|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.30.248.240
In Reply to: I dunno, man... posted by Presto on May 15, 2007 at 09:02:13:
Burn those straw men down! Burn, baby, burn!Assuming your post was not tongue-in-cheek . . .
Your analogy to wine and food lovers does not hold up. I don't know any music lover who buys records for "variety." I buy records for music.
In classical, several of my favorite performances happen to have iffy to execrable sound. So what? I'm not going to listen to a mediochre performance of a work I love just because it's in great sound--life's too short. My favorite Das Lied von der Erde has crummy sound. And I can't live without it.
In rock, you buy the music you love and take what sound quality you get. With old recordings sometimes you get lovely sound (Roy Orbison, Elvis). Sometimes you get crappy sound (Stones). With modern stuff it's hard to avoid the loudness race. Waddaya gonna do? Not listen to your favorite music?
With jazz at least you get pretty fair recordings most of the time, too few were interested in dicking with the sound. But if you like the early stuff you'll take your lumps there, too.
You listen to the performances/music you love; you takes what you gets with regards to sound quality. It has ever been thus. (Holt's Law: The quality of the recording is in inverse relationship to the quality of the performance.)
Meanwhile, with every upgrade to my system more records sound good than before. Who has time to listen to great recordings of lousy performances?
Follow Ups:
Where did I say to listen to "well recorded music one does not like"?I don't enjoy ANY music that is poorly recorded.
Would you drink the beer you LOVE if it was WARM?
Would you enjoy your favorite dish if it had WAY too much salt?
Would you enjoy a drive in your favorite car with a flat tire?
Would you enjoy sex with your partner if you had the flu?Sorry guys. Audiophiles may love music, but when you're listening to recordings, you're "loving" music REPRODUCTION. And music reproduction requires good recordings.
This is not MUSICasylum. It's AUDIOasylum.
I value bands and artists that VALUE music enough not only to play it well, but RECORD it well too. In a live performance, what you hear is the musicians final product. But with music reproduction, the RECORDING is the final product. You can't separate performance quality and recording quality once they are forever "interwoven". Sure, you can try and appreciate the good aspects of the music - but C'MON - you're saying it would not be MORE enjoyable if it were recorded properly?
I don't believe you! ;)
With millions of recordings available and multiple versions of the same recordings in tons of different formats.
If you buy a recording that totally sucks in one format but you love the music enough, there just may be an acceptable version in the same or another format.
No excuses for drinking cold beer, not with the dozens of formats we have at our disposal.
"Music is love"
Teresa
Let's get concrete here. I love a CD called Time the Revelator by Gillian Welch. It is not out on LP nor on SACD nor on audiophile CD. It is a standard sounding CD. I find it remarkable and hypnotic and totally involving. Of course, I'd rather have it in better sound. But I don't get that choice.And that's the way it goes all the way down the line.
I bought the Mobile Fidelity audiophile CD releases of the first two Velvet Underground albums. So I tried to get better fidelity...but that's really a lost cause, those albums defined lo-fi. But they are essential. And I listened to the great Django Reinhardt the other night, recorded in the 1930s. Again, lo-fi, and again essential.
And all these pieces of music matter to me far more than anything that was ever released on Reference Recordings, no matter how realistic it sounded.
My advice is never buy anything you do not like. And if you, do buy it sell it no matter how great it sounds.
And by the same token never listen to crummy sounding recordings because some review said it was a great performance. With many classical works as well as jazz standards having 100's or more versions there is no reason to suffer bad sound. Since the beginning of the Stereo era there has been more than five million recordings made, so it is impossible to hear them all, even once!
"Music is love"
Teresa
People love music. People love music so much they'll buy their favorite music even if it's recorded by a pack of drunken monkeys. When you buy a CD you are supporting the musicians which is a good thing. But you are also supporting the recording crew - and when the recording is terrible, you've just voted for something terrible with your wallet.I think this is why despite the availability of really great recording technology we continue to get so many "less than great" recordings. This "I love music, so recording quality is secondary to me and I can't control it anyways." just seems to be a blatent contradiction in terms. It seems the issue here is whether or not there is something we CAN do about it.
I've never returned an album on the grounds the recording sucked.
Maybe I am part of the problem too! Maybe it's time to start...
