|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.16.14.254
I assume if a good percentage of recordings one owns sound good or at least adequate to you then one should chalk it up to the others being of inferior quality and not necessarily an inadequate system.
Follow Ups:
...in determining whether you are really a music lover or an audiophile. You can say "Enjoy the music" all you want but that's what it comes down to IMO. Admittedly though, some people can wear both hats. Please excuse me while I duck into my foxhole..."You can't handle the truth." Col. Nathan R. Jessep in "A Few Good Men"
...in determining whether you are really a music lover or an audiophile. You can say "Enjoy the music" all you want but that's what it comes down to IMO. Admittedly though, some people can wear both hats. Please excuse me while I duck into my foxhole...Am not really sure I get the point.
Are you saying than a real music lover can be identified by a willingness to sit in front of a stereo that sounds bad?
I think many music lovers who are audiophiles go out of their way to chose a system that allows the greatest opportunity to hear and enjoy music of interest without having to suffer with bad sound.
I'm missing your point on the usefullness of bad recordings?
What speakers and amps perhaps may work for digital may not for vinyl and what CD player may work for classical music on the specific format may not work as well with jazz or rock, so on and so forth.Perhaps it may be easier to obtain a good all around system that I may think.
BTW, I do have pre and power amps tube (Rogue) and SS (Luxman), several CD players, and different sets of speakers.
I enjoy listening to all recordings in different genres and in different formats. Suffering with bad sound is I'm sure what most audiophiles try to avoid! :)
Perhaps it may be easier to obtain a good all around system that I may think.I don't think so. I agree but the kinds of comprises you suggest, whole music genres and audio formats is too extreme to be useful at all. But for sure if someone wants to focus in on a band, a type of venue or recording quality and define a systems performance around such a narrow standard then they probably can get better (per this narrow definition) performance. But this is at the expense of different recording qualities and musical style.
I kind of doubt the cost effectiveness of having multiple high quality systems around for different kinds of music. I'd like to think having all the investment in a single system would be the way to go.
Sometimes a recording isn't great even though the music is. I have some OLD Louis Armstrong like that. I would think that a music lover would listen anyway while just an audiophile would shy away because it does not show off the system.I guess I'm in both camps, good and bad.
The good; I have many bad recordings that I still listen to and even some MP3 onto disc only because it's the only format that happens to have certain musical pieces.
The bad; I usually don't like to play those things when folks are over because it sounds odd.
One interesting note; I found that a speaker with a real flat response actually sounds better than the ones which are tweaked with bumps in the bass and treble on many of the bad recordings. I expected the opposite. I wonder if it's the midrange that really comes into play with those old recordings which are severely rolled off on either end.
Perhaps we need to make categories of "bad". I'll stop here because this is can of worms.
Bill
Perhaps we need to make categories of "bad". I'll stop here because this is can of worms.No it's a great point! It should not be a can of worms.
I have a hard time correlating "bad sound" with bad recordings. A recording can be very good, or sound very good, by audiophile standards and still sound bad to me - say bag pipes, a singer who's voice I can't stand, excessive production, etc.
On the other hand most recordings are bad by audiophile standards yet to me, most of them, sound pretty good to me ears. Of course I can judge the quality of the recording but I think this should not correlate with how I judge the sound of the recording.
How music is produced onto a recording is going to be obvious at playback but to my ears is only one of several factors that determines how it sounds as well as if it sounds good or bad.
As audiophiles we have no control over recording or music quality. What we have control over is sound quality.
You can't listen to one without the other, so the interaction always comes into playUnless you attended the mastering session with monitors that you know well, how can you be sure what is on the recording?
As my system has evolved my opinion about certain recordings has changed
For the most part recordings that I thought inferior now sound much better.
Some of the "better" sounding recordings have not benefited as much. Other "good" recordings now sound amazing.That is a tough question. You have already received some good responses. I'm looking forward to reading more!
Were the changes monumental in equipment regarding the money spent?
..... is underestimating the recording.I've often discounted a recording as being "poor", only to find out later-on that it was the recording that was exceptionally linear, and my system being unable to handle it.....
It happened with those Telarc LPs, where I initially discounted the sound as "overrated" with "bloated bass"..... After some improvements, I realized I was wrong.....
It happened with a lot of other recordings since then. Most-notably Aleks Syntek's "Mundo Lite", which I originally thought was a "hot" recording (and saying so on this very site), only to find out, listening to it on Don Allen's system, that I was dead wrong.....
I've also noticed it from others with what I think are fabulous recordings. The Who "Endless Wire". Curnow playing Metheny/Mays. Flim and the BBs. Those Telarc LPs.
