|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.216.246.51
In Reply to: RE: Audio System Performance (a rant) posted by Goober58 on December 06, 2012 at 05:43:34
"Though stereos should allow you to know about how a recording was made or assembled how it sounds (good or bad) 100% depends on the stereo."No. It really doesn't. The stereo is not a separate entity. A stereo that is 100% of the "sound" has no recording and has no listener and has no room.
Room + speakers + system + recording + (listeners hearing and emotions and biases) = 100% of sound.
Also, when I sad "bad/good" recordings, I meant "subjectively bad recordings" and "subjectively good recordings", aka how they SOUND. I don't care that there might be a technical disaster of a recording that sound subjectively good and a technically prestine recording that somehow sounds bad. I also was not referring to quality of performance - a bad performance can be recorded well OR poorly, as can a fantastic performance. With performance, we only blame the musicians and maybe the conductor!. I definately did not mean a "technically bad" recording that sounds "subjectively good" and vice versa. I mean: no matter how it was contrived, bad recordings are the ones that SOUND bad and good recordings are the ones that SOUND good.
The kind of detail rendering audiophiles want is never a bad thing; it's only bad when they can tolerate this detail level on some recordings and not on others.
My stereo very often reveals to me the limitations of poor recordings. Fortunately for me, the genres and groups I like more often than not have a wide variety of excellent recordings. Those who are love with vintage blues that was recorded with highly compromised equipment or transferred from highly compromised formats (some vintage 78 RPM record transfers for example) may not enjoy such a wide selection of QUALITY recordings. They might capture very moving and rare and fantastic music, but to say it is CAPTURED well is just simply incorrect. It's band limited, midrange forward, sometimes off pitch, and filled with cracks and pops. That cannot be good for the sound, except in the rare case the "bad sound" is part of the actual subjective aesthetic of the music.
Like that horrible "country crackle" paint, which I believe was borne of a bad production run and someone took some home and it caught on with the "Martha Stewart" home DIYer set.
Some recordings should be played back on a grammaphone or 78 RPM phonograph with a nail for a needle. At least that way, you have synergy between the bad recording and the bad equipment...
Cheers,
Presto
Edits: 12/06/12Follow Ups:
Here's a story of the interaction between a recording and the playback system, prompted by your post.
The other day I download a 96/24 recording of Bruckner's 7th. The performance had sounded good from the samples, but when I played the recording the sound was horribly harsh. As I was suffering all the way through I decided to play a game, namely to guess exactly what parametric EQ settings to use that would improve the recording. As it turned out, I wasn't right on, but a few minutes more tweaking and I had a "remastered" version of the recording that actually sounded very good, with a full sound stage, no dullness, but virtually all of the harshness from the strings long gone.
What were the engineers thinking? Or, more probably, what was wrong with the system they were using to monitor the recording? Who is right? Who is wrong? Which version of the recording is good or bad? Things for people who only listen to recordings to think about.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony -
A couple years ago I heard Garrick Ohlsson play one of his great Chopin concerts. The next day I went to the Hyperion site and downloaded his recording of the Polonaises. Dreadful: no bass, honky upper mids, distant, muffled, no highs, gritty, flat as a pancake. Overall, like the Bad Old Early Days of CD. Confirmed it on multiple systems, with CAL Sigma II, Metric Halo ULN2, and Universal Audio 2192 converters. Undeterred (or foolish) I bought his box set on CD, thinking I just had to have his work, no matter how bad it sounded. The CDs are terrific. (ahh - big sigh here)
I wrote Hyperion, asking how this could be. They replied that the files were identical to the CDs, and yes, they had listened to both and they sounded identical.
It remains a mystery to me. OK, the response I got from Hyperion is probably from some flunky charged with dealing with those pesky customers, so let's ignore that. But the difference between the FLAC files and the CD is so huge - someone at Hyperion must have heard both. WTF.
WW
New Orthophonic High Fidelity
Well, Tony...
We do quickly get into semantics issues with these discussions (such as me and the OP discussing what constitutes a good or bad recording, be it appraised by subjective or objective criterion).
In your case, you likely have no idea what would consitute an equalization transfer function that would "reverse" some of the EQ woes done in the recording / mixing / mastering process. What you did is subjectively EQ the recording - it SOUNDS better now.
This is all I mean by "good and bad" recordings. Those that sound good are good, those that sound bad are bad.
Now, for more semantics, you differentiate between those who listen to recordings and those who (I assume) listen to MUSIC.
Therein lies the rub: We listen to recordings OF music. The fact it's recorded music cannot be eliminated from the equation no matter how determined some of us are to do just that (me included).
Cheers,
Presto
"In your case, you likely have no idea what would consitute an equalization transfer function that would "reverse" some of the EQ woes done in the recording / mixing / mastering process. What you did is subjectively EQ the recording - it SOUNDS better now."
Yes, it sounds better, on a carefully calibrated (by listening and measuring) playback system that has been adjusted so that the majority of recorded music will sound good on it, leaving only outliers as sounding bad. By sounding better, I mean sounds like a plausible reproduction of a Bruckner symphony in a decent concert hall from a seating perspective consonant with the level of reverberation in the recording. I don't know that the recording was EQ'd other than the transfer function of the microphones and the position of the microphones in respect to the violins, which have different frequency balance at different radiation angles. It would have been better to have moved the microphones to slightly different locations, rather than do the fixup that I did, but, either way, a bad recording was transformed into a good one.
"The fact it's recorded music cannot be eliminated from the equation no matter how determined some of us are to do just that (me included)."
I expect recorded music to give me the same emotional experience as a live concert, with the exception of the doubt one experiences during an actual performance that the artists will actually pull it off.... I also expect that recordings of small ensembles and solo instruments will play back in a living room with equivalent sonic results to having the actual musicians present and performing. For small scale ensembles this is entirely possible, as I have demonstrated to my personal satisfaction by recordings that I have made.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Yes, it sounds better, on a carefully calibrated (by listening and measuring) playback system that has been adjusted so that the majority of recorded music will sound good on it, leaving only outliers as sounding bad. By sounding better,"
This is my philosophy. Have a system that is very detailed and resolving despite being neutral. I think some audiophiles deplore "neutral" because they associate neutral with boring or pedestrian and run off to find some exciting "voicing" done by a boutique designer.
"I expect recorded music to give me the same emotional experience as a live concert,"
I get more spine chills and goose pimples at home actually. For me, a concert is a more engaging experience where I get to be in the company of the performers I want to see. The visuals are not virtual but real, as is the acoustics of the venue. It may not sound perfect, but it's the ACATUAL sound of THAT venue with THOSE musicians with THEIR PA equipment. Because there is a PA involved I don't worry so much. Unplugged instruments? That's surreal. From string and soundbox right to my ear. I guess for me is that although I enjoy both I just think of them as different ways to appreciate art which BOTH give me satisfaction, just in slightly different ways.
Cheers,
Presto
"Room + speakers + system + recording + (listeners hearing and emotions and biases) = 100% of sound."
Nope I disagree but thanks for your clarification room+speakers+system is what I refer to as the stereo.
Recording is the input and how any individual listener qualifies the output is nothing more than his opinion.
"I mean: no matter how it was contrived, bad recordings are the ones that SOUND bad and good recordings are the ones that SOUND good."
Of course but which one's sound good and which ones sound bad is a function of the system. I'm not trying to be obtuse here but the volume control exists for a reason - no matter how broken the vast majority of recordings should provide at least a reasonable music experience within a volume range limited by reasonable expectation.
"The kind of detail rendering audiophiles want is never a bad thing; it's only bad when they can tolerate this detail level on some recordings and not on others."
Nice - almost. Sure it's not a bad thing - however understanding that detail rendering can be unnatural and amusical seems to be more difficult for many audiophiles than it is to decide if something sounds good or sounds bad. Adding to the confusion most audiophile quality recordings can sound stunningly good on just about any stereo including mostly medicre ones.
"My stereo very often reveals to me the limitations of poor recordings."
Mine too but rarely do such limitations interfere with my enjoyment of the recordings - see below.
"Fortunately for me, the genres and groups I like more often than not have a wide variety of excellent recordings. "
Well if I say an excellent sounding recording means an excellent recording I would agree with you. But I don't say that. Even though most recordings sound great/excellent via my gear I wouldn't consider most of them excellent recordings.
"Those who are love with vintage blues that was recorded with highly compromised equipment or transferred from highly compromised formats (some vintage 78 RPM record transfers for example) may not enjoy such a wide selection of QUALITY recordings. "
I think I have a at least a couple of very old historical recordings (as well as some tracks on some comps or box sets) that really aren't worth listening to but I have many old ones that are pretty crappy that still capture the essence, or at least what I consider to be the essence, of the music on recording. Reasonable playback of this kind of stuff is essential......
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: