Tweet
I've never owned any Kate Bush albums. Her career was more art-rock than prog-rock so I was familiar with her music in a peripheral way. I have a friend who is a huge fan and he's always talked up the sonic virtues of her recordings. I love live recordings so when I heard that there was a 4LP set culled from her 22 date run in London I thought it would be fun to finally test the waters. Plus I was able to get the box set wholesale so I figured why not.
In the interim period before the sets arrival I started to read some reviews about the album on the Steve Hoffman forum which is a complete mosh pit of opinions. One thing that seemed to be getting an ongoing mention was the pronounced bass response from the recording. The debate ensued (its up to 57 pages at last look): is there too much bass? Bass just right?
Well I have to say there is too much bass but that isn't the only thing I have an issue with. You can tell the recording is meticulous. In fact I would say almost overly so. I find the performance to be so tweaked that its a bit bloodless. A dyed in the wool Kate Bush fan would probably take exception to that comment.
When I listen to a live recording I like the perspective of sitting in the audience with the stage in front of me. Great recordings like Gil Evans Live At The Public Theater (Vols 1 & 2) allow you to visualize placement of the musicians in 3D. This ain't that! You are on stage with Kate and her band with the audience in front of you. A bit too close miked for my taste. I will say that there is no issue with compression - its quite a dynamic recording. That was a welcome relief.
There seems to be an overall lack of midrange warmth. I find it a bit tipped up and that bass. We have to talk about the bass. That's the main reason for my post...its quite peculiar and I can't think of another recording like this. The bass is overly prominent in a way that is almost offensive. It stands out so much that it constantly draws attention to itself. There is lots of musical information there but it makes the overall EQ curve seem like a smiley face.
I'm an admitted bass freak. There is bass and then there is Rockport bass. I haven't heard any recording that the Aquila or its big brother the Altair 2 can't handle. The Aquila handle the bass effortlessly but it makes me wonder about lesser speakers. One of my friends was concerned it would blow out his woofers. I've seen other comments that they don't hear any issues with the bass which tells me their speakers are rolling off like crazy in the lower register.
I did read one comment from an attendee at one of the shows who mentioned that the bass was particularly prominent at the performance. Maybe this recording is an attempt to accurately reproduce what the audience heard? Its clearly a conscious decision. You don't release a mix like this without constant review - not a musician as accomplished as this, with a budget that I presume to be fairly ginormous.
I'll keep listening but I find the whole thing odd. Any one else?
In the interim period before the sets arrival I started to read some reviews about the album on the Steve Hoffman forum which is a complete mosh pit of opinions. One thing that seemed to be getting an ongoing mention was the pronounced bass response from the recording. The debate ensued (its up to 57 pages at last look): is there too much bass? Bass just right?
Well I have to say there is too much bass but that isn't the only thing I have an issue with. You can tell the recording is meticulous. In fact I would say almost overly so. I find the performance to be so tweaked that its a bit bloodless. A dyed in the wool Kate Bush fan would probably take exception to that comment.
When I listen to a live recording I like the perspective of sitting in the audience with the stage in front of me. Great recordings like Gil Evans Live At The Public Theater (Vols 1 & 2) allow you to visualize placement of the musicians in 3D. This ain't that! You are on stage with Kate and her band with the audience in front of you. A bit too close miked for my taste. I will say that there is no issue with compression - its quite a dynamic recording. That was a welcome relief.
There seems to be an overall lack of midrange warmth. I find it a bit tipped up and that bass. We have to talk about the bass. That's the main reason for my post...its quite peculiar and I can't think of another recording like this. The bass is overly prominent in a way that is almost offensive. It stands out so much that it constantly draws attention to itself. There is lots of musical information there but it makes the overall EQ curve seem like a smiley face.
I'm an admitted bass freak. There is bass and then there is Rockport bass. I haven't heard any recording that the Aquila or its big brother the Altair 2 can't handle. The Aquila handle the bass effortlessly but it makes me wonder about lesser speakers. One of my friends was concerned it would blow out his woofers. I've seen other comments that they don't hear any issues with the bass which tells me their speakers are rolling off like crazy in the lower register.
I did read one comment from an attendee at one of the shows who mentioned that the bass was particularly prominent at the performance. Maybe this recording is an attempt to accurately reproduce what the audience heard? Its clearly a conscious decision. You don't release a mix like this without constant review - not a musician as accomplished as this, with a budget that I presume to be fairly ginormous.
I'll keep listening but I find the whole thing odd. Any one else?
Comment