Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[fas42]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

Physically, that’s impossible. But if your imagination can conjure-up that kind of realism, then more power to you.

In other words, the rewards are enormous if you make it up as you go along.

 

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, 😁.

[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.

 

[Teresa]

On 6/8/2020 at 8:45 PM, fas42 said:

I have heard rigs which are spectacular on the "right recordings" - and disastrous on everything else - for years. That's not the point - I don't want to hear the 'seasoning' of the expensive equipment ... I want to hear what's on the recording ,,,

 

As George states below, high end equipment with the possible exception of SET (Single-ended triode) tube amps strive for sonic accuracy and sonic realism. Something your cheap lo-fi equipment cannot do no matter who much you tweak it.

 

I've been to several audio shows, CES and The Show in Las Vegas and have heard many superbly realistic sounding hi-end systems. Most audiophiles don't want to hear 'seasoning' but want to hear what's on the recordings. That is why well engineered recordings sound more realistic on realistic sounding audio systems.

 

On 6/8/2020 at 10:32 PM, gmgraves said:

The whole idea of “expensive equipment” is not to have ‘seasoning’, but rather to be as transparent as the state of the art allows. And I don’t want to listen to sub par recordings AT ALL! Remember, most of your ideas about the sound of your “rig” and your “method“ are all in your head.

 

I agree 100% George!

 

On 5/12/2020 at 4:22 PM, 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 totally agree with this. IMHO on an accurate audio system bad recordings can sound a little better, however their flaws will be more obvious due to the higher resolution of the better system.

 

I agree recording quality is the most important, just as different types of speakers sound different so do different microphones. Good engineers chose the best mic's, in the best locations and recording in a sonically good recording space. It is absolutely true GIGO.

[gmgraves]

10 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, 😁.

Because the “obvious” added distortion you talk about doesn’t exist. It’s imaginary.

And, like I have said before, even if that “distortion” were real, there is certainly nothing you can do about it! If designers like John Curl, Dan D’Agostino, Nelson Pass, etc., weren’t able to eliminate that “added distortion”, what makes you think that you can? (That’s a rhetorical question, BTW. Don’t bother to try to answer it)

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Because the “obvious” added distortion you talk about doesn’t exist. It’s imaginary.

And, like I have said before, even if that “distortion” were real, there is certainly nothing you can do about it! If designers like John Curl, Dan D’Agostino, Nelson Pass, etc., weren’t able to eliminate that “added distortion”, what makes you think that you can? (That’s a rhetorical question, BTW. Don’t bother to try to answer it)

 

Some designers even utilise a little added distortion with their choice of input and output semiconductors

[sandyk]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

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;

 A high end rig , should by definition be transparent.

However some designers utilise a small amount of deliberate distortion products of the even order to make them sound slightly warmer. This includes Nelson Pass, and with at least one of his designs, AKSA from DIY Audio (Hugh Dean) in Melbourne .

[fas42]

8 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

I've been to several audio shows, CES and The Show in Las Vegas and have heard many superbly realistic sounding hi-end systems. Most audiophiles don't want to hear 'seasoning' but want to hear what's on the recordings. That is why well engineered recordings sound more realistic on realistic sounding audio systems.

 

 

Often, they only sound realistic on the "right recording" - they make a complete mess of demanding recordings, and are quite unlistenable to. This is precisely what I find offensive - that they are not capable of presenting recordings other than those very, very carefully made without sounding off.

[Confused]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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.

How did you know the recording was well below cassette tape standard?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Because the “obvious” added distortion you talk about doesn’t exist. It’s imaginary.