I guess until then we can continue to blame perfectly good *formats* for the crappy sounding recordings we're getting.
to the point of unrealistic.While you are boycotting recordings to force better quality, the masses will be buying mp3s from amazon and apple. Audiophiles cannot even agree on the merits of any recording between themselves.
If you want to limit your listening to a certain level of perceived recording quality, that's your choice. But nothing you or the tiny audiophile market does is going to influence the recording industry.
And people who love various types of music will continue to listen to it in whatever forms it happens to become available. Nothing is going to change.
Where did I say to listen to "well recorded music one does not like"?I never said you said that. Reading comprehension?
My point was obvious even though it passed right over your head in your rush to read what you thought I wrote instead of what I wrote.
I love some classical performances and some pop recordings that were not well-recorded. There is no substitute for them. One cannot find a great recording of Walter and Ferrier in Das Lied because it doesn't exist. I should listen to some snooze fest with Maazel because it sounds good?
"Who has time to listen to great recordings of lousy performances?"And others in this thread said similar things: that great recordings of bad performances OR performances that they do not even prefer are of little value to them.
This I don't contest. I also don't contest that there are just some recordings in our collections that are simply "must-haves", but are regrettably poorly recorded. The whole point of my original post was that these "lemons" seem to be offered as some sort of "proof" that formats (and digital audio technology) has not evolved.
I also believe that:
a)music that is worth PLAYING well is worth RECORDING well
b)with recorded music, the RECORDING is the final productLove for music and obsession about hi-end stereophonics are not one in the same. You can have one, the other, or both. Some audiophiles are in it JUST for the music. Others use music to listen to equipment. I am right in the middle. I want GOOD music (that I like) recorded WELL and played back on the BEST system I can put together.
I also think that those who have a system for classical/jazz and another for "rocking the house" are on the right track. I have always believed that trying to have "one stereo do it all" is, in itself a compromise.
I have rock recordings from the 80's that simply rock the soul on my custom built EV/JBL studio monitors with some good pro sound power behindl them. But these same recordings sound flat and two dimensional on my high-rez system - a system that does powerful classical passages with moving and spine-chilling realism.
In the end, I believe it's the recording quality and the system I choose to play specific music on that has the most bearing - not the format itself.
I used to be a beer drinker. But I would take a cold diet coke over my FAVORITE beer it was warm. The temperature of the beer being synonymous with the quality of the recording is a good example of the point I am trying to make.
I loved the beer but it had to be cold.
I love music, but I prefer it when it's recorded well.I don't understand why this concept is so contrarian and heretic to music lovers.
Oh, and my reading comprehension level is just fine thank you.
They ain't makin' it.Okay, listen up. You have beer in two states: warm and cold. In either state it's the same beer.
Now, you have a performance of Das Lied to die for. The sound sucks. There's another performance that sucks but sounds great. It's not the same performance. It's entirely different. One cannot be substituted for the other. They are not interchangable. To stretch your impossible analogy, it doesn't taste the same. Warm or cold!
The second one is unlistenable, in glorious sound. If you enjoy that--and if you enjoy not listening to great pop music that was poorly recorded, have fun! Go nuts! Invite your friends! Have a happy life!
I will listen to music I enjoy, the records I enjoy, the performances I enjoy, and if they happen to have good sound I'll enjoy them even more. But I won't drink horse piss because it's cold!
GEDDIT? Jeez Luiz!
But I don't enjoy listening to beautiful music that was butchered by incompetent recording and mixing. And I think the REASON for not liking it is BECAUSE of my love for music, not merely for a love of "good recordings regardless of performance quality".To me, performance and recording are part of one product. I can sit and IMAGINE how good the live performance "would" or "could" of sounded had the recording not been butchered. But I think an inept recording crew is about as good for a performance as a drunken conductor.
I ask myself: who is really revering music more? The person who listens to beautiful music despite it's poor recording quality? Or the person who refuses to let inept recording engineers profit at the EXPENSE of musicians and audiophiles both?
I don't like supporting recording companies that can't do the only thing they're supposed to KNOW how to do - which is RECORD MUSIC WELL.
If you don't care about recording quality and only care about the music, then why worry about what your system, speakers and room are doing either? If you can listen to crappy recordings and enjoy music, maybe it would stand to reason that you can use cheap sources and speakers too and save a bunch of money in the process. This is, of course, what is implied if a "love for music" is all you need.
