# Why older CD recordings tend to sound better?



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I have posted about recording sound quality before, but since then I have bought a lot more Cds adding to my collection, this old question again rised more regrets.

I can not stand recordings without some spatial clarity to the instruments, I mean you should be able to imagine the position of the instrument being recorded, and even the gestures of the player. I really hate the sound that feels like miked or electronically edited, that is a good recording should give a natural, spatial, picturesque feeling. Especially in case of harpsichords, many new reissues or recordings feel the need to avoid the full complex sound effect of the harpsichords, making the recordings dry and pale, lacking any spatial quality, as if the sound is digitally produced
(Examples: Richard Egarrs Henry Purcell suites (2008-09-09) and Andreas Staiers "Pour passer la melancolie by Andreas Staier" (2013-03-12). These recordings sound awkward, not because of the instruments, but the CDs sound weird, as if the mike is trying to escape from the harpsichords but the harpsichord sound is constantly haunts from the ceiling and the walls like in a turture chamber.)


It is a well-known fact that many old CDs from famous labels sound really classic, like DG, Philips, Archiv, EMI, Erato, Teldec(Before 2000), Hyperion, Sony, Seon and many more left out to your remembrance. What happened to the ethics and aesthetics of so many new recordings? Do those recording engineers never hear any of these old cds? I have heard that some club reissues sound even better than the original issues? Like Orfeo and Bettelsmann`s club editions since the 1980s.Why do the authoritative companies want to down-grade their originally superb sound? although we do have better equipments. I can not understand this.

A Petition, please, I do not want to hear fashionable recordings, I just want to hear the music, and th instruments at their natural sound, the more natural recording the better. Let me tell you one thing, harpsichord sound so much better than in many CDs, go hear yourself. God, do not presume that people are afraid to hear the harpsichords. Please, just make it naturally stereo. New labels like Alpha, Glossa, Naive are very good too, in all their different series, collections, editions no problem at all. Always consistent with the high sound quality, they are the benchmarks of our age. 

Harpsichord and ensemble music fans watch out for bad recordings with inferior engineering tastes, otherwise, you could get the wrong impression of the music you want to experience. But most importantly, you really need to buy many old original issues of the recommended companies above, they will give you the definitive profiles of the music and the instrument. Oh mostly Vinyls are not bad too. :tiphat:


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Actually, a lot of early CDs were criticized. This then gave rise to the (in my opinion, false) notion that digital was inferior to analog. When digital technology was new transfers were made with 14 bit ADCs, brick wall filters were used in both ADC and DAC, all of which contributed to the notion that digital had glare. Eventually transfer technology and recording new in digital became a more mature technology and improved. On purely sonic considerations alone, I would much prefer a new recording or digital transfer, to one that was made in the first 10-15 years of the CD era


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I haven't detected much difference in the sound of CD recordings, but I can tell you that I absolutely prefer the lively, dynamic sound of late-50's-to-mid-60's analogue over many of the CDs being produced today. The Bernstein NY Columbia/Sony recordings and all the Living Stereo ones in particular, are among my favorites in terms of sheer sonic splendor. Then again, I haven't heard an actual CD in years since streaming is my sole source of listening. But I do use lossless streaming, so I can't imagine the differences are large, or even existent.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Ariasexta said:


> It is a well-known fact that many old CDs from famous labels sound really classic, like DG, Philips, Archiv, EMI, Erato, Teldec(Before 2000), Hyperion, Sony, Seon and many more left out to your remembrance.


I rather doubt that it is a "well known fact", certainly I have never come across it and I have been getting CDs since 1984. Actually I would say the opposite, early CDs were more problematical.


----------



## rice (Mar 23, 2017)

My theory is that the narrower dynamic range of analog recordings makes them sound more vivid and lively?
I think modern recordings are more true to life with the wide dynamic range. But they have to be played quite loud because it can get pretty loud in a concert too. Most people don't do that so the recordings may sound pale and lack of energy, as the quieter passages are too quiet.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Triplets said:


> Actually, a lot of early CDs were criticized. This then gave rise to the (in my opinion, false) notion that digital was inferior to analog. When digital technology was new transfers were made with 14 bit ADCs, brick wall filters were used in both ADC and DAC, all of which contributed to the notion that digital had glare. Eventually transfer technology and recording new in digital became a more mature technology and improved. On purely sonic considerations alone, I would much prefer a new recording or digital transfer, to one that was made in the first 10-15 years of the CD era


I find many SACD impeccable, they must be digitally recorded. But I have to say still Gustav Leonhardts vocal and instrumental recordings on Teldec and Sony since 1971 untill 1992 are magical. You need to try them, though I am not very sure if the concerned difference in sound was made by these two different technologies. Also, programs transmitted from vinyls are rarely disappointing. Maybe new technologies offers more possibilities of experiments so many new engineers want to try them out.

I do not much care about the technical debates, because I am so conservative about everything about music, there is little room for progressive ideas. But Thanks for your info, I will still pay more attention to these details in the future.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Becca said:


> I rather doubt that it is a "well known fact", certainly I have never come across it and I have been getting CDs since 1984. Actually I would say the opposite, early CDs were more problematical.


I have contracted a passion for solo instrument recordings like cello, violin, harpsichord, they are delicate ones and the harpsichord is especially tricky instrument to record. I will feel painful if I can not feel something rusticness of these instruments sound on recordings, even players sighs, a bit noises from the mechanism are not unwelcomed. The old recordings offer the rustic originality of the instrument. Listening to big orchestras would be hard to feel the differences in sound quality.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

rice said:


> My theory is that the narrower dynamic range of analog recordings makes them sound more vivid and lively?
> I think modern recordings are more true to life with the wide dynamic range. But they have to be played quite loud because it can get pretty loud in a concert too. Most people don't do that so the recordings may sound pale and lack of energy, as the quieter passages are too quiet.


Only a fraction but not insignificant is bad from recent days, many new brands are still good, I can not list them all here. The dynamic range concerned could work against the delicate classical instruments if abused. Technologies need to serve them not vice versa, I do not quite understand the term DR, excuse me for my rough knowledges. The old recordings still set the bottomline for the sound recordings of classical instruments. which are not made with recording technics in mind.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I do not know how many people develop a passion for classical isntruments and small ensemble music like me. To feel realistic, spatially comfortable is an inseparable part of music for me. Because, it is incomparable to hear them in real life, recordings should try to replicate as much as possible the First Row VIP experience in a concert. :lol:


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Many of the master tapes of recordings made during the mid-late 50s and 60s are very good fidelity....the disc cutting to vinyl lp was the weak link...these masters have resulted in some very excellent CD and SACDs. Labels such as RCA, Columbia, Mercury, Decca/London, DG to name a few produced some fine recordings. Also, microphone placement was often pretty straight ahead and produced life-like fidelity...ie - for stereo - 2 mikes placed behind and somewhat above the conductor...what hits the mike gets recorded...before long, however, all sorts of spot-miking, ultra-multi-channel recordings appeared, and these were problematic, and often very unnatural and disorienting...you'd be following with a score, no trumpets audible, all of a sudden a blast of 20 trumpets explodes from your speakers...then recede to nothing...Decca, esp, was guilty of this, esp with the Mehta/LAPO, and some early Solti/CSO recordings.

In my own experience, I've often experienced this, where the recording/sound engineers want to control everything, set the level for every instrument, dictate the balance and overall sound of the ensemble...I don't really care for that approach...keep it relatively simple, let the sound come thru as the audience hears it...my $.02, from considerable experience.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Heck148 said:


> Many of the master tapes of recordings made during the mid-late 50s and 60s are very good fidelity....the disc cutting to vinyl lp was the weak link...these masters have resulted in some very excellent CD and SACDs. Labels such as RCA, Columbia, Mercury, Decca/London, DG to name a few produced some fine recordings. Also, microphone placement was often pretty straight ahead and produced life-like fidelity...ie - for stereo - 2 mikes placed behind and somewhat above the conductor...what hits the mike gets recorded...before long, however, all sorts of spot-miking, ultra-multi-channel recordings appeared, and these were problematic, and often very unnatural and disorienting...you'd be following with a score, no trumpets audible, all of a sudden a blast of 20 trumpets explodes from your speakers...then recede to nothing...Decca, esp, was guilty of this, esp with the Mehta/LAPO, and some early Solti/CSO recordings.
> 
> In my own experience, I've often experienced this, where the recording/sound engineers want to control everything, set the level for every instrument, dictate the balance and overall sound of the ensemble...I don't really care for that approach...keep it relatively simple, let the sound come thru as the audience hears it...my $.02, from considerable experience.


Decca and DHM are also consistently good untill now, so are Sony and its branches like Seon and Vivarte. Mutilchannel thing I have noticed on some SACD the result is very good. I have set Philips recordings as the top of all brands as to the sound quality. It is hard to describe a set of standards clearly. Some reissues of HMF on paper case just sound bad, I do not even buy their new programs with paper cases. I totally avoid Richard Egarrs Goldberg Variation and complete Louis Couperin box, and a complete Forqueray viola da gamba box by Kaori Uemura on HMF, because their casing signals bad sound quality for me. This is sad, because the artists are highly anticipated. The spot-miking I never saw on the introduction though, sounds like what I was talking about as the torture chamber equipment.

If possible, you can buy two discs from HMF for comparison: the good one with a jewel case" Bach - Harpsichord Works by Richard Egarr (2004-03-17)", the bad one with a paper case "Purcell - Keyboard Suites & Grounds (Richard Egarr) (harpsichord) (2008-09-09)." Mr Richard Egarr uses the same harpsichord in both recordings, though tuned differently of course.

The latter one sound like the harpsichord is not being recorded fully, with some part of the instrument being blurred at the spot of miking, or blocked or erased. The harpsichord has a very large resonance body, therefore, the resonance of the harpsichord makes some prejudiced people cringe so some recording producers feel the need to calm it somehow. The new recording of Andreas Staier of "Pour passer la melancolie" (2013-03-12). " has the same problem, the instrument is an antique with resonant and piquant sound, the recording delivers immasculated version of it, no full resonance, rather the resonance feels coming from the ceiling as if you are listening to someone who lives upstair your apartment playing, and there is always something in between you and the instrument like a screen of something buffing . It is so annoying.

Viola da Gamba and Violin are another instrument that would be susceptible to the sound quality, however, the formers programs are limited , but I would recommend Glossa over HMF for da Gamba for now. I also love string quartet, I dare not venture beyond Philips and Decca for them for the moment. The Haydn quartet on a japanese brand Camerata is amazing. Good recordings give Something warm, brittling and rustic makes the music so much real from your speakers.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I find most recordings these days to be excellent. I prefer being able to place the winds and horns as if I was the conductor or sitting in the first few rows and that seems to be prevalent nowadays. And quality recording seems to be possible no matter how small the record label. It also amazes me how good a lot of the live performances are available on YouTube.

This performance of Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante for winds and horn is an example. There are 2 mikes high up in front and individual mikes for the bassoon, clarinet, oboe and horn (you can see them in the close-ups). Check out the Adagio at 13:50 to see how well the sound engineering is:


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I guess my main objection is spot-miking, instruments/voices popping in and out, or miking every single instrument, then artificially mixing the sound...multi-channel is ok, as long as the crazy "gain-riding" is kept to a minimum. Still, there's a lot to be said for putting 2 or 3 mikes out front, and letting the sound hit those mikes.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Heck148 said:


> I guess my main objection is spot-miking, instruments/voices popping in and out, or miking every single instrument, then artificially mixing the sound...multi-channel is ok, as long as the crazy "gain-riding" is kept to a minimum. Still, there's a lot to be said for putting 2 or 3 mikes out front, and letting the sound hit those mikes.


I do not listen to piano classical and large romantic orchestra, as to the string quartet, it feels normal to give each instrument a suitable mike at the front, the point is always stereo feeling, as if you are the VIP present there. Since I can not afford a classy set of speakers, I use imagination :lol:

Well, as long as you must not let people detect something too unnatural then it would be fine. Listen to the instrument, the voices, it is everything :angel:


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

DaveM said:


> I find most recordings these days to be excellent. I prefer being able to place the winds and horns as if I was the conductor or sitting in the first few rows and that seems to be prevalent nowadays. And quality recording seems to be possible no matter how small the record label. It also amazes me how good a lot of the live performances are available on YouTube.
> 
> This performance of Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante for winds and horn is an example. There are 2 mikes high up in front and individual mikes for the bassoon, clarinet, oboe and horn (you can see them in the close-ups). Check out the Adagio at 13:50 to see how well the sound engineering is:


I noticed recently many talented artists come off from YT channels. Nice video. 
Love Mozart minus the piano.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

There is a phenomenon known in film music, that more modern albums are mixed and mastered in such a way as to serve the audience that listens on tiny headphones or in noisy circumstances, and not on HQ equipment. The albums from the 90s, although not perfect, can for this reason sometimes be sonically superior to the more recent ones.

This might apply to a broader range of music as well.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Ariasexta said:


> I find many SACD impeccable, they must be digitally recorded. But I have to say still Gustav Leonhardts vocal and instrumental recordings on Teldec and Sony since 1971 untill 1992 are magical. You need to try them, though I am not very sure if the concerned difference in sound was made by these two different technologies. Also, programs transmitted from vinyls are rarely disappointing. Maybe new technologies offers more possibilities of experiments so many new engineers want to try them out.
> 
> I do not much care about the technical debates, because I am so conservative about everything about music, there is little room for progressive ideas. But Thanks for your info, I will still pay more attention to these details in the future.


SACD were a significant improvement, mainly because of the DSD one bit sampling. DSD downloads offer the same advantage, if you have a DAC that can encode DSD. DSD sounds more natural and open.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I haven't detected much difference in the sound of CD recordings, but I can tell you that I absolutely prefer the lively, dynamic sound of late-50's-to-mid-60's analogue over many of the CDs being produced today. The Bernstein NY Columbia/Sony recordings and all the Living Stereo ones in particular, are among my favorites in terms of sheer sonic splendor. Then again, I haven't heard an actual CD in years since streaming is my sole source of listening. But I do use lossless streaming, so I can't imagine the differences are large, or even existent.


Those earlier CD transfers of Columbia recordings beat the pants off their lp incarnations for many reasons. Columbia had mixed thir records for AM radio-did anyone actually listen to Bernstein's Mahler Seventh in the freaking car?- and the quality of the vinyl used after the OPEC boycot was damn near unlistenable. Merely by remixing at normal levels and eliminating the frying bacon noise, as well as expanding dynamic range, early CD transfers blew away their lp counterparts. However, it was the later CD editions, issued after everyone was more comfortable with Digital technology, it's the later reissues that should be sought. Case in point-compare any Symphony from Bernstein first Mahler cycle from the first CD "Royal" edition versus the later editions from a few years ago.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

One reason older recordings may appear to sound better than today's is the people making them. In the heyday of London FFRR when John Culshaw was producing recordings great care was taken to produce the most remarkable sound possible -- vividness, depth and quiet surfaces on LPs. Collectors and connoisseurs spent thousands of dollars on their playback equipment and wanted the best sound they could get.

Today MP3 downloads don't carry the complete audio signal. The average playback equipment today is a phone and earbuds or a computer with $20 speakers. Also, the John Culshaws of the world are no more; most of the recording companies use contractors to make the recordings, not employees or highly paid technicians.

But there are downsides from the golden era. Anyone that subscribes to the "older is better" theory should listen to any London Phase 4 stereo recording (like this one) ...









... or go back and listen to one of Stokowski's more vivid recordings from as far back as 1950 like this one ...









The technology used to make these recordings made them sound better than reality -- a "problem" I find with just about all recordings today. London Phase 4 used as many as 30 microphones to make a recording, then mixed the sound together into a sound stew in the stew-dio, then made the recording. The result was often that a clarinet could be heard above the entire orchestra in a tutti.

Stokowski was known for studio hijinks including using what Irving Kolodin once called "echo chambers" to enhance the sound of his mono reccordings from 1950 on RCA. The conductor also made a load of recordings on Phase 4 late in life using the technologies above with the same results.

Another technique used in the golden era of the 1950s and 1960s on London FFRR and other recordings was known as gain riding or dial twisting by studio technocrats. This is to say in order to make the sound universally playable on machines and speakers of the time studio techs would dial up the volume when the music was quiet and dial it down when loud. This of course never sounded like reality but it gave an impression of orchestral clarity one would never hear in a concert hall.

I heard many of these techniques used on famous recordings by Ormandy and Bernstein as late as the ealry 1970s. Some of the Solti-Chicago recordings including his famous Ring cycle used them too.

The famous recordings by Mercury, including many of Antal Dorati's early recordings and those from Howard Hanson and others, used three microphones but, until stereo came into being in the late 1950s, were introduced to people in remarkable sounding mono. This may have been realistic if you know anyone with three ears. Later RCA used this technique and all the companies then reintroduced these recordings in super audio 3-track in the SACD era.

These techniques came under fire in the period performance era because, like people thought about period performance, they weren't realistic representations of the music. So a lot of studios went back to the old way -- using two microphones placed in front of the orchestra, one pointed at the orchestra and the other pointed at a side wall. This was considered a return to realism.

Then along came original super audio and 5.1 and 7.1 sound systems (5 or 7 being the number of speakers and the .1 being a bass speaker) with mics all over the place in recording studios and speakers all over the place at home and booming bass from the subwoofer making your home into a movie theater. Some people I know say super audio is what CDs should have been from the beginning.

I don't know; I can't be convined modern sound-making is so great. To me it's similar to HDTV: better than what you really see in the world. The one thing I like about digital technology is it can in its best moments take an old recording from Toscanini or Furtwangler, remake it using today's standards, and produce something a lot better, sometimes even a super audio version like this:









I don't think making recordings of any music has ever been about realism; I think it has been about perfection and this is what consumers have come to expect. This goes back to our old rock albums with the lead guitar coming from the left speaker and the bass guitar coming from the right speaker.

Today's recordings, regardless of source, are almost assuredly better than reality and sound twice as good as the average concert you may attend. I was in a discussion here once where a Berlin Philharmonic subscriber told me how disappointed he was because the sound he heard in concert wasn't what he heard on recordings.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Interesting article -

"How the compact disc lost its shine"

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/may/28/how-the-compact-disc-lost-its-shine

Strange but true - if you do an A/B comparison (in either a professional sound studio or your car) of Leonard Bernstein recordings - wax cylinders/reel-to-reel tape/78-33-45 rpms/8-tracks/cassettes/early-period CD's/mid-period CD's/later-period CD's/CD's which haven't even been released yet - the sound (and by "sound" I mean both the "recording" itself and most importantly the "performance") can charitably be described as "bloody awful - just the worst sort of rubbish imaginable - absolutely unlistenable"... I have no explanation for this phenomenon - no one does - even Bernstein himself didn't care for his own recordings all that much and he was Bernstein... himself... Strange but true...


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Triplets said:


> SACD were a significant improvement, mainly because of the DSD one bit sampling. DSD downloads offer the same advantage, if you have a DAC that can encode DSD. DSD sounds more natural and open.


I was trying to recollect where it was said that SACD was created to approximate the quality of vinyl sound. Yes, it was DSD. 
And it was patented by Sony and Philips, no wonder these two brands always lead in the sound quality. They show their proper taste by trying to revive vinyl sound on their CDs, even if they do not use DSD on all of their recordings. Sony`s reissues of DHM recordings never disappoints, never issues something like HMF`s awkward new lines of inferior recordings. Philips music department has merged with Decca, I have complete box of Beethovens string quartet played by Quartetto Italiano, a satisfaction overall, but I have not yet hear the merged issues of harpsichord music. Philips independent recordings are the best so far as to the sound quality.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

larold said:


> I don't think making recordings of any music has ever been about realism; I think it has been about perfection and this is what consumers have come to expect.


