Are/were older recordings really so bad?

[Dave2002]

I'm currently listening to the end of Mahler's 8th acquired this morning as a free mp3 download - Utah Symphony Orchestra conducted by Maurice Abravanel.

I notice it's also available on YouTube - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agd6lSR88t0

I don't know when it was recorded - I'm trying to find out. My initial point in writing this was to comment on the very disappointing sound quality. Then I got drawn into the music, and even despite what I feel is miserable sound quality the end is terrific.

Nevertheless my point was going to be that surely many of these older recordings - reissued as MP3s or other formats - were very much better in their LP incarnations. Some older recordings have - I believe been remastered splendidly - but others are just tossed onto MP3s and robbed of all frequencies which make them worth listening to, and perhaps more to the point - the dynamics are completely screwed up.

Am I imagining this? This is a sample of one - recording - and now I'm listening again to the YouTube version.

Did this particular one predate versions by Solti, Kubelik or Wyn Morris? If so, then perhaps one might expect it to be less effective - but otherwise there does not seem to be any reason why recordings such as this should not be reissued in very much better sound quality.

I am just choosing this one as it's what I'm listening to right now - but the impact - for example of the organ entry at 1 hour 12:55 (Youtube version) is completely lost. I can remember having played this (vinyl) on LPs [though not this particular recording]and having the house shake - or at least having significant impact. I think that many other older recorded performance are not served well by whatever is done to them to make them available for distribution now.

So are older recordings really that bad (which I don't really think) - or are they just being put out in mediocre "re-masterings" as part of commercial churn - by an industry which doesn't seem to really care about sound quality for material which may be less financially worthwhile for those with the copyrights to publish them.

[Bryn]

The Abravanel Mahler 8 has also been reissued I hi-res on DVD Audio:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2004/aug04/Mahler8_Abravanel.htm

I have it on CD:

[mikealdren]

I'm currently listening to the end of Mahler's 8th acquired this morning as a free mp3 download - Utah Symphony Orchestra conducted by Maurice Abravanel.

I notice it's also available on YouTube - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agd6lSR88t0

I don't know when it was recorded - I'm trying to find out. My initial point in writing this was to comment on the very disappointing sound quality. Then I got drawn into the music, and even despite what I feel is miserable sound quality the end is terrific.

Nevertheless my point was going to be that surely many of these older recordings - reissued as MP3s or other formats - were very much better in their LP incarnations. Some older recordings have - I believe been remastered splendidly - but others are just tossed onto MP3s and robbed of all frequencies which make them worth listening to, and perhaps more to the point - the dynamics are completely screwed up.

Am I imagining this? This is a sample of one - recording - and now I'm listening again to the YouTube version.

Did this particular one predate versions by Solti, Kubelik or Wyn Morris? If so, then perhaps one might expect it to be less effective - but otherwise there does not seem to be any reason why recordings such as this should not be reissued in very much better sound quality.

I am just choosing this one as it's what I'm listening to right now - but the impact - for example of the organ entry at 1 hour 12:55 (Youtube version) is completely lost. I can remember having played this (vinyl) on LPs [though not this particular recording]and having the house shake - or at least having significant impact. I think that many other older recorded performance are not served well by whatever is done to them to make them available for distribution now.

So are older recordings really that bad (which I don't really think) - or are they just being put out in mediocre "re-masterings" as part of commercial churn - by an industry which doesn't seem to really care about sound quality for material which may be less financially worthwhile for those with the copyrights to publish them.

Dave,
it's a whole can of worms! It's interesting how Vinyl lovers talk about the golden age of LPs but I have found that CDs can be greatly superior and, of course, modern recordings are basically digital to begin with so new LPs are based on digital data.

Firstly, it really depends on what sources are available, if the original tapes (assuming you are talking about relatively recent recordings) still exist and are in usable condition, they can sometimes provide better sound than LPs. However in some cases, the best source is from original LPs.

There is still a great deal that can be done to improve things. Early CDs were produced by simply digitising the original recording and they were not always very successful. Noise reduction can make a big improvement and so can various frequency changes to compensate for recording curves (RIAA etc) that were used to compensate for limitations in LP reproduction. Pitch errors can be corrected as can errors due to wow and flutter, on piano recordings this can be very sophisticated. Also, a skilled engineer can alter the tonal balance of recordings and manage reverberation. With more recent recordings, multi-track recordings and multiple takes may be re-edited to give better results.

