Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I think it's a fair question to ask but granted it can be interpreted differently and therefore answered differently

 

 

A different question, and for me the answer is Yes, sometimes. It depends. If I can get past the flaws or even discard the part of the signal with the flaws, then yes. To the latter I actually prefer very bad recordings on the car radio eg pretty much anything from the Stones which i think is great rock music.Some bad recordings have enough good bits to make them shine on a good system.

 

I would also agree that you need to distinguish whether you are listening to music or listening to your system. As I see it tho, it is when the system totally gets out of the way of a good recording that the emotional connection is strongest. Good sound in the service of good music.

 

 

Since the question can be interpreted differently, why not change it to something more specific? 

[Rexp]

22 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Hence a "bad recording can sound good"!  

Not a good example, Kind of blue is a good recording (on vinyl) , haven't found a good digital version yet. 

[Rexp]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

Which digital versions have you listened to?

The ones on Tidal (non mqa) plus a CD i bought years ago, what would you recommend? Thanks! 

[Rexp]

6 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I like the stereo and mono versions available on HDTracks.

I downloaded the 24/96 mono, sounds great! The 16/44 version of same, doesn't cut it. 

 

[Rexp]

7 hours ago, Summit said:

Bill I’m glad to hear that am not alone . We did a test of this with a Linn Sneaky played on a pair of Linn bookshelf speakers VS an older pioneer stack and pioneer speakers. We tested with different sources and even with low quality YouTube videos the difference in SQ, toe taping and enjoyment was enormous. The Linn system which is not even a high end system was so much better than the pioneer. It was a real night and day difference. Next we tested against a Samsung TV with a sound bar and the Samsung sounded even worse than pioneer did. The higher the volume the more evident was the flaws of the the low quality systems.  

Technically good recordings sound good on lo-fi and high-end systems. Technically bad recordings made for ipods sound better on lo-fi systems than high-end systems. 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You had me right up to the bagpipes thing. Not sure if you are implying they are not liked by many or 'to each his own'....no matter.

 

I love the bagpipes but here's the thing, you must hear them live (not saying you have not). It brings me to another point relevant to this thread.

 

When I was lucky enough to see/hear the Tattoo in Edinburgh I was blown away (pun intended) by the massed sound of the bagpipes. I can't say i would want to sit down and listen on a high-end system but live the sound was mesmerizing. Yes, part of it was the spectacle,atmosphere and the whiskey tastings pre-event !

 

I find really esoteric (esoteric to me, subjective) jazz much the same way. A bit self indulgent and not terribly accessible. I know, heresy to jazz aficionados. Hearing it live is quite something else, again mesmerizing!! I will sit in a jazz club for hours. I am actually listening to more of the jazz classics now than ever before (some mentioned on this thread) as my audio system is the best I have ever owned. So, sound quality comes into it but I think there is more to it. Interested to hear what others feel.

Jazz is a great test for a hifi system, most can't keep up, so folks can be forgiven for thinking it sounds like noise. 

[Rexp]

23 hours ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

It is actually been accepted as common knowledge on some less intelligent forums that the higher resolution your system is, the worse your lesser recordings will sound because it will reveal their flaws. A case of logic or more accurately non-logic over actual experience. The bad things that make so called bad recordings sound bad usually relate to distortion products and electronic signature. Truly great equipment might be more revealing, but it also has less distortion of many different types and less electronic signature which work hand in hand to produce stingy unpleasant unnatural sounds. The net result is a relative smoothing over of the recordings faults, not by veiling them but by the system only producing musical sounds minus the distortion and electronic signature of lesser gear. Distortion and electronic signature manifests itself as grain, edge, brightness & sting and interferes with natural harmonics, making instruments and voices sound unnatural and artificial in addition to sounding unpleasant. Get rid of as much distortion and electronic signature as possible and even though the sound of that caliber of equipment will likely be more revealing, the sound will still be much nicer and more pleasant sounding. Even the sound inner groove gross cartride mistracking makes, sounds puffy and smooth, rather than harsh on an ultra clean system. It's there but not so offensive or annoying. The "too revealing of bad recordings" crowd are often "detail chasers" whosechosen systems have peaks in the frequency response in places that its terrible to have peaks, and their systems are usually too bright and have distortion unbenounced to them and they blame it all on their recordings. They have problems and they are great.

You are confusing bad recordings with bad playback systems. What you are saying is a seemingly bad recording can be revealed to be a good recording if the playback system is good enough, which I agree with. But GIGO always applies. 

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Not in this case. The Adele 21 recording is clearly OVER COMPRESSED, and NO decent rig will ever make it sound great or do it justice, and that includes yours too, in it's original form.

 It appears to be mastered for listening via ear buds in noisy public transport etc.

I think some tracks like 'Rolling in the deep' were mastered for single release and sound better on a car radio than a high end system. Others like 'One & only' sound ok. 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

OK - Here is another track as an example.  I would not say this is "bad" recording as such, but for me it is mixed way too bright, which makes it somewhat fatiguing and unpleasant to listen too.  I also recognise that in all probability, nobody reading this thread would want to listen to Neneh Cherry anyway, but  that is not the point, I offer this as an example of  specific recording mastering issue.

 

There were some posts earlier in this thread that were making a point that I essentially agree with, that tweaking a system to make "bad" recordings sound "good" can potentially be the same thing as adding coloration.  With the particular track below, I can actually make it sound a lot better on my system with the simple act of turning the treble down a few dB's.  In this case I am fortunate that I am running an amp that features tone controls.  In this specific case, I would not class this as "coloration", but a simple case of tweaking the system to compensate for issues in the recording.  A bit of crude "on the fly" remastering if you like.  Plus of course, when listening to a recording that does not suffer this kind of tonal imbalance, the tone control goes back to flat. 

 

Of course if you have a system with treble issues, fundamentally too bright, HF distortions or whatever, then tweaking the system will help improve this track, or any other.  But even if a system reached perfection, the issues in the recording would remain, and tweaking the treble down would help.  Conversely, I guess this track might sound just fine on a system with a few issues, such as intrinsically dull or recessed treble.  A "good" system won't save it though....

 

(as an aside, I also wonder if this might be an example of un-decoded pre-emphasis?)

 

 

Like you say its too bright, other than that its quite good, (listening on Tidal). There is a less bright remastered version that sounds worse. 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

INRE topic, every time i try something new in my audio chain, i always go to eva cassidy fields of gold.

Her voice just pulls you in like no other artist i have ever heard, but there are usually 1 or 2 "shrilling" moments...don't know if its the recording or just her voice, but that one or two notes kind of kills the song....wondering if have a tube preamp might help.

I don't know if she has any really good recordings...seems like most out there are amateurish recordings, which is a shame she never signed with a major label....

 

Try this: