Best mastered recordings

Gents, maybe there is a slight misconception that should be clarified. I understand the differences between one recording to another. Teams, musicians, etc...they all will play their own role in making the final product distinctive. Maybe I should have been a little more decisive in my word selection. (KR4 - sorry if I portrayed myself as an idiot, but looks are deceiving.)

Nevertheless, it seems others beside myself understand that even though recordings differ one to another, its hard to overlook the fact that some labels do a better job at recording the venue than others. Even to the degree that some labels do a better job at capturing a bad performance. I would hope thats why we purchase products from those labels; we feel they do a better job at capturing the moment better than others.

Its also more evident that I am not the only to think one company produces a better "final product" than another. In addition, some producers/recording teams/performers do a better job as well.

Rcprince - thanks for the insight on label philosophies. Thats one thing I hadn't considered. This "shows" in the examples of recording techniques you mentioned, and how they change from label to label.

Thanks for the constructive conversation, gents.

Craig--what I find interesting, and it shows how different people hear things, is that it seems you preferred the DG recording, where I have rarely liked their recordings. I will admit, though, that they do make musically involving recordings on occasion, as sometimes spotlighting an instrument in the mix might better let the emotion of the music come through. Shadorne and others bring up the good point of the recording engineer (I would add the producer too) being of importance. In the classical field some of the people I look for are Mohr-Layton (the original RCA team from back in the 50s), Wilma Cozart-Bob Fine (from the old Mercuries), Kenneth Wilkinson (London/Decca, some RCAs, from the early days of stereo), John Eargle (Delos), Peter McGrath/Tony Faulkner-Robina Young (Harmonia Mundi; Faulkner has done work for others as well), Woods/Bishop-Renner (Telarc), Keith Johnson (Reference Recordings), Kavi Alexander (Water Lily--he is the most purist of this bunch, and quite frankly there are times where his approach might not appeal to me), Craig Dory (Dorian) and the Nicrenz/Aubort team from Vox. EMI had and has a number of good recording teams as well, I just don't recall their names, the engineer I know from there is Simon Woods, who used to be our New Jersy Symphony's CEO, and his recordings were quite good. All of these teams use different techniques to record an orchestra, both from their basic philosophies but also depending on the piece, the venue, the size of the ensemble, the artists (don't think for a minute that Heifetz or Rubenstein didn't want themselves to be spotlit!), etc., and what they come up with may not necessarily sound like what you'd hear in row K of the concert hall, but I think they all have done a good job of getting the bulk of the event on record for us.

I really like Bernie Grundman's work. I also like Stan Ricker.

Indeed how could I have missed Bernie/Stan off from my list of good audio engineers....

Maybe I've been the more fortunate one to have purchased the better DG recordings, unknowingly. Mind you, I may not have years of exposure to classical music and recordings like many of you, but at this point in my progression, I favor more toward the DG releases than I do others I've mentioned previously(EMI, Telarc, Sony, RCA, Hyperion etc). Even the release I have purchased (Saint Saens No3) from multiple labels.

The DG releases have a more sense of immediacy. They tend to have a stronger presence in the recording than other, IMO. This is a quality in the recording I like...a lot. It could be the recording techniques used; I'm not sure. Regardless, it sounds great on my system. Then again, could it be the system? It's more mid-fi in quality. Not mass market, but not high end either.

I'll have to be a bit more discerning in my purchases from here on out. I'll definitely keep my eyes open for the engineers and producers you all mentioned.

You have to be more specific as regards DG recordings, such as listing the ones you like. In the 70s and 80s DG produced some of the most irritating recordings on the market - harmonically thin, etched, bass shy, dry, no soundstaging. They changed in the 90s and have actually, I've heard, remastered some performances and completely changed the sound.

On the pop side of things, Columbia did the same thing in the 60s and 70s. Their pop and jazz recordings were awful, especially compared to companies like Atlantic and Warner from same period. I remember reading Rolling Stone articles in 1970 talking about the shameful quality of Columbia's Dylan and Santana releases. In the 70s I would try to find import releases of Columbia's stuff.

For the last 8-10 years Columbia (Sony) has been releasing some excellent sounding remastered albums