[lara veronin]

For what it's worth, my recordings, whether digital or analog, are judged based mainly on the performance-emotion-impact they have on me, and all my gear, no matter how "high res" or whatnot only brings me closer to that.

Listening for hiss, "hifi" signatures and the such is in my opinion ignoring the fundamental goal of recorded live music- for personal enjoyment and to delve into what the music is trying to convey.

Honestly, I still have a few hundred tracks that are either embarrassing to mention on an audiophile forum or of compressed format, or both.

The "defects" of the recordings are as much part of the recording as everything else. Most of my classical music is of many decades ago. To have compressed, noisy, and uninvolved sound quality in a modern studio recording is something to chide at.

To sum it up, I like to look at the roots and purpose of the recording before judging it's sound quality. You cannot have a blanket set of standards reasonably. When I listen to cheese pop, I enjoy them for the nostalgia. When I listen to classical recordings, I enjoy the noise, atmosphere, and life that comes with the recording. When I listen to a studio recording of acoustic music- then of course I will be less lenient towards the quality.

If I go around all day picking out music from "highly-regarded audiophile-targeted sonic-perfection" sources instead of choosing from my favorite composers etc. then I am doing a great injustice(and lying) to myself.

It is one thing to listen to your gear, it is another thing to discount the music you love (or new music you could be loving) because all of a sudden the hotshot gear reveals some arbitrary grunge you've never heard before.

Just my two measly cents on this matter.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnation33 /img/forum/go_quote.gif but but how do you listen to them... it drives me crazy even when the performance is good to hear the hiss (and it isn't soft at all) on my stax, which multiplies any artifacts 100x. I dunno I just can't stand it. Karajan wasnt as bad as the bohm recording though.

On my ATH-AD700 the background noise is not offensive as it is low level and the rest of my system is pretty quiet so the amp does not add it's own noise, on many recordings it is dead silent, but clearly it is not a STAX set-up.

Even when the noise is quite discernible (Solo Lute, old recordings) you just learn to tune it out you focus on the music not the sound though that seems paradoxical.

Your options seem to be

- get a less revealing system
- avoid all old (mostly analog-sourced ) recordings
- avoid music with low lows and keep to music where the average level is high
- learn to ignore the noise
- give up listening to classical music

 

[bigshot]

It sounds like you need to use equalization. Tape hiss should be at a very low level. If it is distracting, odds are you have a upper range spike in your frequency response somewhere.

See ya
Steve

(The idea that performances that were incredible in their time could be considered "dusty" today is absurd. Great performances are great performances. You might prefer a different style, but that doesn't make Bohm's readings bad.)

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif It sounds like you need to use equalization. Tape hiss should be at a very low level. If it is distracting, odds are you have a upper range spike in your frequency response somewhere. See ya Steve (The idea that performances that were incredible in their time could be considered "dusty" today is absurd. Great performances are great performances. You might prefer a different style, but that doesn't make Bohm's readings bad.)

What is absurd is thinking that something performed and recorded 40 or 50 years ago in a particular style will not be reevaluated and perhaps found to be lacking. It would be a very boring world if only these antique recordings were considered the apex of greatness.

In the end it is the notes on the page that hold all of the greatness, not any individual performance or recording. Interpretations as well as technology will always change as each generation finds new things to value in the works. If they did not, then all performance of these works would cease.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears /img/forum/go_quote.gif If they did not, then all performance of these works would cease.

Not quite. People, myself included, are actually still going out to the see and hear the symphony. And as much as I might admire Frtiz Reiner, Charles Munch, or Karl Bohm, none of them are still around.

I will be in Boston this weekend at Symphony Hall for performances of Dvorak's Cello Concerto and Beethoven's 6th Symphony. I know it will be a very enjoyable evening.

I can appreciate both historical recordings and contemporary performances...there is room in my life and on my shelf for both. Seeing all of these petty arguments over who is the best just smacks of snobbery. You can justify it any which way you like, but music is not a zero sum game as some are trying to portray it. And just because someone happens to favor Reiner or Bohm because they are timeless greats or Gergiev because of his fresh style -- neither diminishes the other.

--Jerome

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is absurd is thinking that something performed and recorded 40 or 50 years ago in a particular style will not be reevaluated and perhaps found to be lacking.

If something was great then, it is still great for the exact same reasons. I don't subscribe to the theory that there are "proper" performances, and I don't judge historical performances by the standards of modern performance practice. If someone wants to do that, they might as well get the one perfect modern performance and not bother to listen to any alternatives. But if they're going to do that, I feel confident in saying that they will miss out on a LOT of great music-making.

Bohm had a special way with Mozart and Beethoven and Wagner. It wasn't like any other conductor, nor would I want it to be.

 

[Tyson]

For audiophile level recordings (such as the Mackerras I recommended to you in the first place), check out any of the Hillary Hahn recordings, any Vivaldi on the Naive label, Gardiner in the Beethoven Symphonies, Mackerras and Brendel in the Mozart Piano Concertos (along with Goode and the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra), Kitajenko in the Shostakovich Symphonies, and in Mahler you can pick Chailly, Tilson Thomas, Barenboim, Rattle, all are very good performances in outstanding sound.

They say that classical music is dying, but I don't believe it. We have more great recordings now than we have ever had. The old masters from 50 years ago are still worthwhile, but there are also a plethora of very good, very interesting modern recordings in great sound.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif If something was great then, it is still great for the exact same reasons. I don't subscribe to the theory that there are "proper" performances, and I don't judge historical performances by the standards of modern performance practice. If someone wants to do that, they might as well get the one perfect modern performance and not bother to listen to any alternatives. But if they're going to do that, I feel confident in saying that they will miss out on a LOT of great music-making. Bohm had a special way with Mozart and Beethoven and Wagner. It wasn't like any other conductor, nor would I want it to be.

Time doesn't stand still and Böhm isn't the only game in town nowadays. What appeals to you may not appeal to someone else. If someone can't listen to the recording because the hiss bothers him, then take him at his word and move on. Finding fault in the listener because of the flaws in the recording technology is arrogant on your part.

 

[bigshot]

Ignorance is curable.

See ya
Steve

 

[jsaliga]

*Sigh* If anything, this discussion illustrates how easy it is to twist someone else's meaning into so something they really didn't say.

Would it be fair of me to argue that merely because there are newer recordings, newer interpretations, with better sound that historical recordings should be shunned? Surely no sensible person would dismiss the likes of Wilhelm Furtwängler with a wave of the hand merely because the sound isn't as sparkling clean as something recorded a few years ago.

By that logic it can argued that Roberta Gambarini makes Ella Fitzgerald irrelevant because she recorded Cole Porter, George and Ira Gershwin, and Harold Arlen songs in the past few years. Gambarini is a great singer in her own right, but no one who knows this music would jump on the notion that Fitzgerald is no longer valid as an artist. Sorry, but great music is great music -- regardless of when it was recorded.

Perhaps it is the notes on the page that hold all the greatness, but at the very least it takes an artist to breathe life into them. So without the performers, the notes on the page wouldn't mean much to most people.

This thread made me dig up an old RCA Victor LP that I have called Meet the Artist It was released at a time when RCA Victor was trying to promote several of it's new (at the time) recording artists.

...and on the back of the album are the following words of wisdom by George Marek, VP of RCA Victor:

Maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it. Because I still don't see why it must be an "either or" proposition.

--Jerome

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ignorance is curable. See ya Steve

Yes and pride goeth before the fall. whatever.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif *Sigh* If anything, this discussion illustrates how easy it is to twist someone else's meaning into so something they really didn't say. Would it be fair of me to argue that merely because there are newer recordings, newer interpretations, with better sound that historical recordings should be shunned? Surely no sensible person would dismiss the likes of Wilhelm Furtwängler with a wave of the hand merely because the sound isn't as sparkling clean as something recorded a few years ago.

I used to have the 1950 La Scala Furtwangler Rheingold and Gotterdammerung on CD , I am sorry to say they were the only recordings I ever just threw away, they were that bad (noise-wise) , far worse than the OP's recordings.

They have been remastered and recently re-released, but by now I have other recordings, coincidentally including the Bayreuth 1966 Bohm cycle which I really like.

 

[jsaliga]

So you don't think that Furtwängler's recordings are even worth listening to? How very sad.

--Jerome

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif So you don't think that Furtwängler's recordings are even worth listening to? How very sad. --Jerome

This was not a value judgment about their artistic merit, but in the version I had they were unlistenable. Normally I do not mind some noise and sub optimal recording quality but these were frankly execrable in a teeth-gritting way and I only refer to those specifc renderings (Opera D'Oro) of those specifc recordings not Furtwangler in general. Also I am far from the only person to bemoan those recordings.

 

[jsaliga]

Ahh...I misunderstood you. Thanks for the clarification.

--Jerome