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

But that wasn't what we were discussing wasn't it? You can like the SACD version, either APs or even Sony's... the CD which is no slouch either, the original Shaded Dog or the AP one... point is, for either LP version... NOT DULL AND MUDDY. Also not dull and muddy, most Deccas and Londons, EMIs, even DGs and Columbias even.

As a member of ASR, you won't find me fighting for any supposed superiority - I just like the sound of vinyl period. That's doesn't negate the objective advantages of digital.

BUT AGAIN, not talking about that - why are we trying to turn this into vinyl vs. digital? not the original question, AGAIN...

Those LPs, not muddy, not dull.

Period.
v

 

I do have a nice collection of classical music, mostly opera. The SQ in general is pretty good, but there are records that sound a bit dull, flat and even muffled. The nice thing about playing vinyl is that it's possible to adjust the turntable to the music and own personal taste. Instead of having to swap carts every time I do use 2 different turntables. With digital music I do have 2 different DAC's for the same purpose although differences are more subtle than with vinyl of course.

 

I find it much easier to switch on my super tweeters and boost frequencies as of 8kHz to (almost ) any desired level!

 

Disclaimer: this isn't necessarily for you, but anyone reading this. I'm not about offending anyone.

Well, close mic'ing is suited more toward popular music so that the sound could be manipulated, layered, and sculpted, and where the goal isn't necessarily supposed to be a realistic soundstage. Not good for classical or jazz recordings, where the natural room acoustics are important to the sound.

When you're sitting in the audience listing to a classical music concert, you don't want to hear every instrument close up. Imagine hearing every flute, oboe, or violin string in your ears. The sound would be strident and quite uncomfortable with no reflection from the walls, ceiling, and audience to absorb the highs, and no natural reverberation. Imagine that symphony playing in an office building and you get the picture.

I just jumped in this thread without really reading it, so I just wanted to add my perspective.

 

Owww! My ears!

 

I gotta say, I have a very modest, average stereo, and the first sample sounds full and open.

I also disagree. That was very enjoyable, and it's being filtered through whatever YouTube uses.

I honestly believe there is something up with the OP's stereo, he needs a hearing checkup, or he just likes everything with the highs jacked up.

 

That "authority" worked the miltitrack, even if for personal fulfillment. He was in the room. If Bruce Botnick and Steve Hoffman are able to release their mix, i'd buy it.

What he just told us about the original Star Wars soundtrack album makes me realize why I never enjoyed listening to it. Sometimes you don't really enjoy listening to something but can't exactly pin-point why. Now I know why. My copy just sits in a box.

And, finally, we are not "yes" men. Most of we longtime members of this forum signed up because we like his work, not just because he did it, but because we believe he gets it right most of the time. Notice I said most. No one's perfect.

 

Folks, ever wonder why high-end audio manufactures ALWAYS demonstrate their goods by playing guitar solos and not orchestral works?

 

Very common misconception about super tweeters.
With these Aperion Audio MKII Planar-Magnetic Flat Ribbon Super Tweeter Speaker Pair you can make the effect as subtle as you like, choose to start at as of 8,10,12,14 kHz and by 1,2,3 dB or of course leave them switched off, if you like the recording as is.
Does not cost the world either (250-350$).

 

Depends on the location, the hall and the engineer.

 

My question is...why bother? Hey, i'm no audio purist, but if it comes to classical music, i'm less inclined to screw with the sound the engineers put on the recording.

 

No, it's not your system. But as others have stated it's not a fair
comparison to prove your point. If you're up for it, maybe you could post another clip using two orchestras that are similar in size playing music from the Romantic period. Track 1 would be a symphony from the early stereo days, track 2 a more modern close-micd recording, both performed in concert halls. Then provide your impression.

No pressure, just a thought.

 

See also raucous rock.

The only demonstrator I met who played large scale classical music was the late Dick Shahinian, but he was originally a percussionist. He nearly convinced me that I should give opera another go...

 

I would say that is exactly what we were discussing. If one has never heard a vintage SD Living Stereo, I can imagine ears used to "modern" recordings would interpret the fact that there is little high frequency info above 12k as being muddy and dull. I believe our host also said the Westrex stereo head cut everything above a certain frequency out of phase, which certainly adds a "sound" not found on the master tape.

Not saying that I would interpret those recordings that way, but I can see how one would.

 

I don't think they are dull at all. But to me one of the biggest issues is all the tape hiss on older recordings, it really reminds me I'm listening to a recording and sort of ruins the performance for me.

Here is a great performance but it suffers from the technology of the day, you don't hear this on modern recordings.

 

I think the 12Khz decline is not point, because RVG also did the similar mastering and nobody (or few) did complain about it.

 

You've posted a few times about high-end being dull. Your speakers, recordings, etc. Someone posting a recording drenched in highs and your replying there's not much high frequency content tells me either your ears are shot in regards to a major loss in the highs (get them tested!) or your system's inherent sound is quite dull.

Hope that it's the latter and not the former; the latter can be fixed.

 

I generally do not prefer "spot" mic'd recordings for classical. It sounds quite unrealistic to the real thing. I say this as both a listener and a performer. Winds especially derive much of their sound and color from their interaction with the "space". I do not think these "hall sound" recordings sound dull or muddy when done well. Otherwise I'm just going to leave this here:

 

Granted . I am also enjoying the music as mastered most of the time, just every now and then I can experiment, with the super tweeters whether I can get something out of specific recordings that I can enjoy even more.

I mention this because the OP was kind of complaining that many recordings are not to his taste, which is perfectly fine, as taste can differ, luckily!

 

No we are not ! really! Don't know if you or someone else got into that, but not the original point.

The OP used only vinyl as her/his examples. Digital has nothing to do with this. But you do have a GOOD point - vinyl sounds different, for various reasons (again, ASR person here, did not say better). And different persons can interpret the sound according to her/his own hearing, prejudice, expectations, etc. I mean, to be truthful, we are not spring chickens in this forum - generalization, yes, but well, by definition, audiophiles are MOSTLY gentlemen of a certain age... 12kHz might be a stretch for a bunch of us!

Yes, compromises/mistakes etc were made - and plenty. Again, there might be exceptions - some Classical LPs out there that are objectively and measurably deficient. But we are addressing the fact that the OP made kind of a blanket statement... and not very well supported at that, by consensus... One person's dull and muddy is another person's rich and warm...

v

 

It's like saying the problem with Ansel Adams prints is he uses that horrible ugly old fashioned Black and White process which has no colors at all...terrible.

Maybe these crayons I have will make it "acceptable."....doo do doo hum hum---there now---PERFECT!

 

I've heard that about Szell, but not specifically about speakers behind the couch. I only read his home stereo wasn't so good and sounded muffled and boxy, so naturally when he strong-armed Columbia's team to EQ accordingly very bad things happened.
I actually find a lot of 50s and 60s Columbia Masterworks pressings to sound more "lean" to me than other labels. When they started remixing and reissuing those recordings in the 70s, the actual recorded sound started to shine through. There are hundreds of spectacular sounding and artistically essential CBS Masterworks recordings that I'm so thankful exist.

dan c

 

No, I think it's about the surface tension of the fluid, so that the RCM vacuum can pull it off more completely, sort of like Kodak Photo-Flo for photographic film. But what do I know? I'm a dog on the internet.

 

It's a coincidence–given that we're talking about classical music–that Adams was considering a career in piano performance when he was young. I've seen some of his gelatin silver prints up close and they're astonishingly beautiful. His wikipedia page makes for good reading.

 

But, he also claimed that they were bad recordings, and that is what many of us are taking him to task about.