|
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 never said that. posted by Presto on May 15, 2007 at 23:20:38:
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?
Follow Ups:
"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?
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: