Home audio and classical recording evaluation

[aukhawk]

'Living Stereo' in 1955 ?  Was it taped in stereo at that date - the first practical stereo released on vinyl was 1958 - but they may have used existing tapes.

Certainly any alteration means you are not getting the highest of fidelity - but in most cases perfect fidelity would not be a good thing - for example  an accurate reproduction of a concert grand in my living room would be completely intolerable.  ...

You have a volume control, I don't see what's intolerable about having the sound of a concert grand in your living room if you can adjust the volume.

I've heard of said that piano is particularly hard for hifi because of the percussive attack, I'm not sure this is true, but I have heard it said (apparently Yamaha speakers, their top of the range, are successful with piano, if I cared more about piano I'd check it out.)

If you take a (hypothetical) perfect solo piano recording and then turn the volume down to make it listenable, then you no longer have the highest of fidelity.  Most of the music would sound too quiet and some of it (the tails of sustained notes) would become inaudible, which is a serious loss of fidelity.  For this reason even pianophile labels don't attempt to supply such a perfect recording, even if their publicity suggests that they do.

The problem with a piano specifically is that a large part of the available dynamic range is taken up by the percussive attack of any fff or ffff chords.  These moments are rare - possibly as little as 1% of the total duration of the music.  By using a volume control to accommodate them the other 99% of the music is compromised. 
Hence the judicious use of compression by the recording engineers.  Obviously that is a compromise - if you are lucky to have a very quiet listening environment you would prefer less compression, whilst listening in the car you would prefer more - and everyone has different requirements here.
A much better approach would be zero compression as recorded, and the necessary compression applied 'to taste' by means of a variable control at the listening end.  But, for whatever reason, audio reproduction hasn't evolved like that.

If it were a lute, not a piano - then yes, the ideal would be a (again hypothetical) perfect recording, played back at a natural level.  Some lute recordings are very good indeed and so can be intensely pleasurable to listen to on a good system, in a way that (IME) a piano can't.

[Biffo]

'Living Stereo' in 1955 ?  Was it taped in stereo at that date - the first practical stereo released on vinyl was 1958 - but they may have used existing tapes.

RCA started experimenting with 'binaural' sound in the early 50s. Most of the recordings they made in 1954 were in true stereo on two-channel tapes. Later they switched to three-channel tapes. By the time stereo vinyl LPs came along in 1958 they had an extensive catalogue of 'Living Stereo'  recordings to release.

[Mandryka]

'Living Stereo' in 1955 ?  Was it taped in stereo at that date - the first practical stereo released on vinyl was 1958 - but they may have used existing tapes.

If you take a (hypothetical) perfect solo piano recording and then turn the volume down to make it listenable, then you no longer have the highest of fidelity.  Most of the music would sound too quiet and some of it (the tails of sustained notes) would become inaudible, which is a serious loss of fidelity.  For this reason even pianophile labels don't attempt to supply such a perfect recording, even if their publicity suggests that they do.

The problem with a piano specifically is that a large part of the available dynamic range is taken up by the percussive attack of any fff or ffff chords.  These moments are rare - possibly as little as 1% of the total duration of the music.  By using a volume control to accommodate them the other 99% of the music is compromised. 
Hence the judicious use of compression by the recording engineers.  Obviously that is a compromise - if you are lucky to have a very quiet listening environment you would prefer less compression, whilst listening in the car you would prefer more - and everyone has different requirements here.
A much better approach would be zero compression as recorded, and the necessary compression applied 'to taste' by means of a variable control at the listening end.  But, for whatever reason, audio reproduction hasn't evolved like that.

If it were a lute, not a piano - then yes, the ideal would be a (again hypothetical) perfect recording, played back at a natural level.  Some lute recordings are very good indeed and so can be intensely pleasurable to listen to on a good system, in a way that (IME) a piano can't.

That's interesting. The speaker that a friend of mine who likes piano music told me was by far the best at capturing the resonant clang and tintinnabulation of modern piano is Yamaha NS 5000 - Yamaha of course have a lot of in-house experience with piano. However I'm not enough of a fan of piano music to investigate them, and anyway the price is formidable.

https://www.hificorner.co.uk/yamaha-ns-5000-standmount-speakers.html

[ChopinBroccoli]

No it's not. That is one of the finest examples of the renowned "Living Stereo" RCA recordings from the "golden age". In my opinion would trouch a modern recording for sound alone.

What do you mean "no it's not"? 

