ASR burning the wrong witches?

[Shadrach]

I'm sorry, but this is a total straw man and completely miss-characterizes most of what ASR is about. First of all, almost all of us recognize the significance of good recordings. A bad recording will always be a bad recording and there's not a lot you can do to fix that. Secondly, the fact that most of the differences in measurements between source and loudspeaker are completely inaudible is the fundamental point of what goes on here. It's why we argue that spending big money on dacs and amps is probably a waste. It's why we have large threads and areas of the forum dedicated to audibility limits of human hearing. Nowhere on ASR is it suggested that components have to measure at the top of the highest standard of engineering to SOUND good. The point of the measurements is mostly to show that absolutely great sound is available at low cost to everyone. This notion that ASR is about pushing the idea that you have to get gear that measures at the top of the engineering tier to get good sound is totally off the mark.

Don't be sorry.

"A bad recording will always be a bad recording and there's not a lot you can do to fix that"

In that case remasters, or the work undertaken my companies such as Musical Fidelity Sound Labs to improve recordings a) doesn't work and b) is a waste of time.

"Nowhere on ASR is it suggested that components have to measure at the top of the highest standard of engineering to SOUND good."

Not strictly true either. In many of Amir's reviews he points out the differences a well engineered product makes to the quality of a persons enjoyment of the music. Allow me to refer you to this post for example.

Genelec 8030C Studio Monitor Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the powered Genelec 8030C Professional Monitor (speaker). It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $700 each. The 8030C has the same look of Genelec speakers of the last decade or so: To me it looks more "cute" than serious piece of gear...

www.audiosciencereview.com

This quote in particular.
"I wish you could be here to experience in excellent in sound reproduction that these well engineered speakers following best acoustic research and science provide."

So, while there is no outright statement that the higher tiered products have a direct correlation to ones enjoyment of recordings it is implied often throughout the site.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Don't be sorry.

"A bad recording will always be a bad recording and there's not a lot you can do to fix that"

In that case remasters, or the work undertaken my companies such as Musical Fidelity Sound Labs to improve recordings a) doesn't work and b) is a waste of time.

"Nowhere on ASR is it suggested that components have to measure at the top of the highest standard of engineering to SOUND good."

Not strictly true either. In many of Amir's reviews he points out the differences a well engineered product makes to the quality of a persons enjoyment of the music. Allow me to refer you to this post for example.

Genelec 8030C Studio Monitor Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the powered Genelec 8030C Professional Monitor (speaker). It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $700 each. The 8030C has the same look of Genelec speakers of the last decade or so: To me it looks more "cute" than serious piece of gear...

www.audiosciencereview.com

This quote in particular.
"I wish you could be here to experience in excellent in sound reproduction that these well engineered speakers following best acoustic research and science provide."

So, while there is no outright statement that the higher tiered products have a direct correlation to ones enjoyment of recordings it is implied often throughout the site.

Nice of you to link to a SPEAKER review...when I referred to components between the source and loudspeakers. And I would suggest to you that there is a significant difference between remastering a recording and adjusting the EQ on your stereo. I didn't say there was little recording engineers who have access to the masters could do to fix bad recordings. I said there was little you or I could do...

Obviously, good measurements are valued here. But criticisms of products that don't have top tier measurements would generally relate to those products having prices four or five times higher than better-measuring products - assuming the measurements aren't so bad that they might be audible differences of course.

 

[Shadrach]

Nice of you to link to a SPEAKER review...when I referred to components between the source and loudspeakers.

Well, I think engineering excellence does provide an avenue to better enjoyment of the recordings. If you would like to argue that such excellence needn't cost a lot of money, or most of the electronics are fit for purpose I would, and have in my OP, agreed with you.
I quote from my OP.

"I’ve read pages and pages of discussions about differences in the measurements of the electronics that operate between the source and the loudspeaker most of which are completely inaudible barring the occasional complete horror."

I would also point out that despite your assertion that we at ASR accept the importance of the recording a couple of the posts above indicate otherwise.
As for what ASR is about. When I first joined the forum it was primarily about source componants and the electronics before the transducers. That changed a bit with the inclusion of loudspeakers and headphones.
I would like to think ASR is primarily about getting the maximum quality of sound reproduction for a given financial outlay; bang for buck as I believe the Americans say. This by and large is done through measuring the reproduction equipment.
What I am suggesting (I'm not here to argue about it) is perhaps the most important item in the chain, the recording could be dealt with in the same manner.
There are ways of measuring the "quality" of a recording. Running a recording through Audacity for those who use Linux is a basic but good start. Having a recording engineer who understands the impact microphone placements and the various compressors and who can identify what might be deemed as errors would be another.
If the desire to measure and analyse recordings is there the means to do it will be found.

