Can a great system make a mediocre recording sound good?
I spend a lot of time searching for well produced recordings as they (of course) sound so good on my system (Hegel 160 + Linn Majik 140 speakers). I can't tolerate poor sounding recordings - regardless of the quality of the performance itself. I was at a high end audio store yesterday and the sales person took the position that a really high-end system can make even mediocre recordings sound good. Agree?
In a word: heavily mixed music (rock/pop) badly recorded cannot be redeem in any way... In case of jazz and classical, the first lived acoustical perspective, even if badly recorded, can be improved and made acoustically interesting by improving this second acoustical perspective : your room/system translation ... |
Yes we are on the same page...But you dont said exactlky the same thing... But you add something very important which is one of the reason i did not listen rock music or pop... Unnatural studio mixing sound... Then my observation from my last post was lacking this very important observation of yours that has nothing to do with the relation between an audio system and the room : the unnatural mixing technique in popular music... i forgot that most people listen much rock/pop ... 😁😊 You reminded me, and you are right to do so, that rock/pop is not classical nor jazz acoustically speaking... I do not thought about that because i never listen rock/pop at all... 😁😊 My post is an example of a statement which cannot be completely right and can be misleading because we dont listen all and everyone the same music genre...Then i correct here my last post because it can be acoustically misleading... Then i will rewrite my post adding this : If some "bad" recording sound worst after you improve a piece of gear or the relation with the room, it is because gear or the relation with the room is not optimal at all... But my observation is valid to all "naturally" recorded music with not much mixing... In the case of pop/rock i dont think that my system room will improve a "bad" recording at all, in the contrary they will be worst, because it is the "bad" tricks of the mix which will become more disturbinglay audible in rock/pop music instead of the "natural" acoustical cues which are always improved by an optimized system/room relation in the case of a jazz or classical record album... In this case only, "bad" recording may sound more acoustically interesting instead of worse when we improved the relation between the system/room....There is way less mixing imbalance to disturb our listening in jazz and classical...Almost all instruments are acoustical instruments not electrical one save by exception... Then thanks for your post very important correction about mine... All musical genres are not acoustically equal indeed.... my best to you ...
|
I think I said the same thing as @mahgister ha! |
I’ be been puzzling over this for years. One thing to help is to remember everyone on the other side, engineers, mixers, etc have all the control over this ‘Art’ they create. However, they can compromise for their perceived audience. Like any Art, a movie may be perfect for the cinema, but viewed from home may lack engagement or miss subtleties. If you can build your system toward coherence, soundstaging and try to get the bass right, then most recordings sound great. Some reveal real surprises, much as the artists intended. If the system is too imbalanced it can misemphasizes all those subtleties as irritants which is indeed hard to listen to. Most of these are dimensional cues and reverberations of the instruments, most ‘good sounding’ recordings isolate everything to remove any unwanted reverberations then add it back artificially. Musicians in a real room and all those reverberations actually sound good, so almost all blues and jazz and classical sounds fine. Rock is the culprit. A car for example may be a good place to listen to that stuff because there’s so much competition you tend not to focus in those subtleties which make it more enjoyable. |
It is not so simple... Why?
Because there is the sound perception, And with it the musical evaluation...
When the recording is "bad", you lost many information which are confused and missing ...But in a very good audio system in a very well controlled room, you will, you easrs/brain will decipher more acoustical cues from the recording and with the help of the room acoustic control, the recording improved acoustic translation will reveal a bit "more" about the way the recording is flawed and what is missing or confused... Then the recording will not be perceived to be more merely only mediocre but in the opposite more "interesting" and more informational acoustically .... Then you will forget more easily the acoustic because your music evaluation will be more easy... A good system ONLY in an ordinary room perhaps will make mediocre recording more mediocre why? Because good audio systen in uncontrolled room are often too much "analysing" and the acoustical details kill the musical forest... But the same system in a controlled and well treated room relatively to it, will reveal more about soundstage, imaging, dynamic, timbre perception and even the ratio LEV/ASW will be better... Then your attention will focus more easily on the music ... The acoustic perception being improved, musical evaluation will become easier...
Then in conclusion: If an audio system made mediocre recording always worst, of two things one : your system is too analytic or badly flawed or of your system is good but the room is not well treated nor well mecanichally controlled and tuned for this specfic audio system....A good system in a bad room is easily harsh sounding, or too analytic, too resolving and not enough in phase with the room acoustic bass will not be ideal nor clear for example etc....
In a word, a good system in a well optimized room dont make "bad" recording good one, but make "bad" recording " interesting" one, more easy to decipher then it will be way more easier for your focus and attention to shift on the music forgetting what is distorted information only or missing in the sound...
|
A rising tide lifts all boats. A better system makes it sound better, but doesn't give the illusion of a well mastered recording. And if played right after a well mastered one, the difference can be striking until your ear adjusts. Agree that the system should be geared to get the best out of music, and not to serve as a demo for audiophile recordings. |
A lot of complexity in this question. In my mind there are 2 fundamental different ways to listening to music on a reproduction system: 1) you can listening to the musical idears ("Hey listen to that baseline. Listen how she waits a quarter note before she ends on the G") an 2) you a listening to The Illusion of the performance ("Now listening carefully how the the instrument behind the guitar moved back a little and suddenly separate! You hear it's a clarinet?") Both ways of listening will improve when you upgrade, but only the latter is critical. |
The best audio system is not revealing "per se" ... Revealing of what? Details? A good audio system reveal the WHOLE through the parts and the PARTS through the whole... Focusing on microdetails for their sake is the opposite of a good sound...It is fatiguing and not musical... Many costly system in bad room sound like microscope... I prefer my 500 bucks system in my audio room... ROOM Acoustic rule, not details or sounds plankton coming from gear ability to be a microscope for the ears... I listen musicians not details... |
One of the traps that we audiophiles fall victim of is that we often do not prioritize the musical merits (performance values) of a recorded performance as the focal point of the listening experience. Instead, we focus on the “sound” of that recording and then, if only subconsciously, compare and judge the quality of that sound relative to what is possible…the sound of the truly great sounding recordings. So, as one’s system evolves and becomes more truly transparent the sound of deficient recordings may be perceived as “worse” because the sound of truly great recordings has been revealed to be even better than previously thought. The bar has been raised, but this doesn’t mean that the sound of poor recordings is now “worse”. For me, taken on their own merits (and with some exceptions as pointed out by mikelavigne and others) “poor” recordings can often sound better on a truly great system; in great part because more of the musical details of a good performance will invariably be revealed. |
Not really, you may just experience a higher degree of "not greatness." I have found however, it can cut a little both ways. Several recordings that I thought sounded pretty good went kind of flat while others that had sounded dull took on a new life after I changed gear... As a wise person wrote above "upgrade at your own risk" Still, there are many happy surprises...
I just had my amplifier so upgraded that it is essentially new except for the case, and a new pair of speakers so I know what your going through. Yes, the "room" sound plays a big part but I think you know that already. I have had many GREAT improvements by doing simple tweaks, like Tip Toes and fuses etc. Try some of those if you haven't already. There are a ton of inexpensive and DIY solutions that can make a big difference. Don't throw out your amp just yet... And of course price doesn't equal performance. It's a lot of previewing and seeing if all the gear talks to each other well.
All the best on your search for musical enjoyment!! |
I notice the differences in recordings much more as my system improves.
Better systems tend to have wider bandwidth, but mediocre recordings don't, and here lies the problem. Playing back recordings which favour the midrange ie most pop, on a wide bandwidth system is unlikely to lead to satisfaction. Not when the sound is getting pulled apart and brutally exposed. Those recordings tend to sound better on systems which favour the midrange. I suspect this is also part of the reason why small speakers like the classic LS3/5 remain so popular. Virtually any recording will sound good on them. |
With an accurate system, you have to get to your head into "context" to enjoy them. Many recordings of particular era are limited by technology and share a family sound- say English recordings of the 70s and early 80s or US recordings of the 60s/70s or 80s. Motown records are a great example of a shared sound. There are some notable exceptions of the era, records that sound very raw. and unprocessed. Satana's first album comes to mind on a good system! |
A more correct statement by the salesman would have been: "a really high end system can make most mediocre recordings more enjoyable to listen to." While we can't expect a great system to file down all the "warts" in a bad recording, we can expect that if there are latent redeeming qualities in those recordings a better system will extract them and toss them out in the listening room for all to hear. (Yes, room acoustics matter, too). We are involved in performance modifications, and always perform before/after listening tests with our customers. We put together a reference CD that includes well recorded music -- AND, intentionally, a sampling of poor recordings. Improvements in sound quality produce a more organic, fluid sound with more authority, and less harshness, strain, and edginess. All these improvements are "friendly" to a bad recording, not acting as microscope revealing every flaw, in my opinion, provided there IS something more to the recording that we're not hearing on a lesser system. In our experience, the bad recordings sound much more musical, and less repellent after our performance upgrades. Another overlooked element is the physical media itself. My experience with the Audio Desk CD cutter along with Ultrabit treatments has been eye, and ear, opening. I understand the term "analog-sounding" is overused, but results on my favorite recordings were astounding. On the subject of bad recordings, my wife ordered a compilation on CD that was downright unlistenable (to me). I thought I'd have nothing to lose by trying the "full CD treatment" on one of the discs. Much to my surprise, the CD had greatly reduced, harshness, improved dynamic range, and more balance. I can actually sit in the room with her and listen to them now. Without prompt from me, she mentioned that the CDs sound much better than before. |
Systems that scrape every last detail off of whatever media you have tend to overemphasize higher frequency detail… which ends up being unnaturally harsh and details are highlighted. These systems either just make bad recordings sound bad but also distract from good recordings. This is one of the many balancing acts in building and upgrading your system. A bit more emphasis on musicality and a bit less on detail scraping and you have a system that makes nearly everything sound great. It took me decades to get there, but finally arrived. See my UserID for my system. |
petg30 - I agree - we are going wrong, if we dont listen to great performances. cd318 - thank you - i would emphasise my point a bit more. We had cheap but adjustable stands. In another system I use solid heavy stands for the small speakers, but these cannot be adjusted. The experiment with the A system showed that positioning, including height, toe-in, distance etc, means A LOT. And with a cheap height-adjustable stand, not so heavy, you can fine-tune the speaker position, before evt investing in a more expensive stand. Headphone part of discussion; sadly I never really became friends with my Stax electrostat phones. Or with subdued Sennheisers or too analytical AKGs etc. For now, I've settled on Audioquest Nightowl and Nighthawk phones. These are very comfortable and forgiving, but offer a lot of musical information too. |
I'd never want a system that could only sound great with the best recordings. To that end I've always voiced my systems to sound GOOD with mediocre recordings since this is where the vast majority of music resides. As I and others have mentioned, get the timbre, tonality right and mediocre recordings can be involving, great recording simply follow along and become even more involving.
Mostly, I want my system to be musical, certainly I seek maximum resolution but not at the price of musical, I do believe these are not mutually exclusive goals. |
Hello lcs01.You can tell by the many responses - Great Question! By "a great system" I think you mean a system that reveals ALL of what the recording engineers give us. This is a dangerous as seeing a new girl friend without her makeup and supportive clothng. I have some recordings made "in the field" under less than ideal circumstances. It's the only way I can hear this music, so I can ignore the "sound" and enjoy the rhythm, instruments, and voices. A good system tells the truth and the truth is not always pretty. A friend of mine brought over some of his favorite music and was horrified to hear how it sounded on my system! It's not his favorite music anymore. But he could have kept it and just listened to it at home - it's how we feel about what we hear that matters. Some people talk about "forgiving" speakers. Maybe "everything" is not what they want to hear. Some folks want to hear the sneeze in the back row of the audience X number of minutes and seconds of a particular recording; or a dropped mute by a clumsy trumpet player. I just want to hear the music. |
"At the same time, my experiment indicates that you don’t need costly speakers to improve the sound. Much can be done with the speakers available. My guess is that many here at Audiogon would re-discover their LP collections (or streaming), if they worked more with the speaker positioning and other acoustic control. If you position (and maybe damp) your speakers right, you will get a richer and wider timbre. This is an overlooked dimension I think. Forget about exact flat frequency, timing, PRAT etc, - instead, go for the timbre. Not sure about this - but maybe a way forward." ------
Yes, I’d also say positioning really matters. My Tannoys sounded heavy and muddy when placed on the floor. I was so disappointed that I began to doubt my sanity in buying a 1970s speaker. After a few days, mainly to avoid the prospect of selling them on, I tried placing them on some IKEA benches that served as stands and this helped the soundstage enormously. The last mod was to put some sorbothane under the feet and this was another jump forward in sound. Suddenly the bass began to play notes!