And, like I have said before, even if that “distortion” were real, there is certainly nothing you can do about it! If designers like John Curl, Dan D’Agostino, Nelson Pass, etc., weren’t able to eliminate that “added distortion”, what makes you think that you can? (That’s a rhetorical question, BTW. Don’t bother to try to answer it)

 

Every time someone tweaks a system, in the absolutely myriad number of ways that have been documented, recounted oodles of times, they are adjusting the distortion of the system. If it weren't so, then it would always sound absolutely identical, each time ... you have a "thing" about USB - because, it introduces "obvious added distortion" ... or is your perception that it's inferior, "imaginary"? 😜

 

An individual component can have brilliantly low levels of distortion, when tested in isolation - but be a disaster in a particular system ... because of this magical, "synergy" concept - a weasel word for the lack of “obvious added distortion".

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, Confused said:

How did you know the recording was well below cassette tape standard?

 

Technically, it was of a very low standard - it was listening to him playing in a bathroom, several rooms away in the house; very low level, very noisy.

[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. 

 

 

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

Okay, think about this ... a sub-par rig makes the listening to such things slightly ridiculous; everything about the presentation has a caricature-like, cartoony quality to it - "you can't take it seriously". A highly capable replay makes you feel you are listening to real musicians, but they happen to be in very noisy environments, the acoustics of the play they chose to perform in are poor, or they organised themselves in an odd arrangement in the space; identical, subjectively, to listening to live music playing in those situations. Now, if you were offended by live music being performed in below par environments, then of course you wouldn't appreciate competent playback of these types of recordings - so, it would vary per individual.

 

A key example of what happens is that 1942 Prom's radio recording I mentioned to George - below par, it's a kitchen radio, squawking away, a curious miniature of sound; at its best, the full orchestra is spread out, at good viewing distance, the contribution of each section and instrument is clear as a bell -. this is a serious, working orchestra doing its stuff.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

So what's going on with all those expensive, ambitious systems I've heard over the years that sound like poo?

 

I think Frank that if you are full of it, you will smell it everywhere you go.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

I'll let you in on a secret, David ... the right sort of tweaking makes the signature of each recording stand out even more - and every one is different. Along with that, you get a very powerful sense of each part of the sound on a track having its own, special identity ... now, if you want to call that, colouration, go right ahead - but, personally, I reckon that's not too bad as something to listen to ...

 

Your "secret" Frank is called GIGO and you have perfectly described how tweaking can accentuate that problem for bad recordings whose signature is garbage. You are correct though to suggest coloration as an explanation for your method

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

David, I might remind you that it was yourself that kicked off this thread ... would you prefer for everyone that disagrees with your POV to just roll over, and accept your judgement on the matter, 🙂.

 

Well, Frank you are fond of the strawman, but this is the strawman argument of all time! It kinda reminds me of the old Benny Hill sexist joke which I will paraphrase in gender neutral terms- "Everyone has the right to be ugly but that person just abuses the privilege"

 

Frank, you have saturated this thread with your POV and, as others have put it, you spam and potentially derail every thread  you enter with your POV, the same monotonous POV, the broken-record POV. In Benny Hill's words "you abuse the privilege".

 

Yes, I started this thread curious as to what others thought on the issue. I represented your POV in the OP on the off chance someone just entered the hobby having freshly arrived from Mars, and hadn't seen your POV all over the internet. It is not necessary for you to repeat the same POV ad nauseam and I subtly pointed to this in post 8 "(we know your answer Frank)".

 

Your statement "Roll over and accept my judgement" is disingenuous to the extreme, at least I hope it is, otherwise you have much bigger problems.

 

For your own mental health (as I alluded to above) I suggested you give it a rest. You reject that, fine. Maybe then think of being considerate of others who do not want their threads re-focused on you and becoming all about you. It is easy to speculate why you may have a compulsive need to this but it would be inappropriate to do so here. Your usual reply here, because others have asked, is that we do not need to read your posts. This is true and for the most part I do not and will not. It doesn't however stop you making every thread the "Frank show" , effectively sabotaging the thread.

 

So, as the OP of this thread I am asking you to take the "Frank show" to one of the "Frank show magic threads". Thanks.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

51 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

Yes everybody gets it bar one. I too have no problems listening to Louis Armstrong on old recordings, some of which are pretty damned decent IMO.

