Audiophile CDs

quote:

Originally posted by Manni:
...I had to spend a lot of money to buy my system and I got an excellent sound quality for my money. To enjoy my system, I need at least good recordings... a Naim system is too good.

The more you spend, the more dissatisfied you will be...

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by Manni:
...I had to spend a lot of money to buy my system and I got an excellent sound quality for my money. To enjoy my system, I need at least good recordings... a Naim system is too good.

The more you spend, the more dissatisfied you will be...

Hi Nigel,

no, during my "no-Naim-time" ( from 1975 to 1998 ) I was far more frequently dissatisfied than now, listening to the fine Naim stuff.

Being a kraut, my purchase of state of the art Naim components stimulated the UK economy, so why are you so critical?

All I wanted to say was this: a bad recording cannot become great, even if you use a perfect system. The source is not the record player or the cartridge, it is the recording, no matter if it is CD or vinyl.

Best wishes

Manfred

Dear Manni,

I always test any potential purchase of Hifi equipment with decent modern[ish!] recordings and also antique ones from 78s. My guide has always been the quality of them musicand music making rather than the date of the recording [within reason!] ...

A clue as to why is that slightly more than half my CDs contain mono recordings, and half of those are from 78s! I do agree that some pieces from Naim can rip these old recordings to pieces, and be horrible to listen to. But the so called Naim sound is quite a lot wider in range than many give it credit for, and I have found a selection of Naim models over the years that played everything I put onto them very nicely, and gave me immense pleasure.

I think that the quality of basic recordings can on occasion make one choose a component that is actually less "hifi" to get a more pleasant result, though strangely the old CDS2 which I had was the most tollerant of older recordings, and yet also the most detailed. You knew it had a bit of tape noise, or 78 surface noise, but these aspects were no more difficult to ignore than the sound of a gas fire in the room,and the music making came through "as fresh as a daisy!"

I cannot explain that one!

All the best from George

quote:

I always test any potential purchase of Hifi equipment with decent modern[ish!] recordings and also antique ones from 78s. My guide has always been the quality of them musicand music making rather than the date of the recording [within reason!] ...

A clue as to why is that slightly more than half my CDs contain mono recordings, and half of those are from 78s!

George! Yesterday I heard a piece with George Enesco (my spelling might be wrong), violin and piano, on the Swedish radio. It took me a while to figure out that it was from a 78. It wasn't destroyed with to much noice removal, you could here that it was a 78. Then afterwards the presenter said that it was from 1929! The tone of the violin, to my ears, was better than most modern recordings, they are often to "silky" sounding. This one had the bite and slight rawness off the real thing.

JohanR

quote:

Being a kraut, my purchase of state of the art Naim components stimulated the UK economy, so why are you so critical?

I agree it's money & time well spent to get audiophile quality records Manfred.

Having said that there are plenty of audiophile bargains about.
Barry Diament Tuff Gong remasters, SHM CDs, etc.

Well I could buy a decent new hatchback for the price of my 2 channel system. On this site that makes it mid level I guess, but definitely audiophile quality.

I just put on Robert Johnson - King of the Delta Blues singers -Sony Columbia Legacy CD release- recorded in a San Antonio hotel room in 1936. With each upgrade (and I have done many) this old recording complete with some surface noise has sounded better and better.

If your hifi only plays audiophile music well (as so many claim) then you are doing something wrong in my opinion. I chose Naim and Conrad Johnson because they made all my music sound better.

Dear George,

I have to admit, that there are some historical recordings of classical music, which are artistically unique. In this case, the sound quality is not so important, the music comes first.

But there are hundreds or even thousands of recordings from the late fifties to the present, which combine fine stereo sound with musical value. For example many Decca ( SXL ) and RCA ( Living Stereo ) recordings - available on CD or vinyl - are really audiophile, as well as many modern recordings ( Telarc, MDG or RR ).

When everything comes together, great music, good recording and an excellent stereo system including fine room acoustics, the listening experience can be overwhelming.

Best wishes

Manfred

Dear Manni,

My favourite Bach musician is Helmut Walcha, and the records I have with him were made between 1947 and 1973, and my favourite Betthovenian is Otto Klemperer, and in his case the recordings come in the period between 1950 and 1966. In neither case are the recordings a problem at all at least once restored properly in digital rmasteringds, even the oldest ones. Some are stereo, some mono, and some even from 78s, though you would never guess it! Those are some of the best ones!

Dear Johan,

I doubt if many on the Forum are old enough to remember new releases of the classic on 78, but the system was always a better solution than tape ever became. Not every 78 recording was a technical success, but the best still have not been bettered for their communication of the music!

Good transfers on CD show what a terrible step backwards was the adoption of analogue tape, and the parallel adoption of the wretchhed vinyl LP with its total inability top cope with the dynamic and colouristic demands of classical music, on the piano the orchestra, or even if performed by a solo soprano. I suspect that the best CDs may be approaching the best 78s in quality, and thank heavens for digital resoration of analogue tape which allows us for the first time to listen to something much closer to the performances given for recording in the terrible analogue tape and LP days!

ATB from George

quote:

I doubt if many on the Forum are old enough to remember new releases of the classic on 78

My parents had some. We used them for frisbees in the 1960's, I have to confess. But that where the days then everything where supposed to get better all the time (Moon travels and Concords, where did they go?), so you could not keep something as outdated as 78's, could you.

quote:

Good transfers on CD show what a terrible step backwards was the adoption of analogue tape, and the parallel adoption of the wretchhed vinyl LP with its total inability top cope with the dynamic and colouristic demands of classical music, on the piano the orchestra, or even if performed by a solo soprano. I suspect that the best CDs may be approaching the best 78s in quality, and thank heavens for digital resoration of analogue tape which allows us for the first time to listen to something much closer to the performances given for recording in the terrible analogue tape and LP days!

I think I have written before about one of my favourite subjects, the last generation of 78's. That is, after they stopped pouring grinding compound into the shellac. The Swedish radio sometimes plays popular music that was released on 78's, up to the later part of the 1950's, at least here in Sweden. The last time I heard it, it was the history of a Swedish female schlager singer. The first couple of numbers where from 78's, and it sounded really good. Then they went to vinyl, and at first I thought something must be wrong, it sounded that dreadful! All of them where of course recorded to analogue tape, I'm not as convinced as you are that tape was such a big step backwards.

JohanR

Dear Johan,

At EMI the move from direct cut [onto wax] 78s to analogue tape using tape recorders one generation down from the old Reichsrundfunk machines, with adequate speed governing not found on the older German machines, was not an overnight thing. As late as 1951 at Abbey road short classical pieces were still direct cut whilst in Vienna from late 1949 the move to tape for transfer to 78 sides was adopted. Early commercial experiments with tape took place at Abbey Road, with the recording of Vaughan Williams Fourth [?] Symphony [might be the Sixth] being recorded this way as early as 1948.

The advantage of tape was that the recording could be repeatedly mastered to 78 sides till a suitable master had been managed, but with direct cut the recording remained highly vulnerable till it was converted to a metal master part.

At the time the engineers dreaded tape as the old tape head could be spoiled with an undetected peak, but this was apparent till play-back, and also there were remaining pitch stability problems as well as peaky bias, and variable tape noise, depending on the batch of tape used. These basic quality control issues would be addressed fairly quickly, but the engineers conceded that evn then the visceral, communicative aspects were never the same again with tape. There was no direct monitoring off the recorded tape at that time. Same for direct cut of course, but the engineers would inspect the groove by eye for the bias! Too loud or bright and the result was very reflective [look at the loud parts of an LP to see this phenomenon] and too quiet of the teble control too sof and the result was not reflective at all [and this can be seen on LPs in quiet passages as well]. Sounds unlikely to work, but the engineers were at elast as much artist/craftsmenas expert electronicd experts in the 78 days, and these men found tape very hard to use after this visual aid was removed, even without all the pitch and bias problems that tape brought. AC Griffith and Keith Hardwick both wote very informative articles on this that accompanied the re-issue of Elgar's Electrical recdordings from 1926 to 1934, and released on CDs in 1993/4. This project represented the first significant use of the then new digital restoration processes that were developed for a decade before that at EMI. This was the bench-mark for all future EMI resptorations of 78 direct cut recordings, and what followed was an application of the same techniques on tape as well, in terms of digitally reducing harmonic distortions, microphone peaks, and noise reduction, whilst leaving the music signal untouched. The understanding of the Furrier Transform equation made very precise re-EQ-ing possible for the first time, without adding anything new to the signal [like artificail reverberartion] or taking away anything from the actual musical signal. The transients in music are entirely different, and definable in software terms, so the nasties could be reduced without any effect on the music signal. Thus the music became even more obviuos without th either the basic shelac surface noise or even such dmaged as corrosion or bacteria damage on the origianl metal parts, used as the basis for new vinyl pressings.

