Classical Music for Aficionados

It is why i put the youtube link...

The NYT  is trash ...

The New York Times had Lang Lang record the piece but unfortunately afaik only released it on the daily NYT podcast where the podcast host blabs the whole time with the music relegated to background status.  I wonder why they bothered 

A new Chopin Waltz discovered :

https://www.nytimes.com/video/arts/music/100000009784202/chopin-waltz-lang-lang.html?ogrp=dpl&smid=url-share

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuAawWDggTU

@mahler123 

Sorry for the delay in answering.  Just rediscovered the thread.

Yes there is a big difference with two subwoofers.  The sound is much fuller.

I’m going to get a new subwoofer amp delivered today.  When it’s installed I’ll let you know.

@rvpiano 

I raised the one sub issue in reference to your current problem with your Tritons.  My understanding was that you currently had the enclosed sub working in one speaker only.  My point was that if systems are generally well served with just one sub, do you notice a difference if only one is intact?

I’ve always heard that one subwoofer is okay for a system.  What’s different about my situation is that the subwoofers are built in to my speakers. Theoretically. that would mean the subwooferless speaker would not reproduce the lower frequencies of that speaker, leaving a loss of quality.  But that does not seem to be the case.

I quickly learned that the second part of the proposition just isn’t true as sub placement is very critical but I just use one sub in all my systems.

For sure you are right.

What is called room nodes is a pressure distribution zones grid...

When i used resonators in a room location matter  as the main  factor  as much as the mechanical tuning ...

i dont know about many subs...Or one...😊

My 2 rooms were around 1000 feet square and with my resonators i dont needed one even if for sure it would had improve the sound quality ...

When I first started reading about subwoofers the dogma was that one only required one, and many in addition argued that position of the sub relative to the main speakers wasn’t very important.  The justification for both of these points was that bass tends to be unidirectional and the low frequency wave forms are difficult to place as to origin in a soundstage.

  I quickly learned that the second part of the proposition just isn’t true as sub placement is very critical but I just use one sub in all my systems.  The current dogma seems to be use 2 or 4 subs.  The systems that I have heard with multiple subs don’t impress me, but their owners don’t tend to listen to the music that I prefer

The sound of the Triton 1’s is so unbelievably rich and detailed with one subwoofer that now I’m worried that when the amp for the second subwoofer gets installed. the sound won’t be as good.

Also I spoke too soon regarding the relative SQ of analog to digital..
Digital is also now starting to sound great as well.

Thanks

for this article every audiophile must read...

😊

«Microsecond differences in the arrival time of a sound at the two ears (interaural time differences, ITDs) are the main cue for localizing low-frequency sounds in space. »

ITD PubMed

@simonmoon 

Thanks for the scientific explanation.    
Very interesting.   
 

@rvpiano 

Some people argue that there is no sonic difference with systems being wired out of absolute phase.

But, with music like classical (and a lot of acoustic jazz), where: all the musicians are playing at the same time, in the same acoustic space, and the recording engineer took good efforts to capture the spatial cues, the ambience of the acoustic space, the musicians position within it, etc., there is a definite difference. 

And of course, you are pointing out exactly where those differences are: soundstage, imaging, etc. 

The human auditory system evolved to be able to discern interaural time differences between our ears as low as 7-10 microseconds. We leverage this ability when we hear soundstage and imaging on our audio systems. 

This is what gives us (and our ancestors) the ability to tell if a snapping twig in a forest is in front or behind us, about how far, etc., in case it is a predator.

Our auditory system is better at this when to initial waveform of the noise is rising, not falling. So, when our systems are in correct absolute phase, sounds are rising when they should be, and falling when they should be. And we hear that difference in our audio systems as better imaging and soundstage. 

I would guess, that people that don't think there is any difference, are listening to music that was recorded in a studio, with: overdubs, panning, delay, use of multiple mono mics on each instrument, etc. So, any hope of hearing natural spatial cues, has been masked by all the studio effects. 

ITD PubMed

ITD

Since bringing my speakers into phase (even with only one subwoofer!) the sound is maybe 90% better. It’s really hard to believe the difference.

Not only that, it’s changed the equation between analog and digital. Now analog is sounding palpably better than digital.

I also once was out phase when I auditioned new speaker wire.  After unhooking the sample cables I mistakenly rewired the original and didn’t notice until the order of the new cable came in a few weeks later.  I had the vague feeling that something was off without being able to figure out just what 

I would hate to tell you how many years I’ve been listening to my system out of phase. It’s since I bought the Conrad-Johnson pre.
What a revelation to hear everything anew!  It’s like the best upgrade I could buy.

VERY SAD!

On reading the manual carefully. It appears you are right. My technician, unbeknownst to me inserted them the correct way. I got lucky!

