Mapleshade Recordings..GREAT or what?

The title of my thread states my thoughts on quality of Mapleshade recordings. My point about mentioning the staggering amount of positive reviews and use world wide was to make the case that their are other completely opposite opinions (by those many pay for their opinions) from the total dismissal of the recordings posted else where. I don't get many of your points but we don't all think alike. I wrote as much as I did about the need for calm discourse because it has long caught my attention a similarity of thought process of those that I have seen since the early 1960s that use their opinions, expressed as absolute facts, on high end audio, cars, wine, etc as a perverse way to make themselves better by putting others down. I hoped that younger people would understand the source of such needs and try to avoid it themselves. Calm discourse is so important in all things. I love high end audio as a source of pleasure and hoped that others would not be turned off from the hobby by those that see a need to catapult themselves in front of others by their self proclaimed knowledge. Forgive me if I don't respond back to this thread but I am going to busy on other things over the next few weeks. Best wishes!

Hi, I just ordered 6 cds to enjoy. Of the two I opened so far "After Glow" and "Making Wopee", I very satified with the recording. High have a high res system (Talon spk, SACD, Bel Canto EVo, Nirvana ic and Silteck spk). They are on par with recordings from Michele Barber and some well recorded SACD but not the best SACD. I would characterize them as natural and fleshed out. Was wondering what are some of the favorite recordings of some memebers who enjoy Mapleshade.

One of the WORST CD's I have ever heard is that Doug McCleod (spelling?) blues CD, Come To Find. Forgive me if I don't have all the details correct, because the sound was so awful that I listened to only one song and then had to turn it off. I often listen to new CD's several times before forming an opinion of the sound and the performance. I tried liking that CD by giving it another chance later, but just couldn't get past the horrible mud and thud. Who cares if a signal is processed or not? If it sounds like crap, they SHOULD have processed it. Do you think that a real symphony orchestra would actually sound good in your living room? Probably not a blues combo, either, then. I don't care what all the critics in the audio press write...I can think for myself and form my own opinions. And I couldn't care less that ARC uses Mapleshade to voice their components, because most of their stuff sounds sterile and artificial anyway. If there are better Mapleshades, I would happily give them a try, if anyone cares to recommend one.

I own 7 Mapleshades and only 2 of them have any merit artistically(IMHO).Sonically they all sound good, but the performance isnt worth listening to.Also, they tend to mislead a little; it sounds like youre buying a new release, but some of this stuff was recorded 10-12 yrs ago.

Mapleshade Recording? Great! Mapleshade Artistic Content? Not so great! I admire Mapleshade for their recording techniques and daring recordings, but of the 4 Mapleshade CD's I have auditioned I only like one of them. Kendra Shank's "Afterglow" is a pleasant female vocals CD that is quite good for checking speaker placement. "Live at Ethel's" is a neat live jazz CD that has a great live sound, but the jazz is sub-par IMHO. "Makin Whoopee" is a decent disk for Nat Cole fans except for one spoken word track that will drive you insane. Michal Carvin's "Drum Concerto at Dawn" is so terrible that even a professional drummer friend of mine can't bear it. I don't mean to bash Mapleshade. They cannot possibly have premier artists record for them on their budget. They do warrant a listen though. Their prices, accessories, and recording processes are qualities that other recording companies should take to heart.