Jump to content
IGNORED

Can Bad Recordings sound Good?


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, bluesman said:

I must respectfully disagree with you. First, 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).  
 

Second, 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.

 

Classical enthusiasts know that Isaac Stern’s favorite violin was the Ysaye Guarnerius.  Bob Brozman fans know the sight and sound of his National resonator guitars. Etc etc etc.  And pop/rock people are the same.  They may not be able to tell Carnegie Hall from the Academy of Music as a recording setting, but they have a good idea of the sound to be expected from a fine venue.  Further confusing this is the great variation in mic techniques and equipment. But the sound of the artist(s) is not camouflaged beyond recognition by any good recording in my experience.

 

And I respectfully disagree with you, at least with respect to the degree of certainty you appear to proclaim. 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. You assume that most audiophiles have heard their favourite artists live which, desirable as it may be, is also questionable. Moreover, even if they have, the nature of the venue and its unique acoustics may play a more important role in the characterization of the sound than the identification of the instruments themselves, especially if any amplification is used.

 

"It is the difference in opinion that make horse races." :)

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
1 hour 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.

 

I know from personal experience that a change of guitar strings can make a very significant difference in the sound of an acoustic guitar. But, so what? IMO, you are undermining your own argument when you relate that most people erroneously guessed that there had been an equipment change. I never suggested that people can't hear differences, an assumption from which your entire argument flows.

 

1 hour 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?

 

There is no dichotomy in my thoughts. If you will forgive me for saying so, I find your post to be rather pedantic. That is particularly evidenced by your concluding rhetorical question which, by virtue of its hyperbole, grossly misstates the issue. Regardless, while it was interesting to exchange views, I see no point in continuing this discussion any further. :)

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Excellent question! My answer is that it isn’t a better system if bad recordings will sound worse than on a bad system :o. 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.

 

"Better" can mean different things to different people. It all depends on what you want from a system. To most audiophiles ia "great system" is one of highest fidelity, i.e. one that will most accurately capture and reproduce what is on the recording. A high resolution system will tend to reveal flaws in a recording more readily than one of lesser resolution. Depending on the nature of the flaw in a recording, It's difficult to see how such a system will generally make a bad recording sound "less bad". OTOH, a euphonic system will be more forgiving of bad recordings. But more importantly, a euphonic system will colour all recordings, both good and bad.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Generally not a fan of pop music. I do, however fondly recall the sound of Les Paul and Mary Ford doing “Mockingbird Hill”, and “How High the Moon“. But that was iong before the solid-body Fender or other similar contrivances from Martin, etc.

 

George, FYI Les Paul was instrumental (pun intended) in the development of the most widely played solid-body electric guitar used by top rock musicians apart from those from Fender, viz. the Gibson 'Les Paul' model. In fact, he plays this eponymous model on "How High the Moon". BTW, Martin's guitars are virtually all hollow body acoustic models, although a number are available with pickups. Les Paul also "invented" multi-track recording.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Yes, I know that Paul was instrumental in developing the Fender solid body guitar. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, yesterday, you know. Paul is also credited with developing sound-on-sound and sound-with-sound multitrack recording. In fact, when he and then wife Mary Ford started their performing duo in the early ‘Fifties, people wondered how they achieved the effect where Mary Ford did multi part “duets” with herself.

 

I am sure you meant to write the Gibson 'Les Paul' solid-body guitar. The success of the Fender solid-body was the impetus for Gibson to enter the market. And, of course you are correct about Les Paul developing previously unheard of recording techniques.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I might have if I knew the difference, which I did not. I knew that Paul was instrumental in the development of the solid body. But Fender, Gibson, Martin, they’re all pretty much the same to me. But thank you for the correction.

 

But George, I wrote:

"FYI Les Paul was instrumental (pun intended) in the development of the most widely played solid-body electric guitar used by top rock musicians apart from those from Fender, viz. the Gibson 'Les Paul' model."

 

To quote a famous line from the movie 'Cool Hand Luke', "What we've got here is failure to communicate". :)

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, SJK said:

As an aficionado of classical music, without reservation I will say you would greatly enjoy the Los Lobos recording of Kiko.  I just know it.

 

Trust me, with considerable reservation, he would not. You don't know George. He hates electric guitar, especially if it has any distortion, which Kiko has plenty of. :)

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Wow - I have no response because I have absolutely no idea what that means!  So I think I'll go sip some wine with my wife and have a leisurely dinner.  Cheers!

smiley_drinking_red_wine.gif.fce52e11881f9abddcb1a491ebb9bc58.gif

 

I highly doubt that, unless you are intentionally trying to appear obtuse. But no worries, as they say in Oz. Enjoy the wine. I'm about to make myself a double martini.

L'Chaim! ;)

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, firedog said:

Not sure what you are referring to. Neither KOB or Meets he Rhythm Section is RVG: The Pepper was produced by Leonard Koenig and engineered by Roy DuNaan. DuNaan was a great engineer if you find some of his recordings.  KOB was engineered by Fred Plaut. 

 

FYI: A Rudy Van Gelder Discography

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I tend to separate the two; the technical quality and the performance quality. And I believe in my late friend, J. Gordon Holt, the founder of Stereophile’s axiom “The better the recording, the poorer the performance and the better the performance, the poorer the recording.” What Gordon was saying there (among other things) is that the employees of large commercial recording companies’ (who tend to have the best performers/orchestras under contract) primary concern is NOT SQ!

 

To quote the late Ira Gershwin, "It Ain't Necessarily So". But it was true far too much of the time.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...