Besides agreeing with Shutko (Alagna is clearly and easily recognizable even in this misdone recording), I want to ask everybody to please, please stop spreading the myth that modern acoustical recordings, whether by Alagna or Flórez or anybody, might give any hint to the authenticity of the acoustical recording process. This is utter, painful nonsense.
(1) As I wrote recently on another thread, placing a modern sound engineer in front of a horn and asking him to make an acoustical recording is totally like placing an 1899 recording engineer who has never seen a microphone in front of a digital stereo recording equipment. Both of them have no chance to achieve any reliable result. There's simply noone left on this planet who has but the faintest idea how to make acoustical records - that was a very difficult-to-use technology, and every attempt at copying it without (as the video on Youtube clearly admits) knowing much about it can only produce laughable results.
(2) What do you gather is the long black stick with a wire rolled around it and with one thick end that you can clearly see at 1:35 in the video, above the head of the left engineer (and later on during that video, too)? It's obviously a microphone... and of course, you can clearly hear that the used, in addition to the horn, also a microphone for the piano. I mean, how could a piano sound like that in an acoustical recording?? Obviously, they intended to make the piano sound more natural (which they achieved), without understanding that the contrast between the microphone-enforced piano and the by-horn-only recorded voice makes the voice sound strange.
(3) Everybody with a faint knowledge of recording history doesn't need any proof for the authenticity of acoustical or early electrical recordings. It's extremely easy to prove that no recording process has ever been as authentic as the early electric process, closely followed by the acoustical process - please compare any given singer's voice that was recorded both acoustically and electrically (Bohnen, Martinelli, Fleta, Galli-Curci, Muzio, Shaljapin, whoever), or both electrically and on early LP (Groh, Metternich, Peerce and so many others), or with all three processes (Gigli, Lauri-Volpi, Pinza...). The death of authenticity came soon after the advent of the tape, so in the LP age; since then, things only got worse. Acoustical and electrical (78rpm) recordings offered no possibility of piecing a decent version of an aria together from seven or ten not-at-all-decent attempts, no possibility of pasting Carlo Cossutta's high C into that recording where Plácido Domingo didn't hit it even at the umpteenth try, no possibility of making exiguous voices (think Flórez) sound large and ringing...
(4) That said, and the shortcomings of Alagna's acoustical recording notwithstanding, even that attempt shows Alagna's voice definitely clearer and more authentic than his digital studio recordings. The difference between what you hear here and what you are used to when hearing Alagna is not fault of the less-than-accurate acoustical recording, but of the far-less-than-accurate digital recording.