I find almost nothing on HD to listen to

[coot]

but what working-class folks can afford tickets for the best seats. First off, they are taken by wealthy season ticket holders. You have to know someone who just died to get even close to center row seats - and be wealthy yourself. At least via recordings you are most likely in the best-sounding area of the floor. Thats my rant on live listening.

 

I much prefer to forgo the hassle of concert-going and instead listen in the comfort of my own home - wishing I had a larger room and speakers.

 

Some day.

 

[Rob McCance]

I hear ya!

 

Not to mention you need to live near enough to the venues, which are typically downtown in major cities...a major hassle.

 

 

 

[accwai]

Classical is best enjoyed by going to the orchestra. No recording EVER comes close, no matter what format. [...] There's too much space, too many players, too much going one, and a lot of ambient to capture that just can't be done on two channels...or any number of channels..

 

I was with my violin teacher at the Jame Ehnes and Toronto Symphony complete Mozart violin concertos cycle last year. For sure, it's a completely different experience compared to the Ehnes Mozart cycle on CD, but is the latter vastly inferior? For me, the latter is actually a more intense experience because the sound is more pristine and when you're seeing Ehnes live, you keep trying to analyze what he's doing instead of concentrating on the music.

 

Plus your music selection is severely limited with live concerts. For example, you'll never get somebody to play all of Scarlatti's 555 keyboard sonatas live from beginning to end. It's unlikely that one'll hear Heinrich Wilhelm Ernst's Variation on Last Rose of Summer or the rest of the Polyphonic Studies locally because it's so incredibly difficult. And you'll never be able to see Sarasate play his own pieces live since the guy's been dead for more than 100 year. All of these you can hear as recordings though.

 

For me, live and recordings are both essential. The former highlights the deep skill of the musicians, while the latter highlights the breadth of the existing repertoire. One cannot really replace the other.

 

Andy

 

[Paul R]

Classical is best enjoyed by going to the orchestra. No recording EVER comes close, no matter what format.

 

And then sometimes, the Orchestra must use home audio gear to sound right. I don't think it is quite as cut and dried as all that Rob, though you certainly have a point.

 

Paul

 

 

http://www.theaudiobeat.com/blog/osires_magnepan.htm

 

http://www.avguide.com/blog/can-high-performance-audio-help-the-performing-arts-tas-218?page=1

 

 

 

[Abstraction]

I hear a lot of live music, including many of the musicians I listen to on recordings.

 

I don't know the scene in other cities, but in New York, there are many venues, where you can hear great music, cheap. There is a place called "The Stone" (Avenue C & 2nd St), where there are two sets a night, ten bucks a set. No food, no drink, you sit on bad seats, and hear some of the most inventive, serious, and skillfully played music you'll hear anywhere. The program is curated by a different person each month, so it is always changing.

 

http://www.thestonenyc.com/calendar.php?month=0

 

There are other places: Clemente Art Center on Monday nights, Roulette in Brooklyn. Any night of the week, there are three or four things I would like to hear.

 

I have thought of writing an essay on the difference between the experience of music live and listening to music in a listening room. They are different kinds of things. Not comparable really. Certainly one wouldn't want to think of live music as the ideal of recorded music. If you have an adequate system--any audiophile system; it doesn't have to be tens of thousands of dollars--you HEAR the music better in your listening room. You have to go to the venue to EXPERIENCE the music. But that is for another time.

 

 

[REShaman]

barrows, sorry for the delay in responding (interesting exchanges in between as I catch up with the subsequent posts). I take your point which I now completely comprehend; and I also appreciate the direct, succinct clarity articulated from your perspective. Clearly, I now realize that I was not responding to what you meant and you obviously have a great deal of experience with music from that vantage which is foreign to me.

 

While I have a large collection of 2L SACDs/2L blu-ray discs and HRX and AIX both stereo and multichannel which I formerly played through a HT system (not as enjoyable for me as when played on a 2ch stereo system), I have not yet learned what is needed to assemble and play DSD files etc. as you do and I would love to be able to do.

