An easy way to improve any CD is to clean and improve reflectivity. I use a high-grade Groit best-of-show car wax, one drop is all you need, spread and buff, and you’re done. There is such an improvement you will not believe it. All you have heard is just shake their heads, dynamics, body, and tone all come forth. I’ve not played an uncleaned CD in many many years, I do try sometimes so I will clean a CD with soap and water to wash off the wax, play it and it sounds good, but nothing like it sounds before. No need to buy audiophile-overpriced liquids. $20.00 or so and you have enough for 100’s of CDs. I’ve taken some of mine to audio shows and played them and people say wow that sounds good, who mastered that I own it and I never heard it sound that good. CDs were turned on over the past several years, from being used as sources in the SOTA system to they sound like crap now. I guess all the reviewers had crap for ears back then. I am a vinyl guy and I have zero issues with CDs if mastered well like any source and cleaned with my wax.
86 responses Add your response
My experience is the same as many of you... If the system/room improve all albums are more interesting Why? Bad recorded album stay bad recording and well recorded stay good compared to the first.... Yes, but all acoustical cues choices by the the recording engineer become more evident and audible and we are more interested now by the relation between the music and the acoustical cues fabric cloth that reveal it, like a more adjusted piece of cloth on a body.... it is better than more details emerging, it is a new soundscape... But nothing will change a bad recording in a good one for sure... The difference is you will no longer listen good recording because the bad one are so bad... All will be interesting and in the best case you will forgot the recording ,bad or good, and enjoy music without be frustrated anymore... It is my experience... When i begin my journey few years ago i was picking my listening way more in the well recording category than for the music itself... My system/room was not treated and not controlled at this time... No more now....
|
It partly depends on why a given recording sounded bad. Was it overwhelming the limitations of your system, or truly a poor recording?
A better, more revealing system will allow better recorded records to sound even better, while showing off more of the flaws in a recording. You're going to get good and bad. A lesser system tends to mask flaws.
Better systems not only will reveal more harmonic detail, but well give you a more layered and detailed soundstage, and a greater variety of dynamics, from very small to very large. You'll hear a greater difference between recordings. |
Mapman, I think you brought a very good point in regards to clipping and its true certain kinds of music begs to be played louder. I think we have all pushed are systems on occasions just to see its capabilities because certain recordings can be more demanding on a power amp than others. Generally I can hear when an amp approaches its limits but I think some amps if their not of good quality (as you mentioned) seem to lose their composure as the volume is cranked up. I do have very efficient speakers so not too much demand is placed to reach a desired volume level. |
There was a very nice and interesting interview on KCRW a Los Angeles local NPR station regarding high fidelity, audio quality and audiophiles on 11/18/2014. It was very informative for those that may want to listen. http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/design-and-architecture/high-fidelity-with-henry-rollins-ma-yansong-comes-to-l-a Henry Rollins described how younger people are not experiencing the full range of the music because of the poor recordings and poor quality MP3 and CD recordings and how better systems reveal the poor quality of some recordings. This is to my point regarding poor quality recordings and how some systems will unmask such recordings to the extent that it is almost unlistenable. The interview also was good in that it described system quality and how moving up the ladder in equipment enables one to experience the music in higher detail and quality. He had I believe at least five rooms in his house with various systems and his master system had over $300,000 of equipment, including the top-of-the-line Wilson Speakers. One thing that he said that I appreciated, was that he admired and didn't bash McIntosh equipment, but praised it for longevity and quality. take a listen, it was a nice interview for our love of music and hobby. enjoy |
Phd, one other point worth mentioning, nothing too far out there, is that most of the music you identified is meant to be played loud. When music is played loud, the first thing to be sure to have a handle on is amplifier clipping. Amps get stressed increasingly as the volume goes up, especially with many modern power and current hungry speaker designs. The effects start as subtle and become increasingly audible as things get louder. Its a good practice for rock and metal lovers I would say to do whatever is needed to have an insurance policy against clipping. Speaker minimum power ratings are not reliable for this. In general, with most full range speakers found only in more expensive systems, the more good quality watts and amps available the better. ITs an insurance policy against clipping at a minimum. Often people get speakers capable of a lot of output even at low frequencies but skimp on amplifying them optimally. ROck/metal music is often the kind that suffers the most in this case. Once its all cleaned up, at least then it is possible to experience what the recordings intended but not otherwise. |
