Jump to content
IGNORED

Can Bad Recordings sound Good?


Recommended Posts

I had no intention of being insulting to others' musical preferences re. the nose-flute comment.  It was in the context of his lament that he believed the quality of the recording was often inversely proportional to the quality of the music.  I wouldn't want to go down the slippery slope of quality music being determined in an absolute v relative way.  We are all different and thats cool.

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluesman said:

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.

 

I don't want to be argumentative, but in several aspects I would disagree.  When I listen the bass is nicely placed back and to the right in the soundstage.  From the introduction being played solo, I hear appropriate finger on neck sounds, depth from the body, and an appropriate "woody tone."

 

I think Miles' Harmon-muted tone is good/natural- metallic without being grating.  As my system improved this aspect of reproduction has improved.  I no longer cringe in anticipation of it coming (maybe an artifact of early digital?).

 

Coltrane is possibly mic'd too closely, but the tone....Cannonball seems less precisely placed.

 

I hear the piano off to the left in a different plane from the horn.  The tone is good, I acknowledge not great.

 

The atmosphere is good.  I feel as though I can sense the CBS 30th Street Studio in which it was recorded.

 

The pitch anomaly on side 1 (from a mis-calibrated tape machine) was corrected on subsequent releases (high-end LP, high-res download, etc.).  I think the last to feature it was the original CD, which I agree doesn't sound good- not based solely on the speed problem.

I also love recordings where all of the musicians are in the same room playing in real time.

 

I wish The Red Hot Chili Peppers were recorded similarly :)

 

But again, I listen more to the "Coltrane Live in Europe" discs that are, without a doubt, bad recordings.

 

Bill

 

 

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
20 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

 

This goes to the ages old debate that I have been thinking about all along in this thread.

 

In the "golden age" (hi-fi's early days) systems were judged based on acoustic instruments in a real space (typically classical) being reproduced accurately- fidelity to the source (JGH), or "the absolute sound" (HP) were the leading mantras.

 

The next wave was "sounds good" or "causes enjoyment for the listener" as defining "good."  This is was perhaps typified at the extreme by Art Dudley.  JGH fought very hard against this, feeling that it drifted away from the "fidelity" part of hi-fi.  AD responded equally strongly.

 

As with you, I try to be fairly agnostic in this regard (who am I to say that someone's enjoyment is bad), but lean a bit toward JGH's thoughts.

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment

Seems like we agree in several ways.  I first heard the original CD in the 80s, wasn't yet much of an audiophile.  Then the next release that I can't remember the name for (? "super bit-mapping"), then the 50th anniversary set, then the stereo version of the LP that Fremer is referring to, then the high-res download.  I got into record collecting too late to get an original "6-eye" pressing so my comments are not (unfortunately for comparison's sake) based on that.

 

My vinyl rip and the 24/192 download sound wonderful to me, with the characteristics I described.  Some of the Fremer quotes apply to what I hear (I acknowledge that he was listening in mono):

 

"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."

 

First CD sounded terrible, BTW- not that I cared at the time :)

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, bluesman said:

So now that you know how heavily it's been leaned on to make it sound good (and apropos of this thread), I'd love to know if you think Kind of Blue is a good recording, and why or why not?

I do.  Except for a few very-select recordings (usually on audiophile labels), all recordings are processed in some way (reverb, eq, all the stuff they can do in workstations these days).  The means they used were simply different.

 

To me it conveys the sound of real musicians in a real space and the sound of live instruments as I have heard them.  Also, I can use its sound to assess the quality of a system.

 

Is it as good as many others I could name (all the way from Beethoven's 6th or Bruckner's 9th on Columbia to modern "Reference Recordings" albums), no.  But I believe it is good.

 

Best,

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

what I consider the most important ingredient: simplicity!

Triple amen!  To use simple, well-engineered gear, recording music in real-time, classic mic arrays, musicians interacting with each other in the same room/hall, no "fixing it in the mix," etc. nonsense.  All of the labels/recordists you mentioned are on my list as well.

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

No. “we” hate The sound of electric solid-body guitars, and Hendrix playing is just noise to me!

 

Uh-oh :).

 

No Duane Allman Les Paul?  I couldn't live without it.  Certainly ok if you can, though.

 

Best,

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment

Totally understand.  I am pretty selective with it as well, though have my guilty pleasures.  I also have genres that I avoid at all costs.

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
13 hours ago, jabbr said:

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.

Oh my, if I could hear Parker that way I would be in heaven.  And the Hot Fives and Sevens.  And early Lester Young, and, and...  I have a theory that because it is hard to access the musical content/have to "listen through" to get it and it can be so off-putting, that there are those who don't get exposed to the genius because they can't get past the sound.

 

I almost mentioned the field recordings yesterday but held back.  There are certainly tracks that are plagued with hossible wow, other artifacts that George could explain better than me.  But when it is right, the directness can be startling- I like the Irish recordings as I explore my heritage :).  One mic, one track- again, simplicity

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Summit said:

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.  

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, maybe...; curses on Rick Rubin.

 

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

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Allan F said:

IOW, IMO, you have it backwards.

That is what I was going to say.

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

Beautifully said, George.  And fantastic examples given- all of which are in my library :)

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
6 hours ago, fas42 said:

the current lousy attitudes to recording; piss poor PA sound abounds

 

We finally agree on something! :)

 

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
21 hours ago, gmgraves said:

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.

 

Agree and disagree.  Sometimes a higher-quality system allows the flaws to be laid bare such that they can be ignored (ticks and pops are an example- often they are located separately at the speakers, the music we are after separate).  For instance, I get more realism on my "good" system with the Hot Fives and Sevens.  But yes, sometimes the lack of clarity, presence of euphony can make a poor recording more listenable- car radio with pop as an example.

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment

With Frank's discussion re. the Edifier speakers I have a theory I didn't write about yesterday (please note I am not discussing his electronics stuff).  It is possible that there is a preference for slight anomalies in speakers that are preferred by some listeners.

 

This has been demonstrated as far back as the BBC, more recently Toole and Olive, and JA can describe probable perceptions based on his speaker measurements.

 

It is very disconcerting (at least to me) how very subtle changes in FR can lead to profound differences in perception.

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I totally fully agree with the law of diminishing returns.

 

Amen

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment

Caught up this morning.  Surprised several of you cats are sticking with this.  I did a lot of "fast scrolling".......

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment

I remember reviews of the Cello Palette EQ.  It was designed, I think, for a way to correct album-to-album FR problems and be as simple and straightforward as possible.  I suspect it would become fairly intuitive with use.  I can't think of a way to do it as easily in real time with a plug-in, though it is certainly possible.

 

The idea of remastering something has intrigued me.  On my to-do list is to make some subtle corrections to a cool Isaac Hayes tune ("Hung Up On My Baby"), and then save with some EQ.

 

Spotting smaller frequency anomalies is pretty difficult without training (I am not great at it but can get by with some tricks I learned on mastering forums) as opposed to the more coarse adjustments with broad, low Q changes like the old "bass" and "treble" controls on preamps/receivers.

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

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...