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

I did not know this. Was there a specific period when this was a problem?

 

1.- Specific to the above - I totally believe it - he indeed thought he knew about that stuff (audio engineering) and insisted to get involved. And I understand not being aware of hearing loss - specially if subtle BUT the funniest one I know of is George Szell - he had the same attitude and insisted on final mix. Problem and legend has it that his wife (only person he feared, from what I understand) did not appreciate speakers in the house, so she made him place them BEHIND THE COUCHES or something silly like that... so his notes on the mixes were provided on that listening situation. But of course, Szell being Szell, his will was law... and so we got the crappy sounding Szells...

2.- On the other hand, something about the DGs - some are fantastic, but for example they never recorded the Emerson String Quartet well... just recently got their latest on a new label (Pentatone I think?) WOW - The Emerson String Quartet as you never heard them before: DECENTLY RECORDED.

3. - I personally thing the OP evaluation is well.. just an opinion... whatever he/she hears, well, that's it. Of course I do have an issue with assuming an opinion is a universal fact - or that everyone will hear the same thing. Have a bunch of London widebands - and whatever my problems with surface noise, clicks, pops, etc that I have posted about before, the one thing they don't sound like is dull. Same with some EMIs. Not to mention, of course the modern audiophile pressings of many of those records...

So, not all.. SOME... maybe...

v

 

I'd have to strongly disagree with this. I own hundreds and hundreds of used classical records purchased at used record stores and thrift stores. Very, very few of them suffer from audible wear (naturally, I don't buy the ones that are trashed; but classical records, on the whole, are less trashed than records of other genres, in my experience). The best of them are startlingly good after fifty or sixty years--because they were well recorded and mastered in the first place. New vinyl reissues can be great. They can be awful. Records new or used, original or remastered are mostly all the same in the sense that the recording engineer and the mastering have by far the biggest effect on how good or bad they sound. Sometimes reissues are better, sometimes they're not. By no means is used classical vinyl "a nightmare". That's an entirely unsupportable generalization. But I should shut up about it. Any negative prejudice like yours helps to keep the great records I love cheap in the used record store bins.

 

In the art world there are paintings that look cartoonish with colors so vivid they 'Pop" out and hit you in the eye.
Then there are darker more evocative paintings by old Dutch Masters like Rembrandt---dense and dark but incredible.
The same thing happens with recordings.
My mastering buddy who restores early recordings often tells me exactly WHERE the recording was made and WHY it sounds this way or that way.
I forget what album it was but he told me in great detail about how some classical was recorded in small rooms with thin acoustics---NOT recorded in concert halls.
Once I knew about the room it began to make more sense how the sound could be so closed in.
But the PERFORMANCE was a knock out!

I suppose everything could be l0ud and crispy and edgy and exciting---but on a great stereo it ALL sounds good or at least over at my house I enjoy all these "flavors" tremendously.
And I personally get transported back in time to hear the actual studio and miking setups.
As a music lover I would hate it if I couldn't enjoy different eras.
It is our musical history and musical heritage that bothers you.
It doesn't bother me.
It thrills me.
People spending their entire lives bringing beauty to my miserable existence.
Nice.

 

Well-recorded, yes... but well-mastered, I'm not so sure. Frequency reductions at either end of the spectrum during mastering were de rigueur 50-60 years ago.

 

Bravo! I love how you worded this.

 

The classical market was and still is very different. Yes, pop and rock music that maybe got played on Dancettes and the like were compressed/EQed etc to avoid needle jumps... but not Classical - some of the greatest Tonmeisters, Producers, Engineers took care of those records... sure there could be exceptions. But even those, not exactly comparable. Just look at the famous 1812 from Telarc... Inverse of the above comment, they did NOTHING to make the record playable on cheap equipment. On the contrary, assumed the market possessed the right gear.

And to go back to the point that the market is different, just look at how the Classical Market avoided the loudness wars.

Different market, different expectations and yes... you can assume better equipment.

v

 

Sure, but the Telarc was recorded and released in, what, the late 1970's? I'm thinking of records pressed in the late 50's/early 60's.

 

Go find yourself a copy of this. Listen to it on a good system with a phono stage that has a mono switch (even a modest-by-audiophile-standards system like mine). Beautiful sound by any standard. Recorded in 1964 by Supraphon. And this pressing is on the Parliament label--a budget reissue label. One example among many.

Beethoven: String Quartet in E Minor "Rasumovsky" Opus 59, No. 2
Parliament ‎– PLP 627

 

I beg to differ, Oh Great One. I imagine you've never bought 99 cent LPs at the drugstore, with performances likely sourced from East German radio, with fictitious orchestras helmed by nonexistent conductors. That was my introduction to classical music, a million years ago. Even Vox was an improvement over those.

(I exclude the van Gelders from this condemnation)

 

Same for those! Take Reiner's Also Sprach - That was NOT a record for a Dansette (sorry, I have been misspelling it) - late 50s - Not trying to be obtuse, truly, but while allowing for exceptions, in general, those records are some of the best recorded/mastered/produced albums ever - starting YES, from the 50s.

v

 

Lol...yep a great piece of music will render our equipment unimportant...weird little hobby we have going here

 

Exactly. I've bobbed in and out of this discussion for a couple of days now. I can only chuckle as I listen with joy to Aksel Schiotz singing Mozart on a 78 recorded better than three quarters of a century ago. If you're so focused on the recording technology that you lose the music--well, I'd say that's too bad, and leave it at that.

 

If the music is more important than the gear....then we're doing it right bud.

 

Yeah, the performances were fine - if the Rooshians can't do Rachmaninov, who can? Enough of the artistry came through to edify my roll...

 

Not classical but...Robert Johnsons blues efforts from the 20's are amazing and i think may not sound as authentic with modern recording tech.

 

My primary experience is with DG LPs in the '70s and '80s. If you do a Google search for "Deutsche Grammophon inverted polarity" you'll get a lot of opinions, and many people say it affects their CDs, too. Unfortunately I don't have the ability to change polarity with my current preamp, so I can't check on what few DG CDs I have.

JohnK

 

Now that I think of it when I grew up in the Woodstock NY arts community back in the 50s, the local painters would refer to loud edgy oversaturated exciting colors as "smashing."
Being "loud" and "smashing" was frowned upon by the old guard.

The "audio crowd" refers to that same kind of sound as "demo material," ha ha. No?

All joking aside, if it has magic, who cares?

 

Back when stereo was young - 1959 or so - a guy named Enoch Light took an inconsequential budget label he owned (Waldorf/Grand Award) into the big time with the creation of Command records. Splashy, in your face stereo, panned hard left and right with little center - and overseen by Bob Fine of all people! Millions of copies of "Persuasive Percussion" and its sequels were sold to budding stereophiles. Beloved demo material. I bought lots of 'em. No apologies.

Do I still own any of 'em? Hell no.

 

As much as I love vintage Living Stereo pressings and others, let's be real: the Westrex stereo cutting head used at the time had a serious decline in performance beginning around 12k. The original tapes had more fidelity than that. I would rather hear a pressing (digital or vinyl) that gets us as closer to the original performance.

 

Yes, that original 1954 recording is a beast and a favorite! But, did the original pressings using the Westrex system (more limited than latter-day mastering equipment) get as close to the sound of the master? Closer than, say, the SACD of the same recording? No.