Jump to content
IGNORED

Can Bad Recordings sound Good?


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Can bad recordings sound good?

 

This seems to be a recurrent theme across some threads eg

  

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I have never said that a bad recording can sound good. I have stated the opposite many times. The question was can we evaluate which records that are good or bad in a lousy audio system? My answer is no.

 

I absolutely disagree that 90% of "Hi-Fi" is in the quality of the recording. If you really believe that, it would also mean that a superb recording would sound much much better true a boombox system than a standard recording would on a high end system. All things (record, room, placement, mains power, audio system) has to be good to get great SQ.

 

Everything has to be optimal for ultimate sound. A good system is not only about transparency. It’s about tonality, speed, transients, harmonics, dynamism, authority, control, linearity, refinement, sound stage, air and many other SQ aspects.

 

Many records that doesn’t sound very good doesn’t sound good because:

 

1. The record is heavily compressed. A good system is faster, airier, more open and more dynamic and have much better transient response than a bad system. All those aspects improves the better the system.

 

2. The record lack bass and sound thin. A good audio system has a real density and fullness that a bad audio system is lacking. All those aspects improves the better the system.

 

3. The record has a harsh treble. A good audio system has natural sound that is smooth without smoothing over or loss of details and transparency. All those aspects improves the better the system.

 

4. The recording sound bad because of artifacts and noise. A good audio system will revile those flaws more than a bad one. Those aspect is masked by the bad system so you can’t hear them as well.

 

Out of those 4 general aspects that I believe describes most bad records, 3 will improve with a better audio system. Only one aspect IME can be perceived as sounding “better” in a lesser audio system.

 

To illustrate this boombox will never sound good even if the recording is great. 

image.png.776e615b1a74770dbc207c7f6200c3b5.png

This system can make even modest recordings sound really good. 

 

image.png.6c745530f3a8b2f822e06573389251a4.png

Link to comment

We can recognize who is on the telephone on a low quality phone. We can hear which type of instrument and sometimes also models on YouTube, a radio or on a lousy recording. We can also identify who it is in a simple caricature. The quality can be low and we still have no problem to pick up the key characteristics between Elvis Presley and Elton John or a grand piano and a regular piano or a Gibson and a Fender.

 

High fidelity is not about hearing and identifying those basic key characteristics. It’s about listing at records at home and not only identify who is singing or playing, it’s about getting the feeling that you hear those musicians live on a stage – that it sounds real and lifelike. But to trick us to believe that we actually are listing to real musicians live on a stage is next to impossible and we have to be satisfied by coming close to that. How close depends on type of music genres and the listener’s experience.

 

BUT to come close is no easy task and everything from the recording to the room and audio system has to be superb for it to happen.

 

Bad Recordings can’t sound good, because if they did they would not be bad recordings. It the same with audio system, we cannot use bad recorded music and hope to really evaluate the how good a hifi system is.  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Agreed!  And what I'm suggesting is that the best recordings do both.  A recording that presents a lifelike performance but does not capture the key characteristics (what I'm calling the soundprint) may not be as "bad" as one rife with artifact, processing, manipulation etc - but for me it's less good than one that brings us both.  Loss of any perceptible piece of the basic character of a performance is worse (at least to a point) than sonic manipulation.

 

There's a lot of praise for Kind of Blue as a "great recording".  Technically, it's a truly bad recording.  If you have access to an original, listen carefully to it.  The bass is recessed and thin, the "placement" of the musicians is artificially constricted (because it was recorded on 3 mono tracks with suboptimal mic use and later mixed into a fake stereo space), there's crude reverb on Miles' horn and Chambers' bass (because they stuck a monitor speaker and a mic in the basement of the church building to make a crude acoustic echo chamber), the pitch on the A side is a bit higher than life (because the tape machine needed maintenance and was slow for the first of its two recording sessions), etc etc.  But it's a great musical experience because it delivers the soundprint of Miles and his band.  Yes, a bad recording can sound good.

 

Sorry I lost a word it should of course be (basic key characteristics can be heard on pretty much all audio systems) :

 

High fidelity is not only about hearing and identifying those basic key characteristics. It’s about listing at records at home and not only identify who is singing or playing, it’s about getting the feeling that you hear those musicians live on a stage – that it sounds real and lifelike. But to trick us to believe we actually are listing to real musicians live on a stage is next to impossible and we have to be satisfied by coming close to that. How close depends on type of music genres and the listener’s experience.

 

Am a Miles fan and I like Kind of Blue, both the sound and the music. I do not consider Kind of Blue to be a bad recording. Most recordings have fake stereo space and all records from that time are lacking sub bass and upper treble.

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

"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.

 

I do not think that I will need to explain High fidelity in all post I write. I have wrote and explained it in the previous posts. You come off as patronizing and petty.

 

I disagree, It's not difficult to hear and to understand that a better system is about much more than digging up and showing flaws. Yes as I STATED already may times, it will show the flaws more clearly but also the music.

 

If you would rank the SQ of records from 1 to 10, where 1 is super bad SQ and 10 is the best. Tell me on which level does it start to sound better on a boom box than on a high end system?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Many besides me disagree with this.  Although the music is pure genius and it makes me smile every time I listen to it (I have at least 5 different vinyl versions including the early original 6 eye 1AD pressing I bought for $3.98 new, plus 3 or 4 CDs), it's neither great mono nor great stereo.  It's the product of a bunch of world class engineers and producers who were learning to use techniques new to everyone at the time. They had some very new equipment and some well used stuff (like that tape deck that was running slowly), and they were experimenting with ways to integrate the two. 

 

The engineer (Fred Plaut) was not experienced with jazz - he was a well known classical recording engineer.  The use of multiple mics and tape machines was unorthodox, and the crude echo on just the trumpet and bass was way out of place.  You probably haven't heard the original pressings if you don't know what this is - the echo on Miles and Paul Chambers is tamed on subsequent versions, probably because all that's left of it in the later mixes of the 2 "outer" channels is whatever bled into them.

 

The original recording captured the magic perfectly, but it didn't fare as well with the real sounds of the players.  Much was missing from the  original, and remastering has benefited the sound immensely.  This excerpt from Michael Fremer's review of the 2013 180 gm mono remastered reissue says it well:  

 

"[C]ompared to my later "6-eye" 1AJ pressing, the reissue sounds far less "milky-cloudy" and far more transparent to the source, without veering off into the analytical. You can 'see' further into the mix and hear a clear delineation of direct and echo chamber sound as well as what sounds like 30th street studio room sound. Instrumental timbers are natural and textures rich. But most importantly, the music experience is complete and organically "whole," making a strong case for the superiority of the mono mix."

 

I know that some don’t consider the SQ of Kind of Blue as something special, but have never heard that they actually think it sound bad. It doesn’t matter anyway what others think because I like the 2 versions I have.  

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

Define "Good."

 

If Good is accuracy to the source, then yes. If Good is pleasing to the listener, also yes as its completely subjective.

 

How would you know if the recording is accuracy to the source?

Link to comment

I see that am in minority here that believes that a better audio system will make all music sound better, more real and lifelike than with a lesser system. I have never experienced that I have preferred a low quality system before a high quality system even if the recordings are of low quality and many records are. I guess that I favour the qualities a better audio system has like: better transparency, bigger sound, better drive, dynamics, more power full bass and less harsh treble and more natural mid-range no matter what. IOW I want and always find accuracy to the original source to be preferred.   

 

It true that a good audio system cannot make bad recordings sound good, but a good system are not adding its own flaws on top of the ones already imprinted in a mediocre recording.  

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

I am very much in the minority with you.  For the old music that I referenced prior I definitely think it sounds better on a better system.  Part of this, I feel, is that the music is easier to engage as the artifacts are laid bare and thus easier to ignore.  The good parts certainly sound better.

 

The only possible exception is on overly-compressed modern crap; curses on Rick Rubin.  Maybe....

 

I am glad to hear that @gmgravesfeels similarly to me re. Chandos recordings.  They get rave reviews, but they consistently disappoint.  I thought I was nuts.  I was so excited to hear their recording of Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloe."  Great performance but less engaging to me with the murkiness.

 

Bill

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.  

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Rexp said:

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. 

 

Okay that is the opposite of how I hear it. Technically good recordings will never sound good on a lo-fi system because a lo-fi system make all records sound like crap. Bad recordings can never sound good, but will sound worse on a lo-fi systems than on a high-end systems.

 

Ipods are a good example on a lo-fi product that make all music sound like crap, no matter if it is old Beatles, bombastic Rap or Melody Gardot. By just replacing the Ipod to in-ears from Shure, Audeze etc many people, and not only audiophiles, get significant better SQ.

 

I see that we have nothing in common. I’m an audiophile and want accuracy to the original source and not low level gear to mask the sound.

 

I will show myself out of here.  

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...
1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

You keep asserting that the better the system, the better a poor recording will sound. When in reality, just the opposite is true. The better the system, the more that flaws in the program material stick out like sore thumbs!

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. A better audio system make all records sound better than a lousy one!

 

A really good system is not a microscope that only shows flaws like some people seems to think. Yes a better system will let us hear the imperfections that is on a recording, but a lousy system isn’t making a compressed recording sound less compressed, less muddy, less paper bass.

 

A lousy boom box’s best is considerably inferior sounding than  an excellent horn speaker system’s worse. You can play a bright and compressed record in a really good system and later play the same record, at the same SPL, in a lousy system. The lousy boom box will not magically reduce the bright and compressed sound of the record, no it will do the opposite and add more of the same shit plus a muddy, un-dynamic sound.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Well, one thing has little to do with another. Of course a lousy system won’t make a compressed recording sound less compressed, or less muddy. But a better system  won’t make a compressed recording sound less compressed either. That’s one of the points I have been making; that you cannot fix a bad recording. I do disagree when you say that the better the system, the better all recordings sound. a better system makes the awfulness of a bad recording seem even more awful. In the poor system, the difference between a good recording and a bad one is lost in the poor resolution and the high distortion of the indifferent playback system. In my opinion, and in my experience, that’s just the way it is. Of course, your opinion and your experience may be different, and it could be that differing tastes and expectations are responsible for those differing conclusions.

I’m not sure what your point is with the above paragraph.

 

Of course one thing has a lot to do with another. You are totally wrong naturally a better system will sound more open, natural and dynamic than a lousy boom box system. A lousy system is not only showing the compressed, heavily rolled of and muddy sound on the recording it will add a lot more compression and mud, a flat and small sound-stage, one note bass, lack of sub-base etc etc.

 

At which quality level does a record start to sound better on a boom box than on a good high end system?

 

Bad - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - Excellent

Link to comment
16 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

As a counter to that, I disagree. This will only be because of the randomness of what rigs one comes across, through the years, but to this day I have not heard a horn system work well enough to take it seriously. One of the worst was big Avantgardes at a dealer; this was rip your ears off unpleasantness.

 

Yes, this was because the rigs weren't, er, sorted ... which is sorta my point, you know ... 🤣.

 

It is understandable that Avantgarde’s big speakers is not for you. They are the direct opposite of what you have and like.  

Link to comment
18 hours ago, gmgraves said:


I never said that a recording ever sounded better on a boom box than it did on a good high-end system! (???) Where do you get that I ever did say that?

 

In my post you’re quoting, I said that a good, high-end system will expose all of the warts on a poor recording and thus will make that poor recording even less listenable. But that same high-end system will make well produced recordings sound even better than they do on a lesser system. I also said that a cheap system homogenizes everything to sound mediocre to bad and the differences between good and poor recordings are lost on the cheap system’s lack of resolution and high amounts of distortion.
Unless I misunderstand you, you just rather belligerently said exactly the same thing!

 

Here is what you really said.

“You keep asserting that the better the system, the better a poor recording will sound. When in reality, just the opposite is true.”

 

 

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

True. The inferior resolution and/or transparency of a "bad system" may tend to mask or mitigate the flaws in the recording to make it more listenable. However, the expression that "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" nevertheless applies. :)

 

Deleted, not going to argue with you its not worth it. 


 
Link to comment

Okay you can listen to whatever you like. I just have to say one last thing on this topic.

 

A bad system isn’t really masking flaws. The reasons you don’t hear hiss and noise on a lousy system is because the lousy system own much higher amount of noise and coloration together with a compressed, rolled of and muddy sound that will make all music sound like crap. The harm a really lousy system impose is IOW and IMO much greater and troublesome than the recordings flaws (hiss, high noise floor and harmonic coloration).

 

An audio system that is masking flaws and make a poor record sound better than a High End system is not a bad system in my book, it just a bit more forgiving than a more analytical system. I personally don’t consider those super analytical gear natural sounding and prefer a more coherent sound.

 

Very forgiving – 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - Super analytical

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I doubt there are many (is there any) that agree with Frank's nonsense rhetoric and circular reasoning. Some get drawn in by orthogonal offshoots that are not relevant to the nonsense.

 

I agree with, and more on point I think, is that many identify, including myself, that a bad system can *sometimes* mask aspects of a poor recording making it sound less bad. It will never sound good, just more tolerable because in essence you swap one annoying flaw for another (less) annoying flaw. Many of us have experienced *shades* of this in earlier days of 'upgrade-itis.

 

I submit what Frank's 'method' actually is. a)You swap one annoying flaw for another (less) annoying flaw. b)You combine this with a massive dose of expectation bias and c) quite possibly perceptual processing that is out of step with the vast majority of the rest of the world ie he doesn't like or maybe can't perceive great sound in the first place.What most people (audiophiles or not) would say "great sound- sounds real", Frank would say not. Indeed he has a strong compulsive behavior to tell everyone so, each and every day.

 

 

 

 

 

I can’t speak for other people, I personally don’t believe in Frank's method, fairy-tales and only some of his reasoning.

 

I know that a bad system can mask aspects of a poor recording, but and this is my point, the masking is not just masking the flaws it’s like putting a big wet blanket that cover and degrad all sound quality aspects and not only the one needed to be masked/fixed. Not all SQ aspect can be masked and the most common problem is lack of drive and air, which IMO suck out the life and joy of listening to music. I can enjoy an old classic jazz or rock record that have a rolled of bass, high distortion and audible hiss as long as the music is not robbed of life e.g. PRaT (Pace, rhythm, and Timing).

 

If I experienced that poor sounding recordings would sound better on a lousy system I would buy and use a lousy system instead. Or at least have two systems one for poor and one for good sounding recordings.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Again, missing the point - I don't add a better PSU, just because it's there, as an option to do. Things always start from listening, hearing where the sound is faulty, doing my best to determine why there is an issue, usually by doing various bits of experimenting; and then 'fixing' the cause. If it happens to be the PSU, then that will be what's targeted - if it's not, then it will remain untouched.

 

The intent of fixing is to reduce the signature of the rig to nothing; many high end setups fail this test, miserably ... that's how a cheap system can beat the fancy, because it doesn't intrude as much as the expensive one.

 

 

Again, you want to think of tweaking as being a speed shop enhancement of what it can do now - I see the audio replay as being broken, when it doesn't perform up to standard; the mindset is, of how to fix it. You can't "test my mods", because they are completely specific to the particular setup that I'm dealing with.

 

Frank how can I miss the point when it’s clear that you have no point?

 

I did not say that YOU are adding a better PSUs that would be something substantial and not some magical BS. 

 

I like to know which tweak you have done and to which named audio gear that make them so fantastic.

 

If I can't test your tweaks, why are you when promoting them in every post? 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Confused said:

I'll be frank here (a rather lovely but accidental pun), I am getting a little fed up with what appears to be so very many posts with anti-audiophile generalisations, on a forum that is clearly aimed at being a home for audiophiles.  We are all different, with our own ideas and objectives, but endless posts with phases such as "trapped into audiophile thinking", "more money than sense audiophiles", "makes sense why you like audiophile recordings" appear to me just to be audiophile bating, and this on an audiophile forum.  

 

Do you mean the ones that keep repeating that a lousy audio systems make a majority of the worlds recordings sounds better than a respectable High End system?

Link to comment

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...