Jump to content
IGNORED

Can Bad Recordings sound Good?


Recommended Posts

On 6/10/2020 at 2:47 PM, 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)

 

 

En contraire.  I engaged in a bit of shall we say "meaningful dialogue" with John Curl and Mark Levinson in another forum some years back.  Eventually, Curl admitted that all of his designs and all others' designs contained at least one serious unknown flaw for which even their professionally calibrated measuring instruments were of no value to them.  I informed Curl that his designs contained no such serious unknown flaws but rather his designs (and others') were simply incomplete.  Curl didn't take too kindly to that.  Not saying Curl specifically, but some people would rather remain ignernt rather than admit somebody else may know something they don't.  Especially about their own designs.

 

Bad recordings?  Do they even exist?

 

As usual, and I'm unsure how or why, but Frank seems right.  Again.

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
1 hour ago, shtf said:

 

 

En contraire.  I engaged in a bit of shall we say "meaningful dialogue" with John Curl and Mark Levinson in another forum some years back.  Eventually, Curl admitted that all of his designs and all others' designs contained at least one serious unknown flaw for which even their professionally calibrated measuring instruments were of no value to them.  I informed Curl that his designs contained no such serious unknown flaws but rather his designs (and others') were simply incomplete.  Curl didn't take too kindly to that.  Not saying Curl specifically, but some people would rather remain ignernt rather than admit somebody else may know something they don't.  Especially about their own designs.

 

Bad recordings?  Do they even exist?

 

As usual, and I'm unsure how or why, but Frank seems right.  Again.

Welcome to a minority of one who thinks that Frank is right. Again, I don’t pretend to know anything about pop and rock as I don’t listen to it, and I’ve never accepted a gig to record it, but in the classical and jazz world, there are many more bad recordings than there are good ones. It’s mostly about economics, I believe. It takes talent, a deep understanding of microphones, and the willingness to spend the time necessary to set up to correctly to record a musical performance. One has to instinctively know what microphones are right for what instruments and be able to “read the room” in order to set the microphones up correctly. That takes time. Most record companies don’t want to spend the money to take that time. They would rather get the talent in the door, get the performance captured without regard for the room or the sound (usually using many microphones) and then get the talent out the door! Then the engineers and producers can fiddle with, and vacillate over balances at their leisure, till the cows come home! And unfortunately, the recordings sound like it too.
 

Are you sure that you aren’t a sock puppet? 😇

George

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

That was my first thought...

Well, knowing Frank, someone agreeing with his brand of amiable nonsense, would definitely bring that possibility instantly to mind! 

It’s much more likely than not.

 

However, I must point out that SHTF’s post was uploaded a little over 2 hours ago. In Oz where Frank resides, I suspect it’s the wee hours of the morning  there, and while it’s possible, I doubt he would get up out of bed just to send that.

George

Link to comment
1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Welcome to a minority of one who thinks that Frank is right. Again, I don’t pretend to know anything about pop and rock as I don’t listen to it, and I’ve never accepted a gig to record it, but in the classical and jazz world, there are many more bad recordings than there are good ones. It’s mostly about economics, I believe. It takes talent, a deep understanding of microphones, and the willingness to spend the time necessary to set up to correctly to record a musical performance. One has to instinctively know what microphones are right for what instruments and be able to “read the room” in order to set the microphones up correctly. That takes time. Most record companies don’t want to spend the money to take that time. They would rather get the talent in the door, get the performance captured without regard for the room or the sound (usually using many microphones) and then get the talent out the door! Then the engineers and producers can fiddle with, and vacillate over balances at their leisure, till the cows come home! And unfortunately, the recordings sound like it too.
 

Are you sure that you aren’t a sock puppet? 😇

 

A former high-end audio reviewer from Nigeria, right?  Don't worry.  So long as you refrain from posting any videos of your in-room playback sessions your secret is safe with me.

