Classical Court

From Perotin to Prokofiev (and beyond), performed by Caruso to Khatia, it's all here.

Return to Classical Court

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Why do y'all listen to old mono recordings?

205.230.159.47
Posted on April 20, 2000 at 23:32:27
Steven Waugh


 
Hi,

I am an audiophile just like all you nice folks here. The most important part of a good sound is not the equipment, but the recording itself.

So why is it then, when someone asks for a good CD of a particular classical piece, most of the recomendations are old recordings, like those of Walter or Furtwangler made in the 50s. Many of these are in MONO!!!

I understand these were fine conductors, but how can you put up with such sound quality while playing throught your megabux gear?

Almost all classical recordings I have heard from the 50s and even the 60s to me lack the dynamic range and sound very distorted during the peaks. Jazz recordings are better, I guess becuase the dymanic range is quite narrow relatively.

So how can you listen and get pleasure out of such old mono recordings on your state of the art hi-fi?

Thanks!

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Re: Why do y'all listen to old mono recordings?, posted on April 21, 2000 at 02:56:59
Rob


 
Please tell me why heavy manipulated stereo recordings made on 128 channel remixers convey more of the orchestral sound than a simple monorecording on vinyl? Do you listen to sound or music, Steven?

The start to become an audiophile is in this forum rooted in the desire to bring those recordings to life, not the ones who also sound acceptable on boomboxes.

Besides, I'm not an audiophile; I love music

Rob

 

I'm with you, Rob..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 04:39:51
SE


 
I understand exactly where you're coming from and, for you, it's about the musical composition and the ability of a great conductor, orchestra or performer to realize what is, in you're opinion, the "heart" of the music.

Such a view -- totally valid -- is not the ONLY view. Many of the participants in this forum (and I don't think that you, or anybody else, speaks for this entire forum) are capable of finding TOTAL satisfaction (often admitting some unavoidable trade-offs) with very good performances recorded in excellent sound. Not all new recordings suffer from remixed techno-injection. BUT, some do...I like Star Wars movies too -- they're real, right :-)?


 

BUT, man does not live by great sound alone..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 05:01:23
SE


 
I just ordered the Late Beethoven Qts. played by the Busch on a 3 CD Pearl set remastered in 1999. No clicks or pops, but I'll try to enjoy it anyway!

 

Re: Why do y'all listen to old mono recordings?, posted on April 21, 2000 at 05:20:37
patrick S


 
as you may be aware, there is a school of thought---which won't completely go away, but will eventually, i'm sure, like the dinosaurs---which holds that, all other things being equal, well-recorded mono often captures the illusion of reality more convincingly than stereo. (this is not a commercial for old mono, by the way). the next time you attend a live performance of unamplified music, look for the seperation, the violins here, the brass there, the woodwinds over there; you won't find it.

patrick S

 

Re: BUT, man does not live by great sound alone..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 05:22:42
Rob


 
You know SE, I don't care very much for sound-quality. When a great performance is also greatly recorded, well - that's nice, but still a Gergiev 'Firebird' can't in no way be compared with the real thing -live in a concerthall where the soundstage is enormous. Music doesn't come out of speakers, because it's a twodimensional photograph of a threedimensional soundscape.

Rob

 

Of COURSE, I would rather attend the REAL THING..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 05:37:06
SE


 
I got to see Gergiev's Manfred live -- I'm still buzzing -- but the Busch's don't come 'round to see me no more, and there's a lot of other seagulls pecking at that same primo piece of bread (it's sometimes hard to get a good seat). Also, with so much to do (and so little time) I'm generally forced to settle on something less than the real thing (this is particularly true since I do most of my listening in the early morning).

Finally, I don't know what kind of equipment you listen with, but my Maggie speakers and Vandie sub, paired with an excellent DDD CD are JAW DROPPINLY GOOD. I attend live events and sit in great seats. At home, I am -- honestly, and objectively -- close to 90% there.

When we are talking recordings, we are talking home listening. Those seeking optimal home listening, especially the less-than-fully-indoctrinated, may have a preference for better sonics over depth of interpretation.

 

Re: Why do y'all listen to old mono recordings?, posted on April 21, 2000 at 05:39:10
Rob


 
Even at the first row, gazing up at from outmost left to outmost right the first row of musicians: five or six first violinist, the conductor, a bunch of cellists and somewhee above on the right a double bass, the brass sitting at the right or the horns at the left come over you as a mono shower, just like a complete woodwind section.

Stereo is fake.

Rob

 

Re: Of COURSE, I would rather attend the REAL THING..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 05:45:55
Rob


 
But tell me, how's it possible when you attend a violinconcerto or a performance for soloviolin/ cello the sound of the violin/cello is a pointsource and when you listen to a recording a mixer makes the high register come from the left and the low register from the right or vice versa?

That's fake, that's to give a warped sense of space around a very small instrument in comparison to the recorded soundstage.

Rob

 

Re: Of COURSE, I would rather attend the REAL THING..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 05:57:35
SE


 
When all is right in SE home listening land, that is not my experience...with high-quality recordings. The soloist is drop-dead center, with the image of the instrument very proportional to the reality in terms of size (this is particularly true when I get the volume nailed). Quartets spread naturally and distinctly across the sound stage. Orchestras have genuine front-to-back depth (outstandingly so with panel speakers). All this makes me ask you whether (and I'm not being sarcastic here) you have heard a system where everything really gels. I mean, I readily admit the 10% or so my system can't deliver (just can't seem to sweeten those strings enough), but what I'm getting is really something!

BTW, I like the clarity of mono, but even the best mono falls way short in terms of front-to-back depth.

 

BTW, posted on April 21, 2000 at 05:59:25
Rob


 
Same problem is present with rock- recordings make you hear high hats and tomtoms like they're metres apart from each other to create a spacious illusion, but we shouldn't forget the origins of the recorded sound.

To be honest, I would love to hear a modern remake of a grammophone, just one horn connected to the stylus spinning a mono modern recording without someone manipulating the recorded signals, so to say. I think digital stereo will completely bite the dust in terms of 'reality'.

Rob

 

Re: Of COURSE, I would rather attend the REAL THING..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 06:02:23
Rob


 
I've got the pleasure of being a regular visitor of the Concertgebouw and my limited solid state amplifier and turntable can bring alive the acoustics of the hall quite well in ancient mono recordings of Van Beinum or Mengelberg and I enjoy them more than the modern Chailly recordings, which contain the clarity of the hall, but not the specific sound.

Rob


 

Re: Of COURSE, I would rather attend the REAL THING..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 06:44:36
patrick S


 
please don't take offense, but if you think you're 90% there, you're kidding yourself. i'm sure you have a marvelous system, and you may be 90% toward total realization of what's on the recording, but what's on the recording is not 90% of what's in the hall, because no recording is more than a (poor) approximation of the event.
hell, even HP points that out again and again.

patrick S

 

Don't forget Celi being tortured hearing his own recordings...<nt>, posted on April 21, 2000 at 06:52:25
Rob


 
Schone Gotterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium.

Rob

 

I'm not offended., posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:09:56
SE


 
But is your post supposed to add value to the discussion Rob and I were having?

 

Re: Of COURSE, I would rather attend the REAL THING..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:14:34
SE


 
I'm OK with that. You are a seriously lucky dog to have ready access to the Concertgebouw -- Chailly notwithstanding :-)

I also agree that mono can be very, very good...certainly not offering any serious decrease in the enjoyment of a great performance. I guess I'm just saying that I would appreciate hearing Van Beinum or Mengelberg in modern, well done stereo even MORE.

Regards

 

Re: I'm not offended., posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:16:06
Rob


 
I think so. Patrick said in other words what I also said; stereo is fake and mono rules and no matter how excellent your system is, I believe you on your word and I hope it's giving you the satisfaction you want from it, it will not convey more 'reality', since a recording is not the real thing.

Big B, you probably heard from him or read his excellent posts is a speakerbuilder, and a good one too, if I may believe the gossip going around, but he must be the one having the most ancient mono-recordings from all of us.

Rob

 

Re: BTW, posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:18:26
SE


 
Yes...pristine vinyl (how about a physical contact medium BEYOND vinyl, you know?) on the right equipment would be ideal. I'm afraid the world isn't heading in that direction though.

 

Uncle!!!, posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:20:26
SE


 
Dog pile, I'm out of this thread :-)

 

Re: Of COURSE, I would rather attend the REAL THING..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:25:53
Rob


 
Van Beinum made most of his recordings in the 50-ies and when you're spinning such a Fontana LP, you'll hear a horn coming at you like a horn should come at you and when a trumpet enters this sound it's totally convincing. When you spin the same piece of music recorded on CD, like for instance 'Das Lied von der Erde' the horn is suddenly at the left and the trumpet is out of phase entering from the left.

I regard the orchestra as one instrument with various voices, not as a choir containing slightly 'out of tune' soloists. I blame the stereo era, especially John Culshaw for having destroyed the orchestral balance, not being able to to just record a musical happening as it was but manipulate the recording to impress the buyers of records with overdone sound. Compare the Wieners in the live Tchaikovsky 5 recently recorded at Salzburg with a recent Wiener studio recording; it's like it's not the same orchestra anymore......

Mono isn't that bad, those recordings from the early 50-ies will give you more truthfullness to the music and definately more reality. I can't give you more reasons than I already did, but perhaps you should visit the Concertgebouw some time and take a seat at my beloved frontbalcony, behind the plaquette of Bruckner or Mahler and you will know what I mean while facing the back of the conductor, 30 metres or something behind and 8 metres above him.

That's the sweetest spot you can think about and stereo doesn't exist up there, only transcedence.

Rob

Rob

 

Re: I'm not offended., posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:26:01
patrick S


 
the thread began with a question of why one might prefer aurally "inferior" recordings as being more convincing with reality as a reference. as such, yes, my post was relevant.

don't get your knickers in a snit.

patrick S

 

LOL :-)...Hey Steven!, posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:26:54
SE


 
I'm wiping the mud off myself following my good-natured discussion with Rob...did we answer your question?

 

Whoof! <nt>, posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:27:45
Rob


 
.

 

Yes, it did. Sorry (n/t), posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:28:54
SE


 
.

 

I'm not even gonna try..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:32:32
SE


 
to compare audio technology to transcendence!!! If I ever get a chance to go to the Concertgebouw, I'm gonna jump on it like an Inmate on vinyl!!!

 

Re: I'm not even gonna try..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:38:50
Rob


 
Amen to that brother SE. Tickets are fairly cheap, at $35 you can visit a concert containing a concerto and a symphony.

Rob

 

Is there room for dissent? (kinda long), posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:49:28
Bruce from DC


 
I will certainly admit that not all stereo is equal. There's bad stereo and there's good stereo. And I certainly admit that, in any seat that I've occupied in a concert hall (the one's you pay for, not the one's that you get paid to sit in, i.e. the performers') instrument localization and all the stereo stuff that sets audiophiles to drooling is largely absent. It is timbrally altered and the multiplicity of reflected signals destroys most of the spatial cues that provide localization. A live performance experienced by a listener in a hall is primarily the product of reflected sound. A recorded performance in a hall picks up primarily the direct sound from the instruments. That's why Dr. Bose invented the 901 speaker 30+ years ago, to give the home listener a "concert hall" effect. ;-[}

Now, change the listening venue. Consider a brass band playing outdoors. Very little reflected sound. If you're close to it, you can hear those localization cues. Sounds more like what you hear on your stereo, assuming it has the power to reproduce brass and percussion at realistic levels. (horn speaker owners, you may stand and be recognized.)

But, when I listen to mono at home, it sounds like everything is coming from a vertical line equidistant between my two speakers. Never heard anything sound like that in "real life." If it doesn't sound like that to you, I suggest that some part of your system is seriously screwing up in accurately maintaining L-R phase. relationships.

In a previous discusion here, we talked about the worst of stereo: "synthesized" stereo generated from a mono source, "ping-pong" stereo (e.g. early Beatles records with all the instruments in one channel and all the voices in the other) and "fake" stereo used for recording jazz ensembles and other small groups (each instrument arbitrarily placed left to right, using pan pots; e.g. drum kit -- 100% right channel; piano -- 100% left; horn-- 50/50; sax; 60-40 and so on). I would agree that mono is better than the first two of these three and, for some, better even than the third of these three since none of these techniques capture any natural sense of "space." But, I don't think any of these techniques are/were common in the recording of classical performances.

The worst stereo sin for these recordings, IMHO, is the excessive use of multi-miking, which producers a sonic perspective like you might have from a helicopter above the performers. The recording of concertos is often problematic, depending upon how the solo instrument is placed. None of this, is worse than mono, IMHO.

The real choice is between "vintage" performances perhaps recorded in mono and sonically constrained by the limitations of the machinery used to make the recording. Unless the performance is unique and valuable (and many are), I'll prefer something recorded after 1960, in stereo, thank you. The choice is different when comparing sonically superb, but musically vacuous, performances which often can be found on "audiophile" labels. The Sheffield Labs "direct to disc" recordings of the late 70s come to mind, with the exception of the Harry James orchestra. The choice of those over other, less dazzlingly recorded, stereo performances, is much less obvious. However, now that recorded classical music is becoming more and more a niche product, perhaps the best performers and the most careful recording engineers can get together. If you're only going to sell a handful of recordings, the may as well be the best, in every sense of the word!

 

The ticket price is not the issue..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:56:38
SE


 
it's the airfare that'll kill ya!

Hey Rob,

I'm going to the nearby Tower today to buy some music (my wife tossed me a couple of bucks). I was going to buy 2 new recordings, but I seem to have developed this nasty urge to eat something mono (gotta be on CD, I don't have a turntable). What do you think of this (I've included the whole Gramophone review, I think it adds to our discussion):

Bruckner [Symphony] Symphonies – No. 8 in C minor a ; No. 9 in D minor b. Concertgebouw Orchestra / Eduard van Beinum.

Philips The Early Years mono (Mid price) (CD) 442 730/1-2PM (two discs, oas: 72 and 59 minutes: ADD). Item marked a from ABL3086/7 (3/56), b 6530 058 (12/77), recorded 1956.

"The invention of the long-playing record was a great boon to Bruckner on the gramophone. Eduard van Beinum and the Concertgebouw Orchestra had established themselves as Bruckner interpreters of a high order back in 1947 with a celebrated Decca recording of the Seventh Symphony. This was followed by a second recording for LP in 1953 and in 1955 and 1956 respectively by recordings of the Eighth and Ninth Symphonies.

The Eighth received a guarded welcome in these columns in March 1956. Notwithstanding what many would now regard as the general tautness and discipline of van Beinum’s reading, Malcolm Macdonald clearly viewed the work – as people were wont to do in those days – much as they might have viewed (in Dickens’s graphic image) “a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill”.

To compound the problem, van Beinum used the longer of the two extant editions, the one edited by Haas. When a Horenstein recording turned up later that same year (Vox, 7/56), brisk and to the point and using the slightly foreshortened Nowak text, it was greeted with something close to relief. But the man who wants rapid locomotion in Bruckner, William Mann argued in November 1958, is no true Brucknerite. He was reviewing Karajan’s epic Berlin PO/EMI Bruckner Eighth, a performance that outlasted the van Beinum by a good 15 minutes and which was generally regarded at the time to have swept the field.

So the van Beinum Eighth, which was also said to be in rather boxy sound, was rather forgotten about. To judge by the CD remastering, the ‘boxy sound’ was more a matter of poor LP pressings than inadequate recording. True, one is aware to some extent of the confines of the hall. But what a hall, and what bitingly vivid playing! The rather Frenchified sound of the orchestra’s woodwinds and brass in those days brings Bruckner closer to Berlioz than to Wagner or Brahms. Yet, for all that, there is also a weight and majesty about the playing that is unmistakably Brucknerian.

So how is it that van Beinum dispatches the Eighth Symphony quite so speedily? Well, there is an intensely dramatic first movement that is quick but not overquick; a fast Scherzo, too fast for comfort; a beautifully paced Adagio; and a finale which achieves concision by virtue of inserting a rather scampered development between an exposition that is relatively measured and a coda that is genuinely majestic.

What many collectors will like about this 1955 Eighth is the sense it conveys of live music-making, this astonishing orchestra playing with that mixture of tonal solidity, instrumental articulacy and edge-of-the-seat excitement that is uniquely their own.

The same quality of live music-making is also to be found in the 1956 Ninth, a disc that took rather longer to reach these shores. It is, by any standards, a great account of the Ninth, one that, again, is more dramatic than epic, a performance that anatomizes this great wounded giant of a symphony (the scars more psychological than physical, Bruckner’s spiritual Gotterdammerung in C sharp minor) with a care that mixes pity and awe in almost equal measure.

Throughout the performance the strings and brass play magnificently. (If not quite perfectly; the horns make a slightly insecure ascent to their final high B.) The tone is darkly burnished, the phrasing broad, yet capable of the finest shadings and taperings of sound-tone. As for the woodwinds, the playing of the first oboe has about it a truth and penetrating beauty that would be worth hearing for itself alone were it not so ineluctably part of a greater whole.

The recording has a splendour, a clarity and a sense of rightness about it that makes one wonder why anyone ever bothered to convert to stereo. Since I had a rather crackly LP pressing, I am delighted to have the super-silent digital remastering. It is very fine, though right at the start of the Adagio there is the merest hint of drop-out or loss of signal in the violins’ low B which was not there (or was not audible) on the 1977 Fontana LP."

I can't say whether I'll find it, it may no longer be in print.



 

Because the MUSIC is what matters...remember music? (nt), posted on April 21, 2000 at 07:56:45
Binayak Bhattacharyya


 
..

 

Re: Is there room for dissent? (kinda long), posted on April 21, 2000 at 08:02:58
Rob


 
Although I disagree with your notions on mono and stereo, since I regard depth in a recording as something artificial in stereo ones, I wholeheartedly agree with your idea about getting people together and finally record an orchestra like it should sound ( especially from my beloved sweet spot in the Trompetgebouw, because that's the only place I really hear music and forget about sonics.)

For me mono is just a choice between two bad options, that's why I posted that thought experiment about a modern horn-gramophone. It's just curiosity, because modern recordings are in each respect impressive, but in a pianoconcerto I don't like it when the orchestra seems to come out of the piano, that's similar to the close miked pianoconcerto recorded in mono, but at least the orchestra sounds more natural in tone and spreading. ( Soerjadi 24 bits Rach 2 & 3 as opposed to Backhaus doing the Emperor with BPO/Knappertsbusch)

Rob

 

Are you saying that the recording venue..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 08:03:02
SE


 
DISTORTS the sound of the instruments? Damn that friggin' Concertgebouw for screwing up the sound of such a fine orchestra :-)

 

Re: Of COURSE, I would rather attend the REAL THING..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 08:04:57
Hayden


 
Thanks Rob, for clearifying a questions in my own mind.
I use to think that it might be a deficiency in my system
on the many occasions when I heard the anomalies (mixing) you describe particularly on violin concerto's (not all of them) but a good number of them,particluarly when the violinist's range is varying greatly. On more closely miked recordings or smaller settings I don't detect this at all. You've also convinced me togive a second chance to
Vaughn Williams 2disc set of MONO 1937 recordings (4th symph,5th symph,Folk dances,etc, by Pearl). When I purchased this rather expensive set I didn't know they were mono. The sound was quite clear, but the absence of that stereo soundstage and the price paid! I only gave it a 4 min listen. I shall sit down and give it a fair chance.

 

This orchestra was only fine under Mengelberg and Van Beinum, posted on April 21, 2000 at 08:05:02
Rob


 
Haitink destroyed it in the stereo age, right after Jaap van Ginniken died who recorded Van Beinum as well. Volker Krauss and John Culshaw should be ignored like the plague.

Rob

 

Re: Of COURSE, I would rather attend the REAL THING..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 08:07:30
Rob


 
Fair indeed Hayden, because the mind is preprogrammed to hear stereo recordings, but the mind can't seem to leave that idea when hearing mono.

Hope to read your conclusions, especially because I like the Pearl transfers.

Rob

 

......, posted on April 21, 2000 at 08:09:37
Rob


 
Beware, that's my favourite Bruckner 8, although I didn't hear Furtie yet.

Rob

 

Gotta Go!..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 08:12:07
SE


 
I'm gonna see if I can find that set. Thanks.

 

:-), posted on April 21, 2000 at 08:20:29
Rob


 
The world can always use an extra Van Beinum fan.

Conclusion:
-great strings
-great brass
-great balance
-great clarity
-great hiss

Notes:
The tonal qualities, especially the silky sound of the strings is better captured than most stereo recording, the woodwinds are warm and come with a lot of definition, just like the brass, without distorting the overall balance and 'togetherness' of the orchestra.

Rob

 

Re: Of COURSE, I would rather attend the REAL THING..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 08:27:45
Hayden


 
Thanks Rob, for clearifying a questions in my own mind.
I use to think that it might be a deficiency in my system
on the many occasions when I heard the anomalies (mixing) you describe particularly on violin concerto's (not all of them) but a good number of them,particluarly when the violinist's range is varying greatly. On more closely miked recordings or smaller settings I don't detect this at all. You've also convinced me togive a second chance to
Vaughn Williams 2disc set of MONO 1937 recordings (4th symph,5th symph,Folk dances,etc, by Pearl). When I purchased this rather expensive set I didn't know they were mono. The sound was quite clear, but the absence of that stereo soundstage and the price paid! I only gave it a 4 min listen. I shall sit down and give it a fair chance.

 

Re: Why do y'all listen to old mono recordings?, posted on April 21, 2000 at 08:32:15
Victor Khomenko


 
There are mono recordings and then there are mono recordings. The better ones are so good that you don't even notice thay are not stereo. On a good system the effect is actually strange and almost frightening - you could swear sometimes that you are hearing a good stereo material. I often use some mono records that I bought at garage sale as a good demo of what it can sound like, usually with great effect.

So bottom line seems that you should not pay much attention to the technology side - either one can sound good, bad and in between.

Would you rather have a B&W copy of the Night Partol or a color photo of my latest attemp at painting?

 

Re: Are you saying that the recording venue... Nope., posted on April 21, 2000 at 09:11:23
Bruce from DC


 
What you hear in the hall and what the microphone(s) capture are two different things. Given that, one can't expect the playback of what the mic(s) capture to replicate the hall sound. It's a different way of experiencing the performance. But, you might try something. One of the nifty features of my first preamp --Dyna PAS-3x-- was a "blend" control. If I remember correctly, it provided three steps between full stereo and full mono. It was intended for use with headphones, but it might give you that mono or "semi-mono" sound that you crave.

And yes, as a matter of fact, the hall does "distort" (in the sense that it changes it) the sound. We all know that halls sound different -- some better than others. Some of these effects are nice and "warm" (Carnegie Hall, NYC) and some are not so nice (JFK Center Concert Hall, Wash, DC. pre-alteration). Kinda like SETs ;-}

 

Good point, then get a $200 Hi-Fi from Circuit City (nt), posted on April 21, 2000 at 10:16:45
Steven Waugh


 
No text!

 

Re: BUT, man does not live by great sound alone..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 10:39:20
Dr. T


 
There is one instance in which I was present at a concert that was recorded and released on CD. It was the recent Solt recording of Die Meistersinger. There are specific moments that I remember from the concert that were especially powerfull sonicaly. I am speaking mainly of dynamics and the impact of the big climaxes. I was very disappointed when I heard the CD and discovered that those big moments did not come across at all on record. And I am talking about a pretty decently made digital recording. Now imagine the difference that must exist between a recording made in the 78 rpm era and the live performance. But the miracle of the brain makes it possible to be overwhelmed by the merest approximation of an accurate representation of a great performance.

 

Re: BUT, man does not live by great sound alone..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 11:00:16
Rob


 
What always surprises me is the larger difference between ffff and pppp on a record in a sonical point of view compared to a digital recording, where the pianissimos are tuned up and the fortes are tuned down.

Rob

 

Re: Good point, then get a $200 Hi-Fi from Circuit City, posted on April 21, 2000 at 11:08:36
Binayak Bhattacharyya


 
Musicality is quite different from hi-end sound. I have heard a circuit city DVD player ( the Pioneer DV 525 ) through a Bel Canto DAC sound far far more musical than a fortune's worth of Levinson gear

Never confuse price with musical value, elitist snobbery for sound that touches the soul. The most moving pieces of music I have heard, the Busch Quartet recordings of Beethoven's late quartets were recorded in 1936.

I do not enjoy mono, because it IS mono but because a lot of great music was performed in the era of monoaural recordings.

Binayak


 

I'm BACK!!! (With Goodies...), posted on April 21, 2000 at 11:20:19
SE


 
I couldn't find the van Beinum (it's either out of print, or Tower just doesn't have much depth to their classical dept. any more...WAIT! I think BOTH are true!)

What I DID get is the newly remastered 2 CD set on DG of Eugen Jochum's 1949 and 1955 recordings of Bruckner's 8th and 9th (respectively). FWIW, the Pengy likes 'em.

I also picked up a super-stuffed, brand-spanking new (copyright 2000...cool, my first one) 2 CD "Artist of the Century" compilation of Jascha Heifetz. Includes stuff done between 1955 and 1963 including concertos by Brahms, Tchaikovsky (w/Reiner), Bruch, Sibelius and Glazunov. I already own the original issues of much of this, but am hoping for the vast improvements in sound quality that I've experienced with recent reissues. We'll see.

 

Re: I'm BACK!!! (With Goodies...), posted on April 21, 2000 at 11:27:14
Rob


 
Guess that Bruckner 9 is with the BPO and the Bruckner 8 with Hamburg?

Decent and very okay.

I heard that Heifetz set, but didn't buy it.

Rob

 

Sorry, posted on April 21, 2000 at 11:28:53
Rob


 
9th with Bayerischen Rundfunk and 8th with Hamburg.

RS

 

Re: I'm BACK!!! (With Goodies...), posted on April 21, 2000 at 11:38:53
SE


 
Correct on both orchestras. I'm going to play it now. I just ordered the van Beinum's as separate CDs from Tower Special Imports. I hope they have them (sometimes yes, sometimes no) -- they took my credit card number anyhoot :-)

Heifetz is Heifetz...sometimes he's exactly what I want to hear, other times not.

 

Re: I'm BACK!!! (With Goodies...), posted on April 21, 2000 at 11:42:41
Rob


 
Enthousiasmed by your purchases I'm currently spinning the 49 8th and although there's a lot of hiss, the dynamics are superior to modern recordings, most instruments sound naturally although you can hear in the A-D transfer the over- and undertones are lost - sometimes in the horns you just miss a couple of frequencies, but for a 1949 recording this is truely amazing what they've done with the orchestral sound and dynamics.

Rob

 

Re: I'm BACK!!! (With Goodies...), posted on April 21, 2000 at 11:54:55
Rob


 
I stopped with the first movement and went to the 2nd and I'd like you to notice the tremolos in the violins, the attack in the horns and the blatant trombones. It's a pretty mediocre orchestra, especially compared to Van Beinum's 8th, but the searching and the urging of the violins is imo only possible when you've got a decent system and since you've got a superior system, it should sound pretty convinving with lots of dynamiscs, but you just have to forget your usual sessions with stereo recordings. Note the natural space around the instruments!

