Home audio and classical recording evaluation

[Irons]

So the only thing that separates that rendition of that work from literally any other one is recording engineering?  Is that your take here? Because yeah, it's pretty insane since it is objectively 100% false.  Munch and Boulez give markedly different readings of this same work, for example. 

Musicians make the sounds you hear, not recording engineers.  Their job is to try the best they can to make sure you can hear clearly what the musicians are doing.

No, I don't think that. But Szell is a much better example to support your argument then Munch. That recording by Munch is legendary as far as sound is concerned it also happens to be a good performance. Of course good sound enhances the enjoyment of music, and of course a performance can be so good that it transcends poor sound. To talk about anything being 100% in a discussion such as this is what I would call "insane".

[ChopinBroccoli]

No, I don't think that. But Szell is a much better example to support your argument then Munch. That recording by Munch is legendary as far as sound is concerned it also happens to be a good performance. Of course good sound enhances the enjoyment of music, and of course a performance can be so good that it transcends poor sound. To talk about anything being 100% in a discussion such as this is what I would call "insane".

Why is why I was stunned by your initial remark in the first place

The only absolutists seem to be the audiophiles in the discussion

[Florestan]

The only absolutists seem to be the audiophiles in the discussion

I wouldn't put it that radically.

I'd say that the audiophiles are as entitled to their opinion as the non-audiophiles, as long as they acknowledge that what they claim is personal experience, not fact.

[Madiel]

Not one of the audiophiles has said the performance is irrelevant as far as I can see.

Half the problem now is that people want to compare an old performance with a new one WHEN THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PERFORMANCES. I made the point several days ago that the only kind of comparison that's actually a proper consideration of sound quality is 2 different listening experiences of the same performance.

Telling me repeatedly how Szell is the best ever conductor of a piece is trying to a large extent to defeat a straw man. That's not the issue. The issue is whether listening to Szell on better equipment or with improved "remastering" (that may not be exactly the technical term, I'm not fully up on the technical terms) will get you a better emotional experience than listening to Szell on a pair of earbuds you got at the $2 shop.

[Madiel]

And saying that musicians make the sounds, not recording engineers, is misconceived. When you listen to a recording rather than a live performance, you are NOT listening to the sounds the musicians made. They have not been miniaturised and put in suspended animation inside your equipment. You are listening to the COMBINED result of the work of both people who initially generated a sound and people who did the work of capturing a likeness of that sound in a reproducible form. Not to mention the people who worked on your individual reproduction unit.

Not understanding this and acting as if you are just hearing the musicians is a bit like thinking that you could take a poster of Rene Magritte's famous pipe and use it to smoke.

You are listening to a product. You are doing that on your own personal equipment. It's perfectly possible there will be different versions of the exact same musical product, and indeed these days record companies try to make money by creating new versions of the same product. I mean... exactly how many different versions of this Szell performance are there? How many times has it been repackaged and tinkered with?

[Florestan]

The issue is whether listening to Szell on better equipment or with improved "remastering" (that may not be exactly the technical term, I'm not fully up on the technical terms) will get you a better emotional experience than listening to Szell on a pair of earbuds you got at the $2 shop.

I think  you stated the issue accurately. And my answer is NO.

[Florestan]

And saying that musicians make the sounds, not recording engineers, is misconceived. When you listen to a recording rather than a live performance, you are NOT listening to the sounds the musicians made. They have not been miniaturised and put in suspended animation inside your equipment. You are listening to the COMBINED result of the work of both people who initially generated a sound and people who did the work of capturing a likeness of that sound in a reproducible form. Not to mention the people who worked on your individual reproduction unit.

Not understanding this and acting as if you are just hearing the musicians is a bit like thinking that you could take a poster of Rene Magritte's famous pipe and use it to smoke.

You are listening to a product. You are doing that on your own personal equipment. It's perfectly possible there will be different versions of the exact same musical product, and indeed these days record companies try to make money by creating new versions of the same product. I mean... exactly how many different versions of this Szell performance are there? How many times has it been repackaged and tinkered with?

Fair enough. Really.

[Madiel]

I think  you stated the issue accurately. And my answer is NO.

You keep saying you can always hear the emotional content.

This is actually the wrong test. The test you need is to find examples of where you can't, quite, until you shift to better equipment or a better version, and it makes a difference to how you feel.

Recordings that already really do it for you aren't the test. The test is recordings that only kind of do it for you.

[Florestan]

You keep saying you can always hear the emotional content.

This is actually the wrong test. The test you need is to find examples of where you can't

I haven't found such examples yet.

And I will probably never find them.

Can you guess why?

[Madiel]

I haven't found such examples yet.

And I will probably never find them.

Can you guess why?

Yes, because it's pretty much impossible to actively look for them, and you wouldn't have any inclination to consciously do so even if it was feasible.

Actually knowing that you're missing out on something you're not experiencing is not possible, unless you live in a constant fear of missing out which I would not recommend.

The label "audiophile" has been thrown around. I don't think I'm an audiophile. The system I bought this year is still fundamentally at the cheap end of the spectrum. I'm just conscious that I do have some minimum standards, and that's simply because I do remember the relatively rare occasions that I've EXPERIENCED a direct comparison and I remember the lessons learned.

I don't buy mp3s because of the experience of hearing the exact same album on mp3 and CD. I bought my CD player and not an even cheaper one because of the experience of hearing how much clearer the same music was.

I don't spend every day fretting over the question of sound quality. I just know that it can make a difference to what I can hear. And I can't emotionally respond to something in the music that I can't actually hear.

[Florestan]

Yes, because it's pretty much impossible to actively look for them, and you wouldn't have any inclination to consciously do so even if it was feasible.

Wrong and disappointing answer. Really.

[Madiel]

Wrong and disappointing answer. Really.

You really shouldn't ask me things if your expectation is that I either read your mind or ignore my own. You've been doing that on 2 threads.

I am neither psychic nor here to stroke your ego.

[ChopinBroccoli]

Not one of the audiophiles has said the performance is irrelevant as far as I can see.

Half the problem now is that people want to compare an old performance with a new one WHEN THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PERFORMANCES. I made the point several days ago that the only kind of comparison that's actually a proper consideration of sound quality is 2 different listening experiences of the same performance.

Telling me repeatedly how Szell is the best ever conductor of a piece is trying to a large extent to defeat a straw man. That's not the issue. The issue is whether listening to Szell on better equipment or with improved "remastering" (that may not be exactly the technical term, I'm not fully up on the technical terms) will get you a better emotional experience than listening to Szell on a pair of earbuds you got at the $2 shop.

You are aware Szell's records have been remastered quite a few times?

Take, for example his Wagner Ring music album from 1968 ... it's one of my favorite records in any genre of music... First bought it on cassette of all things 23 years ago in the CBS "Great Performances" format (older collectors will remember these as they looked like the front page of a newspaper) ... fell in love with it immediately.  A year later I decided I should get it on a proper CD.  So I got the Sony Masterworks remaster which eliminated some of the hiss from the older one but also took a little bit of the high end treble away, leaving a dryer sound so you gain but you also lose ... still, easily adjusted to the change in a matter of minutes because it's the same performance with just a minor difference in overall sound.  Years went by and I saw there was another remaster (an album with the ludicrous title Wagner Without Words) that purported to restore some of the lost treble while still producing far less hiss than the original I had on cassette... and, yes it was true.  It was a somewhat clearer sounding recording.  Finally, they gave it a further upgrade when the big Szell box came out.  This was the clearest one yet.  Very nice and I was happy. 

What never actually changed though was that the overwhelming reasons the record remained a desert-island disc had almost nothing to do with any of this thoughtful tinkering (which I'm fine with, I think the remasters sound great and I'm glad they exist) and had everything to do with the music itself.  The ensemble playing on that record is outrageously excellent; the secondary voice clarity and sectional articulation is a miracle and the interpretive tension-and-release is thrilling ...

if nobody had ever bothered remastering that record and it still sounded exactly the same as it did on cassette, it would still be on my short list of desert island discs ... the improved fidelity and suppression of hiss is a nice bonus, but the art/emotional/intellectual content, whatever you prefer to call is the reason the album is what it is

[dissily Mordentroge]

I wouldn't put it that radically.

I'd say that the audiophiles are as entitled to their opinion as the non-audiophiles, as long as they acknowledge that what they claim is personal experience, not fact.

May I suggest you acquaint youself with the vast body of empirical research and testing that's underscored so many improvements in the reproduction of music over the last several decades? It's not based on superstition or 'personal experiece'.

[Daverz]

"This revision brings new science-based perspectives on the performance of loudspeakers, room acoustics, measurements and equalization, all of which need to be appropriately used to ensure the accurate delivery of music and movie sound tracks from creators to listeners."

[asin] 113892136X[/asin]

[dissily Mordentroge]

Which leads to another contentious subject. The number of men who cave in to their female partners and compromise on the accurate reproducion of recorded music in the home in the interests of 'décor'. The industry itself though is in part to blame for pushing absurdly ugly and oversized gear onto the market. Bose figured this out a long time ago and has made millions extruding a plastic tizz, fizz, fizz treble from up near the ceiling accompanied by a fat, none too deep bass, going Phoomph, Phoomph from under the sofa. OK, if people enjoy such compromises. Lets not pretend it has much to do with the reality of live music, especially the acoustic kind.

[Madiel]

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

I'd just like to point out at this juncture that the chosen word was "influences".

Not "determines".

[dissily Mordentroge]

I'd just like to point out at this juncture that the chosen word was "influences".

Not "determines".

I'd like to add another simple question to that. Do  micro and macro dynamic contrasts add anything to the expressive power of music, live or recorded?

[Daverz]

I'd like to add another simple question to that. Do  micro and macro dynamic contrasts add anyting to the expressive power of music, live or recorded?

Made up audiophile jargon.

[dissily Mordentroge]

Yes, because it's pretty much impossible to actively look for them, and you wouldn't have any inclination to consciously do so even if it was feasible.

Actually knowing that you're missing out on something you're not experiencing is not possible, unless you live in a constant fear of missing out which I would not recommend.

The label "audiophile" has been thrown around. I don't think I'm an audiophile. The system I bought this year is still fundamentally at the cheap end of the spectrum. I'm just conscious that I do have some minimum standards, and that's simply because I do remember the relatively rare occasions that I've EXPERIENCED a direct comparison and I remember the lessons learned.

I don't buy mp3s because of the experience of hearing the exact same album on mp3 and CD. I bought my CD player and not an even cheaper one because of the experience of hearing how much clearer the same music was.

I don't spend every day fretting over the question of sound quality. I just know that it can make a difference to what I can hear. And I can't emotionally respond to something in the music that I can't actually hear.

I may be somewhat obsessed with the quality of the gear I listen to music in the home with. certainly over the decades I've spent obscene amounts of money on it. However audiophiles drive me insane. It's almost a defining quality of audiophiles that they'll talk whilst listening to music and interupt a track half way through to play the same damned thing with another $5000 crartridge or on another $10,000 CD player. I ceased inviting these creatures for musical evening a long time ago.
On the other hand if a friend has acquired a new, say, amplifier and wants to hear how it sounds on my junk I'm happy to oblige so long as they understand the rules. I listen to nothing less than entire tracks at the volume I prefer and there's no talking. Talking's OK now and again though if it's a party with a room full of stoned geriatric hippies.