Sadly, as you say, some of the major labels still don't do nearly enough to improve their reissues.

I'm far from an expert here but I suspect there are other on this forum who can add much more and a web search will give lots of info on the work of the likes of Pristine Audio and various skilled engineers used by Naxos etc.

[Dave2002]

There are it seems many who still seem to think that vinyl LPs are better - hence the fairly recent upsurge in turntables and vinyl pressings. Personally I think that is bonkers. It is possible to get very good SQ from LPs but at a very high price. I suspect that a £2k turntable might just about compare with a £500 CD player - then there's all the faff of keeping the discs clean and scratch free. Given that so many modern recordings were made digitally anyway - apart from the microphone and amp inputs - it does seem a mad (and expensive) way to go. However, for older recordings - say pre 1980 or even 1985 - LPs may be the only viable way to hear older performances in good or acceptable quality sound. In some cases master tapes may have been available, but often they deteriorated. Decca issued some good sets on CDs, but had to completely re-evaluate their master tapes for some performances. Some companies never really had good tapes to start with, and over time those have become considerably worse than the LPs which they were used to make.

Even allowing for equipment etc., there are some LPs which I still feel sounded better than CDs, and reputable and competent record companies may have tried to remaster them well - but didn't quite succeed. Otherwise most of my comparisons of LPs and CDs suggested that either the CDs were better or there was very little audible difference.

My ears are not what they once were - but they are not totally clapped out. I recall hearing some very good recordings in the 1970s which even allowing for my rose tinted ears - definitely sounded much better than most of the muddy and emaciated mp3 or similar audio tracks which are often put out today. I don't know if the problems are due to compression (mp3 or otherwise) or just simply terrible "re-mastering" - or if the "process" of copying older recordings to digital formats often involves putting the audio through compressors and filters even before any digital "remastering" is carried out. I think it is possible to produce results which are as good as - or maybe even better subjectively - that the original recordings would suggest, but that's not going to work if there is limited quality control, lack of interest and if those doing the work have "cloth ears".

Oh - I should just mention that regarding Mahler 8 - most live performances are pretty bad regarding sound quality. The last one I attended - Gergiev in St Pauls was a mess - I have heard better on CDs and LPs - though I did buy the LSO Live CD of that performance. I have never really heard a good performance of that work which worked sonically, though I have friends who mentioned that performances in Symphony Hall, Birmingham quite a while ago were terrific. I've never heard it at the Proms - it might just work in the RAH, but in many large cathedrals the echos are just too difficult to cope with. It is a work which I feel ought to be a much more splendid piece than it often is - but I still love the last movement based on CDs and LPs, plus the opening.

[Dave2002]

The Abravanel Mahler 8 has also been reissued I hi-res on DVD Audio:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2004/aug04/Mahler8_Abravanel.htm

I have it on CD:

Is there an indication of the recording dates?

Is that CD (or the DVD audio) any good? A Hi-Res recording from a Lo-Res source is, of course, just going to be low res!

Anyone who wants the free MP3 version can find it from a US source this week - but expect the SQ to be relatively poor - though as I've maybe suggested parts of the performance are involving.
It's not so bad as to be worthless, but .....

Playing such recordings louder doesn't work to add to the excitement - whatever "quality" there ever was has already gone.

[richardfinegold]

I'm currently listening to the end of Mahler's 8th acquired this morning as a free mp3 download - Utah Symphony Orchestra conducted by Maurice Abravanel.

I notice it's also available on YouTube - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agd6lSR88t0

I don't know when it was recorded - I'm trying to find out. My initial point in writing this was to comment on the very disappointing sound quality. Then I got drawn into the music, and even despite what I feel is miserable sound quality the end is terrific.

Nevertheless my point was going to be that surely many of these older recordings - reissued as MP3s or other formats - were very much better in their LP incarnations. Some older recordings have - I believe been remastered splendidly - but others are just tossed onto MP3s and robbed of all frequencies which make them worth listening to, and perhaps more to the point - the dynamics are completely screwed up.

Am I imagining this? This is a sample of one - recording - and now I'm listening again to the YouTube version.

Did this particular one predate versions by Solti, Kubelik or Wyn Morris? If so, then perhaps one might expect it to be less effective - but otherwise there does not seem to be any reason why recordings such as this should not be reissued in very much better sound quality.

I am just choosing this one as it's what I'm listening to right now - but the impact - for example of the organ entry at 1 hour 12:55 (Youtube version) is completely lost. I can remember having played this (vinyl) on LPs [though not this particular recording]and having the house shake - or at least having significant impact. I think that many other older recorded performance are not served well by whatever is done to them to make them available for distribution now.

So are older recordings really that bad (which I don't really think) - or are they just being put out in mediocre "re-masterings" as part of commercial churn - by an industry which doesn't seem to really care about sound quality for material which may be less financially worthwhile for those with the copyrights to publish them.

I have the Abravanel Mahler set as DVD-Audio. The sound is very good, especially considering the early to mid sixties recordings. I suggest the problem is your mp3

[EnemyoftheStoat]

It's arguable that the MP3 format should never be used for the purposes of sound quality evaluation.

[AuntDaisy]

It's arguable that the MP3 format should never be used for the purposes of sound quality evaluation.

Deserves no end of flak / FLAC for it.

[gurnemanz]

It's arguable that the MP3 format should never be used for the purposes of sound quality evaluation.

It's also arguable that elderly people should never be used for the purposes of sound quality evaluation:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Age-related-hearing-loss-according-to-the-International-Organization-for-Standardization_fig1_338597788

I am a mere 72 and male (just where the above curve droops down rather flaccidly - no walking stick yet). I am not especially hard of hearing but I can tell that I am hearing less. If I play the same recording as mp3 and CD I can't notice any significant difference.

I have recently acquired quite a few mp3 downloads and have been mainly very happy with them sound-wise. Also cheaper and take up less storage space on a physically tiny 256 Gig Sandisk USD Drive permanently plugged into my streamer/tuner and car audio.

[Dave2002]

I have the Abravanel Mahler set as DVD-Audio. The sound is very good, especially considering the early to mid sixties recordings. I suggest the problem is your mp3

Thanks. That's rather what I thought.

[Dave2002]

It's arguable that the MP3 format should never be used for the purposes of sound quality evaluation.

Probably - but some mp3s are actually rather good - and some not. There can be a significant price differential between mp3s and CDs or other digital formats.

[Dave2002]

I am a mere 72 and male (just where the above curve droops down rather flaccidly - no walking stick yet). I am not especially hard of hearing but I can tell that I am hearing less. If I play the same recording as mp3 and CD I can't notice any significant difference.

I have recently acquired quite a few mp3 downloads and have been mainly very happy with them sound-wise. Also cheaper and take up less storage space on a physically tiny 256 Gig Sandisk USD Drive permanently plugged into my streamer/tuner and car audio.

Perhaps I should refer you to the recent download site for the free Mahler 8 then. Begins with "classsic ..."

To me that download just sounds boring., though I did rather enjoy the Rückert songs.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

If we take 1958 Decca stereo recordings as the standard, then no, old recordings could be extremely good, and sometimes superior to recordings produced recently.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Of all pieces, Mahler 8 would benefit from lossless reproduction. For me, Solti, his orchestra, chorus and especially soloists can't be bettered, but that isn't live.

I've never really gone for Hi-Res, but I did buy a 24bit version, years ago, from Linn when they were selling them - but its FLAC and (the properties for the file tell me) 43% compressed. Don't know what that means and I didn't do a comparative listen (albeit it would be with confirmation bias present).

I agree with the comment about Gergiev's LSO St Paul's recording (listened to on a single track download) but then St Paul's must be a sound man's nightmare. As an audience member I got a ticket under the
Dome, but on the edge at the Nave end and that gave the best chance of hearing it in any way realistically.

In all my live Mahler 8 experiences it was Colin Davis at the Albert Hall which I felt really delivered a very sure handed and inspiring performance..... And he had soloists who were up to the job. I bought a CD of his Bavarian RSO performance but returned it when I realised it was in my Davis Box Set (and I have yet to listen to it). (Boulez at the RA Hall was also very good).

The sound at Symphony Hall, Birmingham is pretty wonderful, but the performances I've been to were fully competent but, somehow, not as inspiring as others - it might just be me. Are you aware of Stephen Johnson's Book "The Eighth" which is a good read so far but I've had to put it aside for the moment to read/scan magazines (Gramophone, etc) destined for the recycling bin.

[Barbirollians]

If we take 1958 Decca stereo recordings as the standard, then no, old recordings could be extremely good, and sometimes superior to recordings produced recently.

The extraordinary quality of those Gerhardt-Wilkinson Reader's Digest recordings is another example.