|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.112.106.190
In Reply to: You can't have it both ways. posted by Presto on November 23, 2006 at 14:36:55:
HowdyPlenty of times I've had people complain about a particular album and then when I play it for them on my system they change their minds... As I've struggled to improve my system more and more discs become enjoyable (tho not all discs.)
Don't get me wrong there are some bad albums out there, but most of the albums I've heard people complain about I think really are just revealing something unfortunate about the system that they are being played on.
Follow Ups:
Ted:The point I was trying to make is this:
You can't maximize resolving power and forgiveness at the same time. They are opposite system goals.
You see, your claim that you find less and less recordings to sound "bad" (regardless of actual recording quality) as you improve your system might also indicate that you've ultimately moved away from maximum detail and resolving power.
I find the opposite effect truthfully. As my systems "speed" and resolving power has improved with room treatments, driver time-alignment, digital tri-amping with phase correction, and digital room correction techniques, I find bad recordings stand out like a sore thumb, while the good stuff sounds better than ever. I'm hearing reverberation content on sounds that I never knew existed before - quite an amazing experience. It's the subtle spacial cues and low level detail you start getting when transient response is improved that make the whole technical ordeal worth the while. When your "vinyl buddies" tell you that your digital rig is sounding "more analog than ever" that is also a good indicator you are moving in the right direction. It's "music to ones ears" - so to speak. :o)
Although the vast majority of CDs I own were introduced to me by other audiophiles are quite well recorded, some CDs (especially some pop music and hard rock from my younger days) is simply a total embarrassment to the recording industry and only gets played in the car or on computer speakers. They definately suffered "digital growing pains" from 83 to about... well some STILL haven't got it right! There is so much clipping, compression, sloppy digital reverberation effects, and other needless processing of the mix that you get this "wall of diffuse sound" with no specific imaging and no dynamics to speak of. First sign of over-processed garbage? The soundstage collapses into each speaker. Good systems will often do this with bad recordings - there is just no spacing information LEFT to resolve!
Don't get me wrong, if a hyper-detailed system also happens to make some mediocre recordings sound good, thats definately one heck of a bonus - a rare one indeed. But I would not be inclined to sacrifice the detail for a lesser system that was "more friendly" to a wider range of quality levels. It's just not what being a technical audiophile is about as far as I'm concerned. Part of being an audiophile is seeking out exquisitely recorded software to justify the large expenditure of time and money we put into our systems.
The "music lovers" claim that music should be "loved" whether or not it is recorded properly. If a certain favorite band or group is plagued by a series of unfortunate recordings, I could see a true "fan" toughing it out. But I value more that just the music. I value musicianship, and talent who listens to their CDs and demand quality. Musicians who are also recording artists who can TELL when they are producing a quality product. Ever get a poorly recorded Chris Isaac album? Allison Kraus? Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers?Play Bad Company's "Ten from Six" greatest hits album and scratch your head and ask yourself why the vast majority of rock music from the 80's couldn't ALSO sound so transparent and clean and image so well and not present like a compressed, diffuse and overprocessed "wall of sound".
Feel free to discuss further. But I'm not buying the concept that a system that somehow masks a poor recording is a superior system.
Good systems often go "PTUUUUU!!" and spit out foul tasting software.
Perhaps they are as picky as their owners! ;)
Admit it Ted. You've caught yourself warming up to music simply because it was impeccably recorded. If you are a true audiophile, this has happened. Don't let a love for great sound make you think you love music any less - this is a fallacy. Owning 4000 worn out records does not mean you love music - it just means you are a collector and place a higher value on quanitity than quality.
I think those who are picky about recording quality love music more.
HowdyI too improve my system by paying attention to having a flat freq response, speed, resolving power, etc. I just wanted to point out that often discs have "anomalies" that challenge many systems and if a system isn't up to it they can sound bad in one way or another.
I try to walk that edge between having a system that's so ruthlessly revealing that it's uninvolving and having a system that's very involving but misses the fun details down in the cracks. I want to hear those details and have my (and my guests) feet tapping no matter what kind of music is playing (well not a dirge, but you get the idea :)
I'm certainly not espousing masking bad recordings with a forgiving system, I'm simply saying there are a lot of recordings with bad reps that sound pretty darn good on a good enough system.
To be a little more blunt, at times people blame recordings rather than looking for things that they may be able to improve in their systems.
A few examples off of the top of my head:
Sometimes bass is deemed to heavy or muddy when it's just that a system isn't controlled enough in the bass, there's too much overhang, unfortunate room modes, etc.
Sometimes people complain about hiss in old analog recordings when their system is tipped up, they have too much RF interference, etc.
