# Steady Dynamics in Classical Music



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

One thing I look for in classical music is dynamics that are steady, making it a much more pleasurable listening experience for me. So what are some of the catchiest melodies of classical with steady dynamics?

Mozart - Symphony 41 mvt 1 (Harnoncourt)
Mozart - Symphony 40 mvt 1 (Harnoncourt)
Beethoven - Symphony 1 Mvt. 1 (Harnoncourt)
Beethoven - Symphony 1 Mvt. 1 (Harnoncourt)
Bach - Aria from The Goldberg Variations (Lang)
Beethoven - Symphony 5 mvt 1 (Harnoncourt)
Mozart - Fantasy no 3 in D Minor (Gould)
Bach - Cello Suite 1, prelude. (Ma)
Debussy - Clair de Lune (Lang Lang)
Beethoven - Fur Elise (Lang Lang)


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

What the heck do you mean by "steady dynamics"? Does that mean the same volume level? I can assure you 100% that the Beethoven 5th, the Strauss Blue Danube and Mozart 40th have dynamics ranging from very quiet to full throttle loud. Hardly steady.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Koechlin, Heures Persanes


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> What the heck do you mean by "steady dynamics"? Does that mean the same volume level? I can assure you 100% that the Beethoven 5th, the Strauss Blue Danube and Mozart 40th have dynamics ranging from very quiet to full throttle loud. Hardly steady.


certainly steady enough for me.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Captainnumber36 said:


> certainly steady enough for me.


If Beethoven 5 is steady enough for you then almost everything should be as well


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EvaBaron said:


> If Beethoven 5 is steady enough for you then almost everything should be as well


No, it is basically forte to fortissimo throughout. Pls don’t tell me what I should or shouldn’t like, thanks.


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

mbhaub said:


> What the heck do you mean by "steady dynamics"? Does that mean the same volume level? I can assure you 100% that the Beethoven 5th, the Strauss Blue Danube and Mozart 40th have dynamics ranging from very quiet to full throttle loud. Hardly steady.


I remember many years ago, there was a not to serious definition of classical music as "it has loud and quiet bits".
And compared with most pop music and most jazz, most classical music does fit that criterion.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

John O said:


> I remember many years ago, there was a not to serious definition of classical music as "it has loud and quiet bits".
> And compared with most pop music and most jazz, most classical music does fit that criterion.


Not so much in the baroque and classical eras though.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

You can’t fake genius.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> No, it is basically forte to fortissimo throughout. Pls don’t tell me what I should or shouldn’t like, thanks.


This, like every other factual statement you've made in this thread, is completely and verifiably incorrect. Obviously you haven't bothered to look at scores. The opening of Beethoven's Fifth goes from *ff* to *p* in the first few measures and extreme dynamic contrasts are everywhere throughout.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Not so much in the baroque and classical eras though.






Look at this Elettra aria in Idomeneo (1780)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> This, like every other factual statement you've made in this thread, is completely and verifiably incorrect. Obviously you haven't bothered to look at scores. The opening of Beethoven's Fifth goes from *ff* to *p* in the first few measures and extreme dynamic contrasts are everywhere throughout.


In most versions I’ve heard, it is steady. You are forgetting that many performers disobey the score, sir.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Harpsichord music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> In most versions I’ve heard, it is steady. You are forgetting that many performers disobey the score, sir.


Don't be absurd. Get your hearing and/or your playback setup checked.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Don't be absurd. Get your hearing and/or your playback setup checked.


Insightful rhetoric, you are failing to have here, friend.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Philidor said:


> Harpsichord music.


Any stand out pieces?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Look at this Elettra aria in Idomeneo (1780)


I find it a likable yet unmemorable emotionally in its melody.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Insightful rhetoric, you are failing to have here, friend.


Well intentioned advice - Choose your battles carefully and your opponents even more so - You never know if the person you're squaring off against has a Ph.D in Musicology and is also a professional composer, musician, and former academic.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I find it a likable yet unmemorable emotionally in its melody.


