Why do so many classical LP's sound dull and muddy?

It seems many classical LP's were recorded with just one mic placed far away from the instruments. The resulting sound is dull and muddy. However, sometimes they used multiple mics and close-mice'd the instruments. The sound is much better. I wonder why people back in the day would pay $$ for the bad sounding LPs? And it seems countless classical LPs were released back in the day. Shouldn't the focus be on quality not quantity?

I made a video comparing a typical bad LP with a good one. Every five seconds the sound alternates.

 

Could you please clarify what you mean Steve so that we can understand. Do you mean that the alternating 'good' sound that came across as so vibrant and the 'bad' sound that sounded distant and subdued are somehow misleading?

Am I missing something here...?

 

I am not sure what he is referring to but after 1:29 the video goes silent.

I have hear some bad pressings but most classical records I have sound pretty decent, including some crude early Digital masters and even a Readers Digest set but proper ones like Dutch Philips pressings from the 80's sound excellent to me.

 

For one thing, the Reiner was recorded in stereo in Nov. 1956, and that's the 1957 mono LP (pre-stereo LP). That recording was later released in stereo on LP, and CD, and SACD.

 

I wish close mic'ing was never introduced. The engineers in the early days got it right, minimal mics for classical and jazz.
Steve knows the history better than anyone, but basically a Decca "triple tree" (3 mic's on a stand) was positioned above the conductor with a couple of spot mics to pick up the rest of the orchestra and also the ambience of the concert hall. Today, so many mics are used that there's minimal separation between instruments. The early mic technique presented a spacious soundstage with separation between each section. You can hear that the horn section is in the back rather than located in the middle of the mix on modern day recordings.
There are some modern recordings where the engineers have done an outstanding job of not over mic'ing the orchestra. Multiple mic's are still used but placement is further away or above the musicians. A horn section with 3 trumpets doesn't need 3 mics; one will do.

I really think you need to attend live classical performances (maybe you do). Try sitting in different areas of the concert hall. This may change your mind about modern day recording techniques.

A good point was raised, compare stereo vs. stereo recordings.

Everybody has their own taste and style, I happen to like the minimalist approach.

 

Many of these early recordings have been remastered with judicious use of compression and EQ. The correct tonal qualities of instruments are there and the sound is cleaner.

 

Never mind recording techniques, a full orchestra playing Strauss should sound COMPLETELY different to a baroque orchestra playing Vivaldi, as it does in the sample above.

Leaving that aside, I nearly always prefer the natural sound and balance of more minimal (and distant) mic'ing techniques. It sounds much closer to what I hear in a concert hall.

 

You are so right. I wasn't thinking about that.

 

My experience is the opposite. Most sound bad to me. Budget labels being worse. Other day I bought around a dozen classical LPs from the local record store. A mix of big labels and budget ones. All in NM condition and appearing unplayed. TO my dismay all sounded bad. No highs at all. Some worse than others. Two were barely acceptable. But after closer listening I figured it wasn't worth my time or my stylus to listen to them..

 

The point of the video is to show the high frequency content that is missing from the "bad" classical LPs.

 

Actually I haven't attended a large orchestra . Are you saying I will hear the same dull and muddy sound because of how all the instruments blend together?

 

I am not an LP afficianado but most classical lps I heard were very good sounding.

 

I have found many from Deustche Gramophone which I did find dull and some others too. I would certainly agree with what some people have said here and go for the Stereo versions. Records as you might be aware are made with -different- stampers that wear out and as they do the sound degrades which can explain why you could have two records which are the same but sound different.
I can't explain why your experience is so different to mine, my only complain would be that -particularly with second hand- classical records are more likely to be annoying when they have surface noise than other genres but luckily my records are not too noisy either. I have attended some live performances and probably the general sound and feeling is not quite like your better sounding record either but yes the first example seems very dull, at least on this computer.

 

No, in a live venue you'll hear the full frequency range in addition to exciting dynamics depending on where you sit. But, my point is that the orchestra will sound distant rather than upfront like modern LPs and CDs. And you won't hear individual instruments playing, you'll hear a cohesive whole with the different string sections coming from left and right filled in by the woodwinds, percussion, etc.

I've heard the dull recordings you refer to. They're usually years old and recorded in mono. I have Furtwängler recordings from the 1940s which are hard to listen to, the 50's recordings sound very good, although he was at the end of his career. These are in stereo and have been remastered on CD.

I urge you to listen to some Beethoven by Karajan, 1963 on cd. They have been remastered on CD, although I also think the originals sound very good. More mics are used than the old mono recordings, but less than today.

I don't know why all your LPs sound dull, maybe because they're used and abused by a rough stylus.

 

I don't hear this deficiency. I think you're maybe missing the bite and attack that's much more obviously apparent in the Vivaldi, but the romantic orchestral sound should be much smoother. Like I said, the recording you shared is pretty much how it sounds to me in a concert hall in terms of balance at least.

Maybe you just prefer the sound of smaller orchestral forces playing baroque music? Also, the historically informed performance movement (which grew in the 70s and 80s and is very normal now) will demonstrate more of that sound by design, it will be less full and smooth, more bite and more attack in general. You wouldn't be alone there, btw. In general, I prefer that too, but it's a question of musical taste rather than recording problems.

 

First of all, the two recordings on the video do not share the size of the ensemble (the numbers of the instruments). They are quite different. The Reiner recording was recorded in a big hall, while the Vivaldi disc was in rather closely. It is utterly pointless to compare the two directly in the way.

 

Yes I agree, I've inherited a few hundred classical LPs from my parents, ranging from 1950s mono pressings up to 1980s pressings, and almost without exception they sound good. Ironically one of the least satisfying is a 1980s 'Digitally Remasterd' RCA pressing of Vaughan Williams Antarctica Symphony, and I guess my parents agreed because it's absolutely mint and looks virtually unplayed..........

 

I agree with you about DG. Then in the 80s with early digital they went the opposite way with over-mic'd harsh recordings. DG would not be the standard to judge recording quality. Philips, Decca, Mercury Living Presence all sound terrific on LP and CD.

 

You are lucky enough to be living in one of the music capitals of the world! Give it a try sometime. There are many venues at many different prices. If nothing else, it will give you a frame of reference for judging what classical recordings sound like.

And I also would say, if you are interested in classical music, there's far more being released digitally (CD and downloads) than on LP. Yes, there were wonderful musicians in the mid-20th century; but there are wonderful musicians now, too -- and you won't find them on LPs. In many cases, you might enjoy the sound more -- you certainly will if you are sensitive to pitch variation (almost inescapable with LPs). Just to mention a few: For more natural sound, some of the CDs on Water Lily can be good. Also, many recordings on BIS are well done -- especially those recorded by the estimable Ingo Petry -- though they use milti-micing. There is a series of Malcolm Arnold symphonies on Naxos, recorded by Chris Craker, that is startlingly natural. You won't find it on LP.

 

Back in the days before the vinyl comeback we all spent time and money on classic recordings made by Kenneth Wilkinson. See if you can hunt out some of those.

I should say all my classical listening is on digital for a variety of reasons. As the above poster said, that's where all the action has been for many years now.

 

Totally my opinion, from countless years of buying and listening to classical vinyl:

RCA Red Seal, all the way back to the intro of stereo in 1958: Insanely good, even today.
Columbia: Not quite at the level of RCA, although some Cleveland Orch. & Bruno Walter stuff is excellent.
Mercury Living Stereo: Wow. All except the ones with Paray in Detroit (?)
Capitol/EMI: Mostly excellent.
DGG: Meh.
Angel: Strangely, mostly pretty bad, considering they owned Capitol.
Supraphon/Crossroads: Surprisingly good.
Musical Heritage: Some good, mostly not so much. Probably reflects the varied source material. The Orpheus series was better.
Command: Not as good as you'd expect.

I'm sure I've forgotten some, but you get the general idea. Takeaway: Playback quality can be all over the place, just like any other genre. Bob Fine certainly got it right for Mercury with only three mics!

 

I am curious if you feel the recording "dull and muddy" (this is an example).

 

I like your opinion.

 

Interesting to learn. So if I pick up an orchestra LP in a record store, how would I tell if it is recorded in this "informed movement" style? Any cues to look for? I suppose the best bet is to listen to a needle-drop on YouTube if available...