I've heard discs that people complained had no soundstage, but on a sufficiently revealing well set up system everything is in its place. To quote Bob Crump "Many systems have a hole in the center of the soundstage big enough to drive a truck thru."
I have a disc (The Vivino Bros. "Blues Band") which has a washboard which on some tracks is right in line with other instruments. Without a sufficiently revealing system it sounds like gross distortion in the right channel. I've had salesman run for the system to check wire connections when they hear this disc :)
One of my old favorites is Janis Joplin's "Summertime". I played it at the audio club and when the very distorted guitar came in it became the first disc we cut off before the end of a track that I can remember. We were listening to some home made speakers which broke up big time when hit with the distortion of the guitar.
Hey Ted:(TGIF!!)
Ted said: "I try to walk that edge between having a system that's so ruthlessly revealing that it's uninvolving and having a system that's very involving but misses the fun details down in the cracks."
Presto > That's a rather unusual relationship, imo. I find systems that are "laid back" or "less detailed" or "less revealing" to be far more univolving (typically). The usual complaints about the more revealing systems seem to be more along the lines of "clinical" or "bright" or "edgy" or "forward". Uninvolving just seems to be a rather 'atypical' association with more detailed/revealing systems. Interesting.
Ted: "I'm certainly not espousing masking bad recordings with a forgiving system, I'm simply saying there are a lot of recordings with bad reps that sound pretty darn good on a good enough system."
Presto: Okay, fair enough. It may also be short-sighted to only look at system quality alone anyhow. I find that on mid-fi systems I am far more inclined to "tweak" equalisation - especially tone controls - to make a song *I* want to hear sound better. The recording becomes the standard to which I will try and adapt. But I am not inclined very much at all to attempt to EQ a system I have painstaking tried to make flat because of a "non-audiophile" agenda in the recording studio. Let's face it - certain kinds of music are not engineered with audiophiles in mind, nor are they *desinged* for the critical/active listener. Dance music is designed to dance to - usually in clubs on PA systems with boatloads of bass. It was not designed to provide an enveloping 3D soundscape. Funny thing though, since most dance music is largely synthesized, it can sound really fantastic on a good system, but I find it to be lean in the bass on most "audiophile systems" which tend to often sacrifice the lowest octaves and focus on punchy, fast and articulate bass, sometimes even using sealed boxes.
Ted said: "To be a little more blunt, at times people blame recordings rather than looking for things that they may be able to improve in their systems."
Presto > Sure. They blame their rooms too. A popular "audiophile whine" is to lament how GOOD their system sounded in their last home, but new architectural (or spousal) restrictions have seriously lowered the quality of their listening environment. No offense to these poor souls, but if I am spending $300 to $500 THOUSAND dollars on a home, it's going to have at least a DECENT space for my #1 passion, hobby and pastime. But blaming recordings only works on people who don't know any better. Usually, if you are hanging in audiophile circles, you KNOW how good or how poor a specific recording sounds *in general* because you might have HEARD certain tracks played on two or three different (but excellent) systems. The older I get, the more I can "perceive" how a certain recording will sound on some of my friends systems - especially after hearing it on mine. **All this being said, however, I think it's a travesty to lose sight that lesser recordings DO exist and start a campaign of costly equipment change-outs to try and make an entire *collection* of music sound good. I still maintain that good recordings should be draw dropping - and if lesser ones sound "ok" that's a bonus - but it should not be an equally important pursuit, imho.**
You are right about specific systems problems either pronouncing (or even causing) specific (negative) audible effects. Equalisation is a huge one, and a room that is too reverberant or just too small is another. Placement is a HUGE factor - I belive placement to be the single most IMPORTANT factor in throwing a great soundstage. So many audiophiles will tweak their systems ad-infinitum, yet NEVER experiment with bringing their speakers more than 12" away from the wall! Some of the best imaging I have ever heard is on a system that is about EIGHT FEET from the back wall. My baffles are currently four feet away - and my room is far from "huge". Optimizing the speaker separation to listener distance ratio ("triangle shape") is also very important.
Anyways, I was being devil's advocate in the FIRST place. I wanted to convey that having a "picky" system for audiophile recordings and a "relaxed" system for lesser recordings is a simple (and ultimately cost effective) way to enjoy 99% of your music instead of f of it.
Myself, I would rather do it this way than make ANY sacrifices in my main system in an attempt to find some sort of balance. Audiophilia is not about balance. It's an obsession with perfection! ;)
This is why mutliple systems (and even a few pairs of headphones) can save one their sanity in the long run.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: