Michael Lehrman wrote:

>Poor sounding recordings often sound better when played on an inferior
>equipment.  I, usually, listen to the old recordings through the computer
>speakers.

So do I.  I don't think they objectively sound better, but you expect
less.  For the same reason I often prefer mono to stereo recordings:
the more advanced a recording gets, the more I find myself obsessing
about acoustic realism, shifting chairs and speakers to get that perfect
stereophonic effect.  I also think bad equipment is a great aid in getting
past a performer's technical idiosyncrasies to his actual interpretation.
I bought Karajan's (live) Mahler 9th recently and find it almost impossible
to get through on my stereo system - the goo of the Berlin strings,
particularly in the last movement, is stomach-churning.  However, through
my computer speaker, which thins the sound out, I've come to think that the
interpretation itself (as opposed to the performance style) - in particular
K's understanding of the role that each voice plays in the structure and
of the metamorphosess undergone by the various motives and themes in the
course of the work - is not at all self-indulgent or superficial, but
far-sighted, complex, thought-provoking and often very moving.

Felix Delbruck
[log in to unmask]