I totally agree with this. I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't look for "reproducing a live concert" when I'm listening in the comfort of my room on my Sennheisers with FLAC streaming. In fact, in my experience, live concerts are second fiddle to the liveliness of sound I get at home. I look for sound that allows me to hear every last detail. That's why I like the early Bernstein recordings so much - it's definitely not what you'd hear if you were in a good seat at the hall, it's what you'd hear if you were somehow able to crawl inside each instrument at once - super up close and personal. A similar thing was done with Bruno Walter's stereo recordings, which I think were also Columbia.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Heck148 said:


> I guess my main objection is spot-miking, instruments/voices popping in and out, or miking every single instrument, then artificially mixing the sound...multi-channel is ok, as long as the crazy "gain-riding" is kept to a minimum. Still, there's a lot to be said for putting 2 or 3 mikes out front, and letting the sound hit those mikes.


I'm just the opposite. The early 60's Karajan Beethoven cycle was recorded in the "classic" style, with just a couple of mikes out front. I can't stand it. Then I finally got the later 70's Karajan Beethoven cycle, which used more mikes and was mixed...I love it.

Overall, I like the sound of new CDs. I think they've finally learned how to make them sound better in the mastering process, whatever it is they do. They might run it through a 'voodoo box' which warms it up. It might go _out _of the digital realm, through voodoo analog processing, then back into digital.

I like older CDs transferred from analog tape, ADD, not for the "tape" sound so much, but the way they are usually miked. They had to mike more closely because tape was noisier, and they needed more signal.

I don't like CDs that have a lot of 'room' or hall sound.

I also don't like it when the rear channels of an SACD are not extra channels, but are just "echo" and hall sound from rear-facing mikes. Why bother?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I like recordings that do sound like live performance, even tho they never achieve that 100%...Live Music is Best!!
Perhaps it is because the human ear is more sensitive, more discerning than any microphone...recordings do not reproduce the spatial effect, the sonic spectrum, placement as well as the human ear does, at least in my experience...take admittedly extreme examples - Mahler Sym #8, or Berlioz Requiem- no recording at this point, comes close to live performance of these works, in the hall experience...

Re chamber music, I've had considerable experience in recording, broadcast, etc...we did a radio broadcast of a WW5tet program...the sound guys wanted to mike each instrument then mix it in...awful!! horrible!! No blend whatsoever - it was like we each played our part in separate, secluded booth, and then the sound was mixed...no blend, no ensemble, no presence...we nixed that completely....had 2 cardioid mikes criss-crossed in the middle...that worked fine, good presence, good detail...I've also had good results with 2 mikes set c. 25-20' out, left and right...simple, but effective. 

I've done lots of recording studio work, commercial stuff, muzak, elevator crap...and they always mike each instrument, record those tracks, (recorded in different sessions, different days)....then mix it together...the bland, soupy mix that results is totally predictable....you never worry about tone, projection or dynamics...just play the notes..the sound will all be "doctored" in the control room.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

So many reasons . . .

Multi-tracking
spot miking
mic placement
LP vs digital
mixing for car speakers/iPod/transistor radios
sampling rates

I'll add one more. We've lost the ribbon microphone, replaced by hi-def mic technology.

Bing Crosby sounded so good in the 30s and 40s, and while it's partly because of his more youthful voice, it's also because his voice and the technology of the time were very compatible. He know how to sing to them (the microphones). By the 60s they were all but gone, replaced by "dynamic" microphones, and he sounded awful.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Strange but true - if you do an A/B comparison..._

I've done them before, most recently on this album turned into CD turned into MP3 turned into lossless file:









When I did the CD was a vast improvement over the LP and the downloads were maybe 1 or 2 percent better or worse than the standard CD.

When I did this with older LPs, such as those from the 1950s, the CDs were an improvement and the downloads were always better. There was quite a shock with this one:









The CD was better but still one dimensional while the MP3 seemed to create sound in layers with the soloists in front, the orchestra behind them, and the chorus behind that.

I'd heard that kind of spacing on super audio but never MP3.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Triplets said:


> Actually, a lot of early CDs were criticized. This then gave rise to the (in my opinion, false) notion that digital was inferior to analog. When digital technology was new transfers were made with 14 bit ADCs, brick wall filters were used in both ADC and DAC, all of which contributed to the notion that digital had glare. Eventually transfer technology and recording new in digital became a more mature technology and improved. On purely sonic considerations alone, I would much prefer a new recording or digital transfer, to one that was made in the first 10-15 years of the CD era


I agree with this, and in fact (to my ears, anyway) there was an especially significant improvement in CD sound due to improvements in the technology circa 1995. (I have one CD from 1994 that features the new technology, but otherwise 1995 seems to have been the turning point.) There was a noticeable improvement in clarity and reduction in digital "fog" or "glare" at that time. However, imo many digital recordings suffer from excessive unnatural spotlighting and close microphones, and those problems can become more apparent as clarity improves. Some may prefer many of the early CDs despite their higher levels of distortion.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

One item too often left out of discussions about recordings is the venue where they were made. I've attended live concerts in great and lesser halls all over and there's no doubt that the quality of a hall often translates to a better, more natural, recording. Those great RCA recordings from Chicago and Boston 60 years ago were no accident - the halls are fantastic live! Still are. That's something that hampered Philadelphia: the Academy of Music was awful so they recorded across the street in a hotel ballroom and those Columbia recordings often lacked bloom and depth. The London Symphony Orchestra is severely compromised by the Barbican Centre - it's not a good hall, they know it, Simon Rattle knows it, but they do the best they can. The Royal Albert Hall is worse - it's just too big.

But recordings of classical also give unrealistic sound in other ways. Past a certain point in any hall anywhere the idea of stereo separation is meaningless. There is a sense of ambience, but Left-Right positioning for most instruments is gone. The bass volume in most recordings exceeds what you can really hear in most halls. To get that deep sound loudly some orchestras have huge double bass sections. But recordings, either through mike placement or electronic manipulation boost the bass. Or I do it at home with the bass control. 

Most recordings are mastered on speakers, since that's how most classical listeners consume music - or used to be. That's why some great sounding recordings sound funny with headphones, at least until you get used to it. It's too bad binaural recording never really caught on.

The best sounding cds I have ever owned were on Reference Recordings in a format they called HDCD. You used to be able to buy cd players that could decode HDCD, Oppo made some, but I haven't seen a player with that ability in a long time and probably it's gone. Even Blu Ray enabled cd players are getting rare.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I rather liked the Phase 4 recordings. This was one of my favorites:


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> One item too often left out of discussions about recordings is the venue where they were made. I've attended live concerts in great and lesser halls all over and there's no doubt that the quality of a hall often translates to a better, more natural, recording. Those great RCA recordings from Chicago and Boston 60 years ago were no accident - the halls are fantastic live! Still are. That's something that hampered Philadelphia: the Academy of Music was awful so they recorded across the street in a hotel ballroom and those Columbia recordings often lacked bloom and depth. The London Symphony Orchestra is severely compromised by the Barbican Centre - it's not a good hall, they know it, Simon Rattle knows it, but they do the best they can. The Royal Albert Hall is worse - it's just too big.
> 
> But recordings of classical also give unrealistic sound in other ways. Past a certain point in any hall anywhere the idea of stereo separation is meaningless. There is a sense of ambience, but Left-Right positioning for most instruments is gone. The bass volume in most recordings exceeds what you can really hear in most halls. To get that deep sound loudly some orchestras have huge double bass sections. But recordings, either through mike placement or electronic manipulation boost the bass. Or I do it at home with the bass control.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I bought HDCD CDs when I could, and still have the Rotel CD player that can play them. But when that player dies, I'm not going to try to find another way down that road. If I pay money for a new digital recording rather than streaming it, I look for 24-bit, 96-khz FLAC downloads. That's the best my current DAC can do, and the highest-fi of most downloads. Maybe my next DAC will do even better. I already have a Sony Walkman that can do SACD, the best digital format I've heard thus far. But I'm not too worried about it. Post 1995 CDs now sound pretty good, especially with advances in affordable DACs and headphones.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

fluteman said:


> Post 1995 CDs now sound pretty good, especially with advances in affordable DACs and headphones.


I think that's mostly true, but every now and a stinker comes my way. There are some companies that seem to really understand how to get great sound all (or most) of the time. Channel Classics has Mahler recordings that are breathtakingly realistic. Chandos has been releasing SACDs that sound incredible. Fontec from Japan can make great recordings, but they're hard to get outside of Japan.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> One item too often left out of discussions about recordings is the venue where they were made. I've attended live concerts in great and lesser halls all over and there's no doubt that the quality of a hall often translates to a better, more natural, recording. Those great RCA recordings from Chicago and Boston 60 years ago were no accident - the halls are fantastic live! Still are. That's something that hampered Philadelphia: the Academy of Music was awful so they recorded across the street in a hotel ballroom and those Columbia recordings often lacked bloom and depth. The London Symphony Orchestra is severely compromised by the Barbican Centre - it's not a good hall, they know it, Simon Rattle knows it, but they do the best they can. The Royal Albert Hall is worse - it's just too big.


I agree with you in general about the importance of venue and the stamp it puts on recordings. However, I have a couple of quibbles with what you say about Chicago's Orchestra Hall and recording in Philadelpha. What happened in Chicago is well known if you're from here. In 1966 a major renovation was done in Orchestra Hall involving HVAC and some other modifications. This badly damaged the acoustical properties, and after that it was not considered a good place to record. A series of further modifications were made in order to restore the good acoustics, and they have been successful, though the pre-1966 sound has never returned. If you follow the acoustical ambience of recordings as I do, you will probably notice the difference in acoustics between the pre-1966 heyday of Orchestra Hall, like the great Reiner/CSO Living Stereo recordings, and the bad period during which Ozawa made a couple of recordings, and finally the restored hall with good sound again. As for Philadelphia, I agree that the Academy of Music is pretty bad acoustically. I've seen a lot of concerts there and in the cheap seats I had it was the worst sound of any major concert venue I've experienced. But where Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra made a lot of great recordings was not in a hotel ballroom, it was in the Town Hall (aka Scottish Rite Temple/Cathedral) up the street, and I think I am correct to say that most people consider this venue not just good but excellent in terms of recorded ambience. Well, that is to some extent subjective, but I don't think the Town Hall (torn down in 1983, while I lived in Philadelphia) is among the venues that have ever been considered problematic for recording classical music.

