Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Sergei Rachmaninoff

Sergei Rachmaninoff

Rachmaninoff's famous Prelude in C♯ minor (Op. 3, No. 2), which he composed when he was 19, established his fame in America. It is here performed by himself in 1919.

One of Rachmaninoff's most popular works, performed by a notable interpreter of his works.

One thing I must ask, though: File:Prelude_3_2_Rach_playing.ogg is the original. Can you be hard on the restoration, particularly the timing of the first three chords, which had some extra damage, and which I think I fixed successfully. If there's problems, I want to know and fix them, not coast by, so please, double-check my work and don't let me get away with anything.

Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 20:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
? Lots of background white noise in there. Is this an old recording? Nezzadar ☎ 02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1919, but, of course, later recordings wouldn't be public domain recordings of him playing his own work. Added year of performance to the description. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 09:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 2:08 - 2:25 seems to have more clipping than the original, an artifact of restoration? In that area, I actually prefer the original recording. Also, is there a reason the original is 194kbps but the restoration is 66kbps? The timing of the chords at the beginning sounds fine to me. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent for a 1919 acoustic recording. The fact that it is an interpretation by the composer, in his prime, is especially compelling. Edison (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Jujutacular. I noticed the clipping and then listened to the original and did not hear it. It could be a compression artifact as 66 kbps is small for so many notes are being played simultaneously in that stretch. Z gin der 2010-03-16T16:12Z (UTC)
Support. Is there much difference in the "clipping"? I find it hard to detect. This is a valuable recording. Tony (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support: I agree that this is a valuable recording, and very much worthy of featured status on that basis. I was picking up some distortion myself a bit. I'll let better ears weigh in on that, but I'm inclined to support otherwise should the others come to a consensus on that point. Imzadi 1979 → 23:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Distorted in comparison to the original recording. Why 66k? Sounds like listening over a telephone circuit. Such a valuable recording deserves a better transfer. Edison (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You !voted on this over a year ago, with a different opinion Them From Space 06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck earlier !vote. Edison (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best transfer (probably a dirty disc?) requires too much distortion to bring to a listenable state. I wouldn't be opposed to a clean transfer of this recording. I actually have a clean copy of this disc, but no machine to play it on. :\ Them From Space 06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, perhaps, the mountain this file has to climb to reach a super-majority is too great at this time. Participation at F.S. being what it is, I doubt this will see another three supports in any reasonable amount of time.

Not promoted --Sven Manguard Wha? 06:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]