# How Much Does Audio Quality Matter in Recordings?



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

To me, there are two ways in which I find audio quality quite important to the experience of classical music (and all music, really): one is that better audio quality allows you to simply hear "into" the music better, to distinguish the different parts and discern how they're working as pieces within the whole. This is a big issue I have with old, mono recordings of classical: it often sounds like the music coalesces into a single blob in which the parts are often indistinguishable, if they're even discernable at all, from within the blob. Sometimes this isn't ruinous, especially when the performances are phenomenal (Furtwangler's Beethoven is my gold standard here), or when the focus is on an individual instrument. 

The second is that there is undeniably an aesthetic effect that comes from sound itself, and when that sound is blurred by recording defects--too much reverb, too harsh/strident, bad tonal balance, etc.--then this inevitably negatively impacts on how I perceive the quality of the music as it lessens the quality of my experience. Rationally, ideally, one should be able to separate the quality of the music and the quality of the performance from the sound; pragmatically speaking I find it difficult to do this, and I wonder to what extent other people do too, or even how conscious they are of it. I've often found that my opinion on pieces has changed merely by encountering a recording in better sound, at least as much as it's changed by encountering a recording with a better performance. 

Interested to hear other people's thoughts.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> .. I've often found that my opinion on pieces has changed merely by encountering a recording in better sound, at least as much as it's changed by encountering a recording with a better performance.


That can increase my appreciation of works I already like. The sound engineers of classical recordings are unsung heroes. I am always looking for a broad sound stage and being able to hear where individual instruments are. And I always like to hear the ambiance of a great concert hall; the Concertgebouw recordings always stand out (eg. Brahms Piano Concertos, Leon Fleisher).


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Agree with both. Orchestral works are usually harder for me to listen to compared to chamber music, since sometimes instruments are too soft for the harmonies to be audible. 

The second thing you mentioned is important when listening to anything with violins or flutes. It's too easy for them to sound too shrill & painful to the ears


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Obviously this is a tough one. I've listened to tens of thousands of quartet recordings and although I might find some performances fascinating / amazing sometimes I just can't live with the recorded sound and if I do own then find that I very rarely play them. In SQs the biggest dealbreakers for me are uber-wiry string sound, excessive reverberance, shrill violins, background noise that's very intrusive (audience, hiss, crackling, etc) or 'the missing cello'. If you can't hear all the details obviously this impacts very negatively on the recording. As I said, it all depends. I'm not just talking about older recordings here. I can think of some more recent recordings of quartets where the sound has ruined the performance (eg some of the Kontra Quartet recordings on BIS have horrid sound but are played really well). Really I just go on merit one recording at a time. If it sounds off to me then that's all I need and I really don't care what others recommend to me.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Ideally, the recording process should disappear leaving you, the listener, sitting there marveling at the music. Anything which gets between you and the music will interrupt the communication between the composer and you the listener. That can include a poor performance, a poor recording, a recording format that adds noise, a stereo that doesn't reproduce accurately, kids running through the living room.....

Within those params, getting good sound versus great sound versus state of the art sound makes little difference. As long as you can hear what's going on, you and the composer are communicating.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

A lot.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

As someone who has taken to YouTube videos of concerts for much of the symphonic literature, I find that the miking and general production is often superb, and hence the sound of a piece of music is much enhanced, both by the sonics but also by the eye-of-god visual experience. I find the best YouTube miking to be equal to anything on CD.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> As someone who has taken to YouTube videos of concerts for much of the symphonic literature, I find that often the miking and general production is often superb, and hence the sound of a piece of music is much enhanced, both by the sonics but also by the eye-of-god visual experience. I find the best YouTube miking to be equal to anything on CD.


