# great direction or sound quality?



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm generally not against low fidelity recordings, but I have to say that I think it's often annoying in classical music. I was listening to the Chinese symphony of Bernard Van Dieren and while I appreciated the music I was thinking "if only the sound wasn't so bad". A lot of persons here love great directors of the past, but... do you prefer an exceptional performance with a muddy sound or a good one but with a much superior clarity of sound?


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

Composers and performers make a huge effort to achieve a certain sound, colors, tones, details, and I want to hear it well. Music is the sound art, and as I wrote somewhere else on another thread, I don't think that current (or recent, let's say since the 1960s) performers and conductors are/were worse than those in the past, so I usually prefer recordings with quality sound (in any case I enjoy them much more).


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

In instrumental music at least, there is such a flood of talent these days that it's rare for there not to be outstanding performances in digital sound. (Even more so if you include late analog.) I think there are very few historical performances so legendary that it's worth putting up with their bad sound. Perfect example: Lipatti's Chopin waltzes.

With singing, it's more complicated.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

For me, a great performance in decent or excellent late 50, 60s onward sound is of great value, if the performance and conducting are of A or A+ quality. Some earlier recordings - 40s, early 50s are quite good also.
A mediocre, B, B+ level performance in great sound quality is not of much interest to me....why settle for 2nd, 3rd rate??


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

One of my life-long quests was to get as good of sound as possible - within my budget. That means that every step in the chain has to be top-notch. Which is why I was so incredibly grateful when the LP era came to an end and digital recordings came in. The early digital LPs were great, but then the CD! Finally: no wow, flutter. A vast improvement in dynamic range. A stereo image than LPs can't compare to. Then the reality: there are a lot of crappy sounding CDs. How is it that 60 year old RCA recordings with Reiner in Chicago sounded better than new ones from EMI? But eventually the engineers figured it out and nowadays there are great recordings of great performances in abundance. So for me, I really want great, great sound. I realize that no home system will ever be able to imitate a real live orchestra or organ, but the illusion is pretty darn good. As it happily turns out, there were a lot of great sounding recordings made in the late 50s thru the 80s that are excellent. I have a significant number of historical recordings, but I'll take a fine modern recorded performance any day over an ancient great performance. I can only hope that the younger record producers and engineers out there learned something from the brilliant people from the past who really seemed to know how to make a great recording.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

From the early 50s onwards recording improved dramatically so i can manage most post-50s recordings depending on how well they're recorded. As far as pre-50s recordings are concerned there's very little i can stomach regardless of how good the performance is. Congested sound, distortion or wiry strings make me reach for the off button straight away. A lot of the stuff recorded for the 78 era is a no-no for me. If you like listening to something that sounds like a group of cats scratching in a biscuit tin, behind a matress in someone's shed then knock yerself out but ill stick with better sound. I dont have anything in my collection that's been bettered by any 20s, 30s or 40s recording (and ive heard a ton of it).


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Merl said:


> I dont have anything in my collection that's been bettered by any 20s, 30s or 40s recording (and ive heard a ton of it).


If that's the case, I suspect that you don't listen to much vocal music.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> If that's the case, I suspect that you don't listen to much vocal music.


You'd be correct. I listen to very little vocal music.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Why choose? I enjoy audiophile recordings such as the recent Vanska (and MTT) mahler cycle and most Honeck's RR recordings. But I would devour great historical performances just to see their interpretations. I listen to Cortot's Chopin much more often than any modern interpreter despite the horrendous sound (his 20s recordings are the best). They are immensely inspirational and a proof of what romanticism is about. The same goes for Wagnerian (and bel canto) singers such as Flagstad, Melchior, and Hans Hotter etc, there are more to the beauty of their singings than just hi-fi vs low-fi.

For me, it's never about listening to the same (perfect) recording over and over it's about discovery. It's never about sound but music. Wouldn't you die for Liszt's playing even if it's recorded on a potato?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

When listening to pure orchestral music, I tend to prefer the better sound of modern stereo recordings, especially considering that the orchestral playing nowadays is very high-quality and there are an infinite amount of great performances available. Of course I find it also necessary to acquaint myself with the old greats, like Furtwängler and Toscanini, whose conducting style had a great effect on many conductors who came after them but still, the majority of my non-vocal listening consists of modern stereo recordings.

When it comes to opera and some lieder, I think I've recently listened to mainly historical non-stereo recordings. Some of them are from 30s and 40s but I think that singing doesn't suffer as much from bad sound as does pure orchestral performance (solo piano also seems to suffer less). In addition, some of the greatest singers lived during the early-to-mid 20th century and if one wants to hear them, there's really no other choice than recordings with often rather bad mono sound. It took me some time to get used to, but it was amazing when I finally did!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

annaw said:


> When listening to pure orchestral music, I tend to prefer the better sound of modern stereo recordings, especially considering that the orchestral playing nowadays is very high-quality and there are an infinite amount of great performances available. Of course I find it also necessary to acquaint myself with the old greats, like Furtwängler and Toscanini, whose conducting style had a great effect on many conductors who came after them....


Sound quality of recordings at present is very excellent, as a rule. However, those old Maestros really knew how to work wonders with an orchestra, and I don't hear that so much these days....Yes, they were dictators, tyrants on some cases, but they sure knew their business. In past years, conductors spent a major part of the season with their own orchestras, and drilled them, and thru many hours of rehearsal/concerts, imbued them with their style of sound, ensemble articulation, etc... They also generally hired everyone, certainly the principals, which helped create a unanimity of sound and style. conductors like Reiner, Szell, Toscanini, Monteux, Solti, Karajan, etc exerted tremendous control over their ensembles - and it shows in their recordings.

I'm not sure that so many of today's conductors really exhibit that sort of talent, intensity, vision that we saw in the past....of course, there is tremendous amounts of guest-conducting, jet-setting, special appearances as well [at least pre-covid-19], today's conductors are going to go for maximum exposure, and who can blame them?? Orchestra playing is top-notch for sure, and so-called 2nd or 3rd tier orchestras have improved tremendously at present, with so many fine musicians to fill the ranks....but I'm not sure the best of today is necessarily better than the very best of yesterday....the overall level is of course, much higher, the lower tier orchestras are far better than they were in the past.

Interestingly - it seems that many of the master tapes from the 50s, 60s, even 40s in some cases, have remarkably good sound quality...perhaps not quite to today's best, but still very good - the LP disc-cutting process, and medium always seemed to be the weak link in the chain....many of the remasterings of those older recordings are really fine.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

When I have to choose, I usually prefer tempo and dynamics over hearing details.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Heck148 said:


> For me, a great performance in decent or excellent late 50, 60s onward sound is of great value, if the performance and conducting are of A or A+ quality. Some earlier recordings - 40s, early 50s are quite good also.
> A mediocre, B, B+ level performance in great sound quality is not of much interest to me....why settle for 2nd, 3rd rate??


I'm not talking of mediocre performances, I'm talking of good performance with great sound quality vs excellent performances but with poor muddy sound. There are threads about Furtwangler and Toscanini, just to make two examples. Legendary directors, but the sound quality of recordings made in the fifties or earlier is poor. So to answer your question, because sound in music is very important, especially listening to orchestras with a lot of instruments and there's a big difference between something where everything is confused, muddy and noisy (like this:





)

and a recording where one is able to listen and recognize all the instruments and all the details of the composition.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Heck148 said:


> Sound quality of recordings at present is very excellent, as a rule. However, those old Maestros really knew how to work wonders with an orchestra, and I don't hear that so much these days....Yes, they were dictators, tyrants on some cases, but they sure knew their business. In past years, conductors spent a major part of the season with their own orchestras, and drilled them, and thru many hours of rehearsal/concerts, imbued them with their style of sound, ensemble articulation, etc... They also generally hired everyone, certainly the principals, which helped create a unanimity of sound and style. conductors like Reiner, Szell, Toscanini, Monteux, Solti, Karajan, etc exerted tremendous control over their ensembles - and it shows in their recordings.
> 
> I'm not sure that so many of today's conductors really exhibit that sort of talent, intensity, vision that we saw in the past....of course, there is tremendous amounts of guest-conducting, jet-setting, special appearances as well [at least pre-covid-19], today's conductors are going to go for maximum exposure, and who can blame them?? Orchestra playing is top-notch for sure, and so-called 2nd or 3rd tier orchestras have improved tremendously at present, with so many fine musicians to fill the ranks....but I'm not sure the best of today is necessarily better than the very best of yesterday....the overall level is of course, much higher, the lower tier orchestras are far better than they were in the past.
> 
> Interestingly - it seems that many of the master tapes from the 50s, 60s, even 40s in some cases, have remarkably good sound quality...perhaps not quite to today's best, but still very good - the LP disc-cutting process, and medium always seemed to be the weak link in the chain....many of the remasterings of those older recordings are really fine.


I was talking more about the sound quality, maybe I didn't express myself overly well. I value the conducting of the old greats immensely and there's no question with Karajan or Solti for example who both produced many (mostly?) stereo recordings. So, it's not about the conducting style. I often prefer the conducting of 20th century conductors because many of them had very individual styles and were able to make the orchestra sound a certain way (as far as I've understood, there have been times when existed things like "VPO sound" or "BPO sound" which I find extremely fascinating).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Why choose? I enjoy audiophile recordings such as the recent Vanska (and MTT) mahler cycle and most Honeck's RR recordings. But I would devour great historical performances just to see their interpretations. I listen to Cortot's Chopin much more often than any modern interpreter despite the horrendous sound (his 20s recordings are the best). They are immensely inspirational and a proof of what romanticism is about. The same goes for Wagnerian (and bel canto) singers such as Flagstad, Melchior, and Hans Hotter etc, there are more to the beauty of their singings than just hi-fi vs low-fi.


I understand this point of view and the curiosity for performances of legendary musicians, directors and singers. And I've loved performances that have a terrible sound quality. But that said, especially in classical music (strangely in other genres is much less a problem for me, but maybe it's not that strange since in other genres there are often a lot less instruments) losing details is like listening just a part of what the composer had in his mind.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's never about sound but music. Wouldn't you die for Liszt's playing even if it's recorded on a potato?


I'd love to hear Liszt playing of course, but that said, music is sound. If there's a orchestra of 100 musicians and all I can discern is a confused mess covered by noise I'm missing a lot of that music.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

norman bates said:


> I'd love to hear Liszt playing of course, but that said, music is sound. If there's a orchestra of 100 musicians and all I can discern is a confused mess covered by noise I'm missing a lot of that music.


That's precisely why music is not just about sound, "confused mess" and "noise" are sounds but they are usually not considered to be music. Music is about the organization of sound, not the sounds themselves. So I always go for music first and sound second (audiophile recordings are fun but get old fast as your brain adjusts).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That's precisely why music is not just about sound, "confused mess" and "noise" are sounds but they are usually not considered to be music. Music is about the organization of sound, not the sounds themselves..


organization of sound if the sound itself is difficult to discern to me is a bit like cooking with spoiled food or making architecture without thinking about the materials and its quality. There's a reason if classical musicians buy very expensive instruments and they try to achieve the most beautiful sound possible. Now, even if I personally think there's an excess in that direction (I don't think that a Stradivari or a Guarnieri are even remotely worth of their cost) it says a lot about the importance of sound. And in the twentieth century sound become even more important. Just think of something like spectral music.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

norman bates said:


> organization of sound if the sound itself is difficult to discern to me is a bit like cooking with spoiled food or making architecture without thinking about the materials and its quality. There's a reason if classical musicians buy very expensive instruments and they try to achieve the most beautiful sound possible. Now, even if I personally think there's an excess in that direction (I don't think that a Stradivari or a Guarnieri are even remotely worth of their cost) it says a lot about the importance of sound. And in the twentieth century sound become even more important. Just think of something like spectral music.


It's a matter of priority, not mutual exclusivity. I would rather hear Horowitz playing on a cheap piano than an amateur on the most expensive Steinway if I have to. But I can still prefer Horowitz play on his famous Steinway than a cheap piano.

What you have said is true about 20th-century music. Background noise, human speech, garbage can, they can be music too. It shows why music is a much broader concept than a physical phenomenon called sound.

The cooking analogy is inappropriate. There are plenty of reasons to go for imperfections and "ugliness" and "austerity" for aesthetic reason. You can find such idea in the West as early as 14th century in Donatello's Magdalen, later in abstract expressionism, chance music, amateur art etc. and in the East as early as 6th century in the Chinese cursive calligraphy and later in Japanese's Wabisabi architecture and crafts.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's a matter of priority, not mutual exclusivity. I would rather hear Horowitz playing on a cheap piano than an amateur on the most expensive Steinway if I have to. But I can still prefer Horowitz play on his famous Steinway than a cheap piano.


I agree, but first of all, even a super cheap piano would sound way better than a steinway with a crappy sound. 
It seems nowadays everybody hates mp3, but mp3 at 128 of a very cheap piano will still sound ten times better of the vast majority of recordings of the forties.
I'd prefer to hear Horowitz on a 128 kbps mp3 on a super cheap piano recorded today than Horowitz on a Steinway on vinyl but with the sound quality of a recording of the forties.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> What you have said is true about 20th-century music. Background noise, human speech, garbage can, they can be music too. It shows why music is a much broader concept than a physical phenomenon called sound.


But I'm talking about the sounds related to the intention of the composer. For instance, while I'm speaking my computer has started to make an extremely annoying and loud sound from the fan of the psu. While I could appreciate that sound as background (in the spirit of a John Cage), actually I would find extremely annoying to listen to music with this loud sound covering the music. Bad recording quality does the same: it suffucates the music.
To make an example that could be a bit extreme (because this sounds REALLY bad) but that illustrates perfectly what I'm saying (and what you were saying about the excitement of listening historic performances): this is Brahms playing the piano. It's certainly has an invaluable historical value, it's certainly very fascinating. It's a pleasurable experience in terms of aural enjoyment or in terms of making the music justice? I'd say definitely no.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

norman bates said:


> It's a pleasurable experience in terms of aural enjoyment? I'd say definitely no.


You are stating the obvious here. Of course, it sounds terrible, so do Ravel and Rachmaninoff playing themselves.

The crux of the problem is not whether they sound terrible or not, but that we don't have a choice.

Your question is about the trade-off between bad sounding good performance vs good sounding so-so performance. And I gave you my take and justification for it, take the good performance even if the sound is bad. Follow the music, not the sound, if you are forced to make a choice between the two.

Is that clear or is it not?

Horowitz's Rach 3 with Ormandy sounds many times better than Horowitz's Rach 3 with Barbirolli, but I have always preferred to listen to the latter.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

norman bates said:


> It seems nowadays everybody hates mp3, but mp3 at 128 of a very cheap piano will still sound ten times better of the vast majority of recordings of the forties.


YouTube videos are 128kbps MP3. They get the job done. Encoders have come a long way since the Napster days.

V0 MP3 (~225kbps) can not be distinguished from lossless, except maybe by very good ears listening very hard to very demanding material on very good equipment.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

ribonucleic said:


> YouTube videos are 128kbps MP3. They get the job done. Encoders have come a long way since the Napster days.
> 
> V0 MP3 (~225kbps) can not be distinguished from lossless, except maybe by very good ears listening very hard to very demanding material on very good equipment.


