Mike Leghorn writes:

>I know that I have a lot of CD's that I think are inferior, at least
>in terms of sound.  I've actually found reviews of some of those CD's
>and they've always been positive.  This has made me very suspicious of
>critics' (in general) ability to distinguish between good recordings
>and bad recordings.

Folks can argue for days on end about the quality of a recorded
performance, and I think that sound quality is even more variable
concerning individual preference.  Do you like your sound to be rich, dry,
wet, crisp, forward, backward, stark, swimming, hazy, constricted, diffuse,
sharp, etc., and so on.  I often find that on a Monday I set the audio
controls at specific levels for a particular disc, then on Tuesday I wonder
how I could have preferred the Monday settings.  Evidently, my ears are
reacting differently on different days.

My point is that sound quality is a subject so loaded with subjectivity
that the reviewer's pronouncements about it could easily not be agreed to
by the majority of readers.  This is especially applicable to historical
recordings which are bound to have one or more sound-related problems.  I
usually do say something about sound quality in my reviews, but I try to
keep it to a minimum.  My main consideration is whether the sound damages
my enjoyment of the performances; if it doesn't, there really isn't a heck
of a lot to say about it.  Also, I find that the more I interact with
historical recordings, the more easily I can tolerate and not even mind
less than sterling sound.

As an example, the Gustav Leonhardt/Bach discs on Vanguard are routinely
cited for horribly tinny sound with harpsichords to match.  Personally,
I don't mind the sound at all, and I find that neither the sound nor the
harpsichords negatively impact my listening experience.  Of course,
Leonhardt has much to do with my responses to the sound.  For a recording,
you can't really separate sound from performance; they come in one package.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]