In my opinion, love is wonderful - but often it isn't enough.
I want great performances that are masterfully recorded. And there's so much of THAT out there, I don't fret about the odd performance that is butchered beyond use. I really don't think asking for both is as limiting as you are making it out to be.
for me poor sound quality actually diminishes the music and keeps me from enjoy the music as does "hi-fi'ish" sound as both are distractions. The most enjoyable music from a deep emotional and sonic standpoint are those that are so naturally recording that my stereo melts away and all I hear is the music. This is why audiophile recordings are so great, and with over 10,000 audiophile recordings one only has to buy what one likes.
To suggest anyone buys an audiophile recordings for the sonics only is lubricous. It is all about the music and better it is recorded the more it can be enjoyed as "pure music".
Audiophile recordings sound better the same way that and well designed concert hall made on premium wood with velvet covered seats makes music more enjoyable than a stadium made on concrete with plastic chairs.
"Music is love"
Teresa
Best definition of "audiophile" I've ever heard!That Das Lied I was talking about was not recorded "ineptly." It was made in the 40s, an air-check as it happens, probably direct to 78RPM acetate. And it's in mono! The horror!
It happens to be the best the engineers could do at the time. I've played for drunken conductors. There's a difference.
"I ask myself: who is really revering music more? The person who listens to beautiful music despite it's poor recording quality? Or the person who refuses to let inept recording engineers profit at the EXPENSE of musicians and audiophiles both?"
I don't care who's "revering music more." I just want to hear the best (classical) performance, the one that moves me, not some snooze fest foisted on us by these blow-dried conductors. And once again, it's usually not "inept;" it's usually just, ah, historical recording procedures. Or merely a late-70s DG multimike travesty.
And if you think that "profit" of recording engineers is particularly high, I've got news for you!
"I don't like supporting recording companies that can't do the only thing they're supposed to KNOW how to do - which is RECORD MUSIC WELL."
I don't either. But if the performance I love comes with less than stellar sound, tough titty. I've wasted hours of my life listening to interpretations that don't move me, and some that are actually an insult to music--all in spectacular sound. No more.
"If you don't care about recording quality and only care about the music,"
Never, ever said that. Why do you respond to what I haven't written?
"then why worry about what your system, speakers and room are doing either?"
For those happy times when a great performance is coupled with a great recording. Obviously. Plus, the nicer your system the better the "crappy" ones sound, too. I've spent untold time and money and DIY effort over the last 45 years as an audiophile getting my system better, including a couple of years developing and building my own speakers, to that end.
Or don't I count as an audiophile?
"I really don't think asking for both is as limiting as you are making it out to be."
Well, of course you mean "as limiting as my interpretation of what you're saying" would make it out to be. After all these years I don't feel limited by a treasured performance having less than terrific sound. Holt's law, again. That's life. But I won't give up listening to that Das Lied, because it is an incomparable, transcendant performance. And I won't give up listening to great rock records that don't sound so good, either.
If you are in fact willing to forgo a terrific rock record or a transcendant classical performance because it doesn't sound great, well, have fun with your music and enjoy life. To each his own.
Why won't you let me do the same? Or do I have to give up calling myself an audiophile? Then is it okay?
I really believe if you were willing to listen to other interpretations you could find one with a happy balance, excellent performance and excellent sound. It is not hard to do; you just have to be willing to try!
"Music is love"
Teresa
Markror:What's wrong with mono? lol. I'd rather have mono that some crazy surround mix with some "middle of the band" experience. (I tried to get middle of the band experiences in high school but was removed from the stage by security each and every time...)
"I you are in fact willing to forgo a terrific rock record or a transcendant classical performance because it doesn't sound great".
Well, probably not. But sometimes I use less revealing mid-fi (HT), auto or a second system to play these recordings so I **CAN** enjoy the music. Highly revealing systems are wonderful when reavealing the subtleties of well recorded material. But this is a double edged sword - I find hi-res systems can make lesser / older recordings MORE annoying than a mid-fi rig!!
I do find that I have more "reverance" (and tolerance for lesser recordings) for bands and groups that I liked before I became an audiophile, but when trying out new material, I find that recording quality has become a criterion. I guess I don't want to fall in love with music that is recorded poorly ALL THE TIME. It's so much more gratifying (and easy) to fall in love with music that is NORMALLY recorded very well. And you KNOW you can choose who (and what) you fall in love with! ;)
Some examples of great artists that regularily produce WONDERFUL recordings that got me into 'audiophilia' in the first place:
Jennifer Warnes, Holly Cole, Jesse Cook, Allison Kraus, Eva Cassidy, Roy Orbison, Mark Knopfler, Chris Isaak... to name a few. Then you get some oddballs like Sarah McLachlin, who has somewhat "studio/pop" sounding recordings, but comes out with acoustic tracks like "Ice" from "Fumbling Towards Ecstacy" that are so good it makes your skin crawl up your back.
I'm not saying I would like a favorite artist LESS because of poor recordings, but I really have a weakness for GOOD music that's ALSO recorded well.
Who doesn't?? :P
. . . and you have to retreat to a boom box to enjoy them, you are heading in the wrong direction with your system.
In my experience, the more I fine-tune a high-resolution (highly resolving system) the better well recorded music sounds. But often lesser recordings, especially over-compressed ones, actually sound worse.I find it's hard if not impossible to improve resolving power and "forgiveness factor" at the same time- these are more likely just conflicting design goals.
The only way to make bad recordings sound less bad is to mask the things that make them bad, and this is the opposite of getting to higher levels of resolving power.
Again, I don't think it would be silly at all to have two systems: one that is more laid back and more forgiving, and another one that is hyper-detailed. I think the main reason why audiophiles are always trying to "massage" ONE system is that they are always playing different software. One minute they are happy, the next they are not. What changed? The software. So they get new hardware.
Although few recordings are SO bad they get filed in the "boom box / car stereo" pile, there are a lot of recordings I have (especially rock from the 80's and some heavier stuff) that definately "play" better though pro-sound monitors that indeed "like to rock". But these monitors are not nearly as flat, accurate or revealing as my high-end stuff.
I say 'have a resolving system for the good recordings and a forgiving system for the lesser recordings'. No boom box needed here! This way, one can be a music lover and an audiophile at the same time without spending all that money trying to refine ONE system to "do it all", which is a noble effort, but a stretch. I think three $10,000 systems that are specialized for the kind of music and recordings they will play will be more satisfying overall that one "hyper resolving" $30,000 system. In fact, I think too many times guys get INTO high-buck systems only to find how BAD 1/2 of their collection really is (recording wise). Do they admit this? Not after spending $20K they sure as heck don't!
All they needed to do was keep their older vintage gear in another room (or in a parallel setup in the same room) for the stuff that they LOVE to listen to but is not recorded well enough to SOUND GOOD through a high-buck system.
Then there are those who believe that EVERYTHING you play through a high-buck system should sound good REGARDLESS of recording quality and there's no telling THESE guys anything...
They're the ones pissed off about the poor "off road" performance of their new BWM. After all, for $100,000 it SHOULD go anywhere right?
Riiiiiiiiiight.
"In my experience, the more I fine-tune a high-resolution (highly resolving system) the better well recorded music sounds. But often lesser recordings, especially over-compressed ones, actually sound worse."That was once my experience, long ago. It tends also to be the experience of audiophiles whose quest for "detail" and "air" has led them to favor speakers that I find awfully bright, and on which instruments sound unnatural as a result. Most of these folks do not hear the sound of real instruments in a real space, as I do every day, and thus mistake "high resolution" for wicked fuckin' bright.
I have a couple of audio buds in this groove; I avoid listening to their systems at all cost. They, like quite a few audiophiles on this board, are headed in the wrong direction: the selection of music that sounds good on their systems decreases as their systems get "better."
Rather, I have found for myself (and for other audio buds) that detail, air, and resolution must be obtained without added brightness, and that it can be. When that happens, all of a sudden one's less-than-stellar recordings also obtain added detail, and are more pleasant to listen to.
For the compression born of the loudness race, however, there is no solution.
Ha ha ha. I don't laugh out of malice. We're more alike than you realize."and thus mistake "high resolution" for wicked fuckin' bright."
