsky, was interesting once I got used to this type of sound. It was definitely visceral, and maybe it works for that piece. But it didn't strike me as the approach I love which is that taken by Decca, particularly earlier period but even up until the same timeframe as these four channel. recordings. I haven't felt compelled to buy another.
@ThePressingMatters Agreed, For the Stravinsky which is brutal and tense it kind of works, With the other 3 I have, I find it pretty off putting. I don't know about you but when I listen to classical I want to listen deeply and openly in sort of a meditative state, not feel like I'm at a Neurosis show! I do not feel like I will buy anymore. I did just order a couple of the Everest classic records reissues at 45 that Chad just dropped. Hopefully they will sound much better than these.
@@FLOWERINGSPIKES Tense is a good word for what I felt, lol. In my review I politely said "edge of my seat" but for all its individual thrills, something just didn't sit right with me. I chalked it up to a new cartridge breaking in and gave it a pass as a different visceral way to hear the Rite. But I've since played three other versions just to come back to reality. The DG is like no reality I know, either on records or the concert hall. No real further interest in the series either.
I remember that when CDs came out, the DG CDs sounded hard and somewhat brittle. This sound turned off many people who are analog only now to CDs and digitally recorded music.
@sspe Thank you very much! Schubert*, Curzon* With Members Of The Vienna Octet* - The "Trout" Quintet, Speakers Corner Records - 009 2110, Decca - SXL 2110 is an absolutely beautiful performance and recording of the Trout, Highly, highly recommended!
@@FLOWERINGSPIKES if I may suggest the Ace of Diamonds (Decca’s budget label) UK pressing released in 1968, SDD 185, 10 years after the original SXL2110 was first released in 1959. Cheap and readily available in the used market.
@@davidchan8108 I pick up Ace Of Diamonds whenever i see them! Sometimes I find that the vinyl and pressing are even better than the originals or Ed. 2's
I don’t know what you have been smoking, but the DGOS were mixed down from the original four channel master tape, directly to the lathe. The only tape they could have been saturating is the live room reverb that was recorded and played back on another tape machine in order to supply the the cutting computer with a delayed signal. This was also done live in the mastering studio, as the lacquer was cut.
@kuglepen64 Hello, I just watched the DG promo reel and you are correct about the Single 4 trk machine, I have no problem admitting I was not right about that but I see that from the tape it goes into a passive 4 trk mixer where they blend front and rear channels and then into a Neuman SP-79 control console equipped with a U473SP stereo compressor/limiter. I'm quite sure, at least, on this recording this was used because I can hear it clear as a bell. Clearly it does not go directly from the tape to the lathe! It possibly can travel through an entire chain of mixers, equalizers, and compressors. Also in the promo video when they discussed the compressors they showed a close up of a compressor that was not the U473SP in the console (in other shots you can see Rainer working at the desk with the U473SPs)so who knows whats up with that. Also when they talked about the EQ section they showed a photo of a Klein and Hummel UE- 200 so I don't know if these are additional chains or if they are just using stock photos, either way it's confusing and a misrepresentation of what they are saying in the script. Thank you for pointing this out though because I went and researched everything and know more now than when I filmed this video and that's really the point...to learn. Finally saying things like "I don't know what you have been smoking" seems a bit immature, don't you think?
A lot of people don’t smoke anything these days so 😅 joke apart I got the impression that this talk about “hot cut” was referring to the output level on the actual record. In the DG “how we did it video” they talk about problems for not so advanced turntables being able to actually track the record. The problem with authentic stereo imaging due to 4 Mics being used is one of the reasons I personally think all analog remastering is nonsense. With time correction in the digital domain you can address that. Great video and keep it up.
@@dieselbrodeur It could also just be tracked hot through the mic pre's in which case not much you can do to it no matter how much you fuss around with a remix/master, we just don't know, we will never hear the tapes. Currently i don't have any digital equipment, that being said I am not a hater of it ( I record a ton of my own music 24/96) I am just on a certai trip right now. Thank you and many more videos to come! Talk to you later.
To me they sound "very" good. The sound signature is not identical to Decca/RCA, but it is okay. These DG are sounding very direct and dynamic with no softening. I did not hear all of the Original Source series - especially these Emil Gilels are excellent! 😊
Dude your observations are well recd and much appreciated! Especially by some of us not in the field. Likewise the lovable Poetry on plastic Oni-san just took a huge dump(after an actual Internal Audit like investigation) on their brahms cut - but as Fremer made a tiny comment at the end of his long piece - I'm not a musician in a band (orchestras are finally also bands alright, I get much grief from anal classical folks) maybe I have a diff perspective as a listener (paraphrased of course). You nailed it in your explanation - Deadheads and rock/jazz lovers miss that engineered sound stage when they transition to classical music, which the golden era recordings with 3 mikes are likely the only time actual recordings of a performance were made without tinkering (unless you were stuck with Karajan) and what you heard was a real sound stage -- thats why those Super Analogue Discs are so awesome! Wish DG's next deliverables merge these two styles a bit more. I shall write you on your channel listed email and keep my end of the bargain Sir, thank you very much for the awesome review even monkeys can understand (me)
Why do the Fallowing Spike videos sound not so good?😊
I am surprised by your review because this is almost entirely the opposite of my experience with the DG Original Source. I find them to be sonorous, spacious, and dynamic. The timbre and texture of the instruments I grew up playing sounds believable and space feels appropriate for the environments I attend to hear classical music live. (The tragic flaw of the series has been the close cut to the labels on Ma Vlast and Brahm's Piano Concerto.) I'm not hearing this 'heavy metal style compression' you are criticizing Emile Berliner for.
Listening experiences aside, I do think it unfortunate that you misrepresent much of the recording and mastering process. You have acknowledged this partly in the video description, but essentially you are taking a conspiratorial tone by looking at a promotional video and making both mistaken and speculative claims. If you want to be a responsible critic you would email EBS for clarification of the signal chain.
For example, suggesting that the Rite of Spring was mastered with a 'rock and roll edge' to appeal to a younger audience is nonsensical from the perspective of the technicians and DGG as a classical label. Describing quadrophonic recording as using 7 or 8 microphones when the Mastering Deep Dive video by EBS describe 4 microphones and their models suggests you are not carefully researching this process. You claim they are hard panning the rear microphones to the L and R speakers to enlarge the soundspace. Mallard and Meyer explain in the video (with a photo at 6:42) the passive mixer for the front and rear microphones - which doesn't have a L and R pan, only Front and Rear controls. From a recording engineer's perspective (all puns intended), they don't need to pan the signals hard left and right because the spatial mixing of the room has already been achieved by the microphone placement in the environment. Frankly, your whole explanation of the rear microphones causing 'crosstalk' when mixed in because their information is the 'polar opposite of the information you are hearing' is incoherent. Are you suggesting that the rear microphones are perfectly out of phase with the front microphones? Your thoughts are very disorganized and it does an injustice to your review.
What you are NOT discussing as part of your audio reviews is your system. Most audiophiles I know make sure to describe their equipment along with the intentional decisions made in selecting their gear for specific qualities. This is because, not only is there no perfect audio system, but not every system is perfect at every genre of music. Even within classical music there is a difference between systems that perform better with solo and chamber pieces and not with orchestral. The fact you are criticizing orchestral releases and then hold up a record of string quartets at the end makes the case that you may not be fairly considering all aspects.
Anyway, sorry for the long post. You said you wanted a dialogue so I apologize for my monologue.
Hello
@johng.arkenberg1070 You do raise some interesting points which I will discuss, First I would say that of the thousands of classical LP's I own, re-issues included, like, Classic records SS 45, AP 45 and 33, original recording group, reference recordings, Impex, cisco, Analogphonic, King super analogue, etc. None of them possess the sound I am describing where the peaks are massive, the quiet parts are loud and the soundstage is extra wide, the recording process is one of give and take and it would be extremely difficult to capture especially with a minimal mic'ing process, especially considering that the original releases possessed none of those attributes and in some cases the original releases sounded "BAD" to begin with. Is it possible that EBS by taking original master tapes and running them direct to a lathe has achieved this and bested 70 years of recording technology? Is it possible that these 4 recordings are engaging a process so new and advanced and come slamming out of the speakers in a way I have never heard before and I am therefore just so awestruck that I am left grasping for threads to try and explain what I've just heard? It's possible, but rather unlikely.
As for the discrepancies in the marketing content that they released, I mean, why not just use photographs of the actual equipment they are using? I mean the video is ABOUT the equipment and the process and they show different equipment than what they decribe. What if you went to my artist website and instead of my own work I posted photos of Delecroix and Titian, would you not find that odd and off putting? Also, in the photographs which they provide of the mastering sessions I can clearly see on the board that knobs have been turned and just out of curiosity, why would I need four technicians for a flat transfer?
You can also look large amounts of photographs from DG recording sessions in the 70,s and count the number of microphones and also see photographs of the engineers and producers sitting at large portable 16 track mixing desks. In one photo I counted 8 microphones on the timpanis alone. Even the simplest Decca tree setup uses a minimum of 5 microphones. Each microphone receiving it's own leveling track where it runs through a mic pre where level is set and then through the EQ's where adjustments are made to achieve a cohesive blend between tracks. The tracks are then summed down to 2 stereo tracks or in this case 4 quad tracks as a master. You are confusing microphones for master tracks. No one in their right mind would assume a recording of the quality of the rite of spring could be achieved using 2 microphones in front of a full orchestra and 2 microphones in the mid hall.
You may be correct that my assumption of hard panning may be incorrect, but the rear hall mics would naturally have a wider stage than the microphones that are closer to the instruments and is therefor displaying an unnatural soundstage. Also, you are confusing crosstalk with polarity. Crosstalk is when one channel of the tape bleeds into an adjacent channel on the tape, which is why you always record drums on 1-8 and vocals on 14-16 for example. Polarity refers to the time domain at which sound waves intersect and either align or cancel one another out. In this case, like throwing a stone into a swimming pool, the waves closest to the stone will be a direct reflection of the energy produced by the stone where as the waves that bounce off the edge of the pool and reflect back in will interact with all other waves in the pool, sometimes adding to energy sometimes decreasing energy. This is what I hear when I listen to the Trout, I hear frequencies jump out and recess which for me, and I only speak for me, sounds unnatural and is distracting to my enjoyment of the piece.
Here is a quote from the Engineer that recorded 50 of these 70's quad DG recordings refering to the amount of channels used and the polarity of the recordings.
"Two of the above (Carmen and Treemonisha) were originally recorded in 16-track, which, after editing in that format, I mixed down to 4-track quad and 2-track stereo. The stereo versions of these productions were released on LP originally, and then were subsequently re-released on CD. There they lived happily for several decades until, at my instigation, they were recently re-released by PentaTone on SACD -- both in my original stereo and my original quad mixes.
All of my other DG quad productions were very intentionally made for that medium. Some were made in 8-track, which were then mixed down to stereo and quad, and some were originally recorded 4-track, with that being the final quad mix."
""I want to emphasize that all of my quad recordings (opera, symphony and pops) had rear tracks which were fully loaded. Furthermore, the rear tracks were loaded in such a way that, when folded into the front tracks at a 1-to-1 ratio, the resulting two-track mix was the ideal stereo mix. Thus, when preparing the quad tapes for SACD release, there must be no rebalancing or any alteration of the levels of any of the four tracks. Doing so would result sometimes in loss of actual direct instrumental sounds, and at the very least would produce a misbalance of direct to reflected sound."
Thomas Mowrey, New York, 4/20/15
He clearly states that no additional processing can occur or it will compromise the phase. So why the EBS talk about remix, EQ,Compression and added reverb.
Just to note I'm pretty sure I did not say "polar" opposite, if I did I was incorrect to use that term, Polar opposite would result in complete cancelation of direct instruments and all you would be left with is the ambience.
These recordings are "goosed up" in a way I have never heard before in the ouvre of classical recordings. The question is do they sound good? to some yes, to some no, It's subjective what each of us prefers, I just prefer a more natural sound.
SYSTEM:
VPI Prime, 10.5 in. JMW tonearm w/ Nordost valhalla internal wiring.
Sumiko starling cartridge
EAT tube phono preamp w/ NOS mullard ECC83/12ax7 tubes w/ sbooster MKII Linear power supply
Hegel H390
Sunfire Bob carver signature Architectural subwoofer
Klipsch cornwall IV
Kimber tonearm cable and interconnects
Nordost Baldur bi-amp speaker cables
Nice chatting with you and have a beautiful day,
X
Greg
Thanks for sharing your insights, especially those from the technical perspective. I also concur about the overall “tense” listening experience after playing all 7 titles so far. This DGG “Original Source” series, though controversial, is so much fun and exciting for all sorts of reason. I’ll keep buying.
P.S. it’s worth noting that during the recent 6 party panel TH-cam discussion, when asked which record she wanted to remaster/reissue the most, Sydney Meyer said “A Night at the Opera/Queen”!
@davidchan8108 I just got the Gilels, I'm gonna listen tomorrow and stack it up to about 10 other recordings i have of the pieces.
@@FLOWERINGSPIKES Thanks a lot for following up. Can’t wait for your report, especially your thoughts on how Sidney Meyer cut the side 3 of the 2LP set, towards the end groove. Some people said it’s crazy but I think it’s gutsy.
Thank you for this excellent review. I didn’t enjoy the series either, but I couldn’t quite pinpoint why. The sound just didn’t resonate with me, and I almost felt guilty for not liking it since everyone else seemed to love it. Your review helped me understand why it didn’t work for me, and now I don’t feel guilty anymore! 🙂 I’ve sold the ones I owned and won’t be buying any future releases.
I enjoyed your thoughts on this topic. I don't have enough of a sampling to comment on the series. The one I tried, the Stravinsky, was interesting once I got used to this type of sound. It was definitely visceral, and maybe it works for that piece. But it didn't strike me as the approach I love which is that taken by Decca, particularly earlier period but even up until the same timeframe as these four channel. recordings. I haven't felt compelled to buy another.
@ThePressingMatters Agreed, For the Stravinsky which is brutal and tense it kind of works, With the other 3 I have, I find it pretty off putting. I don't know about you but when I listen to classical I want to listen deeply and openly in sort of a meditative state, not feel like I'm at a Neurosis show! I do not feel like I will buy anymore. I did just order a couple of the Everest classic records reissues at 45 that Chad just dropped. Hopefully they will sound much better than these.
@@FLOWERINGSPIKES Tense is a good word for what I felt, lol. In my review I politely said "edge of my seat" but for all its individual thrills, something just didn't sit right with me. I chalked it up to a new cartridge breaking in and gave it a pass as a different visceral way to hear the Rite. But I've since played three other versions just to come back to reality. The DG is like no reality I know, either on records or the concert hall.
No real further interest in the series either.
Man, you have one helluva knowledge of hi-fi. Really enjoyed your talk. Do you listen to cassettes at all? I LOVE cassettes.
I used to! I'm sure one day I'll get a Nakamichi and a huge box of live dead from the 80's and go on that journey!
Appreciate your insights. I am a newbie in the classical world.
@ericwong6531 Thank you! It's a long, studious, and rewarding journey to embark on!!! Have fun!
I remember that when CDs came out, the DG CDs sounded hard and somewhat brittle. This sound turned off many people who are analog only now to CDs and digitally recorded music.
I appreciate your observations. What recordings of these performances do you find to be well recorded and natural sounding?
@sspe Thank you very much!
Schubert*, Curzon* With Members Of The Vienna Octet* - The "Trout" Quintet, Speakers Corner Records - 009 2110, Decca - SXL 2110 is an absolutely beautiful performance and recording of the Trout, Highly, highly recommended!
@@FLOWERINGSPIKES if I may suggest the Ace of Diamonds (Decca’s budget label) UK pressing released in 1968, SDD 185, 10 years after the original SXL2110 was first released in 1959. Cheap and readily available in the used market.
@@davidchan8108 I pick up Ace Of Diamonds whenever i see them! Sometimes I find that the vinyl and pressing are even better than the originals or Ed. 2's
I don’t know what you have been smoking, but the DGOS were mixed down from the original four channel master tape, directly to the lathe. The only tape they could have been saturating is the live room reverb that was recorded and played back on another tape machine in order to supply the the cutting computer with a delayed signal. This was also done live in the mastering studio, as the lacquer was cut.
@kuglepen64 Hello, I just watched the DG promo reel and you are correct about the Single 4 trk machine, I have no problem admitting I was not right about that but I see that from the tape it goes into a passive 4 trk mixer where they blend front and rear channels and then into a Neuman SP-79 control console equipped with a U473SP stereo compressor/limiter. I'm quite sure, at least, on this recording this was used because I can hear it clear as a bell. Clearly it does not go directly from the tape to the lathe! It possibly can travel through an entire chain of mixers, equalizers, and compressors. Also in the promo video when they discussed the compressors they showed a close up of a compressor that was not the U473SP in the console (in other shots you can see Rainer working at the desk with the U473SPs)so who knows whats up with that. Also when they talked about the EQ section they showed a photo of a Klein and Hummel UE- 200 so I don't know if these are additional chains or if they are just using stock photos, either way it's confusing and a misrepresentation of what they are saying in the script. Thank you for pointing this out though because I went and researched everything and know more now than when I filmed this video and that's really the point...to learn. Finally saying things like "I don't know what you have been smoking" seems a bit immature, don't you think?
A lot of people don’t smoke anything these days so 😅 joke apart I got the impression that this talk about “hot cut” was referring to the output level on the actual record. In the DG “how we did it video” they talk about problems for not so advanced turntables being able to actually track the record. The problem with authentic stereo imaging due to 4 Mics being used is one of the reasons I personally think all analog remastering is nonsense. With time correction in the digital domain you can address that. Great video and keep it up.
@@dieselbrodeur It could also just be tracked hot through the mic pre's in which case not much you can do to it no matter how much you fuss around with a remix/master, we just don't know, we will never hear the tapes. Currently i don't have any digital equipment, that being said I am not a hater of it ( I record a ton of my own music 24/96) I am just on a certai trip right now. Thank you and many more videos to come! Talk to you later.
Honestly… the Debussy/Ravel (Abbado w Boston) is fantastic. Beautiful record.
This was valuable information to me as a casual music lover. Thanks for sharing.
@danijelsan81 Thank you for watching! Many more to come!
To me they sound "very" good. The sound signature is not identical to Decca/RCA, but it is okay. These DG are sounding very direct and dynamic with no softening. I did not hear all of the Original Source series - especially these Emil Gilels are excellent! 😊
Dude your observations are well recd and much appreciated! Especially by some of us not in the field. Likewise the lovable Poetry on plastic Oni-san just took a huge dump(after an actual Internal Audit like investigation) on their brahms cut - but as Fremer made a tiny comment at the end of his long piece - I'm not a musician in a band (orchestras are finally also bands alright, I get much grief from anal classical folks) maybe I have a diff perspective as a listener (paraphrased of course). You nailed it in your explanation - Deadheads and rock/jazz lovers miss that engineered sound stage when they transition to classical music, which the golden era recordings with 3 mikes are likely the only time actual recordings of a performance were made without tinkering (unless you were stuck with Karajan) and what you heard was a real sound stage -- thats why those Super Analogue Discs are so awesome! Wish DG's next deliverables merge these two styles a bit more.
I shall write you on your channel listed email and keep my end of the bargain Sir, thank you very much for the awesome review even monkeys can understand (me)