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.
My opinion, there are two aspects of "a recording". Probably more. The Technical and the Performance.
There is a YouTube video claiming "the best 'recording' of Chopin...." Horowitz's performance was impeccable. The recording was horrible. A Casio electric piano with its 3" speakers comes to mind.
A poorly performed piece will never pass. No matter how well recorded.
Yes, the Technical very important. But don't forget the Artist's performance. I may forgive a poor recorded piece for an exceptional Performance. Lol, but there is a limit to how much I will forgive.
Just today, Sonny Rollins - Saxophone Colossus. Analogue Productions and QRP pressing, reissue. Outstanding sonic quality, from a 1957 recording session. If only all of the 60s and 70s classic rock sounded this good. Some are great, but most are not. Fortunately, there is enough well recorded/mastered/plated/pressed music to really enjoy my high-fidelity system for what it has to offer. But still, I enjoy the music that is not so great in SQ, for the music that it is. My system allows it to sound relatively good. I just adjust the volume accordingly (i.e., a bit lower).
It's true that a really fine system will reveal all the flaws in a poor recording. It's good to concetrate on the music and not the "sound." We keep improving our systems so that when we do get a good recording, it ia a genuine treat!
I have been a professional sound engineer in one of the biggest studios in Switzerland for around 30 years, so feel free to ask any questions.
I am often surprised about the beliefs among hifi people and audiophiles about studios and studio engineers.
There are many recordings that are not as good as they can be. Only a small percentage are real masterworks. There are some recording engineers like the late Al Schmidt who really know what they are doing, and a lot of people who do the best they can, politely said. Also, most often the equipment used is mediocre at best. A microphone placed some inches apart from the best spot, wrong mic choice, bad recording room acoustics, bad choices in the mixing and / or mastering stage, all diminish the quality of the outcome, and can sum up to something I don’t want to listen to.
It is ironic that audiophiles often listen to music that was mixed and mastered on equipment that costs a small percentage of what the audiophiles paid for their system. Often, sound engineers say "Give me loudspeakers with bad resolution, because otherwise I will never finish my job".
"With my great system, it now sounds like it sounded in the studio" is a silly audiophile myth.
These are just some pretty random spotlights on "daily studio life".
And I would say that there are two kinds of "good" systems - one that makes all music sound considerably good, and one that mercilessly shows you any flaws in the recording. I prefer the latter, because they often also show you all the great things the mixing and the mastering engineers did, while the former often fakes its "good sound", and has actually rather low resolution.
Thanks for your perspective on recordings. Valuable to hear.
Personally, for years I pursued the latter “good” system… scrape details with lots of slam and over the years switched to the kind that makes all recording sound better… although there were a few early rock that sound like tin… and just cannot be salvaged. But those are rare.
@rumi, This is exactly why I draw a line regarding how much I'm willing to spend on my system. I think it is worth purchasing equipment that is one or two levels higher than the typical studio. No use forking out $50,000 for speakers to reproduce sound that was captured on a $100 mic, or $1,000 for cables to playback music that was recorded using basic patch cables. Your speaker cables aren't likely to be the weak link in the process.
@rumi, This is exactly why I draw a line regarding how much I'm willing to spend on my system. I think it is worth purchasing equipment that is one or two levels higher than the typical studio. No use forking out $50,000 for speakers to reproduce sound that was captured on a $100 mic, or $1,000 for cables to playback music that was recorded using basic patch cables. Your speaker cables aren't likely to be the weak link in the process.
If it makes you happy to take this approach, then that is all that counts but when you go to a live show the musicians are using cheap cables and most often moderately priced mics and monitors and most venues have mediocre sound systems and yet magic can happen desptte all of that. Likewise in the studio. I have some vwry good recordings from indy bands recorded in a home studio. In fact, the days of elaborate studios among the likes of Abby Road or Muscle Shoals is long gone. But despite the prevalence of home studios (some of which ARE relatively elaborate) some very fine recordings miraculously get made. And an awful lot of crappy ones.
