Old vs New Recordings
Thu, Sep 27 2012, 2:55PM
#2
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Ganymede,
I've been thinking about your comments about the contributors to the different sounds characteristic of the major companies. With orchestral recordings, I suppose the dominant impressions came from the combinations
Karajan/Berlin Phil/Jesus-Christuskirche (DGG)
Solti/VPO/Sofiensaal (Decca)
Haitink/ Concertgebouw Orchestra/Concertgebouw (Philips)
To which must be added the different engineers, microphones, microphone set-up etc.
All of these must have contributed to the final sound, but you asked in your last post about how much that last (technical) point contributed. I can't think of many recordings by two companies in the same hall with the same orchestra and conductor, but two do come to mind.
Amongst the many Philips recordings of the Concertgebouw with Haitink, there are a few (only Shostakovich symphonies, I think) with the same artists recorded by Decca in the same hall (Concertgebouw).
Also, both Philips and Decca made many records with Pierre Monteux and the LSO. I think these were all made in the Kingsway Hall.
In both cases there is a noticeable difference between the 'Decca' sound and the 'Philips' sound.
On the other hand there are big differences with a change of conductor, with the other aspects held constant, and an obvious difference when, say the VPO is recorded in the Sofiensaal, compared with the Musikverein (Karajan and the VPO in Dvorak 8th - although one has Decca, the other DGG engineers too).
Perhaps there are other such comparisons to be found.
Chris
Fri, Sep 28 2012, 4:30PM
#3
RE: Old vs New Recordings
"Perhaps there are other comparisons to be found"
Had a good think about that one,and the first name that occurred to me was Andre Previn. While at the helm of the LSO he of course made many recordings for EMI mostly at the Kingsway Hall.Previn worked with the famous EMI team of Producer Christopher Bishop and Balance Engineer Christopher Parker.During the 1970's Previn's recordings at EMI where highly rated and some reached legendary status,for example Rachmaninoff's Symphony no2 ASD 2889.
Concurrent with his time at EMI Previn also made recordings with the LSO and again at the Kingsway Hall with both Decca,and using Decca engineers,including the famed Kenneth Wilkinson, RCA.For instance the complete symphonies of Vaughan Williams.
The whole object of this thread is how do they compare and are differences large or small? I do prefer the more immediate and dynamic Decca sound,but it would not surprise me if another listener would opt for the more distant and lush EMI sonics.The "house sound"of the labels are easily discernable.
Fri, Sep 28 2012, 11:05PM
#4
RE: Old vs New Recordings
The "house sound" of the labels was easily discernable on the LP era. Now, with the huge manipulation of the CD and the repeated transfers up to SACD, I cannot tell which is the "house sound" even of Solti's Ring.
As for the new generation of recordings, thank God, there is practically no "house sound". Both hi-end equipments and recordings opt for a more "natural" or neutral sound.
Parla
Sat, Sep 29 2012, 10:09AM
#5
RE: Old vs New Recordings
I agree with you,at least I THINK I do.
As I said in an earlier post,the only way to truly evaluate a recording from the so called golden era is to listen it on the carrier it was intended,an LP record.Digitalizing the analog recording throws the baby out with the bath water in my opinion.
As for modern recordings being natural or neutral (not the same thing) I am not qualified to comment as my CD player is sadly to say underused.It seems what attracts you to CD and SACD is the one thing that causes me to reject it,which is fair enough.Thankfully we are all not looking for the same thing.
Sat, Sep 29 2012, 12:36PM
#6
RE: Old vs New Recordings
I think Parla is right that the differences between recording companies have become less as the aim has changed from 'characterful' to 'neutral'. But as History Man says, neutral and natural are not the same thing.
Would you prefer to hear the Vienna Philharmonic in a 'neutral' acoustic, or in the warmth of the Musikverein? Each great concert hall (and recording studio) has something 'natural' but by no means neutral to contribute, doesn't it, and indeed each orchestra too.
But are we not only fooling ourselves if we believe that what we hear through our Hi-fi, however hi-end, is remotely natural? Let's face it the sound of the Vienna Philharmonic in a room of say 100 cubic metres would be unpleasant to say the least. A Steinway grand would sound horrible in the same space, even a string quartet would be very loud.
The fact is we are dealing with illusion. A trick. The way we each like to be tricked is what we are discussing.
Certainly the trend has been towards more 'neutral', or less imaginative recording methods (depending on your point of view).
And one might add that the same trend is true of performing styles. Perhaps that contributes to the preferences of us 'oldies' compared with younger listeners. As an oldie, I have a (no-doubt, hopelessly biased) preference for older style characterful performers, recorded in characterful acoustics by imaginative producers and engineers. But you 'pays your money and takes your choice'
Chris
Sat, Sep 29 2012, 2:48PM
#7
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Chris, your last post is one of the most sensible I can recall reading for many months on this forum.
Sun, Sep 30 2012, 2:48AM
#8
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Interesting thread. Hard to add something worth reading, however I think that our hi-fi systems are somewhat underestimated in the rich posts above. We know for sure that our home listenings are far from the real thing, they're "distorted" in a broad sense no matter how good your gear is.
After years trying to get the best setup possible I've come to the conclusion that classical music is a world apart and needs specific equipment. Just notice the tonal balance of a string quintet in comparison to a typical rock band or a jazz trio. However most (not all) hi-fi dealers is concerned with pop/rock music (where midrange rules) and will normally suggest expensive setups that work nice to those kind of music but aren't suitable to classical music and you see yourself compelled to accept a system like that as the reference but perhaps it is not. CM lovers who insist in using those gears normally end up listening to only a fraction of his library. "Tell me what your hi-fi system is and I'll tell you what you've been listening to" is a bit pushed statement but sometimes it may apply.
Everybody knows that unfortunately audiophilia and great artistic recordings don't go often hand in hand though we all agree that is very nice to have both in a cd or lp. Having said that, imo there are two ways out: emphasize artistic aspects and adapt your rig so that you can live with old recordings nicely even with those poorly recorded. In a forgiving system like this you'll be able to enjoy Callas, Furtwangler, Fischer, Casals, Solomon, Schnabel etc.
On the other hand, some cm lovers like the great artists from the past too but prefer to get the best possible reading of a work in a good to demonstrative sound: that's their balance between artisc and technical aspects. I know many friends who opted for this approach. I've chosen the first option: the old guys will stay.
Of course the alternatives I mentioned are only generalizations: what I am trying to say is that you'll have to find your balance between the artistic and technical demands and set up your hi-fi system accordingly, but NEVER let your system (and perhaps your hi-fi dealer) tell you what you should listen to.
The question: to what extent are you affected by the poor sound quality of "old" recordings? Sometimes I am not affected by them at all and sometimes I am affected to a bearable extent Eliza.
Sun, Sep 30 2012, 10:31AM
#9
RE: Old vs New Recordings
That was well worth reading so no worries there 78rpm.
Last year I purchased a new cartridge on the strength of excellent reviews on the Internet and Hi-Fi magazines.It's performance was superb except for one key area that I think other listeners with a different musical taste,or indeed a different set of components would fail to notice.
I love solo violin either in concerto form or part of a string quartet.When listening with this well respected cartridge at a certain pitch of the range of the instrument a hardness or glare was apparent.It got to the stage I was waiting for it to appear and it always did.
So as you say we should and do, even subconsciously, change our systems to suit the music we like to listen to.Unless we are lucky can be a expensive process.
Think it might be of interest to quote part of a review from the just published Autumn edition of Classical Recordings Quarterly.Page 64,Sibelius 14 songs,Kirsten Flagstad,LSO,Fjelstad.
"Kingsway Hall acoustic sounds like a lost nirvana - it is simply staggering how recording
standards have declined since recordings of this quality were made as a matter of course"
Sun, Sep 30 2012, 1:54PM
#10
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Very interesting thread and quite enjoyable to read! Thank you! And I learned more about recording tape and the problems that it could have (thanks 33!).
One thought that crossed my mind: when you were discussing about the different sounds/recording styles that different record companies had and talking about the same orchestras in the same halls having different sounds when recorded by different labels, I thought of other possible variables to consider such as 1) Possible technological improvements like with microphones and other recording and editing equipment between when the two recordings were done and 2) Possibly any serious renovating/redecorating(?) of the halls? 3)Any changes in the conducting styles and also membership of the orchestras? 4) No two performances will sound exactly the same too.
Anyway, just some thoughts! :--)
Best wishes,
Petra
Sun, Sep 30 2012, 6:38PM
#11
RE: Old vs New Recordings
The reference to "natural" or "neutral" was written on purpose from my side, having full knowledge of the difference. What I wanted to underscore was that, nowadays, record companies pursue either or both of them, since it is more feasible.