I've also found the format doesn't really matter: YouTube, CD, SACD, DVD, Blu-ray... they can all be good or bad depending on the actual recording. The only problem with older YouTube is that the quality of the audio was often tied to the video, so lower-quality videos (in terms of resolution) would lower the bitrate of the audio. I don't think YouTube does that anymore, and I haven't noticed the issue on most YouTube classical uploads in the last ~7 years. Of course, many YT uploads are direct from the CDs themselves.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Getting great sound has been a life-long quest for me and getting the best sounding recording is a large part of that. I can accept a lower calibre performance if the sound is sensational. That's why I bought all of the early Telarc recordings when they came out 40 years ago. Over the years I have acquired practically every standard repertoire work that I care about in a first-class recording, often in SACD, but not always. I'll be the first to admit that some performances are not the greatest, but the glorious sound makes up for a lot of flaws! In chamber music I am much less picky and opera is a whole other story.

For most of my collecting years I steered clear of older, mono recordings and even newer ones from lousy companies like Melodiya. But in the past few years I have picked up many of the big boxes despite a large number of pre-stereo recordings and I have adjusted; the musical performances are sometimes so riveting that I soon ignore the dated mono sound. That Ormandy Legacy box from Sony is a knockout. When it comes to new recordings of well-recorded music though, they'd better have demonstration class sound before I'll buy.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Audio quality matters how much? 

Precisely 17.632 KIU*.

*Knorfian-Importance-Units


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Non-silly answer:

Ideally, I want the audio playback to be essentially transparent, with as close to nothing as possible that might take me out of or distract me from the immersion of the listening experience itself. I can tolerate to some degree audio imperfections and distractions, if the performance itself is sufficiently remarkable or distinctive in itself to absorb my attention.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

The quality and/or significance of a performance can render sound quality irrelevant. The only existing recording of Shostakovich performing as soloist in his own Piano Concerto No. 2 sounds horrible. But remains important for obvious reasons.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Usually if the audio is good I won't notice it, and if it's particularly good or particularly bad I may. The biggest question for me is whether a recording is in mono or stereo; I'm fine with Klemperer's Beethoven and Brahms recordings ca. 1957 even though I can hear that the strings, for example, aren't quite natural. I don't have audiophile-quality equipment, anyway, so I am content if the recording itself is quietly present but not attracting my attention.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Recording quality matters but it is not the only criteria for me; performance and/or artistry is more important. Anyone who owns home equipment can improve any recording through a CD burner or computer. I've found recordings made in 2021 that were made at such a low level I had to reinvent them to be suitable for my own use.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I am generally fine with listening to recordings from the late 50’s and onwards. Like someone already said Klemperer’s Brahms and Beethoven sound fine to me but for example I don’t listen to Walter’s famous mono Brahms 2nd from 1952 because the sound is too intruding. I wouldn’t go further below Heifetz’s 1955 Beethoven violin concerto I think.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I spent most of my pro life in and out of some of the best studios in the world so I'm biased towards high fidelity in sound. I don't much listen to older recordings that do not catch the bloom of an orchestra in a good space, or favour a close, dryer sound no matter the artists. The room and more importantly, the engineer/producers and their faithful capturing and balancing of it through micing and mixing techniques have always been a vital and critical aspect of music making and listening and today's recording techniques are incredibly sophisticated and detailed. I'm wondering what Dolby atmos will bring to the party.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

mikeh375 said:


> I spent most of my pro life in and out of some of the best studios in the world so I'm biased towards high fidelity in sound. I don't much listen to older recordings that do not catch the bloom of an orchestra in a good space, no matter the artists. The room and more importantly, the engineer/producers and their faithful capturing and balancing of it through micing and mixing techniques have always been a vital and critical aspect of music making and listening and today's recording techniques are incredibly sophisticated and detailed. I'm wondering what Dolby atmos will bring to the party.


With older recordings do you mean mono or also 60’s and 70’s?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

EvaBaron said:


> With older recordings do you mean mono or also 60’s and 70’s?


I'm ok with the Beatles recordings . My library of classical/orchestral recordings does not have anything older than the 70's I think (although thinking about it, George Martin's score for 'Yellow Submarine' sounds great, so the 60's would probably be ok!). I do only mean that my classical recordings have to be excellent as can be attested by my CD's of Bix Beiderbecke, so mono for anything that was done in mono is fine too, just not something like Daphnis and Chloe.