Think of it in the context of its accompagnato-


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Shaughnessy said:


> Well intentioned advice - Choose your battles carefully and your opponents even more so - You never know if the person you're squaring off against has a Ph.D in Musicology and is also a professional composer, musician, and former academic.


I don’t care if you are the composer him/herself. I follow what my ears and heart tell me, nothing else.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don’t care if you are the composer him/herself. *I follow what my ears and heart tell me, nothing else.*


That's pretty obvious based on your threads and posts - I was just trying to warn you off from needlessly antagonizing someone who can carve you up like a roast turkey - Consequently, your fate is of your own making.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Deleted


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Here is my assessment test of determining steadiness of dynamics in a work.

I do not mean it is stiff with no fluctuation, but rather, I don’t have to constantly adjust the volume for extremes. I think of lots of Romantic work as having too many extremes.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Shaughnessy said:


> That's pretty obvious based on your threads and posts - I was just trying to warn you off from needlessly antagonizing someone who can carve you up like a roast turkey - Consequently, your fate is of your own making.


All you are really saying here is I agree with Edward and think you are an inferior listener and should stop stating my well reasoned opinions w an authority figure.

This is the snobbiness of this community coming out and why young folks stay away from the scene.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Any stand out pieces?


Bach, WTC I+II
Bach, Goldberg Variations
Bach, Partitas (First Part of Klavierübung)
Bach, Italian Concertoi and French Overture (Second Part of Klavierübung)
Couperin
Rameau


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

jegreenwood said:


> Deleted


Your reading comprehension skills are failing you. I stated the first mvt solely.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

I, for one, don't have a PhD in musicology. This is the first page of the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth:








Goes straight from *ff* to *p*, so definitely not steady. From reading the other posts here, it seems like steadiness isn't what they really meant. Not even dynamic contrast. But maybe dynamic range...? So that you can set the volume at a constant level and hear all the pianissimi clearly without getting your ears blasted off with the fortissimi. 

Assuming I've interpreted this correctly, I have two thoughts about orchestral pieces. One: composers like Tchaikovsky later on in the Romantic era would write crazy dynamic levels like *ppppp*. The orchestra can only play in a certain range of dynamic levels, and adding more notation doesn't change that. It really means that the dynamic levels are more fine-grained, so the difference between e.g. _*p*_ and *mp* is smaller/more precisely defined. Two: Composers writing for a bigger orchestra can get a louder maximum volume, and they can always get quiet sounds by trimming the orchestration at a particular point in the score. Therefore, orchestral writing with a smaller orchestra will probably tend to have a smaller dynamic range. In summary, I would seek out pieces written in the Classical or early Romantic period.

But the conductor is responsible for realizing this at the end of the day, and the size of the orchestra used may differ from those used in the composer's own time. The engineering team will have a _huge_ role in how big or small the dynamic range is in a recording, too. My guess is you listed Harnoncourt's Beethoven because he used a smaller string section than, say, Karajan, so he has that smaller orchestra and consequently the smaller dynamic range. I hope I understood your query correctly and apologize if I didn't; I was also shocked to hear Beethoven's Fifth being described as "steady" in dynamics but I could see how a specific recording might be engineered so that you don't have to touch the volume knob.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Monsalvat said:


> I, for one, don't have a PhD in musicology. This is the first page of the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth:
> View attachment 176969
> 
> Goes straight from *ff* to *p*, so definitely not steady. From reading the other posts here, it seems like steadiness isn't what they really meant. Not even dynamic contrast. But maybe dynamic range...? So that you can set the volume at a constant level and hear all the pianissimi clearly without getting your ears blasted off with the fortissimi.
> ...


You nailed it on all points. I should have defined more clearly as I did later on in the thread in my OP what exactly I meant by steady dynamics. Though, I didn’t seek out Harnoncourt for the smaller orchestra, but that’s most likely the reason it appeals to me.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Your reading comprehension skills are failing you. I stated the first mvt solely.


