Should a good system sound bad with bad recording?

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.

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.

HELL YES! What. Are you new?

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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)

Here Here, Psychicanimal.

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,

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.

>>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.

A bad recording can sound good through a well balanced hi-fi system. If one has to resort to buying 'remastered' or.. ageing groups/recording companies wanting to make a bit more cash, by fooling punters that this latest 'souped up' (more eq on the mid) version is better than the old version so one can accomplish a better/acceptable sound from ones system, does that not tell one that something is fundamentally amiss? It does to me.
Rock on.....

I agree with the majority of responses, a bad recording is bad no matter what it is played throuh. This is why I have not minded spending extra $$ for remastered cd's of my favorite albums.

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

besides some small ensemble chamber music is not very loud.

a harpsichord does not play loud and baroque and renaissance music sounds better at lower sound pressure levels.

one of the best speakers of all time, the quad esl was not known for its dynamic range. i will take that speaker any day over any speaker made today.

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

your example would apply to some cases but there are many instances where dynamic range is not an issue, especially classical, non orchestra music.
Mrtennis (Threads | Answers)

Most live music has abundant dynamic range ...much more than an average from 75 to 80 db. An unamplified grand piano goes up to around 110 db on peaks or crescendos. Drums, tympany, brass all can go from extremely loud to soft. So while you may listen quietly to stereo or from a distance at a concert ....it is the lack of dynamics that often distinguish stereo system playback from live real music....real instruments.

even on a mediocre stereo system, one can recognize an excellent recording.

stereo systems are bad for a variety of reasons.

i have not experienced a problem with overly dynamic material played on bad stereo systems. i am referring to music only recordings, not movies.

since i generally listen at 75 to 80 db, i would not encounter the problem you mention. in addition, many recordings do not have much dynamic range, especially, non-complex material, such as small ensemble acoustic music.

your example would apply to some cases but there are many instances where dynamic range is not an issue, especially classical, non orchestra music.

Gawdbless,

One system I played it through at the show the speakers alone were $55000 and sounded well and truely awful (I am being polite). If quality costs money, why can't 'proper' systems do it?. My cheapo pc speakers can!

Read my previous post for a possible explanation why you have observed that cheapo speakers actually sound better than a $55,000 system on certain recordings. (Of course not all extremely expensive systems are extremely good.....at that level most are at least very good.....although some at that level look extremely exotic and weird, a visual statement that sounds awful but looks impressive....a shrine to oogle and gloat over, which fits what some people are looking for....like cars with "go faster" aerofoils and "go faster" wheel hubs, more often cosmetic rather than functional in design.)

Went to the Denver Hi-fi show yesterday, took my favourite test cd. Oasis-'D'ya know what I mean'. It is a brutal sounding cd that gives systems a hard time due to the harsh/jangly/feedbacky sounds emitted from said cd. I played it today through my pc setup and actually preferred the sound over mega expensive sound systems! Pc speakers that cost $60! One system I played it through at the show the speakers alone were $55000 and sounded well and truely awful (I am being polite). If quality costs money, why can't 'proper' systems do it?. My cheapo pc speakers can!

the best recording with the worst system will sound better than the worst recording with the best system.

as Confucious might say....

BTW: I agree Mrtennis with you....at least to a certain point....An excellent recording however will NOT sound as good as a "judiciously compressed" recording on a mediocre system....this is why we have so much badly compressed recordings out there today and the so called "CD loudness wars". Producers & Mastering engineers know all to well what they are doing when they compress stuff for radio stations and car stereos. (They are deliberately producing something that sounds optimum on an average system. Often perceived loudness is a key criteria in defining a "good" recording for Producers who have a target market in mind; a target market dominated by owners of mediocre systems)

So what I am saying is that it is quite complex.

Those with high quality accurate systems suffer the most when listening to this badly compressed music as it is no longer optimum for their system and the music is notably compressed when compared to a good recording.

Those with poor quality systems suffer the most when listening to high quality recordings with large dynamic range, as it is no longer optimum for their system; as the listener turns up the volume to hear the "softer" sounds or detail then distortion and compression affects louder sounds and often the the balance is lost, resulting in less clarity.

In my experience, these effects are most obvious on your average movie DVD, which typically has much better dynamic range than most pop music; on mediocre systems most people will struggle to hear the dialogue until the volume is turned up rather too loud and at which point the loud parts are often distorted (this is often because the speaker cannot properly produce low level sounds accurately; these speakers that tend to have an optimum but limited sound level range or sweet spot)

the best recording with the worst system will sound better than the worst recording with the best system.

if a system is forgiving, i.e., subtractively colored, aan excellent recording will still present the cues to indicate its recording quality.

what may be lost is some extension and clarity.

Maybe this is a trick question and I'm not getting it but shouldn't a "bad" recording sound bad on the best of systems and worse on lesser equipment?

'Splain it to me Lucy.

If good is taken as accurate then absolutely yes, of course it should sound bad

If good is taken as a nice sounding system with plenty of forgiveness, warmth and oodles of extra harmonic distortion in the bass and lower mid then NO.

A system that colors sound in a pleasing way can invariably make a bad recording sound passable. ( a good recording, however, will never shine as much )

Since the majority of recordings are mediocre or mastered for mediocre systems...selection of a system is a matter of opinion/choice and even a very accurate system has its limitations/drawbacks.

Many mastering engineers in studios with $100,000+ systems/facilities will still use something like Yamaha NS10's, just to see how their master will translate to a mediocre system. (the majority of systems can't properly handle the dynamics of lifelike music and lose balance)

Fortunately the odd one slips through....one where the mastering engineer has not been heavy handed with a soft limiter. Some genre's fair better than others.

the better the recordings, the better the system will sound. it all starts with the source.

however, some so called bad recordings are not that bad. it is the stereo system that is flawed.

Yes. The better the system the better ALL recordings will be.

a stereo system is as strong as its weakest link. most stereo systems sound pretty good with good to very good recordings.

it is the better stereo system which can sound good with bad recordings.

IMHO. A 'good system' won't make 'bad recordings' sound bad. A 'good system' will make 'bad recordings' sound good. Its all to easy to blame the least expensive item in ones' set-up ie a 'Cd/Lp' as being the culprit for the pain on the ears. No one will ever admit that their expensive piece of kit is really an expensive piece/s of sh....doggie doos.
These are just my own personal views from personal experience in the past.
Crank it up.........

does a kid hear prat from his favorite boombox? does a drunken dancer here it from a 'way-loud' pa in a disco? do i hear it in my favorite recordings? are there good eric clapton records with no prat? are there bad ones with it? is it put into the recording by the musicians or the engineers? prat is not created by a playback device. its an emotional reaction 'you feel' when you are enjoying music with your-own-bad-self. 'crossroads' by cream on any playback device has prat if your enjoying it.

Absolutely. A good system by definition reproduces what is on the source material. If the material is crappy, sound should come out crappy, otherwise it is not a 'good' system. Take, Bose system for example, it will make everything sound okay. In your car.

Sometimes I don't realize this fact and when I put on a recording that isn't very well recorded, I begin to doubt my system and start to worry about what could be wrong. My home system is Classe/Dunlavy. But then my boxster OEM system does not fall in this category. It sounds good sometime and bad most of time :) regardless of source.

Jaybo:
"your mindset" does not determine a musician's timing, nor does it determine your system's ability to convey that timing accurately. If you think timing in music = "farfegnugen", you and I are indeed way beyond the point of debate. I know from personal experience what I mean by good timing in music. AND, I know when an audio system faithfully reproduces good timing and when it does not. If you have yet to experience these things, I hope you soon get the opportunity. As I said earlier, you made sense in other things you said.

"your mindset determines prat". Nope, my feet do. What speakers do you have?

"I checked the site he downloaded from"...

I was talking download.

i thought we were talking about the version on a commercially available cd, not the internet download.

200 MB for a two hour concert simply must have some audio compression to compromise the music. The most common compression schemes for full WAV files (SHN and FLAC) can sometimes get over 50 per cent reduction in size, but that is generally when the music is sparse enough to allow for it. And Pearl Jam is not exactly known for a lot of air between the music. Since a one hour CD generally contains about 600 MB of music, I'd expect a two hour rock concert compressed with a "lossless" compression scheme to be more like 600 MB.

I'd say that Pearl Jam compromized the audio quality so the download time was a reasonable size for the average downloader. If the same concert were available as a CD, which Pearl Jam has done in the past, I'd expect it to have better sound quality.

'prat' is like an audio 'farfegnugen'. it is a marketing idea that is beyond debate. its a clever way of expressing a 'faith-based' feeling. mac has always used "pride of ownnership"......its pretty hard to quantify or argue. your mindset determines prat. it also determines what is 'cool'. a case in point is an LS3/5a of any origin. even though this design is legendary from any brand , the rogers version is 'beyond' legendary.

Jaybo:
Some excellent comments about speakers (I own one of the offending kind at present).

The following I also agree with heartily:

"your stereo should accurately capture the performance and the recording itself. most recordings are meant to sound 'like recordings'. does anyone really think bernstein or the beatles and thousands of relavent recording artists were/are even concerned about 'air' and 'warmth' and all the other bs terms that equipment mongers use. a good stereo system makes you want to own the world's largest music collection."

But dismissing pace and timing?! You loose me entirely. The redundant (but now widely used) acronym "PRAT" may have originally been coined in someone's marketing department, but the phenomenon it attempts to describe is not only tangible, it is at the backbone of ALL good music production AND reproduction. In music production, timing is largely what differentiates great musicians from the lesser (just ask yourself what makes for great blues guitar, and you’ll see what I mean). In a hi-fi, good timing is essential to, as you put it, "accurately capture the performance and the recording itself." This is an area expensive, audiophile systems fall short frequently, especially, but not exclusively, tube based ones. No, this is much more than "intangible marketing 101." Given your otherwise sensible comments, I find your position on this quite puzzling.

This appears to be a classic case of finger pointing. On one hand it's the recording engineers fault, on the other hand it's the home audio manufacturers fault, on the other hands it's the consumers fault, on the other hand it's the reviewers fault. I can't help but wonder if they are intertwined. The recording engineer gears the sound to the lowest common denominator such as boom boxes, walkmans and car audio to make his recodings more appealing to a greater audience to encourage more sales. The high end audio manufacturer gears their sound to be accurate reproducers of the recording to make his products more appealing to a narrower audience willing to pay extra for greater fidelity. The consumer gets frustrated that their expensive gear makes for some unpleasent sounds and blames the manufacturer to whom they gave the most money. On the other, other hand perhaps the consumer should be blamed for poor judgment in purchasing power and buying both compromised equipment that initiates this diabolical cycle and buying compromised recordings that maintains this diabolical cycle? On the other, other, other, hand perhaps record reviwers (I mean the ones that don't just cater to high end equipment publications) are to blame for not giving enough credence to the intrinsic quality of the very vehicle that transports the subject matter? Just don't blame me, it's his fault!