Vinyl v Digital: The Thirty-Five Year Con

[gmgraves]

I have one of those. Are you saying the green pen would be unnecessary on those?

 

No. Teresa, I'm saying, assuming that the green pen actually absorbs the scattered laser light inside the plastic of the disc itself, if the edges of the disc are covered in that reflective aluminized layer that covers the label side of all CDs, then painting that aluminized edge would be ineffectual because in that situation, there would be a reflected area between the edge of the disc and the green paint and the paint would never come in contact with the scattered laser light inside the disc substrate. It would be like painting the outside of your windows black to keep people from seeing in, when you already coated the insides of the windows with aluminum foil!

 

 

Interesting, George. Could it be AB'ing where the problem is? I know I'm not able to hear most differences, even some very large ones when AB'ing, sighted or blind. I have read that some people can train themselves on what to listen for in an AB test but for the majority of people they just don't work.

 

Well that's possible, I guess, but there were at least five people in the room each time we tried it and we used my totally bored and dis-interested girlfriend to do the switching, so it was truly double blind and nobody heard the slightest difference between any of the "painted" discs and the virgin copies of the same discs.

 

Since I appreciate improved sonics when casually listening to them over a period or weeks, I don't believe I have a tin-ear, so I tried to find out what was amiss in AB'ing and discovered that our brains are at odds with us comparing one sound against another.

 

I was pretty convinced that the green pen didn't work. But initially, before the DBTs (I convened the tests, initially, to share my enthusiasm with the "amazing" results I had been getting) I went through two whole pens because I was sure that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

BTW, even if the green pen did work, it wouldn't work on DVD-As, SACDs or blu-rays because those use a different color laser than do CDs, a color that is NOT the complement of red.

[Sal1950]

Interesting, George. Could it be AB'ing where the problem is? I know I'm not able to hear most differences, even some very large ones when AB'ing, sighted or blind. I have read that some people can train themselves on what to listen for in an AB test but for the majority of people they just don't work.

 

Since I appreciate improved sonics when casually listening to them over a period or weeks, I don't believe I have a tin-ear, so I tried to find out what was amiss in AB'ing and discovered that our brains are at odds with us comparing one sound against another.

That's because the things you think you hear are the results of something other than reality. You would rather believe in mystic powers and magic dust than the result of solid deductions.

No ones saying you have a tin ear but you are human just like us all and are subject to the failings of our mind and senses.

Same thing some of us here have been trying to get thru to you for years. You can't claim forever that scientific controls like a blind tests don't work and for folks to ignore them and the measurement path, believing only in what they "think" they hear. Without evidence, unsubstantiated claims are worthless and worse yet misleading.

 

Ya know, I have 20/20 corrected vision and great deductive thinking. The other night I saw David Copperfield make a 747 disappear off a runway right in front of me and also a large live audience standing right there. I saw it Teresa, it was gone.

Or was it a result of a optical illusion and mind management.

Only some scientific investigation would real the truth, you need to step behind the curtain of illusion.

[Andrei]

Ah well, my 20 cents worth: There are other variables in the chain that goes all the way from performance to listening. The same music is mastered differently for vinyl compared to digital so this difference will come out in the finished product. Maybe better for vinyl, maybe better for redbook or hi-rez. The playback equipment is different (in type and probably in quality). (1) Turntable, Arm, Cartridge, Phono Stage; vs (2) PC, DAC. So the difference in material of source can never be exactly compared. A $20 k vinyl rig is likely going to sound better than a $2 k digital rig. So it is still difficult to say a "vinyl rig" is better / worse than a "digital rig".

 

My experience, which I will offer, does not prove anything but still is a single voice. It is this: Where I have the same music digitally (DVDA, SACD, CE, Hi-rez, DSD) or vinyl more often I prefer the vinyl - maybe 2:1. In reality I play: (1) Vinyl 10%, (2) Oppo 105 (SACD, DVDA) 5%, (3) PC 85%. BUT when listening with friends the vinyl rig comes out, not the digital.

