Telarc recordings


Hi folks, does anyone know why Telarc classical recordings often sound opaque? By opaque I mean that the recordings don't sound transparent (a sort of see through quality like most DECCA recordings). Because of this sound character the music often sounds dull and lifeless. That's a pity because there are plenty good performances on this Label. What is the most likely explanation for this sound character? Is it because of the mics Telarc uses or recording equipment? Or is this actually how music sounds in reality? I visited Concertgebouw (Amsterdam), Davies Hall (San Francisco), the concerthall in Cologne, but they all sound quite transparent and not dull.
dazzdax
What does "absolute reverse polarity mean", and why would so many major labels purposely mess up their recordings for 99.999% of their consumers?
"Absolute Polarity" often mis-referred to as Absolute Phase is when the + and - signals are reversed in both channels at the same time. For the purposes of visualization, using a flat line, a speaker with correct phase would produce a rise and, if the polarity were reversed, the same signal would produce a dip. Sort of like breathing in when you should be breathing out. Recordings are not the only products with Absolute Polarity issues. Lots of tube pre-amps do this, especially the ones with only 2 tubes. Fortunately the manufacturers advise of this in their manuals. This, IMHO, is not as big an issue as some would make it as many recordings are of mixed polarity in the first place - each mic' used presents an opportunity, etc, but when it does exist it can make a big difference. Nice to have a switch built into your pre-amp (or CD player) - that's they only way you know for sure if the reversal exists on any individual cut.
Newbee, I would take issue with your broad statement about Decca recordings. The Decca recordings from the late 50's through the early 70's are some of the greatest examples of orchestral and opera recordings in natural sounding, correctly captured acoustic environment sonics that we have. I'd be happy to offer some suggestions offline for you to consider, but any of the reissues listed in the Speakers Corner catalog will illustrate this.

Of course, there is also the London/Decca Phase Four series, which is unnatural multi-miked sound at its worst extreme. :-)
.
Rushton, I did say that Decca had SOME excellent stuff and a couple of GREAT engineers! Those recordings bracketing 1960 +/- 5 years were often excellent, but IMHO outside of that time frame they were less consistently so. Lots of multi miking going on then. Do you recall who invented the Decca Tree(?), it wasn't Wilkinson was it?
Newbee, thanks for clarifying your comment. I totally agree about the golden years of 1956-1965 or so. As the to Decca tree, Wilkinson was involved, but so was Gordon Parry. And Wilkinson also ended up using some additional mikes over the years.

Still, there are a number of Decca recordings up through the early 70's are marvelous. Consider:

Varese, Arcana/Integrales/Ionisation, Mehta/LAPO, 1971
Holst, Planets, Mehta/LAPO, 1971
Beethoven, 9th Sym, Solti/CSO 1972
Stravinsky, Rite of Spring, Solti/CSO 1974
Prokofiev, Sym 6, Weller/LondonPO 1975
Respighi, Pines of Rome, Maazel/Cleveland 1975

But I suppose I shouldn't hijack Dazzdax's thread further on this offshoot.

To get on topic with the question, I agree with Dazzdax's sentiment that the Telarcs sound veiled. To me, even their early LPs sound like they have an electronic haze to them as thought the signal has been routed through too many miles of cable and too many layers of mixing board. None of the Decca's we've mentioned sound that way.
.