Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes. Hard as in impractical. 

 

Again, it raises an interesting question for me. is there a place for compression in recordings or what is the place. I mean, some audiophiles would typically equate compression with "bad recording". I am less of a purist these days but do dislike the ubiquitous loudness wars type compression

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

My '92 BMW had a speed-adjusted volume. It worked just fine at 120mph. And to reduce road noise, the car would roll up all the windows automatically when exceeding 100mph. Didn't sound distorted at all at those speeds

 

 

That's because at those speeds you leave all jitter behind you.😉

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 6/23/2020 at 6:48 AM, Kal Rubinson said:

Hey, a foot-interactive gain control!!

I can see it now, "Newsflash - elderly gentleman described as "audiophile" crashes car through shopping mall. When asked, he explained 'Can't Get No Satisfaction' came on the radio, I musta hit the gas instead of the gain".

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 7/10/2020 at 3:10 AM, Teresa said:

 

This never worked for me, my ear / brain system is not able disregard such flaws.

 

I guess we can all tolerate some flaws more than others, otherwise we would be listening to very little by way of perfect music reproductions. To the extent Frank *says* he can disregard large (or even all?) recording flaws by tweaking his system I think we all very much do not believe. It does keep him busy posting it on a daily basis so he obviously enjoys that.

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

The Cocktail Party Effect doesn't work with me. In a crowd I can't ignore other persons talking so I can hear another, all I hear is garbled noise. I also can't read lips. If someone wants to have a conversation with me we need go to a quiet place. I do understand some people have that ability, I don't. 

 

The commonest reason to have difficulties hearing in a crowd would probably be presbycusis (not sure how old you). Maybe a hearing check is in order. 

 

Frank likes ASA (Cocktail party effect) as a possible explanation for his claimed special abilities.

 

At its heart ASA is about so called segregation or alternatively grouping of different auditory "objects". Sounds sources all mixed together but heard/perceived separately by virtue of each source having distinct properties. We can all do it but it doesn't follow that one sound source becomes less irritating although there is some degree of loudness "squelching" more for low frequencies. In speech this translates to about 2 to 3 dB improvement in SNR.

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

 

You find flaws in playback that most of the rest of us simply do not encounter. You seem to be unhappy with audio system performance that most other people consider state-of-the-art.

Take my situation, for instance. When I play a well recorded piano solo on my system (like those recorded by our friend Mario Martinez at PlayClassics.com), with the lights out, there are literally no clues, audible or visual to tell me that the grand piano being played isn’t in the room with me! You talk about “your method“ endlessly, and how systems that don’t adhere to your method, are severely compromised. Yet, when I play Mario’s piano recordings, or some of my own solo instrumental and small chamber group and jazz ensemble recordings, they are right there in the room with me. To me that’s what audio is all about; the palpable reproduction of musical events in one’s home.

 

This is the crux of it.

It also follows for me that if we were all to hear Frank's system we would be unimpressed that - "Mario’s piano recordings, or some of my own solo instrumental and small chamber group and jazz ensemble recordings, they are right there in the room with me". Only Frank would assert this. For us, a case of the Emperor has no clothes.

 

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

This says that you haven't learnt how to evolve a system so that it becomes impossible to audibly detect the speaker drivers working, in the manner I have described - when you achieve this, then you can come and tell me that you still have trouble tolerating recording flaws, and I'll take you seriously 🤪.

 

No, it just means that your assertions are false if trying to apply to anyone but yourself. They are based on a logical fallacy that begs the question about your method being prerequiste to evolution of the system. If one believes this, as you do, there is no logical argument that can seemingly refute the premise because the conclusion is in the premise.One cannot reason somebody out of a place that they didn't use reason to arrive at.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Was just reminded of this,

 

Well, how about that ... a member on this very forum who "gets it"... will miracles never cease! 😉

 

What he may be "getting" is that he started with a $50,000 server and it sounds great with or without tweaking. I missed the part where he says it makes all bad recordings sound good and he can do it with low-fi equipment.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

36 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I could say, I have seen a colour TV, and it's so much more impressive than B&W - you say, well, the only TVs I have ever seen are always B&W, and therefore what you are saying is nonsense, Frank - now, where's the flaw in that little scenario?

 

No Frank, the analogy is that you have a B&W TV but you see color.....and you're the only one !

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Dream on, David ... if you wish to hang onto blinkers, it's up to you ... 🙂

 

But Frank, I have a color TV, I don't have to dream 🙄🤷‍♂️

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

But Frank,

...ahhh my friend, those two words are written at the door of the rabbit hole !

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

20 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

But you are preaching nonsense to the rest of us and have been doing it for more than seven thousand posts.

 

I disagree. I think you only counted yesterday's posts 🤣

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

Well, I think you’ll agree that it’s difficult to keep up with Frank’s endless reiteration of the same nonsense over, and over, and over and over and over...

I gave up years ago because my nonsense meter exploded !😄

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Mine as well. I do enjoy sparring with Frank, though. He makes it so EASY! Sure, he’s low hanging fruit, but what the hell, it amuses me.

I agree George that Frank is low hanging fruit in any contest involving rational discussion but he will trap you in his never ending nonsensical loop. Hmm seems to me there must be some way of pairing those two things, fruit and loop, fruit and loop....I'll work on it 🤔!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I agree George that Frank is low hanging fruit in any contest involving rational discussion but he will trap you in his never ending nonsensical loop. Hmm seems to me there must be some way of pairing those two things, fruit and loop, fruit and loop....I'll work on it 🤔!

Actually, I  like the conversations George because I think for anyone coming into audio you have a lot to teach them, and I also still learn from your responses, so keep up the good work...carry on !🙂

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Unfortunately, I didn't have a great mentor like yourself on hand to correct me, when my senses irrationally told me how good the recordings were sounding ... perhaps, next life, hmmm ...

Frank it is not your senses irrationally telling you, but rather you irrationally telling your senses, how good the sound is.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, on the other side of the coin,

 

I see what you did there haha

 

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

I have got to do something about convincing my senses that ambitious rigs must always be getting it right, no matter how different they sound from each other,

 

Better quality products will always produce better quality results, all other things being equal... better quality recordings, better quality engineering, better quality playback systems etc

 

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

and how much they make a mess of a recording I know well -

 

Voila we are back to - it is not your senses irrationally telling you, but rather you irrationally telling your senses, how good the sound is.

 

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

I mean, the smell of the money invested in it alone must guarantee that nothing better can be achieved ...

 

You don't have to buy the system to hear the quality just the same as you don't have to buy the recording to hear a good one.

 

No one is arguing that nothing better can be achieved

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, opus101 said:

 

If its really that EASY why are so few of your ripostes to Frank at all convincing?

 

32 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

No, I just don't believe yours.

 

26 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Allow me to finish your earlier reply to Frank.

 

Yeah, obviously when one is delusional one relies on logical fallacies to support one's views. 

 

Hi Opus101

it might be interesting to say why you disagree with George or agree with Frank.

I doubt that many (any?) would seriously consider that Frank can be "convinced". Quite the contrary. I agree "delusional" is a strong word and sometimes it is hard to differentiate highly eccentric beliefs (and expectation bias) from delusional beliefs. Delusions are said to be not shared with peers

I do believe there is in fact a logical fallacy in Frank's reasoning as his conclusion is in his premise aka begging the question. It is impossible to argue rationally with someone who adopts this position and you cannot convince them.

 

OTOH I don't always agree with George but our disagreements follow (IMO) some kind of logical discourse....(its just that George - well don't mention cables 🤣)

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

We'd need to consider specifics so I'd be more interested in saying where I disagree with Frank and/or George. In the present circumstance I jumped in because of George's claim of 'EASY' - which to me looked to be born of complacency rather than mastery of the issues. To pick on one issue on each side - I disagree with Frank's 'All recordings are totally awesome' (my own paraphrase) and I disagree with George's apparent underlying 'quality premise' that substantial sums of money must be spent before getting an aurally satisfying system.

 

So Frank's (paraphrase) "all recordings are totally awesome by using my 'method' and even with lo fidelity gear'" is used to make the corollary  "that substantial sums of money are therefore not needed to get an aurally satisfying system". The second statement for me logically follows the first but that does not validate the first statement.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

25 minutes ago, opus101 said:

I agree with Frank that the true test of fidelity of a system is how well the speakers disappear, I aim at that goal myself.

 

As do I, I just don't believe that Frank's magic method will make all recordings sound awesome or make speakers disappear in low quality playback systems.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Notice how Frank almost always answers questions with non-specific information? To whit: 
Q: “Frank, how do you filter noise from your system?”

A: “Filtering noise improves my SQ.”

Q: But Frank, what are the steps you take?”

A: “I find that filtering out the line noise on my mains supply improves the system immensely!”
Q: “Yes, Frank. We get that, but what steps do you take to filter out the line noise?”

A: “Well, there’s a lot of noise on the mains, getting rid of it makes poor recordings sound like you are there listening to the live performance....” ad infinitum, ad nauseam!

 

Exactly

 

Frank's 'method' that makes everything sound good is in fact a series of self-evident axioms like "shutting down devices that cause problems" or fixing things that need to be fixed" or stating x or y are known sources of sound degradation.  If you push for detail it will be "I can't give recipes, well I fixed the weakest link and that was the power supply on that one". The only extraordinary thing here is the unbelievable results claimed which cannot be reasonably justified or explained by the method.Indeed Frank does not explain how.

 

Frank's premise regarding this 'method' in a nutshell is " There is no such thing as a bad recording or cheap gear sounding bad because everything sounds good with his magic method." His 'method' is that which makes everything sound good. The conclusion/claim about his 'method' is assumed in the premise, just a rewording of the premise to support the claim. A form of circular reasoning or begging the question. This is why it is an endless and pointless circle arguing with Frank.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

one needs to accept that the recordings sounding bad is actually smacking you over the head with the fact that you have faulty playback

 

In the universe of possibilities, is there any other possible explanation? Think carefully Frank before you answer.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

We know how it works in your universe - in mine, I summarised in a post above what qualities are heard in a capable system.

 

As usual that doesn't answer the question. Summarizing what qualities are heard in a capable system does not validate your 'method' or anyone else's. Care to try again?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

Hmmm ... I could be having a bad dream, wherein I have a group of argumentative types disputing some of my ideas about audio - and some day I may wake up from it ...definitely would fit into a universe of infinite possibilities, 🙂.

 

We hope you will wake up from your bad dream Frank but returning to the question :

 

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

one needs to accept that the recordings sounding bad is actually smacking you over the head with the fact that you have faulty playback

 

In the universe of possibilities, is there any other possible explanation? Think carefully Frank before you answer.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

No, I've changed my mind ... I'm watching a movie where Anthony Perkins is staring directly out, breaking the fourth wall, with a strange smile playing around his lips as he asks the question ...

 

As interesting as it is that in a discussion of your method you invoke the movie "Psycho" and maybe more interesting to discuss "breaking the fourth wall" where movie making method is revealed as fake.

 

Still, lets revisit the actual question and see if we can get an actual answer:

 

 

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

one needs to accept that the recordings sounding bad is actually smacking you over the head with the fact that you have faulty playback

 

In the universe of possibilities, is there any other possible explanation?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

that a good, high-end system will expose all of the warts on a poor recording and thus will make that poor recording even less listenable. But that same high-end system will make well produced recordings sound even better than they do on a lesser system. I also said that a cheap system homogenizes everything to sound mediocre to bad and the differences between good and poor recordings are lost on the cheap system’s lack of resolution and high amounts of distortion.

 

I agree.

 

Another take on this for me is that a good system usually makes the good bits stand out more and the bad bits stand out more. It now depends on the nature and prevalence of each in the recording as to whether the net effect is considered "better".

 

bad systems where most things sound bad have less discriminatory value. The good things sound less good and the bad bits may sound worse OR sound less objectionable. If for example there is a lot of brightness in a recording a bad system that truncates that frequency range can ameliorate the effect. OTOH if the bad system accentuates brightness its a lose/lose situation.

 

Ergo, sometimes bad systems can make bad recordings sound less bad but they cannot miraculously make them sound good.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

I say, the deficiencies in your playback intermodulate - hey, that word again! - with the less than stellar recording quality

 

So to the question: is there another possible explanation to bad sounding recordings "actually smacking you over the head with the fact that you have faulty playback"

 

Your answer is

a) there is no such thing as bad recordings, just "less then stellar"

and

b) good systems have "deficiencies in playback that intermodulate" these less than stellar bits.

please explain this.

 

which leads to:

 

c)  by this reasoning "intermodulation" (pending explanation) is the cause of all bad sound and good systems naturally have it in spades (presumably the very best systems ("the most ambitious rigs") are crawling with intermodulation problems the engineers built into the best systems, as they would, or just overlooked it, equally plausible)  AND bad systems can be magically stripped of what little intermodulation they have by using your method ? is that it, is that what you are going with?

 

So

d)  if I use your 'method' would a good system sound better or worse than a bad system and would a bad recording sound awesome?