# Where do you draw the line on sound quality...?



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

quote: bigshot- If you aren't able to be flexible enough in your tastes and sonic requirements to appreciate historical recordings, you miss out on an awful lot. I can't think of Italian opera without thinking of Caruso and Galli-Curci. And I would hate to live without my Melchior, Schnabel or Walter/VPO records. There really are many things that can only be found in dusty old grooves.

This issue was raised during the discussion of Leopold Stokowski. Where do you draw the line concerning sound quality on recordings? I have a great many favorite recordings form the 1950s, 60s, and 70s... and a few even older... and yet beloved recordings with performers such as Melchior and Kirsten Flagstad, Jussi Björling, Beniamino Gigli, Mafalda Favero, Amelita Galli-Curci, the Busch Quartet, Pablo Casals, and Dinu Lipatti which date from the late 1920s through the 1940s. I also have a number of live operatic recordings from the 1950s. I am able to put up with the limited sound quality (to a given extent) when focused especially upon vocal recordings... as well as solo and small group instrumental performances. In almost all of these instances I also have at least one other newer, modern recording of the works in question. I find most orchestral recording before a certain date become too muffled and murky until one cannot even discern the various instruments at all and generally avoid them. What about you? Where are your limits in terms of how old or how limited in sound-quality is acceptable?


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2012)

There are two factors, quality of sound and quality of performance. The latter will always win with me, but I do try to get both of these things to be as good as possible.

Still, a boring performance in pristine sound doesn't do a thing for me. A thrilling performance in terrible sound makes me wish that the sound were better. But I'd keep the latter in my collection and jettison the former. That is, I'd keep listening to the latter, but I'd probably only listen to the former once or twice. (Twice is just wishful thinking at work, you know.)


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

The one thing I can't stand is when you can hear that constant "static" noise in the background...I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about lol. It completely ruins the experience for me, and I try to avoid it at all costs. Aside from that one thing the sound quality isn't hugely important to me as long as the music is good!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

It's partly about expectations. When I listen to a so-called "historic recording", I don't expect it to sound like a studio recording of today. The few occasions when I do listen to such recordings, it is usually of historic interest in that _particular performance_, and not of the piece of music, which is secondary. For the music itself, I would have modern recordings to enjoy in the usual way. In some cases, the recordings are indeed so old that only tantilizing sketches of details can be heard. Take for example this recording of a genuine castrato, "_Alessandro Moreschi was born in 1858 and he was the only castrato singer to make solo sound recording_"






In this case, I don't know/don't really care what piece he was singing. We can't really hear it all that clearly but it gives a reasonably good impression of the bygone art, which is what I'm interesting in listening for. Tolerable, yes considering when it was done. Lots and lots of hiss.

My preference is for relatively new recordings; being a high-fidelity nut myself, I prefer modern recordings. Even live recordings with the odd noise here and there are rare (in my collection anyway), and I'm not bothered by them because it is a live recording afterall, and I expect there to be such noises. Most are now completely filtered out anyway. I don't have a single CD in my collection that I hate/can't stand because of unwanted background noise/"historic noise" because I expect such noise to be there (minimal in all cases anyway). I wouldn't consider myself a historic recording collector in anycase.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I personally don't bother much with old recordings. There are enough good new ones, and I'm not that interested in historical greats.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Music is best listened to in the concert hall, and so listening through a recording really should be an emulation of that. Historical recordings fail (to a certain degree) in this regard due to the lack of quality, which can sometimes be distracting but always falls too far short of the 'live' standard. 
That said, there are definitely many historical recordings where the performance is just tremendous, that the recording quality can be ignored.

IMO


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

some guy said:


> There are two factors, quality of sound and quality of performance. The latter will always win with me, but I do try to get both of these things to be as good as possible.
> 
> Still, a boring performance in pristine sound doesn't do a thing for me. A thrilling performance in terrible sound makes me wish that the sound were better. But I'd keep the latter in my collection and jettison the former. That is, I'd keep listening to the latter, but I'd probably only listen to the former once or twice. (Twice is just wishful thinking at work, you know.)


Totally agree, but I do draw the line at pre-electric recordings, they're usually so bad I feel they're more as a historical document rather than something that is musically rewarding.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I don't mind, really, but usually the really old ones give me a headache, especially if they've been treated for noise poorly. So I guess I draw the line at physical pain.


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

I'm perfectly willing to listen to historical recordings, like the remarkable performance by the castrato submitted by Harpsichord Concerto. But a recording like that is only to stimulate intellectual curiosity. In other words, it is more reminiscent of the recordings of the speech of Johannes Brahms than it is of a piece of music that I can fully enjoy.

As an example, Louis Armstrong recorded West End Blues with his Hot Five in 1928. The performance has no bass instruments at all - the piano has to provide the rhythm. The drums are restricted to what sounds like drumsticks being tapped together. This occurred because recording techniques of the time would be overwhelmed by any loud sounds in the bass range. 





Here's Armstrong with a live version recorded in Milan in 1955. The drums and bass are present, the sound quality is so much better, and Louis still has his amazing technique - and he also sings in this version. Although the first version would be one that would be essential for the study of jazz history, this is the version that I'd much rather listen to.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I start to lose interest if the recording's from before about 1940 or so.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

I'm generally okay with old recordings as long as the pitches themselves aren't distorted.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I used to hate old recordings, but I've changed. If the performance is great (and that's the big "if"), the sonic limitations become secondary.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Sound quality is not strictly related to the date of the recording. It's related to the original recording quality, the condition of the elements and the quality of the transfer and digital restoration.

I have Caruso records that were recorded acoustically, that when I play them on my acoustic Victrola, you can hear every nuance and breath Caruso takes. And I have digital recordings that are unlistenable due to lousy engineering. It all depends.

I've done transfers and restoration of records as old as a century or more. People would be amazed at the quality of sound that can be extracted from them. But not every CD label takes care to ensure quality transfers. Some just slap records on CDs with no noise reduction or equalization, and others go overoard on band pass filtering and extreme digital noise reduction. It seems that there's only one way to present a record properly, but a million ways to mess it up.

There are also recordings, like Schnabel's Beethoven that have a lot of problems stacked up on top of each other... Noisy shellac surfaces, low volume level, distant miking, etc. But the performance justifies going the extra mile to present it as well as possible.

It's hard to generalize about sound quality, because it's so variable and there are so many factors involved.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I'll post a couple of case studies...

When I first got an acoustic phonograph- a cabinet model Victrola- I was shocked at how much better acoustically recorded records sounded on it as opposed to transfers I had on CD. I did some research and discovered that the phonograph manufacturers back in the teens were utilizing some sophisticated psycho-acoustic principles to make reproduced sound better. They designed the records to suit the machines and the machines to suit the records. When we go to transfer to CD, we use a totally different type of needle, different equalization, different playback system- different everything. That's why acoustic recordings sound so dim. Most labels treat them as just crummy sounding electrical recordings and that's what they get.

I wanted to do an experiment to see if I could get a record from 1903 to sound on CD the way it did on my phonograph. It took a lot of listening and back and forth comparisons. It also took some pretty complicated digital processing. It's ironic that it's more work to get this record to sound good using current equipment than it is using contemporary equipment from almost a century ago. Here is the track I came up with. This is Pryor's Band doing an early ragtime with cakewalk from 1903. Almost 110 years old.

http://www.vintageip.com/oldstuff/records/VIP-RP-1001Trk18.mp3

The hardest restoration I ever took on was Schnabel's Eroica and Diabelli Variations. These records are regularly digitally mauled on CD. I spent six months transferring, restoring and throwing out my work and starting over until I discovered a technique that eliminated the "bacon and eggs" sound without impacting the slightly distant piano sound.

http://www.vintageip.com/oldstuff/records/VIP-CL-1001Trk2.mp3

I also lucked upon a first pressing of Walter's 1935 first act of Die Walkure and got some astounding sound out of it.

http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/16.m4a

It is possible to get great sound out of old recordings, but it takes work and patience.

Also, just because it's on 78s, it doesn't mean that it isn't a high fidelity recording. There were FFRR 78s too...

http://www.vintageip.com/oldstuff/records/VIP-CL-1007-Trk08.mp3

For comparison, here is the same track with no noise reduction...

http://www.vintageip.com/oldstuff/records/VIP-CL-1007-Trk08raw.mp3


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

For solo/small chamber works, I'm pretty tolerant so long as the individual lines are fairly audible. I really don't have any problem with background buzz in this context either. For any large chamber ensembles or orchestral pieces I tend to prefer modern recordings unless the historical recording is especially good. For choral works I would not even consider historical recordings.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> A thrilling performance in terrible sound makes me wish that the sound were better.


But sometimes, that can be very difficult to determine indeed, especially if one loves music like this, how does one tell?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm gonna be that guy. 

I like it all, there's something to be said for all of it. 

I have a totally irrational romantic identification with the static of mono recordings. I listen to it and think about the people who heard it back in the day... 

I also like the early stereo sound. So much great music in all genres came out within a few years of 1968, and I think the recording technology deserves more credit for it. 

And then on some modern recordings, especially choral and orchestral music, I love the clarity.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But sometimes, that can be very difficult to determine indeed, especially if one loves music like this, how does one tell?


We need to organize a grudge match.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

High Fidelity LP records were introduced in 1952. Stereo LP records started to come out around 1957.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

If you buy your recordings to listen to for pleasure and relaxation there is nothing wrong with that at all. If you want to see "Aida" get an up to date DVD, but if you wish to delve deeper you will have to listen to old records. Who was this woman who had an ice cream sundae named after her--the Peach Melba?
I recently read the following:" Frieda Leider was far and away the finest Brunnhilde or Isolde I had heard...and of the few others I have heard since only Birgit Nilsson is comparable...Flagstad, though exceptional was not in the same class". Now any Wagner enthusiast would like to know more but they will have to listen to recordings from the late 1920's or early thirties.
The voice always recorded well but I admit that with a few exceptions such as Schnabel and Rachmaninoff I am not keen on old piano records. The same goes for orchestral, I cannot imagine sitting down to a 1928 recording of Tchaikovsky's fourth. Having said that I recently purchased Mischa Elman playing Wieniawski and Tchaikovsky violin concertos on Naxos historical, the transfers were done by the brilliant Mark Obert Thorn and are first class.(1929/1930)
As a mere mortal I could not dream of doing what bigshot is capable of, but it is important that you get good transfers and at the right speed!!! Historical records are used as reference points and they do not take the place of ultra modern complete recordings. O the other hand you will not have heard anything like the 1928 La Scala "Aida" with Dusolina Giannini, Irene Minghini-Cattaneo and Aureliano Pertile. With this you could show your friends that the art of singing "Italian Style" has gone.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> I'm gonna be that guy.
> 
> I like it all, there's something to be said for all of it.
> 
> ...


Why do you get static on your mono recordings?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

I guess you're asking at what point in does the poor sound of the recording disqualifies itself as a desert island recording? Since there are many important historical documents that I listen to from time to time but would not consider desert island simply because of the sound e.g. the 1937 Tristan with Flagstad. I still listen to historical recordings from the 30s and 40s occasionally, but they are already "past" the so called line I've drawn.

Looking at my collection, there are only a few mono recordings that I would consider "first choice", overall, for any given work. Jochum/DG/Brahms3, Furtwangler/EMI/Beethoven9, Furtwangler/DG/Schubert9, a few Richter mono recordings of miscellaneous pieces.

Of course I strive to, as does everyone else, aim for the harmonious mean. When the sound is in spacious stereo, better sound becomes a rather trivial affair. I'm not a strict audiophile, one of those folks that praised Karajan's DG Parsifal at the expense of Knappertsbusch's 1962 Philips account for Karajan's better studio sound. Few conductors make use of their studio advantage anyways.

For the older recording to be first choice the performance has to be _considerably better_ than the alternative in studio, and the sound not too poor. Even though I love Knappertsbusch's 1951 Gotterdammerung account, and it's easily the best conducted one, I'd still place the Solti and Keiberth ahead of it for sound alone (and better sung Siegfrieds).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I generally go for stereo, but mono is fine if it's remastered well (which is most of the times, I'm not fussy). I think some of these hybrid multichannel things are so artificial, it's not funny. So too clear, with eg. the oboe in your face as well as the brass and strings, hearing them all at once, isn't natural. That's the other extreme of the audiophile thing. But most of these SACDs have been good, only one I can think of that's been too artificial and ruined the performance for me.

Some ancient performances are indespensable to me, eg. Elgar conducting his own concertos with Yehudi Menuhin and Beatrice Harrison, the singing of opera stars of the pre-1945 era like Caruso & Gigli to name two favourites of mine, Horowitz's early recordings, Gieseking's playing of Debussy's _Preludes_, Bruno Walter's account of Mahler's 9th with the Vienna Philharmonic in 1938 (my favourite and the best, imo), and many more. Some of these I had before but they're still in my memory strongly.

I know a few people personally who are obsessed with audio quality and buy only modern recordings. I think it's their loss, they are missing out on some great performances of the past. I can't talk with them about historic recordings because they haven't been exposed to them due to being overly selective in this way. Also, classical radio stations here shy away from playing these older recordings as they get negative feedback from pedantic audiophiles. But once I heard a recording of Heifetz playing Walton's concerto dedicated to him, and I though "wow!" I don't like Heifetz much, but that was amazing. Again, exposure is a key thing here...


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I was 'lucky' enough to make light shows with a (insert musical idiot term) at one point and when I was assigned a project where at least half of the music was classical he debated strongly that it had to be ddd while I knew it had to be about the performance. Of course I would never choose a terribly scratchy version, either, as this was for the public and had to be played at a fairly loud level but in the end the people got to hear the best possible performances of the pieces whether it was ddd or add or ocd.

In the end, for me, there is no limit on how bad a recording can sound but I draw the line quick on a bad interpretation. I would listen to any amount of crackling if I could just once hear Liszt play or Beethoven or Paganini. Prime example: Grieg's 1903 or so recordings. After a while, the crackling is all gone and it is only me and the Trollmeister.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

bigshot said:


> High Fidelity LP records were introduced in 1952. Stereo LP records started to come out around 1957.


Some shaky knowledge of audio history around don't you think?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

It's more of an issue of production and how it was recorded, for me. I don't really care if there's some fuzz and cracks if I can hear the instruments that are supposed to stand out.

When I was stuck on a long drive without any CDs, I'd do weird stuff like tune the radio so the station comes in covered in static. Merzbeethoven.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> I guess you're asking at what point in does the poor sound of the recording disqualifies itself as a desert island recording? Since there are many important historical documents that I listen to from time to time but would not consider desert island simply because of the sound e.g. the 1937 Tristan with Flagstad. I still listen to historical recordings from the 30s and 40s occasionally, but they are already "past" the so called line I've drawn.
> 
> Looking at my collection, there are only a few mono recordings that I would consider "first choice", overall, for any given work. Jochum/DG/Brahms3, Furtwangler/EMI/Beethoven9, Furtwangler/DG/Schubert9, a few Richter mono recordings of miscellaneous pieces.
> 
> ...


No, I don't think that was meant at all. I covered this question above, historical recordings are used as a reference point in history where usually you play say an aria at a time maybe for your own pleasure or reference. Alternatively to friends or for a lecture to your record club, it would be most unusual to play a whole work. However, I see nothing wrong with treating LPs from the mono days no differently from stereo later recordings. I think some people have forgotten, or were not alive, how poor many early stereo rcordings were. The other point is ,do you keep your records clean, it may seem a hassle but I have the first LP I bought in early 1950's and it is still almost perfect. My cleaning machine is made by Nitty Gritty in the USA, it makes use of alcohol and brushes.,By the way what's the point of a stereo piano recording? (Somebody will now tell me). Early acoustical recordings should not be a problem in any way, the orchestra will sound lousy but that's because there's hardly one there at all. Instruments had to be substituted because they wouldn't record and so on. But it doesn't matter a damn because the people listening will mostly know the music inside out. If you listen to McCormack singing "De Miei Bollenti Spiriti" from Traviata recorded at the beginning of the 20th century the voice comes across wonderfully and it may well be the best version, the rest you fill in mentally.So of course this is not really for beginners, unless they are singing students, because they should be exploring the repertoire first.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Bruno Walter's account of Mahler's 9th with the Vienna Philharmonic in 1938 (my favourite and the best, imo).


I did a transfer and restoration of that one too. Great performance.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

moody said:


> Some shaky knowledge of audio history around don't you think?


Not even remotely relevant to the point I was making.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> Not even remotely relevant to the point I was making.


Really, first you are about ten years out in what you say and earlier you mention static on mono recordigs. I queried this ,you gave no reply--you see there is no static on mono recordings because static is an electric charge. You may be introducing one but then it would not effect only mono.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

moody said:


> Really, first you are about ten years out in what you say and earlier you mention static on mono recordigs. I queried this ,you gave no reply--you see there is no static on mono recordings because static is an electric charge. You may be introducing one but then it would not effect only mono.


You're right. I didn't try hard enough. I'll be more pedantic next time.

On the bright side, I have learned something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sound_recording

Audible tape hiss was not essentially eliminated until the 1970s. So, yeah, I was off by a decade or so - but in the other direction.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

moody said:


> . However, I see nothing wrong with treating LPs from the mono days no differently from stereo later recordings.


I did exactly that. I said there were a few mono records that were my first choice.



> I think some people have forgotten, or were not alive, how poor many early stereo rcordings were.


No, I don't think so. There are many early stereo records that are atrocious, and mono from the same period or even the early period that are better than poor digital recordings. DECCA 1952 sound was decades ahead of other studios.



> By the way what's the point of a stereo piano recording? (Somebody will now tell me).


What's the point of any recording?

When Brahms' friends invited him to see Don Giovanni, he said, "No, no one does Don Giovanni how I want it, when I crave Don Giovanni I sit on the couch and read the score". He finally decided to go, and fell asleep on the couch.

http://www.laphil.com/philpedia/piece-detail.cfm?id=96

Why record at all? 

Oh right, because one does not *know the music well enough, doesn't know it in and out.*



> Early acoustical recordings should not be a problem in any way, the orchestra will sound lousy but that's because there's hardly one there at all. Instruments had to be substituted because they wouldn't record and so on. But it doesn't matter a damn because the people listening will mostly know the music inside out.


