Based on listening, which do you prefer ?

[Mooly]

Thanks for voting Pavel.

(I'm more than a little surprised you think both are poor technically though.)

 

[mat02ah]

There's no significant difference between "A" and "B" for me (Playback at the computer with so-so speakers). Some analysis reveals that "B" might be a MP3 file re-encoded to linear PCM (WAV).

"A/B" carries a lot of room information and reminds me of "Nimbus Records" ambisonic recordings.

For "Comparison" the mikrophones were closer and/or less ambiance was put in the mix.

I'd prefer a recording between "A/B" and "Comparison", but I can understand both sound engineering decisions. Sorry, no vote …

 

[fas42]

Slightly interesting journey getting to this post, . Yesterday I was warming up the system to try for a decent listen, when real life, , suddenly intruded - headed down the road to do things, end of audio type thinking for the day.

This morning I was feeling a bit stale about listening, so thought I would give this test a miss - blow it, I thought, just read the comments, see what had come up. Then, was somewhat surprised by the nature of them, didn't make sense to me - changed my mind and decided to just do a quick optimise, and quick listen. This was good enough to easily highlight that A and B were very different, and on the still cold system A stood out - B had a duller, less sparkling quality, there was just less musical information. Comparison is a very different recording, as I said before, but is fine to my ears.

So my vote was purely to say that A was better; I left Comparison out of the picture. A as a musical event is plenty good enough for me, I'm not sure why everyone is so down on it ...

 

[Mooly]

I think all who are going to listen will have done so by now and so......

The poll shows quite an interesting mix. Discounting the comparison file for a moment, out of the eight votes, three could not differentiate between A and B while another three preferred A. The remaining two preferred B. That looks pretty evenly spread to me.

So what were they. Well the original source for A and B was a Decca "London" label recording from the 1980's and was an analogue master. This is the sort of sound I love on recordings, all the nuances seem to be captured and the piano has a "bell" like quality to the top end. The comparison is a later all digital recording and while there is no doubting the musical credentials of (either) pianist, this later Philips recording lacks warmth.

The comments on A/B vs the comparison were informative with a few of you not really liking this other file. There was one comment of "C" sounding "primitive" and others of it lacking detail. One thought all three bandwidth limited.

Having made the files I of course gave them a listen and have to say that A or B comes across best via a good speaker/room combination. On headphones, I might actually prefer the comparison... such is the totally subjective (to me) nature of our hobby.

So what were the differences between A and B ? Well A was the original from CD, ripped as WAV lossless and cropped. File B was ripped as a 256kbs MP3 (so not the highest quality MP3). Both A and B were burned to CDRW and then ripped back as WAV lossless. That produces two seemingly identical file sizes with any clues (such as a smaller file size of one vs another) removed. Dan seemed to be on the money with these right from the start... and like me, Frank thought A a good musical presentation.

The comparison was a WAV lossless.

As always, thanks for taking the time to listen and put down your comments, its been really interesting

 

[PMA]

The comparison is a later all digital recording and while there is no doubting the musical credentials of (either) pianist, this later Philips recording lacks warmth.

The false "warmth" you like so much, Karl, is mostly noise and rumble. Both A and B are extremely noisy. Please visit the live concert and you will hear neither noise, nor rumble, only in case there is a poor ventilation unit

 

[Mooly]

The false "warmth" you like so much, Karl, is mostly noise and rumble. Both A and B are extremely noisy. Please visit the live concert and you will hear neither noise, nor rumble, only in case there is a poor ventilation unit

I'm reminded of a comment made many many years ago by a reviewer who asked "if there were tone controls in the concert hall, would you use them ?".

I just prefer that type of recorded sound over the clinically clean presentation of the other.

(I have three versions of Alfred Brendels' Beethoven cycles, the early VOX-turnabout/Vanguard recordings, the 1970's Philips cycle and the later 1990's Philips all digital recordings. The one I constantly return to is the 70's version, complete with its soft dynamics and analogue master tape hiss. It is the one that immerses me in the music the most of the three. And that is what I find with A/B here. The Brendel digital version is much like the one in this thread, the VOX too variable ranging from good to awful)

 

[fas42]

I have one of those Vanguard Brendel Beethoven efforts on CD, and while it is nominally not a pristine recording, in terms of a performance and event that gets you in every time it ticks all the boxes - when I had the Philips HT setup running nicely I played that nearly every day, at close to maximum volume ... very satisfying to listen to ...

 

[Mooly]

Yes, the VOX recordings are Brendel at his most risk taking.... and he pulls it off. The later interpretations are more Brendel the thinker and intellectual.

I must give the VOX set another spin, not played it for some time.