Are/were older recordings really so bad?

[gurnemanz]

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.

This one? Thanks for the tip. I don't find myself listening to Mahler 8 that frequently but I won't look a gift download in the mouth. I'll certainly look forward to the songs and test my ears on the Eighth.

[gradus]

I'm often pleasantly surprised by the recording quality of records from the fifties to seventies, by no means all are good, to my ears at least, but some are excellent and give listening pleasure eg Monteux's Philips recordings of Ravel.

[HighlandDougie]

The Mahler 8th was recorded in December 1963 - and, well-received as the first commercial stereo recording of this symphony, sparked off Abravanel and his orchestra recording a Mahler symphony cycle. I haven't heard the 8th but I can attest to the good recording quality of the 6th, 7th and 9th, which I have on CD. Seymour Solomon (who founded Vanguard Records with his brother) set high standards for the recordings he produced, including the Mahler cycle, so, if it sounds less than ideal, it'll be the MP3 to blame, not the original recording. As an aside, our sagacious and omniscient friend Mr Hurwitz rather liked the Abravanel (while taking the opportunity to sink the boot into Abbado et al).

These bumper bundles of MP3 transfers might pass the, "never mind the quality, feel the width", test. I also suppose that, if playback quality takes a distant second place to performance, they might be worth one's while but as a generality I suspect that they might not do the performers many favours in large-scale orchestral works like Mahler's Eighth.

[jayne lee wilson]

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.

FLAC files are only compressed for storage, send and receive: once you download it, on replay it will automatically de-compress to what should be the full WAV lossless/24/96 etc equivalent. That is why FLAC is called "lossless", and it is used so widely due to its broad technical compatibilty and smaller size for storage.

Some Computers/processors may compromise FLAC replay due to their greater use of processing power on decompression. But this is a minor problem, only audible on systems of high resolution in close comparison. I have heard the difference here on 24/96 downloads (I usually converted FLAC to WAV when I used to buy them), but replaying FLAC at 24/96 off of a Qobuz stream my listening experience has never seemed seriously compromised.

All digital media are measurably (Often audibly) better or worse according to their bitrates/datarates. So 24/96 PCM or SACD are inherently (often audibly) superior in resolution to CD/lossless ( and especially mp3 or other lossy codecs), but of course it depends on how they have been made. Many SACDs are mastered from PCM 24/48/96 etc, which does complicate things but they can still sound superior in resolution to CD/lossless....given a system good enough to reveal this. And ears to hear it, of course...

All this will of course apply to remastering of analogue tapes, along with the condition of the tape itself, though digital editing/correction can do much to repair faulty ones.

(With SACD, much can depend on exactly how the specific player does the DSD conversion.... but that's another story....)

***
The Stephen Johnson book on Mahler's 8th is a great read! He's very good on the 10th in there as well!
BTW Sparrow - if you have access to the Gramophone database through subscription, every magazine ever issued since 1923 is there, perfectly reproduced.......

[Dave2002]

This one? Thanks for the tip. I don't find myself listening to Mahler 8 that frequently but I won't look a gift download in the mouth. I'll certainly look forward to the songs and test my ears on the Eighth.

Indeed. However I have now ordered a used copy of the CD of the 8th as I thought it was good enough to merit a purchase. When it arrives I'll let you know whether I can hear the quality difference. I expect it to be considerable.

[cloughie]

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.

Absoblumminglutely Alps. …and in the right hands produce great CDs. Many of these recordings formed the basis of the Ace of Diamonds LP label - most of them I now have on CD and are reached from the shelves regularly!

The PCO recordings of this era are an ideal combination of Gallic charm and hifi sound!

Into the 60s all those Kertesz, Maazel and Solti recordings, amongst others, insurpassable!

[Braunschlag]

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

Oh yea, first class in all respects.

[Braunschlag]

Why would you convert Flac to WAV? A small file to a large file with no appreciable difference in sound?

[RichardB]

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.

Indeed so. Although I'm not really interested in mono recordings or anything much earlier than that. And mp3s as far as I'm concerned are good enough for listening to in the car but not for any situation where you can actually hear them properly!

[Dave2002]

Why would you convert Flac to WAV? A small file to a large file with no appreciable difference in sound?

I think the reasoning is that WAV files are simpler to play, so reduce factors such as processor loading, and the possibility of timing errors being introduced in the playback, and would mitigate against any factors which could impact the sound quality. JLW did mention that mostly it wasn't really necessary nowaday.

Perhaps it would also depend on the system architecture for the player. With large internal buffers and fast processors, and a fast connection to storage - probably SSD based - there wouldn't really be any need to convert FLAC to WAV ahead of time.

[Braunschlag]

Are they? They are really big files, with no real advantage. Flac is so more accessible and sound the same.

[Dave2002]

Are they? They are really big files, with no real advantage. Flac is so more accessible and sound the same.

There are still people who claim that WAV files sound different. I know that the data should be identical so if there are any meaningful perceptual effects they should be due to the FLAC player implementation. Most people won't notice any difference. I can't say whether I would or not - probably not.

The size of the files however is maybe not such a big deal these days - storage costs have dropped a lot in the last decade or so.

[Braunschlag]

....given a system good enough to reveal this. And ears to hear it, of course...

I’ll not go here again, but I’ve had years of ears and systems and there’s not much to choose. I’ll all subjective, depends on so-called ‘listening’ ( which means little).
After a shed load of hi fi I’m now on Edifier Actives which sound no different from ATC / PMC / Castle . I’ve no golden ears, neither has anyone else.

[mikealdren]

HiFi system upgrades are easy for me:
1. Can I hear a difference.
2. Does it sound more like live music and so, do I prefer the new component/system
3. Can I afford it!

Having said that, I think I've reached the age when I have a system that is good enough to suit my declining hearing.

[cloughie]

HiFi system upgrades are easy for me:
1. Can I hear a difference.
2. Does it sound more like live music and so, do I prefer the new component/system
3. Can I afford it!

Having said that, I think I've reached the age when I have a system that is good enough to suit my declining hearing.

Mine are even simpler - leave well alone if something goes wrong with my present systems - repair or replace whichever is simpler or possible.