I mean you listen to a variety of recordings and some sound a lot better than others. Your system has limited impact on how good recordings can be. I am awestruck how some music sounds and clearly my system has nothing to do with it, it all occurred when the music was produced.
We talk about soundstage and imaging and I am not sure all the effort and money put toward a better system can really do that much for most of what we listen to because the quality is lesser than other recordings.
You can walk into a room and hear something that really sounds good and you say wow what an amazing System you have but no!!! It's the recording dummy not the system most of the time. Things don't sound so good it's probably the recording.
The dealers don't wanna talk about Recording quality no one seems to want to talk about it and why is this? Because there's no money to be made here that's why.
Let’s see, I would say 98% system and up to 2% recording. Depends on how you look at it, 99% makes sense to me… as a great system can make bad recordings sound better. About 85% of recordings are average, 10% great, and 5% real stinkers. In the fifty years I have been pursuing high end audio my system an the playback of, for instance the anlbums I bought in the ‘70s, have sounded better and better, by an order of magnitude.
If you hold your system at one level, then the difference in recording becomes the major factor.
Certainly there is wide variation in recording quality, but IME system quality has great impact on all recording qualities. A great/good system can't make poor quality recordings sound good, but it can make a much larger variety of recordings sound better than with lesser system.
I have over 2500 cd rips, these are recordings I've owned in some cases, well over thirty years. Point is I've heard these recordings over many years with different systems, some portion of these recordings I thought unlistenable with prior systems. With streaming system improvements I've made over recent years, many of these recordings I thought dead have been brought back to life. For instance, just the other night I listened to Deep Purple's, Shades, 1968-1998 4 cd box set from 1999 for first time in a long time. I long considered these recordings pretty unlistenable, small sound stage, extreme panning, pretty poor timbre, compressed dynamics. Well I chose 1st cd, so early 1968-69 stuff, what a revelation over prior listens, the added resolutions/transparency of present system vs. priors made this rather mediocre recording come alive in listening room. Sure the inherent limitations of recording remained, but I was now fully engaged where this couldn't happen prior. And this exact thing has been replicated many times over past few years, new life to formerly thought dead recordings.
Bottom line for me is as system improves so should estimations of recording quality. A good/great system should be able to engage you with a wider variety of recording quality than lesser systems.
The dealers don't wanna talk about Recording quality no one seems to want to talk about it and why is this?
Huh? There are plenty of discussions here about recording quality and providing high quality recordings is a whole industry. Some of us even make our own recordings, which are especially helpful for evaluations.
Could not agree more! I own both vinyl and cd's that make my system play like it cost a million bucks and others that can make it sound like a Best Buy closeout! Some equipment may be more forgiving to poorly recorded/produced material, but in the end it still sounds like *** to me.
Good equipment helps, especially speakers and room acoustics. Yet with a bad recording, even the best equipment can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Not only are many recordings bad, different recordings can be bad in different ways. Even "good" recordings can have wildly varying bass levels, for example.
If one wants to play only audiophile recordings, there is a fairly well defined target. If one wants to play a wide variety of recordings, sooner or later, an equalizer will be in the cards.
I think your point will or won't make sense depending on the type of music listener you have become. There are a lof of musicians who listen right through the equipment and even the recording quality and all they hear is the performance. Their brains and ears are wired together
Some audiophiles can hear a system regardless of the room. I cannot. I can't do either of these things. I need a quiet room with controlled reflections and smooth bass response or I find my brain has to work too hard to enjoy the music.
Mediocre, bad, or not so ideal recordings, for various of reasons, can sound confused, lacking in life and in some cases are barely listenable in lesser systems.
Still they will never sound ideal, but how many times have you heard the phrase from a friend or dealer saying that his or her system does not play well because of a bad recording, skip or be cautious.
Same material on a well balanced and better system is transformed to something with a meaning, easier to follow and the performance has more juice.
Compared to the majesty of what a great recording can offer, these ones are more than lacking but at the same time you realize that your music collection has grown considerably.
It’s both actually but the dead end is thinking a hifi can transform a particular recording into something it is not. A very easy trap to fall into especially since no two setups ever sound exactly the same.
