AS Seasoned Audiophiles, What Have You Learned?

[LL21]

I would like to get more into classical but haven't a clue as to what performers/recordings are worth the investment. I have blindly bought LPs of music by composers I like, probably chosen because of attractive covers, and been disappointed. Your insight from trial and error helps me save money and time so thank you. I very much appreciate your sharing on this forum.

Many years ago my wife bought me the Penguin Guide to Classical Music. While you probably have to know what composers you like, once you have a few (Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, etc)...you go to Penguin and for any piece (orchestral, quartets, sonata (solo), trios, etc...) they give you several recommendations of the particular albums to try with a mini-review under each one. They often speak not only about the interpretation, but also will frequently mention if it is well recorded/mastered or not...particularly if the recording is particularly historic (scratchy)...or a Channel Classics or BIS (often very well recorded and mastered).

I found the Penguin invaluable as a big single-reference starting point/foundation...not its not definitive (what guide is?)...but for me, it was super helpful and took me from 60 albums (all guesswork as you describe) to well over 1,000 in the last 12 years. I still refer to it, even as our copy is 2010 and they are reissued/reupdated every single year.

Hope that helps.

 

[microstrip]

Many years ago my wife bought me the Penguin Guide to Classical Music. While you probably have to know what composers you like, once you have a few (Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, etc)...you go to Penguin and for any piece (orchestral, quartets, sonata (solo), trios, etc...) they give you several recommendations of the particular albums to try with a mini-review under each one. They often speak not only about the interpretation, but also will frequently mention if it is well recorded/mastered or not...particularly if the recording is particularly historic (scratchy)...or a Channel Classics or BIS (often very well recorded and mastered).

I found the Penguin invaluable as a big single-reference starting point/foundation...not its not definitive (what guide is?)...but for me, it was super helpful and took me from 60 albums (all guesswork as you describe) to well over 1,000 in the last 12 years. I still refer to it, even as our copy is 2010 and they are reissued/reupdated every single year.

Hope that helps.

In the late 80's and 90's I got the Penguin and also the french Diapason guides. Still have a few of them and use them occasionally. Most CD releases of that period were analog re-issues, the comments also apply to the LPs. It was very interesting to compare both guides, often disagreeing a lot in the recording short review and recommendation.

Currently I read occasionally Gramophone and Diapason record reviews online - most of their recording of the month or diapason d'or can be found in Qobuz. Gramophone often compares new recordings with recordings from the 60's and 70's.

If you look at used books booksellers in the net, they sometimes have these guides from the 70's and 80's, covering mostly LPs.

 

[jbrrp1]

Glenn Gould’s first recording of the Goldberg variations were for me (as for so many others it seems) an especially iconic recording that really made you sit up and take note about the power and mystique of a seemingly unique connection in individual performance with an extraordinary work. I remember also seeing footage of Leonard Bernstein talking about his (at times uneasy) relationship with Glenn Gould and it was clear that while they saw the musical universe in different perspectives that Bernstein clearly championed the importance of us listening to what Gould was trying to say in his piano performances.

I’d say the Gould versions in this work imprinted fairly heavily on me… I very much still like both his early and later takes on these pieces of infinite fascination by J.S.Bach.

But I also really like Murray Perahia’s take in this as well… in some ways for me it’s a bit like a perfect alignment of the stars… there’s everything very right about where Perahia goes with the Goldbergs.

I love both of Gould's Goldbergs, too. But my introduction to the piece was on its intended instrument, the harpsicord, and I still find it magically more intimate with its timbre and stylistic requirements (no dynamics, so rhythmic subtlety is everything). Give Gustav Leonhardt a try for an outstanding exemplar of that - - well recorded, too.

 

[oldvinyl]

I love both of Gould's Goldbergs, too. But my introduction to the piece was on its intended instrument, the harpsicord, and I still find it magically more intimate with its timbre and stylistic requirements (no dynamics, so rhythmic subtlety is everything). Give Gustav Leonhardt a try for an outstanding exemplar of that - - well recorded, too.

I think that the Gould recordings offer an insight into other voices in the music that either do not emerge in slower tempos or without the dynamics of the grand piano.

I also love the Leonhardt Goldberg recording!

Another variation is these pieces on harp!

 

[the sound of Tao]

I love both of Gould's Goldbergs, too. But my introduction to the piece was on its intended instrument, the harpsicord, and I still find it magically more intimate with its timbre and stylistic requirements (no dynamics, so rhythmic subtlety is everything). Give Gustav Leonhardt a try for an outstanding exemplar of that - - well recorded, too.

I also quite like Andreas Staier in these on the harsichord. I think I may be something of a complete Hannah barbarian when it comes to the keyboard listening so I must admit I also really love Scarlatti on concert grand… though in my humble defence if it was good enough for Vladimir Horowitz it’s good enough for me… and yes stretching that defence a bit I know

 

[the sound of Tao]

Yes. Though Bernstein and Gould worked well together when they recorded, they could struggle over who took the lead. The orchestra v the soloist in concertos is something that needs to be "worked out."

In his 4th Piano Concerto, Beethoven did something that was unique at the time. He started the Concerto with the pianist rather than with the orchestra. It was revolutionary times and Beethoven was in a mood to throw off the yoke of the collective to champion the hero, the individual, the soloist. I could sense Bernstein's reluctance to take Gould's pace in that piece when they performed together.

Beethoven - Piano Concerto No.4 in G major - The Audio Beat - www.TheAudioBeat.com

read audio reviews, ratings, and user opinions on audio equipment before you buy an audio system

www.theaudiobeat.com

Could you find a more self-confident looking pair?

View attachment 102772

When looking at the cover artwork with Bernstein and Gould all I can think of is (quite a deal more than) a penny for their thoughts . I’d guess we’re looking at two giant titans post titanic creative struggle but still in this there were no losers… the senex having the great wisdom and generous maturity to make some space for the arriving puer.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes. Though Bernstein and Gould worked well together when they recorded, they could struggle over who took the lead. The orchestra v the soloist in concertos is something that needs to be "worked out."

In his 4th Piano Concerto, Beethoven did something that was unique at the time. He started the Concerto with the pianist rather than with the orchestra. It was revolutionary times and Beethoven was in a mood to throw off the yoke of the collective to champion the hero, the individual, the soloist. I could sense Bernstein's reluctance to take Gould's pace in that piece when they performed together.

Beethoven - Piano Concerto No.4 in G major - The Audio Beat - www.TheAudioBeat.com

read audio reviews, ratings, and user opinions on audio equipment before you buy an audio system

www.theaudiobeat.com

Could you find a more self-confident looking pair?

View attachment 102772

Leon Fleisher with Szell is excellent for this one, on Columbia.

 

[tima]

Leon Fleisher with Szell is excellent for this one, on Columbia.

I have a Fleisher performing the 4th; I'll have to check if it is with Szell, which at the moment I cannot do as my A - F cabinets are blocked by equipment and other records. I don't know if you read the review. I did compare with several other artists.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Hello Bill,

I do not think I have learned much as a “seasoned audiophile”. But, I have learned one very important thing: I know what I want, I have a target, and I think I know how to get there.

This led to a complete re-thinking of my system and set up. I am pretty much now finished, and like you, I’m focusing on listening to music. I am pretty much done with searching for gear.

I have made the trip to visit David in Utah two times. I assure you, it is worth the effort. I suspect you will learn something and have a great time.

I really liked the way you wrote out your audio aims (some time back) and thinking it reflects an architectural background and of the importance of writing a design statement for any design process. How can we know if we’re hitting our objectives if we can’t articulate our aims.

Everything is about choices and I think this also came through in your comments about the nature of the differences in the questions that we may all be asking when choosing our audio directions… when it comes to having a clearly defined set of goals it makes it easier to assess how we are going in the big picture (or even for us to realise we need to redefine our aims) but first we need to write these down.

I think it would take a lot of the discord out of this pursuit if we had clearly identified goals as individuals to make sense of the differences in what’s best in this hobby for all of us.

 

[tima]

I think it would take a lot of the discord out of this pursuit if we had clearly identified goals as individuals to make sense of the differences in what’s best in this hobby for all of us.

