Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Can bad recordings sound good?

 

This seems to be a recurrent theme across some threads eg

  

7 hours ago, Summit said:

It is not true that a recording either sounds good or bad regardless of the playback system. Some records are more complex and difficult to reproduce and can sound bad on a lesser audio system but good on a better one.

 

It is a myth that a bad recordings sound worse the better the system. The better system will still sound better even if we can hear some flaws more clearly. It is those over-analytical midfi “HIFI” system that lack bass and that emphasize a sharp and bright sound that can sound worse, but I don’t consider them to sound good and lifelike.

 

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

George, I was pointing out that the broken record that you accuse me of is a response to the steady mantra of those who assert that the lacking in the quality of what they hear is the recording's fault - the same excuse has been trotted out, to me, constantly over the last 35 years ... and that groove has worn down to the point of breaking through to the other side, for me.

 

You seem unaware that hardware is now coming out that is capable of getting so much closer to the true sound of the recording with relatively little tweaking - progress is being made, whether you like it or not.

 

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes ... how it works is that low resolution, midfi systems simply don't extract all the details of the recording; the "bad bits' of the technology, as well as "good bits" of the music just don't come through - this compromise works quite well. Improve the resolution of the playback, and you "hear everything" - where this goes wrong is that the remaining distortion misbehaviour of the rig intermodulates with less than perfect capture or storage of the event; two very distinct wrongs are too much for the ear/brain - "bad recordings" abound. The solution is to push the playback chain to a higher level of integrity, so that its distinctive sound signature vanishes. Then the listening mind only has to accommodate a single style of distortion; that of the particular track - this is very obvious when you play a compilation album, each successive track changes the acoustic world you experience, sometimes dramatically - but each works, because the listener very rapidly adapts to the new soundscape; it almost immediately makes sense.

 

 

My view is that over 90% of "Hi-Fi" is in the quality of the recording. GIGO.

 

The better the reproducing system the more transparently it will reveal what sounds like real (unamplified) sounds in a real acoustic space.

 

The better the reproduction system the more it will reveal good and bad bits of a recording.Good bits of bad recordings can make the presentation sound less unpleasant, indeed pleasant if one is able to mentally tune out the bad bits.One can rediscover many old recordings in this way. The bad bits however are still revealed and no amount of system tweaking will overcome this if transparency is maintained.

 

Tweaking a HiFi system to make the bad bits of recordings sound "good" (less bad) = coloration. All recordings start to sound of the signature of the color chosen and one may gravitate to certain recordings that suit the color. In essence you convert a HiFi system into a mid or more likely Lo-Fi system. Radios and car stereos can sound 'good' with bad recordings because of the information discarded - you end up with a truncated, compressed, music-in-a-tin sound. This is fine to get the gist of the melody and rhythm especially for familiar tunes.

 

The other biggy with tweaking of course is the possibility of confirmation bias. But the emperor has no clothes if nobody else perceives it.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

40 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

When you go beyond making a consumer system as technically accurate as possible, then you get into the realm of re-working and re-mastering.  A little shelving to correct a recording, or more serious stuff to correct the speakers -- that is still in the realm of proper reproduction.  Some recordings also have a repeatable kind of damage that can be at least partially corrected.  However, when a consumer does things with tools that are normally available to the audiophile, using a locally corrected system -- then coloration is about all that can be done.   A consumer who does more than EQ for a recording, and perhaps a small amount of 5BX-type expansion, then we are talking about correction and remastering.  Without proper tools, the correction and remastering is futile.

 

In my project, I have found that 'rework' can be harder than hell, because of the extreme variability of recordings.  Almost the only thing that you can generally rely on -- a given album TENDS to be similarly damaged.  Series of albums from a given artist tends to be more similarly damaged than between different artists.  However, sometimes you do find cases where individual selections have also been tweaked.

 

I have respect for those who clean up a recording, that might be beautiful, but dependent on ancient technology - there will be very-difficult-to-correct damage, but mostly well correct.  Small defects in media, transducers,etc can hide a lot of these sins. 

 

A consumer without specialized hardware and software cannot undo the major kind of damage on pop recordings, however there is LOTS of properly mastered material also -- but the label won't be 'Atlantic' or whatever major labels that are available today.  The label would more likely be a specialty one, and some super picky person will do the mastering, and not allow the distributors to put the bad-touch on their recordings.

 

Unless using very speciality software, correcting a damaged recording might be fun to try, but the results will not be as good as possible.  Speciality software of various kinds CAN do a lot to fix old recordings.  Trying to fix the recordings without specialty HW or SW - just coloration & tweaking.

 

John

 

I agree John. So, in a nutshell, forgive me if an oversimplification, some bad recordings can be improved by fixing aspects of the recording itself. This is difficult and not for the inexperienced working with poor tools.

 

The only thing i don't get is " or more serious stuff to correct the speakers". Do you mean DRC?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Quote

 

The better the reproducing system the more transparently it will reveal what sounds like real (unamplified) sounds in a real acoustic space.

 

Correct. But the acoustic space may be completely artificial, being that of say synthesizer instruments, but it still completely works as a listening experience ... I would suggest Jarre here as a good example.

 

From your post, this is about the only thing I agree with Frank . If the sound is totally artificial we have no reference point other than it sounds good or bad to you in an absolute sense. We still do know what  a 'live' amplified guitar sounds like

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

41 minutes ago, MetalNuts said:

Can bad recordings sound good? I think they can .....  It depends on 1. the system itself whether it can honestly and accurately replay the recordings without adding color and favorites

If the system " honestly and accurately replays the [bad] recordings without adding color and favorites" won't a bad recording then sound bad?

(we know your answer Frank)

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

25 minutes ago, MetalNuts said:

what about the 2nd condition of what is bad/good subjectively in the mind of the listener and why on earth people like 300B amplifier.  The particular coloration is considered good by the listener.  Recording being mastered to boost certain frequency may be considered by some not balanced and not natural but some may consider it very hi-fi.  The good for you may be the bad for the others and vice versa.  No point arguing when it involved the subjective preference of individual.

 

okay, no need to dance around with your clever answer...oh, already see you're doing that🤣 - BUT if someone subjectively considers a recording bad, to be internally consistent, they would also consider the same qualities subjectively bad on playback.

 

This condition holds only if transparency is the goal and it presupposes that you know what the recording sounded like in the first place.

 

If transparency is not the goal then all bets are off.

 

If transparency is the goal you cannot know what each and every recording sounded like live but the clues would be how real it sounds on playback and that all playbacks on a system don't have a signature, albeit euphonic sound.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

That's the tricky bit ... we need a list a "bad" tracks, or albums, which "most" people agree upon - I submit:

 

Adele 21

ABBA's Ring Ring

 

😜

Couldn't agree more here Frank.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

47 minutes ago, MetalNuts said:

If before listening, some already formed the opinion of it being a bad recording, what is the point of listening? 

 

Agreed but that's not the question

 

47 minutes ago, MetalNuts said:

It is my experience that the quality of the recordings (same ripped files in my NAS) changes with the changing of gears.  Some may become better, some may become worse and some may remain the same. 

perhaps this is due to swapping one coloration with another or perhaps just as likely moving towards greater transparency hindering and helping differently. hard to know

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just collating below some posts from another thread that may be relevant here......If Quoting, maybe copy and paste the actual author's comments otherwise it may show myself as the author?

 

  

On 5/3/2020 at 10:20 AM, fas42 said:

Difficult recordings are those which sometimes sound bad on your, and other's systems, but which you know from experience can sound perfectly acceptable, or even exceptional.

 

Bad recordings are difficult recordings for which you haven't yet managed get the latter experience.

 

😉 ...

 

On 5/3/2020 at 5:08 PM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

So bad recordings can sound exceptionally bad 😜

 

On 5/3/2020 at 10:23 PM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Aha , a topic i started and in which I said....

 

 

The risk is you color the sound to suit the recording type or otherwise gravitate to recordings that suit your colored system.If the goal is transparency, true transparency then bad recordings should be heard for what they are, not with sonic sunglasses.

 

 

fas42 said:

. it's far more interesting making "bad" recordings slip into precise focus,

On 5/3/2020 at 10:23 PM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

only if you like seeing "bad" well focused 🙄

 

On 5/3/2020 at 11:01 PM, fas42 said:

 

Of course there's a risk ... the goal is to be able to put on any recording, and for it to show of its best - this is where experience comes in ... if one has done this sort of thing long enough, then one knows what most of the traps are - and what is possible.

 

 

Back into old territory, now ... the argument about whether if enough detail is revealed, with minimal added playback distortion, that the mind can discard what it knows doesn't belong - you believe it can't; I believe it can.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 9:41 AM, fas42 said:

 

Which is a good thing of course - where it becomes interesting is that the "new normal" will have edges to it; meaning, a particular recording will sound "better", or "worse" than what you experienced previously, with the the prior setup - that it sounds worse is a giveaway that something that is not as good as it should be in the overall system is now more aggressively highlighted, because of the changes made ... a highly effective approach to improving the setup is to be grateful for this insight, and to constructively use this extra knowledge to refine the system.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 9:48 AM, gmgraves said:

Looks like somebody is back to playing that broken record again. This person seems to never get tired of hearing that “click, click, click” every revolution Like the rest of us do.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 11:51 AM, fas42 said:

I see in a recent post of yours, George,

 

 

that your "broken record" is that the status of a recording is firmly set, deep into hard concrete - for you, and others, many recordings "just sound wrong and unsatisfying", no matter what ... 'tis a pity - because you're missing out, on so much ... 🙂.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 2:06 PM, gmgraves said:

Seems like my comment went WHOOSH! right over your head. Frank, you are the broken record, and the click, click, click is you singing the same old song in every post and in every thread you participate in. 

 

On 5/12/2020 at 9:10 PM, fas42 said:

 

George, I was pointing out that the broken record that you accuse me of is a response to the steady mantra of those who assert that the lacking in the quality of what they hear is the recording's fault - the same excuse has been trotted out, to me, constantly over the last 35 years ... and that groove has worn down to the point of breaking through to the other side, for me.

 

You seem unaware that hardware is now coming out that is capable of getting so much closer to the true sound of the recording with relatively little tweaking - progress is being made, whether you like it or not.

 

On 5/13/2020 at 1:48 AM, Summit said:

It is not true that a recording either sounds good or bad regardless of the playback system. Some records are more complex and difficult to reproduce and can sound bad on a lesser audio system but good on a better one.

 

It is a myth that a bad recordings sound worse the better the system. The better system will still sound better even if we can hear some flaws more clearly. It is those over-analytical midfi “HIFI” system that lack bass and that emphasize a sharp and bright sound that can sound worse, but I don’t consider them to sound good and lifelike.

 

On 5/13/2020 at 9:12 AM, fas42 said:

 

Yes ... how it works is that low resolution, midfi systems simply don't extract all the details of the recording; the "bad bits' of the technology, as well as "good bits" of the music just don't come through - this compromise works quite well. Improve the resolution of the playback, and you "hear everything" - where this goes wrong is that the remaining distortion misbehaviour of the rig intermodulates with less than perfect capture or storage of the event; two very distinct wrongs are too much for the ear/brain - "bad recordings" abound. The solution is to push the playback chain to a higher level of integrity, so that its distinctive sound signature vanishes. Then the listening mind only has to accommodate a single style of distortion; that of the particular track - this is very obvious when you play a compilation album, each successive track changes the acoustic world you experience, sometimes dramatically - but each works, because the listener very rapidly adapts to the new soundscape; it almost immediately makes sense.

 

10 hours ago, gmgraves said:

So, it doesn’t matter that your comment was a non-sequitur? And that you are answering a question that nobody asked?

The fact is, Frank, that most commercial recordings are sonic junk. Every now and again, somebody gets it right, but most of the time they don’t. What’s the use of having “hardware (that) is now coming out that is capable of getting so much closer to the true sound of the recording“ if the recordings coming out for the general public to buy are so sonically incompetent? Pop recordings are so compressed and so hard limited These days, that I’m surprised that even millennials can listen to them with ear-buds!

Where do you get the idea that I’m unaware of the advancements in playback hardware? Or that I don’t like such advancements? And finally, isn’t this revelation antithetical to your usual mantra that high-end hardware is not necessary and that all you need is some cheap mid-Fi equipment, a pair of boom-box ghetto blaster speakers and the famous “Frank method“ to get as close to the original performance as technically possible and make every recording sound like you are in the room with the musicians irrespective of that recording’s origin or quality? As I have been saying all along Frank, you are as full of it as a stuffed Christmas goose.

 

10 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Seems to me that you are contradicting yourself. In one breath you say that bad recordings don’t sound worse on good systems, then you say that good systems reveal more of the flaws in a bad recording. In what universe does revealing more flaws not equate to the bad recording sounding worse?

 

8 hours ago, Summit said:

 

In this universe because a good audio system is about much more than digging up and showing flaws. Maybe one day you will understand that.

 

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Since my system makes my recordings (as in those that *I* recorded) sound like the live performance sounded when I was there recording it, believe me when I say that  I couldn’t agree more. A good audio system is about very “much more than digging-up and showing flaws“.

In my previous post I was asking you to explain, if you would be so kind, what you meant with that seemingly contradictory comment about lousy recording quality and good, revealing systems and I was gently (I thought) chiding you about it. Reading it some hours later, I can see how you might have taken it as an attack. Understand, it wasn’t meant that way, and I apologize for my wording. Very terse of me, and I should have read it over before I hit the “Submit Reply” button!

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

28 minutes ago, SJK said:

I think you're asking the wrong question.

 

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

 

28 minutes ago, SJK said:

 "Can I listen to music that I enjoy that has been poorly recorded?"

 

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.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

6 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

"The absolute sound" definition is a only reference ideal or goal. Unless one is present at a recording session, it is virtually impossible to know how the instruments sounded in the "actual space in which they were recorded". No single recording is likely to reveal the fidelity of a playback system. However, listening to a range of what is generally regarded to be well recorded acoustic music can establish that a system is one of high fidelity or accuracy. One can assume that such as system will reproduce all recordings with fidelity.

 

In the context of the specific type of example that you provided, it may be difficult or impossible to distinguish a bad recording from a good one absent knowledge of both the recording venue and particular instrument played. In such cases, one is presumably left with how the recording subjectively involves us on an emotional level.

 

I totally agree. The ideal is to be at the recording venue as a point of reference to judge fidelity to the source. Now, clearly that is not even remotely possible for most of us.

 

That doesn't mean we don't know what a piano or guitar or human voice sound like. It may mean that certain coloration or distortions obscure various qualities but there should still be a 'realness' quality nonetheless, even if not totally true to the actual real sound.When it departs from what we can perceive as potentially real we know the system is failing. IOW the greater you can suspend disbelief gets you closer to life like even if not 100% accurate to the actual living event. They sound like real guitar strings, even if not obvious what the brand or type of string is.

 

 

6 hours ago, bluesman said:

 unless you’ve only heard one recording of an artist, you should have a pretty good idea of what he, she, or they and their instruments sound like (assuming you have some familiarity with them, a decent system and a halfway critical ear).

 

 

Agreed, Most can do this on even a car radio

 

 

6 hours ago, bluesman said:

 

 
 

 many music loving audiophiles are quite familiar with the specific instruments played by their favorite artists in any genre.  They know what is being played and what it sounds like live because they’ve heard it live.  From Oscar Peterson’s Bosendorfer to Miles’ Martin trumpet to Wes Montgomery’s L5 Gibson, jazz lovers know.

 

If so,I agree, an even better point of reference for judging fidelity

 

 

4 hours ago, bluesman said:

I think it’s fair to say that many music lovers who play no instrument can identify many of their favorite performer(s) in any recording of average quality played on a system of average quality.  This has been my experience consistently, from parties to public background music to restaurant sound tracks.  BB King sounds like BB King almost regardless of the guitar and amplifier he’s playing or where and how it was recorded.  So do Clapton, Jerry Garcia, Lowell George, Norah Jones, Arthur Rubinstein, Dave Brubeck, Paul Desmond, Julian Bream, the Philadelphia Orchestra, etc etc etc.
 

Agreed

 

4 hours ago, bluesman said:

 

I don’t think it’s possible for a music loving audiophile with even average “ears” to listen to multiple recordings of most performers who have distinct styles and sounds and not develop a pretty good idea of how they typically sound.  And if they sound different on one recording from most other recordings that audiophile has heard, I would expect that difference to be heard.  I don’t think or care that they could tell you what’s different (like my guitar example). But they darned well ought to be saying “This recording makes X sound funny - I know he / she / they don’t usually sound like that”.

 

agreed

 

4 hours ago, bluesman said:

Many years ago, I recorded a series of instrumental solo passages on my high speed Crown deck for my audio dealer (and dear friend) to use when evaluating & demo’ing equipment. These included my Yamaha grand, my silver Getzen Eterna trumpet, my upright bass, my Martin D28, my flute and my alto sax.  As an experiment, I also recorded the same passages with my D28 using different kinds of strings.  We told the listeners only that each passage was different, and everyone was able to hear the difference.  We even did some repeated AB testing, and they clearly heard A as different from B.  But in over a decade, not one of his customers ever guessed that the guitar strings were the difference they heard. They guessed everything from altered tube bias to different crossover points to reversed phase because they expected the changes to be in the equipment.  Once they knew what they were hearing, they used that comparison to guide their choices.

 

 

This is where you loose me ( I get lost easily ). Nothing in that example surprises me. The difference was heard and whether it was a change in the recording or the playback, I respectfully ask what is the point exactly?

 

 

4 hours ago, bluesman said:

 

Nonmusician customers at an audio store heard everything I’m talking about, even though it was subtle and they didn’t know exactly why they heard it.  So I’ll ask you to ponder what seems like a dichotomy in your thoughts.  How could someone who can’t identify a performer with even a modicum of personal playing style despite hearing his, her or their recordings multiple times be able to pass judgment on the quality of recordings?

 

?

 

 

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

If you know what a given artist sounds like on multiple recordings and systems, and you encounter a recording on which the artist clearly sounds different from what you’ve heard before, the odds are great that the different one is somehow flawed whether or not it sounds more pleasing to you.  If you also know the live sound of the performers, you’re even more likely to be correct.

 

Again, agreed.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

21 minutes ago, Rexp said:

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

The answers will reflect how people see the question and that is quite interesting

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 hours ago, bluesman said:

The criticism to which I was responding is that being a musician keeps me from knowing or understanding how non-musicians hear music, specifically:

 

“ You are expressing the point of view of a practicing musician with a ‘tuned ear’. While many aspire to that level, whether they can achieve it is an open question.”

 

I was directly refuting that assertion, which I believe is simply incorrect.  The guitar string example is simple proof.  You don’t need to be musicians to hear differences in performance, even those that originate in the instruments or how they’re played. Listeners may not know why they hear a difference, but they hear and respond to it. They hear differences in saxophone reeds, drum heads, trumpet bores and metals, etc.  Another comparison demo I made for Dan was the same passage played on my silver trumpet and on my brass cornet.  
 

Listen to Warren Vache’s early recordings and you’ll know there’s something odd about the sound of his trumpet.  That’s because it’s a cornet, which most people wouldn’t know - but they hear it.  Hearing differences in both instruments and how different artists play the exact same instrument is a large part of our ability to know whether we’re hearing Art Pepper or Paul Desmond playing Here’s That Rainy Day on a Selmer Mk 6 alto sax coming from the ceiling speakers at Morton’s.

 

The sonic differences between sets of otherwise identical guitar strings differing only in that one set averages a few hundredths of an inch thinner is very real, but it’s not very dramatic.  These are the kinds of differences that are apparent in a “good” recording and are reproduced well by a “good” system.  There are many many such tiny cues, and most audiophiles have heard enough of the music of their favorite artists enough times to have internalized the unique soundprints that define their sound.  So when you find yourself saying “That sounds a lot like James Taylor’s guitar playing, but I’m just not sure that’s who it is” you’re either identifying a bad recording (or a terrible sound system) or you’re listening to someone else whose soundprint is a partial match for JT’s.

 

This thread started with the premise that good recordings are pleasing and sound like real instruments in real space. I responded that for me, a truly good recording brings the sound of the actual instruments and artists to you, sounding as they did when recorded.  Responses to that were based on the belief that most audiophiles have no idea how the performance sounded, so it only matters that the sound is convincingly real.  
 

I’ve proved many times with tests like the guitar string and trumpet/cornet switch that many audiophiles do indeed hear these differences and can correctly say “A sounds more like Miles than B” even though they couldn’t tell a Harmon mute from Mark Harmon.  They can hear the difference between a 5’8 grand piano in a club and a 9’6” grand on a concert stage, in person and on even a halfway decent recording.  

 

We’re all happy when our music at home sounds real and live and pleasing. But the question was  whether bad recordings can sound good. The answer is yes.  For me, a recording that makes Ron Carter sound even a little like Ray Brown is a bit of a bad recording.  But I love Dave Grusin’s Sheffield album “Discovered Again” anyway because the playing is excellent, the band is tight, and the music (although a bit too smooth-jazzy for me today) is fun to hear when I’m in the mood. It sounds good to me.

 

thanks for the explanation.

 

Not that I am a slave to the Gospel of Toole but I accept he did some good research. One thing he did find was that trained listeners, and I would put musicians in that list, were simply more certain and faster in their judgements but on average their ability to discern differences were similar to non trained listeners. As you and I know in the 'case of the cardiologist' knowing what to look (listen) for in fact makes a huge difference. Not to quibble, I would just say trained listeners do a better job. Mostly however untrained listeners still hear the differences as you have pointed out.

 

We also agree that good recordings are pleasing and sound like real instruments in real space and a truly good recording brings the sound of the actual instruments and artists to you, sounding as they did when recorded.  For me the latter is the ideal and provided you are sufficiently familiar with the live sound of the artist/instrument or you were actually there at the recording. I think being actually there is the surest reference. So it is still valid for me that the sound is convincingly real even if not entirely accurate.  Convincingly real still sounds very good to me even if the recording did not perfectly capture the actual instruments and artists.

 

What is harder to parse is when bad recordings do not sound convincingly real such as compressed and clipped. I can still enjoy the music but, depending on the extent of the flaws, prefer it on a less resolving system

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 hours ago, Summit said:

 

 it isn’t a better system if bad recordings will sound worse than on a bad system . A good audio system will not mask noise like a bad system, but all other SQ aspects will sound better.

 

The record will still sound bad on a great audio system thou, only less bad.

 

For me I would say bad aspects of the recording as well as good aspects of the recording are both clearer on a good system.

 

Whether it remains "good' to listen to will depend on the mixture, type, and predominance of those "good"/"bad" aspects and how much you like the music despite the recording flaws.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That is a very narrow-minded and egotistical comment. You know nothing about me. I have a very eclectic musical taste. I like everything from grand opera to Sinatra, and from “Bird” Parker and Stan Getz to Beethoven and Shostakovich. I also like Roy Orbison and The Beach Boys. I am also a fan of film scores from Max Steiner and Wolfgang Korngold to Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams with my absolute favorite being Miklos Rozsa. And I love Celtic folk music, and America folk Music from the likes of Joan Baez, and Ian & Sylvia. So don’t presume to tell me that I lead a limited life. 
 

By the way, do you like the sound of bagpipes? Do you see where I’m going here?

 

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.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I was exposed to the real sound of the Bagpipes as a child at the local Caledonian Society, as my father and grandfather were born in Scotland. The men , including my father also wore a Kilt.

It's an inherently stirring sound, it just captivates your attention.

The guys in kilts, not so much 😁.....actually, it is all part of it of course.👌

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

That’s fine. I have a number of friends who don’t like jazz. The important thing to remember is that one shouldn’t judge another by his taste in music, food, cars, literature, etc. sometimes it hard not to, but that’s all the more reason to try that much harder...🙂

Oh I like jazz very much just less so styles like bebop that to my ear are less melodic and somehow more cerebral. Love New Orleans jazz through swing, cool jazz whatever...and jazz vocalists. I also love blues and jazz fusion styles very much

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

17 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Oh I like jazz very much just less so styles like bebop that to my ear are less melodic and somehow more cerebral. Love New Orleans jazz through swing, cool jazz whatever...and jazz vocalists. I also love blues and jazz fusion styles very much

 

I guess the more "esoteric" style for me is bebop but whatever the style where it sometimes loses me is where a jazz song is playing which I like very much and then each artist has a turn at doing a solo bit. Sometimes they take a detour/improvisation that seems to say more about  their virtuosity on the instrument than doing service to the song. It can mesmerize me when I hear it live but much less so on radio or over a high end playback system.The analogy with some modern vocalists is the vocal "gymnastics" they do, because they can.

 

Sorry, really not trying to offend. Barry Diament is a jazz fan, I forget the style of New York jazz he mentioned but he said "you have to work at it a bit" (me not him).  he plays jazz so I think it opens up different sensibilities.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, bluesman said:

Miles (and I and many others) agree with you.  When he thought someone in his band was just wasting time showing off, he’d say, “If you got nothin’ to say, don’t say nothin’!”
 

A lot of wonderful improvisation is musically fascinating but hard for many to grasp, especially if it’s based on scales or concepts unfamiliar to the listener.  But much of bebop was a “cutting contest”, and many top players were stellar technicians with marginal taste and musical judgment.  They knew all their scales and modes, and could pump them out at breakneck speed through long solos without an error. Many wrote such intricate and difficult melody lines just to embarrass and upstage those who couldn’t play them at speed. This is not musicianship.  

 

The fastest-is-best school is not limited to jazz. For example, Liszt was the bebop king of his day.  He wrote technically difficult music for the same reason, and he was a first rate showoff and braggart.  And if you took away their effects pedals, many rock and metal guitarists would sound like middle schoolers practicing scales and riffs.

 

On the other hand, great players feel no need to show off. Randy Johnston is a wonderful guitarist with chops to burn. But he’s a sensitive soloist and often plays simple melodies with little embellishment.  Playing as many notes as you can at every opportunity suggests some combination of insecurity and immaturity to me.  