A good system will not make a bad recording sound good. In fact, the better the system the more it will reveal the flaws in a bad recording and pinpoint what those flaws are.
It depends. There are systems built on the basis of more details are better… in that case correct. But there are systems based on musicality and natural presentation: for those recordings will sound much better.
Two or three decades ago I realized systems could be too revealing… with the loss of musicality. I remember correctly choosing between a Sim Moon 650D and 750D DAC / CD player… where the 650 balanced detail/musicality and the 750 scraped every last detail off of a disk or file… but would completely ruin a less than perfect recording.
The trick is to balance detail with musicality… like a knife edge… one step too far in either direction and you either end up with overly revealing non-musical music from all but great recordings or warm lacking in details presentation.
My personal view is that Audio Research has nailed the balance perfectly at their highest level Reference Series.
Without the music, what's the point of chasing sound reproduction perfection?
Once a certain level is obtained, going to the next level makes so little difference it is basically pointless.
There are some crucial things all loudspeakers require. Grounding speaker baskets and magnets makes an insane improvement. As does treating the front of the baffle so sounds are absorbed and not reflected towards the listener.
I suspect that many "audiophile" systems are far from it and what the owner likes, no matter the price, is the colorations of their systems. Some recordings sound better with some equalization, some with some AV processor tricks. Some sound best pure.
The quality of any recording starts with the musician(s) and requires that all components in the chain from the musician to the listener's ears are high quality.
I’ve found that extremely well-engineered recordings absolutely shone in ways they hadn’t before with lower-fidelity systems.
As silly and trivial as this hi-fi stuff may seem to some, there’s something to it indeed. The willingness to jump through the requisite hoops to optimize music playback is determined by the individual.
It's very subjective for me. Whatever makes an emotional connection. Sometimes it a pure tone, sometimes it a subtle detail that I've never noticed and sometimes it's a recalled memory from simpler times. Kind of like drinking good wine. Once you get used to something good, it's hard to go back.
I've been looking down the rabbit hole recently and I Imagine it's like gambling for some. Not every financial gamble pays off but when you get the occasional emotional reward, it's enough to keep you going back.
A dedicated 20A line and Furutech GTX-D outlet are scheduled for this week. Just one more fix and i'm done:).
I'm finding that DSP tends to filter out some of the openness Of recordings.
Looking forward to customized analog cables versus whatever it is that audio quest or even Cardas has created in their laboratories
it's simply a larger guage Quality cable and some hopefully good RCA connectors. I'll offer up details after I try them out. I think this is a potentially good way to open up a system.
@erik_squiresyou know, your comment succinctly explains alot of those bang-head-on-table discussions we've all had with colleagues that we seem to just not "get". It also explains much about all of the types of contributors here and their viewpoints. Not any wrong but something to keep in mind. We all actually don't hear things the same (way).
A great recording of lame music is unlistenable. Great music is great even if it's an older mono mix or something done to a standard that didn't exist yet. A great sounding system with interesting, well recorded music is ideal. Also, a great system will reveal mediocre recording quality and that's as it should be, not so much making crap sound good....hi fidelity is revealing.
Back in the day, I remember listening to a system in my local audio store. It was back when CDs were coming on the scene. Anyway, the salesman was playing Flim and the BBs, "Tricycle." I was blown away by this recording. I was so impressed that I bought a copy for myself to play on my low-fi SAE receiver through my mid-fi AR speakers. Played on my system, the CD didn't have the slam, dynamics, and sound stage that the system in the stereo shop produced but the CD was still an enjoyable listen time after time after time. Thirty years later, I use that same CD to test systems today. The point being, I learned gorgeously recorded music can make modest systems sound better than usual while making superior systems sound sublime.
A really good system should enhance the enjoyment of all recordings, whether good or bad. I recently pulled out my original 1977 copy of the Jam's debut album In The City, an album I haven't played for years and was pleasantly how much I enjoyed it despite the fact that it's far from the pinnacle of recording quality. Less good recordings may not stack up in terms of many aspects of the audiophile checklist like soundstaging, tonal balance etc. but that doesn't negate the capacity of a good system to reveal what is actually being played by the musicians - which is, to my mind, more important than the other factors.
Yes! I just said this in another thread. I have recordings that are breathtaking in both analog and digital, and recordings that are stinkers in both. If your system is tuned the way you like, it can sound like heaven or a transistor radio depending on the recording. My two cents again, but a good question @jumia!
It's best to work past listening to the recording. How many live venues have pinpoint imaging, tight bass? If I worry too much about recordings, it cuts the enjoyment of the music.
Interesting topic as I have discussed this over and over again with many audiophiles.
Gary from Genesis speakers did a demonstration a number of years back where he produced 5 different materials on LP of the same song. Each of the materials improved upon the other as far as sound quality.
As an audio manufacturer, we struggled with this for many years. We even built a preamp that where you could select from 5 different resistors to compensate from the different recoding qualities. I do not prefer metal film resistors but when everyone was asleep, the metal film were excellent at low level volumes in retrieving details in the recording.
How do we manufacturer a product that pleases everyone? Well you can't. The difference for us is that we can customize our products for every system. So that is where we settled.
As far as bad recordings, we believe that we have a good balance in our products so we an retrieve the detail but also produce the musicality some or most people prefer (but not all).
I often hear talk about bad recordings and good recordings, but what are the particular qualities that qualify a recording as bad or good for you?
The only recordings I qualify as truly bad are those with totally quashed dynamics, generally victims of loudness wars. These are mostly 'commercial' recordings, genres I generally stay away from, most from digital studio recording era. Far fewer of these from analog studio recording era. These recordings are the true turds, no audio system can make them sound better.
The other problematic areas can be timbre and/or equalization anomalies. Timbre issues very closely allied to excessive compression, IME, allowing more micro dynamic expression makes up for some of these deficiencies. Freq. anomalies I generally hear as boosted highs, less often, excessive or bloated bass.
Sound staging and imaging issues can be another area of concern.
With the exception of the totally quashed dynamics recordings, I've found vast majority of other challenged recordings to sound more engaging as my system has improved. Mostly its just sheer resolving and transparency that makes so many recordings more involving regardless of recording deficiencies. I've also found state of mind is important to maximizing listening pleasure with lesser recordings. One has to be ever mindful of individual recording qualities, quit judging the system with the mediocre quality recordings. I find interspersing known good quality recordings with the not so good brings things back into perspective, I'm then reminded my system is indeed capable of totally natural, highly resolving playback. Repeat this over the years and one falls into music loving mode far more easily. Listening in analytical mode all the time ensures dissatisfaction with far more recordings.
@jumia- I’ve found that it is very easy to hear a great or good recording on almost any system. However, it is very very difficult to identify a truly poor or bad recording, because every little step up the never-ending chain of system resolution reveals the sustain, decay, and nuance of each and every venue the recording occurred in - the subtle acoustics of each recorded context. Tracks I had once believed were poor recordings have been slowly revealed to be extremely well recorded, over the course of my audio journey - my equipment at each earlier point was simply not good, or sufficiently resolving enough for me to know better. Having come this far, I have simply learned that while good recordings are easily beyond debate, that I know never to assume a recording as poor, because the ‘bad’ ones seem to get fewer and fewer the further along I come.
I hope this makes sense to you. There’s a whole Everest to climb with this adventure we take on as audiophiles - I hope you don’t ever settle for anything less, because with each step up, you’ll hear things you never believed was possible : )
<<The dealers don't wanna talk about Recording quality no one seems to want to talk about it and why is this? Because there's no money to be made here that's why.>>
Yup, it’s because they sell equipment and not records? Just like lawn equipment dealers could care less if you have a nail file.
In my case, I'd estimate that it's roughly 99.999% about the music itself. The Gershwin piano rolls and Benedetti wire recordings of Charlie Parker (solos only!) will always be more significant and worth listening to than the finest recording of an elementary school band.
I listen a lot with my Susvara headphones and my tube headphone amp, and that really reveals the good and bad of the recording. But yes, even not-so-great recordings are very enjoyable through this, though it's noticeable that it could have been better....
