|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.216.246.51
In Reply to: So you won't listen to a great performance of a classical work, or a killer pop record, unless it sounds good. posted by markrohr on May 17, 2007 at 11:18:22:
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
Follow Ups:
. . . 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: