Mullova wrote:
Listening this morning to a good deal of Webern's output via a website dedicated to the composer's life and work, a thought occurred. Why is it that we're prepared to listen to historical recordings through the layers of hiss and dust that mar many great performances, yet many are not happy to tolerate the arguably-similarly-poor-but-overall-better audio quality of low-bitrate digital files?
I ask the question because to me, the situations seem comparable. If I can enjoy a performance despite its poor transfer from 78s, then surely I can enjoy a recent digital recording even though it's been compressed down to 96kbps - the bitrate I was listening at earlier today. Admittedly, neither situation is ideal. But I do get rather annoyed by the nonsense talked by so-called 'audiophiles' who'll happily strain their ears for hours on end through an aged recording of Wagner's Ring cycle, yet complain like crazy at having to hear Webern's 54-second third movement from 'Little Pieces For Cello & Piano' at anything else than studio master quality.
Your opinion?
I ask the question because to me, the situations seem comparable. If I can enjoy a performance despite its poor transfer from 78s, then surely I can enjoy a recent digital recording even though it's been compressed down to 96kbps - the bitrate I was listening at earlier today. Admittedly, neither situation is ideal. But I do get rather annoyed by the nonsense talked by so-called 'audiophiles' who'll happily strain their ears for hours on end through an aged recording of Wagner's Ring cycle, yet complain like crazy at having to hear Webern's 54-second third movement from 'Little Pieces For Cello & Piano' at anything else than studio master quality.
Your opinion?
Well the low bit-rate files here are low for more than one good reason! But for listening on my audio player I can scarcely tell the difference between WMA64 and much higher resolutions, simply because my in-ear headphones will not reveal any extra resolution. Hence all of the files on my player are at WMA64, as it allows for a lot more files per gigabyte.
Concerning the old recordings, I would still say a pure digital WMA64 track would be easier on the ear compared to all the clicking and hiss of an old '78' transfer at high res. But it depends on the performance itself too. If the performance is something special I could suffer the poor audio, as long as it is not horrifically poor.
I too get a bit annoyed with the hard core audiophiles, especially when they rant on about this and that technical issue they resolve at huge expense only to play music I think is third rate in any case!