The case of the "cartridge" of History Man shows that, with LPs, the case was quite different: we had the colours (that's why I used the word "neutral"). Based on the equipment, the recordings, the listening room and some less important factors, one had to choose his "trick" (to quote Chris). However, since I turned to CDs (and with the improvement of SACD), I have no problem to play any kind of music, at any level, which can sound either "natural" or "neutral". So, my equipment does not dictate me what to listen, but rather it helps me to examine even areas I rarely explored.
By the way, even the "live" has its own limitations and can play its trickery. Based on where you seat and the recording venue itself, you may have a completely different idea of what you have listened to. I remember years ago, when I was younger and less financially secure, I followed a concert of the very young A.S. Mutter (with Lambert Orkis) at Carnegie Hall, in NY. Since the cheapest tickets were about 42 dollars, I decided to buy one of them. It was on the very top of the Hall, but at the first row. During the concert, I could just see two players, at the size of two ants, performing a music sounding at the level of background music! Since the concert was big enough and not that popular, I had the chance to sneak at the first balcony in the second half, where, of course, the whole concert looked and sounded as a completely another story.
In my years of Berlin, I had the chances to make use of all the various seats of the Philharmonie. Based on my seating, the BPO (mostly under Rattle) sounded as a different orchestra.
At least, with hi-end equipment, a well prepared music room and good insulation, you may have, mutatis mutandis, the best possible sound, similar to the one of the best (or at least very good) seats in a concert hall.
Parla
Mon, Oct 1 2012, 8:00AM
#12
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Thank you JKH for your kind comment!
78rpm, I completely agree with your comment:
"what I am trying to say is that you'll have to find your balance between the artistic and technical demands and set up your hi-fi system accordingly, but NEVER let your system (and perhaps your hi-fi dealer) tell you what you should listen to."
And Parla, you are so right about the vagaries of concert halls. Some years ago I too heard Mutter and Orkis (playing Beethoven sonatas) in the Barbican (about the same size as Carnegie Hall). Even in good seats though there is something completely 'unnatural' about hearing chamber music in a hall that seats 2500+. Probably just as unnatural as squeezing the Vienna Philharmonic into one's living room. Latterly I've stopped attending chamber music recitals in unsuitable halls. Perhaps the concert hall equivalents of the small CD companies that issue such beautiful chamber music reordings are the numerous largely unknown small venues which provide intimate settings for such music.
Anyway, one thing I'm sure we all agree is that Eliza started a great thread! Well done and thanks, Eliza.
Chris
Wed, Oct 3 2012, 8:28AM
#13
RE: Old vs New Recordings
Here we go again........
To get back to my original post, which was about the trouble I have enjoying older recordings and the tendency of professional reviewers to talk up old and appalling tranfers: have you looked at the Gramophone Choice for Bach's Well Tempered Clavier (just posted on their site)?
Believe it or not: Edwin Fischer, recorded in 1932.
This is not a "historic" recommendation or a supplementary, you should probably try and hear this at some point recommendation. It is THE recommendation, the ultimate number one. "Beautifully recorded sound" according to the review.
Oh, come on! Compared to modern recordings, it sounds utterly dreadful. And are we really saying that his interpretation (full of elementary mistakes, by the way - wrong notes and so on) is so overwhelmingly supreme, it beats every single recording that has come after it? Hewitt, Richter, Gould et al? Sheer nonsense.
Wed, Oct 3 2012, 8:35AM
#14
RE: Old vs New Recordings
...and, unfortunately, this is not the only one (strange choice) by Gramophone, even when compared to more modern recordings.
As I said before, Gramophone's choices for "best recordings" are indicative not definitive.
Parla
Wed, Oct 3 2012, 8:51AM
#15
RE: Old vs New Recordings
I couldn't agree more Eliza! Very odd. It really does sound its age now both as performance (however beautiful) and recording (though it does say 'beautifully restored', not 'beautifully recorded.') And four versions on the piano, including two by the same pianist, only one on the harpsichord. I've nothing against the piano but the harpsichord does not even get a mention for the French or the English suites, and only a solitary mention in each of the other works (Partitas and Goldbergs).
Lists!
Chris
Thanks a lot, 33lp, for the tips for potential future transfers to SACD by Esoteric, a label extremely hard to find and, if you manage to locate some of them, you have to pay some exorbitant amount to get them.
Of course, ultimately, the music counts, but, in order to reach the "ultimate" goal, the recording either provide disservice or do full justice to the music played. So, we need good recordings in the same way as we need brilliant performances. The same applies even to "live" performances, where bad acoustics or/and bad seating in the Concert Hall can contribute to either a terrible or a most rewarding experience.
Parla