That sounds great! But first we have to have some idea of what we want. It seems to me it is easier in the visual realm. Architects can draw up plans, even quick sketches which give some idea of what is possible, though it may still be difficult to grasp at the 'walking around' perspective. Sound is effervescent, less tangible, almost impossible to imagine.

I suspect most audiophiles don't get too far past "sounds good" ... maybe "better bass" ... at least until you actually hear what you want, or something close to it. For many of us that turns into randomly trying one thing or another. I cannot speak for Peter but I suspect he and I got to a point where we fully heard what we want when we went to Utah. "Well, there it is." I suppose we both enjoyed the concert hall yet did not know how to translate that experience into laying out goals on how to achieve it. I knew I wanted something that would unlock the full Lamm potential. It was 'easier' for Peter - he said "I want that!" and he took the steps to get there.

"I want a system that sounds natural." How does one write a plan for that, to achieve it. I may be on a weak track here but the best I can come up with is: exposure until you hear it. Until you get some notion of a reference that you can use as a guide, planning is almost impossible -- which I think translates to your "it comes to having a clearly defined set of goals it makes it easier to assess how we are going in the big picture."

 

[the sound of Tao]

That sounds great! But first we have to have some idea of what we want. It seems to me it is easier in the visual realm. Architects can draw up plans, even quick sketches which give some idea of what is possible, though it may still be difficult to grasp at the 'walking around' perspective. Sound is effervescent, less tangible, almost impossible to imagine.

I suspect most audiophiles don't get too far past "sounds good" ... maybe "better bass" ... at least until you actually hear what you want, or something close to it. For many of us that turns into randomly trying one thing or another. I cannot speak for Peter but I suspect he and I got to a point where we fully heard what we want when we went to Utah. "Well, there it is." I suppose we both enjoyed the concert hall yet did not know how to translate that experience into laying out goals on how to achieve it. I knew I wanted something that would unlock the full Lamm potential. It was 'easier' for Peter - he said "I want that!" and he took the steps to get there.

"I want a system that sounds natural." How does one write a plan for that, to achieve it. I may be on a weak track here but the best I can come up with is: exposure until you hear it. Until you get some notion of a reference that you can use as a guide, planning is almost impossible -- which I think translates to your "it comes to having a clearly defined set of goals it makes it easier to assess how we are going in the big picture."

Having benchmarks, determining priorities and the use of precedents can start to provide us something of a compass to navigate by and also performance criteria to test against. But having a range of experiences is definitely the go. Also then having usable assessment criteria that clearly resonates for us also is part of it… for some the notion of natural sounding is some part of an indecipherable language yet for some understanding the nature of it comes just completely naturally. I do find atomistic assessment (the analysis of the parts) without holistic assessment in tandem to pull it all back together again is for me incomplete.

From my experience design process largely tends to crossover from discipline to discipline so whether it’s industrial design, graphic, architectural, landscape and even art and music… the ways that we can seek to define the context and the spirit of a thing (or an experience of a thing) to act both as a functional and characteristic outline can then be used with a mix of analysis and holistic reflection in a summative assessment process.

Design aims can (and often do) change during developmental process and I’d think for most of us this becomes more an ongoing cycle of system design, assessment, review and refinement.

Unfortunately nominating design objectives in itself isn’t a magic formula to get to a solution on its own and research, trial and discovery are still the go but at least having clearly defined goals becomes an active guiding element in the process to help us to navigate design choices with more focused awareness and a more structured pathway. The design objectives themselves are also a work in progress.

Definitely as nice a goal as it might sound I think just saying blah blah I want to get to nirvana blah blah is way too loose a parameter to work with, especially given the time and resources we channel into this… but then we each have our own journey in this.

It amazes me how much time and effort we easily spend over great periods of our lives without trying to get some vision or defined sense of what our systems might ultimately become or even just jotting down a simple list of indicators that we can use to see if we are on track or at least travelling roughly in the right direction… and let’s not get any of us started on the notion of having an end goal … unless of course our own timely senescence is also the definitive audiophile end game .

 

[tima]

Unfortunately nominating design objectives in itself isn’t a magic formula to get to a solution on its own and research, trial and discovery are still the go but at least having clearly defined goals becomes an active guiding element in the process to help us to navigate design choices with more focused awareness and a more structured pathway.

Thanks for that, Graham. You encourage thinking about what one wants and where they want to go. I certainly endorse that approach.

What will help me is if you could give some examples of 'clearly defined goals' to help us navigate design choices for an audio system. I'm also curious what knowledges need to be in place in order to establish those goals.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Thanks for that, Graham. You encourage thinking about what one wants and where they want to go. I certainly endorse that approach.

What will help me is if you could give some examples of 'clearly defined goals' to help us navigate design choices for an audio system. I'm also curious what knowledges need to be in place in order to establish those goals.

Sound system development I see as essentially a design process like all other design. I’d suggest that we can also apply similar (contextualised) fundamental design steps to the process. It’s a system and a critical step in design process is functional analysis. Design is like education, fundamentally about change management so thinking of it as happening in phases helps with seeing flow and continuity in the process and also a key to understanding appropriate perceptual modalities to apply at which stages.

I’m on a break from work at the moment and this thinking is coming very much off what I do at work (and I must admit the lure of the ocean is much greater and thoughts of having a coffee and walking my dog down at the beach also beckons) so rather than just throwing away with a quick few examples of seemingly disconnected objectives specific to my setup I might have a shot at putting together some more considered thoughts along the lines of an outline to a design process approach in developing our systems.

I’m not a quick thinker and read/write is (by some good margin) my weakest modality but I’ll see if I can pull something half way cogent together over the next few days. Perhaps having a coffee first will help lol.

 

[PeterA]

Sound system development I see as essentially a design process like all other design. I’d suggest that we can also apply similar (contextualised) fundamental design steps to the process. It’s a system and a step in process is functional analysis. Design is like education, fundamentally about change management so thinking of it as happening in phases helps with seeing flow and continuity and also a key to understanding appropriate perceptual modalities to apply at which stages.

I’m on a break from work at the moment and this thinking is coming very much off what I do at work (and I must admit the lure of the ocean is much greater and thoughts of having a coffee and walking my dog down at the beach also beckons) so rather than just throwing away with a quick few examples of seemingly disconnected objectives specific to my setup I might have a shot at putting together some more considered thoughts along the lines of an outline for an approach to a design process approach to developing our systems.

I’m not a quick thinker and read/write is (by some good margin) my weakest modality but I’ll see if I can pull something half way cogent together over the next few days. Perhaps having a coffee first will help lol.

Graham, that is an interesting analogy to design/architecture. First and foremost, a building, a garden, or it audio system must function. There are multiple approaches one can take to achieve the same goal. Selecting which approach is most appropriate for the needs of the user is where design comes in. All of these processes involve choice. Knowledge is built through experience. The more one has, the better the choices. The best solutions provide utility and beauty and lasting enjoyment.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Graham, that is an interesting analogy to design/architecture. First and foremost, a building, a garden, or it audio system must function. There are multiple approaches one can take to achieve the same goal. Selecting which approach is most appropriate for the needs of the user is where design comes in. All of these processes involve choice. Knowledge is built through experience. The more one has, the better the choices. The best solutions provide utility and beauty and lasting enjoyment.

Absolutely with you there on that Peter, on point function creates a stronger sense of meaningfulness and meaningful experiences have traction and create clearer connections and a greater energy for change.

That’s why picking up on resonating precedents for the listener is important to identify specific individual needs and expectations, we are not blank canvasses… especially not at our age lol.

We may have landmark experiences that resonate more deeply because our course is being re-informed, refined, recharged and even redirected. We may not initially understand why these experiences resonate because they are as yet undigested but we recognise them as something numinous and the underlying drive to energetically reshape or redirect us. The landmark experiences go in and stick because they are drawn towards other similarly characteristic meaningful experiences that coalesce to work to reshape the map of our experiences and point us towards emerging future expectations.

Purpose (function) and it’s meaningfulness along with the essential characteristic nature of our previous experience of things shape the nature of our expectation… this is where to start the process of assessing the nature of what is to come… in retained experience and emerging expectation.