Herb Pomeroy was a great musician (trumpet) and educator who taught for years at Berklee College of Music. One of his best lecture topics was what he called the time-intensity curve.  At least in mainstream jazz, the most interesting and moving solos usually have some kind of structure.  Some start with simple repetition of a few key notes in the melody and build steadily to the end with faster runs, wider intervals, etc in linear ascending fashion. Oscar Peterson and Dave Brubeck were masters at this.  Others prefer a U or V curve and dive in with a flurry, throw a change-up of some kind (eg quieter, less frenzied as with quarter notes instead of 16ths, etc), then scream out again to the end. How a musician structures and builds solos is part of his or her musicianship.  Solos with time-intensity curves that look like EKGs are usually some combination of boring and annoying.

 

This approach is also integral to both classical composition and its interpretation by players and conductors. Compare Jose Iturbi’s Chopin to Artur Rubinstein’s Chopin.  They can’t improvise by substituting notes, but they do so in their timing, articulation, dynamics etc.  Everything from vibrato to how a violinist holds a bow against the strings is fair game.  Many classical  composers meant those who performed their works to go beyond the notation.  Brahms is a great example - listen to various performances of his clarinet quintet op 115 to hear how it can be played. Compare Stolzman to Benda to Wlach for 3 different takes on the same piece. 

 

The best players in jazz evolved as artists while perfecting their technical skills.  Before Coltrane and Miles got so far out on stylistic limbs that they risked falling, they mastered their instruments.  There’s a great story about a jazz fan who found a way to get the room next to Charlie Parker’s in a hotel in DC where Parker was playing a concert.  Bird was known to practice in his hotel room - so the fan in question brought a tape recorder to capture what he thought would be an exciting musical treasure.  But what Parker practiced that day was holding long single notes and making them louder and quieter while perfectly maintaining pitch (which is hard to do and essential for top players).

 

 

fascinating and thank you for the masterclass. As you imply improvisation overlaps with interpretation of the music and in either case doesn't give license to butcher the composition, just to express the music beyond its notation. Very nice.I loved the description of structure within improvisation.👌

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, Mayfair said:

"I can enjoy a "bad" recording of a good performance, for example Artur Schnabel's Beethoven sonata cycle recorded in 1932-33, or Charlie Parker's Dial Sessions, recorded in 1946-47.  I'd love if it their performances had been better recorded, but then I wouldn't be listening to Artur Schnabel or Charlie Parker.   I try to "listen through" the recording to the performance - that's what "sounds good" to me..."

I thought that tied in with "whether the playback of a bad recording can sound good from a sonic point of view." , if not, my apologies.

 

5 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Fair enough. But that was not the original subject of this thread. Rather, it was whether the playback of a bad recording can sound good from a sonic point of view. Somewhere along the way, some have changed the substance of the question being asked, which naturally may change the nature of the answers to be anticipated.

 

I don't believe that it has been suggested that a good performance cannot be enjoyed despite the poor recording quality. Needless to add, a good recording of that same performance would invariably provide even more enjoyment.

 

46 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I interpret "can sound good" as meaning that all the technical issues that "mar" what the actual performance would have sounded like, had you actually been at the place where the recording was made, are 'masked' completely, or almost so, by the brain being able to hear past the deficiencies ... this is a completely unconscious mechanism  - if you have "to think about it", then it's a fail ...

 

mea culpa. I was lightly admonished earlier in the thread for not making the topic more specific, less ambiguous.

 

I  started a related thread some years ago when the motivation was about home Eq.This time it was inspired by Frank's well known assertions. It got me thinking whether there were perspectives that were more mainstream that might either support or explain Frank's view. IOW could Frank be right but just not necessarily for the reasons proferred ? I believe there has been interpretations of my OP question that might support this (but I'm not presuming to proclaim anyone right or wrong).

 

Importantly, I did not want this to be about Frank or his specific views , although they are welcome here in context. Importantly, it is not about Frank's "method", there are other threads about this and that discussion would derail this thread.

 

My intent therefore was closest to what Allan describes but I wanted to cast a wider net. I thought it revealing and interesting how the question could be interpreted and to remain open to those perspectives. I don't think it is possible to consider if a bad recording sounds good without thinking about what is a good and bad in the first place.

 

My apologies for the confusion. To be perfectly honest it is just refreshing not to be debating numbers (in the words of Seinfeld, "not that there's anything wrong with that") 🙂

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 5/22/2020 at 11:48 AM, 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.

 

22 minutes ago, Rexp said:

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. 

 

 So yet another perspective which would appear to have some explanatory power. I must say, I am biased to be persuaded by this argument in that it tends to validate having good quality gear🙂

 

At the risk of oversimplification, as I see it, a good system will reveal the flaws of a bad recording but OTOH it will not accentuate some flaws the way a bad system might do.

 

As is already popularly believed a good system will minimally introduce it's own flaws ie getting out of the way of the music. Good parts of a recording will shine. Obvious plus.  The corollary is that it will not compound or accentuate some recording flaws by negatively interacting with them. One obvious example may be a "bright" system will accentuate "bright" recordings, but you also offer other examples.

 

It will then depend on the extent and type of flaws in the recording as to whether net effect will be "improved".

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

52 minutes ago, fas42 said:

58 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

logic dictates that if you "improve" on a system that compensates for a bad recording, that you will degrading it for better recordings.

 

Where the logic needs to come in, is precisely how it is decided that a particular recording is, er,  "bad". Just saying, "Well, it sounds bad, on my system, at this moment!" just doesn't cut it ... 😉.

 

The two statements are not logically mutually exclusive but yours Frank is a straw-man logical fallacy.Not wanting to be picky Frank but I doubt logic and your "method" go hand in hand.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Alex, you're trying to assert that the measured distortion figures of one component in the chain matters more than the final audible distortion of the entire chain, including all anomalies due to noise and interference factors figuring into the equation. If I put a beautifully tuned engine into a rust bucket of a car, with dry rotted tyres, and shot transmission - will I have a desirable vehicle? 😉

 

Frank you have to see passed those rotted tyres and shot transmission - we know you can do it ! 😁

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

My method doesn't "compensate" - it removes weakness in the playback chain which add disturbing anomalies;

 

I have no problem with this in 'theory' but even if (very dubiously) perfectly achieved it then leaves the weaknesses in the recording untouched and bare for all to hear......unless you colour them to taste 😉

 

Now, before you post back.......yes I understand that removing the weakness in the playback chain *might* *potentially* also help ameliorate a recording flaw, IF and to the extent it was accentuating said recording flaw. Nonetheless, it cannot *eliminate* the flaw and if the flaw is in and of itself substantial, you will hear it. No, a normal brain cannot just distort reality to make it better or go away.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, the flaw can never go away; technically, it will always be present in the sound emerging from the speakers - and if you have the means to measure it, it will always be there, at full strength.

 

On this we agree

 

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

But subjectively, everything can change, dramatically - the flaw exists, but in another space ... the cocktail party effect kicks in, at full strength - and those "other voices talking in the room", disappear ...

 

No, ASA does NOT work that way for people with normal brains. It is an unmasking effect due to grouping, not a disappearing trick. Yes, there is discussion on increased SNR due to a squelch effect. It helps us *all* to sort sound but it cannot magically explain your ability to tune in to just the good bits using your "method". To the extent that you think you can ("bingo! Subjectively, a complete transformation - the groove of the piece switches on, and it becomes "effortless" to listen to ...) is better explained by good old fashioned bias (or BS)  not ASA.

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

But subjectively, everything can change, dramatically - the flaw exists, but in another space ... the cocktail party effect kicks in, at full strength - and those "other voices talking in the room", disappear ...

 

 

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The method [ASA] is only used to troubleshoot what the system is doing wrong - it has nothing to do with what I actually hear.

 

Frank you are contradicting yourself. you implied that the ASA/Cocktail Party effect makes the flaws disappear, then you claim it is just a troubleshooting method and has nothing to do with what you hear.

So we are led to believe that the flaws are there but you just can't hear them anymore and this has nothing whatsoever to do with ASA, right! It's magic !

 

 

 

Quote

The "Bingo!" was that one day Magic Sound emerged - which I was able to manipulate with precise control - I could make it go away, and I could make it come back ... with complete reliability. 🙂

 

 

Confirming, then, It's magic !

 

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

This would make sense if I regularly came across high end rigs that got their act together ... but I haven't - I spent years chasing down the possibility that others were getting what I was getting ... but it wasn't there.

 

That's because high-end rigs are not magic 🤷‍♂️

 

Quote

 

 the mind is strongly disturbed when it gets clues that the reproduction is fake; it's no easy trick to "fool it".

 

What'da'ya mean it's not easy, you are the living proof 😁