Irish Times Classical Collections

telecaster

There was a flyer in the Times today with various classical box sets advertised. Some of them look very interesting, but I am concerned they may be crappy quality recordings.

Has anyone bought or know anything more about these?

Also available online here

BostonB

I have no idea. I'd be interested in finding out too. Probably someone on the links below might know. Powercity often has deal on cheap box sets. In the past I've found cheaper CD's and box sets a bit patchy. I haven't bought that many though.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=13

From what I've read this store seems to be the place to get good recordings. http://store.acousticsounds.com/

The Mad Hatter

Haven't heard any of the others, but the Mozart edition is generally very good, though obviously with a collection that size, the quality wobbles. I've heard less good things about the Bach, and nothing about the rest.

Doshea3

Don't have any of the except the Bach, which I got mainly for the cantatas and obscure works. The cantata recordings are very good, better than some of the recordings by Rilling &c. The organ works (played by Hans Fagius) are good too. In general the sound quality is excellent, as almost all the recordings are digital. It's a nice price to have all the Bach works in one set. Obviously there are recordings of most Bach works I have separately (I have over 60 Bach CDs, excluding that set) because of preferred interpreters and such, but it's still worth it for €99 (which is the only price I've ever seen it sell for in Tower and HMV). The others I haven't heard.

The Mad Hatter

Doshea3 wrote:

The organ works (played by Hans Fagius) are good too. In general the sound quality is excellent, as almost all the recordings are digital.

Gack. I still prefer analogue. (A-D-D is best, imho.)

Doshea3

True, ADD sounds "warmer", but 90s and onwards digital is pretty clean-sounding. I would agree with you that ADD is superior to 1980s digital, which is sometimes too dry-sounding for comfort. Just take Gould's 1981 Goldberg Variations—despite the fact he was bowled over by the digital sound (he liked recordings to sound crisp and clinical, allegedly), the remasters we hear today are all based on the analogue backup tape...

EDIT: I also love the word "gack".

The Mad Hatter

Doshea3 wrote:

True, ADD sounds "warmer", but 90s and onwards digital is pretty clean-sounding. I would agree with you that ADD is superior to 1980s digital, which is sometimes too dry-sounding for comfort. Just take Gould's 1981 Goldberg Variations—despite the fact he was bowled over by the digital sound (he liked recordings to sound crisp and clinical, allegedly), the remasters we hear today are all based on the analogue backup tape...

EDIT: I also love the word "gack".

Well, it's the warmth that I like (my reverence of Gould aside). Take for instance Rudolf Barshai's cycle of Shostakovich's symphonies on Brilliant. To my mind, this is as good a recording as it gets, and my only issue with it is the digital recording, which I feel makes it sound a little distant.

(Incidentally, that can be taken as a plug for this collection, which is available for a paltry €25, and could well be the best €25 you ever spend.)

Doshea3

I might just take up that Shostakovich recommendation. And I agree regarding the warmth of ADD recordings. That's why I love Stern's recordings of the Bach violin concertos. (First thing to come to mind.) But if you want the diametric opposite, have a listen to Gould's 1957(ish) recording of Bach's Partita No. 6 in E minor: the outer movements (the Toccata and Gigue) are stereo, but the inner movements are the tinniest mono you'll ever hear.