Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[jabbr]

3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

To me, poor sounding recordings are simply not worth enduring. But I have the advantage that there are usually multiple recordings on multiple labels from multiple eras of most classical works to choose from. If, for instance, a British Chandos recording Of Beethoven’s 6th Symphony is flat, lifeless and dull (like most Chandos recordings are), Then there is always a NY Philharmonic performance under Bruno Walter from the late ‘Fifties that does sound decent.

 

You've hit the crux here. There is no universal definition of "good" vs "poor" recording. The Chandos might new newer, have higher SNR or dynamic range (I don't know just using these params as examples) but might be lifeless and dull because the underlying performance is lifeless and dull compared with a much older recording from the 1950s of a much more dynamic performance.

 

Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" is a great example for me, people might complain about the technical details of the recording while other people absolutely love the recording for the performance.

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

No, the recordings are dull sounding, veiled, and lifeless. Not the performances.

Perhaps you were at the performance there and know? I wasnt so lucky. Moreover is it the recording which is dull or the mastering? Seems unanswerable to me unless several versions of the same performance are available.

 

Many times, the recording as delivered to me *is* essentially the performance as I get to experience it.

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

On the other hand I don’t record jazz that way. I use a stereo microphone and direct feeds from any electronic instruments panned to where they physically occupy the space on the stage. That way I get a true stereo recording. Much better than three-channel mono.

 

Yes and if you had recorded Charlie Parker that way the world would be eternally grateful!

 

Its interesting that, for example Alan Lomax is credited with making many recordings of what are now considered the "worlds best blues guitarists". These pre-WWII recordings aren't what I would call great technical recordings given modern capabilities, yet the greatness of the performance shines through. So perhaps I'd use that as an example, of course Lomax did the best he could at the time ... and the world is grateful.

[jabbr]

Just now, bluesman said:

Maybe we love the performance despite the recording.

Hence a "bad recording can sound good"!  

[jabbr]

33 minutes ago, Rexp said:

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

I’m neutral on this topic because I fully support your assertion that KOB is a good recording and other people’s assertion that it isn’t. I love the performance so IDK whether my brain fills in for the limitations f he recording the same way as it dies for the old Alan Lomax recordings. 

[jabbr]

27 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I like the stereo and mono versions available on HDTracks.

Sony SACD and for Contrane A Love Supreme: Analogue Productions DSD