 The difference in sound I achieved by reversing the channels was nothing short of revelatory.

Check  the section on “absolute phase”

https://conradjohnson.com/owners-manuals/pv11man.pdf

To be more clear, it seems like @rvpiano is creating the top state, but the system is actually in the center state.

But by reversing each channel, would create the bottom state, the correct one.

Unless I am misunderstanding what @rvpiano is describing.

Unless I am misunderstanding what @rvpiano is describing, this does not sound correct to me:

It just so happens that my Conrad-Johnson preamp is phase inverting, which means the cables should be black to black on one speaker and on the other speaker black to RED.

From what I understand, and I thought I understood it pretty well:

When a component reverses absolute phase, that means both channels reverse phase in the same way. So, in order to correct the reverse phase, each channel has to be connected to the speakers in the same way, red to black, black to red, so each channel is getting the + terminal connected to the - terminal, and vice versa. So both channels have all the speaker drivers moving in the same direction.

The way @rvpiano is describing it, he will have the drivers on one speaker moving forward, when the drivers on the other are moving backwards.

This does not seem to be correcting absolute phase, but putting each speaker out of phase with each other.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Not trying to be insulting, but just trying to clarify my own understanding.

Well, I had the amps replaced, and when the technician was through he noticed the polarity of the speaker cables was the conventional red to red and black to black formation. It just so happens that my Conrad-Johnson preamp is phase inverting, which means the cables should be black to black on one speaker and on the other speaker black to RED. I have known this since I bought the preamp many moons ago. But somehow (I don’t know when) the cables were reversed in the wrong formation.
All of a sudden the sound opened up magnificently when I played my records.
So, the bad turned into the good!

Don’t know the Krips record that you referenced and I really can’t remember my first recording of the Mozart Requiem .  A late mono Walter was the only lp that I had; it’s usually Jordi Savall that turn to now

Don’t know the Krips record that you referenced and I really can’t remember my first recording of the Mozart Requiem .  A late mono Walter was the only lp that I had; it’s usually Jordi Savall that turn to now

I just listened to the Hogwood version of the Mozart Requiem on my compromised speakers. I hadn’t heard this version previously. From what I could tell, it’s a really fine reading. The “Lacrymosa” is a bit shocking in its original version, quite different from Sussmeyer’s arrangement.  
My first encounter with the Requiem was with Krips and the Vienna Choir Boys. I literally wore out three LP’s, playing it every day for a very long time.  Such is my reverence for the work and Mozart.
My subwoofers should be installed tomorrow. Can’t wait to hear the Hogwood with them working.

I’ve begun a project of listening to the Beethoven string quartets. So far I’ve listened to op. 18. Quartets. Beethoven’s genius is palpable in these works.  He devoured the classical style whole and spit out masterpieces that surpassed even Haydn and Mozart in invention. And this is to mention only one genre he worked with.

I am on the same opinion as you for sure...

Beethoven add something to the quatuor genre very few can rival if some can...

I like a lot  Robert Simpsons quatuors i begun to explore after i read his book about Bruckner...

 For Beethoven quatuor i like a lot Talich, but i must go with your advice i think :

Regarding the Op. 18 works, I prefer: 1) ensembles who play them big and bold, and not like embryonic Mozart; and 2) Vibrato, please.  I really dislike Quartets that eschew all vibrato (and coincidentally play at crazy speeds) and completely blow the expressive effects of the music.

  My longstanding favorites are the Hungarian Quartet (stereo version)) and the Cleveland Quartet.  Most of the more modern recordings I’ve heard are HIPP and therefore excluded by at least one of my criteria 

Yes, I have headphones, but I still prefer the speakers.  But, you’re right, without the subwoofers the sound is definitely off, lacks body..    
‘Hopefully the amps will arrive today.

I really like the Hogwood Mozart Requiem—but miss the absent parts 

Can you use headphones?  Also -just curious if listening sans subs puts any significant strain on the rest of your speakers, though I suspect not.  
  I actually used a recording of Beethoven op 59/1 and 59/3, the first and third Razumovsky Quartets, to audition a sub, many years ago.  The salesman was aghast and kept trying to play some rap to show the boom factor.  My reasoning was that the Beethoven with its extended cello parts would reflect the kind of bass that I was more likely to reproduce.  I had also remembered reading that a musical sub should make even a solo flute sound better by enhancing the room ambience.  I would use other music now-Shostakovich Fifteenth Symphony comes to mind-to test a sub, but the Beethoven Quartets would still be useful.

  Regarding the Op. 18 works, I prefer: 1) ensembles who play them big and bold, and not like embryonic Mozart; and 2) Vibrato, please.  I really dislike Quartets that eschew all vibrato (and coincidentally play at crazy speeds) and completely blow the expressive effects of the music.