The other big issue is that even through the whole of the fifties, LP cutting was never the qual of the 78 groove, which had both greater fidelity and a robustness [like the 45 rpm single 7 inch] that was not equalled on 10 or 12 inch 33 and a 1/3 rpm LPs. By the early sixties the playing field was even and the 78 was equalled in fidelity, if not immediacy. Recording styles were also evolving, so that the attempt was by then to capture a more natural sound with more accoustic space, which again nhas the tendency to lessen the immdiacy of the musical performance. More accoustic and less expressive detail.

Add to this that this more spacious approach was brought about by the new possibilitie3s of multi-microphone, multi-channel mastering [post production] to stereo, and the malais of the quality of recordings was sealed for the next thirty years.

What pleases me is that some of those mid fifties early stereo recordings done with one perfectl positioned Blumlein stereo microphone arte now shown with digital restoration to be finer than anything done before the current trend back to simpler recording set ups using very fine digital recording sets. At last we are getting back to the quality pssibly on direct cut 78s and even sometimes the very simple early stereo recordings to tape [as well as those only done in mono.

Your comment about the use of grinding compound [powdered slate] added to the shelac mix for 778 commercial pressings is so true. Variously more or less was added right through all but the ver last 78s. The least was found in Indian EMI pressings and frequently thse are used in preference to European ones for their much quieter surfaces. Of course where the metal master is still usable, then a new vinyl pressing is made with effectively a silent surface. In this way all that needs doing is removable of the inevitable occasional klick from corrosion on the metal part, and re-EQ-ing of the 78 recording. Little or no filtering of any remaining noise [from the master cutting head] is necessary, and the open-ness and power of these recordings can be startling even from 1926 onwards.

Sometimes a seventy or eighty year old recording is shown as both extra-ordinary from the musical standpoint, and virtuall indistinguishable from the best modern reording standards from the technical standpoint. Except for being mono of course.

This is a fascinating subject for me.

All the best from George

You are obviosly knowledgeable in these matters, George!

Do you have a shortlist of good CD's transfered from direct cut 78's that you can recomend? Something with smaller ensembles.

JohanR

Dear Johan,

I will start a new thread, called perhaps, "Great performances in decent 78s recordings, reissued on CDs," and we can all put nice things up!

Good idea. Thanks for it!


ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

No amount of fine quality recording and replay quality will rescue dull music or music making! But great music making will survive almost any amount of grim recorded sound. Just listen to the toon, and you can soon forget the sonics!

George, I agree. My age prevents me from appreciating all the finest nuances of most hi fi/audiophile recordings, but I still get that uplifting kick of sheer visceral pleasure from a truly musical experience.

Maybe the younger ones may disagree. But my kicks come from something I feel enervates my musical susceptibilities.

Richard

quote:

Originally posted by Consciousmess:
I sometimes prefer CDs because of the sound quality and not the content

And you're a Naim user? Dang!

What kind of music do you prefer?

Originally posted by Consciousmess:
I sometimes prefer CDs because of the sound quality and not the content

This is reminiscient of the old stereotype of the hifi buff with thousands of pounds worth of stereo equipment and a music collection that amounts to a handful of Pink Floyd albums and a test disc

Prioritising sound quality over content seems to be missing the whole point of owning a hifi system to me. All things being equal, I would prefer all my discs to have amazing sound quality but I am happy to live with the fact that they don't, as long as I like the music. And I am not going to start to listen to music I don't like just because of the wonderful sound quality!

quote:

I sometimes prefer CDs because of the sound quality and not the content.

This gent's attitudes are further explained on a current thread in the Padded Cell. He is a hifiholic rather than a music lover!

Please dont stereotype me. As it happens I have well over 500 CDs, but the silly irony I find in your responses is that the music content takes priority over the quality of its sound. It is ironic as this forum is a forum of hifi that the 'average' person doesnt own as their finances are directed elsewhere.

I started this thread off for the very fact that Naim equipment albeit expensive, sounds audiophile. The implication of that is obviously the standard of recorded CDs, if it wasnt, then why dont you sell your beloved Naim and nip into Aldi to get their £20 all-in-one CD/tuner/phono hifi??!!

I feel offended that my taking the 'source first principle' to its ultimate extent i.e. the recordings is mocked; surely if we are a community celebrating great musical reproduction, we should share our discoveries, and I was appealing to this collective consciousness!

