Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › How important is sound quality to your enjoyment of a CLASSICAL performance?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How important is sound quality to your enjoyment of a CLASSICAL performance?

post #1 of 25
12/6/09 at 3:09am
Thread Starter 
I was thinking to today of how sound quality really does have an effect on my enjoyment of a classical performance. I was wondering how many people have similar thoughts.
I've been talking headphones with you for years. Now I can help you with your purchase:) Sales Specialist & Headphone Guru @ Headphones.com
Reply
post #2 of 25
12/6/09 at 3:36am
my favorite Beethoven is Furtwangler, Klemperer, and Schnabel. But unless the prime 'recommendation' of a piece is in mono I'd rather listen to a well-recorded one.
Reply
post #3 of 25
12/6/09 at 3:40am
Hey, I'm your first voter! 100% for option 5. I have a fair few historical (by which I would mean before late 50s) recordings, but they're all supplements to later recordings. I go to them if I want 'Furtwaengler's Beethoven', for example, but for just 'Beethoven', I'd always prefer something with a fuller sound.

I'd qualify that by saying that your descriptions of each option in the poll are generally in terms of historic v. modern, rather than differences in recording quality between modern recordings. In terms of the latter, it makes very little difference to me; once I have a certain level of recording quality, that's enough.
Reply
post #4 of 25
12/6/09 at 5:14am
Option 7.
I stay clear if the sound quality is anything but stellar.
Reply
post #5 of 25
12/6/09 at 5:28am
If we're talking actual classical, it's very important.
If we're talking "classical" (i.e. 20th century, romantic etc), then its not as important.
Reply
post #6 of 25
12/6/09 at 6:24am
I don't mind whether it's mono or not but I try to stay away from recordings which clip. That can easily ruin a performance especially in classical
Reply
post #7 of 25
12/6/09 at 6:28am
Option 7 here as well.
Reply
post #8 of 25
12/6/09 at 7:39am
option 7...
just recently got Brahms Ein Deutsche Requiem by Otto Klemperer. as good as the performance, just could not enjoy it due to poor sound quality..
Reply
post #9 of 25
12/6/09 at 8:34am
Option 4.
Generally I'd rate music performance over sound quality, but I'll admit less than stellar sound has an effect on the overall experience, especilally through headphones.
There are some very nice mono recordings however.
Reply
post #10 of 25
12/6/09 at 9:54am
I find that the better the sound quality, the better I can appreciate the artist's ability at playing, especially something like Chopin where the mics are up close to the piano.
Reply
post #11 of 25
12/6/09 at 11:24am
What that goes into your ears can only be as good as the weakest link in your chain. IMHO most of the early 60's stereo recordings and some of the late 50's stereo recordings already have a decent amount of recording quality and to claim that the sound quality from that period is unbearable often amounts to nick picking. But the gap between mono and stereo is like the gap between the HD201 and the HD800. For some like piano music I can still tolerate them in mono, but anything that requires soundstage like symphonies or operas sound absolutely lifeless in mono.

Most of the mono era legends are highly overrated anyway, I have always felt that Furtwaengler's extreme tempos are annoying, Toscanini is just flat out awful and I have never rated Callas as highly as Sills or Moffo. Many people seem to forgive the limitations of mono music and extrapolate the abilities of the artists based on what they can hear.
Reply
post #12 of 25
12/7/09 at 3:05am
Voted 5 although I don't like Furtwangler's SQ, it not so much a mono problem but rather a problem of background noise, hisses etc...

For other mono recordings eg some of Klemperer's I have no problem.

PS: I prefer the stereo Beatles
Reply
post #13 of 25
12/7/09 at 2:10pm
I am very partial to excellent sound, both because there are fewer distractions and for its own sake, but I should note that as sound (and probably your equipment) improves, you become aware of certain distractions that weren't present previously. You start hearing orchestra members shuffling around or fooling with their instruments or music, soloists breathing noisily, etc. It turns out that Glen Gould is not the only one who sings along.
Reply
post #14 of 25
12/7/09 at 2:46pm
Option 7. That is one reason I have been looking for a recent performance of Chopin Waltzes, so far without much look. One reason I enjoy Cecilia Bartoli's Vivaldi's album is not only because of her voice, but because the recording is excellent.
Reply
post #15 of 25
12/7/09 at 3:10pm
I voted 4. Mono doesn't bother me at all. Some vintage recordings have a bit too much noise from the original source, but I can live with that too. The only recordings I find I can't stand are live recordings that sound like they had one mike somewhere in the hall. I've heard some old opera recordings that sound that way that are practically unlistenable for me.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › How important is sound quality to your enjoyment of a CLASSICAL performance?