Skynrd recordings I am familiar with are pretty good. VH in my collection often has highly compressed dynamics. I am often but not always disappointed in the recording quality. But metal recordings often are what they are. MEtallica tends to do a better job with their recordings in general. Soundgarden is/was a grunge band and recordings mostly reflect that. Of these three, overall I'd say VH recordings are the worst. Whatever is there still sounds best on my best system. SOmetimes recordings are what they are and you just have to learn to recognize the limitations and live with them, if you like the music still enough to want to listen. Listening with a good set of headphones may work better in some cases and is a good way to easily familiarize with specific recordings and their good and not so good aspects. |
Mapman Skynyrd, Audioslave, VH, Soundgarden, Stone Roses, the list goes on. Frankly I expect the recording quality for a lot of my rock tracks to be less than stellar. And as I alluded to in my prior post, I have no prejudice against using EQ to benefit the listening experience. I am in the camp that the problems with digital (at least with the rock that I listen to) is as much an issue (and probably more) with the recording/mastering process as it is with the hardware we use to listen on. Whether this software that Mark Levinson has developed is the real deal is an open question but one that I will have my own answer to over the next month or so. Frankly, it was the review that got me very interested in the product. The reviewer's explanation of his physical reaction to digital recordings somewhat mimic mine, and his explanation of his reaction to Mark's software felt to me like something of the holy grail for folks that listen to rock recordings a majority of the time. I don't necessarily believe that this software will render expensive audiophile equipment obsolete or that it will fulfill the promise of "perfect sound forever". But for the relatively small investment it requires, I am hoping that I have stumbled onto a fabulous product that is currently way under the radar. At least mine anyway.... |
This may go against the grain of many of the folks that frequent this website, and others of its ilk, but I read the following software review with an appreciation of the author's content and biases: http://www.monoandstereo.com/2014/06/daniel-hertz-master-class-review.html As such I have decided to purchase the product in hopes that it can ameliorate, if not completely eliminate, the recording anomalies that have rendered too many of the rock and roll tracks in my CD collection nearly unlistenable on the main rig. We shall see, but Mr. Levinson assures me that I will be more than satisfied with the results. GLR |
Todd Rundgren has released a number of great music/horrible sound combinations. He frequently gets harsh sound in the upper midrange thru brightness regions and accompanying sibilant vocals. The sound sucks to varying degrees depending on the playback system. Some very fine systems will highlight the sonic issues and others will soften the blow. I have heard Nearly Human on a Merlin VSM via Pathos amp and CD player rendered virtually unlistenable. Substitute SF Cremonas and things get a bit better. Switch out to Verity Parsifal Encores and they're better yet. However, other less than stellar recordings do not behave the same way. Bottom heavy, dull recordings often sound better thru the Merlins. Donald Fagen (to double down on Steely Dan) sometimes let's the bottom end run away from him. His solo material generally fares worst on the P/E and best on the Merlin. My own take is that some quality systems are less forgiving of particular sonic ills than are others. I think it's tough to generalize. Just MHO. |
"Absolutely Whart, getting a very clear midrange that also is grain free, well, the only way is low distortion. " "Poor" recordings are often have a lot more energy in the midrange compared to "higher quality" more extended ones. So getting a handle on noise and distortion there is paramount. All the best most extended and dynamic recordings should benefit as well. Otherwise, something is not right. Some "Poor" recordings with limited frequency extension might properly be viewed as good litmus tests, ie most music occurs in the midrange so good performance there goes a long way. Only once that is right does anyone have any business going for top performance with the rest. I wonder often if many "lesser" recordings are perceived that way mainly because they are not perceived as as flashy as the best and most extended recordings. After all if the recording has a lot of bling to start with, its not so hard to deliver at least some of that. When the recording is fundamentally sound within limits,often in terms of high and/or low frequency content, or perhaps also even in terms of mono versus stereo, there is less "bling" so revealing this kind of diamond in the rough is not so easy. ITs all about low noise and distortion, and the midrange is where things will make or break initially usually well before all the rest of teh harder stuff. If it ain't good there, chances are it is not so good with the rest either. |
