Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

logic dictates that if you "improve" on a system that compensates for a bad recording, that you will degrading it for better recordings.

 

Where the logic needs to come in, is precisely how it is decided that a particular recording is, er,  "bad". Just saying, "Well, it sounds bad, on my system, at this moment!" just doesn't cut it ... 😉.

 

[sandyk]

35 minutes ago, fas42 said:

My experience is quite other ... when recording playback makes the vocals shrill at some point, this is always a sign that the distortion of the replay chain is too high

 

That's absolute BS Frank.

My Class A HA, Class A Preamp and Class A P.A. ALL have distortion figures with close to 4 zeroes in them.

 Both my Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 and Silicon Chip designed DAC in my main system also have very low measured distortion.

 Perhaps you have ears like a typical valve amplifier where it goes into soft limiting when clipping ?

[fas42]

25 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

That's absolute BS Frank.

My Class A HA, Class A Preamp and Class A P.A. ALL have distortion figures with close to 4 zeroes in them.

 Both my Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 and Silicon Chip designed DAC in my main system also have very low measured distortion.

 Perhaps you have ears like a typical valve amplifier where it goes into soft limiting when clipping ?

 

Alex, you're trying to assert that the measured distortion figures of one component in the chain matters more than the final audible distortion of the entire chain, including all anomalies due to noise and interference factors figuring into the equation. If I put a beautifully tuned engine into a rust bucket of a car, with dry rotted tyres, and shot transmission - will I have a desirable vehicle? 😉

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

52 minutes ago, fas42 said:

58 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

logic dictates that if you "improve" on a system that compensates for a bad recording, that you will degrading it for better recordings.

 

Where the logic needs to come in, is precisely how it is decided that a particular recording is, er,  "bad". Just saying, "Well, it sounds bad, on my system, at this moment!" just doesn't cut it ... 😉.

 

The two statements are not logically mutually exclusive but yours Frank is a straw-man logical fallacy.Not wanting to be picky Frank but I doubt logic and your "method" go hand in hand.

[fas42]

I was just reminded of a track that I've linked to before, which in my book is extremely telling of system status - a truly special voice in a track which is extra dodgy; I have it on a super budget release, and nothing has been done in the mastering to "clean it up" - the big moments in this can be hard going; so, an excellent "measure",

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Alex, you're trying to assert that the measured distortion figures of one component in the chain matters more than the final audible distortion of the entire chain, including all anomalies due to noise and interference factors figuring into the equation. If I put a beautifully tuned engine into a rust bucket of a car, with dry rotted tyres, and shot transmission - will I have a desirable vehicle? 😉

 

Frank you have to see passed those rotted tyres and shot transmission - we know you can do it ! 😁

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The two statements are not logically mutually exclusive but yours Frank is a straw-man logical fallacy.Not wanting to be picky Frank but I doubt logic and your "method" go hand in hand.

 

My method doesn't "compensate" - it removes weakness in the playback chain which add disturbing anomalies; the logic is that the brain no longer has to cope with these when listening, and so "bad" recordings no longer have to fight through the extra murkiness of that 'other' distortion.

 

Experience, doing this over and over and over again, with very different types of equipment, confirms what's going on ... logic only has to come in to try and explain the mechanism ...

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Alex, you're trying to assert that the measured distortion figures of one component in the chain matters more than the final audible distortion of the entire chain, including all anomalies due to noise and interference factors figuring into the equation.  

 

 In this case I have quoted the distortion figures of ALL of the components in the chain other than the headphones or speakers, and the total will be well above average .

 

Like it , or not,

GI = GO 

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

My method doesn't "compensate" - it removes weakness in the playback chain which add disturbing anomalies; the logic is that the brain no longer has to cope with these when listening, and so "bad" recordings no longer have to fight through the extra murkiness of that 'other' distortion.

 

 Perhaps your playback chain has a lot of inherent weaknesses , but mine doesn't . That is both with measurements and audibly, as verified by others as well.

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Perhaps your playback chain has a lot of inherent weaknesses , but mine doesn't . That is both with measurements and audibly, as verified by others as well.

