Columbia SAX 2401: Arrau's Chopin Sonata No. 3

Columbia SAX 2401

Chopin: Sonata No. 3 in B Minor, Fantaisie in F Minor

Claudio Arrau, piano

Pressing: UK, ED1, blue/silver

Condition: EX

Date first published: 1961

Stampers:
YAX 681-5
YAX 682-6

Performance: 7/10

Sound: 6/10

Price range: $31-187 (mean $81) on popsike.com

Comments: This SAX shows up relatively rarely on the auction market (six auctions last year and only one so far this year), though it's not exactly what I would call one of the more sought after titles in the catalog. Arrau is not my go-to guy for Chopin, and from what I have read, people either love or hate his Chopin.  The sound of the piano leans towards the warmer side and can sound occasionally a bit dark and murky.  Combined with a distant presentation, the recording almost sounds as if it were mono.  No sonic distortion on this copy.







Comments

  1. Wow. I'd hate to be the person who spent $187 on this. Some SAX fetch high prices more due to rarity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Have the mono - probaby better?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could be, but I'm not sure. I've yet to compare a 33CX to a SAX for a solo piano album like this.

      Delete
    2. Tin Ear - you are the go-to guy for mono. Do you happen to have a list of EMI recordings (e.g. early ASDs) that sound better in their mono version? I think we once had this discussion on your blog about the Beecham Franck Symphony, which you said sounded far better in mono and for which you did a mono transfer to digital. Any other such recommendations?

      Delete
    3. Firstly: I think you should install a 'recent comments' widget on your site!!

      The Franck in question was a different, slightly earlier, 'Not on CD' disc.

      Your comment re monos v stereo being OK for solo recitals (instrumental AND vocal, piano acc) + chamber music (St Qts) seems the way to go.

      One used to test PU Cartridges is LXT6005 (Berganza/Lavilla) - far more tactile than the SDD reissue..but don't have (or had) many in both versios.the Columbia/Iturbi Spanish Album is v.nice as mono (no longer have the SAX though).
      An orchestral which is definitely superior is LXT5682 (Fille Mal Garde) - greater transient attack/life.
      Kempe/Vienna PO 'On Holiday ALP1974 / Bliss PC (ALP1948) seem very fine.

      The basic requirement is having more 'inner detail' - that will compensate for the lack of stereo.
      Mono is likely preferable for DGG's early 60s stereos - but have rarely seen them.

      Generally, monos seem less common than the stereos.......'old wives tale', IMO, about the 'balance' between the two..it's just that the stereos got 'archived' by later collectors: at the time, most serious collectors (of expensive full-price LP's) would've gone stereo pretty early-on.

      Delete
    4. PS: The Franck was slightly re-edited last year (LP was never wet-cleaned) - with a smidgeon of treble added - now on different blog..some comments 'disappeared in the transition.
      http://themusicparlour.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/sir-thomas-beecham-french-national.html

      Delete
    5. Tin Ear - your wish is granted! Check out the new widget up top!

      As you've probably already noticed, we've focused mostly on stereo recordings on this blog, but I think to be fair, we should try to venture into mono as well. I own a lot of mono jazz, which I find to be better than stereo in many cases, but not so much mono classical. However, as you also point out, there are so many great mono recordings from the pre-stereo era that are worth seeking out. Some of them (rare violinists and pianists, or Schuricht's Beethoven cycle on French EMI) are quite collectible. It'd be amazing if one of us somehow got his hands on an original Martzy, for instance.

      Delete
    6. Thanks for updating us on the re-edited Franck. I remember downloading it last year and being pleased with the pre-edited transfer, so I ought to check out your new one.

      Delete
    7. Had a Martzy/Brahms 33CX . Retain a 'mint-' Schubert 33CX - part of an auction lot some years back - about 500+ - didn't even attract a £2 bid - was late arriving - auctioneer offering me all for a 'fiver' - included de Vito/Kreutzer + Brahms Sonatas on ALP amongst other goodies!
      Hate to tell your Far-East 'readers' this was/is commonplace...

      Most EMI pre-1959-ish are a bit too 'creamy' - especially if combined with some slight MM upper-treble 'droop'..

      Delete
    8. You lucky bloke ... sounds like a treasure trove! I wouldn't worry about the Far-East readers ... we have hardly an audience in Asia. Our stats show that most readers are in the UK, US, and other parts of Europe!

      Delete
    9. How were those Martzy's, by the way? Worth their "value" in sound?