Which is why I deleted the post. Before your reply. However you are still wrong with respect to the first movement.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Double Post.
.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

jegreenwood said:


> Which is why I deleted the post. Before your reply. However you are still wrong with respect to the first movement.


I think it’s failing you again. Also, you should try to encourage debate rather than hold tight to your beliefs.

Did you read the two previous posts that shed light on the situation?

Also, I tend to have great ears, and perhaps me hearing the work as generally forte to fortissimo could mean we need to reevaluate the frequency cut offs for each term.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it’s failing you again. Also, you should try to encourage debate rather than hold tight to your beliefs.


It's what I like about the member @Luchesi —he always encourages debate rather than to hold tight to his beliefs.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it’s failing you again. Also, you should try to encourage debate rather than hold tight to your beliefs.
> 
> *Did you read the two previous posts that shed light on the situation?*
> 
> Also, I tend to have great ears, and perhaps me hearing the work as generally forte to fortissimo could mean we need to reevaluate the frequency cut offs for each term.


And did you notice I had already "liked" one of them. As for your comments on ears, I will leave that to you and your audiologist.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

jegreenwood said:


> And did you notice I had already "liked" one of them. As for your comments on ears, I will leave that to you and your audiologist.


I have reason to believe you are acting after reading my posts calling you out. A true thinker’s motives would not be as such to attempt to show how you were right, but to arrive at a greater truth through discussion.

You only respond to the petty portions of the discussion rather than the bigger ideas.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

From the very first sonatas composed in his childhood on, Beethoven's music is replete with constrasts and complexity of dynamics - I would say that they are a defining element of his style - so I wouldn't associate "steady dynamics" with him. Pre-Classical era music may be what the OP really wants, for in the Baroque era and before the dynamic range would usually be only *p* to *f*, this when dynamics were notated in the score at all. The harpsichord was incapable of much dynamic change and so we have great keyboard music written with steady dynamics in the first half of the 18th century and before. _The Well-Tempered Clavier_ is a primary example of a masterpiece of keyboard music that doesn't have a single change of dynamics notated in the score, from the first to the last page (they only appear in the piano versions because the pianists invent them).

*J.S. Bach - The Well-Tempered Clavier [Book I] - Gilbert:*


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

This is perhaps slightly pedantic of me, but a two-manual harpsichord is capable of contrasts in dynamics, and a clavichord (for which at least some of the _Well-Tempered Clavier_ was likely intended) is capable of the more subtler dynamics possible by pressing the keys with varying amounts of force like a modern piano. Thus, although something like the prelude from BWV 853 is possible on a single-manual instrument, it makes more sense to keep the melody separate from the accompaniment on manuals with different dynamic levels (and possibly different timbres). And the music that Bach wrote explicitly for harpsichord (e.g. the French Overture) and not just for any keyboard instrument often does have _*f*_ or _*p*_ indications to direct the player to use the correct manuals. (Like how the Dorian toccata explicitly tells the player when to switch between the Hauptwerk and the Oberwerk.) Also, variations in volume/dynamic level are always possible on a harpsichord by adding thicker or thinner textures. The beginning of a fugue is never going to be as loud as, say, the end of the exposition, only because there's a difference between one note being played at once as opposed to three or four simultaneous voices.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Monsalvat said:


> This is perhaps slightly pedantic of me, but a two-manual harpsichord is capable of contrasts in dynamics. (...) Thus, although something like the prelude from BWV 853 is possible on a single-manual instrument, it makes more sense to keep the melody separate from the accompaniment on manuals with different dynamic levels (and possibly different timbres). And the music that Bach wrote explicitly for harpsichord (e.g. the French Overture) and not just for any keyboard instrument often does have _*f*_ or _*p*_ indications to direct the player to use the correct manuals. (Like how the Dorian toccata explicitly tells the player when to switch between the Hauptwerk and the Oberwerk.) Also, variations in volume/dynamic level are always possible on a harpsichord by adding thicker or thinner textures. The beginning of a fugue is never going to be as loud as, say, the end of the exposition, only because there's a difference between one note being played at once as opposed to three or four simultaneous voices.