----------



## sAmUiLc (9 mo ago)

Unless the mastering/transfer is wretched, I will listen especially when the performance is worthy.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've also found the format doesn't really matter: YouTube, CD, SACD, DVD, Blu-ray... they can all be good or bad depending on the actual recording. The only problem with older YouTube is that the quality of the audio was often tied to the video, so lower-quality videos (in terms of resolution) would lower the bitrate of the audio. I don't think YouTube does that anymore, and I haven't noticed the issue on most YouTube classical uploads in the last ~7 years. Of course, many YT uploads are direct from the CDs themselves.


As I have posted on another TC forum, the Frankfurt Symphony's YouTube videos are top-notch when it come to both miking and to image quality. They are all of relatively recent origin.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Extremely important. That is why many of the "classic" choices of Toscanini/Furtwangler/Klemperer are of little interest to me. There are so many performances that are as good and in much better sound.


----------



## OCEANE (10 mo ago)

Audio quality definitely matters to me as I really enjoy playing good recordings through my audio setup, though i don't consider my setup up to audiophile standard.

In short, from music appreciation perspective and with a nice audio setup, audio quality does matters.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Extremely important. That is why many of the "classic" choices of Toscanini/Furtwangler/Klemperer are of little interest to me. There are so many performances that are as good and in much better sound.


Toscanini & Furtwangler I can understand, but most of the classic Klemperer recordings (i.e. after about 1956) are in very good stereo, e.g. Missa Solemnis, Fidelio, Mahler, Bruckner...


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Classical recording adopted digital recordings from the beginning (for the most part) and never really looked back. 
I have been an audiophile on and off over my lifetime and use a relatively high-end system (pictures and description of which is post elsewhere here at TC). This includes a VPI turntable with Rega tonearm and Sumiko BP Spec. MC cartridge. 
And my turntable and CD player gather dust.
YouTube or Spotify for sampling is just fine. And ripped CDs to my computer, for file use either at home or portably is most convenient. 
Audio quality matters most for composers who are into large-scale orchestration. E.g., Mahler.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Becca said:


> Toscanini & Furtwangler I can understand, but most of the classic Klemperer recordings (i.e. after about 1956) are in very good stereo, e.g. Missa Solemnis, Fidelio, Mahler, Bruckner...


yes if you like the performances. Unfortunately by that time Klemperer had slowed


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

The quality of recordings doesn’t matter but I’m not a hi-fi buff. There are some excellent recordings from the 50s like some of the early Karajan recordings which are in some ways better balanced than some of his later recordings. Obviously there is nothing like a modern digital recording but then I do not have super duper hi-fi equipment to do it justice nor do I have the hearing to pick up every detail


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Noise cancelling headphones and iTunes have been a revelation to me. 

How I survived train/tube journeys to work beforehand, I do not know…

What was it that Sartre said about Hell, again?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> As I have posted on another TC forum, the Frankfurt Symphony's YouTube videos are top-notch when it come to both miking and to image quality. They are all of relatively recent origin.


100% agree on Frankfurt's YT channel, which I also subscribe to! Another great one is AVROTROS Klassiek.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There are some historical recordings that burst through to my aesthetic sweet spot despite poor sound. The Toscanini Brahms symphonies recorded in London are one example as is Beecham's Sibelius 2 coupled with Dvorak 8 and Vaughan Williams's own recording of his 4th symphony. Also some live Furtwangler from during the war. Sometimes I can enjoy Schnabel's Beethoven. Of course, there are many more in similarly limited sound that do nothing for me.


----------



## 2SR (9 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> To me, there are two ways in which I find audio quality quite important to the experience of classical music (and all music, really): one is that better audio quality allows you to simply hear "into" the music better, to distinguish the different parts and discern how they're working as pieces within the whole. This is a big issue I have with old, mono recordings of classical: it often sounds like the music coalesces into a single blob in which the parts are often indistinguishable, if they're even discernable at all, from within the blob. Sometimes this isn't ruinous, especially when the performances are phenomenal (Furtwangler's Beethoven is my gold standard here), or when the focus is on an individual instrument.
> 
> The second is that there is undeniably an aesthetic effect that comes from sound itself, and when that sound is blurred by recording defects--too much reverb, too harsh/strident, bad tonal balance, etc.--then this inevitably negatively impacts on how I perceive the quality of the music as it lessens the quality of my experience. Rationally, ideally, one should be able to separate the quality of the music and the quality of the performance from the sound; pragmatically speaking I find it difficult to do this, and I wonder to what extent other people do too, or even how conscious they are of it. I've often found that my opinion on pieces has changed merely by encountering a recording in better sound, at least as much as it's changed by encountering a recording with a better performance.
> 
> Interested to hear other people's thoughts.


Listening to a terrible recording almost forces your imagination to work; as if you can kind of tell the nature of the music but have to work to entirely get there. The pops and crackles etc definitely add unwanted sound that affects the music's tone. Like you said, it also just distorts what is recorded.

One fascinating thing I've heard of, is composers hearing added notes in music that aren't actually in the recording. Its like the composer's way of fixing it in their head. This tends to happen if the music is obviously lacking or if it is quiet, then the notes get cognitively filled in. I had a music professor who would try and buy one modern recording, and one awful and obsolete recording of the same piece so that he could enjoy it, while also elaborate on it in his mind by hearing the blurred one. This reminded me of that. He said it was a little different for him each time.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Recorded sound quality is certainly important, but for me, probably finishes close 2nd to the performance itself...
There are many pre-1955 recordings that are quite good sounding, tho dated....many of these from great conductors, soloists and orchestras...
sound quality improved greatly, esp in the mid-late 50s....and many of these recordings still stand up well in today's world, and have been available consistently since then...
great sound quality, for me, tho certainly welcome, cannot redeem a mediocre, bland or pedestrian performance..it makes for a superb sounding recording of a lackluster performance...No thanx....


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Becca said:


> Toscanini & Furtwangler I can understand, but most of the classic Klemperer recordings (i.e. after about 1956) are in very good stereo, e.g. Missa Solemnis, Fidelio, Mahler, Bruckner...


Yes, better than Toscanini & Furtwangler but still noticeably worse than more recent recordings. A prime example is the Brahms symphonies. Great performance but certainly not that great that it stands head and shoulders above better-recorded ones. I've listened to it twice and I never go back to it preferring instead the much better sound of Solti with Chicago, Abaddo with Berlin or Dohnyani with Cleveland orchestras.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

I generally don‘t want anything totally unlistenable and when it comes to instrumental music I never really find an absence of great recordings in good-excellent sound. When it comes to operatic recordings I settle for poorer sound as the standard of singing has declined so much and even in the 50s fully casting an opera with great voices wasn’t always easy and live recordings are generally a better representation of the talent of the time.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I can get used to antiquated sound technology if I'm listening to a lot of it within the same time from. If I go from something that is very high fidelity and pristine, it;s hard for me to shift to something from the 1940s that sounds as if it was recorded through a tin can. Someone mentioned the liked of Furtwangler and Toscanini who I think are worth the effort. The only thing I have found to be completely unlistenable are live recordings where audience noise ruins the slow movements with sniffling, sneezing, coughing, and throat clearing. A terrible example of this is the historic and controversial Glenn Gould/Leonard Bernstein recording of Brahms' _Piano Concerto #1_ where Bernstein publicly said that he disagreed completely with Gould's musical vision but still decided to perform it Gould's way out of the respect he had for Gould's sense of sincerity and integrity. It's too bad that slow movement can't be tolerated.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Is it possible that high quality (audio) recordings in todays digital age work to the disadvantage of todays performers. My point being, for example, if a 1940's highly regarded live recordings has detail and nuance hidden by sizzling sound of frying eggs in the mix - is it possible the deficiencies are hidden from our ears?

Just a thought.


----------



## wormcycle (Oct 14, 2020)

Sound quality is extremely important and that applies to almost every aspect of sound perception: soundstage reality, separation of instruments, resolution, dynamics, timbre of instruments etc... All my "education" in music comes from obsessively reading and rereading of Aaron Copland "What to listen for in music". One of the first things he proposes to learn how to listen to polyphonic music is to repeatedly listen to Bach chorale *BWV 639* _*Ich ruf zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ, *_listening first to each each of three voices separately, then ten all then all the pairs etc..
Try to do it with bad recording. I listen to music 1-2 hours a day trying to keep my full attention the the music is unfolding. Any obvious flaws in the recording is a distraction.
Some orchestral and choral works are incomprehensible to me without good sound stage, instrument separation, and resolution. Good sound quality helps me fully experience the texture and the structure of a composition. That for me is the most important. I know it may be controversial but I do not care as much to what extent the recording is close to life performance. At some point I switched almost entirely to high end headphone gear. O ne obvious advantage is that it eliminates a listening room from the path, and the resolution you can get with good headphone gear would cost 10xmore in the two channel speaker setup.
But.. what is the most irritating is to hear a great performance damaged by bad sound engineering, and no label is immune to that. DG butchered the sound of cello in the Emerson String Quartet The Art of Fugue Cont 4.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

wormcycle said:


> ...... DG butchered the sound of cello in the Emerson String Quartet The Art of Fugue Cont 4.


DG butchered a sizeable chunk of the Emerson recordings. Taken in isolation they dont sound that bad but when you do side-by- side comparisons you hear the deficiencies. The difference between the worst DG recordings of the the Emersons (eg their Mendelssohn quartets) and their recordings away from the label (their Schumann cycle on Sony) are huge. I've always said that DG had no idea how to get the best from that great quartet. That horrid, flat soundstage on some of their recordings was a travesty. Btw, to back up my earlier point about the Kontra Quartet and BIS I've just listened to their recording of Tchaikovsky's 3rd quartet for my next blog review. Guess what?... Horrid over-reverberant sound but excellent playing. Not one I will be returning to regardless of a decent account. Sound quality matters.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

Despite decades of collecting classical recordings I have little of Toscanini/NBC Symphony beyond the Beethoven symphonies because I simply cannot stand the dry, cramped sound. Monaural doesn't bother me-- I bought the Ormandy Legacy box.


----------



## wormcycle (Oct 14, 2020)

Merl said:


> DG had no idea how to get the best from that great quartet.


The Emerson late Beethoven quartets recording, particularly No. 12, is an exception. But overall if you compare, for example, Harmonia Mundi sound engineering of Cuarteto Casals, I have to agree with you, DG work is just a great disappointment.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Malx said:


> Is it possible that high quality (audio) recordings in todays digital age work to the disadvantage of todays performers. My point being, for example, if a 1940's highly regarded live recordings has detail and nuance hidden by the addition of the sizzling sound of frying eggs added into the mix - is it possible the deficiencies are hidden from our ears?


Why would anyone add bacon sizzling to a recording? Most modern remasterings go to great lengths to REMOVE that grease.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

NoCoPilot said:


> Why would anyone add bacon sizzling to a recording? Most modern remasterings go to great lengths to REMOVE that grease.


Ahh, but he said 'eggs' not 'bacon' .. frying eggs on a 78rpm makes perfect sense!


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

NoCoPilot said:


> Why would anyone add bacon sizzling to a recording? Most modern remasterings go to great lengths to REMOVE that grease.


Ok badly worded - but I suspect you got my point. Post now edited.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Ludwig Schon said:


> Noise cancelling headphones and iTunes have been a revelation to me.
> 
> How I survived train/tube journeys to work beforehand, I do not know…
> 
> What was it that Sartre said about Hell, again?


The only reason I don't use noise cancelling headphones on the bus and train is knowing me, I'll forget to charge them. I'm getting to the point I can't remember where I set down my screwdriver 5 minutes ago.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Malx said:


> Is it possible that high quality (audio) recordings in todays digital age work to the disadvantage of todays performers. My point being, for example, if a 1940's highly regarded live recordings has detail and nuance hidden by sizzling sound of frying eggs in the mix - is it possible the deficiencies are hidden from our ears?
> 
> Just a thought.


Constant noises are fairly easy for our ears to tune out. Tape hiss, for instance, is a lot less annoying (to me) than the pops and crackles of a dirty LP. Is a noise-free recording a disservice to the performer? No. Why would it be?

Sometimes the additional fidelity reveals the sausage-making behind the sizzling meat though. I never noticed the extravagant tape splicing in the Beatles catalog until they were released on Compact Disc.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

progmatist said:


> The only reason I don't use noise cancelling headphones on the bus and train is knowing me, I'll forget to charge them. I'm getting to the point I can't remember where I set down my screwdriver 5 minutes ago.


Pockets. Keep a USB charging cable and a screwdriver in your pocket at all times. These days you're never more than 4 feet from a USB port.

And you can keep your screwdriver on a coaster to prevent table rings.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

NoCoPilot said:


> Why would anyone add bacon sizzling to a recording? Most modern remasterings go to great lengths to REMOVE that grease.


And too many engineers do so too aggressively and remove some of the musical information. Sort of tossing out the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Listeners are spoiled by today's recorded sound that is better than what one hears in the concert hall. They are easily seduced into believing the artificialities of recording technology are the art form instead of the acts of composing, interpreting and performing the music.

If I believed sound quality was the most important element in recordings -- which are meant to be listened to at home, possibly for years -- I'd never have made acquaintance with many of my favorite recordings including Furtwangler's Brahms 4th symphony from 1948, Horenstein's 1966 commercial recording of Schoenberg's Verklarte Nacht, and Hermann Abendroth's 1949 radio broadcast recording of the Bruckner 5th symphony with the Leipzig Radio Symphony Orchestra. These recordings all have shortcomings compared to anything made after them. In each case were I to have judged sound more important than artistry I'd have had to settle for less than the most satisfying version available for my extended home listening.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

larold said:


> Listeners are spoiled by today's recorded sound that is better than what one hears in the concert hall.


I don't know about symphony halls, but I've had such terrible experiences with execrable sound at live rock concerts that I have CERTAINLY come to prefer recorded rock to live.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

wkasimer said:


> Sort of tossing out the baby with the bathwater.


If your baby hisses, stop and count the arms and legs.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

NoCoPilot said:


> Pockets. Keep a USB charging cable and a screwdriver in your pocket at all times. These days you're never more than 4 feet from a USB port.
> 
> And you can keep your screwdriver on a coaster to prevent table rings.


That's assuming I'll always remember to put a charger and/or cable in my pocket.


----------



## thejewk (Sep 13, 2020)

Most of the music I have listened to throughout my life has been poorly recorded DIY stuff, where often the character of the recording is shaped by the circumstances in which the recording was made. As a result I'm not overly sensitive to the quality of a recording, but I do appreciate it when the effort has been made. What I dislike most it extraneous noise on otherwise clear recordings, such as Gould's humming or footsteps and paper rustling on recordings that don't mask them naturally.

That said, I find some recordings unlistenable when, for example, strings are captured in an overly resonant, unbalanced and squeaky manner.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I used to think of sound as very important when I first started collecting 30 years ago. In fact I wanted everything in digital.

Then when I discovered the great recordings of yesteryear, my priorities completely changed. Great sound is like a static quality. It impresses at first. But over time the great interpretations stimulate me more. Obviously I completely disagree that the historic recordings have all been equaled or surpassed. That has not been my experience. If anything, the emphasis on perfection with improved technology has contributed to a static quality with the music making itself.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But over time the great interpretations stimulate me more. Obviously I completely disagree that the historic recordings have all been equaled or surpassed. That has not been my experience.


Agreed....a great performance, recorded decently from the past is tough to beat....for me, the performance generally takes precedence over the actual sound quality....a brilliant recording of a lackluster performance is still lackluster...


----------



## Fredrikalansson (Jan 29, 2019)

I agree with Brahmsianhorn and Heck148. Great performances can transcend the limitations of the recording; no dismal performance was redeemed by brilliant sound. If sound is all that matters, then it doesn't matter what we're actually listening to.

Great performances with limited sound? RVW's recording of his 4th has been mentioned. A performance that hasn't been equalled (IMHO). 

Yehudi Menuhin's teenaged recording of the Elgar violin concerto, composer conducting. 

Malcolm Sargent's 1945 recording of _Gerontius. _

Abendroth's 1944 Meistersinger. Kempe's Berlin Meistersinger. Both life affirming experiences.