 

[sarumbear]

I was not interested so much in this one example as I was in the question of what is possible in the current state of the art, and what may be possible in the future with increasingly sophisticated AI-based techniques applied to audio restoration. The issue then becomes: just because it CAN be done, SHOULD it be done?

That question is applicable on any restoration. It all depends on the views of the person doing the restoration. I do however believe that restoration is a good thing. How or to what level is another thing.

 

[Shadrach]

Nice of you to link to a SPEAKER review...when I referred to components between the source and loudspeakers. And I would suggest to you that there is a significant difference between remastering a recording and adjusting the EQ on your stereo. I didn't say there was little recording engineers who have access to the masters could do to fix bad recordings. I said there was little you or I could do...

Obviously, good measurements are valued here. But criticisms of products that don't have top tier measurements would generally relate to those products having prices four or five times higher than better-measuring products - assuming the measurements aren't so bad that they might be audible differences of course.

I wasn't suggesting people should attempt to use an equaliser to attempt to address issues on a recording. Why you should think this is beyond me.

 

[LightninBoy]

Some aggressive language has me doubting the OPs sincerity here. But I will assume good intent.

While I empathize with the OP's point, recording is part of the artistic process, so separating objective quality from artistic intent would be an ongoing issue. In contrast, there is nothing artistic about the ideal playback system, so I think an emphasis on the playback system is appropriate for a site focused on objectivity. The playback system is also something that consumers have more control over.

That said, I don't think its a bad idea for the Hi-Fi community to push back against recording practices that optimize for low-fi systems at the expense of hi-fi systems. Not sure exactly what that push back would look like. I doubt Amir has interest, but maybe a sub forum of recording reviews based on a set of objective recording measurements - signal to noise, dynamic range, frequency content, etc.

 

[Shadrach]

Some aggressive language has me doubting the OPs sincerity here. But I will assume good intent.

Always a problem with the internet. Your assumption of good intent is accurate.
ASR gets many nationalities posting, each with some communication mannerisms that can be misread.

 

[rgpit]

For me, it seems there are 2 separate areas of discussion at hand. One is the production side of the audio/music and the other is the reproduction of it and ASR is mostly concerned with the latter. On the production side, the end product is the artistic work of the performers and producers. On the reproduction side, the goal is to provide as much accuracy as possible so as to not affect the artist's work.

We may not be satisfied with an original piece of "artwork". Would it be okay to touch up a DaVinci, Picasso, or Warhol? If that's okay, then have at it with the audio touch up.

 

[levimax]

In that case remasters, or the work undertaken my companies such as Musical Fidelity Sound Labs to improve recordings a) doesn't work and b) is a waste of time.

I don't want to be too cynical but the reason for remasters is not to improve recordings but rather to sell the same music over and over again. I don't have hard numbers to back it up but in my experience of trying to hunt down my favorite mastering of my favorite recordings the remasters more often than not are less preferred to me than the originals.

 

[Shadrach]

For me, it seems there are 2 separate areas of discussion at hand. One is the production side of the audio/music and the other is the reproduction of it and ASR is mostly concerned with the latter. On the production side, the end product is the artistic work of the performers and producers. On the reproduction side, the goal is to provide as much accuracy as possible so as to not affect the artist's work.

We may not be satisfied with an original piece of "artwork". Would it be okay to touch up a DaVinci, Picasso, or Warhol? If that's okay, then have at it with the audio touch up.

I don't think that's a reasonable comparison. With recorded sound we have no reliable method of determining if the final mix is what the artist would want. In some of the recording sessions I've been at the artists didn't get to hear the final mix. It was left to the person doing the recording to adjust the final mix. These adjustments were often dependant on the medium the recording was expected to be played on. I have heard recording engineers say nobody is going to notice the quality because it's a pop song and will get listened to on an mp3 player with a pair of crappy ear buds.
With a painting the artist finishes the work, this isn't the case with the majority of recordings.

 

[MRC01]

There's many poorly recorded archival performances of classical works from long departed maestros where the quality doesn't matter one bit.

The quality does matter, but we listen to them anyway because great music transcends the recording quality.

 

[DanielT]

It is important to know how to identify a witch. This is how it works:

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

“What is the number one determinant of sound quality in an audio system?
The recording you are playing, without the slightest doubt. The recording microphones, acoustical conditions, and engineering decisions at the recording site introduce much greater sonic variability than any hardware component in a half decent playback system. Buy well-recorded CDs.”

I agree that recording quality is very important but not that it has the biggest effect (if at least half competently done).
The user's room would still come first. Then recording, then transducers .... then a whole lot of nothing ... and lastly the electronic components.

