Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

  

 

Quote

Magic? I can make an audio system output spluttering noises, if I generate lots of arcing in the mains, by playing with a bad connection - is that magic?

 

 

No its not magic - but its irrelevant strawman. I can make my system sound silent by pulling the power cord, so what.

 

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 I take the method to be referring to the fact that I listen for audible distortion, locate the cause of such, and mitigate it sufficiently - the result of applying that type of troubleshooting is that the ability of the brain to make sense of what it hears, ASA stuff, can switch on ...

 

So, previously you said you used ASA to help you group good bits from bad bits to "troubleshoot" playback flaws (when we last spoke). Now you are back to saying "ASA stuff can switch on" after you mitigate flaws. You went off the latter explanation when I previously said ASA doesn't work that way and so you then favoured the troubleshooting angle. Lets forget the constant backflips and see what we are left with.

 

Recording flaws are there and will remain there despite 100% perfect tuning of your playback system.

 

You then listen to what's left and direct your brain to hear only good bits - magic happens at this point aka the magic is in your mind.

 

As said before, normal brains do not work in the magnitude you describe as magic - "a complete transformation - the groove of the piece switches on, and it becomes "effortless" to listen to ...".  To pull off such a feat I submit is not possible for normal brains and would be incredibly fatiguing to attempt. You cannot *eliminate* the flaw and if the flaw is substantial, you will hear it. Great effort would be required not to hear it. A normal brain cannot just distort reality to make it go away.

You describe it as "effortless"

AND YET....

 

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

It ain't easy ... never has been - I've burnt out several times on doing this stuff, including chucking it in entirely for more than 10 years

 

Yes, I am aware you will protest that the method is fatiguing but the result is sublime effortless listening. I put it to you that what you claim you are hearing would take extraordinary effort and in normal brains just does not occur. Your expectation bias is so high and must wrestle with the reality of what your ears are trying to tell your brain.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I never use ASA to "group good bits from bad bits" - ASA is the explanation for why my brain can 'assemble' an illusion, once I've troubleshooted the system weaknesses.

 

Segregation and Grouping is an integral part of how most people explain ASA. If we group good bits from bad bits it may help explain some of the phenomena you describe, or at least that would be a plausible starting point. Exactly by what mechanism you see ASA as serving your purpose, I admit is unclear, other than clutching at straws.

 

 

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

How I troubleshoot is by using a group of say 6 CDs, say, which are 'difficult' .. attitude ... ? 😜

 

We have already established many times that at the end of this process that has achieved a perfect playback system, the recording flaws are still there - YOU just can't hear them.

 

 

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Curious that that you can't conceive that the brain can process what it hears, and discard what is irrelevant, considering your background ...

 

 

It is precisely because of my background that I understand what is *likely* normal and possible and what is not when it comes to central nervous system functioning.

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I'm the one hearing this, as do the others around me; it took decades to stumble across an explanation that made sense, ASA.

 

Forgive me Frank but as you appear to be the only one in this audiophile forum affirming your findings I find it hard to believe that others hear it too.

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

A special memory, that I've mentioned many times, is Bev coming in when it finally hit the spot, and saying, "Wow, I love this group's playing!" ... "Ummm, it's Status Quo, on the CD that you hate me playing - the music that really bugged you, up to just now ..."

 

So what. There is no mystery here. We have all been there. *Some* music, depending on the mixture and nature and extent of the recording flaws, will sound better on a better sound system. Again you make strawman arguments.

 

 

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 ... audio friend up the road mentioned last time that his wife came home some days earlier, walked in the front door at their place, and said, "This sounds amazing!!" ...

 

...and no doubt it would sound even more amazing on a more awesome sound system, but whatever the system used,  substantial recording flaws will be heard by all those with normal brains.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Frank, why not give it a break on promoting the "method". It must be exhausting for you to keep on quarreling with one then the next and then next person.

 

It is a futile exercise for you as all evidence is that nobody hears it like you do (to the extent you do)  in this forum.

 

So, why not just enjoy the music and be satisfied in your beliefs without needing to convince others on a daily basis, which by now must be spanning years.You twist just about every thread into "your topic" and yet you have obviously so much more to offer.

 

Just a thought

[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.

[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.

 

[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.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

Is it possible that the yiggy sounds better with some recordings and the hugo sounds better with other recordings?

That has always been my experience in comparing different dacs....

 

Absolutely

 

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

never owned a chord though, which is why I am most eager to try....i have the feeling that it will not be a "wow moment" though...i haven't ever had a "wow moment" with a DAC.

 

Like with many (not all) things, wow moments and awe, come with better quality. DACS are in that category. Go and listen to the top MSB DACS and tell me if you feel the same. IMO a little too much WOW (which can get in the road of the music). Yes, expensive but trickle down effects make their way eventually to value and budget gear.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

16 hours ago, Confused said:

Regarding the Eva Cassidy tracks posted by @beerandmusic (from post #259) I have to be honest and say that this is not the kind of material that I normally listen to.  Not quite that simple though, at no point did I pick on anything that I felt was a "shrilling moment", and I found each of the tracks perfectly listenable. 

 

Typically I find Eva Cassidy an appealing songstress but cannot cope with the shrill moments, as described by Beery. Don't know whether its the need to "have a moment" and go from tenderness to "belting" too close to the mic. I think many of the reality singing contest shows starting with idol sadly shaped this kind of style. You have to have a moment of anguished screaming to express emotion, not. Compression then exacerbates the problem.

 

Then again, IMHO there are very few female artists that can get away with "belting". Streisand or Garland couldn't and yet they have arguably angelic voices. Shirley Bassey could ! Wowzer!