You're right. I added the magic word "much" to my previous post, so I hope that we can agree that the harpsichord is not capable of much dynamic change except by playing different manuals, each having a pre-set dynamic level - "terraced dynamics" is a term that comes to mind.

Anyway, my main point remains: that much keyboard music from the first half of the 18th century and before has few or no dynamic markings in the score, and that _The Well-Tempered Clavier_ is a case of the latter.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> You're right. I added the magic word "much" to my previous post, so I hope that we can agree that the harpsichord is not capable of much dynamic change except by playing different manuals, each having a pre-set dynamic level - "terraced dynamics" is a term that comes to mind.


Yes this is more agreeable to me.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it’s failing you again. Also, you should try to encourage debate rather than hold tight to your beliefs.
> 
> Did you read the two previous posts that shed light on the situation?
> 
> Also, I tend to have great ears, and perhaps me hearing the work as generally forte to fortissimo could mean we need to reevaluate the frequency cut offs for each term.


Are you seriously saying we need to reevaluate the frequency cut offs for each term because you hear something else than what is a fact? Imagine having such an inflated ego. Maybe you’re wrong and you can see so clearly in the score for yourself


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EvaBaron said:


> Are you seriously saying we need to reevaluate the frequency cut offs for each term because you hear something else than what is a fact? Imagine having such an inflated ego. Maybe you’re wrong and you can see so clearly in the score for yourself


Or maybe you're not being open to what I find to be an interesting idea, un-pompously.


----------



## Doublestring (Sep 3, 2014)

_4'33"_ has steady dynamics.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Doublestring said:


> _4'33"_ has steady dynamics.


Unless someone slams a door during a performance!😎


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Or maybe you're not being open to what I find to be an interesting idea, un-pompously.


Sorry, what was the idea again? Remind me.

I saw only your opinion given as fact and a novel approach to evaluating frequencies based on your ‘great ears’ and your youthful arrogance and the certainty that as a young person on this forum as opposed to all the reactionary fuddy-duddies that inhabit it you must be right!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Barbebleu said:


> Sorry, what was the idea again? Remind me.
> 
> I saw only your opinion given as fact and a novel approach to evaluating frequencies based on your ‘great ears’ and your youthful arrogance and the certainty that as a young person on this forum as opposed to all the reactionary fuddy-duddies that inhabit it you must be right!


You have a great spirit.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Here is my assessment test of determining steadiness of dynamics in a work.
> 
> I do not mean it is stiff with no fluctuation, but rather, I don’t have to constantly adjust the volume for extremes. I think of lots of Romantic work as having too many extremes.


What'd you get yourself into, Capt'n?  A large dynamic range in recordings is usually seen as a plus, but if you are wanting to make it less extreme (like for sleeping or something in the car), you can normalize or compress on an audio editor.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Doublestring said:


> _4'33"_ has steady dynamics.


Not necessarily. Audience may make more or less noise. 
Imagine a situation where the audience are just listening and a situation where they are boo-ing vehemently.
The latter situation is of course relatively improbable concerning the work in question.


----------



## DTut (Jan 2, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Here is my assessment test of determining steadiness of dynamics in a work.
> 
> *I don’t have to constantly adjust the volume for extremes. *


Case in point, the wonderful Bach Tocattas played by Glenn Gould. The volume drops off in some parts so low (almost inaudible) that I would turn it up only to be blasted when the music came back to the 'normal' beginning level. Maybe that's the recording people but I think it is more likely GG's intention.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

You should try to interpret what the op is asking instead of starting a fight about music theory to show that you have done your homework.

Captainnumber36 gives the first movement of the symphony 5 as an example, which probably simply means that he tolerates a dynamic range which goes from ff to p. Perhaps he just has problems with symphonies which goes from fff to ppp, or maybe he simply doesn't like symphonies which have very long quiet moments.
If you think about symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven, they have the characteristic of being energetic: they don't make you sleep. At the same time, however, they are also not excessively pompous.
Sometimes, with other authors, you feel like there is not a balance. Parts which makes you sleep, alternated with parts that are excessively pompous. Captainnumber36 probably likes balanced symphonies, like the ones of Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Here is my assessment test of determining *steadiness of dynamics in a work*.
> 
> I do not mean it is stiff with no fluctuation, but rather, I don’t have to constantly adjust the volume for extremes. I think of lots of Romantic work as having too many extremes.


You aren't talking about works, you're talking about recordings. (Have you even heard the works you mentioned in live performances? Do you understand that the dynamic range in live performance is nothing like that on recordings?) Any misunderstanding of what you meant is due to you either misstating or misunderstanding the subject of your own thread. There is a forum for discussing recordings and recorded music. Perhaps that would have been a better place for your thread?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

edited


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> You aren't talking about works, you're talking about recordings. (Have you even heard the works you mentioned in live performances? Do you understand that the dynamic range in live performance is nothing like that on recordings?) Any misunderstanding of what you meant is due to you either misstating or misunderstanding the subject of your own thread. There is a forum for discussing recordings and recorded music. Perhaps that would have been a better place for your thread?


A very relevant point. The problem when listening to digital recordings _at home_ _in a relatively small room_ is the almost unlimited dynamic range which makes regular corrections of the volume necessary. At a live concert in a large room the variations in dynamic level - even if large - seem natural, and there are no situations where the soundlevel is uncomfortably high or makes the music inaudible.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

premont said:


> A very relevant point. The problem when listening to digital recordings _at home_ _in a relatively small room_ is the almost unlimited dynamic range which makes regular corrections of the volume necessary. At a live concert in a large room the variations in dynamic level - even if large - seem natural, and there are no situations where the soundlevel is uncomfortably high or makes the music inaudible.


Classical Music is better live!


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Maybe try Haydn then. There are certainly some entertaining moments in his music...




George Szell conducting the Cleveland Orchestra.
The famous bassoon note in the slow movement of Haydn's 93rd. (skip to 4:51 in the video)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Monsalvat said:


> Maybe try Haydn then. There are certainly some entertaining moments in his music...
> The famous bassoon note in the slow movement of Haydn's 93rd. (skip to 4:51 in the video)






60th




65th




83rd


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

If, as mentioned in an earlier post, Captain is one of our younger contributors could it simply be that he/she has been exposed to a lot of compressed music from the usual sources that are around these days and that the wider dynamic range of a lot of classical music jars a little.
Just an idle thought.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Malx said:


> If, as mentioned in an earlier post, Captain is one of our younger contributors


How old is he?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Malx said:


> If, as mentioned in an earlier post, Captain is one of our younger contributors could it simply be that he/she has been exposed to a lot of compressed music from the usual sources that are around these days and that the wider dynamic range of a lot of classical music jars a little.
> Just an idle thought.


No, it's just the plain fact that unless you are tuned into your local classical radio station, albums are a tedious listen due to volume fluctuations.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Right: I'll start by linking to the Loudness War wiki page for reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war



> albums are a tedious listen due to volume fluctuations.


So we are all on the same page, that you are interested in what is usually (I think) called “_dynamic range_.” This partially depends on the composition itself, and partially on the acoustics of the venue, the sound engineering, and the mastering process. In pop music at least, there was at one point (starting in the early '90s I think) a trend towards making tracks louder, which also reduces the dynamic range, and reduces the sound quality. Making everything loud forces the already-loud portions to suffer. A really good example is in this video (it's worth a watch, and it's less than two minutes long):




This is why some CD collectors seek out older masterings, from before these "loudness wars", since there is more dynamic range and the recordings sound more alive, even though the average volume of the track is softer. 

In classical, there can be a large dynamic range because of the possibilities of a large orchestra. In a live performance, a large dynamic range would be expected; engineers probably will focus on capturing this large dynamic range and transferring it accurately, rather than changing it to make it easier for the listener at home. Most collectors probably would want a fairly high dynamic range for the reasons I mentioned in the previous paragraph. But this is at odds with your own preferences, which are to leave the volume knob alone. But I think this is essentially what Malx was alluding to; more recent masters may have a smaller dynamic range (which should mean that you don't have to touch the volume knob), but this is at the cost of actual sound quality. BIS is known for issuing classical albums with fairly extreme dynamic ranges; they have a tongue-in-cheek warning about it:









I think that's why this question is hard to answer in general. It depends on the engineers, the record label, and there's a danger that if they don't get it right, the sound will be less alive. If you use foobar2000 to play your music, there's a dynamic range meter plugin (link) which you could use to compare files' dynamic ranges. There are also databases of this such as this one: Album list - Dynamic Range DB. This recording of Beethoven's Ninth has an extremely high dynamic range, for example: (link). A recording of some late Mozart symphonies has a slightly lower dynamic range: (link).

Sorry this is a bit disorganized but I hope it can help you. I do believe the high dynamic range is often done on purpose, but it is at cross-purposes with what you are looking for. Someone with more expertise than I have may be able to correct me or add more information here.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> No, it's just the plain fact that unless you are tuned into your *local classical radio station*, albums are a tedious listen due to volume fluctuations.


My point exactly - most radio stations are transmitting sound that is compressed to some degree. As others have stated in more detail your issue appears to be dynamic range not volume. With regard to classical compositions if the sound is compressed then it isn't truly representing the composers intentions - but of course you also have the additional input from conductors, engineers, and playback equipment.
One point to remember - composers from the time before there was any recording equipment only expected to hear the instruments they were composing for so they would be fully aware of the 'dynamic range' of said instruments and marked scores accordingly for the desired sonic effect.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Malx said:


> My point exactly - most radio stations are transmitting sound that is compressed to some degree. As others have stated in more detail your issue appears to be dynamic range not volume. With regard to classical compositions if the sound is compressed then it isn't truly representing the composers intentions - but of course you also have the additional input from conductors, engineers, and playback equipment.
> One point to remember - composers from the time before there was any recording equipment only expected to hear the instruments they were composing for so they would be fully aware of the 'dynamic range' of said instruments and marked scores accordingly for the desired sonic effect.


Which is why I conceded that older music tends to be better live.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I don't get the problem with having a natural dynamic range listening at home or anywhere else. It's not complicated: good headphones or a good stereo system is all there is to it.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

I think I might know what's bothering our OP about the dynamic range of later music. The other day I wanted to hear some Beethoven piano sonatas, but I wanted to hear them really loud, so I put the CD player through my PA. ( the one I use to put on the old rock and roll show when need be)

trouble was, the first track was the opening of the Moonlight Sonata. Ashkenazy is playing the opening very softly...I can't hear anything in the speakers, so I push the fader up higher...and higher...and forgetting this was Beethoven I slid the volume fader ever higher 

THEN... 

the first "Forte" section almost blew the windows out of my house

maybe that's what he's talking about?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think the instrumentation has something to do with it. Crash cymbals are more common in Romantic symphonic music. And the music generally builds more gradually to the climaxes in Romantic music. So the ear hasn't acclimatized to the louder passages (sounds contradictory, but I mean since the last loud passage). Add to that the engineer would need to account for the softer passages and loud climaxes. Loud passages with cello say in Beethoven can't compete with the ear-splitting cymbal crashes. It's usually the cymbals that gets me running to the volume knob.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think the instrumentation has something to do with it. Crash cymbals are more common in Romantic symphonic music. And the music generally builds more gradually to the climaxes in Romantic music. So the ear hasn't acclimatized to the louder passages (sounds contradictory, but I mean since the last loud passage). Add to that the engineer would need to account for the softer passages and loud climaxes. Loud passages with cello say in Beethoven can't compete with the ear-splitting cymbal crashes. It's usually the cymbals that gets me running to the volume knob.