The best attitude an audiophile can have- It might be a bad recording, but never presume so and accept it. For too often, I later find out it's a "bad recording" because my system was simply unable to handle the recording's demanding content in a linear manner.
I would point out that if you suffer from this mistake then you might review your reference points on the subject of playback's neutrality.
Thanks in advance!
I generally apply the term "linear" in regard to keeping the "straight line" input-output relationship, all the way up to maximum amplitude excursion.....THD may be a measurement indicating "non-linearity", but a low THD measurement does not necessarily mean superior linearity, for it rarely accounts for the amplitude excursions often encountered with the best recordings.
I personally think the most-overlooked aspect of performance in audio is a component's or system's ability to maintain amplitude (I/O) linearity when subjected to large signal excursions. Especially when it comes to digital sources, tube line stages, and solid-state power amplifiers.
The point of a high-end audio system is to reproduce all the natural harmonics present in the recording. No matter how good you make an AM radio, the 5 KHz audio bandwidth of the broadcast signal will keep it from ever sounding as good as FM or any respectable playback source. This is because natural instruments and human voices have spectral content above 5 KHz.However, many expensive audio systems are unpleasant reproducers because they manage to create spurious tones that mimic the natural harmonics. Whether due to harmonic and other forms of distortion in the electronics, stored energy in the speaker parts, resonances in the equipment and cable supports, or RF noise, these spurious tones confuse our brains' abilities to decode and enjoy the reproduced sounds.
I think it's kind of like the Supreme Court justice said (if I recall correctly), "It's hard to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."Same with "linearity". Just because a component has 0.0001% THD doesn't mean that it will behave linearly with real-life music signals. But it becomes obvious when listening to music. One really good test is to play those recordings that are known to sound poor on most equipment. As one reviewer said about one amplifier, "Dry, dull, or aggressive recordings sounded much more so.." In my experience, this is the kind of non-linearity that Todd is talking about.
On the other hand, I'm *not* talking about covering up faults in the recording with colorations or low-resolution or a sweet, syrupy overlay. It is possible to design equipment that is superbly transparent but *doesn't* make mediocre recordings sound terrible. It's easier to do with tubes, but can also be done with solid-state.
I have had quite a few recordings that sound average to awfull... so I put them to one side. Every new component from then on gets a fresh go at these recordings to see if it can unravel them.
I secretly hate the thought of consigning a potentially great recording to the bin because my expectations peaked too soon, before the equipment did.
Also might explain some of the shelves of shite that have accumulated over the years.... uhmm
... that some recordings I used to think were really special simply played to the strengths of my then-system. They still sound okay but not as good as I thought they were. And I wince at having dissed and dismissed those recordings that (like your experience) now sound quite fine indeed.
< < system was simply unable to handle the recording's demanding content in a linear manner > >This is exactly where that stereotypical "ruthlessly revealing" component comes in. You know, where the reviewer tells you the component is so "good" that you can hear how awful most recordings are.
I believe that your comment is right on the mark, and that the allegedly "good" component is behaving in a non-linear manner.
is overestimating the recording.Many tend to assume that records are made in heavens, and all it takes for good sound in their system. In fact, the majority of the records have their limitations. For example, most DG and EMI classical CDs or LPs are artificial multichannel mixes that cannot correctly represent the space. Oftentimes recording venues have poor acoustics, or microphones are wrong, or compression is used. The misjudgement about the source of problems often leads to considerable expense in unnecessary component upgrades.
Truly outstanding records shine even on modest equipment. I have several 45 rpm discs from Meridian and Varese Sarabande that belong to this category.
is my discussion with Romy the Cat over on Music, about Rostropovich's DGG cd of the Dvorak Cello Concerto. I thought it was bad sounding and less than ideal based on my impression in my wife's Lexus RX 300 Panasonic based cd car system. And it was not much on my work computer.But last night, amazing stuff on it. Maybe SFTech is right, my cd player is ok. Anyway, it sounded good except somewhat digital on massed strings. It was clearly multi miked, but the cello wasn't overbearing and the whole thing was great. My Memorial to Rostropovich. Got to get out my cassette of 5.1.69, Severance Hall, same work with Szell/Cleveland.
I draw it at whether or not I'm enjoying the music, no matter how superior or inferior the source. If I'm enjoying it, and in the moment, the quality of the source is not really very relevant.That doesn't mean I can't, won't or don't distinguish between the quality of the source, just that if the music is doing what it should, the source is then sufficient. I'd love it if my Arsenio Rodriquez or Sviatoslav Richter recordings qualified as "audiophile" recordings, and "sounded" more like my Cachiato or Time Fellner recordings, but they don't. It is my experience that they are more than fine the way they are, and I treasure them for WHAT they are.
Guess I draw the line at enjoyment of the music.
