Michael Houstoun Plays Beethoven

[Todd]

Of all of the complete cycles I've not heard yet, Michael Houstoun's is one of the cycles I've been keenest to hear.  The only problem is that finding the CDs at a reasonable price has proven impossible.  The US distributor only lists two of the four volumes as available.  I've found a couple New Zealand retailers that still list all the CDs, but it would cost around $250 or so for the set, which is a price I'm not sure I want to pay again.  (That's roughly what the Ikuyo Nakamichi and Akiyoshi Sako cycles cost me, and I don't really want a third super premium price cycle.)  So I figured it was time I downloaded some music.  ClassicsOnline has the whole cycle for download for around $80, so the price is right.  But they only offer MP3 quality downloads, albeit at the supposedly "high quality" 320 kbps rate.  Not wanting to go for the whole cycle, I opted for the last five sonatas for a paltry $10.  Worst case, I listen once and only ten bucks is gone.

Well, it's been years since I last listened to MP3s, and listening to this set reminded me why.  I downloaded the files, converted them to WAV files so I could listen through my main system, and sure enough, the sound is inadequate.  (Another way to put it is that the sound sucks.)  The biggest problem is in the high frequencies.  They are indistinct and muddy and they ring.  I had to play the music at a volume lower than normal to reduce the negative effects of the sound.  The low frequencies are a bit muddy and soft, but that's not as much an issue.  To make sure the Houstoun recording isn't just a bad sounding recording, I decided to perform a test with the first volume of Ikuyo Nakamichi's cycle, since it is superbly recorded.  I ripped the disc at 320 kbps and then reconverted to WAV files, and did some A/B comparisons.  Sure enough, the exact same effects could be heard, as could a reduction in dynamic range.  The final movement of Op 2/3 on the Nakamichi disc was just plain unpleasant to listen to.  It became clear that I was not hearing what the Houstoun recordings really sound like.

With sound quality out of the way, I decided to focus on the playing.  That's much more compelling.  Houstoun's approach is incisive, generally favoring a clean staccato.  He also tends to play fast passages a bit faster than normal and slow ones a bit slower than normal.  In the slower movements his playing sometimes sounds too obvious, or to insistent, as though he really wants to draw attention to a specific passage.  It can also result in playing that is too slow for its own good at times.  The best example of his style comes in Op 111.  The opening movement is a blockbuster.  Fast, powerful, intense, biting, it is simply wonderful to listen to.  The second movement is more mixed.  The Arietta is almost static sounding, which drains the music of its otherworldly beauty.  Things don't really pick up until the boogie-woogie variation – which has sufficient boogie and ample woogie – and thereafter.  That late LvB goodness is there, that's for sure.  Good as some of it is, the opening of the second movement prevents it from attaining first choice territory.

As to the other four sonatas, well, they are similar.  Op 101 probably comes off best, with the second movement march powerfully played and the concluding fugue delivered with nice clarity and drive.  The slow movement comes off well, too.  Op 106, well, here, the first two movements are delivered with enough drive and scale, and if the opener is not taken especially fast overall at around twelve minutes, the timing hides significant variety in tempi.  The moderately slow Adagio is devoid of sentimentality and comes off very well, and the fugue is clean and crisp.  The next two works are somewhat mixed.  The fast movements are pounded out nicely, but the slow movements are stretched out just a bit too much.  Maybe.  And what gives with the repeated chords in 110?  Yes, Houstoun ratchets up the volume, but not nearly as much as I would have though, and not as much as the crashing coda. 

While not always ideal for me, I must say that I rather enjoy Mr Houstoun's style.  It's incisive, unsentimental, generally sane tempo-wise, and powerful where needed.  That basically means I want to hear more.  Now I'm right back where I started.  Do I spend a lot to get the CDs, or do I go cheap and get crappy sound quality?  Why can't someone offer WAV downloads?  I'd pay for that.  Anyway, I may have to check postage rates from New Zealand.

[Bulldog]

FWIW, 29 of the sonatas played by Houstoun are available through the Naxos Music Library.  The sound quality is excellent.

[Franco]

Rhapsody has the early and middle sonatas.  His playing is good (although I felt not very refined), but because of the difficulty of finding these CDs I wouldn't spend anything like what you are describing to own them.

[Todd]

FWIW, 29 of the sonatas played by Houstoun are available through the Naxos Music Library.  The sound quality is excellent.

What format are they in, and can they be downloaded?  I've only read about Naxos Music Library thus far.

[Franco]

Both Naxos Music Library and Rhapsody are subscription music listening websites where for a monthly fee you can stream tracks. 

Looks like Rhapsody has the same files as Naxos

[Bulldog]

What format are they in, and can they be downloaded?  I've only read about Naxos Music Library thus far.

I pay for the CD format and am very pleased with the sound quality.  Costs me $25 per month, and I get more worth than $25 from the service.  Almost forgot - no downloading as far as I know.  I should add that the lesser costs and formats offered by the service are NOT acceptable to me.

[George]

  I downloaded the files, converted them to WAV files so I could listen through my main system, and sure enough, the sound is inadequate.

Maybe converting the MP3s to WAV could explain the sound problem? IIRC, converting from lossy to any other format results in further degradation of the sound.

Or do you mean you burned the MP3 files to a CD (thus "converting" them to WAV)?

Anyway, whenever i have compared a 320 MP3 file to a WAV (same performance) I have only noticed subtle differences. Sure the WAV is better, but only a little better. If they made the MP3s correctly (and it's surely possible that they didn't) then they should sound fairly close to the original WAV file. I say this as a picky, audiophile listener, BTW.

[Scarpia]

Maybe converting the MP3s to WAV could explain the sound problem? IIRC, converting from lossy to any other format results in further degradation of the sound.

Or do you mean you burned the MP3 files to a CD (thus "converting" them to WAV)?

Anyway, whenever i have compared a 320 MP3 file to a WAV (same performance) I have only noticed subtle differences. Sure the WAV is better, but only a little better. If they made the MP3s correctly (and it's surely possible that they didn't) then they should sound fairly close to the original WAV file. I say this as a picky, audiophile listener, BTW.

Converting to wav is essentially what your software does when you play an MP3.  A wav file is essentially the raw data that would be send to the digital to analog hardware.  So converting to wav and playing the wav should sound identical to playing the original MP3 (although it is always possible that one piece of software does a better job than another in the conversion).

[Todd]

Or do you mean you burned the MP3 files to a CD (thus "converting" them to WAV)?

I had to convert from MP3 to WAV, and then burn them to disc.  My main CD players don't play MP3s. 

My listening experience has been different in that every time I've converted from MP3 to WAV, the (negative) differences have been immediately audible - and not only to me, I must say.

Surely it is possible for companies to move to a WAV download world - or even high-res as such companies as Linn and Reference Recordings are doing.  (I'd need a new DAC for that, but given enough of the right software, that's an easy buy.)  I don't really care what the format is (FLAC, lossless whatever, etc), just as long the sound quality is at least as good as CD.

although it is always possible that one piece of software does a better job than another in the conversion.

I used two different programs to convert, with the same results.  So either A.) MP3 sucks, or B.) see A.).

[George]

I had to convert from MP3 to WAV, and then burn them to disc.  My main CD players don't play MP3s. 

I have never had a problem burning MP3 straight to CD (as an audio CD, not a data CD) and then playing the CD on my CD player.

Surely it is possible for companies to move to a WAV download world - or even high-res as such companies as Linn and Reference Recordings are doing.  (I'd need a new DAC for that, but given enough of the right software, that's an easy buy.)  I don't really care what the format is (FLAC, lossless whatever, etc), just as long the sound quality is at least as good as CD.

I fully agree. No excuse for companies to not make all of their downloads available as lossless. I bet the demand (due to itunes, etc) is not as high for lossless, though. 

[George]

Converting to wav is essentially what your software does when you play an MP3.

Right, just like when you burn an MP3 file to an audio CD. I just never heard of converting an MP3 to WAV before, probably because the half dozen or so burning software programs that I have used don't require it. I just drag the MP3 files to the window and burn to audio CD. Never had a problem. 

[Holden]

I'm interested in Todd's analysis of the Houston. While I don't own the PS set I've had the pleasure of hearing most of them and also hearing Houston live in concert. His Beethoven, to my ears, is excellent.

[Mandryka]

I agree it's strange to have to convert mp3 to WAV to burn a CD -- Windows Media Player, Nero, Burnn and Mediamonkey don't need that.

I agree that mp3 at 320kbps is often audibly inferior to lossless. I have had this problem with Cds from DGs website.

Naxos Music Library looks interesting -- but the site is dreadful for me. It takes for ever to download it. Is it slow all the time, or is it just slow for me now?

[DavidRoss]

I agree it's strange to have to convert mp3 to WAV to burn a CD -- Windows Media Player, Nero, Burnn and Mediamonkey don't need that.

It's not necessary for burning a CD.  It is necessary to make a CD that can play in a CD player that doesn't read MP3 files. 

[Bulldog]

Naxos Music Library looks interesting -- but the site is dreadful for me. It takes for ever to download it. Is it slow all the time, or is it just slow for me now?

I find the site very quick; must be you.

[Clever Hans]

I noticed that one can download many of his records from Qobuz in cd quality

http://www.qobuz.com/interprete/michael-houstoun/telechargement-ecoute-albums

Click an album and then
VRAIE QUALITÉ CD

They don't have the Beethoven late sonatas set or the set with opus 31, but the two others, for 23.99€/$33 each.