In light of all the hi tech hi end solid-state creations with all their fancy circuitry it's surprising there has been no discussion comparing the merits of tubes and solid state or hybrid (whatever the heck that is, I mean where did draw the line in terms of how many tubes are used before you say hybrid). I say this because really good recordings can be really screwed up by very sophisticated highly revealing overpowered sound recreation boxes. A big clue to me is how fatiguing it is to listen to music sometimes and I never remember it being this way many years ago.
In my eyes the best systems have the simplest circuitry with the best parts and I am leaning toward the tube side which tend to be more old school and less harsh. I've always viewed all the solid state fancy circuitry creations as a way to torture the delicate analog signals. I've never understood why a very reputable manufacture can offer an upgraded component that all of a sudden has found a way to improve dozens of things within their boxes. Really? And why now?
b&w speakers have undergone all kinds of technical improvements and I am perplexed as to what the heck they r doing? And I own some B&W speakers I like them, the newer ones seem dreadful.
I have been at this for fifty years. One by one I have switched each of my components to tubed components. My systems have sounded better and better over the decades… my current by far the best. I would not be even remotely interested into going back to solid state. You can see my systems under my UserID.
FYI. There are two major parts of a system component… the power supply and the main amplifying stage. Hybrids tend use tubes in one and not the other. In my equipment tubes are used in both.
After just installing a DAC, I find that the vinyls that sounded bad with the TT also seem to correlate with the ones that sound bad when streaming through the DAC.
@rumi A good home system can make mediocre recordings more enjoyable to listen to, and there are a lot of good sounding recordings out there in spite of the record companies' best efforts to avoid this. We would really appreciate it, though, if you guys would try a little harder to make better sounding recordings. We'd even be willing to pay a little more for them.
@jumiaI think you're in the wrong hobby. You don't seem to like anything about audio.
A speaker that makes a crap recording sound like gold is really colored! Sometimes not a bad thing if you listen to crap recordings. Cerwin Vegas sound like solid gold comparatively for a lot of metal that sounds downright shiiit on most (all) audiophile speakers …. For example.
I built both mercilessly revealing and golden glow systems in years past. Golden systems could play only certain recordings, mercilessly revealing system certain others. Choices of recordings played was often imperceptible, it would only be in the long term I'd notice the limited choices made. After having experienced both extremes long term, defects of both eventually become intolerable, at this point I sought another path.
The problem is not that revealing is inherently merciless, rather revealing CAN be merciless if sound qualities such as timbre and/or harmonic development is lacking or unnatural. I do continue to seek maximum resolution/transparency, but the timbre, harmonic development capabilities must be top notch as well. I'd evaluate my favorite flavor as being just the tiniest bit warm of neutral, can hear full potential of great recordings, allows vast majority of mediocre recordings to be enjoyable, even low end of mediocre very tolerable, poor should rightly remain in intolerable category.
In my case, SET amps, DHT preamp, high efficiency horn loudspeakers have been the magic elixir. I won't argue subjective pathways others take, all good in my book.
Another aspect of tubes I don't think has been brought up in this thread, is tube equipment usage in recording studios. Some of my favorite sound recordings are from the era of tube recording equipment. This was era of essentially live in studio recording, not all this multi track, recording individual players at separate times and patching together. Some of the old studios were wonderful sounding venues and the natural resonance and harmonic development of tube recording equipment provided wonderful recordings. So many of the best recordings of that era both wonderfully lush, resolving and transparent, have to play some of this stuff every listening session. I often then segue into 60's, 70's era SS recording equipment era, quite a different perspective! And then further segue into digital recording era, yet another perspective. All have unique inherent qualities, yet they still retain difference and hiearchies within those eras.My take is a good system should be able to provide an engaging listen with most recordings from all eras.
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?
Here are mine. I expect them to differ for others.
What bothers me most about a recording is bad tonal balance. Screechy violins or vocals. Scratchy vocals. Shrieky vocals. Booming or almost nonexistent bass. There are plenty of examples of such recordings, which is why I always have an EQ in my system.
Next comes lack of overall transparency, but that may be redundant, as it’s often caused by lack of information at the frequency extremes.
Imaging and sounstaging? I enjoy them when they are good, but lack of perfection rarely bothers me.
