SQ or performance?

I have always been guilty of liking sound quality and sometimes over classic old recordings which I am really ill at ease with as I cannot hear what is properly going on in say a symphony or piano recital. On the other hand the recording can sometimes be too clean and it all too soon highlights the failings of a conductor or soloists and all you can hear after that are mistakes and faulty intonation and general messiness which makes you think you have just bought a Turkey. 

I agree that sound quality has a major influence on my enjoyment of a recording. If I have two recordings of the same piece, I’ll play the better recorded one far more often regardless of performance. This is especially true for recordings of pieces that are new to me. When I first heard Shostakovich’s 24 Preludes and Fugues at home, it was Jarrett’s recording. A bit later I listened to Scherbakov’s (on Naxos?). I’m not so knowledgeable as to be able to rate the two, but I enjoy the sound of Scherbakov’s much more and, consequently, it’s the one I play.

From this site and others, I have the impression that many musicians find the sound less important than the performance, but I just don’t listen the way they do.

Perfection is elusive. I take the bitter with the sweet. And yeah, musicians do tend to smirk at the audiophile penchant for preferring recording quality over performance. Live and let live.

@rvpiano - Like you, I find both sound quality and performance quality contribute to my enjoyment. I’m especially averse to old piano recordings where the instrument warbles due to its analog origins -- even the best tape recorders were never as solid as a digital recording.

Another example is the Casals recording of the Bach Suites. I’ve listened to a couple of different restorations, but I could never get past the awful sonics.

All that said, sometimes I listen to something and think, "So that’s what that music is all about." A performance that appeals to me can often outweigh sound that is only serviceable.