Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[StephenJK]

11 hours ago, gmgraves said:

It’s difficult, but I can. Case in point, Chandos recording of Resphigi’s “Church Windows“ that I accessed on Tidal, sounds terrible (like most all Chandos label recordings), but until I find a better one (Like the excellent Ormandy/PO recording from the mid ‘Sixties [and to my knowledge, Sony has never reissued on CD], I’ll have to put up with the Chandos (there is a very early Reference recording of this work, with the Pacific Symphony Orchestra, but the performance is poor in my estimation).

I have stereo recordings that sound worse than some 78’s from the late ‘Thirties and ‘Forties. So, yeah. And it’s hard to fathom why anyone would make and release recordings that poor. Especially since we’ve had the ability to make incredibly lifelike stereo recordings since the Mid ‘Fifties and did make them!

Can’t comment on that. Never heard (or heard of) Kiko.

OK

Sorry about the obscure reference.  Kiko is an album by Los Lobos.  It's a terrific recording and with the MoFi version it truly is a wonderful sound and great music.  

[Allan F]

46 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Excellent question! My answer is that it isn’t a better system if bad recordings will sound worse than on a bad system . A good audio system will not mask noise like a bad system, but all other SQ aspects will sound better.

 

The record will still sound bad on a great audio system thou, only less bad.

 

"Better" can mean different things to different people. It all depends on what you want from a system. To most audiophiles ia "great system" is one of highest fidelity, i.e. one that will most accurately capture and reproduce what is on the recording. A high resolution system will tend to reveal flaws in a recording more readily than one of lesser resolution. Depending on the nature of the flaw in a recording, It's difficult to see how such a system will generally make a bad recording sound "less bad". OTOH, a euphonic system will be more forgiving of bad recordings. But more importantly, a euphonic system will colour all recordings, both good and bad.

[bluesman]

28 minutes ago, Summit said:

High fidelity is not about hearing and identifying those basic key characteristics. It’s about listing at records at home and not only identify who is singing or playing, it’s about getting the feeling that you hear those musicians live on a stage – that it sounds real and lifelike.

Agreed!  And what I'm suggesting is that the best recordings do both.  A recording that presents a lifelike performance but does not capture the key characteristics (what I'm calling the soundprint) may not be as "bad" as one rife with artifact, processing, manipulation etc - but for me it's less good than one that brings us both.  Loss of any perceptible piece of the basic character of a performance is worse (at least to a point) than sonic manipulation.

 

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.

[Summit]

12 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Agreed!  And what I'm suggesting is that the best recordings do both.  A recording that presents a lifelike performance but does not capture the key characteristics (what I'm calling the soundprint) may not be as "bad" as one rife with artifact, processing, manipulation etc - but for me it's less good than one that brings us both.  Loss of any perceptible piece of the basic character of a performance is worse (at least to a point) than sonic manipulation.

 

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.

 

Sorry I lost a word it should of course be (basic key characteristics can be heard on pretty much all audio systems) :

 

High fidelity is not only about hearing and identifying those basic key characteristics. It’s about listing at records at home and not only identify who is singing or playing, it’s about getting the feeling that you hear those musicians live on a stage – that it sounds real and lifelike. But to trick us to believe we actually are listing to real musicians live on a stage is next to impossible and we have to be satisfied by coming close to that. How close depends on type of music genres and the listener’s experience.

 

Am a Miles fan and I like Kind of Blue, both the sound and the music. I do not consider Kind of Blue to be a bad recording. Most recordings have fake stereo space and all records from that time are lacking sub bass and upper treble.

[Summit]

58 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

"Better" can mean different things to different people. It all depends on what you want from a system. To most audiophiles ia "great system" is one of highest fidelity, i.e. one that will most accurately capture and reproduce what is on the recording. A high resolution system will tend to reveal flaws in a recording more readily than one of lesser resolution. Depending on the nature of the flaw in a recording, It's difficult to see how such a system will generally make a bad recording sound "less bad". OTOH, a euphonic system will be more forgiving of bad recordings. But more importantly, a euphonic system will colour all recordings, both good and bad.

 

I do not think that I will need to explain High fidelity in all post I write. I have wrote and explained it in the previous posts. You come off as patronizing and petty.

 

I disagree, It's not difficult to hear and to understand that a better system is about much more than digging up and showing flaws. Yes as I STATED already may times, it will show the flaws more clearly but also the music.

 

If you would rank the SQ of records from 1 to 10, where 1 is super bad SQ and 10 is the best. Tell me on which level does it start to sound better on a boom box than on a high end system?

[Bill Brown]

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

[AudioDoctor]

Define "Good."

 

If Good is accuracy to the source, then yes. If Good is pleasing to the listener, also yes as its completely subjective.

[Bill Brown]

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

[bluesman]

50 minutes ago, Summit said:

Am a Miles fan and I like Kind of Blue, both the sound and the music. I do not consider Kind of Blue to be a bad recording.

Many besides me disagree with this.  Although the music is pure genius and it makes me smile every time I listen to it (I have at least 5 different vinyl versions including the early original 6 eye 1AD pressing I bought for $3.98 new, plus 3 or 4 CDs), it's neither great mono nor great stereo.  It's the product of a bunch of world class engineers and producers who were learning to use techniques new to everyone at the time. They had some very new equipment and some well used stuff (like that tape deck that was running slowly), and they were experimenting with ways to integrate the two. 

 

The engineer (Fred Plaut) was not experienced with jazz - he was a well known classical recording engineer.  The use of multiple mics and tape machines was unorthodox, and the crude echo on just the trumpet and bass was way out of place.  You probably haven't heard the original pressings if you don't know what this is - the echo on Miles and Paul Chambers is tamed on subsequent versions, probably because all that's left of it in the later mixes of the 2 "outer" channels is whatever bled into them.

 

The original recording captured the magic perfectly, but it didn't fare as well with the real sounds of the players.  Much was missing from the  original, and remastering has benefited the sound immensely.  This excerpt from Michael Fremer's review of the 2013 180 gm mono remastered reissue says it well:  

 

"[C]ompared to my later "6-eye" 1AJ pressing, the reissue sounds far less "milky-cloudy" and far more transparent to the source, without veering off into the analytical. 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. But most importantly, the music experience is complete and organically "whole," making a strong case for the superiority of the mono mix."

[NOMBEDES]

2 hours ago, Summit said:

 

Excellent question! My answer is that it isn’t a better system if bad recordings will sound worse than on a bad system . A good audio system will not mask noise like a bad system, but all other SQ aspects will sound better.

 

The record will still sound bad on a great audio system thou, only less bad.

 

Agree.  Less bad is better than bad bad.

 

I have to say, however, that the technical witchcraft that some members go through to "home remaster" marginal recordings is way above my ability or interest.  I just want to push a button and listen to my music.

 

As far as bad recordings go, I have various versions of the Stone's Exile on Main Street (including some very expensive Japanese flat transfers) and I find ALL of them sound like they were recorded in a stinky, humid basement some where in the South of France.  

 

Maybe its just me.

 

 

 

[Summit]

8 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Many besides me disagree with this.  Although the music is pure genius and it makes me smile every time I listen to it (I have at least 5 different vinyl versions including the early original 6 eye 1AD pressing I bought for $3.98 new, plus 3 or 4 CDs), it's neither great mono nor great stereo.  It's the product of a bunch of world class engineers and producers who were learning to use techniques new to everyone at the time. They had some very new equipment and some well used stuff (like that tape deck that was running slowly), and they were experimenting with ways to integrate the two. 

 

The engineer (Fred Plaut) was not experienced with jazz - he was a well known classical recording engineer.  The use of multiple mics and tape machines was unorthodox, and the crude echo on just the trumpet and bass was way out of place.  You probably haven't heard the original pressings if you don't know what this is - the echo on Miles and Paul Chambers is tamed on subsequent versions, probably because all that's left of it in the later mixes of the 2 "outer" channels is whatever bled into them.

 

The original recording captured the magic perfectly, but it didn't fare as well with the real sounds of the players.  Much was missing from the  original, and remastering has benefited the sound immensely.  This excerpt from Michael Fremer's review of the 2013 180 gm mono remastered reissue says it well:  

 

"[C]ompared to my later "6-eye" 1AJ pressing, the reissue sounds far less "milky-cloudy" and far more transparent to the source, without veering off into the analytical. 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. But most importantly, the music experience is complete and organically "whole," making a strong case for the superiority of the mono mix."

 

I know that some don’t consider the SQ of Kind of Blue as something special, but have never heard that they actually think it sound bad. It doesn’t matter anyway what others think because I like the 2 versions I have.  

[Summit]

40 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.

 

How would you know if the recording is accuracy to the source?

[bluesman]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

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."

Feel free to disagree - it's not a problem for me. 

 

Do you have an original pressing or rip of one?  If not, you're hearing the benefits of remastering and new technology because that's not what the original vinyl sounds like.  As I recall, the bass was not back and to the right in the studio - it was placed there electronically.  I have a few photos from that session in an old review, but I can't find them right now.  I'll keep looking.

 

The original recordings are well known to have been made at too low a level, and the bass is anemic.  All stereo versions from the original to today's reissues have been remixed and remastered from the outer two tracks of the original 3 track masters.  The "sound stage" was entirely a post-processing creation - there was none in the recording because of the way it was made. It's amazing what good re-engineering and remastering can do.  You might find this review to be an interesting read.

[Bill Brown]

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

[bluesman]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

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

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?

[Bill Brown]

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

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, Summit said:

 

I do not think that I will need to explain High fidelity in all post I write. I have wrote and explained it in the previous posts. You come off as patronizing and petty.

 

I disagree, It's not difficult to hear and to understand that a better system is about much more than digging up and showing flaws. Yes as I STATED already may times, it will show the flaws more clearly but also the music.

 

If you would rank the SQ of records from 1 to 10, where 1 is super bad SQ and 10 is the best. Tell me on which level does it start to sound better on a boom box than on a high end system?

 

Who is sounding patronizing!? If a better system is more revealing of a recording's flaws, assuming they are serious ones, it almost inevitably will negatively affect both the sound quality and enjoyment of the music. I don't care how many time you have STATED anything. Repeating it does not make it any more or less true. And, BTW, your question is meaningless.

[bluesman]

12 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

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

Cool - thanks!  This is the same debate photographers keep alive about whether editing is good or bad. In truth, there's no absolute answer, just as there's no absolute sound.  But for me, it's both educational and fascinating to hear what others think and their reasoning.

[AudioDoctor]

2 hours ago, Summit said:

 

How would you know if the recording is accuracy to the source?

 

Accuracy to the source in this case means is your system accurately replaying what's on the CD/Rip/LP/whatever...

[fas42]

8 hours ago, bluesman said:

We’re all happy when our music at home sounds real and live and pleasing. But the question was  whether bad recordings can sound good. The answer is yes.  For me, a recording that makes Ron Carter sound even a little like Ray Brown is a bit of a bad recording.  But I love Dave Grusin’s Sheffield album “Discovered Again” anyway because the playing is excellent, the band is tight, and the music (although a bit too smooth-jazzy for me today) is fun to hear when I’m in the mood. It sounds good to me.

 

So we argue what it means to say what a bad recording is - if we come from the angle that the technical expertise used in making it decides that, then many recordings from audiophile labels fail - for me. I'm thinking here of a piano recording where the sound is swimming in massive reverb; a grand piano in the bathroom effect; and a chamber group album where the top string from each instrument has been removed, subjectively; or a modern soul recording where absurd fake vinyl pops and scratches have been added.

 

If the playback of a recording, any recording, irritates, annoys me - and I lose or have no interest in continuing to listen to it, then "badness" is in the air ... and that may be because the playback chain is flawed, or the technical decisions taken in the production of the sound don't ring right. For the latter reason, every time I see words like "Remastered by Mobile Fidelity" I lose all interest in having a listen ...

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Amen!!  If all recordings were made like they were in the "golden era" I would be over the moon.  Despite the mild, non-objectionable tape hiss listen to the tone of Johnny Hodges on Ellington records, RCA Living stereo, the DECCA recordings of the era, the air in the studio and tone of "Kind of Blue,"  the tone of Coltrane on most Impulse! recordings (I could go on and on) and compare it to almost all modern releases, many of them painful from a sonic standpoint.  The recording industry went astray!  Pains my soul.

 

Many times I have played records for non-audiophile friends and after they were blown away explained that the recordings were made on all tube equipment to tape.

Double Amen! Although much of that sound is attributable to tubes and analog tape, don’t forget what I consider the most important ingredient: simplicity! Most recordings back then used two or at most three microphones, a simple tube mike amplifier/attenuator (you really couldn’t call it a mixer, because nothing was mixed), to a two or three track tape deck (usually an Ampex two or three-track model 350 using half-inch tape (on the three-track models) running at 15 inches-per-second [38 cm/s]). No limiting, no compression, no forest of microphones and 24 or more tracks (analog recordings) on two-inch tape where each track is the width of a single cassette tape track! No artificial reverb, no electronic gimmicks, just one mike, one mike preamp channel for each of a maximum of three tape channels (right, left, center). 
This is the way that I have always recorded and I get similar results to what Rudy Van Gelder (Impulse, Riverside, etc.), C. R. Fine (Mercury Living Presence), Lewis Leyton (RCA Red Seal) and Bert Whyte (Everest) got back in the day. I use simple, true stereo miking (usually only two in an XY or modified ORTF arrangement or a single stereo mike used in either a coincident pattern, or an MS arrangement) two mixer channels, and two channels of DSD. The result? Low distortion, realistic soundstage with pinpoint imaging - a you-are-there feeling of palpability missing in almost all commercial recordings. I even stereo mike jazz ensembles, with the same results. 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, SJK said:

Sorry about the obscure reference.  Kiko is an album by Los Lobos.  It's a terrific recording and with the MoFi version it truly is a wonderful sound and great music.  

Well, thanks for the clarification, but it’s lost on me. You see, I’ve never heard of Los Lobos either.... I know nothing about “modern” pop music. The last pop group that I can even recognize was the Beatles, and I was/am none to fond of them!

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Summit said:

 

High fidelity is not about hearing and identifying those basic key characteristics. It’s about listing at records at home and not only identify who is singing or playing, it’s about getting the feeling that you hear those musicians live on a stage – that it sounds real and lifelike. But to trick us to believe that we actually are listing to real musicians live on a stage is next to impossible and we have to be satisfied by coming close to that. How close depends on type of music genres and the listener’s experience.

 

Certainly achievable to get the sense of listening to a live event - the intro track of Hot August Night is a brilliantly done piece which takes you to the action, 100% - a show off piece which all rigs should be able to pull off.

 

Quote

 

BUT to come close is no easy task and everything from the recording to the room and audio system has to be superb for it to happen.

 

Agree. The closer you want to get to the ultimate, the harder it becomes - obsessive attention to detail is vital ... but most audio people aren't in the right headspace to do this, in my experience.

 

Quote

Bad Recordings can’t sound good, because if they did they would not be bad recordings. It the same with audio system, we cannot use bad recorded music and hope to really evaluate the how good a hifi system is.  

 

I find the complete opposite - the worse technically a recording is, the more obvious are the modulations of the recordings flaws by the deficiencies of the playback setup ... it's a compound increase in what may annoy. Two very different, but high performing rigs will present a technically poor recording in precisely the same way - you will hear exactly the same areas in the sound being marginal in both situatiuons.

[fas42]

4 hours 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.

 

Indeed. Listening to Hendrix, and his Marshall amp is having a hissy fit - it's making outrageous noises, which have nothing to do with the music; the valves are gargling away, oblivious to how they are supposed to behave. This is dreadfully poor, technically ... but don't we love it! 😉

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Certainly achievable to get the sense of listening to a live event - the intro track of Hot August Night is a brilliantly done piece which takes you to the action, 100% - a show off piece which all rigs should be able to pull off,

 

 

Agree. The closer you want to get to the ultimate, the harder it becomes - obsessive attention to detail is vital ... but most audio people aren't in the right headspace to do this, in my experience.

 

 

I find the complete opposite - the worse technically a recording is, the more obvious are the modulations of the recordings flaws by the deficiencies of the playback setup ... it's a compound increase in what may annoy. Two very different, but high performing rigs will present a technically poor recording in precisely the same way - you will hear exactly the same areas in the sound being marginal in both situatiuons.

A meaningless argument at best. Who cares what a good sounding system does to a poor recording? Nobody WANTS to listen to a poor recording, and the only reason to put up with one is that the listener likes the musical composition and/or the artist, and the poor recording is the only way to experience either. My take on this dilemma is simple: Since the mid 1950’s, there is simply no technical excuse for any record company to release a poor sounding recording. The technical ability to make superb stereo recordings has existed since that time.