Haydn: Favourite Symphonies Nos. 88, 92, 95, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104 (CD review)

Separately, Schumann: Symphonies Nos. 1-4. Klemperer, Philharmonia and New Philharmonia Orchestras. EMI/Warner Classics 5099921530 (Haydn); EMI CMS7- 63613-2 (Schumann).

Originality, singularity, and individuality are elements key to prominence in any field. No one aspiring to greatness can do so through imitation alone. Otto Klemperer was a great conductor because he dared to be different. Unlike many of today's homogeneous conductors, Klemperer was unafraid to impose his personality on his interpretations. Not that all of his performances attained greatness, of course, as the following examples testify, but those that were on target will remain with us for as long as people enjoy music.

Yes, Klemperer's tempos were slow. The man's constant insistence on structural integrity and strong symphonic design often left his music sounding merely slower than that of his rivals. But listen again. Listen to the Schumann First "Spring" Symphony, for instance--the highlight of his Schumann set. The music sings. There is not a trace of the ponderous heaviness of which Klemperer is sometimes accused. There is, instead, a light-footed sureness that creates a totally delightful Spring. It is the best, most thoroughly convincing rendering of this score available. His version of the Fourth is almost equally fetching, but in a different way. It combines a deftness of touch with a powerful, yet well-balanced, rhythmical proposition that produces a performance of towering proportions. Where the First possesses an appropriate spirit of benign vitality, the Fourth has an apt sense of grandiloquence.

Unfortunately, Klemperer's Second and Third Schumann symphonies don't fare as well. No. 3 begins sluggishly and never attains the grandeur for which the conductor was evidently striving. It's a good, if flawed, effort, which is more than can be said about No. 2, which I find simply boring. Nevertheless, with two symphonies that are treasures (Nos. 1 and 4) and one so-so (No. 3), the set is a bargain at mid price. And one can have a little fun with the sound as well. The two earliest symphonies Schumann wrote, Nos. 1 and 4, were also the earliest of this set recorded, in 1966 and 1961 respectively, and the sound is typical of the time: close-up, with a good deal of highlighting of individual instruments and compartmentalizing of orchestral sections. The sonics are stunningly vivid and dynamic in a hi-fi sense, if not too genuine from a concert hall perspective. Nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand, are more realistically recorded. They were made in 1970 and incorporate EMI's later views on natural sound. Miked at a moderate distance, they are not as lucid as the earlier efforts, but the orchestral image is more of a whole, the sounds of the hall and individual instruments blending to produce greater unity and cohesion. Both recording techniques are valid, to be sure, and both methods have their adherents. It's a bonus to hear them in the same set where the differences are so clearly revealed.

Otto Klemperer

This brings us to the Haydn symphonies, recorded in the early to mid Sixties. Here I suspect one's appreciation for Klemperer's performances must depend on one's regard for his recordings of Mozart; they are of the same mold. This is big-scale Haydn, generally slow and steady, emphasizing as always the music's architecture rather than displaying the overt jauntiness of, say, a Beecham or the energetic ardor of a period- instruments group. In most cases, Klemperer's Haydn is like listening to the composer with new ears.

Outstanding among the eight symphonies presented in the set are Nos. 88, 101, 102, and 104, with No. 101 "Clock" a good example of the best of the Klemperer style. It is an enchantingly beautiful performance, the argument strong and the rhythms feather light. This Clock is no modern digital affair, moving without heart or soul, nor is it an old grandfather snoozing laboriously in a corner (although for some listeners, it may come close). This Clock is graceful and ornate, all filigree and glass, inviting us to relax and take our time. (Compare the tempo of the second movement, for instance, to a clock your own with a second hand; the beats tick off almost exactly with the movement of the seconds. Still, too slow for you? Well, as Klemperer might say, "You will get used to it.")

Likewise do the three other Haydn symphonies I enjoyed combine refinement and reason in perfect eighteenth-century order. Regarding the symphonies I enjoyed less well, they are perhaps too much of a good thing, the conductor trying too hard to make every piece sound like a precursor to Beethoven. But when Klemperer is off, it isn't for lack of trying.

These performances are for people seeking something out of the ordinary. The interpretations are uniquely personal and, as such, variable; but when the music is good, it's worth a hundred of anything else.

JJP

To listen to a brief excerpt from this album, click below:

Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto No. 2 (CD review)

Also, Symphonic Dances (arr. for two pianos). Dong Hyek Lim, piano; Martha Argerich, piano; Alexander Vedernikov, BBC Symphony Orchestra. Warner Classics 0190295455514.

Was there ever a more grand and glorious Romantic composition than Rachmaninov's Second Piano Concerto? Well, that's a pretty subjective question, made all the more remarkable by the fact that the composer premiered it in 1901, at the very end of the Romantic era and on the cusp of the Modern age in music. On the present recording pianist Dong Hyek Lim, conductor Alexander Vedernikov, and the BBC Symphony Orchestra undertake the work in a performance both grand and Romantic. How well it stacks up against so many other great recordings is another matter.

South Korean pianist Dong Hyek Lim (b. 1984) studied at the Hochschule für Musik und Theater in Hanover, received the Samsung Culture Scholarship and Ezoe Scholarships, and currently studies with Emanuel Ax at the Juilliard School. Like so many young, up-and-coming pianists, Lim has received many awards, won numerous competitions, performed with major orchestras all over the world, and recorded about a dozen record albums. So he has the credentials to take on Rachmaninov.

Russian composer Sergei Rachmaninov (1873-1943) premiered his Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor, Op. 18 after having undergone hypnotherapy for severe depression. Apparently, the perceived failure of his First Symphony so disturbed him that he feared he would never write another piece of music, so he decided he'd try anything. The hypnotherapy seemed to work as the Concerto No. 2 became an immediate success.

Dong Hyek Lim

Lim and his associates handle the opening movement in a suitably big, powerful style, emphasizing not only the grander emotional rhapsodies but the gentler, more lyrical ones as well. In the peaceful second movement, Lim and company establish an appropriately dreamlike atmosphere, the pianist nicely capturing the music's feeling of calm and repose and doing justice to the beauty of the movement's central theme, if perhaps a little too gentle at times. Then comes that memorable finale, where Rachmaninov revives the familiar themes he introduced in the previous two movements. Here, Lim's balance of expressive showmanship and delicate sensitivity works pretty well, and he and his fellow musicians provide an entertainingly expressive conclusion to the work.

So, in the end how does Lim's performance stack up against great recordings of the past, ones from Cliburn, Ashkenazy, Janis, Horowitz, Richter, Wild, even Rachmaninov himself? Here, things become a bit stickier here. I certainly enjoyed Lim's relaxed, easygoing, fairly engaging treatment of the score; yet I didn't think he displayed quite the Romantic sweep or intimate transparency of the leading recorded contenders in the work. Still, if you're a Lim fan or just want the luxury of a plush new digital recording, the disc should satisfy your wants.

As a coupling, the album features Rachmaninov's Symphonic Dances, the composer's final major work before his death, in Rachmaninov's own arrangement for two pianos. Here, Lim partners with one of the giants of the piano world, the Argentine virtuoso Martha Argerich. If you're familiar only with the orchestral version, this adaptation for piano may seem a bit underwhelming. However, in the hands of two such capable artists as Lim and Argerich, the power is still there, along with an added degree of sweetness and light. If you don't already have a favorite recording of the piano transcription, you might consider this album for that reason alone.

Producer John Fraser and engineer Phil Hobbs recorded the concerto at Maida Vale Studios, London in November 2018, and producer Fraser and engineer Arne Akselberg recorded the dances at Teldex Studio Berlin in December 2018. There's a wonderfully mellow ambient bloom to the piano in the concerto, as well as a huge dynamic range. The overall sound of the concerto is quite smooth, too, and only a tad soft. In any case. the big, warm, cushy sonics nicely complement the Romantic nature of the music. The two pianos in the Symphonic Dances share a similar recorded sound: big, fairly close, yet smooth and warm.

JJP

To listen to a brief excerpt from this album, click below:

On Power Amplifier Listening Trials…

A common opinion among qualified audio experts (restated here by me) is that…

All modern audio power amplifiers that present high input impedance (≥ 20 kΩ), very low output impedance (≤ 0.2 Ω), flat power response (20 Hz–20 kHz ± 0.5 dB at rated output), ultra-low distortion (≤ 0.1% THD at rated output), and a virtually inaudible noise floor will sound exactly the same when operated at matched (± 0.25 dB) levels, not clipped, and properly connected to the same load.

Do appreciate that amplifiers meeting the above specifications all sound the same because they share a single common attribute: They are highly accurate. A power amplifier that is accurate is one that faithfully replicates the original input source signal without making any change, loss, or addition. Given this measured assurance of accuracy, why do so many hi-end audiophiles conduct listening trials to detect the audible difference between power amplifiers? Well, here’s my opinion on…

Why listening trials persist, and grief to avoid when conducting a listening trial…

1—Irrelevance: To an overwhelming extent, today’s audiophiles are non-technical subjectivists*. They have no interest (and little understanding) of the measurements that define audio performance, and they don’t expressly seek accuracy. The audiophiles’ primary goal is to identify equipment that renders euphonic sound; i.e., sound that’s subjectively pleasing, and vacuum tube power amps provide more range of choice. This accrues because…

(a) THD at rated output runs > an order of magnitude higher for a tube-type power amp than on a solid-state equivalent, and that difference might be audible.

(b) And because transformer-coupled tube amps can’t approach the optimal low impedance drive of solid-state power amps, where Zout is typically ≤ 0.1Ω. The tube amp’s higher Zout will directly interact with the shifting Zin presented by the loudspeaker/crossover load because both values will then be of similar order. This will color the sound; the speaker’s sonic signature will differ slightly from its natural voice. The result could be deemed either pleasing or displeasing—a subjective option. Of course, the change will reflect degraded source accuracy, but accurate sound was never the audiophile objective.

2—Expectation: Do appreciate that it’s instinctive to assume that different amplifiers will sound different. Indeed, for a great many decades (from the 1949 origin of “hi-fi” until the early 1980s) most power amplifiers did sound different, and their sound was materially affected by load impedance. Of course, few of those power amplifiers met the stringent specifications cited in the opening paragraph, so they were not highly accurate amplifiers, although some might approach that goal when paired with a favorable load. When sampling amplifiers today, some listeners still expect to hear such differences, and some are certain to fulfill their expectation, regardless of the sound. Aural perception is a fickle and fleeting sensation, prone to uncertainty and subject to human frailty; be wary.

3—DC Offset Orphans: Since power amplifier comparisons imply the probability of high output operation, it’s helpful to know (for sure!) that your samples exhibit only nominal DC offset. So measure the amps’ initial DC offsets before running a listening trial. Don’t evaluate some random lemon with anomalous excessive offset. Be certain that your intended samples truly represent the breed. (Note: This need for offset screening applies only to direct-coupled power amps; not to transformer-coupled amps.)

4—Marginal Mavericks: If a comparison trial involves a power amplifier that is just marginally accurate, that margin might prove audible. This generally involves an amplifier with slightly out-of-spec power response, and the character of the aberration might be perceived by a sensitive listener. Lots of audiophiles express personal preference for a particular sort of biased sound (warm/detailed/liquid/analytic, et al.) that marginally differs from source reality. (In many cases they might do well to reassess their speakers’ crossover settings, rather than change their power amp.) Of course, a “maverick” is an outcast, it’s generally not representative of the breed, so another sample of the same model might not sound the same. Instrumented measurement is a useful way to isolate marginal mavericks, and testing power response (frequency response at high power output) is easily done, with basic test equipment.

5—Output Level Accuracy: All listening comparisons must be accomplished at precisely identical output levels. This is best assured by actually measuring the respective outputs at some appropriate (400-800 Hz) fixed test frequency, using a microphone or sound level meter, mounted on a stand, and fixed precisely at the intended listening position. Simply keeping the main volume dial at the same position will not assure identical output because different amplifiers exhibit different voltage gains. Most modern power amps have internal voltage gains that fall between +23 dB and +29 dB, and some amps have rear panel trim pots to independently adjust the left/right input balance. So, (a) review the technical aspects and check the gain spec; (b) inspect and adjust sample amplifiers as needed; then (c) listen as desired, but be aware that you’ll learn very little if the amplifiers are accurate (see opening).

6—Termination Variables: In the course of disconnecting and reconnecting the speaker load to the various amplifiers in a listening trial (and repeating that cycle numerous times—often as quickly as possible), it’s quite likely that there might be some variation in the uniformity of the termination. Indeed, sometimes even different connector types are used (see photo**), with different results. It’s really quite easy, in the course of this repetitive attach/detach process, to introduce some contact inequality, and that variable could cause aural disparity when conducting high power comparisons. To assure optimum signal transfer it’s vital to carefully inspect, clean, reseat, and tighten all terminations, and assure that all parts are in optimum visual alignment every time that they’re mated.

7—Room Acoustics & Comb Filtering: Aural comparison trials require that all acoustic environs be uniform. This includes a precisely fixed position within the listening space. It also means that the occupancy and every furnishing detail must be exactly the same. Even a minor change can materially affect the acoustic reflections and standing wave patterns, and these disruptions, however slight, can alter the sound. Despite every effort to comply, the small listening areas typical in most private homes can still yield appreciable (6 dB) variation over distances as small as four inches and frequencies as low as 200 Hz. This is the unfortunate consequence of comb filtering. (Refer p.101-104 of “The Audio Expert”, by Ethan Winer [Routledge, 2nd edition, 2018], ISBN 978-0-415-78884-7.)

8—Sight Before Sound: In a previous paper (refer “On Evaluating Audio Equipment…”), I cited a significant study (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/36/14580), conducted in 2013, describing the finding that visual cues convey far more impact than any audible evidence. In sum, your eyes will implant a more vivid and persistent impression than anything that you hear, and what you see will determine what you think you hear. As a consequence, any serious listening trial should be administered under blind test conditions. If you know which amplifier is playing, you will be unable to render valid aural judgement. The statistics in support of this finding are persuasive, and the evidence is undeniable. Listening trial choices that were formed prior to observing this guidance should be ignored.

9—Confirmation Bias: When you’re comparing your old power amplifier against some new and costly wonder that you’ve got on temporary loan, it’s very difficult to admit that there might be no audible difference. And in the event that you’ve already purchased that prized new model, I’d say that it’s not possible to declare that both amps sound the same. We’re not robots.

BG (November 16, 2019)

*Among audiophile organizations, the sole exception appears to be the Boston Audio Society, where most members comprehend and respect the value of technical analysis in defining product performance.

**The discrete banana plugs that are shown in the photo are a bit unusual. They have an internal free-floating slug that achieves uniform compression against the (side entry) wire without transferring any twisting strain; see…

https://www.parts-express.com/parts-express-banana-plug-pair-compression-type--091-330

A  TIP:  If your amplifier’s rear clearance (to wall) is especially tight, you can shorten these banana plugs (by 5mm) by discarding the knurled end posts and substituting flat point metric set screws (use M8–1.0 x 8mm) to retain the wires.