Sorry, everyone, for getting a little off topic.

Franz


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Reference Recordings are excellent. both large and small ensembles...the Dallas Wind Symphony recordings are superb, lifelike....the Chicsgo Pro Musica releases are also excellent....sounds like the small ensemble is right in your living room - amazing detail, but spacious as well, clear sonic positioning


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

seitzpf said:


> I agree with you in general about the importance of venue and the stamp it puts on recordings. However, I have a couple of quibbles with what you say about Chicago's Orchestra Hall and recording in Philadelpha. What happened in Chicago is well known if you're from here. In 1966 a major renovation was done in Orchestra Hall involving HVAC and some other modifications. This badly damaged the acoustical properties, and after that it was not considered a good place to record. A series of further modifications were made in order to restore the good acoustics, and they have been successful, though the pre-1966 sound has never returned. If you follow the acoustical ambience of recordings as I do, you will probably notice the difference in acoustics between the pre-1966 heyday of Orchestra Hall, like the great Reiner/CSO Living Stereo recordings, and the bad period during which Ozawa made a couple of recordings, and finally the restored hall with good sound again. As for Philadelphia, I agree that the Academy of Music is pretty bad acoustically. I've seen a lot of concerts there and in the cheap seats I had it was the worst sound of any major concert venue I've experienced. But where Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra made a lot of great recordings was not in a hotel ballroom, it was in the Town Hall (aka Scottish Rite Temple/Cathedral) up the street, and I think I am correct to say that most people consider this venue not just good but excellent in terms of recorded ambience. Well, that is to some extent subjective, but I don't think the Town Hall (torn down in 1983, while I lived in Philadelphia) is among the venues that have ever been considered problematic for recording classical music.
> 
> Sorry, everyone, for getting a little off topic.
> 
> Franz


All that is right on the money and well said. I once had the best seat in the house in the old Academy, in the front and center first tier box, and that was OK, but the cheap seats were horrendous. It seems much of the problem relates to how the building was designed originally, with a huge space above the stage to accommodate opera machinery. Supposedly, the famous warm Philadelphia string sound, first developed by Stokowski but evident throughout the Ormandy era, was an attempt to compensate.
Many of the old RCA orchestral recordings were wonderful in their ability to convey the sense of ambiance of a large hall without muddiness or excessive loss of detail, or the spotlighting of the modern era that I complained about in my earlier post. Both Chicago and Boston Symphony records routinely have this quality, and there are some splendid ones from London, too.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

seitzpf said:


> I agree with you in general about the importance of venue and the stamp it puts on recordings. However, I have a couple of quibbles with what you say about Chicago's Orchestra Hall and recording in Philadelpha. What happened in Chicago is well known if you're from here. In 1966 a major renovation was done in Orchestra Hall involving HVAC and some other modifications. This badly damaged the acoustical properties, and after that it was not considered a good place to record. A series of further modifications were made in order to restore the good acoustics, and they have been successful, though the pre-1966 sound has never returned. If you follow the acoustical ambience of recordings as I do, you will probably notice the difference in acoustics between the pre-1966 heyday of Orchestra Hall, like the great Reiner/CSO Living Stereo recordings, and the bad period during which Ozawa made a couple of recordings, and finally the restored hall with good sound again. As for Philadelphia, I agree that the Academy of Music is pretty bad acoustically. I've seen a lot of concerts there and in the cheap seats I had it was the worst sound of any major concert venue I've experienced. But where Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra made a lot of great recordings was not in a hotel ballroom, it was in the Town Hall (aka Scottish Rite Temple/Cathedral) up the street, and I think I am correct to say that most people consider this venue not just good but excellent in terms of recorded ambience. Well, that is to some extent subjective, but I don't think the Town Hall (torn down in 1983, while I lived in Philadelphia) is among the venues that have ever been considered problematic for recording classical music.
> 
> Sorry, everyone, for getting a little off topic.
> 
> Franz


I think this off-topic is interesting. I didn't know that history of Chicago, and yes, the recordings I love from that hall are the Reiner era. I don't know when Philly started recording at Town Hall, but I know that for a lot of time they recorded at the Broadwood Hotel - that classic, and unsurpassed Tchaikovsky 5th came from there. The later Tchaik 6th and 2nd piano concerto came from Town Hall I'm pretty sure. When the switched back to RCA they sure made some terrific sounding recordings in Town Hall!


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

larold said:


> One reason older recordings may appear to sound better than today's is the people making them. In the heyday of London FFRR when John Culshaw was producing recordings great care was taken to produce the most remarkable sound possible -- vividness, depth and quiet surfaces on LPs. Collectors and connoisseurs spent thousands of dollars on their playback equipment and wanted the best sound they could get.
> 
> ..............
> 
> Today's recordings, regardless of source, are almost assuredly better than reality and sound twice as good as the average concert you may attend. I was in a discussion here once where a Berlin Philharmonic subscriber told me how disappointed he was because the sound he heard in concert wasn't what he heard on recordings.


I think audiophiles exist for a good reason, but there is lesser choices to control for the audience when comes to a concert. Some chapels have better sound environment than the others, the concert halls are definitely less clear than in private music chamber.
I guess probably only passionate lover of small ensemble music would develop a perseverance for real background to the sound.
It is a bliss only to see some antique violin, cello, harpsichord close-up. In a large concert room, you will need to sit close to the player to hear better sounds, once a few step backward, it will be like listen to TV. Maybe, bad sound on CDs can also be caused by re-editing, while the original issue is good. Extensive technologies put into recording should still be encouraged, and the good replicate of real life sound should also be the common goal for endeavours.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

DaveM said:


> I rather liked the Phase 4 recordings. This was one of my favorites:
> View attachment 132949


I think that Decca released one of those big bargain boxes of Phase 4 recordings. Perhaps you own it?
Phase 4 was a deliberate attempt to not use Decca traditional techniques, as exemplified in the recordings made by their engineer Kenneth Wilkinson, and make flashier, "Hi-Fi" oriented. Kind of like your sweet, modest sister putting on her pumps and mini skirt and slumming it for a night on the clubs. One of my first records was a Phase 4 of bleeding Wagner chunks conducted by Carlos Paita. I still remember the thrill of the strings descent in the coda of the Flying Dutchman Overture. Not what you might hear in a concert hall, but thrilling


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Triplets said:


> I think that Decca released one of those big bargain boxes of Phase 4 recordings. Perhaps you own it?
> Phase 4 was a deliberate attempt to not use Decca traditional techniques, as exemplified in the recordings made by their engineer Kenneth Wilkinson, and make flashier, "Hi-Fi" oriented. Kind of like your sweet, modest sister putting on her pumps and mini skirt and slumming it for a night on the clubs. One of my first records was a Phase 4 of bleeding Wagner chunks conducted by Carlos Paita. I still remember the thrill of the strings descent in the coda of the Flying Dutchman Overture. Not what you might hear in a concert hall, but thrilling


I don't have the Decca collection, but I did get the Stokowski RCA Gold Seal big box collection -which contains some quadraphonic recordings remastered in Dolby surrround- mainly for the his glorious Bach Chaconne transcription recorded with him. This recording has been very hard to get on a single CD. It crops up on Amazon now and then as an import:









I must admit a preference of 'thrilling' even at the expense of reality which is what drew me to things like Phase4, quadraphonic etc. I like to be in the middle of orchestra if possible. Stokowski, particularly in the Chaconne recording, liked to separate the 1st and 2nd violins and use stereo to dramatic effect. It's thrilling.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DaveM said:


> I don't have the Decca collection, but I did get the Stokowski RCA Gold Seal big box collection -which contains some quadraphonic recordings remastered in Dolby surrround- mainly for the his glorious Bach Chaconne transcription recorded with him. This recording has been very hard to get on a single CD. It crops up on Amazon now and then as an import:
> 
> View attachment 133031
> 
> ...


Stoki cared deeply about the sound quality of his recordings, and you can hear that even in the earliest ones, as regardless of the era in which they were made, the sound is usually a clear cut above the norm of that era. Here is another nice one:


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I forgot to mention, there is one good series of paper case issues from HMF: musique d`abord. 

Christopher Rousset`s Froberger recording and WF Bach sonatas, as well as l` apotheose de Lully are recommended.

ZigZag and Aeolus, MDG, CPO, Accord, Mirare, Carus, Christophorus, Genuin, Berlin Classics, Capriccio, Challenge(a brand by Ton Koopman himself) are also quite good, but of course not all of them are on the same goodness. As long as they are not too annoying then fine. Some of them are quite good, I will just let people to decide which of them they favor over the others, I am not ranking here, nor can I list all of the good ones. Sometimes the bad ones come from reissues from the same company with the original good recordings. Ah, so hard to pick them on one by one, it is therefore very annoying to occaisonally encounter such purchases. 

I am planning a new set of classy speakers but not without purchasing a new house, since now I live in a community tighly packed. However, just to mention I am not the one who will sit forever with a set of common speakers for life, but still, the budget is not only about the speakers, but a whole new house and a choice-environment of loosely inhabited sub-urban community. I am a chinese in China, if some of you do not remember or ever know of this, even medium volume from a pair of table speakers can be over heard outside. So I purchased sound insulate curtain, which is originally intended for use of couples bedroom. 

I do not like a fully sound insulate room though, it is stifling. A medium size set of Bang Olufson table speakers could be nice, mid-volume, sitting close to the speakers, not bothering, self-satisfying too. I also hate headphones, I never use them since 20 years ago, they are bad for your brain and health.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Ariasexta said:


> I forgot to mention, there is one good series of paper case issues from HMF: musique d`abord.
> 
> Christopher Rousset`s Froberger recording and WF Bach sonatas, as well as l` apotheose de Lully are recommended.
> 
> ...