The more I dabble with extreme forms of electrical mgmt. and extreme forms of vibration mgmt., the more I’m convinced it’s all just variations of managing mechanical energy. Or was it all just variations of managing electrical energy? No, it’s all just variations of mechanical energy. Wait.  It's all just variations of managing electrical energy.  -Me

Link to comment
3 hours ago, shtf said:

 

 

En contraire.  I engaged in a bit of shall we say "meaningful dialogue" with John Curl and Mark Levinson in another forum some years back.  Eventually, Curl admitted that all of his designs and all others' designs contained at least one serious unknown flaw for which even their professionally calibrated measuring instruments were of no value to them.  I informed Curl that his designs contained no such serious unknown flaws but rather his designs (and others') were simply incomplete.  Curl didn't take too kindly to that.  Not saying Curl specifically, but some people would rather remain ignernt rather than admit somebody else may know something they don't.  Especially about their own designs.

 

Bad recordings?  Do they even exist?

 

As usual, and I'm unsure how or why, but Frank seems right.  Again.

Is this an example of sounding 'good' or sounding 'bad'?   By the time that it goes through the mic setup, I cannot tell how good it is at all.  I listen for precision and errors in processing -- the ambient environment confuses (time wise) the signal.

 

This is definitely a matter of personal preference.

 

John

 

Link to comment

Nice to see you back, @shtf - or should I say, my other sock, 🤪 ? - I've steadily come across people who "get it", over the years. The reason that there are so few of them is that one has to be lucky, to come across it; and then have a certain mindset to want to persist with exploring it ... 😉.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Welcome to a minority of one who thinks that Frank is right. Again, I don’t pretend to know anything about pop and rock as I don’t listen to it, and I’ve never accepted a gig to record it, but in the classical and jazz world, there are many more bad recordings than there are good ones. It’s mostly about economics, I believe. It takes talent, a deep understanding of microphones, and the willingness to spend the time necessary to set up to correctly to record a musical performance. One has to instinctively know what microphones are right for what instruments and be able to “read the room” in order to set the microphones up correctly. That takes time. Most record companies don’t want to spend the money to take that time. They would rather get the talent in the door, get the performance captured without regard for the room or the sound (usually using many microphones) and then get the talent out the door! Then the engineers and producers can fiddle with, and vacillate over balances at their leisure, till the cows come home! And unfortunately, the recordings sound like it too.
 

Are you sure that you aren’t a sock puppet? 😇

 

Out of interest, would you be able to offer some suggested recordings that you think are "done right" with respect to microphone set-up and recording technique? 

 

To be honest, the vast majority of music I listen to is multi-track studio type material, but I would genuinely like to try something that you consider is good in this regard, in particular something reasonably modern.  Much talk of MLP and TELARC on another thread, I presume there are better examples now as recording technology improves?

 

I guess having explored the can bad recordings sound good thing, I fancy hearing what a more state of the art type recording might sound like.

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Confused said:

I guess having explored the can bad recordings sound good thing, I fancy hearing what a more state of the art type recording might sound like.

 The attached Classical track isn't state of the art, but it has close to the widest dynamic range you will normally hear on the CD medium.

It was recorded by the BBC..

It is a .wav file sent as an Uncompressed Zip.

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 The attached Classical track isn't state of the art, but it has close to the widest dynamic range you will normally hear on the CD medium.

It was recorded by the BBC..

It is a .wav file sent as an Uncompressed Zip.

Do you have a measurment of its dynamic range?  Who are the performers?  

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Do you have a measurment of its dynamic range?  Who are the performers?  

 

I don't have the measurements, but John Dyson checked this recording to see if it had improperly decoded Dolby-A and made that remark.

 This double CD was originally sent to me by a Music Teacher in the U.K. who has heard the Master tapes and knows the hall it was recorded in. Ian originally sent me the CDs as a gift as he wasn't happy with his own rip of it.

61SY6bweA4L__SL1203_.jpg

LPO Mahler -Resurrection.jpg

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I don't have the measurements, but John Dyson checked this recording to see if it had improperly decoded Dolby-A and made that remark.

