Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Allan F said:

 

You assume that most audiophiles have heard their favourite artists live which, desirable as it may be, is also questionable. 

 

 

I agree.

 

Many of my favorite artists are dead so hopefully it will be awhile before I have the opportunity to hear them live, assuming, of course, that we end up in the same place...

[kumakuma]

3 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. 

 

Which digital versions have you listened to?

[kumakuma]

Just now, Rexp said:

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

 

I like the stereo and mono versions available on HDTracks.

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Alex, you can't assert what it sounds like to others on the basis of what it sounds like to you - virtually all recordings are technically faulty; I have seen "audiophile" tracks with clear clipping... 

 

The mastering of Adele has been pushed, but I have heard much, much worse. 

 

The numbers say that Alex is right:

 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/159466 

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Why I do so is because the attitude of people like you, George, shouldn't be allowed to set the standard for playback competence - I have had to suffer the incompetent SQ from sound reinforcement systems for too long, that "pro" people have constantly foisted on us, because they can't be bothered switching their brains on - just plug it in, fiddle with EQ sliders, and let the audience suffer the crap that comes out - is the attitude.

 

Frank, this may come in handy when crafting your posts. Pay special attention to the section on fallacies of defective induction.

 

[kumakuma]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Wrong, Alex ... this is precisely how I evolve a rig towards an acceptable status - at the beginning, when I first put it together, 1 in 10 recordings have lots of "shrillness" and other assorted nasties in them - down the track I get it to 1 in 100 ... and the end goal is 1 in 100,000,...  😉.

 

You see, I never allow my ego to get in the road of improving things ... it's never, "My system is so fabulous that it tells me everything that's wrong with the recordings made by others ... rather, it's what the creations by other people can tell me, give me feedback, as to where what I have can do better ... this way, I always come out a winner ... three decades of using this approach has given me quite a bit of experience as regards whether it works or not, 😜.

 

Have you spoken with your therapist about your low self-esteem issues?

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Not quite sure why you think it's think it's impossible ... in my world most high end rigs that I come across I could not live with; their added distortion is just too obvious, and becomes highly irritating; because it never goes away.- as a starting point, aim to eliminate that signature being so obvious; surely a realistic goal ... who knows, a secondary outcome could be the realism that turns on for me, 😁.

 

Here's a thought experiment for you.

 

Imagine the following painting covered with years of grime and filth.

 

Do you think that cleaning away this grime and filth will suddenly turn this piece of "art" into the Mona Lisa?

 

In a nutshell, this is what you are asking us to believe.

 

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

The fundamental flaw in your proposition is that at no point is the underlying painting a worthwhile object - an equivalent recording example would be someone using a cassette recorder to capture the fooling around of some high school kids with jazz instruments - no matter how faithful it was to the actual sound at the time, it would never sound like a jam session of consummate musicians.

 

My experience is that the mind is remarkably capable of registering what is truly valuable in the recording, and discarding all that which has no bearing on "the important stuff" - a CD I got from the library had a historical artifact on it - the first known capture of Charlie Parker playing ... incredibly primitive, this was well below cassette tape standard - but the talent of the man shone through; it worked, as a listening experience.

 

Further to that, the higher the integrity of the playback chain, the more convincing is the presentation - the mind has less 'muck' to deal with; meaning the modulation of the recording qualities by the replay idiosyncrasies.

 

I have no problem enjoying Charlie Parker, early Louis Armstrong, and Robert Johnson but the idea that you can make these flawed recordings sound like live music ("convincing") by tweaking your equipment is ludicrous beyond words.