In Classical music the effect of SQ on appreciation

Sound quality matters a lot to me. I revel in the noise that classical music makes in a live venue, and when my fingers are up to it I revel in the sound I make when I play my musical instruments. If I can get a decent amount of that quality of noise in a recording, hey, I'm a happy guy..

As in your example where I have multiple copies of the same musics SQ is rarely the major issue. I am usually attracted to simple things like tempos and dynamics that tend to define the performance. Think Kleiber's Beethoven's 5th, or Richter's 1958 Sofia live recording. Kleiber's SQ is OK, Richter's Sofia is abysmal but the performances are essential if not definitive. FWIW, I'm no longer attracted to a recording because of its SQ - I'm more interested in new performers, new music,  new performances of familar music. My system is good enuf for me so I don't really think about SQ, and frankly don't want to. Intrudes too much. (That is why I gave away my vinyl system, I found myself too connected to SQ at the expense of immersion into the music.)

Newbie,

Yes, Richter’s Sophia recording is a cough fest.

As far as Carlos Kleiber’s Beethoven 5th I have the regular CD as well as a DVD-A and an SACD of the performance.

As you can tell, SQ IS important to me as well, although I don’t think think it’s healthy.

SQ is huge. I never was able to enjoy classical much at all until my system got there. In the last year between Tekton, Townshend, and Soundsmith, now all of a sudden classical is compelling. Then in terms of records, put on a White Hot Stamper, Tchaikovsky 1812, holy cow now you're talking! 

Completely agree with Newbee!

How much does it affect my “judgment” of the music? Not that much. Good sonics is always a great thing, but my system and I would say, the vast majority of systems owned by Audiogon members, even the systems that I would never put together myself, don’t do so much damage to the sound on the vast majority of recordings that the musical content would not rise above the damage. In fact, I would say that, for me, a good metric of sorts is that the better the music is the more tolerant I am of less than perfect sonics and the worse the music the more that I need ear candy from the sonics to bother listening.  All within (audiophillic) reason.

Consider a fantastic performance by a great orchestra in a crappy hall. One’s ears (can) adjust to the available sonics and the focus (can) become the musical content; sonic limitations and all. It’s a mind set of sorts. Obviously, this is not always the same set of priorities held by every listener, or to the same degree, and is not a matter of judgment. I’m always a little baffled by just how quick some are to deem a recording “unlistenable”.

Start out with the focus truly on the music and I think a lot of the angst goes away.

For the most part, I want as high a quality of recording as possible.

But, the fact remains that there are many artists that have unique interpretations that, due to the lousy mike placement/recording tech, have low quality recordings. In these cases, I can make allowances for poor audio quality as their interpretations/technique are so good.

B

I got deeply involved in high end audio in 1979. I expanded my musical interest from rock to include classical in the early 80’s. I found that the quality of the recording typically was more important than the conductor / orchestra in most cases… there were some conductors I simply did not like, for instance Michael Tilson Thomas. Switch forward to 2010…I got season tickets to the symphony, and have attended religiously until the pandemic, I found live… really good fidelity performances make or break it. So, in general, for me sound quality trumps performance… much of the time. Poor performances, are poor and just don’t rate. Symphonic music is hard to produce on a system… but well done, is really compelling to me. 

It matters quite a bit but I'm not averse to historical recordings.  I recently bought a HD with all of Pristine Audio's offerings on it and it's fascinating to explore.  In general these artists hailed from a time when the origins of the music weren't so remote and so there is much to be appreciated.  It helps that Pristine has made most of these antique recordings very listenable

@frogman

Start out with the focus truly on the music and I think a lot of the angst goes away.

+1 and also +1 @newbee . Very insightful commentary from both of you. Of course who wouldn’t want exceptionally good music performance and sound quality? I certainly do. From my perspective if the actual musician and performance is not inspired or emotionally connecting , sound quality will not fill the void. Music > sound quality if it has to be one or the other.

I’d rather listen to Charlie Parker doing his thing on a poor quality 78 RPM recording than a mediocre saxophonist superbly recorded attempting to play Parker's  music.

Charles

Frogman,

“Start out with the focus truly on the music and I think a lot of the angst goes away.”

Yes, Very insightful statement.

That’s exactly what I believe I ought to do, but don’t always succeed.

Nicely put.

'Start out with the focus truly on the music and I think a lot of the angst goes away.'

If find that I do that, and when I do I find that my 15,000.00 system sounds very satisfying. That is compared to hundred thousand dollar systems I have heard many of.  Rarely but at times when I am listening to hear a difference between anything, musical or hardware, I find there is always something lacking. So I just focus on enjoying the artistry and I am in heaven with my stuff.

Just this weekend listening to Goldberg Variations by artist I can't even recall sound quality so dead. Then I went to Glenn Gould, music brought to life, sound quality just so much better! Producers wanted to eliminate his humming, Glenn refused, based on sound quality grounds, at least in some measure, he was totally right!

With large symphonic pieces can't listen to recordings with macro dynamics quashed. In these recordings lower level sections nice dynamics, micro and macro, crescendo hits, there goes all the life. And this not a system defect, since the best recordings don't have nearly as much of this.

I actually think I'm more critical of classical recordings than every other genre. Must have something to do with aural memory of live classical music concerts, hearing crescendos with no dynamic limitations plays large role in emotional involvement. The sheer volume and impact of orchestra in full throttle tutti is unforgettable!