[gmgraves]

Ah well, my 20 cents worth: There are other variables in the chain that goes all the way from performance to listening. The same music is mastered differently for vinyl compared to digital so this difference will come out in the finished product. Maybe better for vinyl, maybe better for redbook or hi-rez. The playback equipment is different (in type and probably in quality). (1) Turntable, Arm, Cartridge, Phono Stage; vs (2) PC, DAC. So the difference in material of source can never be exactly compared. A $20 k vinyl rig is likely going to sound better than a $2 k digital rig. So it is still difficult to say a "vinyl rig" is better / worse than a "digital rig".

 

My experience, which I will offer, does not prove anything but still is a single voice. It is this: Where I have the same music digitally (DVDA, SACD, CE, Hi-rez, DSD) or vinyl more often I prefer the vinyl - maybe 2:1. In reality I play: (1) Vinyl 10%, (2) Oppo 105 (SACD, DVDA) 5%, (3) PC 85%. BUT when listening with friends the vinyl rig comes out, not the digital.

 

No doubt vinyl can be very beguiling. Many of us have fallen under it's spell, but we must not forget that making "product" is an interpretive process. How well or how poorly that the art of music making is interpreted for recordings determines whether or not those recordings satisfy on a SQ level. Very often gifted engineers and producers make glorious recorded sound. There is no doubt that this seemed to have happened more often in the early days of stereo than it has in the digital age, and this is perhaps because the process was simpler then, and recordings were made in a more "natural" way (even "pop" music). To me there's little wonder that to many, vinyl sounds best. Remember, when these older recordings are remastered for digital, that too is an interpretation. This might explain why digital reissues of iconic recordings as well as new ones don't satisfy the way we would like them to.

[AnotherSpin]

But if we're talking pure musicality, allow me to direct your attention to the 1973 Ozawa BSO Fantastique and the 1958 (I think) Munch BSO Fantastique.

 

No one plays Berlioz like the BSO. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the BSO is the only orchestra to have bespoke bells used specifically and only for Symphonie Fantastique (other orchestra use chimes or God know's what).

 

No one plays Berlioz like any orchestra. At least, decent orchestra. This is the beauty of classical music performances – you do not need to limit your expectations before encountering every one which is new for you. Bespoke bells? Even if you use field artillery in 1812 Overture or industrial drop hammer in Finale of Mahler 6th it will not made your performance any better by itself. I have Munch/BSO recording from both 1954 and 1962. Do not aware about recording from 1958 (?). And, I still remember one of my very first recordings of Fantastique, which was late 60s recording of Munch with Budapest Symphony on LP many years ago. I like these, still they do not divert my interest from all other excellent renditions.

[r_w]

I simply believe this:

 

"If your system doesn't make every recording, 'sound' great to listen to, there is work to be done on your system"

 

When the subject material is great and the recording not so great, you should still be thrilled to listen to it - it should impress and excite, not many systems get near managing this, which leads to inevitable seeking of audiophile recordings.

 

Listener fatigue, regardless of format, is the product of systems that need attention.

 

;-)

[gmgraves]

I simply believe this:

 

"If your system doesn't make every recording, 'sound' great to listen to, there is work to be done on your system"

 

When the subject material is great and the recording not so great, you should still be thrilled to listen to it - it should impress and excite, not many systems get near managing this, which leads to inevitable seeking of audiophile recordings.

 

Listener fatigue, regardless of format, is the product of systems that need attention.

 

;-)

 

I dunno, about that. I own recordings both analog (on vinyl) and digital, that a million dollar (or more) system couldn't make sound acceptable! One LP, in particular, a Hungaratone recording of Smetena's Ma Vlast, that sounds so bad, that were it not stereo, I could easily be convinced that it was recorded in the 1920s! On the digital side, I have an early CD on DGG of Strauss' Alpine Symphony that sounds so bad that it will make your ears bleed!

