Dudamel/L.A. Phil M8 (new one) on Primephonic - the good and the bad of it.

[barryguerrero]

I listened through the whole thing on Primephonic, w/o any Atmos play-back ability. I have to think the 'feel' of generally fast tempi, had to do with the results of the Atmos processing. I can't believe that Dudamel was disinterested in the project, but you never know. I think part of the problem that makes the performance feel like a fast run-through, is that the vocalists sound as though they were recorded in a completely different acoustical environment. As a result, NEVER before have the text - the words - sounded so perfectly clear as on this recording. It's as though the vocalists were shielded from the noise of the orchestra. The obvious downside, is that it feels like you're simultaenously hearing two separate events. And speaking of the orchestra, the playing of the L.A. Phil. is absolutely phenomenal. Soft passages are unbelievably clear and well defined (harmonies well defined). But on the other end of the spectrum, it sounds as though the dynamic range was quite limited (but with zero distortion). We don't get the huge contrasts between soft and loud that we'd expect from this huge work in a live performance. Some of that may have to do with the more intimate setting of Disney Hall. On the whole, I have to agree with Eric - this sounds like a run-through that contributes little to the discography of Mahler 8. I'm hoping I someday get to hear it in Atmos, or that DG will remix it for a CD release. 

You can now hear snippets of the whole performance on Amazon. It actually sounds slighter better to me here - a bit more 'normal', and less as though it had been recorded in a bath tub. Eric?   .   .   .     .     .       
https://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Symphony-Flat-Major-Thousand/dp/B096V8HFGF/ref=sr_1_36?dchild=1&keywords=mahler+8+dudamel&qid=1623443107&sr=8-36


I've gone back and listened through these samples. Maybe it's just in my imagination, but I think it sounds significantly more 'norrmal' on these samples for the MP3 sales.

[James Meckley]

I have to think the 'feel' of generally fast tempi, had to do with the results of the Atmos processing.

How could Atmos processing have any effect on the perceived tempo of the recording?

[erikwilson7]

I wholeheartedly agree. In truth, there's much to admire about this recording in terms of performance quality and clarity, but it feels like a non-event to me. That may just be a personal or subjective take.

The only other recording that gives us this much clarity is Boulez's M8 on DG. That one still remains one of my personal favorites, and it would be my top choice if the very ending were more visceral (where are those tams?). And interestingly enough, the Boulez is 10 minutes longer than Dudamel's!

In some ways the Dudamel M8 and Boulez M8 are quite comparable, but what I think tends to work so well with Boulez's is that he takes his time and stops to "smell the flowers," and Dudamel just doesn't do that here. I don't think a quicker overall duration is necessarily to blame either; I think it's all about phrasing. Not to say Dudamel doesn't know the work: we've all seen his Venezuela M8 on DVD... amazing! But not everyone is at their best every time, and this was a live event. Same goes with Boulez: his studio M2 is detailed but a bit bland, and his live DVD is fantastic.

You really never know what you're going to get. In some ways this recording sounds like what Boulez would release, and Boulez's sounds like what Dudamel would release.

LA sounds amazing, the sound quality is (mostly) phenomenal, and Dudamel is a competent conductor in general. I just don't think this particular event was worth putting on disc. Or digital. Whatever medium we listen to these days.

[barryguerrero]

Very good observations, Eric.

[John Kim]

To my ears Dudamel's choir sounds too big nearly drowning out the orchestra. When I played Resurrection in the choir some 15 years ago my conductor once said, 'When a chorus has more than say 200 singers it doesn't sound good.'

Speaking of Boulez's Mahler, has anybody heard Boulez/Staatskapelle Berlin/DG M6th recording that's included in the 15 CD set of 450 Years of Staatskapelle Berlin? It's terrific! It is a couple minutes quicker than his VPO recording but tighter and more cogent. The dark, deep sonority of the orchestra is a decided plus. This is my favorite and reference Mahler Sixth now.

John

[waderice]

OK, for those of you who have heard BOTH the Dudamel and Nezet-Seguin M8’s, anyone care to compare the two?  From Barry’s description, I wouldn’t be surprised if he would prefer Nezet-Seguin.