 

Perhaps when I succeed in assembling such a system, I can do more than take your point having graduated to experiencing what you are comparing presently I have no experience with.

 

Thank you for showing me the way, and excuse my misunderstanding. Focusing on other than subjective criteria is a compelling challenge for experiencing music from that perspective. Would you have a link or a reference that might start me on my way to implementing what is needed?

 

Best,

Richard

 

[crisnee]

"Now speaking of Goldberg Variations, I find piano versions in general all sound a little bit blunt. The best (worst?) example of tha would be Glenn Gould's second version"

 

You have got to be kidding, and I mean that most respectfully, if one can respect a dullard. No really, just kidding. But still, you've got to be kidding. I guess you must be listening to it in hi-rez, that always dulls the music down quite a bit.

 

I've listened to countless renditions; let me count the renditions.... Simone Dinnerstein, now she deserves a "gag me with a spoon." What is she doing, to put it bluntly?

 

Okay, so I'm a bit defensive, you've attacked my still favorite Goldberg version; and I love Goldberg relentlessly. By the way, a close second would be Perahia and the live version in Russia? by Gould. The versions on harp, guitar, and string trios (2 that I've heard) all suck, relatively.

 

I'll check out Celine Frisch, but only if you really listen to the Gould 1981 version, very very closely. Okay, the piano sound isn't superb, but it's the music not the stinking sound, not that you were complaining about the sound, just the brutish blunt attack. I get it; but has anyone ever put more love into the aria?

 

Or as Paul would say, YMMV. Pronounced whyememvee, if that helps. Still don't know what it means.

 

-Chris

 

P.S. I apologize to all offended: get a life.

 

 

[PeterSt]

... but maybe you do.

 

My other point was that choosing a DAC (or any component) strictly based on how it performs with redbook is mistaken, because of redbook's limited resolution.

 

It is not mistaken, because a zillion Redbooks are out there, while there's 1 Hires only. No matter how many you (claim) to come up with. So :

 

You might want to check out phasure.com and PeterSt. He's developed a software player for Windows and the NOS1 dac; Phasure is his forum.

 

I could be the only one doing explicitly so. And thanks Chris (Crisnee).

Not to plug my own products, but there may be a difference once you work for a couple of years on the improvement of Redbook alone. And might we be able to get the merits of it : I created the NOS1 the way it works so I could explicitly compare its Hires performance against the Redbook performance, since it operates 100% the same at the electrical level for both. This means that it can only leave Hires completely untouched (it doesn't do a thing, does not contain a single filtering part, etc.), while it also doesn't do a thing about Redbook because what is *needed* for Redbook (filtering) is done in-software (mine or other's).

 

Now, *if* I can find a well performing Hires to begin with, it equals the Redbook performance at best. This will imply that all those zillion Redbooks out there *will* sound as good as what you perceive from Hires. If you would only be able to trust my words for this, this *does* mean that you should be looking for DACs with the best Redbook performance.

I think you have no clue what can be squeezed out from Redbook, and the very last thing which comes to my mind is that it would contain not enough resolution ...

 

Peter

 

[Erwin S]

It is probably just me being greedy as ever, but I prefer my gear being ready for any content that's presented to me. I am up for anything that passes by. 24/96 vinyl rip downloads have no right to sound as good as they do (sometimes) on my set. So one tip for you is not to exclude those 24/96 vinyl rips. Sometimes you buy stuff for a made-yourself-to-believe reason only to never use it like that, but it can turn out the other way also: you find a use you never thought of before.

 

That 2011 reissue on vinyl from Serge Gainsbourg [Melody Nelson] of which a 24/96 rip came into my hands sounds breathtakingly good. Luckily, Serge himself keeps breathing (at the time anyway) and the result is a very intimate encounter. That acoustic guitar supporting him is about the best I heard also. So if you got a good turntable, ripping those precious vinyls is a possibility.

 

I also got a 24/192 vinyl rip of the famous Rolling Stones 11 LP box with their earliest albums (1960's). Also very very good sound!

