BaL 22.04.23 - Schubert: Symphony no. 5 in B flat D. 485

[jayne lee wilson]

I agree. Listened to both studio & "live" L'Orfeo Barockorkester/Gaigg this morning. As might be expected, the DHM is superior in tuning and instrumental balance, deficiencies in which mar the CPO version. Mindful of Barbirollians earlier comments & plagued by the thought that I still hadn't found a period band performance to live with, as it were, I turned with relief to Orch 18th Cent. /Brüggen -- wonderful HIPP playing 30 years on, and with clear, natural sound perspectives in Philips best tradition.

I can't dismiss the notion that both JEG and Harnoncourt, in delivering those over-accented downbeats intended perhaps to undermine the symphony's reputation for gemütlichkeit, have convinced themselves that the 19 year-old Schubert erred by not including trumpets and drums with which to indulge their love of bang-crashery -- the antidote to fuddy-duddy old Tommy with his cigar and chilled White Ladies, perhaps..

Did you not see my response in #69 to your earlier comments above?

"But with the ORR/JEG recording (Soli deo Gloria/Qobuz 24/48//CD) the Schubert 5th's final climax and conclusion are, very obviously, at a higher dynamic level than the opening section, and accelerate through to the end, with a sharper attack than earlier in the movement where this material is more lyrically, less emphatically articulated. JEG as usual has the whole movement thought-through - and clearly with a final flourish.

Nor is the finale especially fast. The CBSO with Gardner sets a quicker basic pulse in their (oddly muted) performance. Gaigg too, but she brings off a superbly dramatic, expressively wide-ranging performance on both occasions, with very flexible phrase and tempi in the live CPO reading. Still, the Land-Speed record for this finale probably goes to René Jacobs and his School of Rock (Pentatone CD), but their sheer playfulness in this movement should hopefully provoke as many giggles as gasps."

[Pianoman]

But I can hear the differences between youtube playback and CD/Hires very clearly here. They're not insignificant. When I began downloading in 2010, I started with a 256 kbps aac of the Cluytens Ravel works. This sounded OK in a "nothing wrong with it" fashion.... until I brought in the CD. Another world of realism, warmth, presence, spatial depth etc etc....so truer to the fastidious efforts of musicians and producers: the sounds and instrumental timbres they seek to capture. And fairer to use in one's critical assessments.

I carried out many such comparisons, and of course 320 kbps aac (as in BBC Radio) is the best lossy codec in general use. A surprising advance even on 256, but still audibly inferior to CD and 16/44.1. All variables in audio perception are down to the interaction between: ears/brain, equipment, and the room in which they are heard.

Why d'you think that 24/96 PCM has become the de facto standard for classical recording now?
D'you see no differences between SD and HD TV? Or an 8MP camera and a 64MP one?

Ah well, I'm genuinely glad that you can hear all this, but we shall yet again have to agree to disagree...it may be my ageing ears, but to say that there's 'a surprising advance even on 256' frankly amazes me - I was into Hi-res files for a while, then 320 as default, but these days I actually downsample to 256....if it's good enough for Apple, well...I mean, all that 'warmth, presence, spatial depth etc etc' is all there in spades if it's on the original master, no matter that it's been downsampled...

[mikealdren]

Why d'you think that 24/96 PCM has become the de facto standard for classical recording now?

While I agree with Jayne that lower bit rates can be noticeably less good than, say CD, I'm not sure that they would make a string sound 'scrawny'. I suspect that's a reaction to the actual sound but as this thread shows, much of this is in the response of the listener.

As to the de facto recording standard, I would suggest that the major reason for recording at higher resolutions is to allow for editing/mixing/processing losses before producing CDs at 16/44 rather than any great improvement in sound.

[RichardB]

I would suggest that the major reason for recording at higher resolutions is to allow for editing/mixing/processing losses before producing CDs at 16/44 rather than any great improvement in sound.

Post-production processing can indeed reduce the effective bit depth quite considerably.

[Braunschlag]

What folks might not know is that Pianoman is and has been a very fine piano tuner/technician for many years. I’d say that any dig at his aural perception is somewhat misguided. These guys know their stuff.

[Maclintick]

Did you not see my response in #69 to your earlier comments above?

"But with the ORR/JEG recording (Soli deo Gloria/Qobuz 24/48//CD) the Schubert 5th's final climax and conclusion are, very obviously, at a higher dynamic level than the opening section, and accelerate through to the end, with a sharper attack than earlier in the movement where this material is more lyrically, less emphatically articulated. JEG as usual has the whole movement thought-through - and clearly with a final flourish.

Nor is the finale especially fast. The CBSO with Gardner sets a quicker basic pulse in their (oddly muted) performance. Gaigg too, but she brings off a superbly dramatic, expressively wide-ranging performance on both occasions, with very flexible phrase and tempi in the live CPO reading. Still, the Land-Speed record for this finale probably goes to René Jacobs and his School of Rock (Pentatone CD), but their sheer playfulness in this movement should hopefully provoke as many giggles as gasps."

The answer is yes, I did clock your earlier post but thought I'd better re-listen before responding, & have to report that overall ORR/JEG is more compelling than I appreciated initially. It's a really fine version. My beef re his dynamics at the end of the symphony, referenced by the snippet of the score I included, is that JEG's crescendo towards the final cadence is not what Schubert intended or indeed wrote. The passage clearly relates to the 19 year-old FS's obsession with Mozart 40, and specifically with bars 124-137 in the finale, the supposed "disintegration of tonality" (not really) which FS sort of mirrors in the emotional & dynamic peak of this last movement coda, marked ff fz, relapsing to a mere f in the final bars. Abbado gets this. JEG doesn't as he whips everything up to the end. Well, it's live after all, but JEG's reading begs the question of whether there's a material divergence in terms of dynamics between Breitkopf & Härtel 1884 and Neue Schubert Ausgabe. I haven't a clue, & perhaps JEG knows otherwise, but my hunch is that there isn't, since recent volumes of Schubert scholarship also include examples with the 1884 dynamics. Perhaps there are forumistas who have insight on this ?

In his CBSO recording, Gardner seems strangely intent in a perverse kind of way to prove himself "more Hipp than the Hippsters". Generally fast speeds, minimal vibrato -- adhering to the score but not maxing the enjoyment quota. Odd.

[richardfinegold]

Did you not see my response in #69 to your earlier comments above?

"But with the ORR/JEG recording (Soli deo Gloria/Qobuz 24/48//CD) the Schubert 5th's final climax and conclusion are, very obviously, at a higher dynamic level than the opening section, and accelerate through to the end, with a sharper attack than earlier in the movement where this material is more lyrically, less emphatically articulated. JEG as usual has the whole movement thought-through - and clearly with a final flourish.

Nor is the finale especially fast. The CBSO with Gardner sets a quicker basic pulse in their (oddly muted) performance. Gaigg too, but she brings off a superbly dramatic, expressively wide-ranging performance on both occasions, with very flexible phrase and tempi in the live CPO reading. Still, the Land-Speed record for this finale probably goes to René Jacobs and his School of Rock (Pentatone CD), but their sheer playfulness in this movement should hopefully provoke as many giggles as gasps."

I think there is a misunderstanding here.
I for one am not claiming that low resolution and high resolution sound reproduction cannot be distinguished from each other. Of course they can, I would much rather always have the opportunity to listen on the finest equipment possible.
What I am stating is that the fundamental characteristics of certain tones can be divined from less than the greatest systems. Some are referring here to period string tone as scrawny, others are referring to non HIPP string tone as corpulent...suffice to say that they sound different. The difference in the nature of the sound is detectable with mp3 and probably lower bit rate. Will a higher resolution recording reveal these differences even more clearly? Absolutely

[Ein Heldenleben]

I agree - surely the sound of a period Baroque ensemble's string tone and that of a modern orchestra is different because of many factors, but certainly not the bit-rate of the stream or download...in fact I can say that the Geigg version is the same from a 256kps source as in Hi-Res - that's listening critically through high quality headphones.

You’ve pretty much got to have golden ears to hear the difference between hi res and 256 AAC. I’m sure some people can but I’m not sure I can - I must do a blind test one day. Any “scrawniness “ ( a slightly subjective adjective ) in recorded string sound is likely to be a product of mic positioning or possibly the quality of string playing rather than the difference between 250 kps and hi res - but of course for those who can hear the difference there is the argument that it’s down to recording resolution. It’s impossible to prove the argument one way or another .
I tend to sit very near the front at live concerts - which are the essential reference point for judging any electronic reproduction. That close you can pick out individual string players. Some frankly are better than others and have better instruments. Although it’s some years some I’ve heard them live I can say that the first violin section of the LPO are distinctly unscrawny. Equally I heard the Stuggart under Norrington in Mahler 9 live and the string sound (relatively vibrato - less ) was ravishing. Without bragging (ok I’m bragging) I can pretty much work out what BBC orchestra is playing just from the string sound. And they are all recorded in a very similar way.

[Pianoman]

You’ve pretty much got to have golden ears to hear the difference between hi res and 256 AAC. I’m sure some people can but I’m not sure I can - I must do a blind test one day. Any “scrawniness “ ( a slightly subjective adjective ) in recorded string sound is likely to be a product of mic positioning or possibly the quality of string playing rather than the difference between 250 kps and hi res - but of course for those who can hear the difference there is the argument that it’s down to recording resolution. It’s impossible to prove the argument one way or another.

Indeed - it's an eternal 'objective/ subjective' debate that rumbles on. I did once take part in a test for MusicWeb reviewers some years ago; I think about a dozen of us took it on in good heart (though some did refuse...) where a group of files were sent to us from Kirk McElhearn, who runs a very popular blog called MacWorld and used to review for MusicWeb as well. He sent a wide range of music, but particularly of things that are seen as 'notorious' in the recording industry - solo piano, solo harpsichord, choral stuff etc. as well as some orchestral, about 8 extracts in all. The bit rate ranged from 64kps right up to 192 on each extract and we had to give our findings after extended listening. The results were to say the least interesting, with virtually all of us either getting it 'wrong' or admitting guessing, so 50/50 more or less.
Of course it didn't 'prove' anything, but was enlightening in its own way; I think as a computer buff Kirk was fed up with some reviewers rubbishing lossy files and extolling the virtues of Hi-res, which was starting to make inroads. After the test I was genuinely shocked at my own test results, and I've been a fan of blind tests ever since. It also has the advantage of being cheaper to buy music and not stress too much about bit-rates....)))

[Ein Heldenleben]

Indeed - it's an eternal 'objective/ subjective' debate that rumbles on. I did once take part in a test for MusicWeb reviewers some years ago; I think about a dozen of us took it on in good heart (though some did refuse...) where a group of files were sent to us from Kirk McElhearn, who runs a very popular blog called MacWorld and used to review for MusicWeb as well. He sent a wide range of music, but particularly of things that are seen as 'notorious' in the recording industry - solo piano, solo harpsichord, choral stuff etc. as well as some orchestral, about 8 extracts in all. The bit rate ranged from 64kps right up to 192 on each extract and we had to give our findings after extended listening. The results were to say the least interesting, with virtually all of us either getting it 'wrong' or admitting guessing, so 50/50 more or less.
Of course it didn't 'prove' anything, but was enlightening in its own way; I think as a computer buff Kirk was fed up with some reviewers rubbishing lossy files and extolling the virtues of Hi-res, which was starting to make inroads. After the test I was genuinely shocked at my own test results, and I've been a fan of blind tests ever since. It also has the advantage of being cheaper to buy music and not stress too much about bit-rates....)))

The ears tire and or adjust very rapidly. While we have a good musical memory , we have a very poor memory of audio quality.

[Goon525]

To dismiss the bitrate as irrelevant to the perception of sound characteristics is truly astonishing.... it flies in the face of all we know.

I can hear the differences between youtube playback and CD/Hires very clearly here. They're not insignificant. When I began downloading in 2010, I started with a 256 kbps aac of the Cluytens Ravel works. This sounded OK in a "nothing wrong with it" fashion.... until I brought in the CD. Another world of realism, warmth, presence, spatial depth etc etc....so truer to the fastidious efforts of musicians and producers: the sounds and instrumental timbres they seek to capture. And fairer to use in one's critical assessments.

I carried out many such comparisons, and of course 320 kbps aac (as in BBC Radio) is the best lossy codec in general use. A surprising advance even on 256, but still audibly inferior to CD and 16/44.1. All variables in audio perception are down to the interaction between: ears/brain, equipment, and the room in which they are heard.

Why d'you think that 24/96 PCM has become the de facto standard for classical recording now?
D'you see no differences between SD and HD TV? Or an 8MP camera and a 64MP one?

I am amazed at the brusque dismissal of high-quality musical reproduction on a forum like this, the way it seems to betray a decades-long Great Tradition of Classical Recordings, recordings which of course were made with the best equipment available to the engineers of the time, with great and painstaking care.
If you make the truly bizarre claim that "The best performances transcend the audio medium" (what does "audio medium" mean here exactly?) your response might just have something to do with the equipment and the efforts that those engineers contributed, without all of which you would not have the glorious catalogue of such music to enjoy today. What a shame that listeners who have devoted much of their own lives to listening to and loving such music should treat it so casually now, apparently for no better reason than the free or very cheap (often unlicensed) availability.

I agree emphatically with what Jayne says here. If anyone wants to come and have a listen on my system (Guildford) - high end, yes, but not outrageously so - I think they’ll be able to distinguish between 320k (which doesn’t sound awful when done well), CD and 96/24. As I can, although I’ll admit to struggling between 96 and 192. Authority, soundstage, depth, detail - all these things improve with additional resolution.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I agree emphatically with what Jayne says here. If anyone wants to come and have a listen on my system (Guildford) - high end, yes, but not outrageously so - I think they’ll be able to distinguish between 320k (which doesn’t sound awful when done well), CD and 96/24. As I can, although I’ll admit to struggling between 96 and 192. Authority, soundstage, depth, detail - all these things improve with additional resolution.

I’m glad for you. All I can say is that I spent 35 years working in TV and sometimes when I switch by mistake to SD it can take some time before I realise it’s not HD. And the difference between those is considerably bigger than the difference between 256 and hi res. As I think I might have said before the ear can even adjust to out of phase audio very rapidly. It’s amazing how quickly the brain compensates.

[Pianoman]

I agree emphatically with what Jayne says here. If anyone wants to come and have a listen on my system (Guildford) - high end, yes, but not outrageously so - I think they’ll be able to distinguish between 320k (which doesn’t sound awful when done well), CD and 96/24. As I can, although I’ll admit to struggling between 96 and 192. Authority, soundstage, depth, detail - all these things improve with additional resolution.

Fair enough - as said above, impossible to prove or disprove either way - except if you subjected yourself to a rigorously controlled and level-matched blind test. It's the only way to show that the perceived 'differences' are often imagined...of course, life's too short so just enjoy the music, as I do !

[Master Jacques]

Some are referring here to period string tone as scrawny, others are referring to non HIPP string tone as corpulent...suffice to say that they sound different. The difference in the nature of the sound is detectable with mp3 and probably lower bit rate. Will a higher resolution recording reveal these differences even more clearly? Absolutely

Just to make clear that, having used the word "scrawny" of Gaigg's cpo Schubert 5th strings, I certainly don't imply that this is because they are being played in "period" style. Since my first brushes with Harnoncourt, Hogwood and Pinnock I've always preferred a first-class "period" performance to a first-class "modern" one, in everything up to and including Smetana.

My use of "scrawny" was a specific criticism of this particular under-sized string section (and indeed of their under-nourished tone), neither of which enhanced the appeal of what seems - to me - a surprisingly ordinary performance, given the quality of the competition.

[Master Jacques]

Fair enough - as said above, impossible to prove or disprove either way - except if you subjected yourself to a rigorously controlled and level-matched blind test. It's the only way to show that the perceived 'differences' are often imagined...of course, life's too short so just enjoy the music, as I do !

Wise words ... it's the message, not the medium, which counts here.