Deutsche Grammophon on Analog Recording

[Justdafactsmaam]

Dienst nach Vorschrift

I wonder what is so special about these old recordings?

The performances

 

[MRC01]

My bad.
Has that recording been reissued as a CD?

I think so, AFAIK, Chesky stopped pressing LPs and released all the LPs on CD.

 

[Leporello]

Another example of a rather useless retro fad. What they are doing does not advance the art of sound reproduction in any way. Nor does it serve music in any way.

 

[krabapple]

Some of the '70s DG quad recordings (e.g., Kleiber's recordings of Beethoven's 5th and 7th) were released in multichannel SACD in the early aughts. I don't know if those mutlichannel mixes were identical to the quad mixes.

They were released on SACD (2002) and DVDA (2004) in the early 2000s (around then I had correspondence with EB folk who said they preferred archiving to high-rate PCM rather than DSD, so the SACD was sourced from their PCM master). Years later there was a boxed set ..and BluRay...I have the box but forget what format it's in!

The SACD was 5.0 ('quad' + a center channel)

The DVDA was 5.1, adding an LFE channel. My notes say "DVDA channels seem to be exact EQ matches to 5.0 SACD. Thus the new LFE channel must be duplicate bass"

How either of these compare to the original quad mix, I don't know. But I suspect the Center channel may simply be a derivation from the quad front channels.

DG should just release the damn 4.0 versions in some digital format and stop messing with extra channels and inherently inferior vinyl. I get that they're a business and they must cater to mystically-minded folk like 'The D.' above, and ride the vinyl renaissance wave. But there's a 'quad' wave too and a market for those old mixes (see: Rhino's 'Quadio' series, and Japanese large-format resissues of quad mixes on SACD)

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Seriously, though; it's only the pre-bucket brigade LPs that fully capture pure tubular compression and other forms of analog distortion.

Are you really being serious? Preferences aside, there is a lot of documentation on mastering chains of vinyl LPs and each release has to be considered individually. Bernie Grundman has two separate cutting systems. One solid state the other all tube. Both capable of an all analog mastering chain. There have been thousands of all analog mastered LPs since the introduction of the Neumann CMS cutting lathe and its digital preview.

I’m not advocating any particular approach or technology over another here. But there are a lot of overly broad claims being made on this thread. Yes, digital recording and processing is more accurate. But well done analog tape other than a small amount of hiss is barely audibly colored. Given the variables in microphones, microphone placement, mixing choices, post production processing and mastering choices analog tape vs digital is pretty trivial. Both all analog all the way to vinyl and all digital recording/ mastering chains are capable of fantastic sound quality.

The media is one of the least significant properties of home audio playback sound quality.

These original source LPs offer a very unique and different sound compared to the original releases and every other subsequent reissue. That’s what really matters here.

 

[krabapple]

The performances

Yup. Kleiber's 5th (on LP) 'imprinted' on me as a teen, and no other Fifth has sounded 'right' to me since. Even when they are better recordings, sonically.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Yup. Kleiber's 5th (on LP) 'imprinted' on me as a teen, and no other Fifth has sounded 'right' to me since. Even when they are better recordings, sonically.

We may disagree on many things audio. But we agree on many things musically. Kleiber was special.

 

[Robin L]

Are you really being serious?

Not really. I happen to prefer good DDD to ADD or AAD or AAA. Of course, this doesn't really apply to pop/rock productions where distortion in intentional. I was listening yesterday to a Prince Hits collection. I do enjoy the sound but no doubt about it, the treble is thoroughly jacked up.

 

[Robin L]

Yup. Kleiber's 5th (on LP) 'imprinted' on me as a teen, and no other Fifth has sounded 'right' to me since. Even when they are better recordings, sonically.