I admire your taste. I too had good luck with the musique d'abord label when I was still buying CDs. For speakers, I have a basic B&W model and like them well enough, but can't afford anything very high end, and the difference is noticeable. I still listen to my vinyl LPs with these speakers.

As for hating headphones, I understand your point but have little choice in my case. I've never found any of them very comfortable for extended listening but Chinese-made HifiMan electrostatic headphones aren't bad in my (moderate) price range. My HE 400i is one of their cheapest models, mostly plastic with minimal build quality but also probably their lightest. I had to replace the bad cable, and got aftermarket microsuede and memory foam earpads that are much more comfortable than the cheaply-made vinyl originals.


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

Ariasexta said:


> I also hate headphones, I never use them since 20 years ago, they are bad for your brain and health.


I've been using headphones for over 30 years and my bra bra bra bra brain is OK. :lol:


----------



## RobertKC (Dec 9, 2013)

I apologize in advance for this long ramble, but like many I'm dealing with "cabin fever", because we've been ordered to stay at home due to COVID-19.

According to my view of the classical music I love, the live performance of classical music in a world-class purpose-built venue is the work of art. A purpose-built symphony hall and opera house do not employ a sound reinforcement system for the performance of classical music. The sound is 100% natural. I am fortunate that my city has a world-class symphony hall and opera house, due to generous benefactors. Prior to COVID-19 shutting down all non-essential businesses, I attended on average 30 classical concerts per season, including large-scale orchestral concerts, opera, and chamber music.

My goal for recordings of classical music is to create the illusion (for me) that I'm in the concert hall (i.e., create an illusion that I'm hearing the original art), and for the inevitable deviations to sound pleasant, vs. unpleasant (to my ears). My benchmark for the audio quality of my hi-fi systems is what I remember hearing in the concert hall. (I recognize that my approach is imperfect because my memory is imperfect. Nonetheless, this is my approach to optimizing my hi-fi systems.)

I am not an aficionado of harpsichord. (I don't dislike harpsichord - I'm just pointing out that I'm not an expert on it.) I prefer large-scale romantic-era classical music.

IME/IMO, the question of which recording format (or recording era) sounds best is largely dependent on:


Genre of music, and

The quality of the playback equipment.

In general, I think that a debate about old vs. new CDs represents a false dichotomy. The Redbook CD was introduced to the marketplace almost 40 years ago, and is vintage technology. IMO, CD does NOT deliver state-of-the-art audio sound quality. Modern performances (i.e., last dozen years or so) of classical music are routinely captured, and mastered in hi-res (e.g., 24bit/192kHZ PCM, or hi-res DSD), and delivered to the consumer as a hi-res download, or Ultra HD Blu-ray, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, or SACD.

A shiny disc that is the same size as a CD can now hold vastly more data because of newer technology (i.e., various Blu-ray formats, or SACD). IME, the quality of modern hi-res (e.g., 24bit/192kHz) recordings is generally excellent, and usually far exceeds older recordings. This is true even if older recordings have been remastered, and delivered in a new "hi-res" container. (If you pour a gallon of milk in a 55-gallon drum, it's still a gallon of milk.)

I think that it's important to recognize two possible points of departure for my perspective:


I mostly like large-scale orchestral music, and some opera. (I occasionally listen to chamber music.)

Classical music lovers sometimes must decide which is more important: performance quality, or audio quality of a recording. I'm not a music scholar, and I'm not hyper-critical of a performance. Very often I enjoy modern performances of classical music. However, I have no tolerance for poor audio quality. I therefore usually choose modern performances of classical music that were recorded in hi-res. 


IME, a top-quality Blu-ray (or Ultra HD Blu-ray) of a modern performance (last dozen years or so) of a classical concert is MUCH more enjoyable than CD. Blu-ray provides hi-res surround-sound, and high-definition video. IMO Blu-ray is particularly relevant for visual art forms like ballet and opera (including displaying the libretto on the HDTV screen), and when a soloist is featured. Even for orchestral music, I prefer Blu-ray audio/video (i.e., being able to see the conductor, musicians, and concert hall.)

Here's a thread that I started regarding Blu-ray: Blu-ray Videos of Classical Concerts

I believe that modern top-quality hi-res recordings have more value for large-scale orchestral music than for relatively small-scale music such as a string quartet. IME recordings of small-scale music place far less demand on a music reproduction system (including the recording and home playback equipment) compared with large-scale orchestral music and large-scale opera.

Have you experienced a modern Blu-ray of large-scale classical music, played on a high-quality surround-sound system? If not, and you want to experience what hi-res can offer, I suggest comparing your favorite CD (or LP or streaming) of Mahler Symphony 2 with this Blu-ray (played on a high-quality surround-sound system with subwoofer):










As @rice pointed out, you'll need a hi-fi system that is capable of significant dynamic range and significant frequency range to realize what this Blu-ray can deliver. I don't claim that any of my 5 hi-fi systems are the best in the world. With that said, my basement system is pretty good at creating the illusion of being in the symphony hall:

Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. An Oppo UDP-205 universal player provides bass management - i.e., a crossover that off-loads the power-hungry bass from the main amp and speakers. I use the Oppo UDP-205 to play modern hi-res classical recordings delivered on Blu-ray disc (i.e., DTS-HD MA 5.0 or 5.1) and SACD. These four tower speakers plus two subwoofers collectively provide plenty of "acoustical power" in this average size listening room for the classical music I love. (I sit approximately 10 feet from the speakers.) Collectively, they total four 1 ¾" titanium compression drivers mated to Tractrix horns, eight 10" woofers, one 15" powered subwoofer, and one 16" powered subwoofer. I have a large collection of vintage tube amps, which synergize with the Klipsch speakers to recreate the natural timbre of orchestral instruments.​
If you listen to a modern hi-res recording of large-scale classical music on earbuds or small speakers, you're missing what a modern hi-res recording is capable of - i.e., the dynamic range and frequency range that creates the near-concert-hall-experience.

Older recordings (including LPs) can deliver significant enjoyment, and are of course the only choice for historically significant performances. With that said, if you listen solely to decades old recordings, you're limited to what was state-of-the-art technology decades ago. Provenance of the recording is extremely important. For decades-old recordings, the quality of the original recording is the ultimate limiting factor. A decades-old recording will not have state-of-the-art audio quality - even if it has been remastered.

Some high-quality vintage analog master tapes have been digitized at hi-res, and remastered, with surprisingly good results. For example, some RCA Living Stereo recordings from the 1950s that were originally recorded in 3 channels (left, center, right) have been remastered from the original analog tapes, and delivered as 3 channel recordings on SACD. (Similarly, I have some Mercury Living Presence vintage recordings (e.g., Janos Starker) that were recorded on 35mm magnetic film, and some of these recordings have been remastered and delivered on SACD in the original 3 channel format.) However, IME/IMO old recordings generally cannot match the best modern recordings in terms of audio quality.

IME/IMO, early digital recordings often have the worst sound quality. I have an early digital recording of Barber's "Adagio for Strings", and the violins sound so harsh that the CD is unlistenable.

Last year I conducted brief, informal listening assessments of the audio quality of 15 different digital recordings that I own of Beethoven Symphony 9, recorded from 1942 to 2015, including every decade in between.


CD (Archipel) of a 1942 performance by Wilhelm Furtwängler and the Berliner Philharmoniker
SACD (tahra) of a 1954 performance by Wilhelm Furtwängler and the Philharmonia Orchestra London
CD (Testament | EMI) of a 1957 performance by Otto Klemperer and the Philharmonia Chorus & Orchestra
CD (Chesky) of a 1961 performance by Rene Leibowitz and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
SACD (DG) of a 1962 performance by Herbert Von Karajan and the Berliner Philharmoniker
CD (Penguin Classics) of a 1972 performance by Sir Georg Solti and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra
CD (Seraphim Classics) of a 1988 performance by Riccardo Muti and The Philadelphia Orchestra
DVD (Euroarts) of a 2000 performance by Claudio Abbado and the Berliner Philharmoniker (PCM stereo and Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks)
24bit/96kHz FLAC download (DG) from HDTracks.com of a 2002 performance by Claudio Abbado (stereo only)
SACD (BIS) of a 2006 performance by Osmo Vanska and the Minnesota Orchestra (stereo and 5.1 tracks)
Blu-ray (DRS | Dacapo Records) box set of 2013 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos and the Danish National Symphony Orchestra (DTS-HD MA 5.0/5.1 and PCM Stereo). 
Blu-ray (Cmajor) box set of 2008 - 2010 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Christian Thielemann and the Wiener Philharmoniker recorded at the Goldener Saal der Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna (DTS-HD MA 5.0 and PCM Stereo).
Blu-ray (ARTHAUS MUSIK) box set of 2012 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Mariss Jansons and the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra recorded in Tokyo Suntory Hall (DTS-HD MA 5.0 and PCM Stereo). 
Blu-ray (ARTHAUS MUSIK) box set of 2014 - 2015 performances of all Beethoven symphonies by Philippe Jordan conducting the Orchestra and Chorus of the Opera national de Paris (DTS-HD MA 5.1 and PCM Stereo). 

IMO - the modern recordings delivered on Blu-ray have superior audio quality compared with the older recordings - even if the older recordings were remastered. (I also prefer Blu-ray to LPs.) Moreover, the modern Blu-ray recordings feature surround-sound, and high-definition video, which both significantly increase my enjoyment of the recording. As I said earlier, provenance of a recording is extremely important.

OP: For the music that you like - are modern hi-res recordings available? Have you heard modern hi-res recordings featuring harpsichord on a top-quality hi-fi system (particularly a surround-sound system)? (I'm talking about a recording of a performance in the last dozen years or so that as captured, mastered, and delivered in hi-res. Not re-mastered older recordings.)