Since we are rating comments I would like to give a special recognition to rumi for a really nice Industry behind the scenes View. I would also like to give participation awards for all those who commented herein. Very much appreciated. And of course a special recognition to ghdprentice who always offers invaluable insights to all kinds of situations.
Many good recording studios know how to make good recording from their experience. They know which microphones and equipment sound better from a recording after recording. Those good sounding equipment are usually few decades old. Some old microphones cost few thousands. And some are refused to sell their mics because there is none better. Many these mics and equipment were made by individuals in companies. The quality of these mics and equipment are depended on these individuals’ ears. Same as the quality of NOS tubes are depended on individuals in tube companies. It is an art that these individuals made their things decade after decade and found what makes a good sound. There are many great audio/studio gears we call master pieces from 50-60th. They still sound great among modern audio pieces. I don’t think there are any master piece produced in modern gears after 80th. It is happening because audio manufacturers relay on computers. Audio manufactures must use more ears than computers.
Back to subject, those good studios make good quality recordings and we should enjoy them. Forget about bad quality recordings. These studios with super expensive modern recording equipment will not help them but scouting famous faces is their real business.
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.
True. However, a real great system will reveal what is recorded. Nothing more or nothing less. If the recording is unlistenable, the system is flawed usually. Not the recording.
Some of those old 1950’s jazz recordings in particular have been pleasant surprises.
I agree.
boomerbillone
It's true that a really fine system will reveal all the flaws in a poor recording.
I am sure there are more flaws of own sound system than flaws of recording. Many audiophiles believe their system is close to perfect. But I know even world most expensive digital play back system is flawed from where it pick up the digital data from CD. That makes the sound is already broken from the very start. I know the system you mention is not that great.
A great system can reveal the soul of the performance if the music is good but it was recorded poorly.
Do you know this great system can be $5 transistor radio? It is true that this $5 radio can sound better than $100k system. Even though parts are low grade, the radio is less flawed than thousands parts of big system. The fixing radio is very easy and quick. I can listen my humble sound system for many hours. I don’t want to listen even world greatest sound systems ( > $1 mil.) for few minutes. They sound unreal and broken to me. Their sounds hurt and numb my ears. I can’t hear hammering the concrete rock sounds for long time. I rather fix this small radio quickly and listen than usual $100k systems.
rdcollns
No use forking out $50,000 for speakers to reproduce sound that was captured on a $100 mic, or $1,000 for cables to playback music that was recorded using basic patch cables.
Good recording studios are doing fine even with cheap equipment because they are dealing with the best source possible. Live (real) sounds. Don’t worry about recordings and make a good sounding system to enjoy.
jumiaOP
In my eyes the best systems have the simplest circuitry with the best parts
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.
Thank you your honest and I don't blame you! Like "they will not hear the difference." Right? Therefore, there is no true improvement in hi-end audio in last 100 years. It is the time to make a difference.
Let us not forget the performance. The most critically acclaimed conductor's interpretation of a symphony may not sound as good to some people as a lesser rated performance by a different conductor. Next matter the recording and the equipment including the room.
I am still shocked/amazed at how dynamic and colorful many of my recordings sound (CD and LP) with upgrades in cartridge/SUT and DAC/transport in 2022. My former Benz Ruby 3 didn't match well with SUTs and I lost dynamics. The Zesto Allesso and a cheaper Dynavector 20X2 L is a perfect match. My extreme DAC and modest cost upgraded transport makes so many 1980s CDs come alive as good as analog. My own engineered recordings are sufficiently good to publish now that I hear them back at such a high level. I agree with 85% average, 10% great and 5% stinkers as far as recording quality although some eras/engineering were usually great (e.g Bob Fine/Mercury) or mediocre (late 1970s Decca/EMI/DGG). With 42,500 records and CDs, I have my share of sonic clunkers (but oh, those great 50's & 60's jazz and classical recordings).
Wow… you should post photos of your system and collection! I have 4,000 albums.. about half and half vinyl and CDs. I am giving away my CDs… just no point with streaming. But my albums take up a wall… that is a lot of physical media. You can see most of my media on my virtual systems photos. You have over ten times my collection… that is amazing.
@ghdprentice I have 7,000 CDs. At least 1,000 are Romophones, Marston and Biddulph. Unavailable for streaming. The alternatives are buying LP versions or the 78s themselves (if possible, $1millions in cost and then there is the playback speed/stylus issues). I also have ethnic CDs, private recordings by me and others which cannot be licensed for public play, etc. About 40% of my CDs are available for streaming So, I'm never giving up my CDs (or rare 78s). Most of my 28,000 LPs are not streamed and most original tapes are just gone with no ownership or out of existence (remember the Universal fire as well).
I have long time friend, guy had first high end audio system I ever had the pleasure to hear, how I became addicted. Anyway, he eventually became audio engineer and now owns a sound reinforcement company. Over time he left audio hobby for the production side of business, great audio equipment morphed into great recording equipment. He's got the best of best of everything, I've been to a number of concerts he provided sound for, by far the best sound quality I've heard at a live show, and I've been to literally thousands of them. The few studio projects he engineered are also best of best. And this work with jazz, reggae, rock, experimental electronica, electronic dance music, many genres. If only all recordings and concerts were done with such care!!! Audiophile production people sure are rare breed, wonder why no audiophile has ever started a school or mentoring program for people wanting to get into audio production, Perhaps too old school a thought when home recording equipment so ubiquitous, and probably who you know rather than particular talents to work in recording studios.
And I've yet to be convinced that ever increasing resolving capabilities are detrimental to recordings of at least low side of mediocre. I play plenty of these quality recordings, some may even label them as poor quality, and they only sound better as the resolution of my system increases. I hear the warts, but the continuing and ever increasing sense of real live performers in listening room far outweighs the warts. And this not some new sensation such that the novelty of newfound resolving capabilities has blinded me to the warts.
Since I"m solely into streaming these days, vast majority of upgrades in recent years have been in streaming equipment, and believe me, plenty of opportunities with upgradies in streaming. My digital sounds more analog over time so the added resolution has gone hand in hand with a more natural timbre, this makes the lesser recordings sound better on two fronts. I presume this two handed improvement will continue over time which means there would be no downside to increasing resolution. I should add, my system is not coloring or obscuring recordings in the least, my dac uses ESS Sabre 9038 pro chips, many would characterize sabre chip dacs as highly resolving and clinical. I hear the resolution, not the clinical. Point I'm trying to make is my system is not hiding warts.
I believe with the right combination of equipment the vast majority of recordings can be made to sound better with higher resolution. I'd hate to believe a higher resolving system would make more recordings unlistenable, I'd quit trying to evolve my system.
@ghdprentice I have 27,500 LPs (about 2,000 duplicate operas) mix of classical, jazz, vocal, opera, ethnic, etc. I also have 7,000 78s. I am 66, collecting since 3. I live in Los Angeles area and have had many great stores to purchase from, some collections, some donations and still some good stores although the price of good LPs has inflated whereas CD prices have deflated. I've never been to Arizona but have purchased 100s of records at record stores in Las Vegas, NYC and throughout CA in the past.
Most recordings are good enough. Don’t blame the recording if it doesn’t sound good to you. It’s probably your system that isn’t set up well (in your room). No matter how much you’ve spent on cables. :)
Genesis - Trespass, is a very good recording. Bowie - Heroes, not so much (but there are good parts). Bowie - Lazarus, great great great!
To me it’s, to borrow from math and data science, Garbage in, Garbage out. A bad recording will probably sound bad on a good system depending on how resolving it is.
Contrary, I'd say the content is more important than the recording quality.
So you like Elvis, and the recording quality back then was limited by the type of equipment used in the 50s/60s. No matter what fancy digital mastering techniques, they can only do so much.
And now, your playback equipment is high end enough to bring Elvis "back to life" and appears he's singing in front of you. That doesn't change the fact the recording was really not up to today's standard, but who cares? Your toes are tapping!
Enjoy the good music and not worry too much about the logic or technicalities.
1970's Lps, Jbls, Altecs. Was pretty familiar with the sound of my records.
Now have a good hiend system, listening to some of the old stuff one can hear the limitations of the older recordings, then some of these older recordings sound great on newer equipment. Always when buying new stuff never pay more then what you can resell it for quickly, just in case its not to your liking.
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.