I was a bit older than a teen when Kleiber's 5th first appeared. Can't say that I've found any recording of the 5th symphony to sound absolutely "right" Then again, I've probably heard too many recordings for any one recording to stand out above all others. Karajan's second commercial recording, with the Berlin Philharmonic (also for DGG), strikes me almost ideal both as a performance and as a recording. Wilhelm Furtwängler's studio recording for EMI with the Vienna Philharmonic sounds wrong in all the right ways.

 

[dasdoing]

The performances

they performed better back than? just trying to understand

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

they performed better back than? just trying to understand

It’s more specific. Those specific performances are much loved.

The quality of classical music is as much about the artists’ interpretation and performance as it is about the composition itself. While there are objective standards for technical excellence there are no such standards for artistic interpretation. That’s why we have so many legitimate performances of classical compositions on commercial recordings.

These DG performances are widely regarded as excellent. And as is the case with all classical music they are also unique and distinctive.

“Did they perform better back then?”
IMO no. IMO today’s orchestras and soloists are unmistakably superior than those of the past. But for me that doesn’t make the outstanding performances of the past obsolete.

Not everyone will agree with me about the relative merits of past and current classical artists. It’s almost like sports fans arguing who is the GOAT. It will always be an argument

 

[MAB]

they performed better back than? just trying to understand

For me, editions are more about completism.

 

[Robin L]

they performed better back than? just trying to understand

A lot of them performed different back then. Wilhelm Furtwängler being a case in point, when older traditions were in effect. For the most part, later conductors avoided emulating what Furtwängler did but there have been a few holdovers. They did not have quite the same impact.

 

[dasdoing]

I would love to hear Hi-Fi performances of the 19th century. from what I heard interpretations were much more "playful". modern classic is so heavy/strict.

 

[Robin L]

I would love to hear Hi-Fi performances of the 19th century. from what I heard interpretations were much more "playful". modern classic is so heavy/strict.

I've got a few recordings of Willem Mengelberg and the Concertgebouw from the late 1920s. Mengelberg started directing the Concertgebouw in 1895, when he was 24. Those recordings open a window into a different world, where there was much more flexibility in tempi, much more use of rubato and portamenti. There is also an almost unparalleled intensity in these performances. This is not "modern" sounding, but compared to some other transfers I've heard, this is considerably cleaned up:

Franz Liszt Les Preludes, S 97
Willem Mengelberg, conductor The Concertgebouw Orchestra
Recorded in June, 1929 at the Grosser Saal of the Concertgebouw, Amsterdam:

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I would love to hear Hi-Fi performances of the 19th century. from what I heard interpretations were much more "playful". modern classic is so heavy/strict.

Heavy? Maybe if we are talking 1980s HIP movement. Nikolaus Harnoncourt was the champion of heavy and strict. You aren’t going to get any more playful or less strict that Dudamel and the Simon Bolivar Orchestra. And I can’t imagine anyone accusing today’s Berlin Philharmonic of being strict. They play balls to the walls, even when they really ought not to.

I would also love to hear performances from the 19th century just out of curiosity. But these were orchestras that complained about Mozart symphonies being unplayable because of their technical difficulties.

A lot of audiophiles look at the 50s-60s as the golden age of classical music. Certainly there are some terrific performances and great sounding recordings found on the old RCAs Mercuries, Deccas and EMIs. But don’t sleep on today’s musicians. They are technically better than ever and stylistically as diverse as ever.

 

[Robin L]

Heavy? Maybe if we are talking 1980s HIP movement. Nikolaus Harnoncourt was the champion of heavy and strict. You aren’t going to get any more playful or less strict that Dudamel and the Simon Bolivar Orchestra. And I can’t imagine anyone accusing today’s Berlin Philharmonic of being strict. They play balls to the walls, even when they really ought not to.

I would also love to hear performances from the 19th century just out of curiosity. But these were orchestras that complained about Mozart symphonies being unplayable because of their technical difficulties.

A lot of audiophiles look at the 50s-60s as the golden age of classical music. Certainly there are some terrific performances and great sounding recordings found on the old RCAs Mercuries, Deccas and EMIs. But don’t sleep on today’s musicians. They are technically better than ever and stylistically as diverse as ever.

The 1980's HIP movement had a lot of different players. Jordi Savall, Blandine Verlet and Hopkinson Smith come to mind, they were the opposite of heavy and strict.

As regards Nicholas Harnoncourt, he turned into a first-rate conductor of the central classical repertoire. I've heard plenty of heavy and strict recordings of Schubert's Great C Major symphony, Harnoncourts' is not one of them. As HIP moved into the 1990s its character became less dogmatic, though some holdouts, like Norrington, still made some stiff recordings.

I've been listening to the Busch Quartet and Pianist Artur Schnabel's recordings quite a bit lately, almost all of the from the 1930s. They sound remarkably "modern", for what it's worth.

 

[Leporello]

A lot of audiophiles look at the 50s-60s as the golden age of classical music. Certainly there are some terrific performances and great sounding recordings found on the old RCAs Mercuries, Deccas and EMIs. But don’t sleep on today’s musicians. They are technically better than ever and stylistically as diverse as ever.

The audiophile idea of golden age is not entirely about interpretations or musicianship. From 50s onwards recordings are usually in stereo. And since the beginning of the 80s there is this dreaded thing called digital. Effectively the time window for audiophile accepted recordings is relatively narrow.

Currently listening to the Reiner Pictures (on cd). From audiophile perspective it sounds perfectly fine but nothing special.

 

[Robin L]

The audiophile idea of golden age is not entirely about interpretations or musicianship. From 50s onwards recordings are usually in stereo. And since the beginning of the 80s there is this dreaded thing called digital. Effectively the time window for audiophile accepted recordings is relatively narrow.

Currently listening to the Reiner Pictures (on cd). From audiophile perspective it sounds perfectly fine but nothing special.

"This dreaded thing called digital" has resulted in many recordings of extraordinarily high fidelity. Uncompressed digital recordings made by skilled engineers are capable of greater levels of detail and resolution than analog recordings. I mentioned this recording before, but the Lorin Maazel/Vienna Philharmonic recording of Mahler's 4th symphony for CBS Masterworks from 1984 is an excellent example.

I've got the Reiner/CSO recording of Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" on SACD. It has a pleasant sound, but the loudest passages suffer from some distortion. Nice hall capture though.

 

[ShadowFiend]

they performed better back than? just trying to understand

Strictly in terms of technical aspect, orchestra or soloist today have been better than in the past, at least on avarage. In the past, you have many excellent orchestras with great technicality in Berlin (BPO), Vienna (VPO), Dresden, Leipzig, London, Amsterdam (RCO), Chicago (CSO), New York (NYPO), Cleveland (CO), Philadelphia (PO), but the orchestra in the tier below is inferior to today standard. The same things is happen to soloist (pianist, violinist, cellist)

But, from my experience, musicians today, especially in orchestra, don't particular suit for performing romantic music, which begin with Beethoven Symphony No.3 and end with Mahler. Their playing while still good and in many cases with good individuality lacks the needed intensity and a struggle feeling. It is not their fault, since music in romantic era is created in a volatile period of history filled with revolution, war, tear, death and the personal struggle and love associated with it, so it is more intense than from a baroque/classical era or modern era, which is created in the peaceful periods (before French revolution and the late 19th-early 20th century). Classical musicians today lack the experience with this kind of things. Meanwhile the ones in 1940-1970 have it in their blood, because they experienced the brutal of WW2 and the menace of Cold War.

The other problem with performances by big orchestra today is that they follow the score to death, focus too much on technical and afraid to do something individual, while conductors and musician before 1960 are much more freely.

On the other hand, I loves hearing music from Baroque and Classical era playing by contemporary musician with smaller scale because of their playful and individual characteristic.