Blind Comparison LIGHTNING ROUND: Beethoven's 'Waldstein'!

[Sergeant Rock]

- This confirms my disappointment with Gilels. You may remember I bought that set a year ago and couldn't believe how bad I thought it was. I had put it to the side in hopes it was a timing issue or something, but I really don't hear great Beethoven from him in that set.... I had wishlisted that Serkin, but based on what I heard I won't be rushing out to get it,

Once again it's proven we have remarkable consistency in our opposite tastes    No surprise that 3 (Gilels) was my favorite, with Serkin taking the Silver and 4 (Lucchesini) my least favorite. Although I didn't actively participate, I listened to all the selections several times, and followed the commentary. I spotted Gilels immediately (which, I admit may have prejudiced my results: his was my first Waldstein on CD and has been in my collection almost 30 years; that iceberg CD is desert island material).

Sarge

[G. String]

Now that the only glorious 6 minutes in Serkin's cycle has been located, the question is, does even Lim has 6 minutes of favorable piano fiddling?

[Ken B]

Very interesting. Some thoughts:
- This confirms my disappointment with Gilels. You may remember I bought that set a year ago and couldn't believe how bad I thought it was. I had put it to the side in hopes it was a timing issue or something, but I really don't hear great Beethoven from him in that set.
- Lucchesini is a new name for me. Interesting that only a handful of us liked him.
- I don't understand the comments from others about 'dodging a bullet' or 'not wanting to look stupid'. We like what we like (at least at a given moment) and there is no shame in disliking a big name or liking a newcomer. This is the beauty of the blind listen - we are not prejudiced by the name attached, but instead listen to the music they make.
- I had wishlisted that Serkin, but based on what I heard I won't be rushing out to get it, so money saved!
- These lightning rounds can be just as interesting (and in some ways more) than the longer contests. Plus nice to have piano for a change. Nice work Brian!

Looking stupid is just what Cosi is wishing for us Kempff and Brendel fans! To trash him in a blind listen. I was lucky enough to praise the recordings of the only 2 here who, had you asked me, I'd have said yeah great pianist, like him.

[Sergeant Rock]

Now that the only glorious 6 minutes in Serkin's cycle has been located, the question is, does even Lim has 6 minutes of favorable piano fiddling?

Well, I love her Moonlight's Adagio sostenuto...but that's only four and a half minutes 

Sarge

[Ken B]

Well, I love her Moonlight's Adagio sostenuto...but that's only four and a half minutes 

Sarge

I get the distinct feeling HJ Lim has few admirers here. I've never heard a note by her.

[Sergeant Rock]

I get the distinct feeling HJ Lim has few admirers here. I've never heard a note by her.

Yeah, there are only a couple of us who appreciate her Beethoven. I do...in small doses. I like Brian's characterization: "a hyperactive retriever." There is something like a rambunctious, overly eager, slightly clumsy puppy in her playing. I think it's endearing but it's also exhausting.

Sarge

[mc ukrneal]

Once again it's proven we have remarkable consistency in our opposite tastes    No surprise that 3 (Gilels) was my favorite, with Serkin taking the Silver and 4 (Lucchesini) my least favorite. Although I didn't actively participate, I listened to all the selections several times, and followed the commentary. I spotted Gilels immediately (which, I admit may have prejudiced my results: his was my first Waldstein on CD and has been in my collection almost 30 years; that iceberg CD is desert island material).

Sarge

Amazing. Really, what are the odds that across so many works, time periods, genres, etc., there would be ANY consistency at all? We do seem to be more in line though when it comes to some of the large-scale/large-orchestra works. For example, we both liked Haitink's second Bruckner 9.

[Todd]

Andrea Lucchesini should do a Schubert or Schumann cycle, perhaps on period instruments

Lucchesini has recorded the Impromptus.  They are superb.  One problem with this comparison is that the full beauty of Lucchesini's tone does not come through in MP3.  I recently converted his entire cycle to MP3, and when compared to the CDs, something big is missing.  Anyway, perhaps had 27/1 been selected, the results would have been different.

This poor sound almost kill Gilels's astonishing piano tone, and reduced its ranking.

Yep.  And the sound samples so obviously hampered the dynamic range in Brawn's recording, that it is impossible for me to know what his recording is really like until I get the cycle when it's done.  I'm reminded also of the Gaspard blind listening round where Bavouzet's set, which is beautifully if distantly recorded on disc, came across as quite poor sounding in the comparisons.  These comparisons really need to use WAV files.

[Cosi bel do]

Looking stupid is just what Cosi is wishing for us Kempff and Brendel fans! To trash him in a blind listen. I was lucky enough to praise the recordings of the only 2 here who, had you asked me, I'd have said yeah great pianist, like him.

  I'm saying that only as a joke of course. Nobody is supposed to be ridiculed in that kind of exercise (or on such a forum in general), this is just not the point.

[Ken B]

  I'm saying that only as a joke of course. Nobody is supposed to be ridiculed in that kind of exercise (or on such a forum in general), this is just not the point.

And if in a blind guess the composer thread a Stockhausen fan said "just random sounds, no interest at all" I pinky swear I wouldn't chortle either.

[Cosi bel do]

 
Actually, this is why a blind comparison is not a guess or a test. This is an interesting exercise because it allows to have everyone's opinion WITHOUT the bias of knowing who plays, therefore someone who likes Kempff could criticize his version, but someone who hates him could also like what he does. And anyway, this does not mean you must stop loving a recording you've always liked. Knowing its weaknesses could even make you like it more.

[mc ukrneal]

   Speaking about sound-quality of clip, I found clip #3 (Gilels) suffered too much from the blur sound, compared to DGG CD , which I coincidently listened yesterday  (without knowing that is '#3). This poor sound almost kill Gilels's astonishing piano tone, and reduced its ranking.

Yep.  These comparisons really need to use WAV files.

Can't agree. There is a difference in the quality, but it sounds just as bad whether in mp3 or lossless. My ranking certainly would not have changed because of it, nor does his tone change significantly between the sample and my original. Actually, I don't even understand what 'astonishing piano tone' means. I cannot think of ANY pianist that has this (or rather, perhaps they all have it).  I am quite perplexed by these statements.

[0spinboson]

Yep.  And the sound samples so obviously hampered the dynamic range in Brawn's recording, that it is impossible for me to know what his recording is really like until I get the cycle when it's done.  I'm reminded also of the Gaspard blind listening round where Bavouzet's set, which is beautifully if distantly recorded on disc, came across as quite poor sounding in the comparisons.  These comparisons really need to use WAV files.

Well, for future tests it's probably preferable to offer higher bitrate mp3s (-v2 or better for variable), or lossless files, in order to exclude the possibility of dynamic compression by the mp3 encoder (especially since programs like Audition still tend to use outdated Fraunhofer encoders instead of state of the art Lame encoders).

[Todd]

There is a difference in the quality, but it sounds just as bad whether in mp3 or lossless.

How can there be a difference in quality, yet they sound just as bad?

Anyway, my experience is very clearly different from yours when comparing MP3 and WAV.

[G. String]

Can't agree. There is a difference in the quality, but it sounds just as bad whether in mp3 or lossless. My ranking certainly would not have changed because of it, nor does his tone change significantly between the sample and my original. Actually, I don't even understand what 'astonishing piano tone' means. I cannot think of ANY pianist that has this (or rather, perhaps they all have it).  I am quite perplexed by these statements.

There are many scientifically proven studies on the net that distinguishing between over 192kbps mp3s and lossless format is impossible except psychologically fooling yourself. In addition to that, if you don't use an external digital-to-analog convertor to listen to music from your Windows PC that is connected to a quality sound system, the results are identical.

[mc ukrneal]

How can there be a difference in quality, yet they sound just as bad?

Anyway, my experience is very clearly different from yours when comparing MP3 and WAV.

The playing sounds just as bad (or the same if you prefer something less negative) regardless of the quality of the sound.

[Brian]

Lesson learned for next time. I used Audacity to join the movements in each of the files, after carefully ripping 320 kbps MP3 files from CD sources (except Biss and Bavouzet, which were MP3 downloads at the same bit rate). But then Audacity automatically compressed each file without asking me, down to something like 128, which is low enough that you can tell the difference. If I'd discovered this at the start, it could have been resolved, but since it was after creating all five, honestly irritation/exasperation set in.

So my next game likely won't require any file-editing, or if it does, it will be after a careful comb through all the options and settings. Another issue is, suppose I had provided FLACs of the recordings I owned on CD; my download copy of Bavouzet could have been FLAC, but ClassicsOnline doesn't send me lossless files so audiophiles might have perceived Jonathan Biss at a disadvantage.

One more thought. I've been listening extra hard to James Brawn's CD in light of this. At first I dismissed him as "good but not great." He's still good but not great, but he never does anything wrong, has pretty good taste, and gets better with each listen. Will look forward to upcoming volumes of his cycle, especially if they send me free copies. 

[Brian]

I had never heard any of these. I will think about buying Serkin, and I will feel smug about not buying Bavouzet's Debussy.

Now now, Beethoven and Debussy are very different!

Hmm. James Brawn has potential. Andrea Lucchesini should do a Schubert or Schumann cycle, perhaps on period instruments; I would definitely enjoy that more than his Beethoven. Emil Gilels was much less Russian than I expected.

Like Todd said, Lucchesini has recorded the Schubert impromptus, and they are superb. They're on Avie, so still available, unlike the Beethoven.

[asin]B003KK7MIU[/asin]

Now that the only glorious 6 minutes in Serkin's cycle has been located, the question is, does even Lim has 6 minutes of favorable piano fiddling?

I remember liking several individual moments from HJ Lim's cycle. Checking on my full-length review, I find this:

"Lim's 'Appassionata' (Op. 57) is one of the best parts of her cycle. I should have known this would be. It has all the traits in which she excels: loudness, speed, emotional distance, forbidding unknowability, and brutal coldness. The first movement sizzles, the second maintains a stoic mask such that its inner peace is always in question, and the finale is more or less a headlong blitz to the finish except when the 'presto' coda arrives and she, of course, slows down, broadening the coda's first chords so wide you could sit on them. Only some watery, stumbling runs up and down the keyboard and botched chords serve to remind us of the fundamental enigma of HJ Lim: that she wishes to play everything like a demon-possessed super-pianist without having the ability to actually do so."

Apparently I also loved the finale of her "Pathetique" and enjoyed parts of Op 27/1.

[Todd]

The playing sounds just as bad (or the same if you prefer something less negative) regardless of the quality of the sound.

Got it, makes sense.

Lesson learned for next time. I used Audacity to join the movements in each of the files, after carefully ripping 320 kbps MP3 files from CD sources (except Biss and Bavouzet, which were MP3 downloads at the same bit rate). But then Audacity automatically compressed each file without asking me, down to something like 128, which is low enough that you can tell the difference. If I'd discovered this at the start, it could have been resolved, but since it was after creating all five, honestly irritation/exasperation set in.

Whatever bit rate or codec was used, the degradation of sound was obvious.  There is a bizarre, undulating distortion.  I know that people are not supposed to be able to pick out high bit rate MP3 (ie, 320) when compared to CD, yet I've been able to do it, at least when comparing a CD to a CD-to 320 MP3-back to CD conversions.  That was with an older version of EAC doing the file conversions.  Newer software probably works better.  I know the FLACs I got and then converted to WAV for Leotta's Beethoven sounded fine, but then that's FLAC.

[Pat B]

- I don't understand the comments from others about 'dodging a bullet' or 'not wanting to look stupid'. We like what we like (at least at a given moment) and there is no shame in disliking a big name or liking a newcomer. This is the beauty of the blind listen - we are not prejudiced by the name attached, but instead listen to the music they make.

For me it's basically tongue-in-cheek, and that's how I interpret it from others.

I get the distinct feeling HJ Lim has few admirers here. I've never heard a note by her.

I heard one sonata over the radio, and wasn't paying close enough attention to critique it. But yes, she is not generally held in high esteem around here. Before mentioning her yesterday, I listened to samples of her Waldstein and was decidedly not enamored with it.