 

Don't forget, there are two sides to every recording. We, as consumers, have some control over the playback, but we have no control over the record-producing side of the equation. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and no matter how strong the subsequent links are, there is no making up for the weakest link. The best system in the world can't make a bad recording sound good. Sorry about that.

[r_w]

That's why I put 'sound' good.

 

Obviously you can't un-master or re-record something via playback but my system genuinely never throws anything at me that I want to turn off in terms of unpleasant presentation / fatigue, subject material is another thing and is of course down to taste.

 

Again: "If your system doesn't make every recording, 'sound' great to listen to, there is work to be done on your system"... building such a system is supposed to be the whole point of this hobby - finding great recordings isn't listening to music, it is finding great recordings.

 

;-)

 

 

I dunno, about that. I own recordings both analog (on vinyl) and digital, that a million dollar (or more) system couldn't make sound acceptable! One LP, in particular, a Hungaratone recording of Smetena's Ma Vlast, that sounds so bad, that were it not stereo, I could easily be convinced that it was recorded in the 1920s! On the digital side, I have an early CD on DGG of Strauss' Alpine Symphony that sounds so bad that it will make your ears bleed!

 

Don't forget, there are two sides to every recording. We, as consumers, have some control over the playback, but we have no control over the record-producing side of the equation. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and no matter how strong the subsequent links are, there is no making up for the weakest link. The best system in the world can't make a bad recording sound good. Sorry about that.

[Hailey]

No one plays Berlioz like any orchestra. At least, decent orchestra. This is the beauty of classical music performances – you do not need to limit your expectations before encountering every one which is new for you. Bespoke bells? Even if you use field artillery in 1812 Overture or industrial drop hammer in Finale of Mahler 6th it will not made your performance any better by itself. I have Munch/BSO recording from both 1954 and 1962. Do not aware about recording from 1958 (?). And, I still remember one of my very first recordings of Fantastique, which was late 60s recording of Munch with Budapest Symphony on LP many years ago. I like these, still they do not divert my interest from all other excellent renditions.

 

Ehhhh...sorta true, sorta not. While I think it is pointless to rank orchestras, and doubly pointless to rank orchestras of the caliber of Berlin, Boston, Chicago, Concertgebouw, Vienna, there are many "decent" orchestras that just don't compare to those in the top tier.

 

That said, it doesn't mean the top tier performances will actually be any "better"--eg, more exciting, more compelling. (When I lived in LA, I found performances by the USC student orchestra sometimes more compelling than those of the LA Philharmonic)

 

THAT said, historically, the Boston Symphony's sound was characterized by an almost febrile intensity--a mixture of the Hall and ensemble traditions routed in Monteaux, Koussevitsky, and Munch--that was at once distinctive and seemed to lend itself particularly well to the music of Berlioz. I'm not the only one who considered the BSO of not-too-long-ago to have been the world's greatest French orchestra. (Levine nudged things in a slightly more Germanic direction. Nelsons continues the trend.)

 

As for the bells, I could not disagree with you more emphatically. But, as they say, that's what makes a market.

[Hailey]

I'm currently on a long term overseas assingment and don't have my lp's with me but this is a recording I like:

 

Yes, I have this recording. It's good but...it's RedBook...

[Hailey]

That's why I put 'sound' good.

 

Obviously you can't un-master or re-record something via playback but my system genuinely never throws anything at me that I want to turn off in terms of unpleasant presentation / fatigue, subject material is another thing and is of course down to taste.

 

Again: "If your system doesn't make every recording, 'sound' great to listen to, there is work to be done on your system"... building such a system is supposed to be the whole point of this hobby - finding great recordings isn't listening to music, it is finding great recordings.

 

;-)

 

Really? A crap recording isn't still crap on your system? How can that be?

[r_w]

LOL,

 

Yes... It's still a crap recording but it doesn't sound unpleasant to listen to.

 

Really? A crap recording isn't still crap on your system? How can that be?

[Rexp]

Yes, I have this recording. It's good but...it's RedBook...

As I only have the Tidal version to hand I can't compare to the LP now but it sounds pretty good to me.

[AnotherSpin]

Ehhhh...sorta true, sorta not. While I think it is pointless to rank orchestras, and doubly pointless to rank orchestras of the caliber of Berlin, Boston, Chicago, Concertgebouw, Vienna, there are many "decent" orchestras that just don't compare to those in the top tier.

 

That said, it doesn't mean the top tier performances will actually be any "better"--eg, more exciting, more compelling. (When I lived in LA, I found performances by the USC student orchestra sometimes more compelling than those of the LA Philharmonic)

 

THAT said, historically, the Boston Symphony's sound was characterized by an almost febrile intensity--a mixture of the Hall and ensemble traditions routed in Monteaux, Koussevitsky, and Munch--that was at once distinctive and seemed to lend itself particularly well to the music of Berlioz. I'm not the only one who considered the BSO of not-too-long-ago to have been the world's greatest French orchestra. (Levine nudged things in a slightly more Germanic direction. Nelsons continues the trend.)

 

As for the bells, I could not disagree with you more emphatically. But, as they say, that's what makes a market.

I do not want to spoil the tread's topic, still do you really believe French music is best played by "French" Orchestra by default?

[Hailey]

I do not want to spoil the tread's topic, still do you really believe French music is best played by "French" Orchestra by default?

 

By default? Certainly not. The orchestras of France tend to be...well, let's just say uneven. (Of course, the Boston Symphony is an American orchestra.)

 

That said, I do think, in certain very distinctive cases, orchestras do have a certain affinity for certain types of music, often times, although not always, defined by nationality.

 

How does that work as a practical matter?

 

Well, imagine an individual instrumentalist with a particularly sympathy for a particular composer. That's not hard to imagine, right? Now, sometimes that affinity is the result of, well, wiring. Nature. But other items, it's influenced by training. The teacher. The culture.

 

Now imagine an entire orchestra made up of individual instrumentalists all of whom have the same affinity for the same composer or "school" of composition. The conductor doesn't have to teach such an orchestra how to play a piece that falls within its "affinity group." All of the individual musicians act in concert, as one.

 

That's not going to happen by nature. But by nurture? You bet.

 

I should add, it doesn't happen nearly so much as it used to: Nowadays, most orchestras are made up of interchangeable parts. But that distinctiveness can still be found in those ensembles that consciously work to maintain and perpetuate a certain distinctive culture.

 

Two specific examples:

 

When I was a music student, I attended a NY Philharmonic concert in Central Park with a fellow music student, a friend from Germany. The orchestra was playing a Strauss waltz--I can't even remember which one--and my friend got angrier and angrier. I remember him sputtering "Americans have no idea what they are playing when they play Strauss. The Vienna Philharmonic, which is a much better orchestra, knows how to play Strauss."

 

I thought he was just being a bigot. Later, when I heard the Vienna play Strauss at a concert in London, I heard what he meant. That whisper of a tug on the third beat...it's hard to get just right so it's not exaggerated yet not only imagined. Whatever it was, it was magical...and effortless. It just sounded innate.

 

Vienna, of course, goes to extremes. Not only does it train its own musicians, its wind and brass players play instruments used nowhere else. But the point is, it's an orchestra steeped in its traditions. And you can hear it.

 

Another example, here in the United States, is the Boston Symphony. Most of its members attended its summer music academy at Tanglewood. Over a third graduated from the New England Conservatory across the street from Symphony Hall. As far as I know, all of them studied with a member of the orchestra prior to their successful audition (some believe that is "de rigeur").

 

I don't believe there is an orchestra in this hemisphere that perpetuates its traditions the way the Boston Symphony does. When I was a student at Tanglewood ('79 and '80), well over half of the members of the BSO had played under Koussevitsky (who brought a number of actual French musicians into the orchestra), and Munch, and many had played under Monteaux--not necessarily as members of he BSO but as members of the Berkshire Music Center (as the Tanglewood Music Center was then called) student orchestra. And then there was Ozawa himself, as a Tanglewood student himself the conducting protege of Charles Munch. (Forget the Germans: His forte was French.)