Rob

 

I'm going back up top to continue this thread..., posted on April 21, 2000 at 12:04:26
SE


 
see above under "Initial Thoughts on New Goodies"

 

Point taken, posted on April 21, 2000 at 12:16:56
Steven Waugh


 
I take the point that you enjoy the musical aspects of these old recordings. I also agree with you 100% that these multi microphone techniques are bad. I wish they just had 2 microphones and the empahsis was on the purity.

But still, to me modern recordings do sound better than the old recordings from the 50s, even with all the artifical "enhancements". Of course there are quite a few wonderfully recorded modern recordings for which there is no comparasion.

I do have a few old mono recordings. While I got them for the historical aspects, I can never get totally involved listening to them.

But that's just my opinion, as we can see.

 

(I know nuthink, nuthink!), posted on April 21, 2000 at 13:27:35
BobH


 
Psst., Steve, I know what you mean. They're a crazy bunch aren't they?

I used to shun LP recordings of Bruno Walter because they were mono on budget Seraphim pressings that were, well, crappy.

Now I am actively buying Walter because the recordings have been remastered, bit-fixed or whatever, and they rival modern quality and they are real stereo. Add to that, Walter seems to have been a rockin' good conductor unlike some of the worshiped semi-frozen war-horses popular here.

Another example: I had the mono Furtie Wagner Tristan&Isolde LP and CD set because the singing is just too good compared with more modern versions (I tried them all). Now Kleiber has a crisp sounding stereo set that has gorgeous sound, great singing and doesn't seem like it's coming from behind a pillow. I listen to both.

Watch your back . . . I do.

 

Another cue is your eyes., posted on April 21, 2000 at 13:37:00
BobH


 
In a live performance you also have visual cues that fool you into thinking you are hearing the first violins on the left and the second on the right. I agree it is pretty much reflected but I think that the percentage direct plus visual clues make you experience stereo in concert. Then you want the same thing at home. So you need stereo. Is that logic reasonable?
Certainly I agree with post 60s stereo recordings with exceptions. Of course nothing important was recorded before 1960 (Rob bait ;-))

 

Re: Why do y'all listen to old mono recordings?, posted on April 21, 2000 at 14:45:12
jlee


 
It seems that the orchestral music can show off the hi-fi aspect more than others such as chamber music. I have lived with a low-fi system for the last 10 years, and my musical taste drifted away from symphonies. Now with a new system, I listen to the orchestra a bit more.

Try some mono recordings of Schubert Lieder or Beethoven string quartets. You might find the recordings much less objectionable.

I also value the sonic quality, and in fact I believe that it doesn't make much sense to analyse sound and music separately, when there's such a deep inter-relation between them. But some of the old recordings contain such a musical treat that is very hard to find in a modern performance. Maybe the trend in interpretation has changed and I'm not up to the new standard, anyway I find much more emotional resonance from old recordings than from new, exceptional sounding recordings with mediocre performance.

You can always train yourself to accept a not-so-great-sounding recording, just as any vinyl lover ignores ticks and pops.

 

It's the magic., posted on April 21, 2000 at 19:24:51
edta


 
Why am I moved by a 1948 radio recording of Sena Jurinac singing "Beim Schlafgehen" from Strauss' "Four Last Songs"? Why am I moved by an old Phillips recording of Gerard Souzay singing Schubert's "An Die Musik"?

Someday you will experience it and you will understand.

 

i have the...., posted on April 21, 2000 at 19:43:58
dex


 
...van Gogh syndrome...

 

Bob, you're, posted on April 23, 2000 at 16:35:50
Rob


 
totally right.

Rejoice in Zander!

Dmitri Shostakovich is playing his pianotrio 2 with Oistrakh and Sadlo at the moment and you're soooooooooo right.

Rob

 

Page processed in 0.019 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]