Home audio and classical recording evaluation

[dissily Mordentroge]

I don't want to instigate a forum section dedicated to how the quality of posters home audio systems dictates the validity of critiques given here but there are a few simple questions I'd like to ask.

1: Do posters think the equipment they listen to music on at home influences their ability to detect the emotional content of recorded music?
2: Do posters think accurate observations of recording quality can be made with something like a mobile ( cell phone in the US) through ear buds?
3: Should we accept evaluations of something like the tonal richness, dryness, sharpness etc of a recording without knowing how it was heard?
4: Does any of this matter to any of you?

[The new erato]

Yes, No. No. Yes.

AS for artistic quality I"l happily listen to medio re sound.

[Mandryka]

1: Do posters think the equipment they listen to music on at home influences their ability to detect the emotional content of recorded music?

Yes obviously so for acoustic instruments, because the equipment changes the sound. Second rate equipment, for example, will not correctly reproduce the harmonics correctly, and may well be voiced incorrectly. The capacity of the listener to detect the emotional content of the performance supervenes on the sound, so yes, obviously.

2: Do posters think accurate observations of recording quality can be made with something like a mobile ( cell phone in the US) through ear buds?

No not substantial accurate ones, for above reasons

3: Should we accept evaluations of something like the tonal richness, dryness, sharpness etc of a recording without knowing how it was heard?

No, and a serious reviewer would listen on several good systems, at several different times, having eaten several different lunches. In my experience the same recording can sound quite different through different amplification and speakers, and indeed in different rooms, and after different types of food and wine.

4: Does any of this matter to any of you?

Yes very much so. For years I used to go to concerts of acoustic music and come away frustrated because when I played music at home, it didn't sound as good as live.

[Madiel]

As to question 2, it depends very much on the quality of the equipment (just as it would with any other kind of equipment).

I still remember when I first got better earbuds to pair with my iPhone at Christmas. What's wrong with the ones Apple give you, my sister asked? Then she tried my new Sennheisers and soon found out.

As to question 1, my bigger beef is with people who listen to lossy formats like mp3 and then comment on the quality of the recording. You might think this would never happen but I've certainly experienced it in pop music world, with people commenting on flat production with no insight into the sonic detail they have lost because they're listening to a shitty download.

[Madiel]

As to question 3, I would argue a qualified yes because if someone is consistently using the same equipment then it's most likely that the RELATIVE qualities of what they are hearing from one recording to the next are maintained.

A particular system might make everything sound a bit dry, but it's most unlikely it will make recording A sound drier than recording B unless recording A sounds drier than recording B on pretty well all systems. So remarks that recording A is drier than average are probably valid.

Whether that is too dry or not, well that's going to depend on the individual and their system and their tastes. Frankly most people who care about these things will have picked a SYSTEM in line with their own tastes anyway.

[dissily Mordentroge]

Yes, No. No. Yes.

AS for artistic quality I"l happily listen to medio re sound.

Medio is a new word to me. A combination of mediocre with audio?

[Jo498]

1. Barely. Certainly one could think of setups so wretched that they seriously interfere but I think this is more rare than certain types of audiophiles believe and want us all to believe. (Totally screwing up sound quality does work with some mp3 soundbits. I remember that online soundbits of harpsichord recordings over computer speakers did sound unlistenable despite the actual recordings sounding good or very good on fairly standard hifi equipment.)
2. Doubtful, although I personally have no experience with cellphone and earbuds.
3. No
4. very little. Even with equipment most people would find decent, there will be fairly large differences in reproduction and perception of sound and different preferences among listeners. So judgements would have to be taken with more than a grain of salt in any case. The fact that some people listened with portable boomboxes 30 years ago and with mobiles today are only the extreme cases but it doesn't change the general problem. So only trust you own ears. Actually, I don't even trust my own ears. There are some things I apparently can "tune out" easily even in mediocre or bad sounding (often historical) recordings and other things that mostly spoil an otherwise decent sounding recording to me. And I usually cannot name these things in the general and abstract, certain distortions don't matter, others are grating.

[The new erato]

Medio is a new word to me. A combination of mediocre with audio?

No. A combination of a cell phone keyboard and Some thing...

[aukhawk]

Yes very much so. For years I used to go to concerts of acoustic music and come away frustrated because when I played music at home, it didn't sound as good as live.

I've always had the opposite experience.  The concert-hall experience has enough disadvantages** that I greatly prefer playing recordings at home.

** inferior sound (since I would never pay for a 'best' seat).
** uncomfortable seating, temperature etc.
** the need to be on best behaviour in polite company.
** distractions.  (OK, these can happen at home too, but at least they don't include the conductor.)

It's a bit different with jazz.  I have one double-CD recording of a gig I was present at (Stan Tracey Quartet, at Ronnie Scott's), and, well, I guess you had to be there.  The CD is dull, the night was memorable.

In answer to the OP,
1. No;   2. 'accurate' no, 'meaningful' probably;  3. Trust no-one!  (I often take 'anti-recommendations' from this forum - I know that if certain posters like a record, I won't - and vice versa.)

[andolink]

I've always had the opposite experience.  The concert-hall experience has enough disadvantages** that I greatly prefer playing recordings at home.

Exactly!

I've always had that view too.  Excellent recordings typically put the home listener in an idealized perfect seat; indeed, a perspective not possible at the actual venue due to mike placements (frequently above the performers).  And, of course, there are all those distractions at a live event you mention too.

[Mandryka]

I always get the best seat.

What I find is that second rate hifi equipment doesn't reproduce well many of the resonances caused by the hall, resonances which contain important spacial, imaging, information. And of course the equipment isn't so good at voicing instrumental harmonics.  All this can make music at home sound smooth, flat and grey and lifeless. The problem is exacerbated in many studio recordings, which often engineer away asperities to produce a more anodine experience.

And so for me the live experience in a bad seat is better than the home experience with second rate equipment.

[mc ukrneal]

I don't want to instigate a forum section dedicated to how the quality of posters home audio systems dictates the validity of critiques given here but there are a few simple questions I'd like to ask.

1: Do posters think the equipment they listen to music on at home influences their ability to detect the emotional content of recorded music?
2: Do posters think accurate observations of recording quality can be made with something like a mobile ( cell phone in the US) through ear buds?
3: Should we accept evaluations of something like the tonal richness, dryness, sharpness etc of a recording without knowing how it was heard?
4: Does any of this matter to any of you?

1. No. Even with bad equipment, I think you can detect it, if it's there to be found.
2. Yes, though it depends quite a bit on the quality of all the pieces from recording to ear. SO sometimes no, but it is possible.
3. Meaningless question for me. Or perhaps I just don't understand what you are asking.
4. Not a whole lot.

[ChopinBroccoli]

Generally, I hope an orchestral piece is at least in Stereo ... beyond that, it has no bearing on my enjoyment.  I'm interested in the quality of the playing and the spirit and intelligence of the performance... The greatest recording and playback set-up devised by mankind will never make Simon Rattle into Fritz Reiner ... if you can't listen to Reiner doing Zarathustra or Szell doing Don Juan or Munch doing Daphnis and Chloe, Bernstein doing Romeo and Juliet etc etc because you don't like the sound enough, you can't see the forest for the trees

Piano?  Forget it... as long as you can differentiate all the notes being played, it's fine by me, mono or stereo.  Imagine depriving yourself of peak Richter live or Casadesus or Rufolf Serkin or Rubinstein etc because you want it to sound like the piano is in your living room... absolute madness having practically nothing to do with music

[ChopinBroccoli]

As to question 3, I would argue a qualified yes because if someone is consistently using the same equipment then it's most likely that the RELATIVE qualities of what they are hearing from one recording to the next are maintained.

A particular system might make everything sound a bit dry, but it's most unlikely it will make recording A sound drier than recording B unless recording A sounds drier than recording B on pretty well all systems. So remarks that recording A is drier than average are probably valid.

Whether that is too dry or not, well that's going to depend on the individual and their system and their tastes. Frankly most people who care about these things will have picked a SYSTEM in line with their own tastes anyway.

Precisely

[André]

Question 1: As I'm writing this, I'm listening to a 1950 recording of Beethoven's 9th from the Leipzig radio. In the first movement the conductor (Hermann Abendroth) unleashes volleys of thundering timpani that overload the sound image and cause distortion. Some quiet pizzicati in the Adagio are heard as if played next to me. Then horns and winds enter and the sound coarsens. I know exactly what sonic limitations there are and am not in the least influenced by them in my appreciation of the emotional content of the performance. Listening to it on a system 10 times more expensive than mine would only make technical issues clearer, it would not make them vanish.

So, no, the equipment I listen to at home has no influence on my appreciating the emotional content of the music/performance.

Question 2: I don't own a cell and if I did would never listen to music on it. I have a tablet and listen to youtube rarities now and then.

Question 3: why not ? I trust others' ears more than their good taste, after all .

Question 4: very little. I meet with a group of friends every 6-8 weeks and we listen to our music in 3 different locations and sound systems. There are obvious differences but my ears adjust. It's actually interesting to have a different sonic perspective, just like having different seats in a hall.

[Mandryka]

Question 1: As I'm writing this, I'm listening to a 1950 recording of Beethoven's 9th from the Leipzig radio. In the first movement the conductor (Hermann Abendroth) unleashes volleys of thundering timpani that overload the sound image and cause distortion. Some quiet pizzicati in the Adagio are heard as if played next to me. Then horns and winds enter and the sound coarsens. I know exactly what sonic limitations there are and am not in the least influenced by them in my appreciation of the emotional content of the performance. Listening to it on a system 10 times more expensive than mine would only make technical issues clearer, it would not make them vanish.

I remember years ago when I first started to post here, I argued that I could get a lot out of historical recordings because I could listen imaginatively, I could imagine what sort of sound the musician was making, I was talking about Cortot I think, and suggesting that the 1950s  recordings helped me to use my imagination when I listened to the 1930s recordings. Someone immediately jumped down my throat and started barking, saying this isn't possible.


I don't know whether this is along the lines of what you meant.

Music is sound. You can either hear it or use your imagination. I don't see that there's another way.

[Mandryka]

1: Do posters think the equipment they listen to music on at home influences their ability to detect the emotional content of recorded music?

the difference is one of kind (to a live performance) rather than degree (which is the case with different quality systems).

Maybe you could say more about that.

[Irons]

Generalisations do not work in my opinion. Our needs are different, musicians do not need expensive systems as sound itself is not important, they derive as much pleasure from reading a score as listening to it. I have had no musical training so the mechanics of music do not interest me but the emotional content does, and for this sound is important which follows I own the best system I can afford. But even here "good sound" is a generalisation, I can listen to a mono recording from the 1950's and marvel at the immediacy. Sometimes I find modern recordings so perfect they are dull and boring - the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.

[Mandryka]

Generalisations do not work in my opinion. Our needs are different, musicians do not need expensive systems as sound itself is not important, they derive as much pleasure from reading a score as listening to it. I have had no musical training so the mechanics of music do not interest me but the emotional content does, and for this sound is important which follows I own the best system I can afford. But even here "good sound" is a generalisation, I can listen to a mono recording from the 1950's and marvel at the immediacy. Sometimes I find modern recordings so perfect they are dull and boring - the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.

Music is sound.

Sometimes I find modern recordings so perfect they are dull and boring - the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.

This is the mastering in the studio. Some people think that smoothing out all asperities of "real" music making, making a beautiful smooth, polished sound, is the aim of mastering.

[Mandryka]

When you are listening to a live performance the music is coming to you unfiltered by any electronic device(s).  All recordings are filtered and degraded to some degree by the process of recording the sound and its later reproduction (difference in kind).  While higher quality audio equipment tends to diminish the distortion, there is still a filtering of the sound, both at the front end (during the recording) and the back end during the playback (difference in degree).

Yes, this is one of the reasons why good kit matters -- to minimise crossover distortions, intermodulations etc.

This is also not to account for the intangibles present at a live performance which can enhance the experience that are not there when you listen to a CD on your home system.

Yes. You have a group of musicians in different places, one behind a pillar, one at the back of the stage. These things are hard to capture on a recording and hard to reproduce, but I think with good equipment you can do well, for small scale acoustic music at least.

But there's something else which may be insurmountable. In the concert, each time you move your head you change your perspective on the sound. I think that is probably why a live music feel is probably unattainable, and why, as you suggested, recordings are different "in kind."