High Quality Classical Recordings

Z

zz6549

Audiophyte
As attracted as I am to Classical music, I've found it has one fatal flaw: Recordings. So far, it has been very difficult to find good Classical recordings. Many were recorded before the widespread use of digital recording technology, and those that are digital lack the fidelity of many other types of music. I'd imagine it's difficult to fit an orchestra into a studio, which may be one of the causes.

So I ask, do high-fidelity Classical recordings exist? In particular, I'd like to hear a well recorded and mastered version of Rachmaninoff's 2nd and 3rd Concertos.
 
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
They have to be digital?

Many excellent recordings were done in the analog domain. It seems a pity to deny yourself the pleasure of these but, hey, each to their own.
 
Rock&Roll Ninja

Rock&Roll Ninja

Audioholic Field Marshall
As attracted as I am to Classical music, I've found it has one fatal flaw: Recordings. So far, it has been very difficult to find good Classical recordings.
What Bizzaro-universe do you buy CDs from?

Telarc, Teldec, Naxos, EMI, Sony Classic, Mapleshade, Refrence Recordings, Chesky, Deutsch-Grammaphone and about 20 other labels are dedicated to nothing but audiophile quality classics (and/or jazz).

As for Rachmaninoff's 2nd & 3rd HERE ya go. And its only $9.99 this month.
 
Z

zz6549

Audiophyte
What Bizzaro-universe do you buy CDs from?

Telarc, Teldec, Naxos, EMI, Sony Classic, Mapleshade, Refrence Recordings, Chesky, Deutsch-Grammaphone and about 20 other labels are dedicated to nothing but audiophile quality classics (and/or jazz).

As for Rachmaninoff's 2nd & 3rd HERE ya go. And its only $9.99 this month.
Ah, thank you.

I do have a Naxos version, and it's not terrible, but nor is it extraordinarily clear.

Many excellent recordings were done in the analog domain. It seems a pity to deny yourself the pleasure of these but, hey, each to their own.

I have many analog recordings, and hold no hostility towards them. However, I've found that digital recordings, in general, produce a cleaner, sharper sound. Analog can be done well, but it can also be done poorly.
For example, in one of the slightly more esoteric performances of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Concerto, is played beautifully by Ilana Vered, but sadly the recording has some very evident noise in the background throughout the entire piece.
 
no. 5

no. 5

Audioholic Field Marshall
I have found that problem too, yes there is well recorded classical music available, there also seems to be a high number of recordings from, say, the 40's and 50's that sound, well, not to good; for instance, I have a CD of Rossini's "il barbier di siviglia" that sounds as though it was recorded on a wax cylinder (sentence exaggerated for effect). :eek:
 
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
It's too bad we can't raise the dead, isn't it?

You seem to focus on the bad rather than the good. If that's the way you choose to view this hobby, you're in for a big disappointment

RCA, Mercury, DG , London all turned out some sterling examples of SOTA in the 50's and 60's that still stands up today. But, you might have to suffer through some very, very slight tape hiss that's far, far less noticeable than the normal extraneous sounds in a concert hall.

I mean, if you could live with the "poor sound" of analog, you might find that Boris Janis on RCA Living Stereo and Glenn Gould on Columbia Legacy can do some nice stuff that sounds amazing, not just for the that time, but even by today's standards. But, I'll admit that some Gould stuff does have a slight hum issue.

In the many concert halls and other venues I've been to, "crystal clear" is a goal that's not achieved in real life. Room acoustics/reflections tend to blur things a bit in a medium to large venue, and this is picked up by the mics. Maybe in a smaller, more intimate setting like a jazz club it's possible, but that's not an issue here.

So, it looks like you may have to make choice. Great music from the masters or great sound utilising an unrealistic yardstick. Demanding perfection in this world can be a very disappointing ideal. Good luck and may you find audio bliss. If you do, please let us know where.
 
