What songs/albums/artists actually sound worse when played through audiophile systems?


As much as audiophile equipment has elevated my enjoyment of music on many levels, there is some great music that just sounds worse than it used to when I had a cheapo system.  My number one example is the artist Ariel Pink (and the Haunted Graffiti).  His album Before Today is one of my all-time favorites, but played on my SET amp w/ Chord DAC and Klipsch Forte IIIs, it just sounds harsh/bad.  I know that my system is very revealing, and I love that about it, but damn, I may have to get a crappier secondary system to enjoy some great low-fi music again.

What songs/albums/artists are painful to listen to through your audiophile system?
redwoodaudio

Showing 2 responses by almarg

The time coherence stuff is super interesting to think about too. Not sure how it would affect some recordings more than others, though. Any ideas about that?
It has been a few years since I performed a lot of comparisons in my system between having my DEQX HDP-5’s function which improves a speaker’s time coherence turned on vs. turned off. (My speakers are Daedalus Ulysses, btw). But as far as I can recall mediocre recordings of complex material, such as the example I cited earlier of orchestral recordings having overly bright massed string sound, particularly tended to benefit.

The degree of improvement provided by that function was less predictable with other types of material, and I wasn’t able to identify any particular type of recording (e.g., poorly recorded/well recorded; simply mic’d/heavily multi-mic’d; classical chamber music/pop/rock/jazz; vocal/instrumental; etc.) which was especially likely or unlikely to benefit.

In any event, though, it was rare for a recording to sound worse with that function engaged than with it disengaged. And most recordings sounded noticeably better with it than without it.

Regards,
-- Al


While a superior system, properly set up, will of course make great recordings sound better than an inferior system, it may or may not make most poor recordings sound worse than on the inferior system.  A very fine line separates the two outcomes, and depending on the specific systems and the recording it could go either way.

I’ve found that improvements in accuracy, especially with respect to resolution of fine detail, can often make mediocre or poor recordings sound more enjoyable.

A good example of that would be an orchestral recording having overly bright string sound. I’ve found that the brightness will be less objectionable if the sound of massed strings is reproduced in an accurate and detailed manner than if it is reproduced with less resolution of detail, and consequently in a more homogenized manner.

I’ll mention also that I’ve come to believe that time coherence can be a significant contributor to achieving that. Most speakers are not time coherent, including all speakers having crossover slopes that are more than 6 db/octave, which means nearly all dynamic speakers which have crossovers and are not made by Vandersteen, formerly by Thiel or Green Mountain Audio, and perhaps one or two others. And the addition of a DEQX to my system a few years ago, which can bring any speaker that is not time coherent significantly closer to being so, has helped to firm up that conclusion in my mind. Another member here who is very experienced with time coherent speakers had made a similar point in the long-running DEQX thread. Comparisons I’ve made between listening via speakers and listening via my very detailed and time coherent Stax electrostatic headphones have also led me to that conclusion.

Regards,
-- Al