That's insane

[ChopinBroccoli]

There seems to be a false dichotomy at play here, as if the question is whether it's the performance that matters or the recording.

Saying that the recording matters is in no way a claim that the performance doesn't. Whereas you seem to be intending now to declare the performance is all, and bugger the recording.

Personally, I can't escape the conclusion that your ability to conclude that a great performance WAS a great performance, if you weren't personally present at the time, necessarily involves a recording engineer having done a good enough job of giving you a decent impression of what was going on. The performance matters AND the recording matters.

George Szell's Allegretto in Beethoven 7 utterly trounces every other version I've heard (which has got be 100 of them) and the recording quality is not particularly good

artists make art

[Madiel]

George Szell's Allegretto in Beethoven 7 utterly trounces every other version I've heard (which has got be 100 of them) and the recording quality is not particularly good

artists make art

And recording engineers make it possible for you to hear them. Your willingness to denigrate the hard work of the technical people who make this art POSSIBLE is frankly unedifying.

[relm1]

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, the quality of the equipment is only as good as the weakest element.  I went through an audiophile phase and still have all the equipment but not the environment to enjoy it.  But when I had it and it was finely tuned, the results were stunning and the pleasure I derived from listening was sublime and I haven't had that since.  Not only do you need very high end gear but your home needs to have good acoustic treatment too.

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?

Impossible.  Sound needs air to move which you get through molecules moving air and don't get that with ear buds.  In addition, you don't have sympathetic vibrations that happens in large acoustic spaces (the way the sounds interact with the environment).

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

You can learn to understand what your sound system is capable of doing even if it isn't accurate.  For example, some audio engineers can get really good results with sub par equipment because they understand the equipment very well and know what it is doing and what it isn't doing so can understand how something really sounds even though their equipment is limited.

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

Yes but it is a connoisseur's obsession much like fine wine.  I don't know much about wine.  I couldn't tell the difference between a $10 bottle of wine and a $7,000 bottle but a connoisseur would care about it and also understand exactly how to experience fine wines.  99% of people are satisfied with never going over a $50 bottle of wine but that small group who does care, really cares about the region, the grape, the year, the technique, the storage material, the wine master, but to most people they won't notice any difference.  I think high fidelity is like that, most are fine with ear buds and for 99% of people that will do all they will ever need musically and some of us are fanatically obsessed with achieving an unattainable experience of auditory perfection.

[ChopinBroccoli]

And recording engineers make it possible for you to hear them. Your willingness to denigrate the hard work of the technical people who make this art POSSIBLE is frankly unedifying.

You're missing the point entirely.  Szell's 7th is not, in fact a particularly well-engineered recording.  There's got to be 100 others that have superior fidelity.  But none of them match the allegretto's ensemble performance and interpretation. 

Credit for that goes to Szell and his band

[Irons]

What do you mean "no it's not"? 

That's insane

The last time I looked I wasn't insane, but you never know.

You said: "it's the playing that makes it special".

I said: no it's not it's the sound that makes it special.

[ChopinBroccoli]

The last time I looked I wasn't insane, but you never know.

You said: "it's the playing that makes it special".

I said: no it's not it's the sound that makes it special.

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. 

[Florestan]

And recording engineers make it possible for you to hear them. Your willingness to denigrate the hard work of the technical people who make this art POSSIBLE is frankly unedifying.

I think you're being too harsh on him. If I understand him correctly, he says that it's possible that an older, sonic-wise imperfect recording be superior in "emotional content" to a modern, SOTA-sound one. And I can only agree. For instance, Bronislaw Huberman's performance of Beethoven's VC, recorded in 1932 (I think), with Vienna PO under Szell's baton. The sound is, well, noticeably 1932. Yet this is THE most passionate and intense performance I've ever heard of this work, and imho the "emotional content" of this recording is far above that of many modern ones whose sound is far better. I know you're not into historical recordings but give this a try, if only for the sake of refuting my point.

[ChopinBroccoli]

I think you're being too harsh on him. If I understand him correctly, he says that it's possible that an older, sonic-wise imperfect recording be superior in "emotional content" to a modern, SOTA-sound one. And I can only agree. For instance, Bronislaw Huberman's performance of Beethoven's VC, recorded in 1932 (I think), with Vienna PO under Szell's baton. The sound is, well, noticeably 1932. Yet this is THE most passionate and intense performance I've ever heard of this work, and imho the "emotional content" of this recording is far above that of many modern ones whose sound is far better. I know you're not into historical recordings but give this a try, if only for the sake of refuting my point.

