Ok, I gotta admit, I'm eating crow. That sounds fantastic. The performances are out of this world and the sound quality is surprisingly good.

As much as it pains me, I have my foot firmly implanted in my mouth.

These are not 100 year old acoustic recordings. They were recorded by the electrical process between 1930 and 1938. Big, big difference.

jason victor serinus
Fritz Kreisler (violin)
Franz Rupp (piano) (1-6, 8, 12, 13, 16-18, 22-24); Michael Raucheisen (piano) (7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19-21); Kreisler String Quartet (11)
rec. Beethovensaal, Berlin, 13 February 1930 (15, 19), 14 February 1930 (7, 9, 10, 14, 20, 21); No. 3 Studio, Abbey Road, 7 April 1935 (11); Berlin, 28 September 1936 (1, 2); No. 3 Studio, Abbey Road, 14 February 1938) (8, 12, 18, 22, 23), 15 February 1938 (3-6, 13, 16, 24). ADD

Quote:
These are not 100 year old acoustic recordings. They were recorded by the electrical process between 1930 and 1938. Big, big difference.

jason victor serinus
Fritz Kreisler (violin)
Franz Rupp (piano) (1-6, 8, 12, 13, 16-18, 22-24); Michael Raucheisen (piano) (7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19-21); Kreisler String Quartet (11)
rec. Beethovensaal, Berlin, 13 February 1930 (15, 19), 14 February 1930 (7, 9, 10, 14, 20, 21); No. 3 Studio, Abbey Road, 7 April 1935 (11); Berlin, 28 September 1936 (1, 2); No. 3 Studio, Abbey Road, 14 February 1938) (8, 12, 18, 22, 23), 15 February 1938 (3-6, 13, 16, 24). ADD

Buzz kill.

Quote:
These are not 100 year old acoustic recordings. They were recorded by the electrical process between 1930 and 1938. Big, big difference.

jason victor serinus

Nice job, Killjoy. Way to go, Nitpicker. Happy now, Mr. Precise? Well don't feel too smug. As I read Jan's post, he says: "...when the recording is fifty to 100 years old." By any stretch of the vernacular, 1930-1938 IS "fifty to 100 years old." Right about in the middle somewhere.

Yes, I think you are correct about this particular recording. I could not find the collection I own on the web and these are mostly re-recordings of earlier pieces. The recordings in my library date from about 1912 forward. If you wish to hear those recordings, you'll have to do some searching on your own. And there is a difference between a 70 year old and a 100 year old recording which is evident as the Kriesler collection I have works its way through the years to the 1940's. (http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/microphones2.html)

So I'm sorry if I disappointed you, Jason. If I could have found the recordings I own, I would have posted them instead. I suppose I should have titled this thread "70-100 year old recordings" but the title actually came from another thread. (http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=36361&page=...)

In that thread, I stated this,

Quote:
I am often amazed that I have the ability to bring to life an artist long dead and hear them in their prime even when the recording is fifty to 100 years old. To have the performer(s) standing in front of me in a semi-darkened room is a thrill.

This set off a barrage of protests which had nothing to do with that particular thread. So here is the result of that exchange.

The question would seem to be whether someone can envision a performer present before them when listening to these historic recordings. Since seventy to eighty year old recordings fall between my specified range of fifty to 100 years old, I don't feel I have cheated anyone with this particular example.

My point, however, is not just the sound quality of the recordings but the ability of the performance to get beyond the limitations of acoustic or early electronic recording techniques. What is an "audiophile" system and what should it be doing are the principles I addressed in my post which I quoted above. Should an audiophile system be one that only presents "perfect" recordings in an accurate manner? That happens to be yet another current thread on this forum

(http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=rants&Number...)

to which I replied in part,

Quote:
Personally, I have found little use for components that force me to turn off my system or severely limit my choice of recordings. My underlying goal is a system that makes more music accessible rather than less. I find "accuracy" to be elusive as I search the record stacks while "musical" seems to flow naturally from a wider selection of discs.

There you have it, the reasons for this thread. What does a system need to do? If your system cannot assist you by at least getting out of the way of the limitations of the recording, then I believe you have done little but collect a group of electromechanical boxes which satisfy few of the basic requirements of an interesting music system.