Last edited:
no. 5

no. 5

Audioholic Field Marshall
Well put Mark, and I'm sure that when most of us were younger we would listen to songs in a quality we would considered dismal today, just to hear a particular song.
 
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
I still do.

Well put Mark, and I'm sure that when most of us were younger we would listen to songs in a quality we would considered dismal today, just to hear a particular song.
I love rockabilly from the 50's and those recordings suck, plain and simple, but you can't get them any other way. That's the way it was then.

...but boy, do they rock! I'll not deny myself that music.


P.S.. thanks
 
Tomorrow

Tomorrow

Audioholic Ninja
As attracted as I am to Classical music, I've found it has one fatal flaw: Recordings. So far, it has been very difficult to find good Classical recordings. Many were recorded before the widespread use of digital recording technology, and those that are digital lack the fidelity of many other types of music. I'd imagine it's difficult to fit an orchestra into a studio, which may be one of the causes.

So I ask, do high-fidelity Classical recordings exist? In particular, I'd like to hear a well recorded and mastered version of Rachmaninoff's 2nd and 3rd Concertos.
Just to be contrary, I thought you might enjoy the following story. It was told in a thread here from last year. You see, digital vs. analog recording techniques may not be the only problem facing those interested in quality symphonic sound. It could be our ears and/or attitudes, the sources and settings, as well recording engineers' preferences/settings/equipment, etc. See what AverageJoe has to say --->


A long, long time ago (no, not in a galaxy far, far away - but it was Southern California, so it may seem like another galaxy), a friend of mine participated in a review of some "incredibly innovative audio equipment that sets new highs in hi-fidelity" or some such jargon. I'm not sure when all this took place, but I met him in the mid 70's when he owned a small recording studio so it had to be before that. He had already been a musician, music producer, and was involved in the recording industry for years.

In any case, the organizers of the event had access to Hollywood Bowl for an afternoon, and set up a demonstration of the equipment for 25 or 30 local studio engineers, musicians, audio enthusiasts, hi-fi reviewers, etc. The type of equipment was not revealed and was set up behind a large curtain. The participants were told the music was previously unheard live rehearsals, and were encouraged to write down all impressions and observations - both pro and con.

Unfortunately, the "incredibly innovative audio equipment" was not very well received. The cons far outweighed the pros: "lifeless and flat", "overly exaggerated high freq.", "sounds like a low-end stereo". Some of the kinder reviewers thought it might sound better inside a room instead of outdoors - "You can't expect any equipment to perform well under these conditions".

Anyway, to make a long story short, after gathering up the reviews of the equipment, the organizers dropped the curtain to reveal a live orchestra.

At least two of the reviewers had guessed what was going on because it was written on their notes, but most were quite surprised.

I'm told this type of thing has happened a few times, but this was the only one I heard specifics about.
 
pzaur

pzaur

Audioholic Samurai
zz6549 - I can't help you with any specific recording as I tend to purchase recordings based on interpretation and then the mastering. I've always enjoyed Ashkenazy with London for the Rachmaninov concertos. Very well performed and nice to listen to.
If you want some superbly mastered recordings of other performances, you may want to check out www.sacd.net.
The RCA High Fidelity series tends to be very well recorded and mastered.
The Mahler set put out by San Francisco Symphony and Tilson Thomas is supposed to be incredibly well engineered. The Mahler 6 is awesome. I haven't listened to it in the SACD format yet, but I will. The stereo recording of it is great!
Also check out here for decent interpretations and other info:

www.classical.net

-pat
 
skizzerflake

skizzerflake

Audioholic Field Marshall
Some of the most amazing classical recordings were made using 2 or 3 mikes in a non-studio environment and an analog tape recorder. They sound different from what you may be used to but they have a directness and immediacy (no, I don't know how to define those, but I know them when I hear them) that overproduced digital recordings can't approach. Try some from Mercury or RCA Living Presence. They're fairly cheap and some are available as SACD if you want the 3 channel originals.
 
shokhead

shokhead

Audioholic General
As attracted as I am to Classical music, I've found it has one fatal flaw: Recordings. So far, it has been very difficult to find good Classical recordings. Many were recorded before the widespread use of digital recording technology, and those that are digital lack the fidelity of many other types of music. I'd imagine it's difficult to fit an orchestra into a studio, which may be one of the causes.

So I ask, do high-fidelity Classical recordings exist? In particular, I'd like to hear a well recorded and mastered version of Rachmaninoff's 2nd and 3rd Concertos.
You need to be a big fan of SACD.
 
Z

zz6549

Audiophyte
You seem to focus on the bad rather than the good. If that's the way you choose to view this hobby, you're in for a big disappointment

RCA, Mercury, DG , London all turned out some sterling examples of SOTA in the 50's and 60's that still stands up today. But, you might have to suffer through some very, very slight tape hiss that's far, far less noticeable than the normal extraneous sounds in a concert hall.

I mean, if you could live with the "poor sound" of analog, you might find that Boris Janis on RCA Living Stereo and Glenn Gould on Columbia Legacy can do some nice stuff that sounds amazing, not just for the that time, but even by today's standards. But, I'll admit that some Gould stuff does have a slight hum issue.

In the many concert halls and other venues I've been to, "crystal clear" is a goal that's not achieved in real life. Room acoustics/reflections tend to blur things a bit in a medium to large venue, and this is picked up by the mics. Maybe in a smaller, more intimate setting like a jazz club it's possible, but that's not an issue here.

So, it looks like you may have to make choice. Great music from the masters or great sound utilising an unrealistic yardstick. Demanding perfection in this world can be a very disappointing ideal. Good luck and may you find audio bliss. If you do, please let us know where.

You may have misinterpreted. I like listening to well performed music, and I also like listening to well recorded music. Both have their place. Just as I enjoy hearing Vladamir Ashkenazy's wonderful performance of Rachmaninoff's 3rd, I also enjoy hearing the crystal-clear sound of some unknown song by some unknown artist on my 1994 Windham Hill Sampler CD. The music isn't great, but it still sounds amazing, simply due to the fidelity of the recording. Thus, I had hoped recordings of such quality existed in the realm of Classical music. If they don't, I'm not going to stop listening to Classical music, but if I heard any Concerto recorded with the clarity I referred to previously, it would be, as you said, audio bliss.

As for those who mentioned SACD, I don't have an SACD player. However, I'll look at a few next time I'm in the audio store. I recall them being somewhat expensive.

Thank you for all the information.
 
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
you may find most SACD's that might interest you were taken from analog masters.

I doubt they did anything to remove extraneous noises since that would alter the already excellent sound, but might offer a bit more range. That presents quite a conundrum, doesn't it?

But, you're right. All else being equal., I'd choose the better of the two recordings but rarely does that choice exist. Most times it boils down to a choice between the old masters that were very, very well recorded in the analog domain or some truly mundane pablum that's recorded digitally.

So, the choice becomes what's more important; the music or the sound of the recording?

And, while SACD might be all the rage, yer basic redbook CD can sound quite excellent. Ever heard of http://www.referencerecordings.com? It might be worth a look.

If you want to try some more truly well recorded music, check out http://www.mapleshade.com. I'm pretty sure it's 100% analog but your jaw will drop. But, the music itself might not be to your tastes.

I believe RCA Living Stereo offers a recording of Rachmaninoff's 1st and 2nd (or 3rd) by Byron Janis. Have you heard this?

Again, there's that choice.
 
Last edited:
Rock&Roll Ninja

Rock&Roll Ninja

Audioholic Field Marshall
Thus, I had hoped recordings of such quality existed in the realm of Classical music. If they don't, I'm not going to stop listening to Classical music, but if I heard any Concerto recorded with the clarity I referred to previously, it would be, as you said, audio bliss.
Sample Telarc's catalog. All digital recording since their inception, and many many many award winning albums.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top