How much is about the recording

How much is about the recording

It’s everything.

Only a deluded fool believes their system can make a bad recording sound good.

Only a deluded fool believes their system can make a bad recording sound good.

Given enough tools, I'm pretty sure I could make a bad recording at least sound acceptable. But I still agree with what you are saying.

The late Rudy Van Gelder once said "I love re-mastering early recordings. Those engineers wore ties to work."

If the sound recording is lousy the performance better be amazing or the record/CD etc. will be relegated to the back of my mind.

An example of studio wizardry rescuing a lost cause is the 2011 release of Robert Johnson: The Centennial Recordings. Steve Lasker and Seth Winner accessed the finest available original and test pressings and, after using the most advanced transfer techniques to capture the source material, removed all the sonic noise (clicks, pops, stripped grooves, etc.) knowing some loss of high-range frequencies was inevitable, resurrecting the clarity of those 1930’s recordings to an astonishing degree. I can listen now without flinching.

my point is that poor recordings can, at great expense, be overcome if the performance warrants the effort.

@russ69 

Given enough tools, I'm pretty sure I could make a bad recording at least sound acceptable. But I still agree with what you are saying.

 

Oh for sure.  Just as radio stations do with compression & graphic equalisation.

In my experience the “better” the hifi (particularly speakers) they could indeed make good recordings sound better than I ever heard, but bad recordings?  They were laid bare & I found I didn’t listen to many of my old favourites anymore.

I was very briefly sucked in by hifi dealers who would switch my music for some whiney woman & it sounded great, but not music I ever want to listen to.

As we know, a lot of guys get obsessed with their boxes.