Pink Floyd is wonderful music, but as the band began in the 60s, the audiophile quality from back then has much to be desired.

Keep enjoying what you play!

Regards

Jon

What music genre do you prefer? Blues, jazz, pop, classical?

There are some record labels known for their good sound;

Opus3, Speakers Corner(vinyl), 2L, Naim, Linn, Pure Pleasure(vinyl), Mobile Fidelity, Classic Records (vinyl, I think), Strange Ways...+++++


http://www.opus3records.com/
http://www.2l.no/2L.htm
http://www.purepleasurerecords.com/
http://www.speakerscorner.de/
http://www.mofi.com/productcart/pc/home.asp
http://www.classicrecs.com/
http://www.strangeways.de/

All Stina Nordenstam's albums on CD plus anything at all recorded by Rudy van Gelder are about the best in my collection.

Oh, and Led Zep 2 deserves a listen, damn fine recording.

All IMHO

Graeme

quote:

Originally posted by Consciousmess:
I sometimes prefer CDs because of the sound quality and not the content

I do not know where this line was grabbed from and wonder if it is being used out of context but nevertheless I would like to commend Jon aka: Consciousmess for being one of the few honest souls here. After all, voicing your opinion here (or anywhere) should not lead to getting clobbered or put down. I “sometimes” too, if not always, prefer beauty to ugliness. I also don’t beat myself with a stick for pleasure despite the fact that there is a preponderance of folklore out there (and no shortage of spokespeople) that suggests that I should. I do not want to presume what someone else meant but when I read this line I intuitively understood that if the sound quality is not reasonably adequate it matters precious little “what” (ie. the content) you are listening to. Is it a crime to say this? Yet, I suspect that the crowd that consistently proclaims from the hilltop “It’s all about the music…” would like to frame this further by implying there is only one road to musical enlightenment and they happen to hold the key to it.

I find it fascinating as well as perplexing that anyone would equate a natural pursuit of a pleasing, realistic sound and one’s musical understanding or intelligence. The two are not analogous. I doubt that any of the proponents of this type of thinking would go to a concert of “any great performer/interpreter” and be very pleased if that person played on a plywood stringed instrument meant for a 4-year old student beginner or a concert pianist who insisted on playing on a small, ratty, poorly serviced, out of tune upright piano. So why should musical replay in our own homes be any different? Yet, I should listen to this type of effect just because associating myself with a certain name makes me feel superior? I absolutely love the product of all the greats from the past but a natural goal in listening to music is to as closely as possible replicate what I would hear in the most ideal environment such as a live performance. For example, I love Otto Klemperer and Claudio Arrau playing Beethoven together but when I have a choice between a very poorly recorded 1950’s “mono” performance and a great stereo recording from the 60’s I will pick the one that most likely makes me feel like I am at the live performance where I am listening to real instruments being played. In both cases the same performers are involved but something is lost in the translation. If we could have heard both versions live then you would see that the live sound would have been similar in both cases. The Busch Quartet may be a great ensemble but the sound offered by a 1920’s means doesn’t quite make for prolonged enrichment because I have heard live string quartets and this is not what real stringed instruments sound like. It’s absolutely priceless to have these recordings to experience what performers of times past did etc. but for the past 40 or 50 years we have all been lucky enough to have some truly great recordings. Everything isn’t perfect nor will it ever be but there are good things being produced today, too.

I think the intent of this thread was to share some of these treasures. I have a fairly large CD collection and I know from experience that for certain labels and for certain time periods of the past, we the consumers, were let down. Sometimes it just boils down to the fact that the Recording Engineer/Producer spoilt a good thing. I would easily estimate that 2 or 3 out of 4 of my CD purchases let me down not due to the performance but simply due to the recorded sound. And you never know until you get it home and have a few listens. If I can generalize, I am typically the most pleased with the late 1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s and I would say that the last 5 or 6 years have seen a return to the better (I mainly listen to classical).

To summarize: Let’s be kind to everyone here and respect the fact that we are really all on the same team – that is, we all believe that music is an important and integral part of our lives.

Best Regards,
Doug

That was a lovely response, Doug. Very well put and eloquent!

I must also thank yourselves, Christian and Graeme as links and tips like that are just what I wanted! I love relaxing classical (not opera), although Gregorian chanting I find beautiful. I also love classic rock as well, and ambient music.

I will check out those sites, and I've also been keen for a while checking out Led Zepplin.

Many thanks!!!

Jon