Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[Allan F]

28 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Wow - I have no response because I have absolutely no idea what that means!  So I think I'll go sip some wine with my wife and have a leisurely dinner.  Cheers!

 

I highly doubt that, unless you are intentionally trying to appear obtuse. But no worries, as they say in Oz. Enjoy the wine. I'm about to make myself a double martini.

L'Chaim!

[firedog]

KOB: I don't have an original vinyl version, so can't comment on that. But I have a 60's and 70's vinyl version and neither "sound good" in the technical sense: On those versions, and also on my 80's CD, listen to the horns as they enter in So What - they're distorted. Just one example. And in general the bass is weak and you don't get the real sound of a double bass in all it's subtleties. 

I can compare it to a jazz recording from about the same era (1957), Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section (ironically Miles' rhythm section of the day): That recording just sounds better in every way in terms of the technical side. 

 

The modern remasters correct some of the faults of KOB, but not all the way. The 2013 digital remasters sound much better than older versions.

In spite of not being a great technical recording,  the recording does do a great job of conveying the feel of the players playing together - probably because it was essentially a simple recording (compared to today) that recorded the players playing live together. 

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, firedog said:

KOB: I don't have an original vinyl version, so can't comment on that. But I have a 60's and 70's vinyl version and neither "sound good" in the technical sense: On those versions, and also on my 80's CD, listen to the horns as they enter in So What - they're distorted. Just one example. And in general the bass is weak and you don't get the real sound of a double bass in all it's subtleties. 

 

 

Horns distorted? I hear player technique here - "imperfect" blowing, so that a roughness intrudes at the end of the note.

[StephenJK]

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Trust me, with considerable reservation, he would not. You don't know George. He hates electric guitar, especially if it has any distortion, which Kiko has plenty of.

A man who places limitations on his life is a man who leads a limited life.

 

I can feel nothing but deep regret for that person. 

[Rexp]

7 hours ago, Summit said:

Bill I’m glad to hear that am not alone . We did a test of this with a Linn Sneaky played on a pair of Linn bookshelf speakers VS an older pioneer stack and pioneer speakers. We tested with different sources and even with low quality YouTube videos the difference in SQ, toe taping and enjoyment was enormous. The Linn system which is not even a high end system was so much better than the pioneer. It was a real night and day difference. Next we tested against a Samsung TV with a sound bar and the Samsung sounded even worse than pioneer did. The higher the volume the more evident was the flaws of the the low quality systems.  

Technically good recordings sound good on lo-fi and high-end systems. Technically bad recordings made for ipods sound better on lo-fi systems than high-end systems. 

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

I am very much in the minority with you.  For the old music that I referenced prior I definitely think it sounds better on a better system.  Part of this, I feel, is that the music is easier to engage as the artifacts are laid bare and thus easier to ignore.  The good parts certainly sound better.

 

The only possible exception is on overly-compressed modern crap, maybe...; curses on Rick Rubin.

 

I am glad to hear that @gmgravesfeels similarly to me re. Chandos recordings.  They get rave reviews, but they consistently disappoint.  I thought I was nuts.  I was so excited to hear their recording of Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloe."  Great performance but less engaging to me with the murkiness.

 

Bill

The Erich Leinsdorf/Boston Symphony “Daphnis” on RCA Red Seal from the early  ‘Sixties is still the best sounding one to me (and a great performance) and the EO and the PO on Columbia/Sony from roughly the same era isn’t far behind it.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

KOB: I don't have an original vinyl version, so can't comment on that. But I have a 60's and 70's vinyl version and neither "sound good" in the technical sense: On those versions, and also on my 80's CD, listen to the horns as they enter in So What - they're distorted. Just one example. And in general the bass is weak and you don't get the real sound of a double bass in all it's subtleties. 

I can compare it to a jazz recording from about the same era (1957), Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section (ironically Miles' rhythm section of the day): That recording just sounds better in every way in terms of the technical side. 
 

I’m not surprised. In those days, nobody could touch Rudy Van Gelder when it came to recording jazz. Whether mono or “stereo” he was the best.

2 hours ago, firedog said:

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, SJK said:

A man who places limitations on his life is a man who leads a limited life.

 

I can feel nothing but deep regret for that person. 

That is a very narrow-minded and egotistical comment. You know nothing about me. I have a very eclectic musical taste. I like everything from grand opera to Sinatra, and from “Bird” Parker and Stan Getz to Beethoven and Shostakovich. I also like Roy Orbison and The Beach Boys. I am also a fan of film scores from Max Steiner and Wolfgang Korngold to Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams with my absolute favorite being Miklos Rozsa. And I love Celtic folk music, and America folk Music from the likes of Joan Baez, and Ian & Sylvia. So don’t presume to tell me that I lead a limited life. 
 

By the way, do you like the sound of bagpipes? Do you see where I’m going here?

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, bluesman said:

It’s actually quite the opposite.  A recording that does not capture and convey both musicianship and performance is not a good recording to me.  Technical quality also matters, in equal measure.  This is exactly why I said that the original Kind of Blue is not an excellent recording. It captured the magic of some of the coolest jazz performances in history very well - but it took 50 years and several generations of technical advancement to overcome its sonic limitations.

 

I think (and I could be wrong, here) that you are confusing a poor recording with a poor performance. The poor recording is the technical side, and a poor performance is one that “does not capture and convey both musicianship and performance”.

5 hours ago, bluesman said:

I’ve made many excellent recordings (on a high speed Crown SX that I dragged around in a rack case) of amateur performances that were spirited and enjoyable, despite no more than talented amateur skill sets among the performers.  These recordings convey every aspect of the performance well, including both the high enthusiasm and the less than stellar skills and interpretive efforts on stage.  

That Crown SX did make excellent recordings especially at 15ips (38cm/sec) and half-track on good high-bias tape!

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, SJK said:

Then I presume you don't mind a brief history.

 

What made the Beatles not only different, but downright revolutionary was that they wrote and played their own music.  Up to that time, people sang someone else's music. 
 

You are forgetting The Beach Boys. Brian Wilson wrote most of their repertoire (but certainly not all of it).

4 hours ago, SJK said:

 

Then, it turns out that the Beatles are fiercely talented and end up breaking new ground in experimental and innovative fashion that still plays well today.

 

As an aficionado of classical music, without reservation I will say you would greatly enjoy the Los Lobos recording of Kiko.  I just know it.

Ok I’ll see if it is available on either Tidal or Qobuz.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

You are forgetting The Beach Boys. Brian Wilson wrote most of their repertoire (but certainly not all of it).

Ok I’ll see if it is available on either Tidal or Qobuz.

Sorry. Absolutely not my cup of tea!

[fas42]

Another tricky one,

 

 

This is on a CD full of tracks with SQ only marginally better than this, by the man - not bad, not bad.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That is a very narrow-minded and egotistical comment. You know nothing about me. I have a very eclectic musical taste. I like everything from grand opera to Sinatra, and from “Bird” Parker and Stan Getz to Beethoven and Shostakovich. I also like Roy Orbison and The Beach Boys. I am also a fan of film scores from Max Steiner and Wolfgang Korngold to Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams with my absolute favorite being Miklos Rozsa. And I love Celtic folk music, and America folk Music from the likes of Joan Baez, and Ian & Sylvia. So don’t presume to tell me that I lead a limited life. 
 

By the way, do you like the sound of bagpipes? Do you see where I’m going here?

 

You had me right up to the bagpipes thing. Not sure if you are implying they are not liked by many or 'to each his own'....no matter.

 

I love the bagpipes but here's the thing, you must hear them live (not saying you have not). It brings me to another point relevant to this thread.