 This double CD was originally sent to me by a Music Teacher in the U.K. who has heard the Master tapes and knows the hall it was recorded in. Ian originally sent me the CDs as a gift as he wasn't happy with his own rip of it.

61SY6bweA4L__SL1203_.jpg

LPO Mahler -Resurrection.jpg

Yea - I have very seldom/never seen/heard a CD with this dynamic range.  I forget exactly, but it has wider dynamic range than what is comfortable for me to listen to in my quiet bedroom.  (Of course, I am tinnitus limited.)

 

I mistakenly convinced myself that it was FA - I guess dynamic range greed kicked in, but realize that I wasted my time and others because it is NOT FA.   Another London Philharmonic CD I have IS FA, and silly me, I went into automatic decode mode.  Of course, with so much of the disk at such a low level, there was a pronounced increase in dynamics when doing an errant decode -- and, just could never make it sound right after decoding :-).

 

John

 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Yea - I have very seldom/never seen/heard a CD with this dynamic range.  I forget exactly, but it has wider dynamic range than what is comfortable for me to listen to in my quiet bedroom.  (Of course, I am tinnitus limited.)

It measures as 19 with JRMC and, at that, ties for the highest among the many recordings I have.  There are a few multichannel ones that measure 18.  I will get a chance to listen to it in the morning.

42 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I mistakenly convinced myself that it was FA - I guess dynamic range greed kicked in, but realize that I wasted my time and others because it is NOT FA. 

What it FA?

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Kal Rubinson said:

It measures as 19 with JRMC and, at that, ties for the highest among the many recordings I have.  There are a few multichannel ones that measure 18.  I will get a chance to listen to it in the morning.

What it FA?

FA is my name for the ubiquitous DRC scheme used on most POP CDs, many jazz and at least some classical CDs.   It is probably the major cause for the 'digital sound' complaints that happened when CDs came out, but for some reason industry persists in doing it.  This is a primary reason why old vinyl doesn't sound like the CDs, or kind of, almost sound similar -- but not quite.  About the only place that doesn't persist in selling POP CDs with FA is MFSL, where they do sell material that has been closer-to-correctly mastered.

 

John

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have some albums from Reference Recordings with a DR score in the twenties. They can be hard to listen to. 

With this kind of material, with so much dynamic range, it can be beneficial for optional versions available  with a little bit of carefully applied compression, or perhaps the user having access to a nicely designed compressor available in their equipment.   It isn't too hard to design a good, quiet compressor with limited effect...  Of course, how many recordings really do have such extreme dynamic range?  Not all that many.  I doubt that the number of uncompressed recordings and the number of listeners would make a market for such a compressor.

 

I really don't generally like compression -- but compressors are a tool, and sometimes might be useful for one reason or other.

 

John

 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have some albums from Reference Recordings with a DR score in the twenties. They can be hard to listen to. 

Sure but I was comparing this to other recordings of the same music. 

25 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Of course, how many recordings really do have such extreme dynamic range? 

Few, of course, but I have yet to hear this Mahler movement with the dynamic range that I experienced "live" with Maazel/NYPhil/Carnegie back around 1980.  Hair-raising!

 

On my NAS, I have about 600 tracks with DR of 20 or more out of about 75000.  Less than 1%.

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

I don't have the measurements, but John Dyson checked this recording to see if it had improperly decoded Dolby-A and made that remark.

 This double CD was originally sent to me by a Music Teacher in the U.K. who has heard the Master tapes and knows the hall it was recorded in. Ian originally sent me the CDs as a gift as he wasn't happy with his own rip of it.

61SY6bweA4L__SL1203_.jpg

LPO Mahler -Resurrection.jpg

 

Didn't know this one. Am listening on Qobuz. Very good recording and performance. You can really hear all the instruments and their place in the orchestra. Sound is what I would call mid-hall on the floor perspective, which also helps give a feeling of being there listening to it. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have some albums from Reference Recordings with a DR score in the twenties. They can be hard to listen to. 

 

I guess the question would be are the dynamics exaggerated in the recording? I can't think of a real non amplified acoustic performance that the dynamics appear to be a problem.

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

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...