New recordings or old?

[marvinbrown]

it's easy to get obsessed with sound quality, the gear you listen with etc...and to start listening to that rather than the music ... many hi fi buffs are afflicted with that.

  Thats a very "sound" - pardon the pun, observation James and one that I agree with.

  marvin

[Mark]

it's easy to get obsessed with sound quality, the gear you listen with etc...and to start listening to that rather than the music ... many hi fi buffs are afflicted with that.

Too true. I've told before the tale of the guy who spent thousands trying to get his system sound like it did in the showroom ... only to eventually spend a few hundred quid sound-proofing his room and then immediately find that this did the trick.

[Great Gable]

OK Let me re-phrase. He is an engineer who will not be dictated to my current trends. We are talking about rock in the main, not classical. It is not engineers who are bad, per se, but the musical industry. They are the ones who compress all life out of music by heavy DIGITAL compression. They are the ones who EQ post production.

I'm not talking about processes DURING production. The current trend is to re-release rock and pop albums with high EQ and compression for the mp3/i-pod/car radio listener.

This might not be an issue with classical music but it is a hot topic with modern rock music and especially with re-issued "re-mastered" albums, many of which are shockingly bad. In fact many album's initial releases are still sonically better than the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation re-masters that the record companies are cynically pushing on to the consumer. If you don't agree with me take a look at the forum where you will find hundreds of disgruntled music lovers.

[Great Gable]

Too true. I've told before the tale of the guy who spent thousands trying to get his system sound like it did in the showroom ... only to eventually spend a few hundred quid sound-proofing his room and then immediately find that this did the trick.

Yes I have witnessed this many times. There are guys on the SH forum who are obviously not entirely happy with their kit. many of these still have "upgrade-itis" and no matter what they but they are always looking for the next improvement. You would not believe some of the things they will do to eke that extra bit from their setup.

One thing I have learned, during my years of upgrade-itis, is that SYNERGY is the key. System matching will reap far more rewards than piddling around with enhanced power cables, expensive suspension units and room treatments.

I am at that happy place that is AUDIO NIRVANA now. I have built a system that excites me whenever I listen - and it's been like that since the last upgrade two yeard ago. Synergy is not a science, however, and a certain amount of luck will come into play.

[gmstudio]

OK Let me re-phrase. He is an engineer who will not be dictated to my current trends. We are talking about rock in the main, not classical. It is not engineers who are bad, per se, but the musical industry. They are the ones who compress all life out of music by heavy DIGITAL compression. They are the ones who EQ post production.

I'm not talking about processes DURING production. The current trend is to re-release rock and pop albums with high EQ and compression for the mp3/i-pod/car radio listener.

Well, rock and pop engineering is certainly a different animal.  Whereas in Classical (and Jazz) the idea is to reproduce the live sound as accurately as possible, that's not the point of rock/pop engineering. It's apples and oranges.   Most rock fans wouldn't care for a "natural sounding" record from, say Radiohead, in much the same way classical fans tend to abhor lots of post-performance enhancements to a Beethoven sonata.   There's really no need to compare the two...it's two very different audiences and two very different approaches.

If your fear of listening to "modern" recorded classical is based on this, I think you need to explore newer recordings more. I've yet to hear a classical album from the last 20 years that falls prey to this rock/pop mixing tendancy.  It's just not happening.

[Great Gable]

Not at all. In fact I have never heard a "squashed" classical recording.

As an engineer you might not be involved with re-mastering rock albums but you must be aware of the current trends?

As you say - two different animals with two different goals. The trouble is with rock, as I stated, the target market is the portable player. Hell, if I had the choice I would use a compression/EQ switch in the car now - those quiet moments are drowned in all but....well a Lexus. (I mention that cos a friend has one and even when he floors those 4 litres you can't hear the engine!).

In an ideal world all rock albums would be mastered/re-mastered properly and the EQ done at the consumer end. The trouble is, most people don't notice. This is in part due to the medium and in part due to the culture of today - where kids are less interested in a proiper Hi-Fi.

[Mark]

I find it an irritating experience these days, switching back to listening to non-classical recordings. All that post-production just sounds so awful.

[Great Gable]

I'll tell you Mark, in the prog forums I take part in one often sees posts with titles such as "Best Sounding CDs". I have around 3200 rock/prog CDs and I'd have a hard job picking ten that would qualify!

[Cato]

What do you think of these companies who are taking cylinders and old records from the early decades of the last century and with computers eliminating every click and pop and scratch?

Is this a good compromise?  Analogous to cleaning up a painting after several hundred years of neglect?  Or is the result still something artificial?

[Don]

Both. If you're to have a decent collection. Why deprive yourself of one or the other?

My sentiments exactly.  I acquire based on repertoire, and I'm not going to allow the age of a recording to interfere with my buying habits.

[Great Gable]

What do you think of these companies who are taking cylinders and old records from the early decades of the last century and with computers eliminating every click and pop and scratch?

Is this a good compromise?  Analogous to cleaning up a painting after several hundred years of neglect?  Or is the result still something artificial?

Once upon a time I would have said - "yes, it's a good thing to do". After all, I hate extraneous noise - hell, that's why I ditched vinyl. The trouble is that does seem to have a knock-on effect with what's left. there does have to be a compromise with historical recordings. It's where the line is drawn that's contentious. I have some Schnabel Beethoven sonatsa. Even the latest issue, which has received some noise reduction, is blighted by the worst hiss in my collection. Occasionally I can filter it out mentally, other times it's all I can hear.

[Great Gable]

My sentiments exactly.  I acquire based on repertoire, and I'm not going to allow the age of a recording to interfere with my buying habits.

But that's not what I'm doing. I'm just sticking to what I know - with no current need, or desire, to extend that.

[Larry Rinkel]

In general I am skeptical of recordings made in the past 10-20 years or so. While technical proficiency has reached unparalleled heights, today's performers in general do not seem to phrase with the imagination or individuality of the great performers of the past. Exceptions abound of course, but as an example think of the bland, generalized approach of a Renee Fleming, Pinchas Zukerman, John Eliot Gardiner, or James Levine, versus the incisive, detailed phrasing of a Lisa della Casa, Petre Munteanu, Zino Francescatti, or Igor Markevitch. And the HIP movement with its often preposterously fast tempos also tends to turn me off. The unfortunate paradox is that while sound quality on recordings keeps improving, performance quality has tended to go in the direction of a depressing sameness (unless one considers the tendency to be eccentric apparently for eccentricity's sake that one finds in the playing of, saying, Olli Mustonen of Piotr Anderszewski, or however you spell it).

[Don]

But that's not what I'm doing. I'm just sticking to what I know - with no current need, or desire, to extend that.

Veering toward the unknown has many advantages.

[Don]

In general I am skeptical of recordings made in the past 10-20 years or so. While technical proficiency has reached unparalleled heights, today's performers in general do not seem to phrase with the imagination or individuality of the great performers of the past. Exceptions abound of course, but as an example think of the bland, generalized approach of a Renee Fleming, Pinchas Zukerman, John Eliot Gardiner, or James Levine, versus the incisive, detailed phrasing of a Lisa della Casa, Petre Munteanu, Zino Francescatti, or Igor Markevitch. And the HIP movement with its often preposterously fast tempos also tends to turn me off. The unfortunate paradox is that while sound quality on recordings keeps improving, performance quality has tended to go in the direction of a depressing sameness (unless one considers the tendency to be eccentric apparently for eccentricity's sake that one finds in the playing of, saying, Olli Mustonen of Piotr Anderszewski, or however you spell it).

Spelling is correct.  Have to say that I don't share your skepticism and I love the HIP movement.

[Mark]

unless one considers the tendency to be eccentric apparently for eccentricity's sake that one finds in the playing of, saying, Olli Mustonen ...

Interesting you should name this guy. I'd not heard of him till recently, when I listened to his new Beethoven Piano Concerti Nos. 1 & 2 CD and found it a refreshing change to the heavy-handedness I've experienced in some recordings.

[Don]

Interesting you should name this guy. I'd not heard of him till recently, when I listened to his new Beethoven Piano Concerti Nos. 1 & 2 CD and found it a refreshing change to the heavy-handedness I've experienced in some recordings.

Mustonen is one of a kind.  I don't always agree with his approaches to interpretation, but I sure appreciate his creativity.  His Sibelius is fantastic.

[Great Gable]

Veering toward the unknown has many advantages.

But it's still a somewhat pointless excercise for me. I don't NEED to explore other versions outside of my comfort zone. There are more than enough versions from within my ""list" to keep me going. I'm not an avid collector of different versions (not of most pieces anyway) and they satsify me. I'm not disagreeing with the concept, or your very valid point - there is just no need.

[Larry Rinkel]

Spelling is correct.  Have to say that I don't share your skepticism and I love the HIP movement.

I like some HIPsters far more than others. I've been going through Paul McCreesh's Handel Theodora and it's quite good; Mark Minkowski is another reliable conductor with a good instinct for phrasing. Others, not so good.

[Don]

But it's still a somewhat pointless excercise for me. I don't NEED to explore other versions outside of my comfort zone. There are more than enough versions from within my ""list" to keep me going. I'm not an avid collector of different versions (not of most pieces anyway) and they satsify me. I'm not disagreeing with the concept, or your very valid point - there is just no need.

And I respect the acquisition preferences of others.  Concerning "comfort zone", I'm always amazed how mine grows over time.