 

So, your rig would do a brilliant job with that recording I just posted above, say ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

My method doesn't "compensate" - it removes weakness in the playback chain which add disturbing anomalies;

 

I have no problem with this in 'theory' but even if (very dubiously) perfectly achieved it then leaves the weaknesses in the recording untouched and bare for all to hear......unless you colour them to taste 😉

 

Now, before you post back.......yes I understand that removing the weakness in the playback chain *might* *potentially* also help ameliorate a recording flaw, IF and to the extent it was accentuating said recording flaw. Nonetheless, it cannot *eliminate* the flaw and if the flaw is in and of itself substantial, you will hear it. No, a normal brain cannot just distort reality to make it better or go away.

 

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, your rig would do a brilliant job with that recording I just posted above, say …

 Actually, it doesn't sound too bad, especially considering that it was recorded 55 years ago, and is only 128kbps .aac audio or a little less.

 I will see how the 529kbps audio sounds shortly.

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Now, before you post back.......yes I understand that removing the weakness in the playback chain *might* *potentially* also help ameliorate a recording flaw, IF and to the extent it was accentuating said recording flaw. Nonetheless, it cannot *eliminate* the flaw and if the flaw is in and of itself substantial, you will hear it. No, a normal brain cannot just distort reality to make it better or go away.

 

 

Yes, the flaw can never go away; technically, it will always be present in the sound emerging from the speakers - and if you have the means to measure it, it will always be there, at full strength. But subjectively, everything can change, dramatically - the flaw exists, but in another space ... the cocktail party effect kicks in, at full strength - and those "other voices talking in the room", disappear ...

 

You can decide to focus on the flaw, and just listen to it in action ... but it's a pretty boring thing; you lose interest fast 😉 - the mind is far more excited by the music happening, and that takes centre stage ... the better the replay, the better this "internal compensation" does its job.

[fas42]

I was just thinking of N., the audio friend down the road - he has some very dog-eared Oscar Peterson tracks; there have been times when these sounded absolutely awful; the piano tonality is a complete mess; you wince with every note played. We look around, work out what's going on, correct it ... bingo! Subjectively, a complete transformation - the groove of the piece switches on, and it becomes "effortless" to listen to ...

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 But subjectively, everything can change, dramatically - the flaw exists, but in another space ... the cocktail party effect kicks in, at full strength - and those "other voices talking in the room", disappear ...  

 

Does that happen when you are home alone too ?

[fas42]

Ah, an admirable sense of humour, too ... you get another tick, Alex  🙂.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, the flaw can never go away; technically, it will always be present in the sound emerging from the speakers - and if you have the means to measure it, it will always be there, at full strength.

 

On this we agree

 

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

But subjectively, everything can change, dramatically - the flaw exists, but in another space ... the cocktail party effect kicks in, at full strength - and those "other voices talking in the room", disappear ...

 

No, ASA does NOT work that way for people with normal brains. It is an unmasking effect due to grouping, not a disappearing trick. Yes, there is discussion on increased SNR due to a squelch effect. It helps us *all* to sort sound but it cannot magically explain your ability to tune in to just the good bits using your "method". To the extent that you think you can ("bingo! Subjectively, a complete transformation - the groove of the piece switches on, and it becomes "effortless" to listen to ...) is better explained by good old fashioned bias (or BS)  not ASA.

 

 

 

[fas42]

Another sample of why I pursue my "method: ... I want to extract every last ounce of goodness in this piece; to be be able to enjoy the musicianship with ease ... no, I don't have this track, of two versions recorded at different times, but I would want this, "to work",

 

 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Where the logic needs to come in, is precisely how it is decided that a particular recording is, er,  "bad". Just saying, "Well, it sounds bad, on my system, at this moment!" just doesn't cut it ... 😉.

 

When a recording doesn’t, at least REMIND ONE of the way that real, live music sounds when you are listening in real time, then it’s a bad recording. It’s that simple.

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

No, ASA does NOT work that way for people with normal brains. It is an unmasking effect due to grouping, not a disappearing trick. Yes, there is discussion on increased SNR due to a squelch effect. It helps us *all* to sort sound but it cannot magically explain your ability to tune in to just the good bits using your "method". To the extent that you think you can ("bingo! Subjectively, a complete transformation - the groove of the piece switches on, and it becomes "effortless" to listen to ...) is better explained by good old fashioned bias (or BS)  not ASA.