Yep. There is one sure fire way to get "more detail"...put a lift on the high end and make it friggin louder so it stands out from the rest of the bandwidth - and wreck tonal accuracy and balance in the process! And it's not 20K like people think. It's more like 10K where that 'shimmer and sparkle' can turn fast into "sizzle". OUCH! Yeah, I know this can happen. It does not happen with me too much though... since I am always measuring my system and comparing both direct and reflected sound levels. If you make your speakers "flat" measured from the listening position (as required for digital room correction) but they are 30 degrees off axis, you get great measurements and glass breaking sound. One has to be aware of the implications of putting speakers in a non-anechoic environment and how room reflections make "liars" out of measurment mics. But the detail I am referring to is not borne out of a high-end lift or exaggerated high end - it's borne of better transient response, driver time alignment, and even phase correction (transient perfect digital crossovers). When you switch back to conventional crossovers, you can hear the "smear" and obfuscation (and even loss) of the real real subtle stuff. We're getting into what they call "texture" and "palpability" zones now. Very subjective too...
"For the compression born of the loudness race, however, there is no solution. "
Agreed. I hate the loudness race as do most of us here. We have enough D.R. to accomodate everything except for a nuclear blast. And clipping (especially on DVD-A / SACD material) is unforgivable. It's already compressed to hell - why not cut back the level 1db and spare us the clipping?? But no - they add insult to injury. Compressed and clipped material. And this is supposed to be "good use" of D.R. and high resolution formats.
But again. It's not the format. It's what is done with it.
Hey, if you like rock and want a good "uncompressed" recording try Bad Company's "Ten from Six" (greatest hits). Neat soundstage, very natural sounding. They're kinda half-unplugged in some tracks maybe this has something to do with it. This album always stands out for me. They did something profoundly different here. I want to analyse the levels... maybe they're not using as much compression and just used lower overall levels. I dunno. Awesome tunes and a joy to listen to.
Sarah McLachlin's "Ice" from "Fumnbling towards Ecstacy" is another recording that has silly good guitar. For a pop-recording, they sure did this track justice.
Do you have any pop recording "exceptions" that are worth noting?
over shitty music on a PERFECT recording. you wont find me or any of my friends buying tiny tim direct to disc recordings (even if they existed).i found a doc severinsen DTD and was nearly nauseated.
as for sacd, i LOVE the sacd sound of my cheeeeep sony ns500v, even on rbcd. its the MUSIC, people!
...regards...tr
There is no reason to suffer poor sound or poor recordings!
"Music is love"
Teresa
case in point-zubin mehta/LAphil/holsts the planets and "the blues and the abstract truth" by oliver nelson. if i had to pick the proverbial desert island records, those would be included for sure.
that the planets is massively multimiked is astounding. i only recently found that out and am still reeling. most attempts at using that many mics on classical music are failures in the recording aspect.
...regards...tr
Especially the ones of his own film music such as "The Fantasy Film World of Bernard Herrmann" and the "The Mysterious Film World of Bernard Herrmann"
But you are correct there are not too many good sounding multi-mic'ed recordings.
"Music is love"
Teresa
Just noticed your attaboy for the little Sony (NS500V). Amazing SACD player all right. Sounds even better if you cut off the skimpy power cord near the unit, install an IEC pigtail, and go crazy with the power cord of your choice. The usual disclaimer: don't try this if you don't know what you're doing, etc.
i suppose if i was going that far, i would have the thing modded by one of the usual suspects. i have toyed with that option and also the oppo (they can be modded too) so i can have hdcd and dvda too.
there are quite a few hdcd discs that dont make mention on the cover or they do in small print hidden in the credits somewhere.
...regards...tr
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
check yer email now chris.
s
Most likely only those who are obsessed with how "good" their system sounds (and can sound) with the "right" recording. They seem willing to tolerate phoned-in (text- messaged-in these days?) performances because of the "audiophile" qualities recorded for, and marketed to and for...audiophiles. Not that there aren't MANY great performances of audiophile quality material available.It seems a major distinction of our description under the blue "A" is "Music Lover/Audiophile". That slash says much more about these boards than "Music Lover & Audiophile" would.
Fortunately, many around hear are both, and the majority fit the description in the order listed.
"I always play jazz records backwards, they sound better that way"
-Thomas Edison
"Music is love"
Teresa
nt
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: