David Stewart ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

>1. EMI
>Sound has never been less than brilliant for me.  They use abbey road
>after all.

You've evidently not hear the new Kovacevoch Beethoven sonata cycle, in
which they manage to produce quite a horrible piano sound - in Abbey Road.

>2. Naxos
>They just keep getting better and better.  They have faultless sound

Sometimes. I wish they hadn't recorded their Haydn WQuartet cycle in a
church though, some of them are far too revcerberant.

>3. Philips
>This is mainly on the basis of their Duo series, which I think is
>excellent.  You get normally REALLY good performances albeit older ones for
>effectively half price.  Sound is always very good though - I presume they
>clean them up.

Why? The finest analogue recordings can easily hold their own against
modern digital sound.  Listen to Horenstein's 1962 Brahms 1 on Chesky, for
instance.  Aside from a (very) little tape hiss, the sound is spectacular.

>7. DG
>Well, it has got the ultimate Mahler symphony cycle

You mean Kubelik?

>, most of JEG's stuff,

I thought you were listing their good points?

>pay for though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of stuff on the mid or less
>price.  Possibly the best sound.  4D is good.

Best sound? Listen to the 4D sound they gave Abbado's Mahler 8 or Boulez's
Mahler 6 and tell me again they have the best sound.

Bottom line is all labels vary dramatically.  Per square foot, the smaller
labels like Hyperion and Chandos are more consistent.  But they all have
their clunkers and their great recordings.

Deryk Barker
[log in to unmask]