Should a good system sound bad with bad recording?

>>A bad recording can sound good through a well balanced hi-fi system<<

Sorry but I really don't buy into that. A bad recording sounds bad. It sounds bad on a good system and it sounds bad on a bad system. However, it sounds less bad on a good system than it does on a bad system.

My bad.

Hi Tvad nice to meet you. I have a couple of questions for you. Why was the production quality of the first generation cd's produced sounding duff? And has our hi-fi systems improved so much that early cd's now sound bad?
I also consider myself a compulsive music punter also, by the way.

One of the goals I set for my system was to "successfully play any recording of any musical genre regardless of recording quality". My system does that yet is revealling enough to tell the diffrences in cryo treatment facilities of the same model power cord and to be used for Beta testing for a couple high end small audio firms. Of course, a mediocre recording won’t sound as good as a great one. However, in a well set up system, great performances will convey the spirit and intensity of the music regardless of recording quality. As system quality goes up it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve this. I've spoken to Sean & Albert Porter about this subject. Mr. Porter has told me that his system can do what mine does (but at a whole different performance level, of course). He also agrees that doing so becomes increasingly difficult as system quality inncreases. After a change and/or addition, it's taken him sometimes a whole month of tuning and tweaking to get the system to perform in such a fashion again.

That, my young (and not so young) padwans, is the real challenge in the audio hobby.

With psychic power and primal intensity,

Here Here, Psychicanimal.

i value my ears too much to listen beyond 85 db.

... what i am trying to say is it depends upon preference and your choice of music.

Good point.

My point was that most real world instruments/orchestra/band go significantly louder than 85 db and a good sytem should replicate this stuff too (not just the soft music)

nobody has defined what a good system is.

if one assumes it means as accurate as one can afford, then such a system is at the mercy of the recording.

a bad recording can sound brutal and a great recording can be sublime. thus, one may suffer the extremes of bliss and misery.

for me, i don't want to suffer when listening to bad recordings. i believe in the law of the golden mean.

life is too short to have unpleasant experiences. if it is not hifi then so be it.

nobody has defined what a good system is.

A good system does what the audiophile wants it to do given a particular price point.

Of course, most audiophiles have no system goals and end up in a perpetual equipment swap, not unlike a dog chasing its own tail.

Am I good or what?

With psychic power and primal intensity,

Psychic: :)
Not far from the truth (if at all far...)!!

if one assumes it ("good system") means as accurate as one can afford, then such a system is at the mercy of the recording

I would qualify this to "accurate to the point source".

I like such a system. And bad recordings sound worse -- but one can still enjoy the music; I don't suffer.

gentlemen, the choice is between production and reproduction. when it comes to sound quality, no stereo system is good or bad in an absolute sense.

it is only bad or good reative to a set of criteria established by anyone.

accuracy is just one criterion for evaluating stereo systems. it is not a necessary condition for a high quality stereo system, but is rather the conventional wisdom of most experts and many audiophiles. still there is no right and wrong with respect to aesthetic endavors. they don't follow the laws of logic. It's just a matter of pleasure or the lack of it. live and let live and let the individual decide for him or herself whether a stereo system should be a clear window of the recording, or an opportunity for creating a result which is consonant with personal taste.

according to a new stereophile poll, most audiophiles spend less on prerecorded music than a kid earns on a paper route. this speaks volumes about how twisted our collective goals are when we are spending far more on cables and equipment.

I spent a very interesting morning at a local dealer. He knew I was just looking around while my girlfriend was up the street.
We ended up going through his whole product line. He kept referring to "audiophile' speakers as we listened to the small bookshelf speakers and floorstanders. Nothing could have been more obvious as we switched to the big floorstanding "audiophile" speakers. Instead of just hearing the music, they were so clear you could hear the degradation from burned CD's, etc. etc.
It's a dangerous line to cross.

I don't consider that the "system sounds bad" in the case of a bad recording. It sounds either accurate or not. The more accurate, the more obvious the recording quality flaws.

I agree that this is the "dangerous line to cross" - where you prefer to not listen to music you like because your system "takes no prisoners" with its accuracy. It is for this reason that certain systems or combinations of components are better suited to some types of music than others.

My solution - a second system which is listenable on lesser quality recordings - some tube warmth and less transparency but it serves the type of music I play on it and provides me enjoyment. For its purpose (and those are the critical words) this is a "good system" for me.

It does suck when you play a recording that really is poor and try to plead your case that your gear is only as good as the recording,and it always is a crappy recording your buddy wants to hear when you even get the least bit of interest from a non- Audiophile guy, and it just makes you look like a crazy fool.

hi hens:

given the fact the sound of a recording is unknowable and the sound of each component is unknowable, how can you tell that a component or stereo system is accurate ?

at best you may say that one stereo system is less accurate than another, since, perfection does not exist.

Hi Mr Tennis,

You are right - I should have said "more or less accurate" rather than "accurate or not".

My point is that a system that majors on accuracy will tell it like it is - recording flaws, compression, etc. will be undisguised. I don't think the system will sound "bad" but I do think that that recording might sound more enjoyable on a more forgiving combination.

Hens

We can spend as much as we like on a great rig but it all comes down to the quality of the cd. A great sounding disc as a reference will show who has the best syste. Put a crap recording in anyone's rig and it will sound like crap.

hens and zar:

you are both right. there still is an issue as to how one would describe a "bad" sounding stereo system.

i have yet to see in print a description of a good and bad quality stereo system, other than accurate is good and inaccurate is bad. is it possible that many of us what want a stereo system to sound as close as possible to the correct instrumental timbre--as we remember it, regardless of accuracy considerations ?

is it possible that many of us ...want a stereo system to sound as close as possible to the correct instrumental timbre--as we remember it, regardless of accuracy considerations

Maybe, ultimately -- but from a hi-end consumer's point of view -- probably not.

It seems that many audiophiles choose one of two schools of sonic illusion (preferences changing with fashion trends of course)
The "Transparency" school: the illusion of the musical instruments being suspended in space before us, clearly delineated. Add a liberal measure of mid bass (often perceived and reported as "bass") and you;re there.

The "Neutral/ musical" school: "warmth" -- i.e. some prominence in the mid/lower mid range -- at the expense of ultimate clarity -- the latter seen as hearing every sound contained in the recording, however trivial or little. This is termed "neutral" because the prominence referred to above should not be due to non-linear distortion products...

IMO, YMMV, etc.

Nothing is perfect, not even your stereo. Just find what YOU like and all will be well. If you seek perfection, you will spend your days in frustration.

Arthur

I personally don't blame the quality of any cd. I do blame the quality of 'hi-fi systems' that can't make 'musical' sense of a cd regardless of price of ones' hi-fi, after all whats the point in spending bazillions on a system if It doesn't play all/any of the cd's and makes pleasing noises of what one puts in it? Would anyone buy a car that could only drive down an Interstate?

Zar-

As I listen virtually every genre of music, lots of it well produced, a fair percentage is of 'lesser' quality than for example most 'classical' cd's, should I buy a portable to play some of my cd's? and only play the best on my main system? When I audition hi-fi systems I only take 'lesser' engineered cd's, coz if it plays them well, It will surely sound good on any well produced cd. One of my particular fav cd's that pushes hi-fi systems to the limit is 'D'ya know what I mean' by Oasis.

I think a good analogy here would be a high-definition television. You feed it a low-res source like a vcr and you will regret it. Feed it a nice hi-def signal and it is outstanding.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that your individual goals should be considered. One has to understand, that with the ultimate resolution of playback equipment, lesser quality material will not be a pleasure to listen to. This is a price to pay, in most cases.

I try to strike a balance somewhere between hi-rez and musicality, although it is tough to achieve so I think my system leans more towards musicality now, although about 4-5 years ago, I couldn't listen to a less than perfect recording and about 90% of my music collection was just collecting dust. Now I am able to play almost any cd and still enjoy it. Not all of them for critical listening, but at least these discs don't drive me out of the room like they used to.

HELL YES! What. Are you new?

I once tried to answer a post similar in context to this and really couldn't find the proper words.

The exitement, involvement, and surprise brought out by a "good" recording on a well balanced system is what I want. You hear a tune you like on the car radio, buy the CD or vinyl, play it, and are just astounded at the depth and texture you didn't hear in the car. But the best recording of music that I don't like is not going to do it.

So I fudge.

I have some nice recordings in genres that I like and it is taken up a notch with better resolution (always in a balance that I prefer). And I have some old recordings and some new highly compressed or pourly recorded or mastered recordings that I like that I play through a less resolving CDP and cables. I will even move speakers drastically to enhance certain aspects of certain recordings for fun.

You end up adjusting what you can to enjoy the music you like. It is not static.

I remember reading a set of posts on adjusting turntable tracking force and vertical alignment based on a specific album, with notes on the best settings for each record written on the cover for adjustment every time it is played.

Jim S.

gentlemen:

what does the word "should" have to do with audio ? it's not law 9or ethics. its aesthetics, in which case subjectivity rules. a good system will sound like whatever its owners want it to sound like. there is no absolute good. it's all personal opinion.

it doesn't matter waht a stereo system sounds like as long as it pleases its owner. the words good and bad are irrelevant.