 

+ I got a SACD player (Oppo 83 SE-NE), just in case. To be honoust, that's in the other (AV 5.1) set, mostly to watch video content. Few SACD are worth the asking price. Though I especially like the 5.1 version of Pink Floyd DSOTM. But 99.9% of music is best in plain stereo.

 

[crisnee]

Jud,

 

I agree about the Savall Brandenburg. Really nice. And no break neck speed here, in fact much of it goes along at an almost leisurely pace.

 

In many recordings of the Brandenburgs that I've heard the timing goes off very slightly at times so that certain parts always sound a bit confused; this is not the case with the Savall.

 

The Egarr is one that's been highly praised fairly recently but I think I prefer this one.

 

-Chris

 

[Jud]

I agree about the Savall Brandenburg. Really nice. And no break neck speed here, in fact much of it goes along at an almost leisurely pace.

 

In many recordings of the Brandenburgs that I've heard the timing goes off very slightly at times so that certain parts always sound a bit confused; this is not the case with the Savall.

 

My tastes are pretty eclectic, both as to kinds of music and the way I like to hear that music performed, so it is hard to try to generalize, as the earlier commenter did, that I must prefer my music fast paced. You're right, Chris, the Savall Brandenburgs are not especially fast. There's a fair amount of Savall that is very, very slow, such as the Marin Marais viola da gamba pieces that make up most of the soundtrack to Touts les Matins du Monde, another special favorite of mine.

 

So let me explain a little what it is I like about each of these pieces, Gould's early Goldbergs and Savall's Brandenburgs.

 

- The tempo of the Gould Goldbergs took pieces that everyone was accustomed to hearing as solemn (near funereal in some cases), slowish music often performed by an orchestra, and turned them into *fun*. Bach was an accomplished keyboardist, and the Goldberg Variations are a theme and variations. Do you really think he meant each variation on a similar theme to be heard slowly and laboriously picked out at great length? Or do you think he wanted to entertain people with his capacity for invention surrounding a central theme, and was not above entertaining them with a little keyboard pyrotechnics while doing it?

 

Gould was the very first musician in the era of recorded music to decide for the latter, and it just sounded so wonderful, so entertaining, so *right*, that it became impossible to feel any longer that all the other slow, funereal, orchestral interpretations were the correct ones. It was a revelation to me the first time I heard it, as it was for innumerable musicians and classical music aficionados when it was first released. Not often that happens with centuries-old pieces that have been recorded countless times before. So that's why I love Gould's first version of the Goldbergs.

 

- Savall's orchestra for the Brandenburgs are all extremely accomplished players on their own; it is a relatively small ensemble; they are playing period instruments; and Savall's conducting is impeccable, based on a familiarity with the music and instruments of that period which almost no one alive today can match.

 

What results is a series of concertos in which one can clearly hear not only point/counterpoint, but an additional three or four different harmony lines weaving through the music, showing the full, astonishing range of Bach's melodic and harmonic invention. You can almost hear Bach setting out the rules of harmony for Western music for the next few centuries as you listen.

 

Even very accomplished orchestras with modern instruments are not going to be able to match this, because the large modern string section is going to occasionally swamp some of the woodwind lines. Thus in modern recorded performances you hear these third and fourth (and fifth and sixth) harmony lines begin when the strings stop, and cease when the strings start again; in the Savall-conducted performance, you can hear that in fact these lines have been part of the music all the time. That's probably why it seems to you that the timing goes off in other performances, Chris - many instruments in fact don't stop and start playing when they seem to, it's just that you couldn't hear them through the rest of the orchestra.

 

So because, singularly in my experience of recorded Brandenburgs, this performance provides the opportunity to appreciate all of Bach's genius, I love this recording.

 

[One and a half]

HD tracks music is accurate, you can hear some great detail, and if you're lucky dynamic range is better than Redbook. With all the 192/24 or 96/24 files HD tracks have produced, the music is sterile compared with Mobile fidelity Sound Labs masterings.

Examples are Nevermind (Smell like Teen Spirit), Yes (Fragile) off the top of my head. The HD tracks product just sounds flat and uninviting, as if the master was put through a process, like Pure Vinyl something at default.