Take for example the PSB speaker system JA reviews in the current issue of Stereophile. A simple matter of time aligning the multiple pairs of microphones used in the recording of the vocal group Cantus took the resolution of the system from muddled to focussed. Let's think about what that says about the current state of the art in both recording and playback. Would the PSB benefit from the absolute time alignment of a single omni-directional microphone (as you hear in the recordings at the top of this thread) which picked up all of the players performing together? Or would the PSB show the limitations of the historic recording just as easily as it did the confusion of the modern multi-mic technique? If the latter, is it truly a good product to own if you are not in a situation where you wish to monitor for modern recording techniques? That is something everyone should decide for themself.

IMO, I am not interested in a portraiture camera when I am in need of a good all arounder to take with me out of the studio. I am not looking for a full bore race car when I'm driving in traffic. I'm not going to grab a 1" brush to paint my house. And as I have said, I am not looking for a system which limits my music choices.

I am not interested in what I see as the rather obssessive desire for components capable of micro-detail retrieved from close mic'd recordings, both of which seem pervasive in the audiophile industry today. Too often I find such components to be doing no more for the music than cutting the crust off a Wonder Bread sandwich. In the historic recordings I can hear performers creating art and not being manipulated by the recording techniques just as I can allow myself to be concerned only with their talent. That is not to say I do not hear many qualities which have value in any good system. I hear the recording space in the Kriesler pieces without artificial reverb, chorusing or processing. I hear the individual performers existing within their own space and I can detect the "palpable" space between them. I hear natural development of dynamics unhindered by compressors. I hear a consistent surface noise that is easy to ignore once the music begins. I hear instrumental tone colors which are identifiable despite the limitations of the recording. I hear a coherence of the entire performance and soundfield and not something created in a studio after the fact. Mostly, I hear music and a long dead performer is in front of me once again at my desire to choose a disc because I enjoy the music and not because it represents some ideal of accuracy.

So take these seventy year old recordings I provided you and listen to them through your own system. dup's claim was nothing older than fifty years could possibly be any good since modern recording techniques didn't come into play until at least the time when Les Paul started to fiddle with multi-channel recordings. Take these Kriesler recordings and decide whether your system lets you bring to life an artist long dead. If it cannot, what does that say about your system? If what you own cannot allow the music to stand proud of the limitations of the recording, have you assembled the correct set of components? Or have you simply purchased stuff that performs the tricks the magazines have told you are important? Read a few of ST's remarks concerning historic recordings and the value of such as reviewing tools. Then decide just what your system can and cannot do.

I am not preaching any one right way to assemble a system. I happen to think this method of approaching a system offers multiple ways to get to the truth of the performance. This thread was simply in response to other thoughts which crossed my mind today. I have found what I consider to be a great deal of success with this approach. Others might or might not agree. But at least this takes the discussion away from the original thread which didn't need the distraction.

Nice try, wrong again. When you get some actual 100 year old recordings that sound like a live event.......keep searching. Do you also think candles give better light than CFL or LED? It's old, must be better.

BRAVO...nice to see other's desire correct details, since hi fi high end is about the final DETAILS. Thank You victor

So "your" system can make lo fi antique recordings sound like a live event? Hmmm, a better system would allow all the flaws and noise through exposing one to the big limitations of a 100 year old attempt at recording. If your system makes you beleive you are hearing live music from a 100 year old recording...there are several things gone wrong. Listener is hearing impaired, system is one dull lifeless, freq limited mask. the listener ain't heard live music ever.. The claims made of 100 year old recordings melting away teh walls, and giving teh impression of teh live event happening is IMPOSSIBLE, and well IMPOSSIBLE. don't cre how well teh musicans where doing, you didn't hear it on teh 100 yeaer old recording. IMPOSSIBLE. Do you also think a Model T Dord can compete on teh NASCAR or Grand Prix tracks? Hey Model T old, must be better. Try experiening at least later 20th century, into 21st century modern recording, what an ear opening event. Hmm do I want to listen to DSD or WAX recordings on a hand cranked machine? Do you know what kind of limited performance mics where used 100 years ago? Those carbon based mics where hardly hi fi. The sound of Shelac, I know that's like the live event!!!

Go back and read my actual post that you don't seem to comprehend, dup. I never made the claims for 100 year old recordings that you say I have. You have been unwilling or unable to understand the use of a "." in my original post. What I said here was I can hear the acoustic of the recording space. It's there and you don't have to play your system at 120dB to hear it. As to sounding like "live events", what else could they sound like, dup? They were recorded live to transcription. Everyone playing together, in the same room, at the same time. If you can't hear that simple fact, and understand its implications when compared to today's recording techniques, then there just isn't enough SLAM in any 70-100 year old recording to suit your simple tastes. Read what I wrote and understand what I wrote. If you're looking for a fight, dup, go somewhere else.

