Do you enjoy older or old recordings?

[Dave2002]

I have been collecting records, tapes and CDs for over 50 years now. I can recall some very good sounding recordings from older years, though even some new at the time recordings were not terribly good. I did also listen to 78s, which had obvious problems, though some were enjoyable nevertheless.

Over years I have bought CDs which are reissues of earlier recordings, and some are really disappointing. In some cases this is because the originals were even before the period of my LP collecting - probably mono recordings made to tape, or even other methods, and some transfers from 78s. In other cases I wonder whether the originals were really as bad as some now sound. Partly this could be due to changes in my hearing, but despite that I do wonder whether there are problems with modern transfers to CD.

A couple of recent examples:

Bax Symphony 2, Goossens from Dutton Vocalion: 1956 recording according to the notes.

Beethoven violin sonatas,, Arthur Grumiaux and Clara Haskil in a Regis box - The Art of the Violin, again from 1956-7.

I can enjoy the music making of this last one, but I think Grumiaux may have recorded some of the pieces in the box again later, and I would expect those to sound better.

It's easy to shrug things off and say that recording techniques weren't so good in the 1960s, but I recall hearing several recordings which sounded superb, albeit to my then somewhat younger ears.

[umslopogaas]

I wonder if the problem is that when you first heard them, it was on equipment that had limited range - both dynamics and frequency - and therefore the limitations of the recordings werent apparent. Now you hear them on modern equipment which doesnt have those restrictions, and the limitations of the recording now show up.

Having said that, I collect LPs from the mono and early stereo eras, and on modern equipment the sound can be spectacularly good, so there was nothing wrong with the recording in many cases. The equipment may well have been to blame, I recall radiograms from that era and I think by modern standards the sound would have been pretty mediocre; often one didnt know because one didnt have access to decent equpment for comparison.

But you may be right in suggesting that the modern transfers are inaccurate. They will have been made in many cases by engineers who were born in the CD era and have little knowledge of how LPs ought to sound.

[Dave2002]

I wonder if the problem is that when you first heard them, it was on equipment that had limited range - both dynamics and frequency - and therefore the limitations of the recordings werent apparent. Now you hear them on modern equipment which doesnt have those restrictions, and the limitations of the recording now show up.

It is possible, as you say, that my equipment wasn't great - and indeed in the early days it was based on valves - which some in fairly recent years have extolled the virtues of. However, by the 1970s I had rather better equipment - though transistor based amplification - and most of the recordings sounded good enough. My speakers of that time, which I still have, had a good low bass response, and also a good high frequency response.

If you look at some of the reports of the history of recording companies, it is clear that some companies (perhaps most) shaped the way the recordings sounded, to suit what they felt typical consumers would like. There may have been noises about "faithful recordings to the original sound", but for all sorts of reasons, partly, but not only, associated with the distribution media, there was quite a lot of technical fiddling. Dynamics and tonal content were adjusted so as to avoid end of side effects on LPs, and the frequency spectrum was probably modified to make the results sound "pleasant" to most people, which would give an exaggerated or unwanted effects on really good equipment.

My response to some older recordings transferred to CD is often fairly immediate, I "just do not like the sound". It sounds dull und uninvolving. Some recordings also have hum or other low frequency noise, and some also have high frequency hiss. The low frequency end does bother me somewhat, as I think this might arise because it was probably always there, but few people had equipment good enough to be able to hear it, or it could be carelessness in the transcription. Moderate levels of low frequency noise can in any case be filtered out with in some cases very good results. Some recordings had extended bass response, and this would only show up on good equipment. One such is Keilberth's recording of the Flying Dutchman (Decca). When the sailors start clumping about on the stage, speakers with a good bass response will really make this obvious, though the effects are more or less inaudible on most lesser kit. However, this would indicate that although there was low frequency noise in LP reproduction - often turntable rumble - this was usually low enough as to not mar enjoyment, and certainly masked by any real low frequency content in the source material. This is, seemingly, not always the case with some modern transfers.

High frequency hiss can be distracting, though if it's not too bad it may be preferable to using some form of tone control to remove it, which can dull the sound. Dynamic noise filtering may also work, but that can give other unwanted, and sometimes very audible, effects.

Rather than divert this thread in its infancy to technical matters, are there other older recordings which people like, or on the other hand, now dislike, either in CD or other digital transfers, or in their original formats?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I would argue that some of the earliest Decca stereo opera recordings (e.g. Tebaldi's La Boheme) are as good as most of today's examples (and better than many). There may be a hint of tape hiss, but that is more than compensated by the skills of the recording teams of the time.

[Alain Maréchal]

I can give many examples of poorly remastered analogue recordings, but I will settle for one label. I used to collect LPs by Swedish Society, aka Discofil. Some of them were remastered in the 1980s, and were well done, preserving the acoustics of the various recording halls - the original recordings had used large halls with a reasonable amount of reverberation. I am not technically-aware but I suppose they would be remasters of the original tapes with little interference. The company was later taken over, and many of the recordings remastered by Schtrumpfs with no ears into dried-out sound. So we have the music but not the way it was intended to be heard. If you should seek them, look for the 1980s CDs.

A secondary consideration perhaps is that those older recordings were by Swedish orchestras and conductors who had the style in their bones, often the composer. I favour autochthony.

[umslopogaas]

Interesting. I have that Keilberth recording on the original mono Decca LPs. It was recorded live at the 1955 Bayreuth festival. I've just played the first side. There is a lot of audience chattering in the preamble brass chords before the overture starts: I havent noticed those chords in other recordings, I think it must be a Bayreuth way of telling the audience to be quiet because the overture is about to start. As I recall, the Bayreuth orchestra is invisible to the audience, so they wouldnt be able to see the conductor. There are a few live audience coughs, but nothing much. There is no noticeable low frequency or high frequency extraneous noise, and when the sailors start Hohoing, there is no noise of feet clumping. The sound is a bit boxy, but you soon adapt, and the brass has a wonderful rasp. It does look as if some new extraneous noises may have been introduced in the CD transfer process.

I use a mono stylus for mono LPs, which gives less surface noise than stereo ones. I have Martin Logan electrostatic speakers with an REL subwoofer, so I would certainly hear extraneous low or high frequency noise if there was any. My amp doesnt have tone controls.

I have read that in most recordings, especially in the LP era, the sound engineers reduced the dynamic range, both to protect the ears of listeners in small home living rooms, and to prevent damage to the speakers. Occasionally the engineers didnt do this, and those are the recordings that audiophiles like, the ones that have orchestral climaxes so loud your ears bleed.

[pastoralguy]

Fwiw, I find that 'historic' recordings sound better on my little hi-fi in the back bedroom than the posh system in the sitting room. I recently stumbled upon a cache of historic Beecham titles in 3 charity shops close to where I live in Edinburgh of which I bought about 40 at a pound a time. The recording dates vary between the 1920's and 1950's so there's a big variation in quality. The reproduction is variable depending on which machine is used but, on the whole, I find the lesser hi-fi work better.

Having said that, I took one of the earliest Beecham recordings round to a friend who owns a fabulous system and it sounded terrific!

[pastoralguy]

I'm also awaiting delivery of the recently released 'Elgar Remastered' set on Somm which consists of discs that were owned by Elgar himself. These include alternative takes of the violin and 'cello concertos so it's very interesting stuff. However, whereas most transfers are made from the best available materials, Elgar was notorious for not taking the best care of his shellac so whilst I'm very keen to hear them, I do hope the variability of the discs affects the music. And, of course, I'll be comparing them with the EMI release copies.

An interesting problem to have!

[Roslynmuse]

The last comment regarding the condition of the source of transfers is crucial. I have had the experience of buying CDs or downloads of recordings from the 60s that remind me of the bad old days when I would borrow LPs from the local library and copy them via a simple lead to my mono cassette recorder; if the disc had been out more than a few times the run-in track would sound like a small house fire... (plus the bump when the stylus hit the LP). I bought a download of a favourite Decca LP, Solti at the Opera, and was disappointed that Decca had not gone back to a decent sound source, which presumably they still have access to. Some of the Australian Decca Eloquence releases are also disappointing (although others - the Alexander Gibson 'Witches' Brew' - are fabulous.) So - many factors involved. As a side note, I have some cassettes of Radio 3 broadcasts from the 60s and 70s that are infinitely more vivid than the sound we sometimes get today - presumably the sound engineers are wholly responsible for this?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I've just been listening to the Edwin Fischer/Furtwangler recording of Brahms's 2nd Piano Concerto. As ever, as soon as I hear the inferior sound, I consider changing to a more modern recording, but the ear soon adjusts, and the music eventually sounds fine.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

As a side note, I have some cassettes of Radio 3 broadcasts from the 60s and 70s that are infinitely more vivid than the sound we sometimes get today - presumably the sound engineers are wholly responsible for this?

This is so true, though there's been a big improvement at this year's Proms. But there's also the issue of DAB iffy sound, along with an apparently deliberate policy of degrading FM quality.

[jayne lee wilson]

Too much to say so little time.... I have become less tolerant of the most obvious flaws in older recordings in recent years (can't listen to much before good 50s mono, if that), and much more devoted to hearing new performances of classical rep and new music itself, of course...(I might go back for Hermann Scherchen on occasion, not much else)

As for sound, the recent advent of hi-res or 24-bit downloads, not to mention newer DACs which process CDs much better, has altered the perspective again and for me - only more truthfully and for the better. I buy mostly new releases & scarcely hear a bad recording anymore, I can hear what's wrong with earlier recordings easier now, even despite excellent newer remastering. Some systems tend to disguise analogue flaws like peak distortion or a narrower dynamic range, so, especially at modest volume settings, a given Mercury may sound more immediate & vivid than a newer BIS, say, whatever their musical merits.

(This also applies to FM because of the dynamic compression - on a dedicated tuner it still sounds good, apart from that)...

But admittedly I've become bored with the idea of going back, those big box Great Conductor retrospectives etc., and suspicious of the way reviewers judge say, a new JEG Beethoven recording against Beecham or Klemperer etc., this seems a worn-out approach to me now, so its very personal.
Great new music in the best 24-bit sound, or Dantone or Antonini in Haydn whizzing along with bands of 15 or 20 players... what's not to like?

(Sorry this is a bit loosely put, shouldn't have got into this now, snowed under, gotta go...)

[gradus]

There are so many old and by modern technical standards poor recordings that I love, that for me at least the recording is of secondary importance, its the music and performance that counts. As with many of my generation listening to music on MW radio perhaps trained the ear to listen past the whistles and fadings and to forgive more easily the shortcomings of earlier recordings. This is not to say that I am in any sense anti-digital or think that everything was better then but I find that some old recordings have never been bettered imv and their sonic shortcomings don't matter to me eg from the 1930's, Beecham/LPO Lemminkainens Return, Bruno Walter/VPO/ Mahler 9, Toscanini/ NBCSO Beethoven 7, Eva Turner singing In Questa Reggia etc etc.

[Ferretfancy]

There are so many old and by modern technical standards poor recordings that I love, that for me at least the recording is of secondary importance, its the music and performance that counts. As with many of my generation listening to music on MW radio perhaps trained the ear to listen past the whistles and fadings and to forgive more easily the shortcomings of earlier recordings. This is not to say that I am in any sense anti-digital or think that everything was better then but I find that some old recordings have never been bettered imv and their sonic shortcomings don't matter to me eg from the 1930's, Beecham/LPO Lemminkainens Return, Bruno Walter/VPO/ Mahler 9, Toscanini/ NBCSO Beethoven 7, Eva Turner singing In Questa Reggia etc etc.

I absolutely agree with you. Interestingly, when CD first appeared there was a very real fear that recordings from the archive would simply disappear, to be replaced by digital issues. In fact it was the opposite that occurred and we now have access to an enormous wealth of historic performances, often beautifully remastered. I've surprised myself at the number of older recordings that are in my collection. I would go further and say that by the time that stereo came along sound quality was often as fine as any modern issues.


I hate the modern technique of bunging in lots of microphones and remixing the result afterwards. The confusion of phase information in these mixes creates a solid wall perspective that fails to convey a genuine feeling of the acoustic in which the performers play. Unfortunately we are unlikely to get much improvement as today's methods use less session time and costs are high.

[Stanley Stewart]

Serendipity at play again! I'm still reeling from sheer pleasure after listening to the first two CD's in a four CD set from Somm; Elgar Remastered by Lani Spahr; test pressings from Elgar's private library with STEREO reconstructions and new performances of the Cello Concerto and Symphony No 1. Took an hour to absorb the 28 page set of liner notes as I'm no techie but have always valued the EMI Elgar Edition which also amazed me at the first hearing in 1992. A bit of a hiccup on reading about the 'stereo transitions' as a I recall the disappointment at earlier attempts on CD when introduced in the early 80s. The 1919 and 1928 recordings of the Cello Concerto are both provided on CD1/2 in stereo. The liner notes start, "...So, again, what do we have here? Can we realistically use the word 'stereo' snce the word had no meaning in 1928 and if two microphones and cutters were used (I say 'if' because there is plenty of doubt, which we shall see later in this essay) they certainly would not have been placed in any standard 'stereo' configuration as we know it today." Listening to both performances, Beatrice Harrison, cello, - there is also a private disc which includes the Adagio from the Cello Concerto with Harrison and HRH Princess Victoria, piano! To my ears, the microphonic configuration of both recordings produces a shimmering fidelity. Shaking my head with hand over my mouth at the sheer wonder of it all. The fillers on CD1, include The Kingdom Prelude, in stereo and mono, ditto Cockaigne, and a choral arr of O God our help in ages past.

CD 2, includes the Cello Concerto, 1928 rec, previously unissued alternative takes in stereo and mono. CD3 Sym 1, complete, mono, with alternative takes; CD 4, mono unissued alt takes - Caractacus, Dream Children, Rosemary, Serenade Lyrique, Severn Suite - Tournament, Mazurka, Wand of Youth Suite, Nos 1 & 2, It comes from the misty ages from The Banner of St George, and concludes with God Save the King.

I need to think on about the technicalities and will return to the liner notes for guidance but much enjoyed the anecdotes about the composer: "Beatrice Harrison relates the composer's mood before the 1928 recording: 'I remember he was very gay, and he told me it didn't really matter what happened to the orchestra as all the faults could be put onto the soloist! How we laughed (at least I did not laugh as much as he did!). The composer was heard saying to her,'Give it to 'em, Beatrice, give it 'em. Don't mind about the notes or anything. Give 'em the spirit.'