sgg5e@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Stephen G. Graber) (04/12/91)
I'm sure that most of you vinyl lovers already know that Nonesuch Records can be very, very good but I thought I'd share what may be a useful generalization in identifying the good ones. I've recently acquired four that are really excellent, all list Marc J. Aubort as the recording engineer, some include Joanna Nickrenz as an assistant and credit Elite Recordings as their company. The four are: Claude Debussy "Images" and "Estampes", Paul Jacobs, piano Nonesuch H-71365 Claude Debussy "Etudes for Piano", Paul Jacobs, piano Nonesuch H-71322 Rachmaninof "Sonata in G min, Op. 9" and Kodaly "Sonata Op 4" Harvey Shapiro, cello and Earl Wild, piano Nonesuch H-71155 Scott Joplin "Piano Rags" Joshua Rifkin, piano Nonesuch H-71248 The first two are really excellent. They capture the wood and thundering bass of the piano well while preserving a clear, musically ringing high end. Not too much reverb, just a nice sense of a piano in a pretty big room and you're near the front. I enjoy the pieces and the playing and think the records almost come up to the standards set by Keith Johnson/Reference Recordings with the Nojima Liszt and Ravel records. Sorry (maybe thankfully :^)) I can't think up any more audiophile rag jargon to describe them. Interestingly, they were both mastered by Robert Ludwig of Masterdisk (see last paragraph for more on this thread). If it matters the piano is a Baldwin SD-10- and I thought I only liked European Steinways (just kidding, though they do have different sounds, and no I can't usually identify them by sound). The Shapiro/Wild record is also first rate, very natural sound, good imaging, and easy to hear all the notes etc. I couldn't identify who did the pressing on this. The Joplin is the least good. Partly this is because its in a bit rougher shape than the others, partly I think, because Rifkins playing is a bit listless, and the last bit is harder to describe. You can tell by listening to the record that the piano was well recorded but somehow the overall sound is lifeless in comparison to the other three records. I formed these opinions before I encountered the article I'll describe below and then after reading the article I tried to identify where the mastering/pressing was done. This one was done at Sterling Sound. So whats this 'bout an article. Ralph Karsten wrote an article in "The Absolute Sound" called "Will Your Used Record Sound Good?- A Primer on Identifying Pressings". Sorry I can't provide the issue number- I xeroxed my brother's- but it was within the last six months I'm pretty sure. Anyway, he runs through a bunch of the symbols which can be found on the very inner grooves of many records. He gives Robert Ludwig and Masterdisk a very high rating and says Sterling Sound is usually pretty mundane. Other highly rated houses are The Mastering Lab, Record Technology, early Reprise and Warner Brother, and of course the well known RCA, Mercury Living Presence, London FFSS, and I don't really remember the others. In general, and as far as I've been able to check with my own records etc., the guy seems to be generally right about what he says. I must admit I'm still confused by the stamper numbers on my RCAs, Mercurys, and old Angels- maybe one of you who know could post something more about all this. Anyway, if you're into buying used records this article may be of some help to you.