 

When I was lucky enough to see/hear the Tattoo in Edinburgh I was blown away (pun intended) by the massed sound of the bagpipes. I can't say i would want to sit down and listen on a high-end system but live the sound was mesmerizing. Yes, part of it was the spectacle,atmosphere and the whiskey tastings pre-event !

 

I find really esoteric (esoteric to me, subjective) jazz much the same way. A bit self indulgent and not terribly accessible. I know, heresy to jazz aficionados. Hearing it live is quite something else, again mesmerizing!! I will sit in a jazz club for hours. I am actually listening to more of the jazz classics now than ever before (some mentioned on this thread) as my audio system is the best I have ever owned. So, sound quality comes into it but I think there is more to it. Interested to hear what others feel.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I love the bagpipes but here's the thing, you must hear them live (not saying you have not). It brings me to another point relevant to this thread.

 I was exposed to the real sound of the Bagpipes as a child at the local Caledonian Society, as my father and grandfather were born in Scotland. The men , including my father also wore a Kilt.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I was exposed to the real sound of the Bagpipes as a child at the local Caledonian Society, as my father and grandfather were born in Scotland. The men , including my father also wore a Kilt.

It's an inherently stirring sound, it just captivates your attention.

The guys in kilts, not so much 😁.....actually, it is all part of it of course.👌

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I find really esoteric (esoteric to me, subjective) jazz much the same way. A bit self indulgent and not terribly accessible. I know, heresy to jazz aficionados. Hearing it live is quite something else, again mesmerizing!! I will sit in a jazz club for hours. I am actually listening to more of the jazz classics now than ever before (some mentioned on this thread) as my audio system is the best I have ever owned. So, sound quality comes into it but I think there is more to it. Interested to hear what others feel.

 

Agree with listening to music outside one's comfort zone - the better the SQ, the easier it is to tune into sound sculpting which is way outside the normal - say, bizarre electronica, which is full of sounds like kitchen cutlery falling on the floor, etc, etc.

 

The point is that that one 'understands' why the musicians are creating the sounds they do; why it appeals to them to do so.

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You had me right up to the bagpipes thing. Not sure if you are implying they are not liked by many or 'to each his own'....no matter.

 

I love the bagpipes but here's the thing, you must hear them live (not saying you have not). It brings me to another point relevant to this thread.

 

When I was lucky enough to see/hear the Tattoo in Edinburgh I was blown away (pun intended) by the massed sound of the bagpipes. I can't say i would want to sit down and listen on a high-end system but live the sound was mesmerizing. Yes, part of it was the spectacle,atmosphere and the whiskey tastings pre-event !

 

I find really esoteric (esoteric to me, subjective) jazz much the same way. A bit self indulgent and not terribly accessible. I know, heresy to jazz aficionados. Hearing it live is quite something else, again mesmerizing!! I will sit in a jazz club for hours. I am actually listening to more of the jazz classics now than ever before (some mentioned on this thread) as my audio system is the best I have ever owned. So, sound quality comes into it but I think there is more to it. Interested to hear what others feel.

Jazz is a great test for a hifi system, most can't keep up, so folks can be forgiven for thinking it sounds like noise. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I’m not surprised. In those days, nobody could touch Rudy Van Gelder when it came to recording jazz. Whether mono or “stereo” he was the best.

Not sure what you are referring to. Neither KOB or Meets he Rhythm Section is RVG: The Pepper was produced by Leonard Koenig and engineered by Roy DuNaan. DuNaan was a great engineer if you find some of his recordings.  KOB was engineered by Fred Plaut. 

[Allan F]

28 minutes ago, firedog said:

Not sure what you are referring to. Neither KOB or Meets he Rhythm Section is RVG: The Pepper was produced by Leonard Koenig and engineered by Roy DuNaan. DuNaan was a great engineer if you find some of his recordings.  KOB was engineered by Fred Plaut. 

