Zinman ZTO M9m samples

[John Kim]

John,

I was wondering, having M1, M5, M6 and M8 and reading other people's thoughts, that the recordings are made with microphones in the audience rather than on the podium, if that might be the reason for the hardly audible woodwinds in climactic passages?

I'm sure, everyone of us knows, that in each concert hall, different seats emphasize different sounds from the orchestra, and some recordings choose the conductor's podium as microphone position. I've seen on this forum different preferences, but it seems to me unrealistic (without tinkering) to have an audible clarinet when the trombones are blasting away (not even outside of Chicago).

Microphones in the audience?? Never head of that kind of setting!

Besides, all of Zinman's Mahler recordings are made in studio, NOT live. So I wonder how they could put the mikes in the audience. Did you mean putting them in the audience seats?

If you look closely at the score, there are many places in which the woodwinds are instructed to play ff or fff along with brass and strings. Sometimes they play in the same harmony as the other instruments. But there are also times when their notes are different, in different harmony and even different melodies. For example, at the height of the third climax in I. the orchestra is literally breaking down in descending notes (right before the tam tam stroke). Here, woodwinds are playing in high notes. Clearly, Mahler must have wanted them to 'scream' above all other instruments. I can hear this effect most vividly in Abbado/VPO/DG and Ashkenazy/CPO/Exton. It's a truly wonderful orchestration and once you hear it you'd never want to miss it.

Sadly, I can't hear it at all in Zinman's recording because the woodwinds are all buried under the brass and percussion.

John,

[waderice]

I don't want to be critical of people, but it appears that some haven't been to a live concert in quite some time.  There are interesting things to see in a concert hall other than looking at the orchestra the entire time.

Yes, microphones are often placed in the audience, but in the seats?   Rather, they're hung oftentimes about a quarter of the way out in the audience, and about a quarter to a third of the way down from the ceiling.  Generally, these microphones are intended to give the recording an overall acoustic perspective of the hall to the recording.  Maybe in some cases, these microphones may be set at a higher level in the mixer than they should be, and important instrumental details fail to get captured.  Consider also, that this is a concert setting, not a studio one, where acoustical adjustments (i.e., more microphones) in the hall can be made for the latter.

Since board member James Meckley has been involved in live recording, maybe he can provide some thoughts here.

Wade

[chalkpie]

Gun to my head: I would always prefer to hear an up close recording of an orch capturing details rather than a "hall" recording a la Abbado Berlin DG which sounds like bloody hell

[barry guerrero]

For such an expansive performance, I like this Zinman one very much. I find the last movement to be very satisfying. It's just not a great Mahler 9 for everyday listening (because of its length). Then again, anybody who's listening to M9 every day needs a new girlfriend of mistress.

[John Kim]

For such an expansive performance, I like this Zinman one very much. I find the last movement to be very satisfying. It's just not a great Mahler 9 for everyday listening (because of its length). Then again, anybody who's listening to M9 every day needs a new girlfriend of mistress.

Tell it to my wife!!

John,

[John Kim]

Gun to my head: I would always prefer to hear an up close recording of an orch capturing details rather than a "hall" recording a la Abbado Berlin DG which sounds like bloody hell

If so, you should try the Abbado/VPO/DG by all means.

John,

[barry guerrero]

"If so, you should try the Abbado/VPO/DG by all means."

I think that the BPO one is much better shaped (timings) and better disciplined than the VPO one. But the VPO one was recorded in the Konzerthaus, as opposed to the Musikverein. For my taste, it's actually a bit too "boomy" in the lower end of orchestra. But it certainly doesn't sound too dry and sterile as some of the live Musikverein recordings can, and often times DO, sound.

[James Meckley]

Since board member James Meckley has been involved in live recording, maybe he can provide some thoughts here.

I haven't yet heard the Zinman M9 so I'm not in a position to compare it with earlier releases in this series, but that won't stop me from making some general observations. The earlier Zinman Mahler discs I own were all created by the same team: Chris Hazell, producer; and Simon Eadon, engineer. Assuming they also did this M9 (someone might check), they would have been able to reproduce their earlier results exactly if they had wanted to—their recording logs would contain very precise mic placement and level data. If the woodwinds are indeed more recessed in M9 than in M6, you can be certain that it was a deliberate artistic decision on the part of Hazell or Zinman (If you want to see how much say the producer has in these matters, just watch some of the interactions between Culshaw and Solti in Decca's The Golden Ring DVD).

My general impression of the Zinman Mahler cycle is that they've taken advantage of the Tonhalle's rather spacious acoustics to make some very natural-sounding recordings with more room sound than is common today. I agree with Todd in preferring this approach when it's done well.

I tried to get some mic-placement insights by reviewing the Going Against Fate DVD associated with Zinman's M6, but the lighting designer seems to have been unduly influenced by the paintings of Caravaggio—inky-black shadows and single-light-source chiaroscuro throughout—not a microphone to be seen.