Furtwangler's _Tristan_. Is there a digital recording to compare? 

And the list goes on.

To my mind, the true beauty of the digital age are not faultless contemporary recordings, but the emergence of technology that allows these gems from the past to be recovered, restored and preserved.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Fredrikalansson said:


> To my mind, the true beauty of the digital age are not faultless contemporary recordings, but the emergence of technology that allows these gems from the past to be recovered, restored and preserved.


Yes, the Digital Age has allowed many premium performances from the not-too-distant past to remain in print. 

"Preserved"? Yes. 
"Restored"? Somewhat. 
"Recovered"? Not really.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I like old things. I like old books, old movies, old TV shows, and old music. Almost all the classical music to which I listen is from the "Golden Age". It was not intentional. I just grew up in the 1980s and as a teenager with limited income I relied mostly upon RCA and CBS budget lines of reissues that featured musicians such as Toscanini, Stokowski, Bernstein, Ormandy, Reiner, Szell, Heifetz, Stern, Serkin, Horowitz and others who to me are still the gold standard. While some antiquated sound technology can be a bit annoying, after a while like watching a black and white movie it doesn't seem to matter once you get into the music. Sometimes I'm almost bothered by modern day sound technology that is just too waxed, polished and pristine; and I how do I know for sure that even in a live recording that they didn't go back and touch things up in the recording studio? I have a "live" recording somewhere of a symphony that was recorded over four days, so they either patched a few things up in the studio or they took from more than one concert, splicing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th movements from whatever night they thought that movement sounded better. Would you rather listen to an old recording that is lacking in some kind of sound quality but you know was done in all one take; or would rather listen to something that is so finely tuned, and edited, and presented in a way that is in no way possible in real life? And that don't bother you? Do I need to be so fussy that one little pop, or hiss, or one wrong note, or one bassoon coming in too early, is going to spoil the rest of the recording, To me sound technology is supposed to make you feel like you're there, to approximate the experience of hearing live music; not to create something so clean and clinical that it loses it's edge.

I went to a Baroque concert a while back where they did Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_, and there were some children there, and I guess the parents prepared them by playing recordings of the _Four Seasons_ in the car or around the house. When the musicians began to play a few notes got a bit bobbled up, and I heard a kid say to his Mom, "Mommy, they're playing it wrong!" Is that the kind of listeners we want to be?

Those same Baroque players also played works by Corelli and Telemann, but since nobody knows those works by heart no one in the audience seemed to notice or care if they got a few things wrong, and it sounded OK to me.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Coach G said:


> I like old things. I like old books, old movies, old TV shows, and old music. Almost all the classical music to which I listen is from the "Golden Age". It was not intentional. I just grew up in the 1980s and as a teenager with limited income I relied mostly upon RCA and CBS budget lines of reissues that featured musicians such as Toscanini, Stokowski, Bernstein, Ormandy, Reiner, Szell, Heifetz, Stern, Serkin, Horowitz and others who to me are still the gold standard. While some antiquated sound technology can be a bit annoying, after a while like watching a black and white movie it doesn't seem to matter once you get into the music. Sometimes I'm almost bothered by modern day sound technology that is just too waxed, polished and pristine; and I how do I know for sure that even in a live recording that they didn't go back and touch things up in the recording studio? I have a "live" recording somewhere of a symphony that was recorded over four days, so they either patched a few things up in the studio or they took from more than one concert, splicing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th movements from whatever night they thought that movement sounded better. Would you rather listen to an old recording that is lacking in some kind of sound quality but you know was done in all one take; or would rather listen to something that is so finely tuned, and edited, and presented in a way that is in no way possible in real life? And that don't bother you? Do I need to be so fussy that one little pop, or hiss, or one wrong note, or one bassoon coming in too early, is going to spoil the rest of the recording, To me sound technology is supposed to make you feel like you're there, to approximate the experience of hearing live music; not to create something so clean and clinical that it loses it's edge


Excellent points, Coach, and 100% correct. Today's multi-tracked waxed, polished & shaved recordings can be VERY sterile and squeeze all of the joy, all of the magic out of a piece of music.

Performance reigns.


----------