 

FYI: A Rudy Van Gelder Discography

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You had me right up to the bagpipes thing. Not sure if you are implying they are not liked by many or 'to each his own'....no matter.

 

I love the bagpipes but here's the thing, you must hear them live (not saying you have not). It brings me to another point relevant to this thread.

 

When I was lucky enough to see/hear the Tattoo in Edinburgh I was blown away (pun intended) by the massed sound of the bagpipes. I can't say i would want to sit down and listen on a high-end system but live the sound was mesmerizing. Yes, part of it was the spectacle,atmosphere and the whiskey tastings pre-event !

 

I find really esoteric (esoteric to me, subjective) jazz much the same way. A bit self indulgent and not terribly accessible. I know, heresy to jazz aficionados. Hearing it live is quite something else, again mesmerizing!! I will sit in a jazz club for hours. I am actually listening to more of the jazz classics now than ever before (some mentioned on this thread) as my audio system is the best I have ever owned. So, sound quality comes into it but I think there is more to it. Interested to hear what others feel.

My point was simple. Just because I hate the sound of electric guitars, or you (or anyone else) hates bagpipes is not an indication of anything except that one doesn’t like electric guitars and another doesn’t like bagpipes. I don’t like Brussels sprouts, and I have a good friend who hates and won’t eat broccoli. What does that say about either me or him? Why, nothing. And that’s my point.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You had me right up to the bagpipes thing. Not sure if you are implying they are not liked by many or 'to each his own'....no matter.

 

I love the bagpipes but here's the thing, you must hear them live (not saying you have not). It brings me to another point relevant to this thread.

 

When I was lucky enough to see/hear the Tattoo in Edinburgh I was blown away (pun intended) by the massed sound of the bagpipes. I can't say i would want to sit down and listen on a high-end system but live the sound was mesmerizing. Yes, part of it was the spectacle,atmosphere and the whiskey tastings pre-event !

 

I find really esoteric (esoteric to me, subjective) jazz much the same way. A bit self indulgent and not terribly accessible. I know, heresy to jazz aficionados. Hearing it live is quite something else, again mesmerizing!! I will sit in a jazz club for hours. I am actually listening to more of the jazz classics now than ever before (some mentioned on this thread) as my audio system is the best I have ever owned. So, sound quality comes into it but I think there is more to it. Interested to hear what others feel.

That’s fine. I have a number of friends who don’t like jazz. The important thing to remember is that one shouldn’t judge another by his taste in music, food, cars, literature, etc. sometimes it hard not to, but that’s all the more reason to try that much harder...🙂

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

That’s fine. I have a number of friends who don’t like jazz. The important thing to remember is that one shouldn’t judge another by his taste in music, food, cars, literature, etc. sometimes it hard not to, but that’s all the more reason to try that much harder...🙂

Oh I like jazz very much just less so styles like bebop that to my ear are less melodic and somehow more cerebral. Love New Orleans jazz through swing, cool jazz whatever...and jazz vocalists. I also love blues and jazz fusion styles very much

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

17 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Oh I like jazz very much just less so styles like bebop that to my ear are less melodic and somehow more cerebral. Love New Orleans jazz through swing, cool jazz whatever...and jazz vocalists. I also love blues and jazz fusion styles very much

 

I guess the more "esoteric" style for me is bebop but whatever the style where it sometimes loses me is where a jazz song is playing which I like very much and then each artist has a turn at doing a solo bit. Sometimes they take a detour/improvisation that seems to say more about  their virtuosity on the instrument than doing service to the song. It can mesmerize me when I hear it live but much less so on radio or over a high end playback system.The analogy with some modern vocalists is the vocal "gymnastics" they do, because they can.

 

Sorry, really not trying to offend. Barry Diament is a jazz fan, I forget the style of New York jazz he mentioned but he said "you have to work at it a bit" (me not him).  he plays jazz so I think it opens up different sensibilities.

[Confused]

I am a bit late to this thread, but I would like to share some personal thoughts on the OP's question.