"I always play jazz records backwards, they sound better that way"
-Thomas Edison
"I draw it at whether or not I'm enjoying the music, no matter how superior or inferior the source."For me, this approach works for analog playback, but almost never for digital. This is why I no longer accept the notion that "it's about the music, not the quality of playback."
Or in other words, I can listen through a bad analog recording to a great performance, but when I listen to bad digital playback, the performance almost always seems to be degraded, relative to how it would have been perceived non-digitized.
I've lived most of my life within 20 miles of the Oracle turntable factory. I well remember the earliest versions, it's inventor and the local very high end shop where each new version appeared. I listened to it( and others) on any number of great systems over the years.
Here's the problem. Even though I grew up on vinyl ( although I could not afford an Oracle)I could never get past whatever negative effect vinyl placed on my listening pleasure.
One obvious problem ( for me ) was my absolute intolerance of any type of surface noise. For whatever reason, good ( not necessarily great) digital somehow appeals to my inner musical self unlike vinyl ever did. I don't understand why and I really don't care but it does go to show you that listening pleasure can be attained in very different ways for each of us.
...just maybe, the problem is with your digital source.In your post above, you remind people not to underestimate the recording. When I look at the components listed in your "Main" system, it seems to me as if your analog front end is *much* higher quality than your digital front end. Maybe there is a different CD player that would let you enjoy a "bad" digital recording...
My new CD player has been a revelation in terms of what is truly a "good" and "bad" digital disc. A lot fewer of the latter than I would have believed, as it turns out.
as most of the Richter recordings I have (for example) - and most that are available - are on CD, and the sound quality essentially qualifies as that of pirates or bootlegs. Still, the music therein trancends the source: they are still very enjoyable performances to my ears, and I would certainly rather listen to them than not.Guess I'm fortunate that in these (and most cases) it IS still about the music, and I have either the lack of expertise to be bothered by the results of the digitalization process as heard through my system, or...it just doesn't bug me for whatever reason.
As regards any analog vs. digital stance: I enjoy both equally these days. This was certainly untrue even 10 years ago, where digital was the defacto loser.
"I always play jazz records backwards, they sound better that way"
-Thomas Edison
Depends on how we've designed our systems. If we've bias'd it around a select group of recordings chances are with dissimilar recordings the system won't work so well. Nothing wrong with that if the listener is mainly interested in the kinds of recordings that sound best on such a system. Granted I believe it's possible one can come up with a set of reference recordings that can completely define a systems performance. But most of those who attempt to do this report the worsening of performance on some other types/qualities of recordings - which to me indicates they've not properly selected the reference set - at least if accuracy is the desired result. And for clarification IMO "most live" or "most real" is not the same as most accurate. Don't get me wrong "most live" or "most real" is fine as long such audiophiles realize the compromises and sacrifices they are making (by limited the value of many recordings) is a choice not a requirment for high fi satisfaction.The reality of it is for most of us audiophiles, me included, the best we can do is use the widest diversity of recording styles and qualities for system evaluation. I think for those of us most interested in normal popular recordings the most realistic chance of getting a great sounding system is by using mostly recordings of interest and resorting to focusing on recordings of special (audiophile) merit when evaluations/comparisons aren't lending perfectly clear results.
Regardless. If an audiophile claims his system sounds great on some recordings and like dog poop on others it was his decision to make his system sound that way - and he admits to how he perceives it's performance. On the other hand if an audiophile thinks his system sounds great on just about every recording it was his decision to make his system sound that way - and he admits to how he percieves it's performance.
For me "Drawing The Line Between The Quality Of The Recording Versus Your System" isn't really the important point. The important point is "Drawing The Line Between The Quality Of The Sound of the System Versus Your System" . Ie. I believe "bad sound" = "bad system" and the correlation between recording quality and "bad sound" is mostly (not always) excuses made by those attempting to sell or justify purchasing bad systems.
s
Clark, I have to say that I've never noticed polarity to make a significant difference in sound quality, although I know your experience is very different. In fairness, I recall speaking with you about it many years ago at a Stereophile show, and you told me that it was more difficult to hear polarity differences on my speakers, which were, and are, original Quad ESLs. Or maybe I'm just not sensitive to it. To me that's actually a good thing - one less thing to futz with! :-)
What if your preamp was tilted or harsh in the upper frequencies? And recordings without a lot of upper frequency energy sounded good; and other recordings with more upper frequency energy sounded bad. Would you chalk it up to good and bad recordings, or would you recognize it as a limitation in the equipment?Also, some speakers sound better with certain types of music. Speakers that do light jazz and vocals well may not do orchestral or rock well.
When evaluating your hardware, I think you need to know ahead of time that the source material is a good recording.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: