# After a 120 years of recorded music . . .



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

. . . why do some recordings still sound so crummy? Three CDs purchased recently make me wonder if all music producers are up to the job.

1. A soprano with orchestra recording had such a wide frequency range that a comfortable volume setting for fortissimo passages reduced anything below _mf_ to inaudibility. Don't record companies realise that some of their customers live in flats and like to get on with their neighbours?

2. Our old friend, 'bathroom acoustic' spoiled a Bach piano CD. Does anyone like this sound?

3. An SACD of a Violin and piano recital had the violin emerging from the front speakers and the piano sounding from the rear speakers giving the listener the weird impression that they are sitting up on the stage between the two musicians. Not a natural or comfortable acoustic.

I listened to a Naxos CD this afternoon, it wasn't a stupendous recording but it was nicely balanced with a clean open sound and is representative of this label's output. Maybe other companies could learn from them.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Naxos does a great job and is more consistent than some of the major labels.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

What irritates me most by some modern recordings or edits, except from the metallic sound in some of the earliest DDDs, is first and foremost those with too contrasting sound levels - so that you have turn the volume up in quieter passages, and turn it down in more noisy passages ... I listened to the Denon/Brilliant Classics Berlioz CD box with Inbal the other day, and though musically good, it had some of those traits to a large degree. My equipment is not hi-end, and Denon has a good audio reputation, but I doubt a hi-end system would change the experience.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

It probably has more to do with recording style orientation than what recording technology is capable of. Technological advancement is not often utilized to reproduce music in an authentic way. Style and commercial reasons often take precedence.

It's not uncommon to have a vocal or instrumental soloist sounding as loud as an orchestral tutti, even drowning it out, and this is not something new. I've got 50-year old recordings that sound like that. Perhaps the soloists would be happy hearing it like that.

Another style of "recorded music" that is common these days is to highlight sections in an orchestra like putting the instruments next to your ear. Apart from sounding loud and unnatural, you also get to hear the mechanical noise! This could please those audiophiles who listen to equipment rather than music. Bravo.

Over-processing is also a problem. The ease of pressing a button to add the Concertgebouw reverb to a recording made in the Wiener Staatsoper could encourage engineers to produce a sound that's pleasing but unauthentic. An even more extreme case is to heavily polish the sound for the audiophile market that unfortunately makes the acoustic instruments sound like synthesizers with a karaoke-like reverb. Another extreme case as you mentioned is to place the soundstage _around_ you. Gimmicky of course. They would probably call it an immersive experience that you cannot have anywhere else, so pay!

Honestly I cannot imagine why an engineer/producer would want to deliberately create a bathroom acoustic; but they might want to master the sound in a way such that it sounds best on reproduction devices with limited capability, e.g. a mobile phone or a lossy streaming service. Who knows how such a master would sound like on decent reproduction equipment.

Heavy dynamic compression and clipped peaks are also common practice, and these are not new, as "loud" always gives an impression of "good", until you start listening attentively...

It's all a bit sad.

IMO Chandos and Naxos are companies who tend to try to record sound in a natural and authentic way. A few other not-so-famous small labels also tend to consistently produce decent recordings. On the other hand, a few of the traditional big labels were good in the past, but most of them are dreadful these days. The orchestra labels that have started to thrive in recent years are a mixed bag. Those self-proclaimed audiophile labels, however, have always been awful. Sounding fake and unnatural is part of their identity.


----------



## Helgi (Dec 27, 2019)

ECM seems to have a winning formula, at least from what I've heard — mostly instrumental and chamber music, come to think of it. I suppose a solo instrumental recording is the easiest to get right.


----------



## Rmathuln (Mar 21, 2018)

Kiki said:


> It probably has more to do with recording style orientation than what recording technology is capable of. Technological advancement is not often utilized to reproduce music in an authentic way. Style and commercial reasons often take precedence.
> 
> It's not uncommon to have a vocal or instrumental soloist sounding as loud as an orchestral tutti, even drowning it out, and this is not something new. I've got 50-year old recordings that sound like that. Perhaps the soloists would be happy hearing it like that.
> 
> ...


I add BIS and Hyperion to the list of labels that most always get it right.

We need modern day Fine family to get the simplicity of it all right again.

We only have two ears. And at concerts the musicians are in front of you, not on the side or in the back. Surround Sound has no real value in life-like reproduction for music.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Rmathuln said:


> I add BIS and Hyperion to the list of labels that most always get it right.
> 
> We need modern day Fine family to get the simplicity of it all right again.
> 
> We only have two ears. And at concerts the musicians are in front of you, not on the side or in the back. Surround Sound has no real value in life-like reproduction for music.


Have to concur about the recording quality of BIS and Hyperion. (Although I usually avoid downloads of BIS' old recordings but that's because of their mismanagement, rather than their recording quality.) I also like what I've got from Naïve and Ondine.

Have to confess I'm a 2-channel person when it comes to music, for exactly the same reason that you mentioned. When it comes to surround sound, some engineers have said that the right thing to do was to put the music at the front while the surround should carry the ambience/reflection of the hall. However, there are labels like 2L whose surround mix will surround you with instruments. I don't think that's right. Unless we are talking about something like Kalevi Aho's Symphony No. 12, of which it was the composer who placed the instruments around the audience, but such cases are rare. (The Aho is available on a BIS SACD incidentally.)


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

I first started reading record reviews nearly 60 years ago and this was a problem mentioned then. I can remember the reviewer complaining of DG’s ‘swimming bath’ acoustic. So it has been going on for a long time but it also can be to do with your own equipment and its response to the recorded sound. It is amazing how good some of the old recordings still sound like the old Mercury recordings.


----------



## bavlf (Oct 4, 2020)

... and also a lot of DG recordings from that period ... So ...


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

bavlf said:


> ... and also a lot of DG recordings from that period ... So ...


hm, many audio people think that that DG targeted a public with cheap or mid-range equipment in their early stereo LP decades, making the sound less impressive and hi-fi than say HMV, Decca or Philips. Not that I care personally, but that's the reputation DG has in that field, as far as I know.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

David Phillips said:


> . . . why do some recordings still sound so crummy? Three CDs purchased recently make me wonder if all music producers are up to the job.


You hit the nail on the head. The tools have advanced marvelously in the last 120 years, especially in the last 12 years or so. The engineers? Eh, maybe not so much. Still a lot of unfounded old school preconceptions out there.


David Phillips said:


> 1. A soprano with orchestra recording had such a wide frequency range that a comfortable volume setting for fortissimo passages reduced anything below _mf_ to inaudibility. Don't record companies realise that some of their customers live in flats and like to get on with their neighbours?


You meant "dynamic range" here not "frequency range," and it's tough to satisfy everyone. With pop music the less dynamic range the better, according to most engineers and listeners, but classical folks usually want a more realistic balance. If you're unable to crank your speakers perhaps you're a candidate for headphones?


David Phillips said:


> 2. Our old friend, 'bathroom acoustic' spoiled a Bach piano CD. Does anyone like this sound?


No... but it _could_ be trying to compensate for a crappy recording to begin with.


David Phillips said:


> 3. An SACD of a Violin and piano recital had the violin emerging from the front speakers and the piano sounding from the rear speakers giving the listener the weird impression that they are sitting up on the stage between the two musicians. Not a natural or comfortable acoustic.


Most SACDs have a normal CD layer as well. If you don't like the engineering choices you should be able to revert to normal stereo.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Helgi said:


> ECM seems to have a winning formula, at least from what I've heard - mostly instrumental and chamber music, come to think of it. I suppose a solo instrumental recording is the easiest to get right.


From what I understand of ECM's technique, Manfred Eichner liked to get a group into his studio and have them play through the material a minimum number of times -- no elaborate overdubbing, no note-by-note corrections. They were often first takes and often recorded together, in the same acoustic space. That's what made "the ECM sound."


----------



## bavlf (Oct 4, 2020)

joen_cph said:


> hm, many audio people think that that DG targeted a public with cheap or mid-range equipment in their early stereo LP decades, making the sound less impressive and hi-fi than say HMV, Decca or Philips. Not that I care personally, but that's the reputation DG has in that field, as far as I know.


Frankly you think recordings like this are bad :lol:


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

No, it is certainly one of the better DGs (and my overall favourite concerning those symphonies, musically speaking).


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

NoCoPilot said:


> . . . .
> 
> No... but it _could_ be trying to compensate for a crappy recording to begin with.
> Most SACDs have a normal CD layer as well. If you don't like the engineering choices you should be able to revert to normal stereo.


Most SACDs also have a two channel DSD mix. I believe it was part of the spec, although I know a few discs that ignored that. All I know is I have about 450 SACDs; some of them have no CD layer, some of them have no surround mix, but all of them have two-channel DSD mixes.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

jegreenwood said:


> I have about 450 SACDs.


Wow! That's about every SACD ever produced, isn't it? What are your favorites, and what do you like about them? I have TWO (count 'em, two).


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

NoCoPilot said:


> Wow! That's about every SACD ever produced, isn't it? What are your favorites, and what do you like about them? I have TWO (count 'em, two).


Well, the best sounding ones are from Channel Classics - especially the Rachel Podger recordings. I also have reissues of a lot of jazz albums from the 50s and 60s. Many of the Blue Note ones are really good.

BUT the best sounding jazz album I have is the non-SACD Mobile Fidelity reissue of Sonny Rollins' "Way Out West" - where they didn't add any reverb. Just a trio that you can reach out and touch.


----------



## Rmathuln (Mar 21, 2018)

jegreenwood said:


> Well, the best sounding ones are from Channel Classics - especially the Rachel Podger recordings. I also have reissues of a lot of jazz albums from the 50s and 60s. Many of the Blue Note ones are really good.
> 
> BUT the best sounding jazz album I have is the non-SACD Mobile Fidelity reissue of Sonny Rollins' "Way Out West" - where they didn't add any reverb. Just a trio that you can reach out and touch.


I prefer SACD when available because of the high resolution SACD stereo layer.

I have a Denon DVD-I 5910 ci that I only use for SACD. I configure the SACD settings to always grab the SACD stereo mix, not the redbook stereo mix. The resulting audio quality is usually very noticeably cleaner, more detailed, and has greater sound stage.

I never use the multi channel layer.

I have bought a few Japanese non Hybrid SACDs. Those are even more spectacular sounding. But the cost is very prohibitive, so only a few desert island favorites even tempt me when they are available.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

What is the absolute most spectacular SACD you own? I would consider buying *one* expen$ive disc to hear what all the fuss is about. I suspect my ears are too old to notice the difference though....


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Not spectacular in a Mahler symphony sense - just great sound:

https://www.channelclassics.com/catalogue/33412-Vivaldi-La-cetra-12-Violin-Concertos-Opus-9/


----------



## Rmathuln (Mar 21, 2018)

NoCoPilot said:


> What is the absolute most spectacular SACD you own? I would consider buying *one* expen$ive disc to hear what all the fuss is about. I suspect my ears are too old to notice the difference though....


Do you own a disc player capable of reading the SACD layers?
If not you won' t hear the difference.
Kind of like driving a 4x4 on a flat land freeway to experience why some enthusiasts are obsessed about 4x4 technology.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Rmathuln said:


> Do you own a disc player capable of reading the SACD layers?


Yes, I do.

But I only have two SACDs, neither of which impressed me:

Guiseppe Verdi - "Missa da Requiem" (Coviello Classics, 2005)
Concord Jazz Super Audio CD Sampler, Volume 2 (2004)


----------