So I’d say it matters, in fact with some designs it’s more or less critical.
When it comes to good timbre though things are not so clear as I've heard some quite expensive speakers sound "bleached out" and at the other end I've heard good timbre coming from some TVs and iPads etc.
[The last speakers I heard that had good timbre were the Kudos Titans]. |
A great system makes good recordings, sound amazing. Listening to anything not meeting that standard, will be played once and put back in its case. never to be heard again. Once you hear what you think is perfect, how can you listen to anything less. So yes to good systems making good recordings sound great. And bad recordings sounding ok at best |
I recently tested A) a ca 3500 usd active small speaker system at a holiday house for some weeks, compared to B) my main system at home with amps and floorstanding speakers, costing a lot more. B sounds much better. But I knew this from before, so on this holiday I brought my "secret weapon", speaker stands, to the A system. The old rule about speaker positioning was dramatically confirmed, more than I had expected. I could micro-adjust the speakers and stands, on a concrete floor (ideal). The A system now turned from "lower mid-level at best" to "fairly good". Good recordings now sounded quite good, and mediocre recordings sounded a bit better - easier to get into, understand - than before. Afterwards, coming home, I listened to the B system. It does sound much better. Mediocre recordings sound better and many of the bad ones sound less bad. The B system excels in "in-room" energy, with more reverberant sound than the A system. Also it uses expensive tube amping rather than low cost solid state (so it is an unfair comparison, yet interesting). One major difference is that B has a richer timbre, so it is easier to hear what goes on, simultaneously, at different frequencies. I can listen more deeply into different voices and instruments. The B system is maybe a bit "warm" or "euphonic", but the amps are OTL, known to be quite analytical (within the tube camp). So B sounds almost as "sharp" as the pinpoint A system, only in a different way. I have not tested exactly, but roughly, I would guess that if 50 percent of my LPs sounds OK on the A system (precisely positioned on stands, only 30 percent without!), 70-80 percent sounds OK on the B system. So it seems that many poor or non-optimal recordings can be "saved" by better timbre. Better timbre makes it easier to listen for the good stuff, away from the faults (even if these are also often more pronounced in a good system). It makes music more coherent and cohesive. Thereby also, solid state and digital hard sound can be counteracted, if not fully corrected. At the same time, my experiment indicates that you don’t need costly speakers to improve the sound. Much can be done with the speakers available. My guess is that many here at Audiogon would re-discover their LP collections (or streaming), if they worked more with the speaker positioning and other acoustic control. If you position (and maybe damp) your speakers right, you will get a richer and wider timbre. This is an overlooked dimension I think. Forget about exact flat frequency, timing, PRAT etc, - instead, go for the timbre. Not sure about this - but maybe a way forward.
|
Very important observation thanks
verry well explained thanks...
You explained way better than me the fact that better the system is and better the speakers room is controlled alleged "bad" recordings become "interesting" yes and the numbers of alleged "bad " recordings decrease because our GEAR/room improve and manifest ALL acoustic recorded cues in the acoustic language of our room ... This confirm what i speak about already: There is no perfect reproduction in recording engineering, but A TRANSLATION of some acoustic original perspective and trade-off choices by the recording engineer INTO another acoustic context : the speakers/room/ears relation... Resolving power of gear is not synonymus of better sound either because all other acoustic cues matter also not only frequencies resolution .... Thanks for this marvellous post... |
@larsman - thanks for that, but it was my pleasure : ) - and the acoustic venue I was referring to was not the listening venue, but the original venue the recording took place in - and this will have effect played back on headphones or speakers - more so on speakers/sound/room system for the greatest impact on perceived sound field perhaps, but the same issues of greater realism still apply to headphones : )
in friendship - kevin |
I owned 8 headphones, and i modified with success all of them... But my speakers/room beat them anyway... Why? Because headphones ALSO own a "room"... The shell reflect absorb and diffuse sound like a room did... Headphones also vibrates like the gear vibrate , suffer from too high electrical noise level floor like the gear and they had problem of their own with soundstaging, bass and dynamic... The ratio between crosstalk and crossfeed cannot be solved in the same way than speakers...But in the two cases it is a problem to solve... It is the reason why after many years i give speakers another try...But this time i experimented with acoustic,vibration control and created my devices to lessen electrical noise... Then headphones are very good solution because it is simpler solution ... But not a perfect solution for all....
|
@kevn - Holy cow - thanks for that big writeup and explanation! I was just a bit confused about how something can still sound good when other factors would indicate that it shouldn't, and often doesn't. But I might add that I also do a lot of listening on headphones, where those environmental factors do not come into consideration, and you can certainly tell quite easily whether it's a ratty sounding source or not.... |
You are confused here... FIRST : Acoustic control of a room improve ANY system to the roof... Lower cost one and higher cost one...
SECOND : no room acoustic will transform an audio system of less good design in a better design...
THIRD : the distance between a relatively good basic audio system and a higher costly one is not what most people think ... WHY ? Because they had NEVER listen to a basic good system in a controlled room... To improve the system in their head the only way is to throw money on a top high-end design...Yes the top high end design will be better BUT NOT BY THE HUGE MARGIN PEOPLE HOPE FOR... FOUR: the goal is to improve the way any recording can give the best : it is acoustic the best way IF WE HAD ALREADY SETTLE OURSELF ON A CHOSEN AUDIO SYSTEM RELAQTIVELY TO OUR WALLET ... We dont discuss in the sky here theoretically and dont put simplistic argument like a 50,000 bucks amplifier will make a greater positive difference than my 2,000 bucks Sansui AU 7700 in the SAME ROOM ( paid 50 bicks yes i am lucky) For sure the more costly amplifier will do a better job in the same room ... The main point is we must invest few bucks in acoustic generally if you are not sure we CAN give 50,000 bucks for an upgrade...And even if we can pay for a costly gear and that is my point, the acoustic control PROBABLY will be a greater choice and improvement if the amplifier we already have is very good... Is it not simple?
|
@larsman - im not sure that I fully understand your question, but let me give it a shot - what I mean is that it is very easy to determine what a good recording is, because it will sound good, even on lesser sound/room systems. On the other hand, it is very difficult to determine if a recording is actually poor, because every level up the chain of resolving sound/room systems will bring ever smaller changes that will reveal ever more information regarding the subtle acoustics of the recording venue, ie, making the particular track sound more realistic, in bringing you to the place where the recording happened. For many of us, ‘good’ resides purely in the accuracy of instrument or voice reproduction as timbre and tone, timing, and what we like to refer to as the lowest amount of signal distortion. I have found that a better way of putting it has to include ‘….the accuracy of instrument and voice reproduction in the specific venue of the actual recording’ for the simple fact that almost every recording venue subtly (or unsubtly) changes the sound signatures of voice and instrumentation. A good example of unsubtle change can be found in Yukie Nagai’s last movement of Beethoven’s moonlight sonata, where better systems are able to parse the echo of the recording venue in transforming the somewhat ‘clouded’ sound that masks the venue on poor sound/room systems. A considerably more difficult recording to translate is Delia Fischer’s ‘choro de pai’, a small ensemble track that had the recording equipment placed such that the depth of field and separation of the instruments can only be heard on very very well power supplied and resolving sound/room systems. I am of the belief that the only truly bad recordings are the ones that have undergone so much post-production sound engineering so as to present parodies of the instruments, and of voices. A good example of this can be found in billy joel’s ‘New York state of mind’, but even so, it is still listenable with a better system. However, I have found that the bulk of what many refer to as ‘poor’ recordings are actually those among the likes of the Nagai and Fischer examples I gave - the Fischer example, especially, is one track I do not believe I have heard in all its nuance of recorded acoustic accuracy of venue, because of the greater depth of field, air, and separation I hear in it, with every greater sound/room system I have been lucky to hear it played back on.
My list of ‘poor’ recordings became eroded so much over time, I began to realise that in the world of unoverly sound engineered albums, there are actually very few recordings I should dismiss as bad, for the reason my sound/room system may not (yet) be good enough to playback the subtlest cues of reverberation, decay and atmospheric quality that we call realism. It is for this reason that I said a truly poor recording is very difficult to identify.
in friendship, kevin. |
I'm perfectly willing to turn the volume down if it'll make the music I want to hear more listenable. By the same token, if I don't particularly care for the music but I'm compelled to listen because it's been recorded so insanely well, I'll turn it up and pretend I just don't hear my wife's "Turn that down!" shrieks. |