 

 

 

 

The method is only used to troubleshoot what the system is doing wrong - it has nothing to do with what I actually hear. A refresher on how this all came about: I was just doing the same sort of tweaking that everyone does to improve the sound, 35 years ago, with slight improvements at each point ... nothing to get excited about so far ... 😉. The "Bingo!" was that one day Magic Sound emerged - which I was able to manipulate with precise control - I could make it go away, and I could make it come back ... with complete reliability. Others around me also heard the difference - I wasn't, alone 🙂.

 

The ASA aspect only entered the picture some years ago, when John Kenny kindly pointed me to it.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Alex, you're trying to assert that the measured distortion figures of one component in the chain matters more than the final audible distortion of the entire chain, including all anomalies due to noise and interference factors figuring into the equation. If I put a beautifully tuned engine into a rust bucket of a car, with dry rotted tyres, and shot transmission - will I have a desirable vehicle? 😉

But Frank, Alex just told you that his entire system has vanishingly low distortion. Even though system distortion is additive, when one’s system’s total distortion has three or four zeros after the decimal point, then it is irrelevant. And the kinds of interference that you like to bring up all the time, simply do not exist in EVERY system in amounts that would compromise SQ. If, in your circumstances, such interference does exist, then I feel sorry for you, but it is your problem, and not a universal one.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

I was just reminded of a track that I've linked to before, which in my book is extremely telling of system status - a truly special voice in a track which is extra dodgy; I have it on a super budget release, and nothing has been done in the mastering to "clean it up" - the big moments in this can be hard going; so, an excellent "measure",

 

 

Frank

Here this is with the YouTube 529kbps "hidden" Audio

Click on  " Read More" and you will also have access to the original YouTube Video with 125kbps .aac audio

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek391tauf91n961/Dionne Warwick - Who Can I Turn To (Scepter Records 1965).m2t?dl=0

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

When a recording doesn’t, at least REMIND ONE of the way that real, live music sounds when you are listening in real time, then it’s a bad recording. It’s that simple.

 

Okay, I call that a difficult recording - a below par rig will make it sound everything from a rather amusing historical artifact, through to being excrutiatingly unpleasant to listen to; as if one of the links was miking the speaker of a small transistor radio with flat batteries. When a capable system, which is what I chase, does it then it not only reminds me, but makes me feel that I can see the musician at work, right in front of me. So, for the Art Tatum exercise above, I want to feel that piano being worked, hard - as a real instrument I'm in the presence of.

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, I call that a difficult recording - a below par rig will make it sound everything from a rather amusing historical artifact, through to being excrutiatingly unpleasant to listen to; as if one of the links was miking the speaker of a small transistor radio with flat batteries. When a capable system, which is what I chase, does it then it not only reminds me, but makes me feel that I can see the musician at work, right in front of me. So, for the Art Tatum exercise above, I want to feel that piano being worked, hard - as a real instrument I'm in the presence of.

Here’s the problem, Frank. Most of the people who post to these forums do not have “below par” rigs.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

But Frank, Alex just told you that his entire system has vanishingly low distortion. Even though system distortion is additive, when one’s system’s total distortion has three or four zeros after the decimal point, then it is irrelevant. And the kinds of interference that you like to bring up all the time, simply do not exist in EVERY system in amounts that would compromise SQ. If, in your circumstances, such interference does exist, then I feel sorry for you, but it is your problem, and not a universal one.

 

This would make sense if I regularly came across high end rigs that got their act together ... but I haven't - I spent years chasing down the possibility that others were getting what I was getting ... but it wasn't there. Strong hints at times ... but no consistency ...

 

Just recently Chris here described what he was getting with his RAAL headphones, the "every recording has something special" quality - that's the place I'm interested in ... it exists, because others have experienced it, and recounted what it was like.

 

Unfortunately, being ultra fussy is just about the only way to make it happen ... the mind is strongly disturbed when it gets clues that the reproduction is fake; it's no easy trick to "fool it".