A quick search on Amazon yielded the following Pure Audio Blu-ray, and SACD, featuring harpsichord:



















I have not heard these recordings. I have no idea if these performances are good, or if the recordings are good. If I loved harpsichord, I'd play the multi-channel audio track of each and assess their quality. According to the description, the Pure Audio Blu-ray of "Modern American Music for Harpsichord" includes a CD, and a Pure Audio Blu-ray disc that includes 3 tracks: 5.1 DTS-HD MA 24bit/192kHz, 7.1 DTS-HD MA 24bit/96kHz, and 2.0 LPCM 24bit/192kHz. This would afford the opportunity to compare the audio quality of CD vs. various hi-res formats.

In summary, IMO:


If the music that you like is only available on CD (or streaming), then you're limited to CD (or streaming) quality. 
If your hi-fi system is only able to play CDs (i.e., not the SACD layer of a hybrid SACD, or Blu-ray), then you're limited to CD quality. (Or streaming.)
Your ability to discern differences in the audio quality of recorded music is limited by the capabilities of your playback system. 
Hi-res is more relevant for large-scale music vs. small-scale music.

Therefore, when discussing recording and hi-fi technology, I think that it's important to have the discussion in the context of different (sub)genres of music (e.g., small-scale vs. large-scale classical music), historic vs. modern performances, and the capabilities of the playback system.

For the large-scale classical music that I like, Blu-ray and SACD are commonly available. Blu-ray audio/video is my favorite format, and IME is the next best thing to being at a live classical concert. My second choices are Pure Audio Blu-ray and SACD featuring hi-res surround-sound.

Following is my response to the thread title: In general - IME older CD recordings do NOT tend to sound better than modern hi-res recordings.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Have you experienced a modern Blu-ray of large-scale classical music, played on a high-quality surround-sound system? If not, and you want to experience what hi-res can offer, I suggest comparing your favorite CD (or LP or streaming) of Mahler Symphony 2 with this Blu-ray (played on a high-quality surround-sound system with subwoofer)_

Yes, and I have also experienced it in the concert hall. The soundscape described above is better than reality -- much better -- in some ways. In other ways it is not. The principal "is not" is this:

I once went four wheeling in Michigan's Upper Peninsula with a coworker and some of his friends while working up there. We were in a hilly, wooded area near an Air Force base.

At one point a rumbling sound and vibration began to overtake us. It became louder and louder and, soon, the sound became so great it was impossible to determine which direction it came from. Suddenly a B-52 bomber flew over our heads at treetop height.

This is the sensation of hearing Mahler's "Resurrection" symphony with its 125-member orchestra and 300-member choir in a modern concert hall. Ever millimeter or air space is so filled with sound at the finale that your head wants to explode.


----------



## RobertKC (Dec 9, 2013)

larold said:


> _Have you experienced a modern Blu-ray of large-scale classical music, played on a high-quality surround-sound system? If not, and you want to experience what hi-res can offer, I suggest comparing your favorite CD (or LP or streaming) of Mahler Symphony 2 with this Blu-ray (played on a high-quality surround-sound system with subwoofer)_
> 
> Yes, and I have also experienced it in the concert hall. The soundscape described above is better than reality -- much better -- in some ways. In other ways it is not. The principal "is not" is this:
> 
> ...


I also have heard Mahler 2 performed live by a world-class orchestra in a world-class symphony hall. It was an incredible experience - however the opening of the final movement was so loud that I was uncomfortable.

The reason I often suggest Mahler Symphony 2 as a test of a hi-fi system is the dynamic range - e.g., the opening of the 4th movement vs. the opening of the 5th movement. Plus, the natural timbre of orchestral instruments must be reproduced. When listening to a recording, does the timpani sound like a timpani - or just a dull roar?

IMO, if when listening to a recording you find yourself _cringing _and turning down the volume at the beginning of the final movement of Maher 2, it may not be because it's too loud, it is likely because the sound is distorted. IMO the same thing can happen with operatic sopranos. When playing a hi-res recording on a hi-fi capable of significant dynamics, I don't find myself cringing during loud passages.

Of course, no recording/hi-fi can completely recreate the live concert hall experience of large-scale compositions. With that said, it is possible to get close enough that - for me - an illusion is created of being in the symphony hall.

I'm anxious to resume listening to live classical music. However, until a vaccine for COVID-19 becomes available, I don't see how it will be safe to pack 1,600 patrons (plus orchestra members) in a symphony hall, so I'm afraid it will be a while. In the meantime, I'll be watching Blu-ray audio/video recordings of concerts.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

RobertKC said:


> IME/IMO, the question of which recording format (or recording era) sounds best is largely dependent on:
> 
> 
> Genre of music, and
> ...


While that and the rest of your post is essentially accurate based on my experience, there are other relevant factors that you don't address, understandably as you can't write an entire encyclopedia in a TC post. After nearly 40 years, we've seen the practical advantages of commercial digital audio over the older commercial analog formats of vinyl LP and magnetic tape come to the fore, and its disadvantages reduced. And just as the photos produced by digital cameras got better as their resolution increased, higher resolution audio has improved sound quality.

There was never anything sacred about the CD format, and in particular there was nothing inevitable about the original 16-bit standard agreed upon by Sony and Philips. In fact, early digital vinyl LPs often were made with 20-bit or even 24-bit audio resolution. So it's no surprise that higher resolution audio formats came along. Ideally, any music I buy at this point would be in a high-res download format.

On the other hand, advances in CD technology allowed its 16 bits to be used more efficiently, resulting in higher effective resolution, or so I've read, and so my ears seem to confirm. And there are diminishing returns to higher resolution audio formats. Ultimately, the limitations of the source material and playback system (which, even if high-end audiophile quality, won't reproduce the sound of a concert hall with absolute accuracy) take over.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

fluteman said:


> I admire your taste. I too had good luck with the musique d'abord label when I was still buying CDs. For speakers, I have a basic B&W model and like them well enough, but can't afford anything very high end, and the difference is noticeable. I still listen to my vinyl LPs with these speakers.
> 
> As for hating headphones, I understand your point but have little choice in my case. I've never found any of them very comfortable for extended listening but Chinese-made HifiMan electrostatic headphones aren't bad in my (moderate) price range. My HE 400i is one of their cheapest models, mostly plastic with minimal build quality but also probably their lightest. I had to replace the bad cable, and got aftermarket microsuede and memory foam earpads that are much more comfortable than the cheaply-made vinyl originals.


Apologize for late response, because the internet speed linking to international sites from China has been slowing down since the early this year. It is very difficult to access to and post on this site recently. Thanks for your appreciation. I am self-educated in western culture since 6th grade with some very intersting american movies aired on HongKong TV channels and japanese animations.

I am conservative generally on everything, not just music. It is also a puzzle to myself why I am so conservative, many say I am not a typical chinese. :lol: So, I think sharing is important otherwise I am forever a loner and then will make my favorite music a loner too. Some may feel I have superiority complex when they do not open their eyes, superiority complex does not motivate the sharing.

Gustav Leonhardt appeared in my life like a thunder out of the blue, his performance of cantatas and keyboard music is the most beautiful thing I have ever encountered in my life so far. I wanted to go to Europe in 2010 to attend his concert, but I was delayed by some trivial matters. Now it is an eternal regret having not to follow him more closely. Sadly, there is no one left to fill the hole in the musical realm left by him. Everyone else is so far away from his level as it appears to me these years without him, in the professional world, everyone minds their own business, as there is no one to look up to. This is a huge disaster for the musical world today. There is no high standards if only individuality is the major concern in interpretations. I think early music has a limit to individualistic tastes, but it surely has an infinite grace to it to be rediscovered.

To be great, you must play JS Bach like a medieval royal knight, combining elegance and bravery, courtesy and humility. You can not hear them all except from Gustav Leonhardt`s performance.

I do think to praise him like this would make him unhappy if he saw this. But the reality is sad, more JS Bach please, more good recording quality please. I have heard some English B&W ground speakers in a friends house, that set is about 20.000 pounds, I lent him Skip Sempe`s Alpha Louis Couperin and Pierre Hantai`s Goldberg on Naive to try out the classical, the sound is quite beautiful. Drools.  But I would prefer smaller ones if got the money.

Chinese made has improve much, but it can never compete in the high end range, for economical reason, they are reliable. I prefer table speakers for baroque, it feels more intimate and realistic than ground speakers. I am not symphony guy so, too much volume and dynamic sound just ruin the music for me. For example, I would not like to turn the volume beyond the actual decibel level of a real harpsichord when listening to harpsichord music, but generally I prefer even lower dc level from speakers. Many may think sonorous chamber speakers will be exciting for JS Bach, yes, may be true for concertos, but not for cantatas and violin, cello, harpsichord solos and sonatas, large speakers never impress me for delicate early music. You will probably develop more intimate feeling to the baroque music once get used to moderate sound volumes, no matter what speakers you use. I also have retired my large common speakers since 10 years ago, sound quality is good for the price. But it could be my excuse for currently timid budget, once in a while, why not if I can be more free with money, at least it worths the cost for the many Bach, Vivaldi, Telemann concertos.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

There is a reference to a "loudness" problem in this video, but it involves pop music:


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

This video explains that some remastered versions of some pop albums are being released which have solved this problem:






In addition, some liner notes for classical music explain what improvements were made. For example, in one copy of "Tanz der Studen" from Deutsche Grammophon, the publisher explains that it has been "digitally remastered," which means the original recording was used but transferred to digital tape, with background noise and distortion avoided. This might also explain the "ADD" mark in the album. Others, like Martinu's "Epic of Gilgamesh" from Naxos, used only digital sources. Hence, "DDD".

Finally, I recall reading one set of notes that ably described what the sound engineers did to come up with the best sound. I can't find it at the moment, but I'll let you know if I do. For now, all I remember doing before digital music became widely available was rely on books like the _Penguin Guide_ to consider points about recording quality, but I would still buy even mono recordings if they were on sale. In any event, it should be much easier now as samples of tracks are available in online stores.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I appreciate RobertKC's input on this subject...he wants the very best recorded sound possible...this is certainly a valid viewpoint for the listener. we've seen other posters who expressed similar viewpoints - they'll only listen to "digital" sound, and find older analogue recordings unacceptable. 