 

I don't see how that Francophile tradition could be as strong as it once was, but the BSO still maintains those transmission belts of tradition. And when we're talking about the BSO circa 1973, yes, we are taking about a rather singular enterprise: One of the rare late-twentieth century ensembles with a distinct, idiosyncratic, personality rooted in a self-reinforcing loop of personnel and culture.

 

By any technical measure, today's Boston Symphony is certainly a "better" orchestra than its 20th century version(s). In fact, I'm not sure there's a better orchestra to be found anywhere. And, again, the BSO works to maintain its distinctive culture, in a way no other orchestra in this hemisphere can. But the inertial forces of global homogenization are such that it's probably a bit more generic, as well.

 

In conclusion, yes, any great orchestra can play a great concert. All things being equal, however, I'll choose to hear Strauss played by Vienna, Brahms played by Berlin, and Ravel played by Boston.

 

 

 

[N.B. In fairness, I should add that I once used that line "world's greatest French orchestra" on a former teacher of mine who had been a principal player in the BSO. I could tell from the look that flashed on her face that it annoyed her...whether because she thought it was diminishing the orchestra with faint praise or because she thought it was an idiotic observation...or both...I'll never know. But Bernard Holland of NYTimes later wrote the same thing, so at least there's that...]

[Fitzcaraldo215]

It is clear that you love the Boston Symphony, and for good reason. It is a remarkable institution, a great orchestra with a great tradition that also has the good fortune to play in one of the world's greatest concert halls.

 

Local fan boy that I am, I am just as impressed, if not more so, with my own Philadelphia Orchestra, which I believe has traditions just as deep and comparable to, but different from, the BSO. Those were developed in a long span starting in the early 20th Century under only 4 Music Directors: Stokowski, Ormandy, Muti and Sawallisch. I think you will find consistent references in out-of-town concert reviews to a unique "Philadelphia Sound", even today under Yannick Nezet-Seguin, who we all absolutely adore. That nuanced sound, primarily of the strings, owes a great deal to the Orchestra's long traditional ties to the great Curtis Institute of Music in downtown Philly. A majority of our players, especially string players, went to school there.

 

But, is it a nationalistic sound? No, I do not think so. It works for Rachmaninoff or Brahms, Beethoven or Sibelius, Shostakovich or Jennifer Higdon, etc. It worked beautifully under Charles Dutoit, Principal Conductor for a time, in Debussy or Berlioz. It has also worked outstandingly for guest conductors of many different nationalities with music from many different countries.

 

Especially today, a certain nationalistic sound is a false stereotype, more than anything else, stemming from the myths of past traditions. Orchestras and conductors cannot limit their repertoire along nationalistic lines. They cannot be easily pigeon holed, as they perhaps once were. Audiences demand that diversity, as well. And, the orchestra members themselves come from increasingly diverse backgrounds, mostly multi-ethnic American for US orchestras.

 

I also think that you have underemphasized the role of the conductor in shaping a particular performance and in getting a certain sound out of the orchestra. I think the "French Sound" you refer to with the BSO, may have more to do with RCA producers emphasizing French repertoire under Monteaux and Munch in the recordings made and released than with the actual sound and playing style of the orchestra. So, the myth was established. And, audiences, in their superficial, but false, "wisdom", loved to believe that LPs by Munch featuring his BSO sound were more authentically French than anyone else.

 

But, I do not buy that line of reasoning with any conductor or orchestra. If they are good, they must transcend that, and many do. So, do I love Bernard Haitink conducting Shostakovich with the Concertgebouw? Do I find it better than a lot of Russian orchestras with Russian conductors? You bet. The list goes on and on.

 

And, the BSO may be great, but take this, you Boston snob: the Philadelphia Orchestra is waay better. Actually, we had our very rough spots under Eschenbach, but we dearly love what Nezet-Seguin is doing. And, he is signed for the next 10 years, shuttling also to the Met in NYC. I do also admire the BSO's Nelsons, and I expect great things from him. I will mention a favorite BD video I have from the Lucerne Festival of him conducting the Concertgebouw in the Shostakovich 8th. Highly recommended.

 

The sad thing about it all is that today we do not have the steady flow of great recordings, especially of great American orchestras, like we did in the 50's, 60's and 70's. That has dwindled even as recorded quality today is, in my opinion, much better than ever. So, unfortunately, I do not get the quantity of BSO releases, or others, I would love to have. Oh, well, there is always Ivan Fisher with the Budapest Festival Orchestra on Channel Classics or the Concertgebow on RCO Live. And, they are immensely enjoyable in hi rez multichannel, which is easily the best recorded sound of my lifetime.

[semente]

I listen mostly to classical and have trouble getting immersed in the music even with the finest vinyl playback systems.

I much prefer Redbook, either played my modified 30yold CD player or my file playback system.

 

R

[Teresa]

Thanks for your replies George and Sal. My biggest problem with AB'ing (sighted or blind) on a personal level, is I have never in my long life been able to tell the difference in anything except for very large differences such as between a speaker with powerful deep bass and one with weak bass.

 

I am quite sure if I were to try to compare the difference between a 15 ips master tape and a prerecorded 8-track tape cartridge unless the 8-track happened to click during program change, I could not hear a difference AB'ing even if I were allowed to do it sighted.

 

Also by the time I switch from A to B and back to A again, it doesn't matter how great the music sounds under normal listening conditions it now sounds like crap and I want to turn off my stereo and do something else. This is why I know AB'ing never has and never will work for me and I have discovered the real issues with how our brain/ear system works to totally sabotage any attempts at AB'ing.

 

Sal, both ears and eyes can be tricked. My ears can be fooled short-term, however if I listen long enough to music I love I soon discover the true sound within a matter of a few weeks. That is why the only thing I have discovered that works is long-term listening in a casual music enjoying way.

 

George and Sal, if you have found a way to get around cognitive bias and listener fatigue, and can hear things that take time to present themselves, such as accumulative effects, soundstage and instrument placement by AB'ing you have unbelievable levels of concentration. If that is the case, you both have amazing ear/brain systems!

[beerandmusic]

LOL,

 

Yes... It's still a crap recording but it doesn't sound unpleasant to listen to.

 

 

yea, right...you must have it programmed to play something besides what you told it to play for that to be a true statement.

there is a ton of stuff out there that wouldn't be pleasant to listen to on any system.

[semente]

I am with Teresa in regards to A-B comparisons; it may be my problem, I don't know.

Fortunately I have never felt any attraction for any sort of snake oil additives, whether they were of the effective or the placebo kind... I'm just not cut out for this level of obsession and prefer to address problems with equipment and accessories which are demonstrably effective.

 

R

[AnotherSpin]

In conclusion, yes, any great orchestra can play a great concert. All things being equal, however, I'll choose to hear Strauss played by Vienna, Brahms played by Berlin, and Ravel played by Boston.

 

I am sure you know Koussevitsky was Russian Jew and Ozawa was from Japan. Many great American conductors (and musicians in orchestras) were from Central or Eastern Europe. Many great performers of modern time are coming from such different places as China, former USSR, Latin America and so on. Some of my preferred recordings of Schubert are originated not only in Austria, but in UK or France, Beethoven not only in Germany, but in Holland, Belgium or Scandinavia, Bach in Japan, Mahler in UK or US, and so on.

 

If we are speaking about deep national and cultural performing traditions, it was popular belief that Russian music is played best by Russians. I thought I never heard 5th and 6th Tchaikovsky Symphonies performed better than did Mravinsky/Leningrad on early DG mono. But now I cherish wonderful Jansons/Oslo set and some other great non-native recordings. My choice of Tchaikovsky violin and piano concertos is from those played by Western musicians. My favorite Rachmaninov 3d Piano Concerto is by Martha Argerich. Others top Rachmaninov 3d pianists in my personal list are not Russians as well (only Rachmaninov himself). Argerich gives astonishing Prokofiev and Ravel(!) Concertos too. Many believe top Shostakovich Quartets set is from Borodin Quartet, but Shostakovich himself was very particular towards recordings by Fitzwilliam SQ.