If you have a serious audiophile setup then the difference is day and night. 24bits is also generally better sounding 16bits, especially the subtle color/timbre/overtones of the instrument. 96khz and 44khz are almost indistinguishable to my ears.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

For the older once-in-a-lifetime performances, I am not going to be without them.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> 24bits is also generally better sounding 16bits, especially the subtle color/timbre/overtones of the instrument.


At the risk of completely derailing the thread... double-blind listening test or it didn't happen. 

Here's the science:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140416014622/https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

ribonucleic said:


> At the risk of completely derailing the thread... double-blind listening test or it didn't happen.
> 
> Here's the science:
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20140416014622/https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html


You are risking nothing. I would take serious double-blind listening test over my own psychological bias in a heart beat. Thanks for sharing the link.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

This is an interesting and exciting topic for me, and it would be easy to write something way too long and detailed. So FWIW, I'll make these points as briefly as I can:

While I do listen to early, historical recordings (e.g., the _Háry János Suite_ by Ormandy/Minneapolis SO from 1934 on RCA Red Seal) for comparative and critical purposes, I cannot say I listen to them for pleasure. In order really to enjoy listening to any piece of music, it has to be in excellent sound.

So, what do I consider excellent sound? It has to be at least stereo, the microphone placement and recording venue have to be agreeable to me, and the mixing has to be transparent and not what I consider busy or OTT with the knob twiddling. My ideal for orchestral music is three microphones (left, right, center) in front of the orchestra, exemplified by RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence. The chamber and solo instrument microphone arrangements are a little complicated and I won't get into that level of detail, but I will say that stereo sound is actually crucial even for solo keyboard (for me). When possible, I listen to three-channel SACD recordings, sometimes 5.1 SACD recordings, sometimes stereo SACD recordings. At a minimum for me, it's stereo Redbook quality recorded in a favorable (not too dry, not too reverberant) venue without overly close microphone placement. There are a lot more details, but I think that would be for another, more specialized thread.

When I select recordings to collect, I immediately exclude those with sound quality/audio engineering that I don't like. Then I select performances (conductors, orchestras, ensembles, individual performers) I like. In just a very few cases, I collect specific performers regardless of sound quality.

I think the reason my 30+ years of CD collecting have only resulted in about 1000 discs is that I'm very choosy about sound quality. I know what I like.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I love great sound as much as anyone and occasionally like to listen to well-engineered recordings through my hi-fi headphones just for the luxurious sonic experience regardless of interpretation. However, for the most timeless performances, I take the limited sound as a tradeoff and immerse myself in the eternal brilliance of the interpretations, usually ending up forgetting completely about the sound within a minute or two. For me it’s like watching black and white movies - if you truly love great artistry the limitations of the technology will not matter.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Simplicissimus said:


> I think the reason my 30+ years of CD collecting have only resulted in about 1000 discs is that I'm very choosy about sound quality. I know what I like.


Can you tap into that 30+ years of experience and share with us some favorites (in terms of sonics) please?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

ribonucleic said:


> YouTube videos are 128kbps MP3. They get the job done. Encoders have come a long way since the Napster days.
> 
> V0 MP3 (~225kbps) can not be distinguished from lossless, except maybe by very good ears listening very hard to very demanding material on very good equipment.


~250kbps is low enough for me to feel that my head is getting irradiated, and my headphones are not even good


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> .... So I always go for music first and sound second (audiophile recordings are fun but get old fast as your brain adjusts).


Yes, i can relate to that approach... a poor performance in state-of-the-art sound does not get much playing time.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> .... However, for the most timeless performances, I take the limited sound as a tradeoff and immerse myself in the eternal brilliance of the interpretations, usually ending up forgetting completely about the sound within a minute or two. For me it's like watching black and white movies - if you truly love great artistry the limitations of the technology will not matter.


Yes, i feel much the same.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

For pieces that I'm less familiar with, I try to find the recordings the strike a balance between performance quality and sound quality. This often has me finding recordings from the 1960s or so. 

For the most part, I tend to be more picky about performance quality with vocal pieces but less so with instrumental pieces. If I'm familiar with the piece and it's a piece I love, I won't hesitate to try recordings with poor sound quality.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Really good performances can live despite poor sound. I find my ear adjusts in a few minutes. There is still lots missing, of course, but if the performance is special then this is a small cost. Performances in the 1930s and 1940s were different and tell us different things about the music so they are just as important to me as hearing something special that is absolutely new.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It's best to have both. I like the way the old Columbia Masterworks vinyl LPs were produced, with producers like John McClure. I like all the Glenn Gould. They used multiple mikes and "spot" mikes, then mixed it louder when necessary. Generally, I like close-miking. All the Stravinsky on Columbia is like this. Anything by Szell or Ormandy that was on Columbia Masterworks.

I don't like the classic two-microphone technique for orchestral recordings; that's why I prefer the second 1970s Karajan Beethoven set over the earlier 1960s set, because the earlier one was "classic" miked. The later 1970s one was done with multiple mikes, then mixed later...so when it's remastered for CD, it's like ADD compared to AAD.

I don't like a lot of hall sound. Boulez' version of Wozzeck is called "the dry version" because it was recorded on a BBC soundstage, and is very dry, with no echo. Soundstages like this were used in making movies, where a very accurate, dry sound was needed.

I do like mono, if it's good. A lot of the early 1950s mono recordings, done on tape, are surprisingly clear. 

Even early stereo from the 50s is good: like the Rosenkavalier with Schwarzkopf from 1957 is good, clear stereo.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

One of Benjamin Britten's greatest operas is _The Turn of the Screw_, but I seldom listen to it. There are several reasons for that, but the main one, I think, is that it's the only one of the operas he conducted in the mono era, and I can't stand mono. Even though the recording is technically excellent, and Peter Pears in the 1950s had a much better voice than he did at the end of his career, and it's being conducted by its composer, which makes it just about 'definitive'... it's just not a recording I can take to, except rarely and in small doses.

On the other hand, even though his opera Peter Grimes was recorded in the late 1950s (and thus _just_ squeaked into the Stereo era), I would listen to it any time: the quality of the recording, even one that old, is just superb and you won't get a more definitive recording of it than Britten conducting and Pears as Grimes. It might not be up to modern digital recording standards, but it was done superbly well anyway and has intrinsic historical and musicological interest to boot.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Can you tap into that 30+ years of experience and share with us some favorites (in terms of sonics) please?


Here are outstanding examples from my collection that illustrate my preferences (with apologies to those who might not be interested):

An RCA Living Stereo three-channel SACD: Reiner/Chicago SO play Respighi's Pines and Fountains of Rome and Debussy's La Mer, recorded in 1959 and 1960 on three-track tape at Orchestra Hall. It's an example of how really great audio engineering and an excellent recording venue from 60 years ago can come through on modern systems. I happen to love the music and performances, too.

A Mercury Living Presence three-channel SACD: János Starker plays Schumann, Lalo, and Saint-Saëns cello concerti with the London Symphony Orchestra under Skrowaczewski (Schumann, Lalo) and Dorati (Saint-Saëns), recorded in 1960, 1962, and 1964. Same points as the Living Stereo recordings, but illustrating as well excellent miking of the solo instrument..

A modern 5.1 multichannel SACD: Colin Davis/London Symphony Orchestra plays Elgar's Enigma Variations live in a 2005 recording on the LSO Live label. I'm not the biggest fan of 5.1, but this recording illustrates how great it can sound when the engineering is right.

A superb regular CD recording of solo keyboard: Jory Vinikour playing the Goldberg Variations on harpsichord in a 2000 recording on Delos. Audiophile labels like Delos often deliver tremendous sound quality even with regular CDs.