This raises a basic underlying question- which to you is more important?? The actual performance or the recorded reproduction of that performance?? Do you prefer A+ sound, with a B, B- or C performance?? Or an A, A+ performance with B, B- or C sound quality??

For myself, I'll take a great performance with somewhat dated sound (tho many of the master tapes from 59s, 60s are quite good) over a mediocre, pedestrian performance 
recorded in splendid, state of the art recorded sound.

To address the OP Question- perhaps older recordings sound better because they are played/conducted better?? Even tho the recorded sound is not up to the finest present standard??


----------



## RobertKC (Dec 9, 2013)

As I said earlier: "Classical music lovers sometimes must decide which is more important: performance quality, or audio quality of a recording. I'm not a music scholar, and I'm not hyper-critical of a performance. Very often I enjoy modern performances of classical music. However, I have no tolerance for poor audio quality. I therefore usually choose modern performances of classical music that were recorded in hi-res."

I recognize that most people on TC are far more knowledgeable than me about classical music, and as a result may be more critical than me of performances. (This is perhaps particularly true for opera.)

I didn't grow up listening to classical music, and there aren't any particular vintage recordings that influenced my taste, or became benchmarks for me. (As I said earlier, my benchmark is what I remember hearing in my local symphony hall and opera house.)

Even though I place high value on audio quality, on rare occasion I'll enjoy a recording of an older performance. For example, from the list of Beethoven Symphony 9 recordings in my post #43 above, I like the following older performances:


1961 performance by Rene Leibowitz and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. This is NOT slow and ponderous. OTOH, I don't think it sounds rushed. According to my math, Liebowitz brings it in at 61:38 (i.e., sum of 4 movements). I think it flows beautifully. (I'm not a poet - so I'm struggling to describe why I like this performance.) The Chesky CD sounds good for a 1961 recording. Chesky used the original analog tapes to create this CD.

I also like the 1954 performance by Furtwängler, which is slower. This sounds like an historic recording, but the audio quality is good enough IMO that the performance can be enjoyed. This recording was digitized at 24bit/192kHz. I own the SACD.

I also have the following SACD (and the 1950s era LP pressing) of Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos, and find them enjoyable. (The Mendelssohn Violin Concerto performed by Heifetz was originally recorded by RCA in 3 channels (left, center, right) on analog tape, and the SACD delivers the original 3 channels. The Technical Notes state: "In remastering these tapes, we kept the signal path as short as possible." "No signal processing was necessary to 'improve' these extraordinary tapes.")










OTOH, I find the audio quality of the 1962 performance of Beethoven 9 by Herbert Von Karajan and the Berliner Philharmoniker to be so bad that I can't stand to listen to it - in spite of being digitized at 24bit/96kHz and delivered on SACD.

In my City - as I'm certain is true throughout the USA and the world - all live performances of classical music have been canceled. Unfortunately, I don't think that concerts will resume anytime soon. Until a vaccine for COVID-19 becomes available, I don't see how it will be safe to pack 1,000+ patrons (plus musicians) in a concert hall. (Particularly considering that most patrons are older, and susceptible to the virus.)

The lack of live music, and my case of "cabin fever" from being stuck indoors, makes me glad that I have a growing library of classical concerts. While I occasionally enjoy a vintage recording, I greatly prefer modern Blu-ray audio/video recordings.

Since government ordered everyone to stay at home due to the coronavirus, I have been watching Blu-ray classical concert recordings almost daily.

Three days ago, I listened/watched to the following Blu-ray of Beethoven Symphony 1 on my basement system (described in my post #43).










Two days ago, I listened/watched to the following Blu-ray of Sibelius Symphony 1 (also via my basement surround-sound system):










Last night, I listened/watched to the following Blu-ray of Tchaikovsky Symphony 1:










Last night I listened via my TV room system:

Stereo speakers are Klipsch Palladium P-37F. Center: Klipsch RC-64III. Single rear: RP-502S. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. The source is an Oppo UDP-205 for playing Blu-ray and SACDs, and a USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings. The amps are Scott 399, McIntosh MC225, Fisher X-1000, Scott 299C, McIntosh MX110Z / McIntosh MC240, and an NAD C375BEE. (Last night I used my McIntosh MX110Z / McIntosh MC240 to drive the main L&R speakers, and my Scott 299C to drive the center and single rear speaker.)​
During the days ahead when I'm mostly confined to home, I'll watch Blu-ray recordings of symphonies by different composers, and for some composers, different conductors/orchestras. (I currently own Blu-ray audio/video box sets of all symphonies by Beethoven (x4), Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Brahms (x 2), Bruckner, Schumann (x 2), and Mahler. Plus, numerous other classical concerts on Blu-ray. Plus, numerous modern opera and ballet audio/video recordings on Blu-ray.) And, for variety, I will rotate among several of my hi-fi systems.

I hope that my discussion of Blu-ray isn't off-topic. The reason for my enthusiastic advocacy of Blu-ray is that I have the impression that many people haven't experienced a Blu-ray recording of a classical concert, when played via a high-quality surround-sound system, and viewed on an HDTV. (All Blu-rays feature a hi-res stereo track, in addition to a DTS-HD MA 5.1 surround-sound track.) Based on what I read on discussion forums, it appears that many people aren't even aware of options other than CD and streaming. I hope to make others aware of hi-res recordings of classical music (audio/video, or audio-only), and I hope to inspire others to give Blu-ray a try.

Bottom line: IME/IMO, no recording format comes close to Blu-ray audio/video (or Ultra HD Blu-ray) in recreating the live concert hall experience. Blu-ray is the next best thing to being in the symphony hall or opera house. If you're interested in joining a discussion about Blu-ray recordings of classical music: Blu-ray Videos of Classical Concerts


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

RobertKC said:


> I'm not hyper-critical of a performance. Very often I enjoy modern performances of classical music. However, I have no tolerance for poor audio quality...
> I didn't grow up listening to classical music, and there aren't any particular vintage recordings that influenced my taste, or became benchmarks for me.


Precisely formulated! This is exactly like in my case...
While I prefer certain CDs, I never listen to the new recording with a clear idea of how it should be played. I enjoy when the artist surprises me and finds something new and unexpected in the piece. Even though I have favorite interprets I appreciate the great commitment and artistic quality of many artists and I don't intend to impose my vision on them. Not only because of this (mainly because of low expertise - I studied music, but it has never been my profession) I couldn't write critical music reviews ...
And now something completely different - back to the thread. Like some others, I don't think old CDs sound better, rather the opposite.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Classical music lovers sometimes must decide which is more important: performance quality, or audio quality of a recording._

To me artistry is always more important than sound. A great sounding bland performance does nothing for the music and an ordinary performance, regardless of how it sounds, doesn't tell you everything there is to say.

For years prior to the digital era people listened to Artruo Toscanini on scratchy 78s and awful-sounding LPs to hear what he had ti say about music. I didn't grow up with Toscanini but I grew up with the idea that the art is what matters most. Toscanini is the best-selling classical artist in history and that wasn't because of the way his recordings sounded.

I once heard a Caruson enthusiast say he preferred the tenor's old 78s. "When I hear those recordings," he said, "I know I hear Caruso." This was veiled commentary on modern recording-making with endless patches, digital enhancements and other treasures.

I have a collection that includes radio broadcasts and LPs I turned into CDs for convenience -- complete with the skips, scratches and pops. If sound is the No. 1 criteria then realizing what's in the music is not, in my opinion.


----------



## RobertKC (Dec 9, 2013)

larold said:


> _Classical music lovers sometimes must decide which is more important: performance quality, or audio quality of a recording._
> 
> To me artistry is always more important than sound. A great sounding bland performance does nothing for the music and an ordinary performance, regardless of how it sounds, doesn't tell you everything there is to say.
> 
> ...


Yes - I understand. Sometimes I listen to recordings of Maria Callas, even though the audio quality is poor.

I prefer watching/listening to a Blu-ray of Anna Netrebko.


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

larold said:


> _To me artistry is always more important than sound. A great sounding bland performance does nothing for the music and an ordinary performance, regardless of how it sounds, doesn't tell you everything there is to say.
> 
> For years prior to the digital era people listened to Artruo Toscanini on scratchy 78s and awful-sounding LPs to hear what he had ti say about music. I didn't grow up with Toscanini but I grew up with the idea that the art is what matters most. Toscanini is the best-selling classical artist in history and that wasn't because of the way his recordings sounded.
> 
> I have a collection that includes radio broadcasts and LPs I turned into CDs for convenience -- complete with the skips, scratches and pops. If sound is the No. 1 criteria then realizing what's in the music is not, in my opinion._


_

People were once enthusiastic about the phonograph or the first movie where just a train passed. I think if they had better options, they would never touch the scratched record. But, I agree, artistry is obviously very (the most) important, only I don't generally think that contemporary artists are so much worse than those in the past. Maestro Toscanini was indisputably exceptional and brilliant (maybe unrepeatably), but can we really reveal and enjoy all the beauty, skill, all the subtle nuances and thoughtful details in such a poor quality recording? Music is based on sound and the sound quality matters for me. Even in the concert hall I choose a place (if it's possible) where I can best appreciate the whole composition. 
I know the following video is an extreme case, but I love Brahms and the recording tells me nothing about his art. It's a "just" historical document. I can't enjoy art. 
So I think, we are all looking for the best artistic quality and the main difference in our approach is only the limit when the recording is still acceptable to us.





_


----------



## RobertKC (Dec 9, 2013)

Enrico Caruso is another example. He had an incredible voice, but on a daily basis I don't want to listen to 100-year-old recordings.


----------



## RobertKC (Dec 9, 2013)

DaddyGeorge said:


> ... I don't generally think that contemporary artists are so much worse than those in the past ...


