Good recording and good systems makes a difference.
Isn't it really about quality of recording?
Are most of us just chasing our tails?
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.
84 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
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 ! |
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. |
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 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. |
@erik_squires you 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). |
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. |
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’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. |
Without the music, what's the point of chasing sound reproduction perfection? |
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. |
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. |
Hi Jumia, 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. To each their own. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
| Post removed |
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. |
