Badly recorded albums needing upgrading


My new music system is in place, fairly well burnt in, and speaker placement and other tweaks are coming along. In the process I’ve been learning how much variation there is in the quality of both CD and vinyl recordings. This range in quality was not apparent on my old equipment.

For example, as I go through my old records, I’ve noticed a couple of favorites that are terribly recorded. A well known sub-par recording, Eric Clapton’s (Derek and the Dominoes) "Layla and Other Love Songs" is virtually not listenable. The Stones "Let It Bleed" I’ve had to replace with a Japaneses SACD as Jagger’s vocals sounded like he recorded them with a garbage can over his head. That SACD does sound considerably better, although the vocals on "Gimme Shelter still sound muffled. After some research on site and elsewhere, I just ordered another Japanese SACD of Layla out of the myriad available, which the reviewers said made Layla at least listenable.

Here’ the obvious problem. Both replacements were expensive as CD’a and records go, and I only want to spend that kind or resources on absolute favorite records. I am filling in the rock and roll and R&B portion of my record and CD collection of artists ranging from the Beatles up through the Sex Pistols. Are there any other well known albums like "Let It Bleed" or "Layla" I should avoid, or might already have, that will need to be purchased or bought again in upgraded formats. I’m not asking about obscure groups, but instead more well known artists like the Dead, Hendrix, Aretha Franklin, anything Motown, Janis Joplin, Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Bowie, Roxy Music, The Clash, Talking Heads, etc.

I’ve also been purchasing a lot of vintage jazz, from Ellington through the Weather Report and would like to avoid bad recordings there too. In the jazz realm I’ve been acquiring economical Redbook CD sets like Bill Evans’ 12 Classic Albums, and most recently Wayne Shorter’s entire Blue Note recordings made with RVG (Rudy Van Gelder ) remasters. What I’ve learned so far I to do when purchasing these sets it to avoid those that are made of re-recorded MP3 files. Those sets don’t advertise they are MP3 file based, so I dig around reviews by purchasers who after after getting bilked, expose these recordings labels on Amazon,com Music . If you’ve any of these classic jazz sets or albums or reissue labels I should be avoiding, please let me know.

For example, I’m currently looking to purchase economical multiple album sets of Billie Holiday’s Commodore, Verve, and Decca recordings and would like to know which sets to avoid or conversely which sets are well done.. I like among others Miles Davis, Coltrane, Lester Young, Mingus, Charlie Parker, John McLaughlin, Art Blakely, Chet Baker, Ella Fitgerald, Gerry Mulligan and the like. Again, not obscure recordings or artists. I’d really like to not get burned on substandard recordings too. Si Iif you could forewarn of any particular recordings, or any reissue labels to avoid, please do. Next year I might start to get more Classical Music recordings, but that’s another ball of wax for another day

Maybe this question is too broad or poorly defined but I’d appreciate any help you could provide to avoid disappointment or throw any more cash in the garbage. Thanks, and I’d be pleased to answer any questions to clarify this rambling post.

Mike
skyscraper

Showing 1 response by itsjustme

Wow.
Ozzy wrote:
The OP is one of those audiophiles that listen to the sound of their system rather than the music.
Sure, we wish all recordings were top notch and also would like there to be no stinkers in our collections.
The first seems rather needlessly judgemental, and the 2nd pretty much sums up why.  I mean, this place exists because we do strive for better sounding music, right?  And -- like HD lenses revealing flaws, this is simply an unfortunate fact -- a highly resolving system is more likely to accentuate some of the problems. In fact compressed eq'd music is often reverse engineered to sound good on crummy systems. Others are just over produced, alas.
The other unfortunate fact is that the most popular music is often the worst recorded - shrill, compressed, 32 tracks mixed down in pro-tools, etc.
The two largest contributors to sound are also largely out of our control - 1-the recording/mixing and 2-our rooms.  Yes, the latter can be addressed but its often either impractical or financially unrealistic. or maybe unacceptable to other members of the household.  So the room soften remains a "gravity issue".
I think the OP raises great questions and issues:
  1. let's listen to good music, not just good sounding music. Too often its not the case.
  2. If better alternatives exist, let's learn about them.  In the digital domain pressings matter little, so its really about re-masterings. And good for us, lots of artists realize this and have gone back, many times with excellent results.
Do some "hgih end" do more than reveal what's on the record, and in fact make them worse?  No doubt: anything with a rising top end will contribute to shrill sound, and there are MANY such cartridges.  Why? because on some recordings they "enhance" (ahem) the sound.  Its fascinating to hear about how un-flat pro microphones are -- with artists selecting a mic for "presence" or "sizzle" or "snap".  Which, if the arist already has hearing loss, is one of the many sources of bad recordings to begin with :-) or is it :-(  ?
G