 

Apologies to Paget Studios, you do a great job, but whatever MFSL do, they can make recordings that sound warm, rich, detailed and have depth, that any HD tracks download just can't match. AND - this is just for Redbook.

 

If only they would offer a downloadable product...maybe the time is not right yet, or they aren't satisfied enough that the download format isn't quite settled to validate their quality.

 

Given the option, I would download MFSL product over HD tracks every time. At the moment, the avenues are direct from the MFSL site, or from Amazon. At some prices, I could only afford used CDs, but for ripping purposes, that should be fine. Sadly a lot of MFSL recordings are out of print, so used on Amazon is the last avenue, well internationally anyway.

 

As for SACD - another story, perhaps it deserves a post all its own and not ripping them either. I would have about 5 SACDs all from MFSL, but have ripped the Redbook to make FLAC in the library, and they sound great! Would the outlay of a SACD player be worth the purchase though, a rotary type device that will fail in years to come just to play a few discs. A real nutter would say yes, however, the frustration to have all music sound top class is unrealistic, just variations in recordings alone is enough to send you mad in not attaining this goal, so getting top quality all the time is not going to happen... unless they are MFSL

 

[Rob McCance]

Peter,

 

Well stated!

 

I think many do not want to hear this message because they have spent a lot of money, time and effort on the best hi-rez playback they can attain. They have "bought in" so to speak.

 

I chose not to do that. I believe the engineers, the theorems and the limitations of the human ear.

 

I think that [subject to the original recording/mastering] that 44/16 contains all we need and we just need better ways to extract it.

 

As a result, I've simply been working on the best 44/16 playback I can attain.

 

I have a Metrum Octave on the way and when I get that in my system, I will have a pure, NOS, bitperfect playback chain for 44/16 (or any other resolution for that matter) and I expect it to be unbelievable.

 

Why? Because I already have the rest of the system online, temporarily using a V-DAC II, and even with the V-DAC II doing it's monkey business internal upsampling, 44/16 still sounds incredible.

 

When I go NOS with the Metrum and get all that pre and post ringing out of there, we'll be in business!

 

...and if not, I'll say it sounds like %^&* and try something else.

 

I always reserve the right to learn something new.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[crisnee]

" Touts les Matins du Monde, another special favorite of mine."

 

Yeah, I like that a lot too.

 

Very interesting about the timing thing in the Brandenburgs. I'll have to listen for that, see if it's the case. It probably is, as it doesn't make sense to me that the timing should be off, even if ever so slightly. Although either I'm aware of more errors (particularly intonation related) in recordings than your average listener or they're just never mentioned in reviews. I've heard what I consider surprisingly egregious examples from highly regarded performers.

 

I've always had a bit of trouble with the first Gould Goldberg, not because of the speed, but because of the recording quality. The sound of the piano on that recording just irks me a bit. I like the Russian live version much better, although the recording quality is not very good either; it's just that the sound of the piano is more pleasing to me.

 

As to the reason for Gould's "breakneck" speeds. I'm not sure what he was after. I think it was more than fun, as he wouldn't have had to go as fast as he did to provide that. In his 1981 version which I prefer, he varied the speeds, some still breakneck, while others not. He also played lots of other music at breakneck speeds. I have many of his other solo recordings and many of them, at least up to this point, have not worked for me at all. I have so many, because I was hoping to find more sublime recordings like his Goldbergs.

 

By the way, the total opposite of Gould, Anton Kuerti's late Beethoven sonatas, his earlier recordings of them. Another Canadian by the way. Opposite because he recorded them at as slow a tempo as imaginable. I love them.

 

-Chris

 

 

 

 

[Brian A]

Glenn Gould explains some of his intentions regarding the 1955 vs 1981 versions in an interview with Tim Page, which is the 3rd CD on the "State of Wonder" package:

 

http://www.amazon.com/State-Wonder-Complete-Goldberg-Variations/dp/B00006FI7C/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1334129165&sr=1-2

 

[crisnee]

Hey Brian,

 

I've had those cds for many years and never got around to listening to the interview. Just didn't care I guess, the music was plenty.