Interesting thread. I’ll chime in, beginning with a caveat: I do not consider myself expert in either classical music interpretation or classical music recording. That said, I listen largely to classical music, mostly solo piano and small group. I find that sound quality definitely, but not always, affects my appreciation of the music in the sense that I tend to listen to recordings that sound better.

I own Bach’s Goldberg Variations recorded by Gould (both versions), Perahia, and Jeremy Denk. I listen to the latter most often because the piano sounds to me more lifelike.

I own Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier recorded by Schiff and by Hewitt. I listen to Hewitt’s more often for the same reason.

I own Shostakovich’s 24 Preludes and Fugues recorded by Jarrett and Scherbakov, and I listen to Scherbakov’s because I think it has a naturalist sound.

Two counter-examples. First, I have recently listened several times to Dinnerstein’s Goldbergs via streaming at low bit rate because I find her interpretation so fresh. And I have more recordings of Bach’s Chaconne from his Partita #2 for solo violin than I can list, but my favorite is a video on YouTube in which Perlman performs in a London church, St. John’s or something like that because of its overwhelming emotional expressiveness.

As I said, as a rule, the quality of the recording definitely affects my listening habits, but there are exceptions to the rule.

And not meaning to highjack the thread, can anyone recommend recordings of Mozart’s piano concertos for a good combination of sound and interpretation? I have Ashkenazy’s but would be interested in one that’s recorded better.

Thanks to RVpiano for posting and thanks for reading. Happy new year!

Hard to go wrong with Brendel on Phillips. Either his recordings with Neville Marriner, a tad more relaxed than his later re-makes with Mackerras which have a more spot-lit piano, but for me both are enjoyable. BTW, if you are interested in the Goldbergs, as it seems you are, you should hear Beatrice Rana's recent recording - outstanding I think and I easily enjoy it more than the others which preceeded it. 

Good recommendations from Newbee.

Also, for great sound and good performances try Mitsuko Uchida/Jeffrey Tate cond. the great English Chamber Orchestra on Phillips.

Still, I have to mention the fantastic interpretations with decent overall sound (if one can tolerate a little tape hiss and digititis from the Sony remastering) and typically exquisite piano tone from Murray Perahia with the same orchestra. Of note, and adding to the incredible cohesion between pianist and orchestra is the fact that Perahia himself conducts from the keyboard.

What newbee sez...

I feel I need to make one caveat.
As I mentioned in my opening post, the symphonies of Mahler are a special case.
They were really the impetus for my starting this conversation.
The orchestration is so rich, varied and complex in these works that the physical sound has more bearing on the final product than on most other composers’ works
Thusly, SQ becomes of paramount importance. A really fine performance which obscures the instrumentation can have a very deleterious affect on our judgement.
Conversely, a not so great but beautifully recorded account can be very seductive by the very nature of its sound.

In Mahler the orchestral pallet is all important.

One could make a similar argument for the impressionists.

One should attend at least one live performance of a Mahler Symphony. The last I attended was one of his 5th. I got to sit in the 'audiophile' section, Isle F (as I recall) and dead center. I was treating a couple of other concert goers who had not yet experienced Mahler except for a few CD's I'd lent them. They were wilted when we left. Oh my.....

Talk about being blown away. If you could get 10 percent of this experience in your home you'd be lucky. RV's last comment on this is correct but it is still, for me anyway, going to be no more than a pale reminder of the live event. 

Thanks for the MTT info. Is his 8th worthwhile? If so I'll get it - I really don't have many and still enjoy/prefer Solti's.

Mahler is a very important case. The importance of fidelity in mass orchestrations is particularly challenging for home reproduction. In live performances it comes alive, to do that at home takes a very special system. I had noticed long ago that many of the most expensive systems were owned by folks primarily interested in classical music. Not sure if it was a confluence of people with both the means and interest in classical. I guess, in retrospect, it was people that really loved classical were dedicated to reproduce it in there home.

About 30 years ago I went to Harvard for a four day seminar with many of the countries top CEO’s… like from Kellogg, Kraft , etc. They shut down the Boston Museum of fine arts for us. We gad dinner on the main entrance with the Harvard Choir sang for us. We had wine and cheese and the whole museum open for our enjoyment. I was let to gaze upon Monet’s and Van Gogh for as long as I wished. The CEOs of a couple major American corporations came up to the same painting I was looking at and made ignorant comments about what trash these paintings were. I was completely shocked and disillusioned… realizing the lack of sophistication and simple capitalistic focus of some of the leaders in industry. Wow, clueless, uncultured, unappreciative cads. It was a real eye opener for me.

I’m not sure what that story has to do with Mahler… but it made me realize that money isn’t everything. It doesn’t help you appreciate the truly amazing things in life. Art and music are a couple of them worth appreciating.

@ghdprentice 

Thanks for sharing that experience. 

Charles 

I wonder many of the following groups of people do or did 'appreciate' Monet / Van Gogh / Mahler?

The people that developed the Covid-19 Vaccine.

The people that designed and built and Programmed the Webb telescope.

The guys that landed at Normandy on D-day

The Military and Police that protect us all

I could go on forever!  On a list of important human endeavor and accomplishment, Monet. Mahler and Van Gogh don't make the list. 

Your 'story' was silly, and arrogant beyond belief.  And that's saying something on this forum.

Cheers