Old vs New Recordings
Mon, Sep 24 2012, 9:09PM
#2
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Great solo piano recording (audio quality, besides being superb performance): Chopin Nocturnes by Ivan Moravec (Connosseiur Society 60's recordings).
Best. H.
PS: An orchestral nugget: Kertesz VPO New World Symphony, in its Esoteric label CD incarnation.
Mon, Sep 24 2012, 10:50PM
#3
RE: Old vs New Recordings
So, 33lp, I guess we may converge now. I never claimed that old recordings, originally issued as LPs, sound better than the respective CDs. There is an exception in some very successful transfers, particularly in SACD, but I can agree that the "original" product is generally better or preferable than any other "transformation" of it. By the way, before turning to CD, I used to listen extensively to LPs, with my old but quite good system (Linn Sondek, Van den Hull, Musical Fidelity and then early Krell and B & W 801).
My view from decades of listening is that original recordings on CD (and recently on SACD) are better (sometimes far better) than old recordings transferred to CD. I don't compare LPs with CDs: they are different products after all! Of course, there are exceptions to the rule...(normally, when the performance is so good or legendary that it is quite hard for us to accept a mediocre new one may sound...cleaner, more natural, more detailed, with better dynamics etc.).
Parla
Tue, Sep 25 2012, 2:03PM
#4
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Some big differences of opinion. What could be the cause(s) of such differences?
A few suggestions (not mutually exclusive):
1. Differences in personal preference of sound quality.
2. Differences in the sounds from diffferent Hi-Fi systems / Manufacturers
3. Prejudice against older / newer recordings.
Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for 'double-blind' testing. A few undated recordings (e.g. of piano music) on the Gramophone player might yield some unexpected responses. How about it Martin?
Chris
Tue, Sep 25 2012, 3:36PM
#5
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Chris
Good idea; very interesting. The only real test of this is, of course, experience. (Though on the Gramophone Player, that already invalidates at least some aspects of the intended comparison.)
All the same, I just can't believe that things haven't, overall, improved - and improved significantly. We are talking about fifty years of technology here - longer, if you dig down into the fifties. Everything else that relies on technology has improved hugely over this time period. Even taking into account the impact of different venues and the gradual (and unexplained) extinction of a class of master recording technicians, it would be extremely odd if our overall ability to make, and play back, recordings had stood still or actually diminished in some way.
Tue, Sep 25 2012, 7:33PM
#6
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Hi Eliza!
Yes, of course there have been considerable technological improvements over the last 50 years. Only part of that improvement concerns sound quality though, and some of us (especially 33lp and me, I suppose) feel that part of that potential for improvement has often been offset by the reduction in carefully prepared studio recordings in favour of an increased practice of recording 'live' in unsuitable venues.
But this is only half the story. The other half is that modern technology has made it much more practical to record live, even in potentially unsuitable venues. Whatever the consequences for sound per se (the primary subject of this thread), the undisputable result has been many more recordings of wonderful live performances of every genre for which we can all be grateful. And for me the capture of so many superb live concerts, operas etc. dominates by far over any potential defects of sound quality. Ultimately, it's the music that counts, doesn't it?
Chris
Tue, Sep 25 2012, 7:30PM
#7
RE: Old vs New Recordings
OK Stephen, I take your point! And I've just noticed in your favourites list Liszt played by Demidenko on Hyperion. I did hear him play that programme live in the Wigmore Hall, then bought the CD of course.
Chris
[/quote]
Tue, Sep 25 2012, 7:47PM
#8
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Chris, yes, indeed, what performances; if I was forced to choose one of the three Hyperion versions of the B minor sonata, it would be Demidenko - and Hamelin and Hough are pretty fine competition! Great pity Demidenko left Hyperion, because the recordings he did make for them are all very, very good. I think especially of the Medtner 2 and 3 and the Weber in the Romantic Piano Concerto series, the magnificently fast and thrilling Chopin scherzos, and one of the best Pictures at an Exhibition versions around.
Tue, Sep 25 2012, 7:46PM
#9
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Yes that lesser-known VPO Kertesz is a nugget, hector, even on my Weekend Classics second-hand CD; further refurbishment by Esoteric would no doubt make it even better.
Tue, Sep 25 2012, 10:31PM
#10
RE: Old vs New Recordings
This is an interesting discussion and I will just add a few more general remarks which kind of feel out of context with what's currently being discussed.
I believe that even nowadays there are differences between labels in the "soundscape" put on disc, maybe not as extreme as in the past (Decca versus DG for example) but still there. No matter how good the new equipment, I can hear clear differences between the labels.
On a side note, a year ago I purchased the famous Macbeth with De Sabata and Callas as a CD. I had the LP but thought their remastering would have improved it. Quite the opposite was the case, it got noticably worse, especially the first act. So I contacted EMI and they told me that their master tapes had deteriorated and this was the best they could do. So, my advice is: don't get rid of your LPs before verifying that the CD/other reissue isn't at least as good or better. This is not just the old discussion of "LP versus CD" but in addition the question of time changing the quality of their master tapes. I was surprised to find this.
Finally, there are quite a few modern high profile recordings with clear sound problems. I don't know if the Mahler 9 with Giulini & Chicago was ever fixed, and the Bernstein Carmen from DG had problems too (sound saturation in both cases).
Tue, Sep 25 2012, 10:56PM
#11
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Stephen, with all due respect to Hyperion, there are quite a few other labels of better sound, products, artists involved and pretty much in our times production line.
Hyperion has lost some of the glamour it enjoyed when there was no SACD and there were less labels and, practically no touch with the world markets, particularly the Japanese labels, which make a huge different in sound reproduction. Just listen to any product of Exton, Triton, Denon (let alone Esoteric's amazing transfers of Classic recordings to SACD) etc. and the rest of the European, American or British labels almost pale in comparison. Possibly, Pentatone, Channel, Linn, Praga, some Lyrinx and some BIS recordings can come close (few times close enough).
Demidenko was a very gifted pianist, but with a very "individual" character, which shows even in his playing. His first recordings I believe were his best. Afterwards, the troubles started...Just listen to a true Japanese (not like Uchida and the rest European or American-Japanese) pianist, like Kyoko Tabe, in some spectacular recordings (in Denon, Exton, even in Chandos), and you may see another world of Piano playing...being impressively recorded.
As for Esoteric, their catalogue is impressive enough: except the already sold out Solti's "Ring", in a most impressive SACD format (reached in auction the amount of nearly $1000!), there are among others (always in almost perfect SACD) :
- Mozart's Piano Concertos nos. 20 &27 with Curzon/Britten.
- Falla : The Three Cornered Hat with Ansermet.
- Beethoven's Symphonies with Munich P.O. under Kempe.
- Schubert's "The Great" with MPO and Kempe again.
- Haendel's Wind Instruments Sonatas with Bruggen, Asperen, Bylsma etc.
Parla
Wed, Sep 26 2012, 8:06AM
#12
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Interesting comments Ganymede!
As regards the deterioration of EMI master tapes, I remember the Gramophone review of the GROC reissue of Klemperer's St. Matthew Passion reported evidence of deterioration of the tapes. Worrying. My early CD transfer is fine though, as indeed is my relatively early CD set of the Callas/De Sabata Tosca. It seems deterioration is becoming much more rapid. We can still read papyrus of 2500 years ago but 50 year old tapes? And CDs - how long will they last?
Concerning the differences between the 'soundscapes' of the companies that you mention, although the recording teams have been nominally 'outsourced', I think several of them contain the same members and perhaps the same equipment as before: they have just been made independent. So that may account for the differences, though I do think they are less recognisable than once. Perhaps it had in part to do with the recording venues.
I always find it slightly curious that digital should be considered superior when the original sounds are analogue and our ears hear analogue. I know of the problems associated with analogue; wow, flutter, pitch stability, background noise etc. but I wonder if new analogue solution will one day replace digital technology.
In passing, anyone else remember an experiment conducted by Nimbus in the days of LP but when digital recording was beginning. They issued a set of LPs, I think of a Beethoven sonata (John Lill playing?) recorded three different ways; digitally, analogue on tape, and (astonishingly) direct cut on to LP. I never heard them. Anyone?
Chris
PS: Ganymede I found the Celibidache Sibelius - thanks for the recommendation. Superb.
Wed, Sep 26 2012, 9:44AM
#13
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Bernard Roberts recorded the complete set of Beethoven piano sonatas direct to disc (brave man!) for Nimbus.It is quite possible that part of the series was recorded in the way you mention for comparison purposes.Nimbus was that sort of Company at the time.
I believe John Lill recorded the set for ASV,but in the normal way.
Wed, Sep 26 2012, 10:51AM
#14
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Thank you History Man!
Armed with that information I found a review in The Gramophone. In addition to what I said above they were recorded at 45rpm (except the last movement, recorded at 78rpm), and UHJ encoded for quadrophonic sound. A single Calrec Soundfield microphone was used. The 'Hammerklavier' Sonata (No.29) was the work subjected to this comparison.
Peculiarly British eccentricity!
You can see John Borwick's comments at the end of the article:
http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/February%201981/96/813919/PS+on+Com...
Chris
Wed, Sep 26 2012, 9:42PM
#15
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Well Eliza certainly raised an interesting topic.
