I listen a lot to my system… mostly streaming… so for me it is easy to just move on.
In the past I sure remember waiting with baited breath for a new audiophile pressing of (in this case), Who’s Next and being really realy disappointed. Provided it is a really rare thing I don’t feel it is a reflection of my system… 1 in several hundred. But if it is a small percent or more then I do go hunting… as my systems balance has gotten too far into the analytical side or has too much distortion.
|
I kinda agree with you. My reality is that no matter how great the performance may be its the audio quality that gets it played most often, but I will not listen to drek just because the AQ is high quality. When I listen to great performances with poor SQ it’s more for reference or as a reminder of what is possible. Fortunately for me its not much of an issue - I have a rather large and broad collection so I have much to choose from (I’m sure you do as well).
|
Newbee,
I agree. If it’s a historic recording or a great performance, I can suspend my expectations and enjoy.
Fortunately as with you, the great majority of tracks sound just fine.
|
Very rare when a recording is deemed absolutely unlistenable. The usual culprit for lesser recordings is micro dynamic compression, clearly heard as recording dependent, since music with great dynamics is reproduced as if real live flesh and blood performers in room. Quashed dynamics brings moret distance from performers, listening to recording rather than performance. Still, I find most of these recordings listenable if I don't ask and/or expect too much from them.
The strangest recordings are those with very different dynamic attributes from one track to another. Just last night listening to Syd Straw, 'War And Peace', harder rocking pieces very compressed, narrow and shallow center image, and then it's like different engineer/producer takes over other tracks, spacious, lifelike. I've heard this same phenomenon on other recordings, makes me wonder what artists/production thinking. Only thing I can imagine is certain tracks mixed precisely for mass market equipment, loudness wars mentality.
|
I think Carol King's Tapestry fits the OPs description.
|
I've said this before, but the goal of my music system(s) is to make sure it plays 95% of my music in a listenable manor. If you tune your system too tight, you end up with just a few songs that sound good and everything else is junk.
|
Hey Richard,
good to see you posting.
I agree, a lousy recording really spoils the listening experience.
But, I think some of that is due to the higher resolving nature of our systems.
Speaker tech, amp tech, preamp tech, etc. has never been as good as it is now.
Listening to the Rolling Stones shows me that they don't feel sound quality to be high on their list, compared to, say, Steely Dan whose Redbook tracks sound as good as high rez.
Bob
|
Fidelity is always wonderful and always preferred, but if the artist or producer thinks otherwise I try to roll with it.
|
I view a recording as a work of art not technology.
|
No offense intended @rvpiano, but I always wince when I see or hear musical recordings referred to as "media". Am I alone?
|
You'd have to go back a long time to find a bad recording. Perhaps you are referring to bad post production. It's more likely to be bad reproduction equipment that can't cope, resulting in a harsh sound.
Have you heard the troublesome recordings played back on high end equipment?
|
Spot on. I've listened to music and suddenly had a pang of concern with the equipment only to realize it was a crap recording.
|
a politically incorrect opinion to follow - to hell with what the artist or producer wanted. i've heard some atrocious excuses for "music" that had the worst, most obnoxious things done to the sound, such as brickwall limiting, insertion of extraneous faux-phonographic surface noise, excess tube emulation et al. what RCA did to the latest Elvis reissues is a case in point. and what is with these people who have "gone back to mono"? also just as bad, is poorly applied noise reduction/inept audio restoration of old recordings. i spend much of my retired-geezer spare time trying to ameliorate these issues using the near-miraculous digital tools on my audio workstation.
|
There is more music out there than one can listen to in 100 lifetimes. Since I started streaming rather playing physical media I can access wonderful music that is also, at the bare minimum, well recorded.
I found nothing more frustrating than shelling out $40 for a piece of vinyl only to get it home and find it a poor recording. Music that is relevant to me and not well recorded gets delegated to the car, where I don't listen as critically.
|
Another agreement; I have purchased new vinyl that was either physically flawed or reflective of a mediocre mix.
Other than QA flaws, some pressings are just better than others; hence the genesis of Betterecords.com. My first reaction was who’d pay the prices they ask for used vinyl? After trying a couple of their curated selection, I can concur they sell some really good pressings that out perform the best half-speed masters or special editions. I guess the advantage / disadvantage of higher end rigs is that you’ll know if you have a strong recording and know if you don’t.
|
I used too, but now that I have my system where I want it, not so much any more.
|
Socalm, I have bought some new remastered vinyl only to find out it sounds similar to a CD. Kinda takes the fun out of vinyl for vinyl's sake, doesn't it?
|
Oh no! Not poor sounding media! How will we ever survive? I'm sure no one has ever had poor sounding media before. Thanks, OP, for bringing this to our attention.
|
I've probably come across more CD's than LP's that I would consider poor recordings due to the mastering process. Some due to the era of the Loudness Wars and some basically flat sounding.
