Yes, edits in the sense of splices between one take and another.
Let's here more suggestions from the rest of you all…

Altering levels in post-production is increasingly possible now with multi-track recordings and is often necessary with SACDs to produce an acceptable balance in both the 2-channel and the 5-channel version. The basic sound is determined at the start of the sessions, though, and approved by the musicians. For basic stereo recordings the sound is more or less fixed at this point and can't always be changed afterwards. Twiddling knobs during the recording can so easily lead to mistakes, unnatural balance or a disparity between the sound image in takes that means you can't edit them together.

I picked up the Rosbaud/Berlin disc on DG.

Finlandia is rather bland...not too exciting but not sluggish either. A very "safe" performance.

The Swan is marvelous. Robaud really creates an eerie atmosphere here. Great cor anglais solo.

Festivo is well, done, I though. Could have been maybe a little snappier.

Tapiola is the jewel of this CD. Despite being a mono recording, great clarity of detail. It's not the most savage Tapiola on record, but sure one of the most haunting. Very inspired and creepy.

I've not yet listened to Karelia, but I will.

Although it's mono, the recording as a whole actually sounds pretty good. Better than my expectations.

Its always gratifying to find that someone else has enjoyed a recommendation. I will be interested in your response to the Karelia Suite and that slightly ponderous march.--kp

Actually, Karelia wasn't all that bad!

The Intermezzo was up-tempo, which I like. Ballade was very atmospheric.

And I'd call the Alla marcia slow, but not sluggish. No, i've never heard it played as slowly as this, but Robaud makes it work. He endowes a certain Germanic 'pastoral' quality to it, which I did not find unappealing. Of course, I will always prefer a fleeter Alla marcia, but I was pleasantly surprised by what he was able to do with the slower tempo.

I was pleasantly surprised by this disc in general. I'm glad I've added it to my arsenal.

Great stuff Tapkaara! Many people tend to think of German conductors as being 'heavy' and 'ponderous' in Sibelius. But its not always the case. Eugen Jochums account of Nightride and Sunrise is among the fastest commited to disc, and a very fine one. An interesting titbit regarding Hans Rosbaud: Robert Layton that great Sibelius expert was for many years a music producer at the BBC. He relates that when Rosbaud, a contemporary of Karajan was asked to conduct the BBC Symphony Orchestra during the 1950's, he insisted on performing the fourth Symphony of Sibelius. Quite something in the 50's.--kp

Well, thanks for bringing this recording to my attention, Pete. I really did enjoy it.

I still maintain that the Tapiola is the best number on the recording. I've already listened to it a few times and, again, the detail is great. I've heard orchestrail details in this mono recording that I've not heard in other "hi-fi" versions. I wonder...is this somehow due to the mono recording or is it Rosbaud's conducting?

Tapkaara wrote:

I still maintain that the Tapiola is the best number on the recording. I've already listened to it a few times and, again, the detail is great. I've heard orchestrail details in this mono recording that I've not heard in other "hi-fi" versions. I wonder...is this somehow due to the mono recording or is it Rosbaud's conducting?

Possibly a bit of both. Some of those early 'mono's' are remarkably life like with a natural warmth and perspective. I reviewed Beechams 1958 'Sibelius one' last week. Here again the maestro brought out much detail from the score. Some of these vintage recordings really do outshine many current issues which can sound rather clinical by comparison.--kp

As something of a novice, I would really like to know if there is a technical reason why a mono recording may be able to produce fine sonic details in ways that hi-fi cannot. How ironic would it be then, if, in some ways, mono is more "hi-fi" than hi-fi!

I'm not sure if anyone in the forum has knowledge on this, but I would be most interested to get some input.

Don't get me wrong, I prefare a decent stereo to a mono recording. With a much wider sound stage you can get close to the concert experience. But again I find that the best stereo recordings appeared broadly speaking during the infancy of Hi-fi. Labels such as the RCA 'Living Stereo' or Mercury 'Living Presence' still sound fantastic today. Why should this be so?

Mercury used just one microphone for its mono recordings and just three for stereo. These were hung in front of the stage apron in carefully tested positions. Importantly there is no boosting or compressing of sound either at the time of recording or in later processing. Later on multi-mike techniques became common and even the addition of artificial reverberation. This was a slippery slope....kp