Precisely ^

[Mandryka]

You know how there are some people who think that restoring a fresco to it's original state, with its original colours etc, ruins it, that the dirt and grime tone it down, make it less vulgar and gaudy, that the decayed fresco is more beautiful than the original? Chartres Cathedral is a well known example and Venice itself is a bit like that, the feeling of decay and the palpable sense of something precarious and old adds to the magic of being there.

Well I wonder if it's possible that the pleasure of Huberman playing a Beethoven concerto is enhanced by the ropy sound, that if we heard it in glorious phase 4 living stereo it or if we were at the concert, it would sound less magically romantic.

[Ratliff]

You know how there are some people who think that restoring a fresco to it's original state, with its original colours etc, ruins it, that the dirt and grime tone it down, make it less vulgar and gaudy, that the decayed fresco is more beautiful than the original? Chartres Cathedral is a well known example and Venice itself is a bit like that, the feeling of decay and the palpable sense of something precarious and old adds to the magic of being there.

Well I wonder if it's possible that the pleasure of Huberman playing a Beethoven concerto is enhanced by the ropy sound, that if we heard it in glorious phase 4 living stereo it would sound less magically romantic.

Yes, it is everything, the nuances of performance, the engineering, the playback, your state of mind when you listen. In olden times I'm sure they played differently in sessions so that it would come across on a shellac disc. As I said somewhere above, the key is whether the whole thing clicks and allows me to "enter" the performance in my imagination. Adequate playback equipment is part of it.

[Mandryka]

In olden times I'm sure they played differently in sessions so that it would come across on a shellac disc.

That's a thought I've never come across before.

[Florestan]

You know how there are some people who think that restoring a fresco to it's original state, with its original colours etc, ruins it, that the dirt and grime tone it down, make it less vulgar and gaudy, that the decayed fresco is more beautiful than the original? Chartres Cathedral is a well known example and Venice itself is a bit like that, the feeling of decay and the palpable sense of something precarious and old adds to the magic of being there.

Well I wonder if it's possible that the pleasure of Huberman playing a Beethoven concerto is enhanced by the ropy sound, that if we heard it in glorious phase 4 living stereo it or if we were at the concert, it would sound less magically romantic.

I didn't say "romantic", I said "passionate and intense". The two (three, actually) notions are not interchangeable. Nevertheless, this is a thought-provoking post. Very much so, actually. Please allow me some time to ruminate on it.

[Ratliff]

That's an thought I've never come across before.

Seems obvious, to me at least. Given the noise level of a 78 rpm shellac disc the dynamic range we hear on modern recordings would cause soft passages to disappear entirely into the surface noise.

I remember reading that during in the old days Mercury Living Presence producers would work with the conductor to manage dynamics so as not to exceed the limits of the technology (as opposed to Decca and others who would solve the same problem by gain-riding).

[mc ukrneal]

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, the quality of the equipment is only as good as the weakest element.  I went through an audiophile phase and still have all the equipment but not the environment to enjoy it.  But when I had it and it was finely tuned, the results were stunning and the pleasure I derived from listening was sublime and I haven't had that since.  Not only do you need very high end gear but your home needs to have good acoustic treatment too.

I wonder how much of this is in your mind and how much you actually hear. There is a psychological element here that you KNOW the equipment is better. Thus, you also have the pleasure of knowing that and enjoying that, which may make the impact even more. Am I making sense to you?

[ChopinBroccoli]

I wonder how much of this is in your mind and how much you actually hear. There is a psychological element here that you KNOW the equipment is better. Thus, you also have the pleasure of knowing that and enjoying that, which may make the impact even more. Am I making sense to you?

Same thing happens in taste tests ... tell somebody the wine is $5000 per bottle and they'll treat it differently than the exact same liquid they're told is $10

Now obviously, a stereo recording made in 2018 will almost certainly have more fidelity than a mono recording from 1953, I'm not suggesting otherwise

[Florestan]

I wonder how much of this is in your mind and how much you actually hear. There is a psychological element here that you KNOW the equipment is better. Thus, you also have the pleasure of knowing that and enjoying that, which may make the impact even more. Am I making sense to you?

You are certainly making sense to me.

I have never ever been able to tell the difference between mp3 and flac on any of the equipments I've ever used. Granted, they have always been low end, yet somehow I have always been able to "detect the emotional content" of any given piece I listened to and this makes me think that "emotional content" is much more dependent on performance than on recording.