As a person who is not a music scholar, I agree with this. I think that this is an important point. If you approach music based on the bias that no modern musicians are as good as those in the 1960s (or '50s, or whenever), then IMO you've sealed your fate in terms of the enjoyment of music.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

RobertKC said:


> As a person who is not a music scholar, I agree with this. I think that this is an important point. If you approach music based on the bias that no modern musicians are as good as those in the 1960s (or '50s, or whenever), then IMO you've sealed your fate in terms of the enjoyment of music.


Agreed, that approach will certainly limit one's ability to enjoy great music...likewise, refusing to listen to any music that isn't presented in the latest digital, super hifi sound is equally limiting.


----------



## RobertKC (Dec 9, 2013)

Heck148 said:


> Agreed, that approach will certainly limit one's ability to enjoy great music...likewise, refusing to listen to any music that isn't presented in the latest digital, super hifi sound is equally limiting.


Agreed. And, well said.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Heck148 said:


> I appreciate RobertKC's input on this subject...he wants the very best recorded sound possible...this is certainly a valid viewpoint for the listener. we've seen other posters who expressed similar viewpoints - they'll only listen to "digital" sound, and find older analogue recordings unacceptable.
> 
> This raises a basic underlying question- which to you is more important?? The actual performance or the recorded reproduction of that performance?? Do you prefer A+ sound, with a B, B- or C performance?? Or an A, A+ performance with B, B- or C sound quality??
> 
> ...


Yes, the world's best sound quality can't compensate for an unremarkable performance. Not even slightly. Fortunately, the performance level in the classical music world today is pretty high, imo. One example: I have quite a collection of great historical violinists on vinyl LP. Heifetz, Oistrakh, Milstein, Szeryng, Stern, Menuhin, Szigeti, and many other great ones slightly or a lot less famous. But the other night I was listening to one of the new young hotshots, Ray Chen. He's famous for making child's play of the most difficult Paganini showpieces, but my word, what a beautiful seamless legato in the Mendelssohn concerto. In short, I think we selectively remember the best from earlier eras, but great ones are still coming along today.

OTH, yesterday, I was listening to parts of my WTC set by Rosalyn Tureck on the original mono 1953 vinyl lps. There is something luminous and magical about her WTC, despite the wretched sound. So I'll take the old and the new, thanks.


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2020)

For me, it's hard to beat the all-analog sound from late 60s to mid 70s Philips LPs. They have a sense of warmth, body, and realism that seems to elude many modern recording companies. Perhaps too many mics and too much digital processing? That said, I have a number of hi-res FLAC and DSD files that sound superb. Since their resolution is higher than a standard CD, they definitely sound less sterile and clinical, particularly DSD 256 files. (Their sampling rate is 11.2 mHz, 256 x that of a CD's 44.1 !)


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2020)

For me, it's hard to beat the all-analog sound from late 60s to mid 70s Philips LPs. They have a sense of warmth, body, and realism that seems to elude many modern recording companies. Perhaps too many mics and too much digital processing? That said, I have a number of hi-res FLAC and DSD files that sound superb. Since their resolution is higher than a standard CD's, they definitely sound less sterile and clinical, particularly DSD 256 files. (Their sampling rate is 11.2 mHz, 256 x that of a CD's 44.1kHz !)


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Fugal said:


> For me, it's hard to beat the all-analog sound from late 60s to mid 70s Philips LPs. They have a sense of warmth, body, and realism that seems to elude many modern recording companies. Perhaps too many mics and too much digital processing? That said, I have a number of hi-res FLAC and DSD files that sound superb. Since their resolution is higher than a standard CD's, they definitely sound less sterile and clinical, particularly DSD 256 files. (Their sampling rate is 11.2 mHz, 256 x that of a CD's 44.1 !)


In my LP collecting days, it always amused me that LPs from the late 60s to mid 70s, when analog technology reached its peak, were largely ignored by collectors, including those from Philips. Back when those Philips records were new, they were highly regarded. One reason for that, and a legitimate one imo, was that, although analog technology advanced steadily throughout the analog era, towards the end of that era, the major labels, especially those in the US, began to ignore quality control in favor of mass-producing LPs as cheaply as possible. European labels were not entirely immune to that, but Philips in particular continued to put out a good product.

Classical LP collectors tend to view early stereo LPs from the late 50s and early 60s as valued "audiophile" collectibles. I'd have to agree that when those records were reissued in later years, the results were often inferior due to the lower quality manufacturing I mentioned above. However, Philips and many other LPs originally issued in the late 60s and 70s, when better cutting technology, Dolby noise reduction and other innovations appeared, routinely beat the pants off those earlier LPs in sound quality, imho.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

RobertKC said:


> Last year I conducted brief, informal listening assessments of the audio quality of 15 different digital recordings that I own of Beethoven Symphony 9, recorded from 1942 to 2015, including every decade in between.
> 
> 
> CD (Archipel) of a 1942 performance by Wilhelm Furtwängler and the Berliner Philharmoniker
> ...


Robert,

I heartily agree on the question of Blu-Ray audio and Hi-Res in general.

As a fellow aficionado, I recommend the following disc to you:

https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Symphonies-Dolby-Atmos-Blu-ray/dp/B07H62PFS4/









It contains a 192k/24b Dolby Atmos 7.1.2 channel and Stereo 2.0 channel recording of Karajan's 1977 cycle. The 9th is a particular standout. The sound quality is just fabulous - so much so that I undertook the laborious task of ripping the stereo recording to my hi-res music player for listening over my high-quality headphones.

On the general question of what kinds of recordings sound best, I prefer hi-res download or CD pressings of ADD recordings from the mid 60s to the late 70s (e.g. the above). Early digital is hit and miss (but there are hits to be had). Latter-day DDD recordings have definitely caught up to ADD's heyday, though. This one in particular is absolutely smashing:

https://www.amazon.com/Shostakovich-Fifteen-Symphonies-Michael-Sanderling/dp/B07PB1S58D/









Another all-time great Blu-Ray audio disc for me is Karajan's 70's Tchaikovsky cycle:

https://www.amazon.com/Tchaikovsky-Symphonies-CD-Blu-ray-Audio/dp/B07Q5CQBHY/


----------



## Sad Al (Feb 27, 2020)

About Philips, I have their 1980s Peter Schreier and Jean-Louis Steuerman Bach on CD. Excellent sound indeed.


----------



## RobertKC (Dec 9, 2013)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Robert,
> 
> I heartily agree on the question of Blu-Ray audio and Hi-Res in general.
> 
> ...


As I wrote earlier, I'm not a music scholar, and I'm not equipped to critique performances.

I'm curious if you (and other TC members) think that the 1970s era Karajan performances of Tchaikovsky symphonies are significantly better than the 2017 - 2018 performances by Philippe Jordan and the Paris Opera Orchestra?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07M6S8LKY/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1










I very much enjoy the Blu-ray audio/videos of the 2017/2018 performances by Jordan. These 2017/2018 recordings by Jordan feature excellent surround-sound audio quality by virtue of DTS-HD MA 5.1, and the video quality is excellent (1080 high-definition). I enjoy seeing the conductor, musicians, and concert hall, in addition to the excellent audio quality.

I haven't heard the remastered 1970s era Karajan recordings of Tchaikovsky symphonies that you referenced that are available on Pure Audio Blu-ray (i.e., audio-only), so I can't comment on their audio quality. With that said, I'm skeptical about 1970s audio quality, based on owning many vintage recordings, including several that have been remastered and delivered on Pure Audio Blu-ray, or SACD. IME, generally the audio quality of 1970s and older recordings pales in comparison to recordings that were made in the last dozen years and were captured, mastered, and delivered in hi-res.

Switching gears to box sets of all Beethoven symphonies, do you think that the 1977 Karajan performances of Beethoven symphonies that you referenced that are available on Pure Audio Blu-ray are significantly better than all of the following newer performances that feature state-of-the art Blu-ray audio/video?

Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos 2013 performances with the Danish National Symphony Orchestra

https://www.amazon.com/Ludwig-van-B...ords=beethoven+blu-ray&qid=1586621496&sr=8-11










Mariss Jansons 2012 performances with the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00E6FN0SY/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1










Philippe Jordan 2015 performances with the Orchestra and Chorus of the Opera national de Paris

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01J1Y68JM/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1










Christian Thielemann 2008 - 2010 performances with the Wiener Philharmoniker

https://www.amazon.com/Symphonies-B...oven+blu-ray+thielemann&qid=1586621594&sr=8-2










(Apparently repackaged at a lower price: https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Co...s-tv&sprefix=beethoven+,movies-tv,193&sr=1-15)

I also own a few Blu-rays of individual Beethoven symphonies.

Ozawa's 2015 performances of Beethoven Symphonies 2 & 7 with the Saito Kinen Orchestra

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073RBZT58/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_image?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Jarvi's 2018 performance of Beethoven Symphony 4 with the Berlin Philharmoniker:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07F3P77YB/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I enjoy using one of my surround-sound hi-fi systems (vacuum tube based) to play modern Blu-ray audio/videos of classical concerts. IME, Blu-rays that were recorded in the last dozen years or so generally have state-of-the-art audio and video quality, and deliver an in-home experience that's the next best thing to being in the symphony hall. Blu-ray enables me to see many beautiful concert halls that I otherwise would never have seen.

Most important, I very much enjoy the modern performances I've listed above.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

So the ones I listed are indeed audio only. I do think 70s analog sound is wonderful, but of course, different strokes for different folks. I can compare Karajan's '77 Beethoven it to modern (i.e. post-2000) digital cycles by Chailly and Fischer, the latter of which is in 96/24 sound. It holds up well against them in my opinion.

A modern Blu-Ray with both audio and video that is quite estimable is the Simon Rattle/BPO Beethoven cycle. The a/v quality is unimpeachable. The performance is fine, though perhaps not my single personal favorite. It's quite competent, though.

I would be happy to share a few representative tracks from the Beethoven and Tchaikovsky cycles if you'd like to listen to them and evaluate. I would be interested in an outside opinion as to sound quality. PM me if you're interested.


----------