 

Al Jolson would be another good example and obviously a much earlier recording. His genius still shines through the relatively poor recording but to say they are convincing live performances is just crazy talk IMO.

 

Whenever I hear the Stones on the car radio I crank up the volume, to hell with the poor SQ, its just great rock, shit recording.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Whenever I hear the Stones on the car radio I crank up the volume, to hell with the poor SQ, its just great rock, shit recording.

 

... which tells me exactly where you're at - horse ... water ... drink ...

 

Your thread, your POV ... bye ...

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Frank, you have saturated this thread with your POV and, as others have put it, you spam and potentially derail every thread  you enter with your POV, the same monotonous POV, the broken-record POV. In Benny Hill's words "you abuse the privilege".

 

Yes, I started this thread curious as to what others thought on the issue. I represented your POV in the OP on the off chance someone just entered the hobby having freshly arrived from Mars, and hadn't seen your POV all over the internet. It is not necessary for you to repeat the same POV ad nauseam and I subtly pointed to this in post 8 "(we know your answer Frank)"....So, as the OP of this thread I am asking you to take the "Frank show" to one of the "Frank show magic threads". Thanks

 

David, I would have given you a "Thanks" vote in response to the above, but for the fact that @fas42 has enjoyed a prominent place on my Ignore List for a while now.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

David, I would have given you a "Thanks" vote in response to the above, but for the fact that Frank has enjoyed a prominent place on my Ignore List for a while now.

Hi Allan,

I suspect like yourself and many others I have no problem separating enjoying the music from listening for poor recording quality or poor quality playback. We can distinguish listening to the music from listening to the gear.

 

For me it becomes increasingly challenging as the respective flaws increase. It becomes fatiguing.

 

Put another way, the goosebumps and emotional joy skyrockets when you hear truly great sound quality (recording and playback) in the service of beautiful music. Everything falls away except for the music.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

... which tells me exactly where you're at - horse ... water ... drink ...

 

Your thread, your POV ... bye ...

If that’s all it takes, that was too easy. 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 A high end rig , should by definition be transparent.

However some designers utilise a small amount of deliberate distortion products of the even order to make them sound slightly warmer. This includes Nelson Pass, and with at least one of his designs, AKSA from DIY Audio (Hugh Dean) in Melbourne .

Perhaps, but this added distortion is not, I think, what Frank is talking about, because one cannot discern this added “warmth” as distortion.

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Every time someone tweaks a system, in the absolutely myriad number of ways that have been documented, recounted oodles of times, they are adjusting the distortion of the system. If it weren't so, then it would always sound absolutely identical, each time ... you have a "thing" about USB - because, it introduces "obvious added distortion" ... or is your perception that it's inferior, "imaginary"? 😜

 

An individual component can have brilliantly low levels of distortion, when tested in isolation - but be a disaster in a particular system ... because of this magical, "synergy" concept - a weasel word for the lack of “obvious added distortion".

Actually, the latest Yiggy with it’s totally redesigned USB input, actually sounds indistinguishable from the SPDIF input. I’m impressed.

[beerandmusic]

32 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Actually, the latest Yiggy with it’s totally redesigned USB input, actually sounds indistinguishable from the SPDIF input. I’m impressed.

 

+1...imho, it is the first dac i have had that sounds decent out my noisy everyday windows pc....

i think it's the first well designed usb input for a dac (in this price range)....about time!

 

Not quite convinced it beats the dynamics of what is possible with a quieter player via ethernet, but it is very close ....i have to do more critical listening....(too many other projects right now).

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

+1...imho, it is the first dac i have had that sounds decent out my noisy everyday windows pc....

i think it's the first well designed usb input for a dac (in this price range)....about time!

 

Not quite convinced it beats the dynamics of what is possible with a quieter player via ethernet, but it is very close ....i have to do more critical listening....(too many other projects right now).

 

 

I will be interested to hear your thoughts.