A very recent example of a developing trend: Víkingur Ólafsson's "Debussy - Rameau" CD released in 2020 by Deutsche Grammophon. DGG did a very nice job with this recording, but what's interesting is that it's a regular (16-bit/44.1 kHz) stereo CD but the autorip version is "Ultra HD" (24-bit/192 kHz). If your system is able to play at this definition and if you think you can hear the difference, it's attractive.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I'm generally not against low fidelity recordings, but I have to say that I think it's often annoying in classical music. _

I have somewhat of an opposite opinion. Today's classical recordings are so much better than reality that they fail to be real.

I never hear the same sounds at home or in the car I hear in the orchestra hall.

I once heard a poster here say how disappointed he was by the sound in the hall when he went to subscription concerts -- of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra! -- and wished it was as good as his recordings.

Also, to quote a Caruso fan, when I hear mono recordings from the 1950s and earlier I am confident I am hearing what the artists did and far less what the engineers did. I always wonder about that ratio in modern recordings.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

I find it ironic that sometimes a bootleg smartphone recording of a concert can carry more of the concert's energy than an official release.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Why can’t I have both? Why do I have to choose?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

larold said:


> _I'm generally not against low fidelity recordings, but I have to say that I think it's often annoying in classical music. _
> 
> I have somewhat of an opposite opinion. Today's classical recordings are so much better than reality that they fail to be real.
> 
> I never hear the same sounds at home or in the car I hear in the orchestra hall.


there's nothing that makes a orchestra hall more "real" than a recording. The fact that the a live orchestra has to fight with volume, reverbs and echoes, audience noises and tries to overcome those issues with a good acoustic, the position of the musicians and volume doesn't mean that the composer is thinking those reverbs and noises as part of his composition. In that sense a perfect recording just eliminates those problems.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_there's nothing that makes a orchestra hall more "real" than a recording._

Engineers' dial twiddling, gain riding and stereo separation of sound aren't new but are still used in modern recordings.

Modern recordings, in order to be "perfect," use patches to fill in areas of performance that weren't done correctly, sometimes using music from a different recording by a different orchestra.

Modern recordings spotlight certain instruments in crucial parts of music, and dial up or down the volume on certain sections or players to create balance. The latter is common in recordings of chamber music.

Most modern "live" recordings are typically the result of more than one concert.

In surround sound recordings all this is even more egregious.

Some companies that remake older recordings use enhanced sound techniques to create a fake stereo on mono recordings or to give the recording a depth that did not exist in the original tapes.

I don't argue that any of this is what customers want from recordings ... but compared to any of this a concert hall experience is a more realistic representation of the music being performed than a recording.

The most realistic recordings were done in the old stereo style with one microphone directly in front of and pointed at the orchestra and another next to it pointed at a side wall.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

larold said:


> _there's nothing that makes a orchestra hall more "real" than a recording._
> 
> Engineers' dial twiddling, gain riding and stereo separation of sound aren't new but are still used in modern recordings.
> 
> ...


it seems that with realistic you mean "realistic abilities of an orchestra to achieve perfection", but I think that a composer would love to have a perfect interpretation of his music without flaws than having uncertainties in dynamics, people coughing in the background, mushy reverbs and instruments hidden by the rest of the orchestra. I'm not sure composers are striving for imperfections (unless there are classical musicians who are fond of wabi sabi aesthetics)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

norman bates said:


> it seems that with realistic you mean "realistic abilities of an orchestra to achieve perfection", but I think that a composer would love to have a perfect interpretation of his music without flaws than having uncertainties in dynamics, people coughing in the background, mushy reverbs and instruments hidden by the rest of the orchestra. I'm not sure composers are striving for imperfections (unless there are classical musicians who are fond of wabi sabi aesthetics)


That's a generalization which I don't share. Many musicians object the idea of over-engineering their music because they believe that music is an organic and holistic thing. Many also shun the idea of "perfection" (different from saying that they prefer imperfection like in Wabisabi) because the idea of "perfection" is closed ended, having no potential for freedom and creation.


----------



## sstucky (Apr 4, 2020)

Since my tastes and collection are repertoire-driven, I have to take what is available. Often that is not the finest sound, but to each his own.


----------

