DGG recordings often sound harsh

[Jack B]

Over the years I have often found DGG recordings (Herbie and the Berlin) to sound harsh. One example is Holst's The Planets on cd, released in 1981. I know that Karajan was obsessive with both the playing and the recording quality of music they recorded; still to me this disc sounds somehow "flat", one-dimensional, close-mic'd.

Confessions: (1) I do not want to sit in, or right in front of, the orchestra; rather, I sit more than halfway back in the symphony hall when attending a concert, wanting to hear the hall sound as well as the players. And (2) my small listening room is a bit too live, I need to add some limited absorption in the near future.

A possible explanation might be if the recording was mastered using speakers that had a recessed midrange and/or treble, it could result in an elevated level of those areas on the recording release. Still, most of my classical recordings sound fine to me. One Herbie/Berlin - DGG recording that sounds fine to me is the Atmos release of Beethoven symphonies. Sounds natural and the hall ambience is good.

So what do you think? Thanks

 

[DVDdoug]

So what do you think? Thanks

I think it's just a "bad production" or it's just not your style.

A possible explanation might be if the recording was mastered using speakers that had a recessed midrange and/or treble

Of course you can adjust the frequency balance with an equalizer.

Or since you seem to be "missing" reverb, do you have an AVR & surround setup? I don't listen to classical but I like to use one of the Dolby "soundfield" settings to get reverb in the rear channels. Or you can use Audacity (or other audio editor) to add reverb. Audacity doesn't work in real-time so you'd have to make a separate "improved" version of the file. And/or you can make a custom EQ'd version of the file... You can "re-master" it. But if it's over-compressed you can't usually fix dynamic compression).

IMO - The amount of reverb that sounds great live sounds unnatural coming from a pair of speakers in my living room. I think most classical recordings have less reverb than what you hear live. The surround helps (with the rock I'm listening to) but I'm still using less reverb than a concert hall.

 

[pma]

OP, I respectfully disagree. First, DGG recordings, as recordings of any other label, do not sound all the same and do differ. Personally, I find most of the DGG recordings of classical music very good. My latest one is this one and I like it very much. And, DGG recordings need a good and transparent system to sound good.

 

[NTK]

Quoting Dr Toole from this post ...

Which speakers are the Classical Music Pros using?

I looked at the time of posting, the CD is out of print and Qobuz did't have it to stream :( Sounds just like the music I enjoy. Need to look in some second hand market

www.audiosciencereview.com

In the day, and now, recordings of classical orchestras were often made with microphones placed in elevated positions above the violins. These instruments radiate strong high frequencies upwards, not towards the audience in a concert hall. They are heard by the audience, but after reflection and reverberation in a physically large space - they add "air" to the illusion. The microphones were relatively close and in a position to collect more high frequency energy than is likely to be heard in the audience, certainly in the ground level seats. It turns out that loudspeakers with slightly attenuated upper-mid/lower highs sounded better. So, instead of listening to neutral monitors and adding a little EQ attenuation in the offending frequency range, they decided to listen to the flattering monitor speakers and leave the excessive highs in the recording.

 

[pma]

OP speaks about 1981 CD. Those early digital recordings have had technical issues, in general. Not enough resolution for proper mastering, e.g. (Low bit depth). If they sounded harsh, it was rather such technical issue than microphone placement.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Mainly how it was recorded. From those days DG used a forest of microphones..

 

[Head_Unit]

Over the years I have often found DGG recordings (Herbie and the Berlin) to sound harsh.

I don't know about "harsh" but I was never an acolyte at the altar of these recordings, nor of Karajan himself. Nor Leonard Bernstein for that matter. Neither was a coworker who had worked as a symphony musician.* I preferred stuff on BIS or Chandos or L'Oiseau-Lyre. Or Naxos, which are maybe not always pristine but always nice and a good value. I've never regretted a Naxos purchase/listen.

 

[Jack B]

Thanks all, for your thoughtful replies. I'll consider springing for a copy of the Beethoven/LSO.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I've found the earlier DGG recordings to have a lack of low bass, and this could easily cause the higher frequencies to sound harsher than usual. DGG recordings have never been something I reach for when demoing my system.

 

[Robin L]

Herbert von Karajan was famous/notorious for commandeering production decisions for his DGG records once he achieved superstar status among conductors around 1970. He wanted the same sorts of production techniques deployed by rock stars, lots of spot miking, lots of artificial balances, stuff like pan-potting an oboe solo in Symphony Fantastique from hard left to hard right, like something out of Led Zepplin. While there were other less-than exemplary recordings from DGG in the 1970s and 1980s, once HvK was gone they mostly cleaned up their act. There's plenty of early Digital from DGG/Archiv that sounds great, but Karajan was one of those "geniuses" who thought he knew more about engineering and audio production than DGG's very professional staff.

 

[beagleman]

Mainly how it was recorded. From those days DG used a forest of microphones..

I have issues (at times) with some random parts of some music, that just sound harsh.

But it is always just a small part here or there, not the total recording at all. It is like one 3 second part just sound too forward or harsh, but maybe 99% of the rest of the recording is great.

I think it is mostly due to certain notes on stringed instruments just sound bad at certain angles or mic positions.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I think it is mostly due to certain notes on stringed instruments just sound bad at certain angles or mic positions.

Strings can easily sound harsh if the microphones are too close, as many earlier recordings tended to do.

 

[Robin L]

Strings can easily sound harsh if the microphones are too close, as many earlier recordings tended to do.

Also, the higher the microphone stand [ORTF pair] gets, the more treble from strings. You get rosin and "bite" and a little proximity effect with closely mic-ed strings but if you get too high up, the sound gets thin and diffuse. I recorded a lot of "original instrument" strings in chamber settings, not difficult with an ORTF pair about 6' up and around 8' back.

 

[Robin L]

OP speaks about 1981 CD. Those early digital recordings have had technical issues, in general. Not enough resolution for proper mastering, e.g. (Low bit depth). If they sounded harsh, it was rather such technical issue than microphone placement.

The technical issues of those recordings are not due to "lack of resolution". Low bit depth does not produce a harsh sound. For the earliest digital recordings, the issue was of engineers/recordists not adjusting for the usual high frequency boost of commonly used microphones at that time. Analog recording self-erases high frequencies as the recording level goes up and digital recording doesn't. A digital recording has greater "reach" in frequencies high and low. In fact, microphone placement will have a bigger impact on sound than bit depth. If the microphone mix is too bright, the digital recording will reflect that. But those "classic" pre-Dolby recordings have audible artifacts different from digital recording AND reality on account of how treble reduces as level gets higher. The recorders were deliberately forced into the red to override the self-noise of the recorder/tape.

Low bit depth, in my experience doesn't make things sound "harsh", it makes them sound "soft". Denon made a number of 14-bit recordings in the 1970's, they sound a little out of focus and "soft", not at all harsh. Decca make 18-bit recordings in the late 1970s, so you can't accuse them of a lack of bit depth [some of those early Deccas sound great]. And the early BIS recordings showed off the virtues of 16 bit recording with properly mic-ed uncompressed recordings, not at all harsh sounding and not at all "soft" sounding either.

There's a lot of things that Steve Hoffman has posted that I disagree with, but I do agree with him that most recordings that sound bad, sound bad due to operator error. The issue is not the recording medium, but the competence and good judgement of recording engineers.

 

[Andretti60]

my small listening room is a bit too live, I need to add some limited absorption in the near future.

I would start with that, try carpets and windows drapes (with different thickness), they make a huge differences. It worked with me, in the small bedroom when I was living with my parents. When it was time to repaint the walls (made of bricks) I convinced my dad to use wallpaper made of thick material, a little ragged, it worked wonders.

 

[beagleman]

The technical issues of those recordings are not due to "lack of resolution". Low bit depth does not produce a harsh sound. For the earliest digital recordings, the issue was of engineers/recordists not adjusting for the usual high frequency boost of commonly used microphones at that time. Analog recording self-erases high frequencies as the recording level goes up and digital recording doesn't. A digital recording has greater "reach" in frequencies high and low. In fact, microphone placement will have a bigger impact on sound than bit depth. If the microphone mix is too bright, the digital recording will reflect that. But those "classic" pre-Dolby recordings have audible artifacts different from digital recording AND reality on account of how treble reduces as level gets higher. The recorders were deliberately forced into the red to override the self-noise of the recorder/tape.

Low bit depth, in my experience doesn't make things sound "harsh", it makes them sound "soft". Denon made a number of 14-bit recordings in the 1970's, they sound a little out of focus and "soft", not at all harsh. Decca make 18-bit recordings in the late 1970s, so you can't accuse them of a lack of bit depth [some of those early Deccas sound great]. And the early BIS recordings showed off the virtues of 16 bit recording with properly mic-ed uncompressed recordings, not at all harsh sounding and not at all "soft" sounding either.

There's a lot of things that Steve Hoffman has posted that I disagree with, but I do agree with him that most recordings that sound bad, sound bad due to operator error. The issue is not the recording medium, but the competence and good judgement of recording engineers.

Great comment! Totally agree.

I have heard utterly fantastic older analog recordings, and the same with early AND later digital.
I found the actual "recording", and mastering and mic placement and all that stuff make up the "Sound quality", NOT whether analog or digital.

 

[Robin L]

I've found the earlier DGG recordings to have a lack of low bass, and this could easily cause the higher frequencies to sound harsher than usual. DGG recordings have never been something I reach for when demoing my system.

While I wouldn't think of demo-ing Brahms or Beethoven, there's lots of classic DGG captures of great performances. They might be lighter in tonal balance than say, Decca's product of the same time, but the vantage produced is by no means implausible. And there's always tone controls/APO EQ if you feel the need to fix things. There's nothing else in my collection that can replace Furtwängler's/Berlin's Schubert Great C Major or Karajan's/Berlin's Brahms #2 D major symphonies, and I actively like the engineering of the Karajan recording even though one might judge it "bass light".

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

While I wouldn't think of demo-ing Brahms or Beethoven, there's lots of classic DGG captures of great performances. They might be lighter in tonal balance than say, Decca's product of the same time, but the vantage produced is by no means implausible. And there's always tone controls/APO EQ if you feel the need to fix things. There's nothing else in my collection that can replace Furtwängler's/Berlin's Schubert Great C Major or Karajan's/Berlin's Brahms #2 D major symphonies, and I actively like the engineering of the Karajan recording even though one might judge it "bass light".

I've tried using low frequency EQ but on some of these recordings but I think the problem is that they were just hi-passed in the lower end and there is nothing left there to boost. The later digital DGGs sound good generally. With my four 18" subwoofers, if I can't wrestle some lower bass from a recording by using LF boost, it just ain't there.

 

[Robin L]

I've tried using low frequency EQ but on some of these recordings but I think the problem is that they were just hi-passed in the lower end and there is nothing left there to boost. The later digital DGGs sound good generally. With my four 18" subwoofers, if I can't wrestle some lower bass from a recording by using LF boost, it just ain't there.

I just listened to Arthur Schnabel playing Beethoven's 30th piano sonata. After a few minutes, I ignored the surface noise. Have a high tolerance for subpar sound if the performance is good enough.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've tried using low frequency EQ but on some of these recordings but I think the problem is that they were just hi-passed in the lower end and there is nothing left there to boost. The later digital DGGs sound good generally. With my four 18" subwoofers, if I can't wrestle some lower bass from a recording by using LF boost, it just ain't there.

My experience too, there just ain't nothing there in the low end on some DGG's. You can do better on those with just a little low end bump and a slight slope down from 4 khz and above.