 

Like many on this forum, I spend rather too much time messing with my system in the pursuit of ever better sound, and yet for me one of the biggest variables in sound quality is the recording itself.  We then have the @fas42 view that there are no bad recordings, you should not blame the recording if something sounds bad, but look for issues in the rig.  OK - I do not entirely agree with this view, but I can see at least some merit in this as a mind set.  Consider the following:

 

There are two main places that I listen to music.  One is at home on my home audio system, the other is in my car.  The audio system in my car is not bad, tonally it is quite good, I am more than happy to listen to it.  That said, my home audio system is definitively better.

 

In the car I tend to listen to my own music collection.  I have this slightly quirky thing I do which is to load a music player with batches of tracks alphabetically based on the first letter of the track title.  I currently have my entire music collection of songs beginning with "O" in my car.  I quite like doing this because over time it means I actually listen to my entire digital music collection, plus listening alphabetically by track tile effectively gives an almost random range of artists and genres.  95% of the time, whatever I listen to in the car sound fine, I think more about the music that worrying about sound quality.  But every now and again, I will stumble across a track in the car that does not sound good.  Maybe it sounds "thin", like all the bass has receded, maybe a bit harsh, maybe too bright.  In terms of what irritates me personally, it is more often than not problems with tonality that really annoy me, to the point I stop enjoying the music.

 

Anyway, occasionally I will listen to something in the car and be annoyed by some aspect of the sound quality.  When this happens, I will very often re-listen to the same track (exactly the same track, from the same CD rip) on my home system.  So do these bad recording sound better or worse on my more competent home audio system?  Here is the key point for me, this aspect varies considerably.  On some occasions, I will listen to something in the car and think "this sounds terrible, thin and lifeless, horrible, a terrible recording".  I try the same track at home, and the it suddenly it is "hey, actually this sounds really good".  Somehow the home system is extracting something from the recording that was completely lost the car system.  This I think is broadly in line with the fas42 philosophy of "no bad recordings"  On other occasions, I might listen to something in the car and think "this sounds terrible, it sounds thin and shrill, treble to slice your head off".  I listen to the same track on the home system, and yes, it sounds terrible, thin and shrill, treble to slice your head off, exactly the same issues as picked up on the lesser in car system.  So in these cases this is not in line with the fas42 philosophy, but a more simple "garbage in garbage out", if there are issues with a recording, a decent audio system will simply faithfully reproduce these issues. 

 

Two examples above, but I find a whole spectrum of scenarios over time.

 

In terms of the converse situation, that is I listen to something in the car and think "wow, this sounds superb", pretty much 100% of the time when I listen at home it is a case of "wow, this sounds superb".

 

So in conclusion I think it is impossible to generalise with the "bad recording" issue, the more you dig into this issue the more complex it will look.  Plus, the above text is simply trying to illustrate how I subjectively observe things.  I am quite sure that someone else listening in my car, then on my home system, would observe things I do not, or maybe observe things a little differently.  Things that irritate me might not bother someone else, with the reverse also being possible.  A fascinating topic I think.

[Summit]

8 hours ago, Rexp said:

Technically good recordings sound good on lo-fi and high-end systems. Technically bad recordings made for ipods sound better on lo-fi systems than high-end systems. 

 

Okay that is the opposite of how I hear it. Technically good recordings will never sound good on a lo-fi system because a lo-fi system make all records sound like crap. Bad recordings can never sound good, but will sound worse on a lo-fi systems than on a high-end systems.

 

Ipods are a good example on a lo-fi product that make all music sound like crap, no matter if it is old Beatles, bombastic Rap or Melody Gardot. By just replacing the Ipod to in-ears from Shure, Audeze etc many people, and not only audiophiles, get significant better SQ.

 

I see that we have nothing in common. I’m an audiophile and want accuracy to the original source and not low level gear to mask the sound.

 

I will show myself out of here.