If most people know the music inside out, again, why listen to recordings at all?



> If you listen to McCormack singing "De Miei Bollenti Spiriti" from Traviata recorded at the beginning of the 20th century the voice comes across wonderfully and it may well be the best version, the rest you fill in mentally.So of course this is not really for beginners, unless they are singing students, because they should be exploring the repertoire first.


And what if you're not a True Opera Fan?

http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2007/04/i_love_the_inte.html


----------



## Rangstrom (Sep 24, 2010)

Music and peformance first, sound second. Many of my favorite recordings are low-fi, although given the tools now available it is shocking how good some of the older recordings can sound. A good example is the latest M&A release of the Furtwängler's 1944 Bruckner 8.

Some recordings can't be saved, but with a little tolerance you can still hear some amazing performances. The Naxos Met Ring '37-'41 is a good example. Sound is pretty rough at times.

Given the bargain prices on classical music these days, it is easy to have both the great historical performance and the sonic showcase of the same piece.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Re CDs, there was a time when I occasionally bought old. That was in the mid 1980's when much less was available.

Currently, and for about twenty years, for solo piano I can go back to the 1950's for reasonable sound satisfaction. For orchestration, the 1960's.

That's not to say I won't listen to anything prior to those periods...but it'd be for novelty, at somebody else's expense, and not for my collection.

There's enough out there now, that we can have our cake and eat it, too.

View attachment 3551


----------



## AndyS (Dec 2, 2011)

I'm not at the point yet where I've listened to many older works (I think in my collection Furtwangler's live Ring on EMI or Callas' first studio recording are about as low-fi as it gets), but have listened to the odd curiosity on youtube (e.g. Dame Eva Turner singing Turandot, Flagstad's 1937 Isolde) to hear a star name perform in their prime and have been able to get past the technical limitations of the sound no problem - if it's something that is of interest to me, I will put up with poor sound.

I think the worst quality I've heard was Flagstad premiering Strauss' Vier Letzte Lieder - and having heard it, not something I would be buying for the collection. But something I very much wanted to hear, and I was able to get past the exceptionally poor sound to get what I wanted


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

Webernite said:


> I start to lose interest if the recording's from before about 1940 or so.


I actually collect pre-war dance band and jazz recordings on 78's and they can sound surprisingly good.
Electrical recording started to replace the old acoustic recording in the late twenties and by the 1930's they were starting to sound pretty good.

This is my unmodified 1935 Murphy Radiogram with a 78's from the 1930's.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

When it comes to jazz, I do not care at all about the sound quality. IMO the recordings from the 20s sound amazing, one band playing live in a room together. 

When it comes to classical, I want to catch all the nuances of the original orchestration. I demand much higher standards and I do not think that that mono recordings are much more than historically significant. Even if the performances are timeless, the sound quality ultimately impacts my enjoyment.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> When it comes to jazz, I do not care at all about the sound quality. IMO the recordings from the 20s sound amazing, one band playing live in a room together.
> 
> When it comes to classical, I want to catch all the nuances of the original orchestration. I demand much higher standards and I do not think that that mono recordings are much more than historically significant. Even if the performances are timeless, the sound quality ultimately impacts my enjoyment.


This is also true for a lot of Bel Canto, but not true for Wagner.

Or Mahler.

Responding to an eMail of mine on a Wagner list wherein, with the exception of Das Rheingold, I declared the Karajan recording of Wagner's Ring a "perverse joke" because of Karajan's bizarre conceit that Wagner - even mature Wagner - should be made to sound as intimate and lyrical as Verdi, a TOF (True Opera Fan; like a teenage movie fan, only worse - much worse) lodged objection, and went on to cite his reasons, all of which had to do with the singers involved.

How did I know the responder was a TOF? He went on, and on, and interminably on about the singers and the singing, that's how. The principal (but not sole) distinguishing hallmark of the TOF is that he's convinced opera means Italian-form opera, and is therefore about one thing and one thing only: the singers and the singing. Whenever one encounters a critique of a performance of a mature Wagner work (i.e., those works post-Lohengrin) that dwells interminably on the singers and the singing, one can be certain one is dealing with a TOF, and safely dismiss the critique as being near-worthless. TOFs imagine that the works of the mature Wagner are nothing more than Italian opera writ large and sung in German; a bit like saying the noble elephant is merely a piddling rock hyrax, only bigger and with a trunk.

The mature Wagner operas (more correctly called music-dramas) are, of course, nothing of the sort. They're animals of a different order altogether from Italian and Italian-form opera, and share with them only the technical apparatus of performance: an orchestra and conductor, singers, a sung text (libretto), an orchestral score, and mise en scène. Beyond that they've nothing in common.

*If one were pressed to choose the principal element of a Wagner performance - that element on which the success or failure of the realization of the work most depends - the choice, hands down, would have to be the orchestra. Without a first-rate orchestra with a first-rate Wagner conductor on the podium, not merely a first-rate conductor, nothing - and I do mean nothing - can save the performance from being second-rate at best*; not even were all the sopranos Nilssons, all the tenors Melchiors, and all the bass-baritones, Papes. By contrast, a performance of an Italian opera with a merely competent orchestra with even a mere accurate time-beater on the podium would prove just dandy if less than ideal so long as all the voices were superb.

Why it that so? It's so because Wagner's music-dramas are about the drama, the core of which resides within the orchestra, while the typical Italian opera is about the singers, the "songs," and the singing almost exclusively, everything else being at bottom mere pretext and platform.

Perhaps you doubt my word on this (as I'm fairly certain you will). If so, may I suggest to you the following little thought experiment.

Imagine a first performance (first so that one could not mentally fill in anything missing) of, say, Verdi's grandest grand opera, Aida, done in a house with an almost non-existent budget; so much non-existent that all it can afford beside the singers' fees are a piano and piano-player. The singers, however, are the very best; superb voices all.

Despite the absence of all the normal operatic accouterments (i.e., the "platform") it would still be experienced as a coherent, comprehensible, even an almost satisfying performance notwithstanding its being way less than ideal, wouldn't it?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

presto said:


> I actually collect pre-war dance band and jazz recordings on 78's and they can sound surprisingly good.
> Electrical recording started to replace the old acoustic recording in the late twenties and by the 1930's they were starting to sound pretty good.
> 
> This is my unmodified 1935 Murphy Radiogram with a 78's from the 1930's.


Oh, man, I wish I had one of those! I have several 78s from the '40s, and they just sit lonely in my record stack.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I draw the line at the onset of recordings available to us. Period. They are a document. This is like wishing the pyramids were fully restored. You get to see them as they are, or you miss them, it is that simple. Yes, some are not bearable upon repeat listening, all the glitches and 'distant' sound, the lack of full spectrum audio, but I maintain they are all worth listening to at least once; if you want a scintilla of an idea of what a performer sounded like, or performance practice of that period, that's where one goes. You know there is a recording of Tchaikovsky speaking? Are we even granted the option of being fussy if we want to hear it?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> It's more of an issue of production and how it was recorded, for me. I don't really care if there's some fuzz and cracks if I can hear the instruments that are supposed to stand out....


Agreed there, good audio engineering is exactly that, no matter if it was done 50 or even 100 years ago - eg. them doing the best with the technology they had at the time. I have some mono recordings which I can hardly notice they're mono, they sound very clear (of course, these have been remastered onto cd, but I'd argue it shows that those sound engineers back in the old days knew what they were doing)...


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> You're right. I didn't try hard enough. I'll be more pedantic next time.
> 
> On the bright side, I have learned something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sound_recording
> 
> Audible tape hiss was not essentially eliminated until the 1970s. So, yeah, I was off by a decade or so - but in the other direction.


Static was the word you used. Tape hiss or in the case of shellac surface noise is a completely different thing. When you are talking about something" scientific" you have to be pedantic so people know what you are talking about-----I thought you would have known that!
When are you going to answer the questin :"Where do you draw the line on sound quality?"


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

presto said:


> I actually collect pre-war dance band and jazz recordings on 78's and they can sound surprisingly good.
> Electrical recording started to replace the old acoustic recording in the late twenties and by the 1930's they were starting to sound pretty good.
> 
> This is my unmodified 1935 Murphy Radiogram with a 78's from the 1930's.
> [...]


Thanks much. Nice presentation.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> Static was the word you used. Tape hiss or in the case of shellac surface noise is a completely different thing. When you are talking about something" scientific" you have to be pedantic so people know what you are talking about-----I thought you would have known that!
> When are you going to answer the questin :"Where do you draw the line on sound quality?"


_science_ requires no defense from me, he's much better at repartee than I; however, if you will take as example the Schnabel Beethoven recordings from the 30s, as transferred from EMI 78s by the Pearl engineer, the surface noise has a close resemblance (to the ear, not to spectral analysis) to pink noise radio static. I suspect that is what he was referring to. calling the surface noise 'static' is only slightly sloppy.

Seeing as how I am here, I may as well say that my 'line' on sound quality is more like a wide, trampled field. Depends on what's in it. That 'static' is not nearly the problem that 'wow' is.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

BRIANWALKER.
Do you actually go to the trouble to read posts before answering them? I must say you are consistant. This is going to be a waste of time but:

Me: "I think some people have forgotten, or were not alive, how poor many early stereeo records were".
You: No I don't think so.
What, everybody was alive then and nobody has forgotten?

Me:"what's the point of a stereo piano recording?"
You:What's the point of any recording?
Sensible and helpful!!

You:"If most people know the music inside out why listen to music at all??
Me:a)To see how different artists interpret the piece. Most people in the category I refer to would know the piece inside out.
B) I was, in this case, explaining that when listening to acoustic recordings you can fil;l in the accompaniment mentally. I am quite sure that everyonr but you understood that.

You: What if you're not a true opera fan?
Me; Then you wouldn't be listening to ancient acoustic recordings, even you can see that.

I am quite aware of the Douglas thing and it is of no import. You know you can go on bouncing around these forums like the ball in a pinball machine as long as you wish but you must have something sensible to say.
Please don't bother responding for I will not.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> _science_ requires no defense from me, he's much better at repartee than I; however, if you will take as example the Schnabel Beethoven recordings from the 30s, as transferred from EMI 78s by the Pearl engineer, the surface noise has a close resemblance (to the ear, not to spectral analysis) to pink noise radio static. I suspect that is what he was referring to. calling the surface noise 'static' is only slightly sloppy.
> 
> Seeing as how I am here, I may as well say that my 'line' on sound quality is more like a wide, trampled field. Depends on what's in it. That 'static' is not nearly the problem that 'wow' is.


I was only trying to find out what he meant. In fact my first unanswered qery was to see if I could be of help. I could not make out whether he was referring to mono LP's or 78''''s.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> I was only trying to find out what he meant. In fact my first unanswered qery was to see if I could be of help. I could not make out whether he was referring to mono LP's or 78''''s.


Understood. There is enough 'static' to go around. The LP transfers the EMI engineer (whose name I can't remember) made of those Schnabel Beethoven recordings, using the technology available to him, removed most of the 'static', and in doing so introduced 'artifacts' such as low level 'burbling' and what sounds like wow. Following the path taken by many Schnabelites before me, I was able to listen to the Pearl transfers, and mentally tune most of the 'static' out. That tuning process seems to generate 'air' to replace the 'static'. It's a wonderful thing, what the mind can do, eh?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I draw the line at the onset of recordings available to us. Period. They are a document. This is like wishing the pyramids were fully restored. You get to see them as they are, or you miss them, it is that simple. Yes, some are not bearable upon repeat listening, all the glitches and 'distant' sound, the lack of full spectrum audio, but I maintain they are all worth listening to at least once; if you want a scintilla of an idea of what a performer sounded like, or performance practice of that period, that's where one goes. You know there is a recording of Tchaikovsky speaking? Are we even granted the option of being fussy if we want to hear it?

It's a nice analogy... but ultimately fails if you place the composer and the music before the performance. We have no alternative but to accept the pyramids and the Parthenon in their fragmentary stage. We are not so limited when it comes to Wagner's _Ring_ or Mozart's _Don Giovanni_. Certainly I have any number of recordings that I consider well beneath the ideal in terms of sound quality which I still deem as necessary due to the brilliance of the performance: Melchior and Flagstad performing excerpts from Wagner c. the mid- 1930s, Pablo Casals performing Bach's cello suites, the Busch Quartet performing Beethoven's quartets, a young Yehudi Menuhin playing Bach's violin concertos, a chilling Maria Callas performing Medea live in Huston, recitals by a young Jussi Bjorling, Benjamino Gigli, Glenn Gould talking and mumbling while playing Bach, etc... I purchased these given older/historic recordings because I felt there was something special about the performance, yet in almost every instance I also have a more recent, higher-fidelity recording.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

There is no 'recent, higher fidelity recording' of Schnabel playing Beethoven. You don't have one. You are the guy who asked about the line, yet you are, while fighting the conclusion desperately, admitting that there is no line.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Brian Walker- What if you're not a true opera fan?
Moody- Then you wouldn't be listening to ancient acoustic recordings, even you can see that.

How do you define a "true opera lover?" It would seem to me that one could be a true opera lover and not have more than a passing interest in historical performances before a given period. You undoubtedly define yourself as a "true opera lover". How many recordings of operas by Monteverdi, Alessandro Scarlatti, Baldassare Galuppi, Jean-Baptiste Lully, Marc-Antoine Charpentier, Henry Purcell, Jean-Philippe Rameau, Antonio Vivaldi, G.F. Handel, Johann Adolph Hasse, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, Christoph Willibald Gluck, or Giovanni Paisiello do you have? What of operas by Frederick Delius, Alexander von Zemlinsky, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Kurt Weill, Alban Berg, Franz Schreker, Igor Stravinsky, Sergei Prokofiev, Dimitri Shostakovitch, Richard Strauss, Paul Hindemith, Gian Carlo Menotti, Erich Korngold, Mieczysław Weinberg, Hans Werner Henze, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Rodion Shchedrin, Philip Glass, Emmanuel Nunes, Daniel Catan, Oliver Knussen, Kaija Saariaho, Jake Heggie, Thomas Adès, Laurent Petitgirard, André Previn, Benjamin Britten, Ernst Krenek, Patricia Racette, Carlisle Floyd, Louis Andriessen, John Adams, Leos Janacek, Bohuslav Martinu, Tobias Picker, Leonardo Balada, etc...? I know of individuals that I would deem true opera lovers whose interests are focused upon Baroque-era operas... and others whose interests center upon Modern and Contemporary opera... opera as a living and vital contemporary art form.

Moody- Most people in the category I refer to would know the piece inside out.

So you, naturally, know all of the operas by these above-named composers inside-out?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

There is no 'recent, higher fidelity recording' of Schnabel playing Beethoven. You don't have one. You are the guy who asked about the line, yet you are, while fighting the conclusion desperately, admitting that there is no line.

In case you missed the point, Schnabel wasn't the composer... Beethoven was, and regardless of your opinions on Schnabel, there have be plenty of great recordings of Beethoven's sonatas made since Schnabel.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> There is no 'recent, higher fidelity recording' of Schnabel playing Beethoven...


That's a good point (lateral thinking?), I never thought of it like that...


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

I place very high value to good sound quality, but even more to good performance. Ideally, though, I'll seek recordings that have both. Sound quality is very important, but I really like to hear the little details in orchestrations that make some compositions stand out as masterpieces. 

That being said, my favorite recording of Elgar's Violin Concerto is with Menuhin (with the composer conducting) - IIRC, a 1932 recording (yikes!). Despite the age, it is the one I constantly go back to.

I also recently bought some discs with Furtwangler conducting some (orchestral only! still coming to terms with opera, haha) Wagner, and it is absolutely fabulous. Sound quality is adequate enough, and the performance just brings it out of this world.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> however, if you will take as example the Schnabel Beethoven recordings from the 30s, as transferred from EMI 78s by the Pearl engineer, the surface noise has a close resemblance (to the ear, not to spectral analysis) to pink noise radio static. I suspect that is what he was referring to. calling the surface noise 'static' is only slightly sloppy.


the Schnabel Beethoven 78s are famous for that. The official term among collectors is "bacon crackle". The Beethoven Sonata Society, which released the Schnabel Beethoven cycle, pressed at Victor in the UK. British shellac is infamous for crackly surfaces, due to a peculiar type of filler they used in the shellac.

Pearl is one of those labels that releases raw transfers to be as "authentic" as possible. But the fact is, impulse noise like UK bacon crackle is very easy to remove digitally, without impacting the music at all. For Schnabel, Mark Obert Thorne's transfer for Naxos is very good. I did the Diabelli and Eroica variations and got fantastic results, but it was a LOT of work.



Hilltroll72 said:


> removed most of the 'static', and in doing so introduced 'artifacts' such as low level 'burbling' and what sounds like wow.


No excuse for either of those things. EMI doesn't care. They just crap stuff out and expect everyone to like it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> there have be plenty of great recordings of Beethoven's sonatas made since Schnabel.




But great as they are, they aren't Schnabel. That touches on the primary interest in historical performances... If we want Beethoven, there are plenty of modern recordings to choose from. The reason to collect historical performances isn't for the composer- it's for the performer. There are plenty of fine modern recordings of most everything, but there are no modern recordings of Gigli, McCormack, Caruso, Schnabel, Toscanini or Rachmaninov at the keyboard. Modern thinking is that the performer is just the delivery man delivering the composer's goods efficiently and faithfully. But that wasn't the way it was appoached back then. The performer was a peer with the composer, and there were performers who were skillful and charismatic enough to pull it off. I find them fascinating and well worth collecting.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Brian Walker- What if you're not a true opera fan?
> Moody- Then you wouldn't be listening to ancient acoustic recordings, even you can see that.
> 
> How do you define a "true opera lover?" It would seem to me that one could be a true opera lover and not have more than a passing interest in historical performances before a given period. You undoubtedly define yourself as a "true opera lover". How many recordings of operas by Monteverdi, Alessandro Scarlatti, Baldassare Galuppi, Jean-Baptiste Lully, Marc-Antoine Charpentier, Henry Purcell, Jean-Philippe Rameau, Antonio Vivaldi, G.F. Handel, Johann Adolph Hasse, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, Christoph Willibald Gluck, or Giovanni Paisiello do you have? What of operas by Frederick Delius, Alexander von Zemlinsky, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Kurt Weill, Alban Berg, Franz Schreker, Igor Stravinsky, Sergei Prokofiev, Dimitri Shostakovitch, Richard Strauss, Paul Hindemith, Gian Carlo Menotti, Erich Korngold, Mieczysław Weinberg, Hans Werner Henze, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Rodion Shchedrin, Philip Glass, Emmanuel Nunes, Daniel Catan, Oliver Knussen, Kaija Saariaho, Jake Heggie, Thomas Adès, Laurent Petitgirard, André Previn, Benjamin Britten, Ernst Krenek, Patricia Racette, Carlisle Floyd, Louis Andriessen, John Adams, Leos Janacek, Bohuslav Martinu, Tobias Picker, Leonardo Balada, etc...? I know of individuals that I would deem true opera lovers whose interests are focused upon Baroque-era operas... and others whose interests center upon Modern and Contemporary opera... opera as a living and vital contemporary art form.
> ...


Please don't be ridiculous. In any case thisTrue Opera Fan ,notice the caps and read his attachments,was a name given to certain types of fans. You put this thread together because you lost the argument in another one ,well you've lost it in this one too..
Now here's an idea, why don't you and Brianwalker open a separate forum and argue with one another month in and month out? I will not answer you again, this is your thread you should accept the points put forward.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

bigshot said:


> But great as they are, they aren't Schnabel. That touches on the primary interest in historical performances... If we want Beethoven, there are plenty of modern recordings to choose from. The reason to collect historical performances isn't for the composer- it's for the performer. There are plenty of fine modern recordings of most everything, but there are no modern recordings of Gigli, McCormack, Caruso, Schnabel, Toscanini or Rachmaninov at the keyboard. Modern thinking is that the performer is just the delivery man delivering the composer's goods efficiently and faithfully. But that wasn't the way it was appoached back then. The performer was a peer with the composer, and there were performers who were skillful and charismatic enough to pull it off. I find them fascinating and well worth collecting.


You are wasting your time!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I thought this thread is just asking how we like our music.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> I thought this thread is just asking how we like our music.




This thread was started by _StLukes_ because his concept of 'the line' was getting buried in a previous thread.

"How we like our music" is approximately parenthetical.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> This thread was started by _StLukes_ because his concept of 'the line' was getting buried in a previous thread.
> 
> "How we like our music" is approximately parenthetical.


I missed that thread, and the subtext to this one, took a wrong turn at Albuquerque, and wandered into no man's land with a parasol and picnic basket.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Well if there are cucumber sandwiches in that basket, let's have lunch! (you hold the parasol)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

If there are cucumber sandwiches in there, I'm gonna be really angry. I ordered kielbasa!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> There is no 'recent, higher fidelity recording' of Schnabel playing Beethoven. You don't have one. You are the guy who asked about the line, yet you are, while fighting the conclusion desperately, admitting that there is no line.
> 
> In case you missed the point, Schnabel wasn't the composer... Beethoven was, and regardless of your opinions on Schnabel, there have be plenty of great recordings of Beethoven's sonatas made since Schnabel.


There are no greater recordings of Beethoven sonatas than Schnabel's .Can you never, and I mean never agree wih anything that anybody says. I know the answer to this already unfortunatel, Do you not consider there maybe some people around who are maybe more knowledgeable than you for goodness sake? Of course there are other very good pianists who have recorded the sonatas: Yves Nat, Casadesus, Petri, Kempf,Denis Matthews,Backhaus,Richter-Haaser, Annie Fischer,usw,usw. But it is thought by most, apart from you no doubt, that Schnabel was the greatest.

i was looking at the rather ridiculous thread Which Artists Do You Dislike (or whatever} and looked at the profiles of a number ot the people taking part.To my surprise and gathering consternation I found that most of them had ceased operating....I wonder why that would be?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

There are no greater recordings of Beethoven sonatas than Schnabel's .Can you never, and I mean never agree wih anything that anybody says. I know the answer to this already unfortunatel, Do you not consider there maybe some people around who are maybe more knowledgeable than you for goodness sake? 

Nonsense. That is but your opinion and that of a number of other old farts who cannot fathom that the music they grew up with might not always be the best. I cannot for the life of me see why I would even begin to consider not challenging your repeated pretentious proclamations as to who and what are the greatest recordings and the greatest conductors my own experience of the same is vastly different from your own.

Of course there are other very good pianists who have recorded the sonatas: Yves Nat, Casadesus, Petri, Kempf,Denis Matthews,Backhaus,Richter-Haaser, Annie Fischer,usw,usw. But it is thought by most, apart from you no doubt, that Schnabel was the greatest.

Oh please! Don't give me that crap. There is no such consensus anywhere outside of your imagination. As usual you confuse your own opinions with some non-existent universal consensus and/or fact and assume that any opinion to the contrary of your own is rooted in inexperience or ignorance.

i was looking at the rather ridiculous thread Which Artists Do You Dislike (or whatever} and looked at the profiles of a number ot the people taking part.To my surprise and gathering consternation I found that most of them had ceased operating....I wonder why that would be?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

It really doesn't matter if Schnabel is considered the best or not. He was unique and a significant interpreter. No one else plays the Diabellis quite like him. So if you want his particular take on Beethoven, you have no choice. If you only want a modern recording, that's fine. But you're limiting yourself according to one of the least important criteria.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It really doesn't matter if Schnabel is considered the best or not. He was unique and a significant interpreter. No one else plays the Diabellis quite like him. So if you want his particular take on Beethoven, you have no choice. If you only want a modern recording, that's fine. But you're limiting yourself according to one of the least important criteria.

Of course Schnabel was unique... and surely this is true (to a greater or lesser extent) of all performers. I have several of Schabel's recordings, those of Dinu Lipatti, Solomon (Cutner) as well as the Busch Quartet, Heifitz, young Yehudi Menuhin, and other early recordings. I tend to avoid older recordings (pre-1950) of orchestral works because I find the orchestra sounds too murky and the richness and differentiation of instruments is lacking. Early recordings of solo instruments, small ensembles, and the human voice strike me as more successful. While the performers matter, ultimately it is the composer and his work I am most concerned with. As such, I tend to seek a recording that has been recognized as being one of the finest interpretations... and one of the interpretations closest to the intent of the composer. If the work in question is a particular favorite, then I will seek out a variety of unique and significant recordings... including older recordings that may be less than ideal in terms of sound quality.
If you imagine that Schnabel was the finest interpreter of Beethoven, then certainly go with his recordings by all means. What you seem to be assuming, however, is that those of us who choose a more modern recording are simply choosing any modern recording without any consideration of the performer or performance. It may just be that those who prefer more modern recordings also believe that the performances are as good or better than some hyped performer of the lost "golden age".


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

ST.LUKESGUILD,

I see that the stately pomposity has again given way to the language of the gutter. Your insulting attitude is in effect t he last refuge of an opinionated rather sad individual. Certainly there is a consensus regarding Schnabel worldwide,who do you think buys the reissues that have been produced over and over again since the late 50's ?But then there has been such a consensus on these forums alone. Time and again there are polls or questions regarding who were the greatest at this or that . His name is constantly brought up whenever Beethoven sonatas or concerti are discussed, but no doubt your opinion should stand and the recordings offend your delicate ears no doubt.But all should bow down to the acknowledged expert on everything from Beethoven to, apparently, medieval peasant dances.
Incidentally, perhaps you would supply a few examples of my repeated pretentious proclamations ( dictionary definition of "pretentious" : Disposed to claim more than is one's due)I have never stated that I believe that x or y is the "best".
I wonder what is my due in the case of Beethoven pianists? I am absolutely sure that I have grown up with all the various Beethoven pianists or do you imagine that one stops at a certain age ? What age 35, 50, 60, 70, when do you stop hearing performances exactly? 
I gather from a remark of yours recently that you imagine that you hold a superior position within these forums due to what you bring to them. I would think that ,if true and I trust not, it is only through longevity and not from your bringing any real knowledge. Your apparent expertise is in discomforting and destroying members opinions if they disagree with yours--that means most of the time. It wont work with me so really you should give up! 
Furthermore, on behalf of all the old farts I object to your language and attitude.The forum rules plainly state : "Be polite to your fellow members, if you disagree with them please state your opinions in a civil and respectful manner". I imagine that " a number of old farts " and " don't give me that crap" stand outside those guide lines or are you imune ?
You behave like a spoiled kid---perhaps that's what you really are?
If you really don't understand my allusion to the number of people apparently dropping out, try thinking again!


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

moody said:


> There are no greater recordings of Beethoven sonatas than Schnabel's .Can you never, and I mean never agree wih anything that anybody says. I know the answer to this already unfortunatel, Do you not consider there maybe some people around who are maybe more knowledgeable than you for goodness sake? Of course there are other very good pianists who have recorded the sonatas: Yves Nat, Casadesus, Petri, Kempf,Denis Matthews,Backhaus,Richter-Haaser, Annie Fischer,usw,usw. But it is thought by most, apart from you no doubt, that Schnabel was the greatest.


Sorry but you're way out line here if you suggesting that you are more knowledgeable than other members, especially StLukesGuild whom you appear to have recently taken up slagging off while trying (very unsuccessfully) to pretend that you are the offended party. I don't know who you reckon you are kidding, but it doesn't wash with me. I would far sooner listen to his opinion in preference to yours any day of the week.

As for your suggestion that Schnabel's renditions of Beethoven piano sonatas are held up by most people as being by the best, that's incorrect. You're living in a bygone age if that's what you believe. If you take a look at more professional boards you'll scarcely find any reference to Schnabel these days as against a plethora of equally good if not better renditions without the relatively awful sound quality you often get with Schnabel.

Although I have a complete set of Schnabel I hardly ever play any of them in preference to various others. To remind myself how bad the sound quality is I've just been playing, at random, Piano Sonata No 25. Schanabel's is very hissy and musiaclly I can't see anything all that special about it. I prefer any number of other versions, eg Ashkenazy, Brendel, Osborne, Perl, to name but a few. They all have a vastly cleaner sound and are just as competently played compared with Schnabel, if not more so.



> i was looking at the rather ridiculous thread Which Artists Do You Dislike (or whatever} and looked at the profiles of a number ot the people taking part.To my surprise and gathering consternation I found that most of them had ceased operating....I wonder why that would be?


What are you going on about here? I don't understand your point at all. Can you be more specific by naming those you are referring to?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> ST.LUKESGUILD,
> [...]
> Furthermore, on behalf of all the old farts I object to your language and attitude.The forum rules plainly state : "Be polite to your fellow members, if you disagree with them please state your opinions in a civil and respectful manner". I imagine that " a number of old farts " and " don't give me that crap" stand outside those guide lines or are you imune ?
> You behave like a spoiled kid---perhaps that's what you really are?
> If you really don't understand my allusion to the number of people apparently dropping out, try thinking again!




As one of the Old Farts (note the capitalization) in question, I do not object to _StLukes_ 'language and attitude'. He is merely employing standard Young Fart rhetoric. Young Farts in general are resentful of Old Farts, I think because they confuse the tolerance we receive for respect - and Young Farts are starved for respect.

Much of _StLukes_ difficulty with the subject at hand, aside from the aforementioned resentment, stems from the thread title, which is guilty of conflating two subjects into one; not explicitly, but very much implicitly. The result is that an already 'IMO' question is rendered doubly IMO. _StLukes_ has typical Young Fart problems with IMO anyway, so doubling it up is a killer for civil discussion.

BTW, 'Young Fart' and 'whippersnapper' are different concepts. Being a whippersnapper is unavoidable - it's an automatic condition of youthful ignorance. Being a Young Fart may be an avoidable condition, being basically antipathy toward Old Farts, constructed on the aforementioned confusion of tolerance with respect.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Copyright for this document, to the degree that it exists, is held by Talk Classical.

[] (as close as I can get to an Old Fart emoticon)


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

You people are strange. In one thread you can't listen to Youtube or headphones for the poor sound quality, and god forbid if you must listen to horribly degraded 256kb MP3s. All this so you can hear every crack and hiss on a 1930s mono record that sounds like it was recorded on a ****** Nokia flip phone.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Very Senior Member said:


> Sorry but you're way out line here if you suggesting that you are more knowledgeable than other members, especially StLukesGuild whom you appear to have recently taken up slagging off while trying (very unsuccessfully) to pretend that you are the offended party. I don't know who you reckon you are kidding, but it doesn't wash with me. I would far sooner listen to his opinion in preference to yours any day of the week.
> 
> As for your suggestion that Schnabel's renditions of Beethoven piano sonatas are held up by most people as being by the best, that's incorrect. You're living in a bygone age if that's what you believe. If you take a look at more professional boards you'll scarcely find any reference to Schnabel these days as against a plethora of equally good if not better renditions without the relatively awful sound quality you often get with Schnabel.
> 
> ...


Just in case anyone is wondering, _VSM_ qualifies handily as a Senior Old Fart. The designation has little to do with age, and can be awarded immediately after the person reaches the age (55), which automatically results in membership in the DCOF (Disagreeable Collection of Old Farts). SOFs receive an extra measure of tolerance, which they need. The requirements for SOF designation could be taken as inflammatory. In hopes of avoiding banishment to the nether regions, I must refrain from specifying them; the quoted post contains significant clues though.

[]


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Just in case anyone is wondering, _VSM_ qualifies handily as a Senior Old Fart. The designation has little to do with age, and can be awarded immediately after the person reaches the age (55), which automatically results in membership in the DCOF (Disagreeable Collection of Old Farts). SOFs receive an extra measure of tolerance, which they need. The requirements for SOF designation could be taken as inflammatory. In hopes of avoiding banishment to the nether regions, I must refrain from specifying them; the quoted post contains significant clues though.
> 
> []


Your problem is that you mistakenly think all the posts you write wiil be found amusing or informative by others. And why do you feel the need to chip in with an endless litany of this sort of stuff when there's clearly no value in it? It's not funny.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Well,well there you are---I expected you earlier. I am sure St.Lukes will be delighted to have such a knowledgeable individual joining in even at this late stage. He probably saw your your dissertation on World War 11 so will feel comforted. How do you know whether or not I have less knowledge than St,Lukes and how much do you have, what are you bringing to the table? 
Schnabel does not need me as a champion in any way ,anyone seriously involved with pianism knows all about him.
you a pianist by chance? I had a look on line just now to see if I was living in a bygone age ,there's masses of stuff about him. Have a look, you should have done so already of course before uttering highly questionable pap. Find me any adverse criticism ,until today I literally never have. His greatness is accepted across the board by all involved in the classical music industry. All you have to do to win a debate is prove your point ,show us that his reputation has diminished.
St.Lukes mentioned Amazon USA so I had a look at their listings ,I counted 181 CD's and eight boxed sets. That's interesting when you consider his recordings were made in the 30's and 40's don't you think? Amazon do not stock items unless they know they can sell them.
Lastly, the only slagging off in this matter has been by St.Lukes, show me where I've used insulting and unpleasant language.

VERY SENIOR MEMBER. Sorry I missed it off the top.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Very Senior Member said:


> Your problem is that you mistakenly think all the posts you write wiil be found amusing or informative by others. And why do you feel the need to chip in with an endless litany of this sort of stuff when there's clearly no value in it? It's not funny.


Note that I gave your post a 'like'. It's part of that tolerance thing. I write that endless litany _because_ I mistakenly think they will be found amusing and/or informative by others (though not likely by SOFs). Thank you for the feedback; I appreciate it, and will be guided by it in future.

[]


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> Your problem is that you mistakenly think all the posts you write wiil be found amusing or informative by others. And why do you feel the need to chip in with an endless litany of this sort of stuff when there's clearly no value in it? It's not funny.


Ho, Ho, I think you've attacked the wrong person, A highly honoured member and all that . He can chip in when he wishes and his comments are amusing (usually). Well I'm blowed everybody sticking up for everybody else! Incidentally humour is something entirely lacking in your contributions.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

moody said:


> Well,well there you are---I expected you earlier. I am sure St.Lukes will be delighted to have such a knowledgeable individual joining in even at this late stage. He probably saw your your dissertation on World War 11 so will feel comforted. How do you know whether or not I have less knowledge than St,Lukes and how much do you have, what are you bringing to the table?
> Schnabel does not need me as a champion in any way ,anyone seriously involved with pianism knows all about him.
> you a pianist by chance? I had a look on line just now to see if I was living in a bygone age ,there's masses of stuff about him. Have a look, you should have done so already of course before uttering highly questionable pap. Find me any adverse criticism ,until today I literally never have. His greatness is accepted across the board by all involved in the classical music industry. All you have to do to win a debate is prove your point ,show us that his reputation has diminished.
> St.Lukes mentioned Amazon USA so I had a look at their listings ,I counted 181 CD's and eight boxed sets. That's interesting when you consider his recordings were made in the 30's and 40's don't you think? Amazon do not stock items unless they know they can sell them.
> ...


I'm not falling for any of that.

The simple fact is that claimed in your post No 63 that: "_There are no greater recordings of Beethoven sonatas than Schnabel's." _

This comment appears in your first line of that post. You didn't qualify it in any way.

The onus is on you to substantiate this assertion give that it has been questioned by StLukesGuild and by me. To further this discussion it is not up to to me to provide any adverse criticism of Schnabel, as you so bizarrely request, since it was you who made the very bold assertion, which quite rightly has been criticised.

The kind of evidence I will be looking for from you if it is to be at all convincing will be along the lines of long term CD/record sales, possible evidence from polls carried out on this or other classical music forums, any evidence of significant musicological opinion which supports your thesis.

Over to you. Let's see if you can do it.

I'd also appreciate less of your insulting, irrelevant innuendo, which you so often drop into your comments on other members' opinions.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> I'm not falling for any of that.
> 
> The simple fact is that claimed in your post No 63 that: "_There are no greater recordings of Beethoven sonatas than Schnabel's." _
> 
> ...


Not interested and I am cartainly not going to prove anything to you. I have covered all of this in my various posts,
I can't improve on what pianist after pianist ,crtitic after critic and writer after writer have said. My assertion was not mine ,it was repeating what is accepted universally. Now, if you want to claim victory do so and I hope everyone will cheer for you.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Certainly there is a consensus regarding Schnabel worldwide,who do you think buys the reissues that have been produced over and over again since the late 50's ?But then there has been such a consensus on these forums alone. Time and again there are polls or questions regarding who were the greatest at this or that . His name is constantly brought up whenever Beethoven sonatas or concerti are discussed, but no doubt your opinion should stand and the recordings offend your delicate ears no doubt.

While this is probably not worth the effort, I shall try anyhow. I never made the least claim that Schnabel's recordings of Beethoven's were not among some of the most important. Considering that his were the first complete recordings of the sonatas I would be surprised if his name did not continually come up in discussion of the Beethoven sonatas any less than Pablo Casals when speaking of Bach's cellos suites. In neither case, however, is there some universal consensus as to Schnabel (or Casals) as being unrivaled within the given repertoire.

But all should bow down to the acknowledged expert on everything from Beethoven to, apparently, medieval peasant dances.

The only one who has seemingly attempted to set himself up as the acknowledged expert here, is yourself. You are the one who has made repeated inflated claims for Stokowski and Schnabel. I have merely suggested that there is no such consensus concerning your claim that _"There are no greater recordings of Beethoven sonatas than Schnabel's."_ I doubt that I am alone in disagreeing with this declaration.

Incidentally, perhaps you would supply a few examples of my repeated pretentious proclamations. I have never stated that I believe that x or y is the "best".

*"There are no greater recordings of Beethoven sonatas than Schnabel's."*

The pretension is found in the manner in which you state this, your opinion, as unquestioned fact, and then portray anyone who questions such a statement as ignorant or lacking any knowledge of the topic at hand.

For example:

_"I gather from a remark of yours recently that you imagine that you hold a superior position within these forums due to what you bring to them. I would think that ,if true and I trust not, it is only through longevity and not from your bringing any real knowledge."_

Your apparent expertise is in discomforting and destroying members opinions if they disagree with yours--that means most of the time.

There are but a few members that I have disagreed with on any regular basis... and none of them has shown the least likelihood of buckling beneath my contrary opinion. I rarely ever deal in the absolutes of "X is better than Y"... especially when it is clear that both X and Y are worthy of the greatest of respect for their achievements. I do, however, have the bad habit of challenging those who do deal in such absolutes as: _"There are no greater recordings of Beethoven sonatas than Schnabel's."_

If you really don't understand my allusion to the number of people apparently dropping out, try thinking again!

I fully understood the snide intentions of your comment. In response, I would suggest that rather that questioning the thinking ability of others, you make some attempt at thinking yourself before making such ridiculous insinuations. The thread of which you are speaking dates back to 2005. I would be greatly surprised if a good majority of the participants on this thread did not disappear over time. Few participants on any forum last for an extended period of time. At the same time, you will notice that my sole comment on the given thread reads, and I quote:

"I'm amazed that a thread dedicated to "musicians you don't like" can go on for 23 pages. One would think the time might be better spent discussing musicians you do like."

This does not seem to be an overly hostile post, nor one likely to scare of members _en masse_. Nor does it seem to me to convey some notion that all should bow down to my acknowledged expertise. Rather, all I suggested was a sense of surprise that a discussion concerning the musicians we dislike might go on for so much longer than a more positive discussion as to just which musicians we do like.

Where you are able to construct some theory as to how I am scaring of the other members by my comments from a post such as that is beyond me.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I can't improve on what pianist after pianist ,crtitic after critic and writer after writer have said. My assertion was not mine ,*it was repeating what is accepted universally*. Now, if you want to claim victory do so and I hope everyone will cheer for you.

Again... there is no universal consensus here. There may be such a consensus in your own mind, but that is another issue altogether.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> If you imagine that Schnabel was the finest interpreter of Beethoven, then certainly go with his recordings by all means.


thank you! I will!

I have a question... Is this sufficient sound quality?

*Artur Schnabel- Beethoven: 33 Variations of a Theme by Diabelli (1936)*
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/schnabeldiabellis.mp3

This is an MP3 of my transfer of Schabel's Diabelli Variations done from original 78s. It sounds fine to me, but perhaps the rest of you are pickier than I am.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I (obviously) can't answer for _StLukes_. I think it is an excellent transfer - of its kind. What every 'static' removing transfer does, even if it doesn't introduce artifacts (as yours does not), is reveal the lack of air around the notes that is endemic with '30s recordings. Some of us prefer the Pearl transfers _because_ they remove the pops but not the static. This is because the static hides the lack of air. All we have to do is 'hear' the air within the static. It is a skill easily attained; I managed it in a few minutes listening. The static retreats to an inconsequential background, leaving the brain-provided air. A wonderful thing, and it doesn't even require cannabis.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Actually, some transfer engineers add low level hiss to their transfers to accomplish what you're talking about. I used a different technique. If you listen to this on good speakers, you'll notice that I haven't filtered the high frequencies at all. No band pass filtering. There is a soft bed of crackle, complete with high frequency "air" in the crackles. It may not be apparent in computer speakers that don't have good high frequency response. This transfer was designed for CD release and playing on normal stereos.

I've also left the surface bed consistent through the gaps between variations. This was originally on a dozen record sides. I joined them all and matched the pitch and surfaces. By the way, the static and the pops are the same thing. The static is made up of hundreds of tiny pops per second. If you look at the waveform, it has little tics all over it.

The problem with leaving the crackle is that Schnabel's dynamics are so wide, the soft passages would duck under the crackle and you wouldn't hear his playing. Try playing this transfer on your home stereo alongside the Pearl. I think you'll see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Actually, some transfer engineers add low level hiss to their transfers to accomplish what you're talking about. I used a different technique. If you listen to this on good speakers, you'll notice that I haven't filtered the high frequencies at all. No band pass filtering. There is a soft bed of crackle, complete with high frequency "air" in the crackles. It may not be apparent in computer speakers that don't have good high frequency response. This transfer was designed for CD release and playing on normal stereos. I've also left the surface bed consistent through the gaps between variations. This was originally on a dozen record sides. I joined them all and matched the pitch and surfaces.


Ah, excellent. I listened through adequate speakers (restored AR5s), but I can't restore my hearing, which ignores high frequencies completely. I can't hear tape hiss, but EMI 78 crackle is clearly audible, and provides the necessary... whatever it is. In principle I applaud what you are doing, even though it is too late in my life for me to hear it.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

bigshot said:


> thank you! I will!
> 
> I have a question... Is this sufficient sound quality?
> 
> ...


Thanks for this. I listened to it I'm and sorry to say that my assessment is roughly as I expected: hissy and poor dynamics. I listened through a highly reputable Asus Xonar Essence sound card on my PC and a decent set of Grado headphones (SR 325). I also listened through a pair of good quality floorstanders (circa £2000). But the headphones are far more revealing in picking out more detail, or rather should I say noise and other dynamic issues.

I'm quite used to listening to "historic" recordings, so it's not that I'm in any way not used to the poorer sound quality compared with modern recordings. I have dozens of such historic recordings, and I judge them all to be pretty lousy in terms of sound quality although by varying degrees. That's not to say that I don't enjoy listening to any of them occasionally. But on the whole I prefer a good, clean modern sound. I'm pretty convinced too that one doesn't have to scarifice musical quality to get good sound, as there are so many modern versions to choose from.

In the case of your MP3 transciption of Schanabel's Diabelli Variations on a 78 rpm record, I see that it was done at 192 kbps. I examined the file using Audacity's plot spectrum facility, using a hanning window. As I expected it runs of high frequency pretty rapidly and there's nothing at all above about 13 khz.

In fact I managed to get rid of more of the annoying hiss/surface noise without harming the overall quality unduly. I did this by checking the noise at various intervals and I found a suitable short sample at around the 2 mins 31 seconds mark. I used about 2-3 seconds in the gap at that point between two of the variations to sample the noise and then applied noise reduction across the whole file using a variety of alternative sampling/attack profiles. In the end I decided that Audacity's pre-set profile was about as good as any, so I used that. The result is a quite a worthwhile further cleaning up of the file in terms of removing quite a noticeable extra amount of surface noise.

But do I like the finished result? I'm afraid not really. It's far too dull and lacking in dynamics for my taste. It's purely the result of limitations of the technology of the period, and I'm not in way suggesting that there's anything wrong or inferior with Schnabel's interpretation or musicianship. On the other hand, I'm not especially bowled over by as I can't detect any especially startling aspects of the performance.

Among the more famous ones Serkin's isn't bad but it's a live recording and has a few annoying audience coughs and splutters, plus I can hear a lot very audible of pedaling at some steges. So that's not for me either, and I wonder why it is so esteemed in some quarters. It was profiled on a recent Radio 3 broadcast from which I took my recording, but I wasn't impressed.

Probably my favourite Diabelli is the one by Charles Rosen. It's well played and has a clean, noise free sound. But truth be told I don't much care for this work at all, and it's nothing like my favourite piece of Beethoven solo piano.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Thank you for this post, _VSM_. I will save it in the folder I'm using to store material for my book. I'll have to save bigshot's post too, but that's OK.

The tentative title for the book is 'Wisdom of the Aged - Wherefore Art Thou?'. I haven't decided on whether I should go though a surrogate to present the work as that of a middle-aged man, surveying with dread the inevitable onset of intellectual decline. That approach could assist the blurb-writer. On the other hand, perception-of-insult would probably be ameliorated if I 'came out' as a member of the subject class. If you have advice on this subject, I would be glad to receive it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Very Senior Member said:


> I listened through a highly reputable Asus Xonar Essence sound card on my PC and a decent set of Grado headphones (SR 325). I also listened through a pair of good quality floorstanders (circa £2000). But the headphones are far more revealing in picking out more detail, or rather should I say noise and other dynamic issues.


Never, ever, EVER, listen to mono recordings through headphones! Cans don't give an accurate presentation of older recordings. If you listen to historical recordings in headphones, I can see why you say they aren't listenable. Historical recordings were never intended to be listened to that way. Use speakers!

It is possible to make mono recordings sound decent in headphones, but it involves heavy filtering and synthesized stereo. I have no interest in that sort of thing myself.



Very Senior Member said:


> As I expected it runs of high frequency pretty rapidly and there's nothing at all above about 13 khz. In fact I managed to get rid of more of the annoying hiss/surface noise without harming the overall quality unduly.


I explained that above. I leave a tiny bed of high frequency hiss to provide a psycho-acoustic boost to the higher frequencies. 78s generally have great bass, but the high frequencies are clipped a bit. It can make music sound muffled. There is a psycho acoustic principle that states that the human ear can be tricked into hearing higher frequencies that aren't in the recording if the music is accompanied by a low bed of high frequency hiss. Many transfer engineers add hiss to their transfers. I'm not to keen on adding noise, so I handle it differently. I do impulse noise reduction to eliminate the majority of the clicks that make up surface crackle, and then don't add any high end roll off at all. This maintains a small amount of high frequency noise, but it's natural noise, not added after the fact.

On speakers, that tiny bit of high frequency information adds the "air" around the notes to keep the recording from sounding muffled or overfiltered.

I also try my darndest to not have to do broadband noise reduction. That smears over the music and mushes sound up, particularly in the upper frequencies. If I add broadband filtering at all, it's very light and just intended to smooth out the tiny bit of jagginess left behind by impulse noise reduction.

The reason I provided Schnabel as an example is because this is one of the most problematic great performances in all of historical recordings. It was recorded at a very low volume level because of Schnabel's refusal to adjust his dynamics to the recording medium. It was also pressed on the noisiest British shellac. There are dozens of unlistenable CD transfers of this recording. Every label has taken a crack at it. I'm not a professional transfer engineer... I'm a record collector with an interest in transfer technology. I made this restoration as a test because I suspected that the reason old recordings sound crappy on CD is because of the transfer, not the recording itself. I learned an awful lot doing these transfers.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

ST.LUKESGUILD.

"There are no greater recordings of Beethoven's sonatas than Schnabel's." Was in answer to your post that included "----- there have been plenty of great recordings of Beethoven's sonatas made since Schnabel's".
"There are no greater" does not clash with that, I suppose there could be 50 as great. But it is not the same as saying " Schnabel's are the greatest ever ".There is a distinction and I notice that you give no examples, but I agree that there have been amazing performances put on disc , I have many of them. Later I did say that that it is thought by most that he was the greatest, that is the way I have always understood the situation from way back. You pick up information from what you hear and what you personally experience, unfortunately I never saw the man.
As to the consensus reference this was regarding what could be called professional opinion. Polls are not much use when considering historical figures, I imagine that most of the young people here had never heard of Schnabel, I hope I'm wrong . They will probably recognise him eventually if they are Beethoven or Schubert fans. I would hardly expect them to start with 1930/40 recordings.


Along with the conductor Arturo Toscanini the most influential performer of the first half of 20th century was probably the Austrian pianist Artur Schnabel. Both were advocates of a closer adherence to the composer's written instructions than had previously been the ideal-----what makes Schnabel's playing still powerful and influential is the thoroughness of study, intensity, of commitment, profundity of insight--and the vitality and daring with which these qualities are realised at the key board. David Hamilton , "The Great Insrumentalists".



We are compelled to fall back on bold spiritual speculation to account for Schnabel's power to penetrate the mystical realms of Beethoven's greatest sonatas, and to take us with him. There must reside in his being some stuff which has kith and kin with Beethoven's own immortal mortality; in other and even more reckless language , Schnabel is spiritually related to Beerthoven , with some of Beethoven's fiery particles sent into him from the original act of combustion that was Beethoven. Only on such an assumption such as this can I explain why Schnabel can at any moment serve as a medium for the profoundest of Beethoven's wisdom--which is the profoundest wisdom the world has ever known. Neville Cardus. "The Delights of Music". (A Critic's Choice.)


Talking of his 78's.

The Schnabel Beethoven sonatas are worth their weight in gold; and those old pre-war Toscanini's were never surpassed not even by himself. I still play them too, partly for sentimental reasons but mainly because the best of them preserve greatness of a kind unmatched today. I deliberately say unmatched and not unequalled for styles change and comparisons are invidious. this seems to be generally acknowledged because nearly all of them have been reissued on long playing discs. Denis Matthews the pianist and Beethoven expert. "In Pursuit of Music".


The magnitude of his creative accomplishments left technical accomplishments far behind. His Beethoven had incomparable style , intellectual strength and phrasing of aristcratic purity. Harold C. Schonberg. "The Great Pianists".

I could dig up lots more like this to prove a consensus I suppose but these are the opinions I was used to hearing, and that moulded my opinion. This thread is about sound so let me say that people of my age group were brought up on 78's with a winding -up gramophones . Therefore sound is not as important to me as somebody who was born in 1994, it would sound strange to them. Also let's get it straight, I do not sit down and listen to Schnabel or Edwin Fischer whenever I want to hear some Beethoven. These recording are, as it were, a point of reference a way of looking into musical history , but some shortcomings must be accepted.
I see nothing wrong with having long threads as long as something is being garnered, but I think the point has been reached when nothing now is---at least as far as Schnabel is concerned.
Also, I think the bitching and unpleasantness is unecessary so I would suggest we should refrain in future, it must be boring some people.













































































































































































































2


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

thank you! I will!

I have a question... Is this sufficient sound quality?

Artur Schnabel- Beethoven: 33 Variations of a Theme by Diabelli (1936)
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/schnabeldiabellis.mp3

This is an MP3 of my transfer of Schabel's Diabelli Variations done from original 78s. It sounds fine to me, but perhaps the rest of you are pickier than I am.

As I stated above I am quite fine with a good many older recordings of small ensembles or solo instruments. Things get muddy when there is a whole orchestra involved. Last night I was listening to the 1958 Huston live recording of Cherubini's Medea in which Maria Callas' performance in acknowledged as among the most intense and harrowing on record. The voices resonate clearly enough... but the orchestra sounds like crap. The overture or Sinfonia was almost unlistenable... but as a huge Callas fan I will suffer through it. I'll have to see if the 1957 La Scala recording is any better with this regard, but I'll also undoubtedly end up picking up a more recent recording as well when I come across one that seems of some real merit.

I have several of Schnabel's recordings as well as Dinu Lipatti's (among other early soloists). They are fine enough performances... but still far behind the sound quality of later performers. My personal favorite version of the _Diabelli Variations_ is that by Stephen Kovacevich. In no way do I find him inferior in performance to Schnabel and when one considers the far superior sound quality of his performance, he becomes the clear first choice to me. Is Kovacevich the "best"? Are there no greater recordings of the Diabelli's than his? Is Kovacevich universally accepted as the finest? I'm not saying any such thing. There are recordings that are nearly universally considered as "essential": Kleiber's 5th, Karajan's _Rosenkavalier_, Glenn Gould's 1955 _Goldbergs_, and certainly Schnabel's Beethoven numbers among such recordings. But this dos not translate into proof that said recordings are the "best" nor without peer. There are many worthy alternatives to any of the above recordings and anyone preferring such an alternative is not inherently ignorant or inexperienced.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Thank you for this post, _VSM_. I will save it in the folder I'm using to store material for my book. I'll have to save bigshot's post too, but that's OK.


I will be of an age to qualify in a couple of years! I hang out with college kids a lot though, and that keeps me flexible. It's nice to be a little bit of an old fart, but I'd rather be a jolly old fart than a crusty old fart.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> As I stated above I am quite fine with a good many older recordings of small ensembles or solo instruments. Things get muddy when there is a whole orchestra involved.


OK. I'll post one of my transfers of orchestral stuff for you next...

*Wagner: Die Walkure Act 1 (complete) 1935*
Bruno Walter & the Vienna Philharmonic, Lotte Lehmann, Lauritz Melchior, Emanuel List
http://www.vintageip.com/xfers/walkureact1walter1935.mp3

Same settings as before... MP3 256k mono VBR. It doesn't get much more orchestral than this!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

bigshot said:


> *It doesn't get much more orchestral than this!*


I encourage everyone on this forum to get a good listen, then judge this assertion judiciously themselves.

I own said recording, but I'm sure you'll reach my unsaid conclusions once you hear it.

Melchior is quite unmatched, I admit that.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> I own said recording.


Compare yours to this one. Which one do you have, EMI?

(It's awfully nice of me to post complete works for comparison, isn't it?)


----------