  My longstanding favorites are the Hungarian Quartet (stereo version)) and the Cleveland Quartet.  Most of the more modern recordings I’ve heard are HIPP and therefore excluded by at least one of my criteria 

The amplifiers on my Triton 1 speakers’ subwoofers were broken by a power surge in my neighborhood. Consequently I’m not listening to much music with a lot of bass lately.
I’ve begun a project of listening to the Beethoven string quartets. So far I’ve listened to op. 18. Quartets. Beethoven’s genius is palpable in these works.  He devoured the classical style whole and spit out masterpieces that surpassed even Haydn and Mozart in invention. And this is to mention only one genre he worked with.

The op. 59 quartets are next on the agenda

I love the Hogwood Mozart Requiem, but it’s a curio because he refuses to use any notes that might have the taint of Sussmayr, so it sounds very truncated. I think that is being a bit extreme, since Sussmayr was an accomplished 18th century composer, had been a student of WAM, and was the choice of Frau Mozart to finish it off.

You are right about the "truncated aspect"...

Sussmeyer addition sound right ..

But to defend Hogwood choice, observe that it drive the orchestra and chorus and soloist as in an opera not as in a mass... This dramatic choice is the reason why in my mind this version is so enthralling and hypnotically efficient suggesting at the same times what lack in any other version : the childish fear of death and fear of the Grime reaper and the childish innocence and aspiration to death as a mother; the two contradictory emotions creating the drama ...

No other more liturgical interpretation touch it ...

It is like an operatic mass...Or a sacred Mysteries introduction as with "the enchanted flute "mysteries drama... Mozart was a serious freemason after all ...

Hogwood is a genius...

My Nonesuch and Turnabout LP’s are still in excellent shape. As far as sound goes, with my new analog rig some, but not all, are audiophile quality. I use them to demonstrate the SQ of my set.

I love the Hogwood Mozart Requiem, but it’s a curio because he refuses to use any notes that might have the taint of Sussmayr, so it sounds very truncated.  I think that is being a bit extreme, since Sussmayr was an accomplished 18th century composer, had been a student of WAM, and was the choice of Frau Mozart to finish it off.

  I found digital copies of all the Ristenpart Bach recordings, a 6 CD set from France, via eBay, at about $15 per CD.  A bit pricey, but I had bought a turntable and phono pre just so I could play treasured LPs that are unavailable digitally, and a substantial fraction of my lp collection are the aforementioned Ristenpart Bach recordings.  I had bought a handful of other Nonesuch and Vox/Turnabout recordings that I now have been able to locate digital versions as well.  Considering selling the analog rig as listening to these noisy, poorly pressed records is reminding me of why I got out of vinyl in the first place

This Ristenpart version was my best one because of the perfect tempo all along... On vinyl...

I loose it when i go digital thirty years ago...

😁

No version beat his tempi and dynamic...

My best is now Hogwood recording which instruments recording is better but dont beat Ristenpart dynamics... Ex Aequo in my mind....

Perfect description of Ristenpart for me 😊 :

The players (including Rampal, Andre, and Veyron-Lacoix) are superb and the tempos are sane. Their is energy in the music, demonstrating that one doesn’t need hyper caffeination to sound involved

Nowadays we have even more perfect audiophile recording but none i listened too had the integrated musical timing and dynamic of Hogwood and Ristenpart even if the sound could be  more beautifully recorded ... Playing together  with the same answering timings responses as in a spontaneous jazz dialogue is  a difficult art ... For me Ristenpart and Hogwood had it ...

My prefered version of Mozart Requiem is Hogwood for the same reason ...

@rcprince 

Yes, it’s amazing how our taste can change like that.

@mahler123 

Ristenpart’s interpretations have managed to survive the HIP movement.  
Just a superb musician.  
Those Nonesuch LP’s are wonderful

I have been listening to an oldie but goodie Brandenberg, Karl Ristenpart with the Chamber Orchestra of the Saar.  It will sound anachronistic next to HIPP versions but I love it.  The players (including Rampal, Andre, and Veyron-Lacoix) are superb and the tempos are sane.  Their is energy in the music, demonstrating that one doesn’t need hyper caffeination to sound involved

I've always liked Pinnock's Brandenbergs with the English Concert, although there are many fine ones out there.  I like the energy they project in their performances.  It's interesting to me how much the original instruments versions that now seem to predominate have made some of the old versions done in the 60s that I grew up with sound sluggish or too lush to me.   

@rvpiano 

I was hoping to do just that and to hear what people had to say about the myriad of different Brandenburg Concertos out there. It’s like the three bears, this one is too fast, this one is too slow and this one is just right.

