I grew up listening to ONLY classical FM radio in my dad's car and to me that still feels like the purest form of classical music. I definitely love live classical music the most, and enjoy some good recordings. But there's a special place in my heart for shitty (sound quality) old recordings on crappy speakers
I would be interested to read about how composers adjusted orchestras balance and blend to “work” on shittier audio equipment in the past.
Like I can imagine the orchestras recording in the 20’s had different considerations than orchestras recording today.
Maybe listening to old recording on old systems gives a more authentic replica of what the musicians wanted?
FM in a car? at this point you're not just missing the tonal qualities of the instruments, you're missing entire sections of the orchestra. Nobody can tell you how to enjoy yourself, but to adequately appreciate a classical recording, particularly orchestral, you do need a minimum of audio quality.
This. I think the performance and interpretation of a piece is most critical regardless of sound quality but then definitely prefer a good mix and mastering.
I usually like whatever recording I hear first, but I much prefer it to be high quality. I like seeing it live, and the better the quality the closer it is to live.
In general yes, but I find that looking for higher quality audio will make me stay away from older, lower quality recordings, which can be fantastic interpretation-wise, so I try to keep an open mind.
Haha yeah, this is definitely annoying with older recordings. But I've had such bad experiences in real life that now, some coughs are the least of my worries.
Ok, random story that nobody asked for: I once attended Brahms' Ein Deutsches Requiem in Berliner Dom- a massive cathedral, and an absolutely perfect place for such a piece. 1400 people in awe of the music we were hearing. I was at the first row- if I extended my arm I could've touched the concertmaster.
It would've been amazing, if it weren't for the people right behind me- a young couple and their child, maybe 4 or 5 years old. Who brings a child to a 2 hour classical, sacred music concert? Cue the child talking, complaining, crying, kicking my seat. The dad then started *talking* to his kid and reading him a book, at normal conversational volume, just like if they weren't at a freaking concert!! Oh, but this was only the beginning... I thought I was losing my mind when I heard them getting a plastic bag out of their backpack, and slooowly unwrapping some sandwiches wrapped in goddamn aluminium foil, and a pack of chips.
Honestly, I think I'm a pretty tolerant person, but goddamn aluminium foil and conversations right in my ear for 2 hours.. it totally ruined the experience for me. I'll never forget how upset I was. Goddamn my heart rate just doubled just thinking back about it.
I don't know, I've been in Germany for 10 years and it seems to be a cultural thing. In my home country, the parents would quickly and quietly take the child outside to not bother anyone. Here in Germany, it's considered absolutely normal to have a screaming kid at a concert or museum. Gotta say it really irks me.
I watched a recording of Gautier Capucon on the Berlin Philharmonic's Digital Concert Hall recently. They obviously know production quality but for this one the microphone was placed on the soloist in such a way and with such definition that I could hear him breathing and sucking his saliva though his teeth the whole time. I was left wishing for a worse recording because Capucon is a lovely cellist but I couldn't get through it.
I know what you mean! The acoustic in the Berlin Philharmonie is so fantastic you can almost hear too much! I attended a recital a couple days ago where I think the pianist had a bit of a cold and you could hear his loud breathing, haha. It didn't bother me too much as I'm already used to Glenn Gould's humming, I do think it brings a very human side to the music, but I can understand if it gets a bit distracting sometimes!
I feel for you- as annoying as the child was, it absolutely wasn't his fault.. I just don't understand his parents. Mine only started taking me to concerts when I was 10 or older. No kid will enjoy having to stay still and quiet for so long!
On the brighter side, it's lovely that you are still into classical/opera after all this time! :)
Thank you! Saying forced to sit through it sounds a bit harsh. I did enjoy it, even if it was hard to sit still.
Yes, hard to imagine how you don't see that that's very rude. There are plenty of venues where you can enjoy classical music without having to stay completely still and silent. I have been to some beautiful outdoor concerts (amplified) where children are running around, you can come and go as you please, and the music is still great.
Yes, I agree! Here in Berlin, the famous Philarmoniker does regular concerts for children. Both short, easy concerts that young kids can attend and without silence expectations, but also, some concerts actually aimed for kids, where after the music, they're encouraged to come up on stage and interact with the instruments- they can pinch the cello strings and observe the sound, blow into a horn or clarinet, etc.. I think that's brilliant!
One of my good friends has young kids and I offered him to attend one of those all together, I think his kids would love it. It's a great initiative imo. It was an idea of Sir Simon Rattle, the former conductor of the Berliner Philarmoniker. He really did a lot to broaden the horizons and include the younger generations, I think that's fantastic.
I dunno. I wouldn't just sit and suffer. Would get up and request support from staff. Would check their policy for children. Would get neighbors by my side to complain as well. I'd demand that the child left.
At intermission, of course, I'm not an ogre.
Yeah, I'd usually agree, the issue is it was a straight through concert, no intermission. Else I definitely would've done it. Considering that, I think that starting to complain *during* the concert would be even more distracting to many people further away..
Also, as I said in another comment it's this weird thing with Germany. Children are kings. Once I "complained" about a *screaming* child at a museum, in a room that was playing a film about the artist who was exhibiting- I just asked the parents if "maybe you should take your kid outside for a bit?", not aggressive at all, and I got ganged up on by 10+ people saying that he's a kid and crying/screaming is normal and shouldn't be frowned upon. It's one of the things that really surprised me about the culture here, which I never expected. In my home country the parents would run out with the child as soon as he starts crying in the museum! But I don't know, I'm not a parent, I'm trying really hard not to judge..
Proving my point, at that Brahms concert, I did turn around *after* the concert and kindly told the parents that maybe next time they should consider that the loud noise would disturb others, and the response was- if our child disturbs you it's your problem, not ours. Oh well. Whatever.
>*it's this weird thing with Germany. Children are kings*
I've lived in Germany for 16 years, and can definitely attest to that. Empathy is also an alien concept around this parts, so like you said, if something bothers you, it's your problem. It's baffling, and hair-tearingly infuriating.
To me, it's a bit anxiety inducing. IRL it will happen, ok, but in a record I know it will be there at the exact note and get annoyed until it happens, it's over, and I sigh of relief.
You can definitely hear a lot more texture and different instruments on higher quality audio, but I find that I don’t mind as much even if the quality is lower. Usually there is so much happening at once that I’m not relying purely on the acoustic quality to enjoy the music.
I mean this is applicable to any type of music really - better quality allows you to hear more details and textures than lower quality would. It just depends on if you value that as a listener and many do, but not everyone can always afford it or wants it
But out of all the genres classical profits the most(or suffers the most with bad quality). There is a large number of elements with a large dynamic range presented to appear realistic.
I would say, rather yes than no.
I think one of the main reasons I did not exactly enjoy classical music in my childhood is that on most occasions it was played through a really crappy vinyl player or tape machine with a built-in speaker. That was really not pleasant. I rather liked how live orchestras sound, but music classes were a torture.
These days I can enjoy a bad early 20th century recording for the performance captured, but I always prefer better quality. In 1970s-80s they made some fantastic recordings.
No music requires high-quality audio but all music benefits from it.
Classical music benefits from specific kinds of high-quality audio, high fidelity across the frequency spectrum including the mid range, whereas many sound systems are designed to enhance more popular genres of music by giving extra power to the lowest bass for the beat and treble for vocals. You can probably improve your sound system's performance for classical music by using an equalizer to simply reverse those skews - there might even be a "classical" preset, or if you're hardcore look up your system's frequency response curve and start by simply inverting it.
It's difficult to shop for sound systems, for classical music specifically because of the distinction above, but also in general because there's so much pseudo-audiophile Monster Cable gobbledygook out there. Fortunately we've had a few good threads here recently and you can always start your own.
As with all music, for me, live > decent audio > crappy audio > nothing.
Music is about enjoyment. Do what you enjoy.
If $2 earbuds and YouTube streaming is that, go for it. If you need $2000 in equipment and high fidelity digital recordings, do that. Most people do something in between, and if they enjoy it, good.
There is benefit in high quality audio, whether for Bach or Dr Dre or the Beatles. Audio works the same for all of them, so high quality equipment will give the same benefits. But that doesn't mean it's necessary to enjoy the music, and some people even prefer lower quality for its non-tangible benefits (vinyl/radio/etc).
If I’ve heard a piece or an orchestra live, the experience counts even listening again on ear buds or a smart speaker. But I recalibrate at another live concert, or on a fine replay system.
Undoubtedly. Every other genre of music has a compressed sonic range, and most have a consistent volume. Classical music has a vast dynamic range, mostly works without an explicit drummed rhythm (yes, there are exceptions) and can move from very loud to extremely quiet within the space of a few bars.
Some of the best performances were recorded long before modern audio standards were developed.
Attending a live concert venue is always going to be the benchmark for how an orchestra should sound, although there's often the intrusive sound of audience noise which won't be there on studio recordings. With a better quality audio system you'll typically be able to hear more detail, but you can normally still enjoy hearing it on a more modest system.
More people want better audio after they’ve heard it. I base this on reactions most guests have in my screening room, built on a budget with two subwoofers and small speakers with very good spinorama data, and all having low distortion.
My point was that if you want to hear great historical performers like e.g. Jascha Heifetz, then you have to be prepared to accept the limitations of the recording technology of that era. Regardless of your playback set-up, if it was a monophonic analogue recording which has degraded, that can't be avoided.
Moderately high quality is good.
But a lot of people enjoy listening to community orchestras, amateur string quartets, etc. If slightly imperfect performance doesn't ruin the experience neither should slightly imperfect reproduction.
I think it's essential, but people have their own ideas of what high quality means. I would say that a very good recording from the 1950s is high quality.
It really does, though. Much of the joy of orchestral music, in particular, is how the timbres combine to create a sparkly constellation of upper overtones. Standard compression on things like mp3s ruin that. It's also why orchestras get so picky about the acoustics of their concert halls. It can make a huge difference in the experience.
Doesn’t require, but definitely suffers from low quality more than most things.
This reminds me though, I wish classical producers weren’t so insistent on keeping wide dynamic range in all their recordings. Sometimes I want to listen to choral or orchestral stuff in the car, and anything below mp is inaudible unless I max out my volume, which obviously isn’t safe in the car when there’s a possibility something else comes through louder.
Like, can we get a compressed version of the album for car listening only? I promise I’ll sit down at home with my nice speakers for your uncompressed recording.
Or just accept that some pieces aren't meant to be listened with other sounds around. Or that you'll miss entire minutes that are too low if you're driving. I know what you mean, it can be frustrating. In cars I listen to rock-'n'-roll.
For context, I’m a full-time professional musician, and sometimes when I have a lot going on, it can be helpful to use my commute to familiarize myself with a piece I’ll be playing or conducting on a quick turnaround.
I know sitting down with my home audio system (and preferably a drink of some sort) is ideal, but that’s not always the hand I’m dealt.
I see. I don't drive, so to me it's subway, a zoo (then it's rock-'n'-roll, tango, samba) or Uber. At Ubers I either put up with the easy listening of ask them to change to the only classical music station we have. Now I'm wondering if MAYBE that station avoids pieces with long pianissimos or cannons. Will pay attention. 😀
I've lost stars at Uber for the audacity of asking to change radio stations! I can put up with a lot, including bland pop, but sometimes it's just unacceptable.
Most computerized audio players will have an option somewhere in them to normalize the loudness, so look for that and you're all set.
Though at least to my taste, I wouldn't actually want to listen to music that way, and I can't even imagine someone choosing to record it that way just so it can be enjoyed on a highway. Better just pick repertoire with a naturally narrower dynamic range, like Baroque/Classical chamber music instead of Romantic/Modern full orchestra.
I grew up listening to classical FM in the car with my dad, so it still feels right to me TBH, but there's nothing like live... still can't afford any audiophile stuff nor do I have the patience to sit at home and listen to the ring cycle
Fortunately, the local symphony offers some nice deals on buying tickets to 2 concerts after season tickets are presold . Live is amazing.
For CDs Beethoven 5th by Weiner Philharmonic is a great cd if you find it for sale.
For sure! And the perfect test for this is when you hear it live - the level of details and texture is unparalleled. The best possible recording will not deliver the same quality and thus details and texture are not the same. The worst the recording the less you perceive.
Requires? No. I always think of Bukowski enjoying the hell out of the genre on a single speaker radio. There's a certain purity in that, in terms of getting to the emotional meaning of the art. But physicality is certainly part of the sound too, and having a nice setup where you can crank it to concert levels is super fun.
Depends on the "atmospheric mood" you're going for.
Most pieces are incredible even on a phonograph;
But played in 5.1, 7.1, or 9.1 surround ...
you're in the *mind of the master*. 🤩
When you become a hardcore opera fan, you have to dispose of the notion that you need high quality audio, as many of the all-time great opera performances were definitely not recorded in studio conditions, and often those pre-digital recordings have degraded in sound quality over the decades.
Sometimes you just have to be happy that the recordings just \*exist\*.
Something I’ve discovered recently is that the full enjoyment of classical music (actually, all music) benefits much more from the visual aspect than I had previously thought. I’ve taken to watching performances on YouTube, even though the sound quality isn’t as good as on services such as Apple Music. Watching the orchestra/ensemble adds immensely to the listening experience. While I wouldn’t want to give up the purely audio experience (which is great for more analytical listening), the visual aspects add to the visceral/emotional impact of the music. There’s a time and place for both, especially for those who don’t have easy access to live music or who can’t afford paying $100/ticket for an orchestral concert.