As to general mic placement considerations, the stereo pair that Wade described, 1/4 of the way back into the hall and 1/3 of the way down from the ceiling, is typically there for the orchestra's own archival recordings or perhaps for local radio broadcast. With the right choice of mic patterns, this placement can produce a very natural-sounding recording that accurately preserves the instrumental balances heard in the hall. Horenstein's famous 1959 M8 was recorded this way, with just one coincident pair of figure-of-eight microphones in Blumlein configuration. I've occasionally used this basic approach, slightly closer than described, with gratifying results.

A more conventional (and more commercially viable) approach to stereo involves having the primary pair somewhat closer to the orchestra, with additional spot mics added to bring out inner detail. The primary pair, which accounts for 90 to 95 percent of the sound of the recording, is typically located six to eight feet behind the conductor and eight or so feet above his head. Getting this pair in the right place is the most important part of a set up. Moving away from the orchestra increases hall ambiance; moving toward the orchestra decreases it. Accent or spot mics are then added as necessary to bring out detail: typically left and right string mics; a woodwind pair; and percussion or specialty mics as dictated by the specific piece. This is where the skill and taste of the engineer come into play: the goal is to make your eight or ten-mic recording sound like it was made with only two mics—always the ideal. High quality digital delay makes this much easier now than in the early decades of stereo, allowing the signals from all the spot mics to be precisely time-aligned with the signals from the primary pair, thus preserving the integrity of the sonic image.

James

[Russ Smiley]

...My general impression of the Zinman Mahler cycle is that they've taken advantage of the Tonhalle's rather spacious acoustics to make some very natural-sounding recordings with more room sound than is common today..... James

Thank you, James, for this excellent, insightful post.  I do appreciate in this cycle the spacious acoustics and natural sound that you cited.

[Leo K]

James,

Thank you for that post...lots of great information there!

--Todd

[John Kim]

James,

Thanks for the writing.

"If the woodwinds are indeed more recessed in M9 than in M6, you can be certain that it was a deliberate artistic decision on the part of Hazell or Zinman (If you want to see how much say the producer has in these matters, just watch some of the interactions between Culshaw and Solti in Decca's The Golden Ring DVD)."

In the liner note it says M9th is as spare as Webern. So, maybe that's made them to decide pull the mikes away from the orchestra for the recording to make it sound spare.

I will tell you, Zinman's M9th is a distant sounding recording. I said it sounds similar to Tennstedt's studio recording. So, you get the idea .

John

[James Meckley]

In the liner note it says M9th is as spare as Webern. So, maybe that's made them to decide pull the mikes away from the orchestra for the recording to make it sound spare.

John,

That's certainly possible, although if mimicking Webern were the goal, I'd have moved the microphones in even closer, striving for more detail rather than less. Webern's spareness and economy of means produce an extraordinary clarity and transparency of texture that wouldn't be enhanced at all by a distant-sounding recording.

BTW, did Hazell and Eadon do this recording of the Ninth? The recording crew should be listed in the booklet somewhere.

James

[barry guerrero]

"I will tell you, Zinman's M9th is a distant sounding recording. I said it sounds similar to Tennstedt's studio recording"

I don't see that comparison at all. For one thing, the climax to the fourth movement sounds HUGE on this Zinman recording. It might also be a matter of recording level, as the Rondo-Burlesque is much louder than people think. It's almost like rock music: constant noise from start to finish (excluding the middle section, obviously). Like Karajan, I think that Zinman wanted the major climaxes to the outer movements to really stand as peaks above everything else. The Tennstedt M9 is much more conjested sounding, because it's much older recording made by a somewhat incompetent EMI staff (incompetent during that particular, post Previn/LSO period). Just my two cents. John, look at the forest, and not just the trees.

[John Kim]

"I will tell you, Zinman's M9th is a distant sounding recording. I said it sounds similar to Tennstedt's studio recording"

I don't see that comparison at all. For one thing, the climax to the fourth movement sounds HUGE on this Zinman recording. It might also be a matter of recording level, as the Rondo-Burlesque is much louder than people think. It's almost like rock music: constant noise from start to finish (excluding the middle section, obviously). Like Karajan, I think that Zinman wanted the major climaxes to the outer movements to really stand as peaks above everything else. The Tennstedt M9 is much more conjested sounding, because it's much older recording made by a somewhat incompetent EMI staff (incompetent during that particular, post Previn/LSO period). Just my two cents. John, look at the forest, and not just the trees.

When I mentioned the similiarity between the two recordings I said,

"Overall, it sounds similar to Tennstedt's studio recording albeit that the dynamic range is not compromised."

Since sonics affect recordings from the first moment to the last, I am not sure what else I am looking at if I am not looking at the 'forest'.

John,

[Michael]

I got my copy today...am listening now!  So far, to me at least, the sound seems similar to that of his M5 and M6.  Perhaps this is just something with the SACD layer?