 

I'm just now listening to the live Moscow-Salzburg Goldbergs. I might actually like them the best. Ah, who cares about the best, I like them all.

 

-Chris

 

[Brian A]

The interview is a bit stilted; apparently Gould insisted that he and Page “perform” from an interview script.

 

In the end, he claims he no longer can recognize the spirit of the person playing in the 1955 version. He also provides his justification for the much slower 1981 reading. The interview is worth a listen.

 

Personally, I find Gould brilliant. I love his Bach 2 & 3 Part Inventions.

 

 

[Jud]

By the way, the total opposite of Gould, Anton Kuerti's late Beethoven sonatas, his earlier recordings of them. Another Canadian by the way. Opposite because he recorded them at as slow a tempo as imaginable. I love them.

 

Haven't heard the Kuerti; will try to look them up somewhere. My favorites, of those I've heard, are Richard Goode's set:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-The-Complete-Sonatas-Box/dp/B000005J2D

 

(I must have bought these when they were on sale, or I felt richer. Or it may have been when I was traveling to Canada a lot on business and their dollar was worth about 66 cents US.)

 

Edit: Back on topic, anyone know of some good Beethoven piano sonatas in hi-res?

 

[barrows]

It appears that some here still really do not understand what HDTracks is, and what it is not:

 

"HD tracks music is accurate, you can hear some great detail, and if you're lucky dynamic range is better than Redbook. With all the 192/24 or 96/24 files HD tracks have produced, the music is sterile compared with Mobile fidelity Sound Labs masterings.

Examples are Nevermind (Smell like Teen Spirit), Yes (Fragile) off the top of my head. The HD tracks product just sounds flat and uninviting, as if the master was put through a process, like Pure Vinyl something at default."

 

HDTracks is a store, nothing more. They do not do re-masters, and they have virtually no control over the sound quality of the files they sell (yes, there are a few exceptions, Waltz For Debby appears to have been specially mastered for them by Paul Stubblebine). To suggest that the files HDTracks sells all sound similar, and "uninviting" shows a non understanding of what HDTracks is, a store. They sell what they get from the record company, occasionally, they change the format (like DSD-PCM) which may have a very small influence on the sound quality, depending on what conversion software they use, but a simple SRC does not make a huge difference in sound quality, as mastering can.

MoFo, on the other hand, is an entirely different thing. MoFi is specifically a company which does re-masters. They get early generation master tapes, re-master them, and then distribute them either as LP, SACD, or redbook CD. Re-mastering specifically changes the sound (when they want to) through the use of EQ, perhaps using a tube compressor, adding reverb, and through many other methods. MoFi has a "house sound" specifically because they use a similar re-mastering approach to all of their titles, and they clearly have a specific prference as to how they like things to sound.

 

Comparing HDTracks to MoFi is entirely an apples to steak comparison, and is not really valid at all. Suggesting that all HDTracks titles are "uninviting" is also entirely innaccurate: HDTracks titles all sound very different from one another, because they sell the master which they receive from the record company, some are good, some are bad, and they vary greatly from one another.

 

Personally, speaking about MoFi alone, I like the sound that they produce and I hope that they can secure licenses to download their back catalog in DSD. My understanding is that they re-master everything to DSD (even analog and redbook releases) and that they keep the DSD masters-if they can get licenses from the copyright owners, they could start offering DSD downloads. But, I suspect that it will be very difficult for them to secure a license to do this. It is clear that the license they get for their physical releases is quite limited in scope, hence the limited number of copies they release for each title they offer-I suspect the fact that they produce limited editions is the only way they can exist, as the copyright owner does not want to compete with them for sales on any title indefinitely.

 

 

 

[Rob McCance]

So what is HDTracks again?

 

 

 

[accwai]

The tempo of the Gould Goldbergs took pieces that everyone was accustomed to hearing as solemn (near funereal in some cases), slowish music often performed by an orchestra, and turned them into *fun*. Bach was an accomplished keyboardist, and the Goldberg Variations are a theme and variations. Do you really think he meant each variation on a similar theme to be heard slowly and laboriously picked out at great length? Or do you think he wanted to entertain people with his capacity for invention surrounding a central theme, and was not above entertaining them with a little keyboard pyrotechnics while doing it?