What does bother me is when I purchase a remaster or reissue to replace an original LP from the 60's or 70's that had seen better days and while the new copy may not have the noise from wear the original copy sounds much more dynamic than the remaster.
|
Wind up the old victrola. It’s always easy to tell a poor recording/playback. Most are times listening is very good to great experience.
Back in the day my cassettes bested eight track. That’s all it took. Now I’m scheming to put up an out building purpose built for listening. Point is that it’s not just the recordings but rather the whole kielbasa. Please pass the mustard.
|
Poor sounding records are plentiful. That's why I appreciate the options to semi control some of their inadequacies. More specifically tone down the bright ones and liven up the dull ones. On digital I do it with the DAC OS filters and NOS settings, on analogue it's done with the phono preamp ohms settings. And I do it all from the listening seat with remote controls. No equalizer since I don't want to change the original intent, just looking for subtle overall fine tuning to my ears.
|
Here’s a shocker. Get ready…..most records are just average. Some are better than average and some way better. Other below average. Goes for recordings in general as well. Lord help us!
|
If there is no bad, good means nothing
|
The poor production albums are a disappointment, but the good ones and the superior ones certainly make up for it. Fortunately, I have far more range from good to superior, than not. It's truly a shame that mass produced albums typically began with a quality recording but the mass production process often times fell to poor quality of pressings (and all of the steps involved). Greed took priority over quality. I plan on adding a second tonearm to my turntable (fortunately, it is capable) and will play those inferior ones on a lesser quality cartridge. The main purpose being not to add hours on a very expensive cartridge. The music still prevails for me to want to listen to it, even if the album SQ is less than stellar. But wow, those great ones sure are a pleasure. The more my system has improved the greater the enjoyment of excellent analog playback.
|
I think my two primary examples for truly bad recordings are Josh Groban (Self Titled) and Josh Groban Closer. A friend of mine messaged me within the last couple of weeks after an attempt to listen to one of these CDs and lamenting the fact that it wasn’t possible to enjoy the music.
|
What a pleasure it is though if you can ignore the inferior sonics and get to the performance!
Even with bad recordings, some of the quality of your system can shine through if you let it.
|
One example I can give is a 1964 recording of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring by Herbert Von Karajan. The recorded sound is not horrible, but primitive by today’s standards. It has none of the extreme dynamic range of modern recordings of this piece (some recordings from this period do, but not this one.) Yet, the impact is stunning by virtue of the extraordinary interpretation by Von Karajan. You get swept away by his vision and forget there are other versions that may sonically be much more impressive.
|
All systems are only as good as their weakest link which more often than not is the source material. One of streamings limitations, despite the claimed hi-rez format, is there is no way trace the source material or the remastering engineer. So 1 advantage of vinyl & CDs is that with a little work you can find out if the recording is sourced from the original master and who is responsible for the remastering. So if you have an originally sourced hard media that is remastered by Steve Hoffman, Bernie Grundman, the late Doug Sax, Bob Clearmountain, or Bob Ludwig. The end result should better than a random CD or LP
|
I’m new to streaming on Qobuz with my Innuos Zenith Mark II which I’m really enjoyed for it’s ease of use & vast library to choose from. A lot of it sounds good to very good, dynamic, quiet, clean & detailed. Fun!
That all said, when an album is well done, mastered by on e of those guys mentioned & a few others, & in good shape , it can sound excellent! I’ve recently compared the two mediums head to head with same cuts, played within a few seconds of each other. It’s surprisingly close & digital reproduction has come a long way. The bass & lower midrange weight from my analog set up is better, richer, fuller & more enjoyable to me. I’ve have a 20 year old Basis 2500 / Vector 4 arm, new Hana ML cartridge & Art Audio Vinyl one phono amp. Amazing that an over 100 year old technology ( in concept - not in execution of course) still sounds so good.
|
@jonwolfpell
It really is amazing how long the rein of vinyl has been.
At long last which media sounds better is a function of the equipment you own. Took a long long time.
|
Just the other day a Synergy 'Cords' album was delivered to me. Two things. The recording itself was pretty impressive, BUT the album has two warps! Got a replacement on the way.
FWIW, the very first time that I bought this album it was on cassette. Turns out the tape was stretched! In my case, the CD copy wins just for making it through alive.
|
|
I will no longer purchase vinyl that is digitally mastered, with an excellent digital system I don't see the point.
|
Quality of media is a far bigger and more important variable than system components although most audiophiles obsess over components and even passive lengths of wire. Make sure you don't buy the sow's ears.
|