And the triangle, sometimes. Both instruments can be quite piercing. This is a good point.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> I don't get the problem with having a natural dynamic range listening at home or anywhere else. It's not complicated: good headphones or a good stereo system is all there is to it.


When the circumstances are ideal you are of course right. The problem is that the circumstances are often not ideal. For example, one's listening room may be so small that it is uncomfortable to listen at a high volume, but then one may perhaps not be able to fully hear the quieter passages. It may also be that you cannot allow yourself to turn up the volume too much for the sake of the neighbours, and then you may not be able to hear the quiet passages either. Of course one can use headphones, but they are tiring to use in the long run, and even the best headphones reproduce the sound in such a way that it feels as if the music is coming from the center of one's brain, which is highly unnatural. I only use headphones if I want to analyze the music, for example to decode an organist's choice of stops. Already listening through floor speakers presupposes some form of mental abstraction, but with headphones you have to abstract far beyond that.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

premont said:


> When the circumstances are ideal you are of course right. The problem is that the circumstances are often not ideal. For example, one's listening room may be so small that it is uncomfortable to listen at a high volume, but then one may perhaps not be able to fully hear the quieter passages. It may also be that you cannot allow yourself to turn up the volume too much for the sake of the neighbours, and then you may not be able to hear the quiet passages either. Of course one can use headphones, but they are tiring to use in the long run, and even the best headphones reproduce the sound in such a way that it feels as if the music is coming from the center of one's brain, which is highly unnatural. I only use headphones if I want to analyze the music, for example to decode an organist's choice of stops. Already listening through floor speakers presupposes some form of mental abstraction, but with headphones you have to abstract far beyond that.


I find less "abstraction" with headphones. Tiring?


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> I find less "abstraction" with headphones. Tiring?


Yes tiring for the ears and mentally tiring. I do not stand headphones for more than 30 minutes - too short for the Choral.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

premont said:


> Yes tiring for the ears and mentally tiring. I do not stand headphones for more than 30 minutes - too short for the Choral.


Agreed. Headphones can be tiring.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

I do almost all of my listening with headphones... opera, symphonic music, piano, harpsichord, organ, chamber music, _Lieder_. It's possible to get used to it. You need comfortable headphones and you must be cautious to protect your hearing. I prefer it because a) nobody else has to hear what I'm listening to, if others are around, and b) it's easier at a reasonable price to hear the stereo sound-image, and it's just more analytical/detailed. And headphones are more affordable. But certainly not for everyone.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Monsalvat said:


> I do almost all of my listening with headphones... opera, symphonic music, piano, harpsichord, organ, chamber music, _Lieder_. It's possible to get used to it. You need comfortable headphones and you must be cautious to protect your hearing. I prefer it because a) nobody else has to hear what I'm listening to, if others are around, and b) it's easier at a reasonable price to hear the stereo sound-image, and it's just more analytical/detailed. And headphones are more affordable. But certainly not for everyone.


I have tried several headphones including Stax Gold, which by then was marketed as being the best of all, but I didn't find them tolerable in the long run. As you write the sound is rather analytical particularly in stereo, but I only rarely listen with specific analysis in mind. And I find the sound-stage of stereo floor speakers more natural and relaxing for general listening than the sound-stage of stereo headphones. An as to mono reproduction I find floor speakers even more suitable than headphones.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I have some Fluance speakers that are sensational. I love them, and the sound is spectacular! I favor them to my headphones.


----------