 

Those that seem to understand their craft seem to slide up to the note and pull back a little from the mic so as to not overdrive it. The engineers probably also allow more headroom in the recording, not skimming along at -1dB.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

.i have been "wowed" with speakers with people playing from very cheap front ends.

 

That's not been my experience.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

17 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

but if they weren't paired with a "wow" speaker, they may have sounded very good, but no wow moment.

 

My experience is quality speakers need to be driven with quality front ends and amps to get the best from them. It is an interesting side note to this thread in that there is something of a parallel to GIGO - bad recordings sounding good.

 

Many will agree that the speaker has the greatest overall impact on 'the sound', second only to the recording. Others will argue for room acoustics.So it is a matter of opinion of relative weighting. My experience is simply, it all comes together when everything in the mix is at its best ( and best is yes subjective).

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

18 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Believe me, it won’t do any good. Stick with what you’ve got, computer wise as it applies to digital audio. Of course if you just need, or want a new computer for other reasons...

 

Let's say, as a thought experiment, Taiko were selling "The extreme" at $2,000 would you bother to audition it?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Let's say, as a thought experiment, Taiko were selling "The extreme" at $2,000 would you bother to audition it?

Possibly. 

 

It's not a trap George, I am sure you can see where I am heading.

 

So moving forwards in time I (presumptuously) anticipate your reply "possibly" might mean only a slight revision of

Believe me, it won’t do any good. Stick with what you’ve got, computer wise as it applies to digital audio.

 

...to something like it probably won't do much good but you would be curious to have a listen to The Extreme nonetheless.

 

Something that piqued my interest was the quote by Miska Point is that the analog output from both DACs is not the same, it is massively different.
I thought one of the major tenets of digital domain accuracy  -> all sounding the same (or not much different) was in fact that there was NO measurable difference at the DAC output? IIRC wasn't that issue raised in the Red Pill/ Blue Pill thread?

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

17 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

If a DAC were purely digital, then possibly they would all sound the same. Unfortunately, DACs have power supplies, and analog output circuits. Those two alone will guarantee differences in sound. I have access to a Benchmark DAC 3 and I own an Oppo UDP- 205 “media player”. Both use Similar ESS SabreDAC Pro chips. When compared side by side from the same source (CDs played on the Oppo), the Oppo and the Benchmark sound very different from one another. I was quite taken aback by that result (both outputs were fed to a pair of Stax SR-009S electrostatic headphones powered by the Stax SRM-700T

amplifier/energizer). Yeah, the Power supplies and analog sections of a DAC cause DACs to sound different even if it could be proven that all different brands, models, and types of DAC would sound the same when all else was equal (I’m not saying that they would, mind you, I’m just saying that the actual D/A conversion is just one part of that process).

 

Okay, so the server/ pc transport has no analog output circuits but the transported signal is nonetheless an analog modulation. The server/pc transport also has (many) power supplies. Couldn't such things influence the sound of the DAC (and maybe measured at its output) ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

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.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Agreed but it is not so much the recording which is harsh and of only modest DR but what Bernstein does with it. 

 

Sorta fits well in this thread since it can be called a "bad recording" in comparison of more than a few others of this piece.  It sounds good, as music, despite that.

 

Yes, the music can still sound good but one might argue that the Bernstein version might be even better appreciated through a better recording. My contention is that recording flaws will detract from the experience in some way - a better recording will serve the music better.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Fun to listen to live but hard when one has turn turn the volume to literally 100 at home, just to hear the quietest passages, when the loudest ones hit it can disturb the entire household and neighbors. 

 

Move to a better neighborhood !🙄

 

Seriously though, I don't think we can argue that the recording is bad based on peak dynamics disturbing others. I know that is not what you are saying, it just comes across a bit that way. You could of course just listen to such pieces with headphones. Question is then, would they still be "hard to listen to" ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If you read my words and felt they came across that way, there’s not much I can say. 

 

 

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Fun to listen to live but hard when one has turn turn the volume to literally 100 at home, just to hear the quietest passages, when the loudest ones hit it can disturb the entire household and neighbors. 

 

Well the words seem to imply (to me) that it is "fun" to listen to live, and I might infer that is good.

 

The recording/playback if realistic should also be fun/good.  I get that disturbing the neighbors is a practical issue but it is not a SQ issue to me (unless they are complaining about bad SQ).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I do agree.  I was merely following up on the post offering a high DR file.

To be sure but how can the Bernstein version be obtained in a better recording?  I'd buy it.

 

Exactly. At the end of the day we listen to imperfect recordings and imperfect playback for the music. IMO we would be excluding about 90% (pick a figure) of music if only listening to near best recordings.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Where did I say anything about a recording being bad?

As i said, you didn't.

 

Perhaps i should have said it can be misinterpreted, and yes my error in misinterpretation. I still feel it conflates two different issues and i am only concerned here with if the recording sounds good or bad.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Reference Recordings stuff sounds fantastic to me. I just can’t hear the quietest passages while driving in the car. Thus, it’s difficult for this and other reasons to listen. 

 

that's an interesting point and reminds me of the old dbx compander i used to own (and used at dinner parties to make the soft passages louder).

 

Can fantastic recordings be fantastic but impractical.... and in *some* way "considered "bad" ......depending on the listening environment noise floor. I guess one of the reasons one might advocate compression is for that reason, hearing in noisy environments. I dunno

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Oh boy.  Is that your standard context?  I can't listen to anything in the car.

 

Isn't that funny, in the car is one of the only places I can listen to very bad recordings.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Headphones = hard. Car = hard. Wide dynamic range can be hard. That's it. 

 

IF understanding, "hard" as in it is impractical, okay no problem, and not hard to listen to due to poor SQ but which I thought is the context of this thread . Totally agree both can apply. I am not up in arms about anything. 🙂