Wade

[erikwilson7]

Wade,

I've heard both, and as much as I dislike the sound quality of the Nézet-Séguin I would probably choose it over the Dudamel. The YNS recording is such a genuinely good performance that I can get past my issues with the sound quality. That must have been quite an event. I can hear how great it must have been. I still prefer other recordings, but I respect it very much.

Same applies to any mono recordings for me, like the Rosbaud M5. That performance is just so good that I don't care how it sounds.

Erik

[barryguerrero]

Hey John, Thanks for the heards-up on the Boulez/Staatskapelle Berlin M6. I wonder if it'll make it to Spotify (?).

.    .   .   and speaking of Spotify, the new Dudamel M8 is there and it definitely sounds more 'normal' to me than when I listened to it at Primephonic (which was weird).

On New Year's Eve, the classical channel for Sirius XM satellite radio played an incredible M8 (I was in my car). I had a good hunch that it was the Nezet-Seguin and, sure enough, it was. Yeah, the sound is a bit constricted in Part I and the choral members over-sing from enthusiasm. But the I think the Part II of N.-S. M8 is sensational. All that said, the offstage brass parts at the end of Part I are all really clear on the N-S., including the trombones. For just a plain 'red book' CD, I'll take the N-S. over pretty much any other one.

[John Kim]

Barry,

Thanks for the info. On IDAGIO which I subscribe to, the choir sounded too big on my first hearing. But now I am getting used to it. Dudamel's is a straight, unaffected reading and for what he does and intends to do I quite like it. I have not paid attention to the YNS recording yet.

John

[barryguerrero]

I listened to Part I in totality at Spotify. It really does sound much better at Spotify than at Primephonic. The big double fugue passage in Part I is remarkably clarified! The problem with Part II is that the vocal soloists are just not real good (very second rate tenor), as well Dudamel being a bit fast with the end of it, with not enough tam-tam (for my taste). Perhaps if you put Dudamel's Part I together with N-S.'s Part II, you'd might really have something to talk about (I like the really strong trombones in N-S's Part I).

[erikwilson7]

Strange how that works, Spotify's 320kb/s sounding better than Primephonic's 24-bit lossless. I used to subscribe to Idagio until I made the switch to Primephonic because they have the new BPO's Bruckner and Mahler cycles, whereas Idagio doesn't. Now I'm reconsidering...

[ChrisH]

Strange how that works, Spotify's 320kb/s sounding better than Primephonic's 24-bit lossless. I used to subscribe to Idagio until I made the switch to Primephonic because they have the new BPO's Bruckner and Mahler cycles, whereas Idagio doesn't. Now I'm reconsidering...

A few things could explain the differences you are hearing, Erik. First, each of those services encodes their files differently. Then you have to look at how they compress the stream, and how the app unpacks it. Also, I would imagine Spotify is tweaking files to make them sound better on headphones; the primary mode of listening to these services.

Taking a shot in the dark, I would guess that the spotify version sounded louder. If you normalized the volume, matched them, then you may have different thoughts, or, more than likely, not be able to tell them apart. In audio, louder=better, psycho-acoustically.

[erikwilson7]

After reading your post I looked into the codecs that the various streaming platforms use. Apparently for Spotify it's 320kb/s Ogg Vorbis and you can toggle audio normalization, whereas Primephonic uses 16- or 24-bit lossless FLAC (they also stream 96-320kb/s MP3 at lower qualities). Apple Music uses 256kb/s AAC (MPEG4), but as of a couple weeks ago they now offer 16- or 24-bit ALAC (Apple's version of lossless FLAC). Idagio uses 160kb/s AAC for normal quality, and 16-bit lossless FLAC for highest quality.

Some say Spotify's 320kb/s Ogg Vorbis sounds about identical in quality to Apple's 256kb/s AAC, so all in all AAC is a more efficient codec.

I'm a Spotify user for my normal non-classical listening, and I read that Spotify is on the verge of offering lossless Hi-Fi streaming to compete with Apple Music.

Very interesting world of music consumption we're heading into.

[erikwilson7]

You know what? The more I listen to this Dudamel recording the more it grows on me. I think I really like it despite my nitpicky qualms.

[John Kim]

Erik

As I said above, I quite like Dudamel's M8th. I am not bothered by Dudamel's rush (?) in the coda of Part II. I think it sounds more natural than it sounds slow. The sound is terrific to my ears. I hope they will release on CD soon.

John