Just listened to Cafe Zimmerman and I kinda liked it.

@curiousjim 

Thanks for reviving this dormant thread. 
I agree, Hogwood is as good as any.

There is no best Brandenburg as there is no best Art of the fugue...

But by far my prefered version is Hogwood ...

but beware dont judge by the first movement ...

So I have been listening to the Brandenburg’s again and there are so many different versions it’s hard to keep track!

Who’s version is the best??

Thanks.

Good idea!

Just thought I'd bring this thread back around 

A lot of great music ideas from some of the best classical guys I've certainty ever read.

  The Janowski is a solid cycle.  Pittsburgh is a great, and under rated orchestra, the interpretations are well shaped, and Pentatone is truly  an audiophile label.  If you are a Multichannel enthusiast, there really is no other MC Brahms cycle that comes close (I have 3 others-maser/Gewandhaus, Manze/Helsingborg, and Paavo Jarvi with the Bremen Chamber Orchestra on Blu Ray.  The Jarvi is excellent but it's small band Brahms, much like Berglund/COE.  You do miss some oomph in the bigger moments).  If you don't care about multichannel, the Janowski is still a worthy set that sounds great in two channel.

I have Marik Janowski Brahms 2+3 sitting in my Amazon cart at the moment.  The thing is, I can't remember now why I added that recording.

  I haven't hear Nelsons in Brahms.  The reviews have been somewhat mixed.  For the record my favorite cycles are

1) Kurt Sanderling/Dresden Staatkapele  mine are on Japanese Blue Spec discs but they always seem to be in print somewhere. 

2) Walter/Columbia SO (stereo-there are several Walter mono cycles which are even better performances) only a low energy Fourth keeps this from top rank 

3) Klemperer/Philharmonia  O.K., Klemperer could be granitic, but Brahms was definitely in his wheelhouse

4) Jurowski/Pittsburgh  on Pentatone-the best Multichannel set

5) Karajan/Berlin P   I give my nod to the seventies cycle, but there is a more exciting live Brahms cycle from the early seventies recorded in Paris in good FM stereo available from Norbeck,Peters, and Ford (norpete.com) that blows away the studio cycles.  The more live Karajan I hear, the more I realize that he could have tremendous spontaneity)

I'd like to hear the Steinberg/Pittsburgh set that was just released by DG, I think it is mentioned a bit upthread

Hi all:

I am a new contributor to this classical forum, and am delighted that there is an Audiogon group that is focused on the much neglected classical repertoire by audiophiles. Certainly, there is no other branch of music can that can fully test the excellence of audio systems like classical!

I recently picked up the recent Brahms symphony cycle on CD at Tanglewood with Andris Nelsons and the superb Boston Symphony.

I have never heard Brahms interpreted quite like this, and my appreciation grows with every repeat hearing. Nelsons imparts a new fluidity to these great works - and nowhere is this more evident than in the relatively neglected 2nd Symphony. You will be captivated by this performance as well as the sumptuous sound quality of this relatively new release. It is time to experience the wondrous subtleties that unravel so perfectly under Nelsons’ direction.

Well here is something that, at minimum, you will find more 'modern'. A road less traveled for sure. Paalo Berglund and the COE. If you are tired of over orchestrated, bloated Brahms, performed by large orchestras, which is so abundant, perhaps you should give these a listen. I find them quite attractive. If you like what happens here then maybe you should give his Sibelius a listen as well.  

The Brahms symphonies are each great, but I find few recording rise to the challenges of the music.  Conductors including Karajan, Stokowski and more recently, Ivan Fisher, emote and editorialize too much.  The Carlos Kleiber Brahms 4th, though, is astonishing, as is Furtwangler's WWII live recording of the 4th.  The sound is not great in either, though. It's poor in the Furtwangler, as should be expected from the vintage.   Abbado/Berlin, in better sound, is good, not great. Does anyone have any suggestions for Brahms symphony recordings in modern sound?

I listened to Jascha Horenstein conduct Brahms3 with the Southwestern German Orchestra. On a Pristine Audio restoration of a late mono era Vox recording.  I’ve had the Vox for years though I haven’t played it that often.  The Pristine enhancement is definitely worth it.  One now perceives air around the instruments and a real soundstage.  Solo woodwinds are more prominent, and what used to be a third tier sounding Orchestra now at least sounds second rate.

  I admire JH, and collect many of his recordings, but his Brahms 3 isn’t really for me.  It is definitely old school, autumnal Brahms, although extremely well done.  It sounds deliberate and thoughtful, and not like the flabby mess that Giulini made at the end of his career, and less gimmicky than Bernstein’s outing with the VPO