RACMANINOFF PIANO CONCERTO 2

Just for fun I listened to the opening movement of the 2d, by Ashkenazy/Haitink, Wild, Andsnes, Janis/Dorati, and Ogawa. I didn't have time to go thru all I have, ie Hough, Van Cliburn, Richter, Shelly, Ashkenazy/Previn. I included the Janis recording only because of its general rep and your preference for a Merc of Beethoven 5, I assume because of recording as opposed to performance issues.

My least favorite from a sound POV was Janis. The bass was boomy and the piano sound not sufficiencty distinguished from the orchestra.
The Ogawa would not meet your sonic expectations because the performance is too laid back. The recording is quite good however.
Andsnes' performance is the exact opposite of Ogawa - I like its leanness, a breath of fresh air from the overripe nature of so many performances of Rachmaninoff's music. Its a very good recording as well.

IMHO, the best recording for you would be the Chandos digital remastering of Earl Wild/Jasha Horenstein (get the 4CD set). The piano is tightly focused and dynamic, although it does have a spot lighted nature. The orchesta is well recorded, it is not drowned out by the piano. Nice balance. Now the best part! It is an exciting performance as well, one of my top favorites. I think you would love it!

I hadn't listened to the Janis in years, but I remember the strings sounded somewhat flat in the redbook release. I'm curious about any improvements in the new SACD release.

I second Sugarbrie. Ashkenazy on London is a good performance. I too prefer performance over recording sound quality. I can't say that the Ashkenazy recording sounds bad, but it was recorded awhile ago, so take that into consideration.

02-18-08: Shadorne
This is perhaps too well recorded. Try cranking it - it is meant to be played loud - it is actually very dynamic...one of the nicest recordings of piano - what speakers/amp are you using?
...
Shadorne (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)

I recently heard about 3 minutes of Rachmaninov 2nd concerto on a very nice system and it was loud. Too loud. To a point it was unrealistic because I simply never heard a piano that can play that loud! It was actually funny. I didn't say anything to the owner of the system when he played it at that level, but makes me wonder why people think it is necessary to play it that loud? Is it because of a poor recording quality or any other reason?

I didn't say anything to the owner of the system when he played it at that level, but makes me wonder why people think it is necessary to play it that loud? Is it because of a poor recording quality or any other reason?

I don't know how loud you are referring to or if it was just too loud for you becuase of the way the recording was made or indeed if it was ridicuolusly loud/cranked.

A concert grand piano can play about 110 db SPL (peaks of course). A full orchestra and chorus in a concert hall will hit around 105 db SPL...(wherever you sit).

It might seem to be irrelevant as one would suppose that one would naturally listen at whatever levels that one prefers. However, this is NOT the case due to a little known and nasty "trick" played on ALL of us by audio engineers.

My point was that each recording is actually mixed for a certain loudness level. Stuff which is compressed and has a "fat" or bloated bass is deliberately engineered to be listened to at lower than realistic volume levels. It still sounds balanced and "punchy" or exciting and live like because of the compression and the juiced up bass (in essence the audio engineer has RAISED the average noise level by surpressing the peaks - so you can listen at lower volumes on mediocre gear).

Music that has been mixed thin in the bass and which is generally uncompressed (a true live recording) can be played much much louder at realistic orchestral levels WITHOUT sounding terribly loud - this is because the average sound level is low whilst only the brief transients are loud. The high peaks at 110 db SPL from percussion (such as the Piano => Hammer hits strings) are extremely short and are not registered as "loud" by the ears.

See this link, Turn Me Up for what I meant.

The result poses several problems =>

1) compressed music sounds bad when turned up.
2) uncompressed music sounds bad or lifeless in comparison to teh above when played too low (at unrealistic levels)
3) uncompressed music is actually so dynamic that it is a challenge for most consumer playback systems to reach the required level to give it edge and excitement. Hence a lot of music produced for consumers (car stereo and such)is HEAVILY compressed and audiophiles, with half decent systems, are the ones that suffer.
4) Some audiophiles begin to prefer or migrate towards audiophile systems that sound best at low volume levels (the system itself compresses and has a bloated bass). This is a result of the audiophile's observation that transparent and uncompressed systems just sound horrible and harsh on their favorite music...(just like the thread the other day with the person who found B&W N802 fatiguing on Guns and Roses after barely twenty minutes...an extreme perhaps but no wonder that it was fatiguing on speakers reknown for transparency/dynamics and popular with many classical listeners...Guns & Roses was probaby mixed to sound best in a car or "best buy" system)

...as usual just two cents. I hope I explained better what I meant. People do have a tendency to turn it up when giving a demo as they want to impress - that may be the problem you observed. Myself, I find I have to constantly change the volume level dramatically depending on how badly compressed the recording is.