DSD and lacquers? Yes, thankfully that's one of the tools available for restoring this sound. I haven't given DSD short shrift. The saving grace of digital is it's ability to keep 100 year old analog recordings from being lost forever just as Sam Tellig pointed out several months ago. Most original masters have simply deteriorated to the point they won't be available much longer. However, hearing the original releases on the equipment of their day is still an illuminating experience and it too has the ability to bring back the dead if you're simply willing to listen with any set of priorities other than just SLAM. That's what I said, dup. That was my claim in my original post, not all that you think I said. That today's technology has made this performance available again hardly makes the music or the performer less relevant as you seem to prefer. What is on the seventy to eighty year old recordings here is not something that could have been done twenty years ago. So let's not go down the road of anyone hating anything new. The point is technology must serve the music first and not the other way around. Technology should not supplant the music as the reason to buy a good system. My suggestion is to listen for once, dup, and decide whether this music sounds interesting through 1400 watts and a dozen drivers. If it doesn't, then what exactly do you have?

If you're looking to start a fight over this, dup, I'm not interested. I'll debate what I have posted but not what you choose to make it. If you can't keep this positive, then don't say anything more. We all know your position on these matters, we've heard them before. And, yes, I would prefer to listen to any music by candlelight rather than compact flourescent but I do keep a small LED flashlight alongside my chair. It serves a purpose that a CFL can't. Can you imagine a SLAMMING group playing at 130dB all lit by CFL's? I can't.

Oh my gosh, a mere statement of fact, with no reference to an earlier thread that I've never seen, has produced a triple barrel shotgun assault.

Some more facts. I was raised on acoustic 78s of Galli-Curci, Tetrazinni, and Caruso. My collection is filled with horribly filtered LP reissues and much more intelligently processed CD reissues. Romophone (some reissued by Naxos in Europe) figures highly. I've got 78s by Lehmann, Schumann, Schiotz, Teyte, Tauber, and Muzio in the shed. Even if I no longer have a 78 needle, I can't imagine life without them.

I wish wish wish I owned the Kreisler CD Jan speaks about. I've just written a review for Muso in the UK of EMI Classics' new Capriccio, a disc of encore pieces played by Renaud Capu

I hope folks are reading the news articles that appear frequently on the home page. Since we're speaking about old recordings, this article has relevance:
http://www.stereophile.com/news/031308amex/

jason victor serinus

Jason, your posts were great. The fact that recordings made in 1930 and 1938 sound like this is still incredible.

Moreover, your articles are always well thought out, do not simply re-hash what has already been written, and add to at least my overall appreciation of audio.

Quote:
I hope folks are reading the news articles that appear frequently on the home page. Since we're speaking about old recordings, this article has relevance:
http://www.stereophile.com/news/031308amex/

Yes indeed. I just posted on it in this forum.

You also said you don't need "accuracy"..another thing that confuses me, in your remarks. In order to reproduce a live event if you ain't being accurate, and you are using equipment that has it's own flavor, taste or whatever verbage you apply to it, then you ain't doing what hi end hi fi is all about. You are always portraying my questioning your claims as looking for a fight, you do not comphrehend the doubts, questioning of anyone who questions your claims. If I don't agree with your what I think is bizzare outlook on what hi fi is, then you call it a fight? huh? and double huh? you make claims, i question it, you think it's all about a fight. What's on your mind? Is everything you claim it? If it is, OK. you are right. don't need multiple drivers, don't need power, use candels, and what ever else you decide is the way music is meant to be reproduced. And why are you listening to 100 year old music anyway, thre is so much stuff from just a mere 50 years ago, with a lot more life in it, to energize the soul. The 1908 hit parade was pretty dull. I think Marconi was the DJ? There is no specail things in some obsolete old recordigns that are not readily in modern recordings, modern recordings are much improved over something done 100 years ago. Man, it's time to appreciate teh last several decades of improvements. Are you still watching a 9" DuMont? digital HDTV is alive and well, try it. There is no 100 year old recording that would match or sound comparable or better than modern recordings. Where do you come up with this stuff? Thre have air contioning too now in cars.

Preacha' DUP-- as to your assertion about whether candles were as good as LEDs or Metal Haylide; you can take them both. If I'm setting the dinner table or want some atmosphere, I'll take those candles any time. You must be a real romantic when it comes to interiors!

"Watts! I need more watts. Get rid of thos lame 40 watt bulbs- I need six 300 watt bulbs minimum to get close to having the sun in my living room!"

Jason, sorry again for the misleading title and no references to previous threads. It became an issue of priorities and nothing more or less.

Quote:
I've got 78s by Lehmann, Schumann, Schiotz, Teyte, Tauber, and Muzio in the shed.

I can only hope your idea of a shed is not the same as mine.

The Kreisler collection I have is incomplete and amounts to CD-R's of discs I borrowed a few years ago. I don't know if they are still available to me but I'll check. I only made copies of the contents pages of a few set pieces and all I know is they were titled something like "Fritz Kreisler, The Complete RCA Recordings" but when I placed that in a search engine I got what I posted at the top of this thread. I have discs #2, 9 & 11 and I'm not certain how many discs were included in the set.

If I had no other use for a competent CD player, it would be to hear the results of digital remastering of discs such as these. They not only raise the dead performer but also the near dead masters to live once again.

Quote:
You also said you don't need "accuracy"..another thing that confuses me, in your remarks.

No, I don't believe I ever said that. I have said - on several ocassions I think - I do not need nor desire the sort of accuracy that makes me reject most discs as sounding bad or wears me down or forces me from the room. My desire is to hear more music not less. My system should make me want to stay up all night listening to music. That is what I have said. More often than not, that is what my system does.

Quote:
In order to reproduce a live event if you ain't being accurate, and you are using equipment that has it's own flavor, taste or whatever verbage you apply to it, then you ain't doing what hi end hi fi is all about.

dup, you're going to have to define "accurate" without resorting to 1400 watts and SLAM! Why don't you try for once to describe your concept of accurate without those words and let's see where it takes us. I don't need a description of what gets you to your sense of accurate, I need to know what qualities define "accurate" in your mind.

Quote:
If I don't agree with your what I think is bizzare outlook on what hi fi is, then you call it a fight?

Actually, I just think it's boring to read the same few words and ideas over and over again. But when you misquote my words and try to use them against me with your own meaning, I can accept that once - maybe twice. When you constantly do it, that would indicate you're not just misunderstanding me. Oh, and trashing my system didn't put us on a solid foundation of trust.

Quote:
And why are you listening to 100 year old music anyway, thre is so much stuff from just a mere 50 years ago, with a lot more life in it, to energize the soul.

Ya'see, dup, when you say stuff like that I feel like I'm starting out in a deep, deep hole when I'm talking to you. You don't have to like the music I like and I seriously doubt I would appreciate the stuff you prefer. But if you really cannot listen to the selections I placed at the fornt of this thread and understand why I find them fascinating or why mono is seeing growing sales, there just isn't enough space on this forum for me to explain it to you.

Quote:
And why are you listening to 100 year old music anyway, thre is so much stuff from just a mere 50 years ago, with a lot more life in it, to energize the soul.

Quote:
Ya'see, dup, when you say stuff like that I feel like I'm starting out in a deep, deep hole when I'm talking to you. You don't have to like the music I like and I seriously doubt I would appreciate the stuff you prefer. But if you really cannot listen to the selections I placed at the fornt of this thread and understand why I find them fascinating or why mono is seeing growing sales, there just isn't enough space on this forum for me to explain it to you.

I have no idea why you two talk to each other at all. It kind of cracks me up. I imagine you must enjoy the exchange -- I mean, why else bother? -- but then again, you always seem angry and frustrated. Hmm, I just don't get it.

You guys!

Keep on having fun.

Quote:
I've got 78s by Lehmann, Schumann, Schiotz, Teyte, Tauber, and Muzio in the shed.

I can only hope your idea of a shed is not the same as mine.

The big issue is whose shed it is, ours or the termites'. But perhaps I deviate from the subject of this thread, which is spinning around...

jason

I heard an anectdotal description about an old recording. The story is that Caruso's recording was playing in the next room and the person in this room (his wife?) remarked that it sounds just like Caruso was singing in the next room.

Maybe it has something to do with what we have or have not experienced up to that time. Recordings at that time were a rarity, so it must have been a new experience for many back then to hear someone singing in the next room without that singer really being there, so that it likely sounds "live", "just like he was there". I suppose if the singer were really there and sang, they would have cleary heard the difference. [Let's not start the DBT discussion again here.]