There’s a lot of truth to the OP’s post. As my system got better I began to hear wider variations among recordings. This is true both with digital and vinyl. With vinyl the variation is greater. Too much vinyl gets issued in crappy shape whether it be from source, mixing, plating, pressing, you name it. When I relied upon CD’s the sound variation was noticeable but now with Qobuz it is more pronounced. I have no way to prove it but it seems Qobuz is affected by variations during the day and week in internet service. Music ripped from CD to my Aurender W20 never varies day to day but the identical album streamed on Qobuz does (or seems to). But all that said, can a great recording make a compromised or mediocre system sound greater than or as good as a so-so recording on a great system? Doubtful.
Someone mentioned Flim and BB’s "Tricycle". Now that is a blast from the past. If you Wiki the band you will see that "Tricycle" was one of the first all-digital recordings-the second by the band with the first being more of a digital demo-and that Flim and the BB’s were studio musicians with a side-project bar band. Their albums started with an effort to show off the dynamic range of CD’s. From that point forward for 30 years we audiophiles who ditched vinyl thought DDD was superior thanks largely to "Tricycle". Now for the 15-20 years we same enthusiasts that came back to vinyl are looking for AAA. Strange (some would mis-use the word "ironic"). My dad would have been in his mid-50’s when CD players became affordable. He mothballed his Thorens TD124, gave all of his records to Goodwill, and went with CD’s (only). At the same time he ditched his tubed Scott preamp and amp and bought a Marantz receiver. One of his first acquisitions- Flim and the BB’s "Tricycle". It all ended well. I got his TD124.
I will go a step further and say a quality system can make a previously great record crap by revealing how poorly a singers voice is and or poor musician ship.
I asked a dealer this question a long time ago when looking for an amplifier. I said, "You know,we spend all this money on our systems but what about source material?" He just looked at me and shrugged. What gets me is the vast difference in recording quality from various artists. As a Genesis fan I really like the Trespass LP but the recording quality is terrible. Another terrible recording is David Bowie’s Heroes LP. This can’t be blamed solely on the quality of recording equipment of the era either. Many of the Doors recordings sound really good. Shoot, go all the way back to Brubeck’s, Time Out released in 1959 and the quality is outstanding. So, I think while a good system can get the most out of a recording, it’s the recording itself that makes the difference in the level of enjoyment. I listen to and enjoy Trespass but in the back of mind I always wish it sounded better.
As a Genesis fan I really like the Trespass LP but the recording quality is terrible. Another terrible recording is David Bowie’s Heroes LP. This can’t be blamed solely on the quality of recording equipment of the era either. Many of the Doors recordings sound really good. Shoot, go all the way back to Brubeck’s, Time Out released in 1959 and the quality is outstanding. So, I think while a good system can get the most out of a recording, it’s the recording itself that makes the difference in the level of enjoyment. I listen to and enjoy Trespass but in the back of mind I always wish it sounded better.
Which is why at audio shows-despite the complaints by reviewers-the same old recordings get played. Nils' "Keith Don't Go" (mocked as "Keef, Don't Go"), SRV's "Tobacco Road, Dianna Krall, Patricia Barber, Dead Can Dance's "Into the Labyrinth", etc. Twenty years ago it was "Hotel California" along with stuff off of Aja and Brothers in Arms. And many others.
Some old favorite recordings that always sounded fine on my old system really do sound terrible on my much improved new system. I’ve mentioned it before, but when the deficits in the recordings of the original vinyl pressings of Layla and Let It Bleed were revealed on my new system they both were almost unlistenable, Layla being the worst of the two. Other recordings were a revelation on the new system.
So agreeing with jumia, there is a lot of the sound you’re hearing that’s embedded in the quality of the recording you’re listening to. That’s both for better or worse, once the nature of the recording is more accurately revealed. Nothing you can do about it, other than looking for better source material. Replacing the two recordings mentioned above with remastered SACD’s helped some.
Thinking all your recordings will sound better on an expensive improved system is wishful thinking. The bulk of your recordings should sound better though. Some of those old 1950’s jazz recordings in particular have been pleasant surprises.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