      Delete
  3. Doubt I'd even played the Brahms VC (paid £15) - only sampled Schubert 33CX1399 so couldn't comment
    Anyone disposing of these things @ 5/10/15 years back 'values' would feel very unlucky!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have an aversion to wet cleaning? (I do and its easier not to)

      Delete
    2. For the Blogs it was almost always essential - as even a tiny amount of contamination/ticks/pops would take ages to 'remove'.
      Otherwise- I'll tolerate some 'noises-off' as long as the stylus doesn't clog (woodwind going 'sour').

      The huge joke re: Far-Eastern (mainly) high-value buyers is they would slosh Isopropanol based concoctions near automatically onto 'rare' vinyl - thus causing vinyl damage - so likely only 'worthless' LP's won't have been audibly ruined in years to come...

      Delete
    3. Ha! Never knew that ... who told you that about the Asian collectors? I do occasionally use MFSL cleaning fluid with a VPI 16.5 when things need a deep clean. Otherwise, record brush seems to do the trick.

      Delete
    4. So you don't like cleaners with alcohol in them?
      The Bassophile has one of those ultrasonic water cleaners that blows air over the vinyl when done. He really likes it and is quite the cork sniffer on vinyl cleaning. I've heard it make a nice difference on some albums more in the midrange.

      I've got a record doctor with some solution called Jenie in a bottle with which you are supposed to mix reagent grade alcohol and water (Walmart grade for me). I feel that I lose high frequency detail and air all of the time and so have stopped wet cleaning except in the most egregious situation and then if it is a great record its saved for a trip to Bassophile land.

      I have not had the guts to let a prized record go into the ultrasonic cleaner. Should I? I've spoken of this to another audiophile and he states just keep cleaning over and over again. My theory had been that the drying process was not completely removing the solution before some of the contaminants were able to redeposit into the record obscuring the finest detail. Cleaning over and over again would eventually take care of this in theory, if the alcohol does not create issues. The hi dollar ultrasonic cleaner really bugs me because it blow drys which would allow more time for redepositing. I suppose too that it runs a lot more water over the record so this solution is not as concentrated.

      So does the Tin Ear subscribe to such Audio Nervosa?

      Delete
    5. I use "The Disc Doctors Miracle Record Cleaner". Sounds like something from a snake oil seller but it contains no Isopropyl alcohol. I mix in a very small amount of Agfa wetting agent and together with my Lorricraft PR4 seems to get the job done. Having tried other types of cleaning machines I would now only consider a Lorricraft or Keith Monks type of machine.

      Delete
    6. Another reason I don't like to clean. Just saw great video on Lorricraft (friend has Monks and I think it has a thread too):
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZmRy3cbFjw

      $27 per pint or so for the fluid, so let's see if I were insane (and do each record twice on average) that is 20,000 cleans. 200 pints ... $5000 in fluid. $2000 cleaner. Ultrasonic Cleaner $4000 and some water costs...
      My system don't clean them still has its appeal not to mention the time savings which is a bigger deal. My little record doctor set me back $200 and is a bare bones Nitty Gritty. Its hard to part with the dough.

      Delete
    7. I'll pass...but there was a hugely entertaining Yank home-made US cleaner on YouTube (can't now locate it - linked from a VA post)- beat many comedy movies....with the LP's left to 'dry' on a kitchen rack...

      Delete
    8. The Ultrasonic V8 perhaps??? I think I am going to be a lazy cleaner for a while longer. It is and endless subject and I am getting sick of it. I don't have any records I play heavily so what is one more play going to do. I personally like the $4000 ultrasonic cleaner. Put it in another room so you can't hear it (no problem for me). Turn it loose and come back when you are ready for the record. It does not take any of my time. I would think that repeated cleaning with cleaner fluid would eliminate any of my misgivings about residue. Of course not sure what ultrasonic does with mold release. I think that Miracle doctor stuff is great for mold release, but then you need a rinse cycle or two I hear (???). ... I believe on further reading ultrasonic is great for mold release agent removal. I think one of the decca/london opera records may go in the ultrasonic drink especially if I have one of the disc where they are close.

      For Tin Ear's entertainment, some more Yankee inguenity (many like this system by the way and $1500 is a lot less than $4000), Mikey Fremer hosts:
      http://www.analogplanet.com/content/ultrasonic-v-8-record-cleaning-machine-cleans-8-records-10-minutes#wf49YOrPpFyScvYl.97

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts