originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
originally posted by BJ:
All the Hilliard stuff was recorded digitally rather than analog. ECM transitioned in the early 80's. Definitely ties into the change in their recording sound, i.e. the "ECM sound" they're known for.
So wouldn't it then rather be post-analogue than post-digital? Well anyways, I always lose myself in the music, so I never have anything worthwhile to say about recording qualities of different media. Perhaps this is a good thing: I can enjoy the good performances of great performers from the late 1800s onward.
There was a story about the great conductor Eugen Jochum, the Bruckner specialist, who had this same "problem". One acoustics engineer from the company he recorded for set up an early stereo system in his home, and Jochum was thrilled by the sound it produced. But his wife didn't like the look of things, so she rearranged the acoustician's layout to what, by this account, was very disadvantageous - yet Mr. Jochum was still enthralled with the music. I also have this flaw of losing myself in the music rather than the sound reproduction system, that I don't think I would see much of a difference between the two methods.