 

Well the way I see it, Goldberg Variations is the 4th installment of Clavier-Übung. So it's first and foremost a keyboard study. And the variations are happening on the base line, not the main melody. So to me, it's more about harmonic possibilities: showing how pieces in a wide variety of established styles that can come from a simple common foundation. In that sense, it is a study for students of performance as well as composition. Of course, I'm no expert on this at all. So this is just my personal view.

 

By the way, I hadn't listened to Goldberg Variations for a while. I mentioned earlier in the thread that the Céline Frisch version is my favorite. Just did a quick comparison between it and the Kenneth Gilbert version this morning. It's amazing how mechanical the Frisch version sounds and I didn't noticed it before. Must have been blinded by the wonder sonics in my old days. Learn something new every day...

 

Savall's orchestra for the Brandenburgs are all extremely accomplished players on their own; it is a relatively small ensemble; they are playing period instruments; and Savall's conducting is impeccable, based on a familiarity with the music and instruments of that period which almost no one alive today can match. [...] Even very accomplished orchestras with modern instruments are not going to be able to match this, because the large modern string section is going to occasionally swamp some of the woodwind lines.

 

Well, I don't pay much attention to modern large orchestra recordings of Baroque works, so this is not a problem for me in general :-)

 

Again, I haven't listened to Brandenburg concertos for a while. I like No.6 in Masaaki Suzuki's 2nd version very much. Very bouncy... But other than that I don't believe I have a version that I'm totally happy with from start to finish. I don't have a lot of stuff by Savall, but what I do have is generally done really fast. Since it is not in this case, I should take a closer look when I have a chance.

 

Andy

 

[Jud]

I don't have a lot of stuff by Savall, but what I do have is generally done really fast.

 

He's recorded a huge variety of music, so it's really difficult to say any one piece is typical - except, in my opinion, it is usually very, very well done.

 

Since it is not in this case, I should take a closer look when I have a chance.

 

Of course I tend to think people will all enjoy Savall as much as I do. Hope you do in this case, anyway.

 

[Old Listener]

> He's recorded a huge variety of music, so it's really difficult to

> say any one piece is typical - except, in my opinion, it is usually

> very, very well done.

 

I like his recordings of

 

1. Handel: Water Music and Royal Fireworks Music

my favorite among the recordings I have.

 

2. Beethoven: Symphony No. 3 and Coriolan Overture

A favorite too but it is hard to pick an absolute winner among "Eroica" recordings.

 

Bill

 

 

 

[Cincy2]

In the meantime, I would be interested in hearing a discussion about how to get the most out of 44.1.

 

Getting back to the OP's question:

 

I've found that if you start with a good recording on standard CD, you'll be rewarded with great sound. There is a small group of labels I buy for extraordinary sound. The format doesn't matter with these guys. They put out amazing content. Look for CD's and downloads from:

 

Mapleshade

Chesky

Opus 3

Blue Coast Records

Linn

 

Your hardware configuration is a tougher issue. More money doesn't always buy better sound. I put my money first into a DAC. If you don't get that right, everything else downstream is wasted. My favorite is dCS from the UK. Very pricey but there are some good buys on used equipment available on Audiogon.

 

Cincy

[iago]

But I listen to many kinds of music and have been looking for some stuff to buy in HD. I have found nothing to pull the trigger on. It all seems hopelessly dreary.

 

It's the same situation as in the 80s when the first CDs came to the market. The available titles were not really interesting.

 

Right now the music industry is in a massive change process; the business model they are aiming for is the trade of publishing rights, the same model that is established on the television market. This might benefit companies like Apple, but also smaller players like HDtracks and Linn (to name a few) might get their share. Possibly major releases will only be available in inferior formats.

 

On the other hand the availability of digital distribution channels reduces the cost of publishing. Especially for small labels this may become attractive eventually. Right now, the price they have to pay is quite hefty - either in shared revenue (iTunes) or in platform cost (if you operate your own shop) - but it might change quickly.

 

-- iago