Firstly to Parla, The Britten/Curzon Mozart sounds fine on CD to me but the Ansermet Three Cornered Hat is undoubtedly one of his very finest recordings; a very impressive performance in stunning sound. I originally bought the Ace of Diamonds LP issue then CD and now the current Speakers Corner facsimile of the original LP. Little to choose between any for sound quality. Equally impressive, if it ever appears on your Esoteric label, is Ansermet's Bolero/La Valse/Sorcerer's Apprentice/Pacific 231. This was the last recording made by electronics engineer Roy Wallace, an early experimenter in "binaural sound" who was taken on by Decca to oversee their entry into stereo, making the first commercial stereo recording in Europe; Ansermet's Rimsky Korsakov Antar taped in 1954.
Sadly magnetic tape can deteriorate over time as the microscopic particles of iron oxide can become detatched and shed from the plastics backing tape reducing their effectiveness. Then there was a period of "sticky tapes" when the binder beween the tape and oxide coating could ooze out and stick the layers of tape together. Finally there is "print through" when one layer of tape would slightly magnetize the next layer. This is particularly noticeable on some piano recordings with silences and loud fortes (some of Brendel's Vox Beethoven CDs for example). As for CDs, I managed to exchange some "bronzed" discs made in the Blackburn factory a few years ago for new discs but as Chris says how long will CDs last? Will they de-laminate? Only time will tell. Shellac 78s are still playable after more than a century!
Making an LP is an involved and precision operation, cutting the laquer, electroplating, making positives & negatives & stampers etc plus pure vinyl and as we know qualty went down in the 1970s when costs were cut, records got thinner and recycled scrap vinyl was mixed in. Some of today's 180 gram virgin vinyl pressings show how it can be done. The biggest problem for the companies though was that each successive copy of the mastertape would deteriorate slightly so that if they sent a second generation tape to an overseas affiliate it wouldn't be quite as good as the original (particularly with regard to tape hiss). This is the big advantage to them of digital masters. As well as being much easier to edit and manipulate, as I have said earlier, any copy should be identical to the original and can be simply made. I can purchase a lossless download down a telephone line, put a CD in my computer and the result will be identical to the original; totally impossible with analogue technology. So do we ultimately have digital recording because of superior sound quality or because of the ease with which it can be processed, transferrred and manipulated?
Also I think in the 1990s Reference Recordings made simultaneous masters in analogue for issue on LP & digital for issue on CD. They made two very good recordings by Japanese pianist Minoru Nojima (one of whose Liszt tracks was selected by Barrington-Coupe for a "Joyce Hatto" recording). Meanwhile the late Ruggiero Ricci was confident enough to record Paganini's caprices unedited direct to disc; another brave man!
Ultimately of course it comes down to Chris's 3 points in our personal preferences and as he says it's ultimately the music that counts!
I don't doubt Parla can hear differences between his various versions of the Ring. Every recording, digital or analogue is subject to manipulation and the views and decisions of the transfer engineer.Have you, Parla, compared any of these CD versions with LPs played using a turntable, arm, cartridge and phono stage of quality equal to the rest of your expensive kit? In the early days of ICRC magazine when it was a Gramophone publication a panel of critics and producers would compare a CD of a well known recording with various LP pressings including the then new ones from Speakers Corner. They always noted differences between the various versions but always ended up preferring one of the LPs to CD.
I have often wondered for example if artificial reverberation is added to Chandos's Manchester BBC studio recordings (particularly Handley's Bax). I have two Sony CD transfers of Beecham's Sea Drift which are so different they could almost be a different recording.
In the early days the balance engineer had to get it right at the recording session when Decca & EMI would produce a 2 track master tape. Mercury and sometimes early RCA Living Stereos used 3 microphones, did no mixing at the session and made a 3 track mastertape. This was then mixed down to 2 tracks at the disc cutting stage or today at the digital mastering stage (though some have been put out more recently in the original 3 track form on SACD).
I know less about today's recording techniques (and am open to correction) but as I understand things many more microphones are used, each being recorded on a separate track on a multi track master recorder. The whole is then assembled on the editing computer where balance between instruments of the orchestra and any soloists can be altered at whim along with retakes inserted, errors corrected and artificial reverberation perhaps added. Even speeds can be varied without altering pitch (unlike with analogue systems). Much more manipuation is possible today and to answer Chris's question I presume this is the technique used for so-callled "live" recordings which are usually computer assembledges of various performances perhaps even with retakes added. Far easier to do on a computer when in analogue days editing meant physically cutting up tapes and splicing bits together again.
Whether the multitrack originals are held for future remixes I don't know, probably they are.
The BBC can still produce good sound too from the right venue. I thought today's lunchtime live Wigmore Hall recital with Lloyd Weber & John Lenehan playing Ireland & Delius sounded absolutely glorious on FM.