 

P.S.: Thank you for extended comments.

[Hailey]

It is clear that you love the Boston Symphony, and for good reason. It is a remarkable institution, a great orchestra with a great tradition that also has the good fortune to play in one of the world's greatest concert halls.

 

Local fan boy that I am, I am just as impressed, if not more so, with my own Philadelphia Orchestra, which I believe has traditions just as deep and comparable to, but different from, the BSO. Those were developed in a long span starting in the early 20th Century under only 4 Music Directors: Stokowski, Ormandy, Muti and Sawallisch. I think you will find consistent references in out-of-town concert reviews to a unique "Philadelphia Sound", even today under Yannick Nezet-Seguin, who we all absolutely adore. That nuanced sound, primarily of the strings, owes a great deal to the Orchestra's long traditional ties to the great Curtis Institute of Music in downtown Philly. A majority of our players, especially string players, went to school there.

 

But, is it a nationalistic sound? No, I do not think so. It works for Rachmaninoff or Brahms, Beethoven or Sibelius, Shostakovich or Jennifer Higdon, etc. It worked beautifully under Charles Dutoit, Principal Conductor for a time, in Debussy or Berlioz. It has also worked outstandingly for guest conductors of many different nationalities with music from many different countries.

 

Especially today, a certain nationalistic sound is a false stereotype, more than anything else, stemming from the myths of past traditions. Orchestras and conductors cannot limit their repertoire along nationalistic lines. They cannot be easily pigeon holed, as they perhaps once were. Audiences demand that diversity, as well. And, the orchestra members themselves come from increasingly diverse backgrounds, mostly multi-ethnic American for US orchestras.

 

I also think that you have underemphasized the role of the conductor in shaping a particular performance and in getting a certain sound out of the orchestra. I think the "French Sound" you refer to with the BSO, may have more to do with RCA producers emphasizing French repertoire under Monteaux and Munch in the recordings made and released than with the actual sound and playing style of the orchestra. So, the myth was established. And, audiences, in their superficial, but false, "wisdom", loved to believe that LPs by Munch featuring his BSO sound were more authentically French than anyone else.

 

But, I do not buy that line of reasoning with any conductor or orchestra. If they are good, they must transcend that, and many do. So, do I love Bernard Haitink conducting Shostakovich with the Concertgebouw? Do I find it better than a lot of Russian orchestras with Russian conductors? You bet. The list goes on and on.

 

And, the BSO may be great, but take this, you Boston snob: the Philadelphia Orchestra is waay better. Actually, we had our very rough spots under Eschenbach, but we dearly love what Nezet-Seguin is doing. And, he is signed for the next 10 years, shuttling also to the Met in NYC. I do also admire the BSO's Nelsons, and I expect great things from him. I will mention a favorite BD video I have from the Lucerne Festival of him conducting the Concertgebouw in the Shostakovich 8th. Highly recommended.

 

The sad thing about it all is that today we do not have the steady flow of great recordings, especially of great American orchestras, like we did in the 50's, 60's and 70's. That has dwindled even as recorded quality today is, in my opinion, much better than ever. So, unfortunately, I do not get the quantity of BSO releases, or others, I would love to have. Oh, well, there is always Ivan Fisher with the Budapest Festival Orchestra on Channel Classics or the Concertgebow on RCO Live. And, they are immensely enjoyable in hi rez multichannel, which is easily the best recorded sound of my lifetime.

 

Actually, I'm not from Boston, but I did spend formative time at Tanglewood, and lived in Boston for several years. So there will always be a nostalgia factor.

 

But I've been to more concerts NY Phil, LA Phil, and Chicago Symphony. I've only heard Philly once, live, in Carnegie Hall. Great orchestra for sure.

 

But, yes BSO is one of my favs, although only in the last three or four years would I have ranked it among the very best.

 

Thirty years ago, I would have agreed with you about Philadelphia. It's still a great orchestra--and I hope it always will be--but...

 

I think finances play a role. BSO is the most heavily endowed orchestra in the world, the Pops are a cash cow, and Tanglewood is the American Salzburg. The salaries are good and the quality of life in and around Boston is hard to beat...so long as you're ok with snow.

 

When Moennig closed shop in Philly that was a sad day, end of an era. Curtis is still going strong though. But some wonder about the strength of Philly's commitment to the orchestra.

 

I have no idea about that or opinion on the matter.

 

As for record producers shaping the sound. I suppose there's that but, I can tell you from personal experience that the BSO players in my day acutely felt that sense of tradition, culture, what made Boston different. That's what drove it. Not saying other orchestras didn't (or don't) have that but I guess it's a matter of degree.

 

As for music directors shaping the sound...well, yeah, that's huge. But if the players aren't willing to go along...

 

That's why they bounced Erich Leinsdorff out there and how Ozawa settled in for waaaay to long.

 

By the time he left, everybody was ready for a new direction. Levine began steering the ship in a more Germanic direction...Nelsons follows apace.

[r_w]

Whatever mate, you haven't experienced my system so why even bother wading in with pointless troll like skeptisicm.

 

Jog on.

 

 

yea, right...you must have it programmed to play something besides what you told it to play for that to be a true statement.

there is a ton of stuff out there that wouldn't be pleasant to listen to on any system.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I am sure you know Koussevitsky was Russian Jew and Ozawa was from Japan. Many great American conductors (and musicians in orchestras) were from Central or Eastern Europe. Many great performers of modern time are coming from such different places as China, former USSR, Latin America and so on. Some of my preferred recordings of Schubert are originated not only in Austria, but in UK or France, Beethoven not only in Germany, but in Holland, Belgium or Scandinavia, Bach in Japan, Mahler in UK or US, and so on.

 

If we are speaking about deep national and cultural performing traditions, it was popular belief that Russian music is played best by Russians. I thought I never heard 5th and 6th Tchaikovsky Symphonies performed better than did Mravinsky/Leningrad on early DG mono. But now I cherish wonderful Jansons/Oslo set and some other great non-native recordings. My choice of Tchaikovsky violin and piano concertos is from those played by Western musicians. My favorite Rachmaninov 3d Piano Concerto is by Martha Argerich. Others top Rachmaninov 3d pianists in my personal list are not Russians as well (only Rachmaninov himself). Argerich gives astonishing Prokofiev and Ravel(!) Concertos too. Many believe top Shostakovich Quartets set is from Borodin Quartet, but Shostakovich himself was very particular towards recordings by Fitzwilliam SQ.

 

P.S.: Thank you for extended comments.

 

I quite agree. Music is the international language. Great conductors, performers and orchestras can come from most anywhere, including many nations without a well established classical music tradition. Surprises abound, often unexpectedly. And, classical music is, or should be, open to a wide range of interpretation in performance.

 

A performance must be judged in musical terms, not the nationalistic ones of the past. An open mind is essential in listening. Nationality labels play with our minds and interfere with our appreciation of the music performance itself on its own terms.

[gmgraves]

That's why I put 'sound' good.

 

Obviously you can't un-master or re-record something via playback but my system genuinely never throws anything at me that I want to turn off in terms of unpleasant presentation / fatigue, subject material is another thing and is of course down to taste.

 

Again: "If your system doesn't make every recording, 'sound' great to listen to, there is work to be done on your system"... building such a system is supposed to be the whole point of this hobby - finding great recordings isn't listening to music, it is finding great recordings.

 

;-)

 

 

I'm sorry. I find that to be totally wrong nothing can make garbage sound good! I find that the better the system, the more sensitive it is to a recording's faults. It is definitely not the other way 'round. IOW, garbage-in-garbage-out usually becomes more true as the resolving power of an audio system improves.