Absolutely Whart, getting a very clear midrange that also is grain free, well, the only way is low distortion. And I agree, sins of omission, like not extending real high at the top end, easy to live with if the mids are right. So many "high end" speakers have harsh upper mids and a very clumsy transition to the tweeter, yet folks not their heads in unison because of the wonderful cabinets, great finishes, high prices, and big claims by the manufacturers. |
I've gotten my system 'tuned' to be able to enjoy a wide variety of vinyl (my only source). Whether that means the system is colored or not, I hear a huge difference among different recordings and different pressings. I use horns as well (with SET amps and tubes all the way back through the line stage and phono stage). My system is hardly the 'best' and I hear its inherent limitations, though those don't bother me- the differences in recordings and pressings seem to be far more pronounced when I listen to a range of material. The notion of 'accuracy' has always baffled me- most recordings are gimmicked to some degree, and fidelity to the actual event (if there even was one, rather than something cobbled together on multiple tracks from different sessions) is a virtual impossiblity as a benchmark. Maybe Ralph has the ability to make such comparisons if he does recordings of actual events, then cuts a record from them. I'm less interested in how the system sounds over some audiophile approved record and more interested in how it sounds across a wide range of material. For me, if the midrange isn't pure, clear and grainless, the rest doesn't matter. I can live with the sins of omission. In the end, I think each of us has our sense of what sounds 'right,' whether it is a function of taste, preference or experience. Which may explain the wide variety of different sounding systems that different people regard as impressive or desirable. Not advocating anything here, just another blithering insight into what may be obvious. |
Phd, FWIW, I have horns too and no worries on the top end. However, I can't listen to passive volume controls in my system- they come off too bright and no bass relative to my preamp. Also, generally speaking horn speakers don't play well with transistors; the reason being that horns are often highly reactive and present a lot of back EMF to the amplifier. If the amplifier employs negative feedback, unless the designer really did his homework to prevent radio frequencies from entering the amp through the feedback network, that and the back EMF will really cause the amp to be shrill. This is one reason you find most horn installations using tubes. |
If you have a largish and diverse music collection it ultimately comes down to being a balancing act. You don't want soft and pleasant, but you also don't want electron microscope grade resolution. Over time you'll learn what works best for you. To the extent that some of the problems with poorer recordings are frequency response based, a big plus for HD based digital playback is the availability of transparent, highly flexible and easy to use EQ solutions. Bruce Springsteen's "Nebraska" and PJ Harvey's "4 Track Demos" are wonderful performances. Both were recorded with inexpensive mics using cassette recorders and they really don't sound very good. Rather than highlight the problems with these records I want a system that captures the energy and soulfulness of the performers. |
A system can be "better" in terms of extension and resolution, but not distortion, and that can make a large number of recordings sound bad. But my goal is to improve through lower distortion wherever the case, as tough as it is to do. And I mean the important distortions, ringing in analog front ends, intermodulation on speakers, ringing tweeters on speakers, etc. And by doing this I find I get much more detail, more insight into the performance, yet much more listening ease at the same time. And I find that a larger number of recordings sound better, not just a few. Offsetting colorations, the old "yin and yang" theory, does not get you there as each coloration is a distortion. When you decide to live with colored (in a more than average sense) components you are just stacking up more distortion, so while you might get a semblance of "neutral tonality", it will be loaded with distortion, and not easy or fulfilling to listen to. There is no such thing as a neutral, balanced system that is "so accurate it is hard to listen to on most records". That is a system that is the opposite, it has veered from neutrality. |
Based on some of the above answers I have concluded that some people don't know when to leave well enough alone, I am such a person. I have tweaked my system to be more revealing and extended. Using high resolution silver interconnects connected to high definition gear, add a few aftermarket power cords coupled with horn loaded speakers and I think one has got a recipe for disaster at least when it comes to poor recordings. Even the concert-hall pianist that lived with me for a short period of time pointed out it all sounded very good but there was too much high frequency information coming through for her liking and suggested I turn the treble down. I told her I don't have tone controls but I have made a few changes since then to warm the system up. Sometime back I do know that it was recommended from a audiophile buddy that I try Krell. I called Krell and they said we love to sell you a Krell amp but with your speakers it would be the kiss of death. So as Maplegrovemusic mentioned it is all about well thought out tweaks that will enhance your current system and make it more listenable at least with poor recordings. |
"I use bad recordings as a yeardstick to tell me how I am doing. IME, a system can 'editorialize' and can often react poorly to poor recordings, and also recordings with lots of energy." I agree with this. Like I said, keep noise and distortion, high order harmonic and otherwise, to a minimum, and it all works out. |
I believe to me that is the holy grail . The high order harmonics he spoke of . How does one go about eliminating the stress from those frequencies . For me it was proper amps on my electrostatic speaker , along with using a passive pre . I had thought it was the recordings i listened to that was the problem . Now all seem to be in the same league with each other . Newer popular recordings sound pretty darn good (compressed and all) just need to slightly turn the volume down V.S. hifi recordings . |
Well put by atma and what i have experienced. The volume i can listen too if i choose to is much louder than before . Must be the higher ordered harmonics atma spoke of . I actually listen to the music at lower volumes than before because the bass seems to pressurize the room at lower volumes as the equipment and room tweaking have improved. |
timhru one of my favorites also. Google or check out vinyl asylum on this album. lots of knocks on it. My earlier systems just rocked and didnt understand what they were saying was off. I think Becker/Fagan said the studio they used had an issue with some of the equipment and the mixing was bad. I understand the remaster is quite good. Its on my Christmas list now. On a separate note, If i remember, you live in Brownsburg,in also, We need to get together to spin a few. |
I use bad recordings as a yeardstick to tell me how I am doing. IME, a system can 'editorialize' and can often react poorly to poor recordings, and also recordings with lots of energy. An example from the old days was Village Music of Bulgaria on Nonesuch LP. In the old days my pickup had real problems with the intense vocal expressions on the LP and it sounded terrible. As things have improved, I have found this LP to be astonishing- dimensional and really well recorded. From this and other examples I don't buy the idea that bad recordings sound worse as your system improves. A good system will take the bad recording in stride and will present what is good about it as well as what is bad without comments of its own. The smoother your system is (IOW: the less higher-ordered harmonic distortion it has) the easier this will go for you. |
Katy lied by steely dan is a great example concerning this thread. I have always liked Steely dan and heard many times that album has problems. I just didnt understand until recently. I can only come to the conclusion, the resolution of my system is now revealing the weakness or issues. Oilmanmojo Very interesting as Katy Lied has a couple of my favorite Steely Dan songs. I haven't listened to it except on my ipod in the last...actually I can't remember the last time U sat and listened closely to it. Makes me wonder if my system as is will reveal the flaws. |
Knight, sorry, don't know about the digital versions. I 'rediscovered' this piece of vinyl a few years ago, and was amazed at how good it sounded. Looking it up, it was apparently a 'demo quality' record in its day. (I was around in that 'day' and certainly remember the songs from the radio, but it wasn't on my radar for home listening). Mushroom was a Canadian label, i think, and these may be earlier pressings, but I believe they were widely distributed at the time~ doubt it is an expensive record if you do vinyl. Enjoy. |
11-07-14: Metman Some folks do like to Ramble On. ;^) |
Katy lied by steely dan is a great example concerning this thread. I have always liked Steely dan and heard many times that album has problems. I just didnt understand until recently. I upgraded my speakers, preamp and amp in a relatively short time frame finally moving to a class a amp and a great preamp from Pass. This album sounds a lot different and not better but worse. Mid range and voices too high compared to highs and bass. I thought, well maybe its just the areas that my system now emphasizes but after listening to about 100 other albums, i now recognize what others have said about this particular album. other Dan albums are just wonderful. I can only come to the conclusion, the resolution of my system is now revealing the weakness or issues. |
Montytx, A recurring theme with this type of topic is the detrimental effects of dynamic compression. This is often genre dependent, with popular and rock music suffering this more frequently. Jazz and classical recordings seem for the most part to avoid/ minimize dynamic compression nonsense. Most of my jazz CDs have a dynamic range averaging 25-30 db and some are 35-40 db with individual selections. It seems many pop and rock recordings are limited to 10-12 db range which is regrettable. I suspect that the good classical CDs are wide dynamic range recordings similar to the jazz genre. So it appears the recording engineers target certain markets by assuming what playback equipment the listeners will use, ipods, boombox, car and portable radios etc. Charles, |
Also, one major issue I have regarding recording quality and instruments is that I am well familiar with how vocals, and instruments are suppose to sound. I played concert violin, sax, and other instruments in band and orchestra. It literally will drive me out of the room if the sound isn't close to what it is suppose to sound like. Take the recording equipment, cables, mixing boards (that included really bad circuitry), mikes, etc. and remember that all of that adds distortion, then take the compression and distortions inherent with bad Cd recordings, and the music just won't sound right. Using electronic drums, electronic instruments trying to sound like real violins, etc. and it hurts my ears. So, yes, in my opinion, I don't really care if I like the artist or not. If it is recording badly or using really terrible sounding instrumentation, I don't like listening to it. I went to a concert a little while ago at Red Rock Colorado (wonderful place) to see the Doobie (spelling) brothers and the Steve Miller Band. Each artist brought their own amplification and mikes on stage when they performed. The Doobie Brothers sounded absolutely great. But, the Steve Miller Band (who I really wanted to see/hear) sounded really terrible. It sounded muffled, heavily distorted and the sound engineer could not fix it. Several of us walked out of the venue totally disappointed. Same is true of recorded music. I don't care who it is. If it sounds bad, I either won't buy it or won't listen to it. It hurts my ears and life is too short for that. I want to enjoy my music, not sit there wondering what is wrong. enjoy |
To Maplegorvemusic, here's an example of a poorly mastered recording: Dukes Of The Stratoshpear. This is a remastered version done by Carolin Records, whoever they are, and is just awful. To be fair, I have never heard the original on Virgin Records so maybe this sound was intended. Never the less, it sounds terrible on a quality system, or a quality headphone setup. Maybe it would sound fine over the air on an FM radio. |
My experience mirrors OP, Almarg ... In a high resolution system, one can hear the flaws in poor recordings. For me, the most obvious is compression, brightness and thinness. 11-06-14: MaplegrovemusicMost Bruce Springsteen, Heart (Heart, Bad Animals ...), Liz Phair, Garbage V2.0 ... |
It may not be the recording, but the mastering. At least on vinyl (I can't speak to CD or digital formats), I can play some standard reissue of an old pop album that sounds flat and lifeless; but find the right early pressing and even if the original recording has its warts and limitations, you get the breath of life in it that doesn't exist in the mediocre remaster/reissue. These differences are not subtle and involve no 'golden ears' beard stroking contemplation. The differences are pronounced and readily apparent. That then means that you have to research the best pressings, or buy a bunch of them and make that determination for yourself. I have to assume the same issue exists with CD/digital formats. I'm at a point where I'm in it for the music, not for the sonics- but that said, I still seek out the best pressings of the music I'm interested in. It may not make as much difference for newly released material where the recording started in the digital domain, a lot of dynamic compression was used, and there isn't a wide range of options for different masterings. But, certainly for older stuff, there can literally be hundreds of different versions of a popular recording, issued at different times, from different places (both within a given country and across the world). Some recordings just didn't start out that great to begin with, so even the best versions (on vinyl) have their limitations. I don't mind that, though I hear the shortcomings. But, there is some distance you can go to improve the source material that has nothing to do with the gear, once your system reaches a level of 'good.' |
There are certainly numerous ways a recording can be of poor quality, especially with digital recordings. If the recording is suffering from excessive Dynamic Range Compression, which is very common with modern pop recordings and even remastering of older rock recordings in particular, then the damage is done and there is no "high fidelity" to be found and reproduced. These recordings typically are more enjoyable via low fidelity systems such as ipods and car stereos. Much of todays music is engineered for inferior playback systems and not intended to be listened thru systems like the ones most of us attempt to assemble. This is much less of an issue with Classical music and boutique labels such as Telarc, Mobile Fidelity and the like. |