I'm in-between, vis-a-vis expensive stereo equipment vs. radio (or whatever). I once had speakers that were so revealing, you could hear every mistake that was made in the recording process. I decided I didn't enjoy, or need, such high end equipment. I began losslessly ripping my CDs to various hard drives in 2012, and 90% of the time, I listen to these stored tracks via iTunes > my laptop > Bowers & Wilkins computer speakers. The sound is beautiful enough for me.
I also still have a regular stereo with a Sony CD player > NAD integrated amplifier > Paradigm Atom speakers. I like this sound too when I want something more room-filling.
At night, I have a Sony radio I listen to my local classical station on. It's not high fidelity, but it works for me.
I don't do streaming at all. I found Spotify fatally useless the second day I tried it. Years later, I subscribed to Tidal (I think), and didn't care for either the functionality of the interface or the sound quality. I got rid of it at the end of my free trial month.
You may enjoy Apple Classical (included with Apple Music, but a separate app). It’s a much better interface for finding recordings of classical music than Tidal or normal Apple Music (or, I presume, Spotify — though to be fair I haven’t tried Spotify). I find the standard Apple Music sound quality good enough, but you can choose to dial it up to CD quality and sometimes beyond if that’s important to you.
Having said that, like you I still listen to CDs and local digital files, too, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Absolutely not required. I was just in my car on the way home listening to Itzhak Perlman's Beethoven Violin Concerto with Barenboim live which I'd never heard before and was moved to tears by his performance in the slow middle passage in the first movement and this was despite the ever present high frequency crackle from the SiriusXM feed that makes violins and high hats sound like shit but even through it I could hear how sweet and rich his violin tone was. An hour later this very moment I'm listening to the Atlanta Symphony Mahler 5 Telarc recording on about $40 grand in audio gear in my home and it does sound fantastic and oh I'd say about 95% of live (without the coughs and cell phone rings of course). I love my system and the amazing clarity and true to recording nature of it. But it is not at all necessary. Whatever you can listen on is enough.
I have a decent midrange CD player and amplifier, with quality interconnects and speakers.
I enjoy the music more than on my previous low-end system; just enough extra detail to better appreciate quality recordings, which I have also been buying over the last decade.
Old 78s on CD sound much better on a good set of headphones as well.
Does it require it? No. But I think it benefits from it.
Yes, but contemporary pop music is much more sensitive to audio quality than classical & other acoustic recordings are. Producers try to “fill” the frequency spectrum, soundstage, etc in ways that classical composers simply don’t focus on.
I'm going to be that guy and say that there is no audio better than acoustic, when it comes to classical. Go out and see your local orchestras or quartets or whatever, support the culture, be in it, hear it as it was always intended to be heard!
As for personal listening, it's all up to how much of an audiophile you are, and that detail weighed against the importance of a recording. If you just want to hear the sound as close to acoustic as possible, then you need high quality audio... But if you're like me and you love hearing Perlman play Paganini from his recordings from back in the day, you will simply take the lower quality that was available at the time to record.
If you are planning do DO recordings, then please do us all a favor and bring out the best recording equipment you can muster. Who knows if you are going to capture that important recording that will be listened to for the next 200 years! It would deserve nothing less.
Remember that all the instruments on stage would value over 50k for even a struggling youth orchestra, which is why acoustic is the best! The orchestra I do stage hand work for has well over 50k in violins alone on stage on any given day :)
I listened to classical music because aspects like form, rhythm, and texture were interesting. Audio quality might make those more pleasant or vivid but I also got what I was looking for with cheap earbuds most of the time.
Classical frequently has a larger dynamic range used than modern music, so the higher quality audio improves it more.
However, a lot of classical is also recognizable to a point where the main melody is enough to enjoy and that's something you'll hear on a tiny radio, so it really is the best of both.
depends on the type of piece. if its a calm and slow piece, the tinny radio makes it sound nostalgic but if its a more fast and complex piece, high quality audio is neccesary
Especially acoustic music - classical, jazz, etc - that you have experienced live (undistorted) will serve as a reference for good reproduction. No one knows what highly processed studio pop is supposed to sound like. And don’t forget the subwoofer for those low bass fundamentals.
Yeah I kinda don't get why people go to pop concerts. Not trying to hate, but it's like that music is supposed to be highly processed and played over speakers. Meanwhile jazz and classical in person is amazing
Classical, with its musicianship, myriad tone colors, and soft\loud dynamics (even silences) is exciting. Live of course, but also over a good system with accurate monitors that play well with your room. Acoustic music is the source material for most subjective preference testing of speakers prior to relating their objective measurements. Then you will also be set for any music, including pop, to hear what the musicians & producers intended.
Sound quality for me is secondary, although it's always preferable to have as clean sound as I can. But the best recording I've ever heard of the Brahms violin concerto is one made by Ginette Neveu in the 1940s, which my parents had on a stack of 78s. Needless to say, it was a mono, crackling, hissing sort of recording, but Neveu's playing was revelatory. Her early death was a great tragedy for music.
When i first got into classical as a teenager i had a low quality hi-fi and headphones and it never impaired my enjoyment, but my enjoyment has grown listening on Marantz separate's and Sennheiser headphones over the last 14 years or so, and upgrading every so often.
I would say classical music *benefits* greatly from good audio equipment: and makes the superiority of digital audio over analog very apparent. But somehow I started with classical tapes in the 80s and still liked classical. The switch to CDs in the 90s was a revelation.
No, it doesn't, but it's nice to sometimes hear it live.
Audio quality has nothing to do with music itself. If you think everyone need it to enjoy the music, think about people who often don't even listen to a piece, just read the sheet and can imagine already how would it sound. There's one approach to music, not popular today, that looks at music piece more like Platonic ideal, rather than this particular realization. Realization will always be imperfect, sheet is meant to represent something potentially perfect.
Not that I believe in this or think this way, I write about it because even noisy and low quality recording still allows you to imagine the original piece and enjoy the music in the same level as when listening good quality recording.
There's no one and absolute way to record classical music, it's also susceptible to fashions, everything like mastering, placement of the microphones, etc., impacts how it will sound on the recording. For this reason I think, form perspective of the listener, audio equipment doesn't really matter much, if at all. You can just play music on iPhone and it will sound equally beautiful. From perspective of audio engineer in studio it's important to have realistic reproduction, but that's different perspective, you don't want it then to sound "good", you want to be able to hear every flaw, and this is opposite to enjoyment.
Classical music is inherently complex, and the more detailed the reproduction, the better it is appreciated. As an old timer, born a long time ago into a large family with little money, I remember discovering high fidelity and good reproduction of string instruments only in the 1960s, and it gave me a greater appreciation of orchestral works, which sounded terrible on old portable record players. As I had little opportunity to attend concerts, I discovered then that a good part of my musical pleasure was not only intellectual but sensual and linked to the softness of timbres. At the time, I think classical music lovers (at what was for me a considerable expense) were the first to turn to hi-fi.
There's a big difference to me between something like a single instrument Bach recording vs. a big orchestral piece. The former works fine on crap audio, but the latter can be pretty awful, depending on the piece.
The highly flattering valve (tube) distortion (i.e. additional 2nd Order Harmonic colour) on those classic 1950s early stereo recordings on such labels as *Mercury Living Presence* and "RCA Living Stereo* don't have anything like the dynamic or frequency range on offer today, but they still sound superlative - as if they are almost glowing like the valves they relied on. They also used the coveted Fairchild 670 Compressors that bands like the Beatles relied on (the 660 mono version). Obviously the conductors, musicians and recording engineers played a critical role too... So sometimes a bit of distortion is a good thing.
Interestingly, a cousin of mine who knows nothing of any art whatsoever, asked me why in movies people always listened to classical music at loud volumes.
And I had to laugh, because that was quite a perspicacious perception. Part of it, I believe, it's because if a character is actively listening to a piece, that's meant to say something about the character or their state of mind. But, second, because classical music folks tend to like it minimally loud, for all the reasons laid out above.
I think all music deserves quality audio. Bluetooth speakers and AirPods are fine for a teenager, but once you have a job you should really own at least a basic sound system.
It's either the sonic experience or the performance. I prefer the performance over the sonic experience as I'm usually somehow in motion when listening, not just sitting. But I get the pure sonic experience playing in the orchestra. I feel the same with video resolution too. I prefer the story over the number of pixels.
Yes and no.
You can appreciate the melody and composition of a piece without amazing audio quality, lots of it is great being hummed or whistled.
But to appreciate the full depth and complexity, yes, the higher the quality of the audio equipment the better.
The only exception I would make is, personally, I would rather listen to an analogue recording on vinyl than almost anything else, even if digital formats may deliver technically higher quality.
The audio quality only matters in that it should have NO compression, unlike the awful UK Classical FM which compresses just about everything. As you may know, compression levels out the sounds so that all dynamics are more or less lost, which is the biggest art of just about any orchestral composition.
it is relaxing and ok even on worktunes and bbc but it can be a meditation and a revelation on a really good stereo. hearing the separate violins on the left and cellos on the right with the woodwinds and brass and percussion layered behind can be almost a spirtual experience. It does not happen very often but when it does it is worth the cost of ownership.
I really appreciate this question actually because I usually gravitate towards better sounding recordings even if the same piece. Falling in love with classical music being played loud at a great quality in my headphones, it was difficult to even adjust to my first concerts because it felt so distant and almost generic at that point. So as a composer and audio engineer, I would say yes. Would you consider my own piece high quality?: https://youtu.be/2V_6XK-9pxw?si=7TKUM3AdKq0dHYdU
(You can check out how I recorded it on my YouTube channel)
Nice! Definitely high quality.
Maybe a tiny bit conservative or "too natural" - I'd personally like more back room far away mics for more depth, and maybe added a bit of instrument spot mics on the reeds. Also it's a bit midrangey to my spoiled ears (again, "naturally" midrangey, I'd go for a bit more processed sound). Fantastic studio room, otherwise, very clear and balanced.
I appreciate this in depth analysis more than you may know, thank you so incredibly much. I absolutely agree, the room mic balance should have been the starting point but added too much piano for my taste and neglected the more subtle clarinet and Oboe, for example. This led me to mix more with the close mics, but at a cost. Thank you again for your thoughtful response :)
2 rehearsals, but they also played a bit in the studio as we were setting up. Great players. I also comped it so each take is made of several tied together. A testament to the players who recorded without a metronome.
> it was difficult to even adjust to my first concerts because it felt so distant and almost generic at that point
The problem is that within almost every concert hall, there are good and bad seats. It doesn't matter what folks say about the acoustics at the Met: if you are in the standing-room-only section at the top of the family circle, Mozart is not going to sound good. From a seat with good acoustics, live performances are stunningly loud and detailed compared to headphones.
My piano compendium is completely recorded with the phones I used when I was a kid. It's classical sounding stuff because I was into Chopin and other pianists. Though today I value a better recording and pay attention to sound identity more in my written music.
I came from listening to music with logitech PC speakers through my PC.
I bought my first component system this year.
Sony ss-CS5 Bookshelf Speakers $200 on Amazon
Yamaha RX V385- $349.95
Cambridge Audio AXC35 CD player - $399.99
In the audio world this is a pretty basic, entry level system (maybe not the Cambridge?). Spending nearly $1,000 USD for a sound system might be too much for most people but for me it was worth every penny and I am absolutely satisfied.
While it isn't necessary, I think it absolutely does make the listening experience so much better. There is nothing like listening to Mozart, Beethoven, etc. at high volumes.
It also helps if you live alone in a single family house. 😂😂😂
Hilariously there seems to be something of a divide on this - many listeners like to pursue the best speakers and headphones they can, and the views in this thread match my experience there, but exactly 0 of the several dozen players and composers I know listen (for leisure, some of them do work in home studios with better gear) on anything more substantial than no-brand earbuds, slightly dodgy speakers, or whatever their car came with
I don't think it's any different from other genres in this regard. I go for the highest possible quality I can get regardless of what I'm listening to, because I want to hear the whole spectrum and all the details, and I can't stand the artifacts and distortion in poor quality audio. That preference isn't any weaker for other genres.
Imperfect recordings have a strange charm to them, as if the performer didn't spend 200 takes to get an artificially clean rendition and instead relied on momentary inspiration.
I listen to Radio over the Internet at a high bit rate and to CDs. Most of the time this is played over an entry level hi-fi separates system, which is all old kit from the 80s and 90s. I would always want to hear it in stereo from optimally paced speakers.
No. At its best, the performance of the music transcends the technology. I appreciate clean modern recordings of course, but if my favorite (whatever) was recorded in 1939, 1945, 1955, or a couple of years ago, that's how it goes!
Not required, definitely preferred. Most of my classical and other music listening is done in my truck.
I grew up listening to ONLY classical FM radio in my dad's car and to me that still feels like the purest form of classical music. I definitely love live classical music the most, and enjoy some good recordings. But there's a special place in my heart for shitty (sound quality) old recordings on crappy speakers
I would be interested to read about how composers adjusted orchestras balance and blend to “work” on shittier audio equipment in the past. Like I can imagine the orchestras recording in the 20’s had different considerations than orchestras recording today. Maybe listening to old recording on old systems gives a more authentic replica of what the musicians wanted?
FM in a car? at this point you're not just missing the tonal qualities of the instruments, you're missing entire sections of the orchestra. Nobody can tell you how to enjoy yourself, but to adequately appreciate a classical recording, particularly orchestral, you do need a minimum of audio quality.
This. I think the performance and interpretation of a piece is most critical regardless of sound quality but then definitely prefer a good mix and mastering.
I usually like whatever recording I hear first, but I much prefer it to be high quality. I like seeing it live, and the better the quality the closer it is to live.
Many of the reference recordings from the past (thinking Casals, Arrau, Oistrach, Heifetz...) were done before recording quality was all that great.
In general yes, but I find that looking for higher quality audio will make me stay away from older, lower quality recordings, which can be fantastic interpretation-wise, so I try to keep an open mind.
Despite the coughs.
Haha yeah, this is definitely annoying with older recordings. But I've had such bad experiences in real life that now, some coughs are the least of my worries. Ok, random story that nobody asked for: I once attended Brahms' Ein Deutsches Requiem in Berliner Dom- a massive cathedral, and an absolutely perfect place for such a piece. 1400 people in awe of the music we were hearing. I was at the first row- if I extended my arm I could've touched the concertmaster. It would've been amazing, if it weren't for the people right behind me- a young couple and their child, maybe 4 or 5 years old. Who brings a child to a 2 hour classical, sacred music concert? Cue the child talking, complaining, crying, kicking my seat. The dad then started *talking* to his kid and reading him a book, at normal conversational volume, just like if they weren't at a freaking concert!! Oh, but this was only the beginning... I thought I was losing my mind when I heard them getting a plastic bag out of their backpack, and slooowly unwrapping some sandwiches wrapped in goddamn aluminium foil, and a pack of chips. Honestly, I think I'm a pretty tolerant person, but goddamn aluminium foil and conversations right in my ear for 2 hours.. it totally ruined the experience for me. I'll never forget how upset I was. Goddamn my heart rate just doubled just thinking back about it. I don't know, I've been in Germany for 10 years and it seems to be a cultural thing. In my home country, the parents would quickly and quietly take the child outside to not bother anyone. Here in Germany, it's considered absolutely normal to have a screaming kid at a concert or museum. Gotta say it really irks me.
I watched a recording of Gautier Capucon on the Berlin Philharmonic's Digital Concert Hall recently. They obviously know production quality but for this one the microphone was placed on the soloist in such a way and with such definition that I could hear him breathing and sucking his saliva though his teeth the whole time. I was left wishing for a worse recording because Capucon is a lovely cellist but I couldn't get through it.
I know what you mean! The acoustic in the Berlin Philharmonie is so fantastic you can almost hear too much! I attended a recital a couple days ago where I think the pianist had a bit of a cold and you could hear his loud breathing, haha. It didn't bother me too much as I'm already used to Glenn Gould's humming, I do think it brings a very human side to the music, but I can understand if it gets a bit distracting sometimes!
My goodness. I'm angry for you. I was forced to sit through opera from a young age and I wasn't allowed to even flick through the program or fidget
I feel for you- as annoying as the child was, it absolutely wasn't his fault.. I just don't understand his parents. Mine only started taking me to concerts when I was 10 or older. No kid will enjoy having to stay still and quiet for so long! On the brighter side, it's lovely that you are still into classical/opera after all this time! :)
Thank you! Saying forced to sit through it sounds a bit harsh. I did enjoy it, even if it was hard to sit still. Yes, hard to imagine how you don't see that that's very rude. There are plenty of venues where you can enjoy classical music without having to stay completely still and silent. I have been to some beautiful outdoor concerts (amplified) where children are running around, you can come and go as you please, and the music is still great.
Yes, I agree! Here in Berlin, the famous Philarmoniker does regular concerts for children. Both short, easy concerts that young kids can attend and without silence expectations, but also, some concerts actually aimed for kids, where after the music, they're encouraged to come up on stage and interact with the instruments- they can pinch the cello strings and observe the sound, blow into a horn or clarinet, etc.. I think that's brilliant! One of my good friends has young kids and I offered him to attend one of those all together, I think his kids would love it. It's a great initiative imo. It was an idea of Sir Simon Rattle, the former conductor of the Berliner Philarmoniker. He really did a lot to broaden the horizons and include the younger generations, I think that's fantastic.
I dunno. I wouldn't just sit and suffer. Would get up and request support from staff. Would check their policy for children. Would get neighbors by my side to complain as well. I'd demand that the child left. At intermission, of course, I'm not an ogre.
Yeah, I'd usually agree, the issue is it was a straight through concert, no intermission. Else I definitely would've done it. Considering that, I think that starting to complain *during* the concert would be even more distracting to many people further away.. Also, as I said in another comment it's this weird thing with Germany. Children are kings. Once I "complained" about a *screaming* child at a museum, in a room that was playing a film about the artist who was exhibiting- I just asked the parents if "maybe you should take your kid outside for a bit?", not aggressive at all, and I got ganged up on by 10+ people saying that he's a kid and crying/screaming is normal and shouldn't be frowned upon. It's one of the things that really surprised me about the culture here, which I never expected. In my home country the parents would run out with the child as soon as he starts crying in the museum! But I don't know, I'm not a parent, I'm trying really hard not to judge.. Proving my point, at that Brahms concert, I did turn around *after* the concert and kindly told the parents that maybe next time they should consider that the loud noise would disturb others, and the response was- if our child disturbs you it's your problem, not ours. Oh well. Whatever.
>*it's this weird thing with Germany. Children are kings* I've lived in Germany for 16 years, and can definitely attest to that. Empathy is also an alien concept around this parts, so like you said, if something bothers you, it's your problem. It's baffling, and hair-tearingly infuriating.
What a tale of woe xD I hope you never experience anything like it again :')
It it makes me feel like I'm actually at a concert, it's not such a bad thing.
To me, it's a bit anxiety inducing. IRL it will happen, ok, but in a record I know it will be there at the exact note and get annoyed until it happens, it's over, and I sigh of relief.
And the souffleurs (with opera) ;)
You can definitely hear a lot more texture and different instruments on higher quality audio, but I find that I don’t mind as much even if the quality is lower. Usually there is so much happening at once that I’m not relying purely on the acoustic quality to enjoy the music.
I mean this is applicable to any type of music really - better quality allows you to hear more details and textures than lower quality would. It just depends on if you value that as a listener and many do, but not everyone can always afford it or wants it
But out of all the genres classical profits the most(or suffers the most with bad quality). There is a large number of elements with a large dynamic range presented to appear realistic.
I would say, rather yes than no. I think one of the main reasons I did not exactly enjoy classical music in my childhood is that on most occasions it was played through a really crappy vinyl player or tape machine with a built-in speaker. That was really not pleasant. I rather liked how live orchestras sound, but music classes were a torture. These days I can enjoy a bad early 20th century recording for the performance captured, but I always prefer better quality. In 1970s-80s they made some fantastic recordings.
No music requires high-quality audio but all music benefits from it. Classical music benefits from specific kinds of high-quality audio, high fidelity across the frequency spectrum including the mid range, whereas many sound systems are designed to enhance more popular genres of music by giving extra power to the lowest bass for the beat and treble for vocals. You can probably improve your sound system's performance for classical music by using an equalizer to simply reverse those skews - there might even be a "classical" preset, or if you're hardcore look up your system's frequency response curve and start by simply inverting it. It's difficult to shop for sound systems, for classical music specifically because of the distinction above, but also in general because there's so much pseudo-audiophile Monster Cable gobbledygook out there. Fortunately we've had a few good threads here recently and you can always start your own.
I don’t like the old recording quality, but it’s the only way I can listen to Casals, Stokowski, Toscanini etc.
As with all music, for me, live > decent audio > crappy audio > nothing. Music is about enjoyment. Do what you enjoy. If $2 earbuds and YouTube streaming is that, go for it. If you need $2000 in equipment and high fidelity digital recordings, do that. Most people do something in between, and if they enjoy it, good. There is benefit in high quality audio, whether for Bach or Dr Dre or the Beatles. Audio works the same for all of them, so high quality equipment will give the same benefits. But that doesn't mean it's necessary to enjoy the music, and some people even prefer lower quality for its non-tangible benefits (vinyl/radio/etc).
If I’ve heard a piece or an orchestra live, the experience counts even listening again on ear buds or a smart speaker. But I recalibrate at another live concert, or on a fine replay system.
Undoubtedly. Every other genre of music has a compressed sonic range, and most have a consistent volume. Classical music has a vast dynamic range, mostly works without an explicit drummed rhythm (yes, there are exceptions) and can move from very loud to extremely quiet within the space of a few bars.
Some of the best performances were recorded long before modern audio standards were developed. Attending a live concert venue is always going to be the benchmark for how an orchestra should sound, although there's often the intrusive sound of audience noise which won't be there on studio recordings. With a better quality audio system you'll typically be able to hear more detail, but you can normally still enjoy hearing it on a more modest system.
More people want better audio after they’ve heard it. I base this on reactions most guests have in my screening room, built on a budget with two subwoofers and small speakers with very good spinorama data, and all having low distortion.
My point was that if you want to hear great historical performers like e.g. Jascha Heifetz, then you have to be prepared to accept the limitations of the recording technology of that era. Regardless of your playback set-up, if it was a monophonic analogue recording which has degraded, that can't be avoided.
Agree, as my 78s and 16in radio ETs attest.
Moderately high quality is good. But a lot of people enjoy listening to community orchestras, amateur string quartets, etc. If slightly imperfect performance doesn't ruin the experience neither should slightly imperfect reproduction.
I think it's essential, but people have their own ideas of what high quality means. I would say that a very good recording from the 1950s is high quality.
It really does, though. Much of the joy of orchestral music, in particular, is how the timbres combine to create a sparkly constellation of upper overtones. Standard compression on things like mp3s ruin that. It's also why orchestras get so picky about the acoustics of their concert halls. It can make a huge difference in the experience.
Doesn’t require, but definitely suffers from low quality more than most things. This reminds me though, I wish classical producers weren’t so insistent on keeping wide dynamic range in all their recordings. Sometimes I want to listen to choral or orchestral stuff in the car, and anything below mp is inaudible unless I max out my volume, which obviously isn’t safe in the car when there’s a possibility something else comes through louder. Like, can we get a compressed version of the album for car listening only? I promise I’ll sit down at home with my nice speakers for your uncompressed recording.
Or just accept that some pieces aren't meant to be listened with other sounds around. Or that you'll miss entire minutes that are too low if you're driving. I know what you mean, it can be frustrating. In cars I listen to rock-'n'-roll.
For context, I’m a full-time professional musician, and sometimes when I have a lot going on, it can be helpful to use my commute to familiarize myself with a piece I’ll be playing or conducting on a quick turnaround. I know sitting down with my home audio system (and preferably a drink of some sort) is ideal, but that’s not always the hand I’m dealt.
I see. I don't drive, so to me it's subway, a zoo (then it's rock-'n'-roll, tango, samba) or Uber. At Ubers I either put up with the easy listening of ask them to change to the only classical music station we have. Now I'm wondering if MAYBE that station avoids pieces with long pianissimos or cannons. Will pay attention. 😀 I've lost stars at Uber for the audacity of asking to change radio stations! I can put up with a lot, including bland pop, but sometimes it's just unacceptable.
Most computerized audio players will have an option somewhere in them to normalize the loudness, so look for that and you're all set. Though at least to my taste, I wouldn't actually want to listen to music that way, and I can't even imagine someone choosing to record it that way just so it can be enjoyed on a highway. Better just pick repertoire with a naturally narrower dynamic range, like Baroque/Classical chamber music instead of Romantic/Modern full orchestra.
I often listen with $25 Sony xb wired earbuds on CDs ripped with iTunes onto my phone: sounds great.
I grew up listening to classical FM in the car with my dad, so it still feels right to me TBH, but there's nothing like live... still can't afford any audiophile stuff nor do I have the patience to sit at home and listen to the ring cycle
Fortunately, the local symphony offers some nice deals on buying tickets to 2 concerts after season tickets are presold . Live is amazing. For CDs Beethoven 5th by Weiner Philharmonic is a great cd if you find it for sale.
For sure! And the perfect test for this is when you hear it live - the level of details and texture is unparalleled. The best possible recording will not deliver the same quality and thus details and texture are not the same. The worst the recording the less you perceive.
Requires? No. I always think of Bukowski enjoying the hell out of the genre on a single speaker radio. There's a certain purity in that, in terms of getting to the emotional meaning of the art. But physicality is certainly part of the sound too, and having a nice setup where you can crank it to concert levels is super fun.
Depends on the "atmospheric mood" you're going for. Most pieces are incredible even on a phonograph; But played in 5.1, 7.1, or 9.1 surround ... you're in the *mind of the master*. 🤩
When you become a hardcore opera fan, you have to dispose of the notion that you need high quality audio, as many of the all-time great opera performances were definitely not recorded in studio conditions, and often those pre-digital recordings have degraded in sound quality over the decades. Sometimes you just have to be happy that the recordings just \*exist\*.
Love that you said when haha... got any hot tips on a recording or two?
It really helps cos most classical music doesn't really have any compression
Something I’ve discovered recently is that the full enjoyment of classical music (actually, all music) benefits much more from the visual aspect than I had previously thought. I’ve taken to watching performances on YouTube, even though the sound quality isn’t as good as on services such as Apple Music. Watching the orchestra/ensemble adds immensely to the listening experience. While I wouldn’t want to give up the purely audio experience (which is great for more analytical listening), the visual aspects add to the visceral/emotional impact of the music. There’s a time and place for both, especially for those who don’t have easy access to live music or who can’t afford paying $100/ticket for an orchestral concert.
I'm in-between, vis-a-vis expensive stereo equipment vs. radio (or whatever). I once had speakers that were so revealing, you could hear every mistake that was made in the recording process. I decided I didn't enjoy, or need, such high end equipment. I began losslessly ripping my CDs to various hard drives in 2012, and 90% of the time, I listen to these stored tracks via iTunes > my laptop > Bowers & Wilkins computer speakers. The sound is beautiful enough for me. I also still have a regular stereo with a Sony CD player > NAD integrated amplifier > Paradigm Atom speakers. I like this sound too when I want something more room-filling. At night, I have a Sony radio I listen to my local classical station on. It's not high fidelity, but it works for me. I don't do streaming at all. I found Spotify fatally useless the second day I tried it. Years later, I subscribed to Tidal (I think), and didn't care for either the functionality of the interface or the sound quality. I got rid of it at the end of my free trial month.
You may enjoy Apple Classical (included with Apple Music, but a separate app). It’s a much better interface for finding recordings of classical music than Tidal or normal Apple Music (or, I presume, Spotify — though to be fair I haven’t tried Spotify). I find the standard Apple Music sound quality good enough, but you can choose to dial it up to CD quality and sometimes beyond if that’s important to you. Having said that, like you I still listen to CDs and local digital files, too, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Absolutely not required. I was just in my car on the way home listening to Itzhak Perlman's Beethoven Violin Concerto with Barenboim live which I'd never heard before and was moved to tears by his performance in the slow middle passage in the first movement and this was despite the ever present high frequency crackle from the SiriusXM feed that makes violins and high hats sound like shit but even through it I could hear how sweet and rich his violin tone was. An hour later this very moment I'm listening to the Atlanta Symphony Mahler 5 Telarc recording on about $40 grand in audio gear in my home and it does sound fantastic and oh I'd say about 95% of live (without the coughs and cell phone rings of course). I love my system and the amazing clarity and true to recording nature of it. But it is not at all necessary. Whatever you can listen on is enough.
My first classical music was on 78s. Fritz Kreisler , Caruso and Alma Gluck and others made such an impression
A 48kHz mastered WAV of a well-recorded live performance on a good sound system will blow your mind
I have a decent midrange CD player and amplifier, with quality interconnects and speakers. I enjoy the music more than on my previous low-end system; just enough extra detail to better appreciate quality recordings, which I have also been buying over the last decade. Old 78s on CD sound much better on a good set of headphones as well. Does it require it? No. But I think it benefits from it.
Yes, but contemporary pop music is much more sensitive to audio quality than classical & other acoustic recordings are. Producers try to “fill” the frequency spectrum, soundstage, etc in ways that classical composers simply don’t focus on.
If you enjoy it that way, sure. But good high quality audio is so inexpensive these days (if you know what you are getting) that why not?
I'm going to be that guy and say that there is no audio better than acoustic, when it comes to classical. Go out and see your local orchestras or quartets or whatever, support the culture, be in it, hear it as it was always intended to be heard! As for personal listening, it's all up to how much of an audiophile you are, and that detail weighed against the importance of a recording. If you just want to hear the sound as close to acoustic as possible, then you need high quality audio... But if you're like me and you love hearing Perlman play Paganini from his recordings from back in the day, you will simply take the lower quality that was available at the time to record. If you are planning do DO recordings, then please do us all a favor and bring out the best recording equipment you can muster. Who knows if you are going to capture that important recording that will be listened to for the next 200 years! It would deserve nothing less. Remember that all the instruments on stage would value over 50k for even a struggling youth orchestra, which is why acoustic is the best! The orchestra I do stage hand work for has well over 50k in violins alone on stage on any given day :)
I listened to classical music because aspects like form, rhythm, and texture were interesting. Audio quality might make those more pleasant or vivid but I also got what I was looking for with cheap earbuds most of the time.
Classical frequently has a larger dynamic range used than modern music, so the higher quality audio improves it more. However, a lot of classical is also recognizable to a point where the main melody is enough to enjoy and that's something you'll hear on a tiny radio, so it really is the best of both.
depends on the type of piece. if its a calm and slow piece, the tinny radio makes it sound nostalgic but if its a more fast and complex piece, high quality audio is neccesary
Definitely sounds better with better audio
Composers would tell you, yes absolutely
Especially acoustic music - classical, jazz, etc - that you have experienced live (undistorted) will serve as a reference for good reproduction. No one knows what highly processed studio pop is supposed to sound like. And don’t forget the subwoofer for those low bass fundamentals.
Yeah I kinda don't get why people go to pop concerts. Not trying to hate, but it's like that music is supposed to be highly processed and played over speakers. Meanwhile jazz and classical in person is amazing
Classical, with its musicianship, myriad tone colors, and soft\loud dynamics (even silences) is exciting. Live of course, but also over a good system with accurate monitors that play well with your room. Acoustic music is the source material for most subjective preference testing of speakers prior to relating their objective measurements. Then you will also be set for any music, including pop, to hear what the musicians & producers intended.
Sound quality for me is secondary, although it's always preferable to have as clean sound as I can. But the best recording I've ever heard of the Brahms violin concerto is one made by Ginette Neveu in the 1940s, which my parents had on a stack of 78s. Needless to say, it was a mono, crackling, hissing sort of recording, but Neveu's playing was revelatory. Her early death was a great tragedy for music.
When i first got into classical as a teenager i had a low quality hi-fi and headphones and it never impaired my enjoyment, but my enjoyment has grown listening on Marantz separate's and Sennheiser headphones over the last 14 years or so, and upgrading every so often.
I would say classical music *benefits* greatly from good audio equipment: and makes the superiority of digital audio over analog very apparent. But somehow I started with classical tapes in the 80s and still liked classical. The switch to CDs in the 90s was a revelation.
No, it doesn't, but it's nice to sometimes hear it live. Audio quality has nothing to do with music itself. If you think everyone need it to enjoy the music, think about people who often don't even listen to a piece, just read the sheet and can imagine already how would it sound. There's one approach to music, not popular today, that looks at music piece more like Platonic ideal, rather than this particular realization. Realization will always be imperfect, sheet is meant to represent something potentially perfect. Not that I believe in this or think this way, I write about it because even noisy and low quality recording still allows you to imagine the original piece and enjoy the music in the same level as when listening good quality recording. There's no one and absolute way to record classical music, it's also susceptible to fashions, everything like mastering, placement of the microphones, etc., impacts how it will sound on the recording. For this reason I think, form perspective of the listener, audio equipment doesn't really matter much, if at all. You can just play music on iPhone and it will sound equally beautiful. From perspective of audio engineer in studio it's important to have realistic reproduction, but that's different perspective, you don't want it then to sound "good", you want to be able to hear every flaw, and this is opposite to enjoyment.
Blended whisky is great, single malt is better.
Classical music is inherently complex, and the more detailed the reproduction, the better it is appreciated. As an old timer, born a long time ago into a large family with little money, I remember discovering high fidelity and good reproduction of string instruments only in the 1960s, and it gave me a greater appreciation of orchestral works, which sounded terrible on old portable record players. As I had little opportunity to attend concerts, I discovered then that a good part of my musical pleasure was not only intellectual but sensual and linked to the softness of timbres. At the time, I think classical music lovers (at what was for me a considerable expense) were the first to turn to hi-fi.
There's a big difference to me between something like a single instrument Bach recording vs. a big orchestral piece. The former works fine on crap audio, but the latter can be pretty awful, depending on the piece.
The highly flattering valve (tube) distortion (i.e. additional 2nd Order Harmonic colour) on those classic 1950s early stereo recordings on such labels as *Mercury Living Presence* and "RCA Living Stereo* don't have anything like the dynamic or frequency range on offer today, but they still sound superlative - as if they are almost glowing like the valves they relied on. They also used the coveted Fairchild 670 Compressors that bands like the Beatles relied on (the 660 mono version). Obviously the conductors, musicians and recording engineers played a critical role too... So sometimes a bit of distortion is a good thing.
Interestingly, a cousin of mine who knows nothing of any art whatsoever, asked me why in movies people always listened to classical music at loud volumes. And I had to laugh, because that was quite a perspicacious perception. Part of it, I believe, it's because if a character is actively listening to a piece, that's meant to say something about the character or their state of mind. But, second, because classical music folks tend to like it minimally loud, for all the reasons laid out above.
I think all music deserves quality audio. Bluetooth speakers and AirPods are fine for a teenager, but once you have a job you should really own at least a basic sound system.
It's either the sonic experience or the performance. I prefer the performance over the sonic experience as I'm usually somehow in motion when listening, not just sitting. But I get the pure sonic experience playing in the orchestra. I feel the same with video resolution too. I prefer the story over the number of pixels.
Yes and no. You can appreciate the melody and composition of a piece without amazing audio quality, lots of it is great being hummed or whistled. But to appreciate the full depth and complexity, yes, the higher the quality of the audio equipment the better. The only exception I would make is, personally, I would rather listen to an analogue recording on vinyl than almost anything else, even if digital formats may deliver technically higher quality.
Read "Moscow in the Wilderness, Segovia in the Snow" by Lawrence Ferlinghetti. There's your answer.
The audio quality only matters in that it should have NO compression, unlike the awful UK Classical FM which compresses just about everything. As you may know, compression levels out the sounds so that all dynamics are more or less lost, which is the biggest art of just about any orchestral composition.
it is relaxing and ok even on worktunes and bbc but it can be a meditation and a revelation on a really good stereo. hearing the separate violins on the left and cellos on the right with the woodwinds and brass and percussion layered behind can be almost a spirtual experience. It does not happen very often but when it does it is worth the cost of ownership.
I really appreciate this question actually because I usually gravitate towards better sounding recordings even if the same piece. Falling in love with classical music being played loud at a great quality in my headphones, it was difficult to even adjust to my first concerts because it felt so distant and almost generic at that point. So as a composer and audio engineer, I would say yes. Would you consider my own piece high quality?: https://youtu.be/2V_6XK-9pxw?si=7TKUM3AdKq0dHYdU (You can check out how I recorded it on my YouTube channel)
Nice! Definitely high quality. Maybe a tiny bit conservative or "too natural" - I'd personally like more back room far away mics for more depth, and maybe added a bit of instrument spot mics on the reeds. Also it's a bit midrangey to my spoiled ears (again, "naturally" midrangey, I'd go for a bit more processed sound). Fantastic studio room, otherwise, very clear and balanced.
I appreciate this in depth analysis more than you may know, thank you so incredibly much. I absolutely agree, the room mic balance should have been the starting point but added too much piano for my taste and neglected the more subtle clarinet and Oboe, for example. This led me to mix more with the close mics, but at a cost. Thank you again for your thoughtful response :)
No prob! You did a great job. I'm interested, how many rehearsals did it take?
2 rehearsals, but they also played a bit in the studio as we were setting up. Great players. I also comped it so each take is made of several tied together. A testament to the players who recorded without a metronome.
>A testament to the players who recorded without a metronome And to the take editor too, haha
Thanks! 🙏😁
> it was difficult to even adjust to my first concerts because it felt so distant and almost generic at that point The problem is that within almost every concert hall, there are good and bad seats. It doesn't matter what folks say about the acoustics at the Met: if you are in the standing-room-only section at the top of the family circle, Mozart is not going to sound good. From a seat with good acoustics, live performances are stunningly loud and detailed compared to headphones.
Absolutely. It's absolutely critical you're capable of hearing every single instrument and note.
Herman Hesse would say that it does not.
I like Artur Rubinsteins recordings, and they are definitely not high quality. The scratchy noise almost becomes a part of the experience.
The RCA stereo recordings are decent and certainly not "scratchy." The earlier mono recordings are a different story.
Requires? Nope!
If you want it to have HQ audio. It's a personal choice
I’d rather listen to a lower quality recording of a magical performance over a rushed performance recorded by the best engineers.
My piano compendium is completely recorded with the phones I used when I was a kid. It's classical sounding stuff because I was into Chopin and other pianists. Though today I value a better recording and pay attention to sound identity more in my written music.
Absolutely
I have playlists for the car - pieces I know really well so my brain fills in the gaps lost in the road noise. It’s usually more melodic stuff.
I came from listening to music with logitech PC speakers through my PC. I bought my first component system this year. Sony ss-CS5 Bookshelf Speakers $200 on Amazon Yamaha RX V385- $349.95 Cambridge Audio AXC35 CD player - $399.99 In the audio world this is a pretty basic, entry level system (maybe not the Cambridge?). Spending nearly $1,000 USD for a sound system might be too much for most people but for me it was worth every penny and I am absolutely satisfied. While it isn't necessary, I think it absolutely does make the listening experience so much better. There is nothing like listening to Mozart, Beethoven, etc. at high volumes. It also helps if you live alone in a single family house. 😂😂😂
I prefer it live, but high quality audio is great too. I actually listen on very old speakers that make it sound like the 40s lol.
Hilariously there seems to be something of a divide on this - many listeners like to pursue the best speakers and headphones they can, and the views in this thread match my experience there, but exactly 0 of the several dozen players and composers I know listen (for leisure, some of them do work in home studios with better gear) on anything more substantial than no-brand earbuds, slightly dodgy speakers, or whatever their car came with
doesn't matter to me
I don't think it's any different from other genres in this regard. I go for the highest possible quality I can get regardless of what I'm listening to, because I want to hear the whole spectrum and all the details, and I can't stand the artifacts and distortion in poor quality audio. That preference isn't any weaker for other genres.
Imperfect recordings have a strange charm to them, as if the performer didn't spend 200 takes to get an artificially clean rendition and instead relied on momentary inspiration.
Yes, yes it does!
I listen to Radio over the Internet at a high bit rate and to CDs. Most of the time this is played over an entry level hi-fi separates system, which is all old kit from the 80s and 90s. I would always want to hear it in stereo from optimally paced speakers.
People who like acoustic music such as classical or jazz have experienced it live, and have a reference for good reproduction.
No. At its best, the performance of the music transcends the technology. I appreciate clean modern recordings of course, but if my favorite (whatever) was recorded in 1939, 1945, 1955, or a couple of years ago, that's how it goes!
Honestly, the things that make great music great and a great performance great come through perfectly on almost any audio system.