Caveat: a lot of stuff we like doesn't exist as audiophile grade recording. Simple as that, it's either take and enjoy it for what it is or leave it.
One reason why DSP capabilities are so nice to have, so you can reign in the worst offenders at least a bit.

 

[Gorgonzola]

There's many poorly recorded archival performances of classical works from long departed maestros where the quality doesn't matter one bit.

Sure, maybe -- but we're talking sound quality here.

Personally I would prefer fine performance quality and great sound over "legendary" performance and crappy sound any day of the week.

 

[Gorgonzola]

https://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/critic1.htm

“What is the number one determinant of sound quality in an audio system?
The recording you are playing, without the slightest doubt. The recording microphones, acoustical conditions, and engineering decisions at the recording site introduce much greater sonic variability than any hardware component in a half decent playback system. Buy well-recorded CDs.”

By Peter Aczel

Categorically correct, and something I've been telling audiophiles for decades.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

What is the point of spending thousands of pounds trying to achieve maximum fidelity to the recording if the recording is terrible?

Because many (most) recordings aren't terrible.

...nor is it necessary to spend thousands of pounds getting there. Thanks to good measurements and objective principles we can get there for much less.

 

[Ron Texas]

Let them burn.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I'm sorry, but this is a total straw man and completely miss-characterizes most of what ASR is about. First of all, almost all of us recognize the significance of good recordings. A bad recording will always be a bad recording and there's not a lot you can do to fix that. Secondly, the fact that most of the differences in measurements between source and loudspeaker are completely inaudible is the fundamental point of what goes on here. It's why we argue that spending big money on dacs and amps is probably a waste. It's why we have large threads and areas of the forum dedicated to audibility limits of human hearing. Nowhere on ASR is it suggested that components have to measure at the top of the highest standard of engineering to SOUND good. The point of the measurements is mostly to show that absolutely great sound is available at low cost to everyone. This notion that ASR is about pushing the idea that you have to get gear that measures at the top of the engineering tier to get good sound is totally off the mark.

This.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Don't be sorry.

"A bad recording will always be a bad recording and there's not a lot you can do to fix that"

In that case remasters, or the work undertaken my companies such as Musical Fidelity Sound Labs to improve recordings a) doesn't work and b) is a waste of time.

"Nowhere on ASR is it suggested that components have to measure at the top of the highest standard of engineering to SOUND good."

Not strictly true either. In many of Amir's reviews he points out the differences a well engineered product makes to the quality of a persons enjoyment of the music. Allow me to refer you to this post for example.

Genelec 8030C Studio Monitor Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the powered Genelec 8030C Professional Monitor (speaker). It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $700 each. The 8030C has the same look of Genelec speakers of the last decade or so: To me it looks more "cute" than serious piece of gear...

www.audiosciencereview.com

This quote in particular.
"I wish you could be here to experience in excellent in sound reproduction that these well engineered speakers following best acoustic research and science provide."

So, while there is no outright statement that the higher tiered products have a direct correlation to ones enjoyment of recordings it is implied often throughout the site.

Yes, with loudspeakers there is significant variation.
Not so with electronics and as such many electronics are vastly overpriced, vastly.
I think it is clear what @Sgt. Ear Ache was referring to so why get all confused?

 

[DanielT]

https://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/critic1.htm

“What is the number one determinant of sound quality in an audio system?
The recording you are playing, without the slightest doubt. The recording microphones, acoustical conditions, and engineering decisions at the recording site introduce much greater sonic variability than any hardware component in a half decent playback system. Buy well-recorded CDs.”

By Peter Aczel

More about the loudness wars? No, not quite although one can’t help but include it in any discussion about recording quality.

I’ve read pages and pages of discussions about differences in the measurements of the electronics that operate between the source and the loudspeaker most of which are completely inaudible barring the occasional complete horror. Every now and then some brave soul arrives on ASR and gets burnt for producing a product that performs below the current high standard of the best engineered products.

The fact is in a properly set up DBT test very few of us could tell the difference between the highest and lowest tiered electronic products and without the measurements to reference I expect most of us would be delighted with their performance.

The differences in recordings is often quite apparent. Thanks to the seeming constant remastering of many of the popular recordings we are in a position to make comparisons between one recording and another of the same albums.

There are recordings those who remaster can do little about because of the condition of the original recording although I’m led to believe there is technology that make improvements to even the worst recordings.

The more recent recordings on digital equipment do not have many of the limitations of those made say in the nineteen sixties but to my ears many of these more recent recordings sound worse than those done with equipment that limited the possibilities.

What is the point of spending thousands of pounds trying to achieve maximum fidelity to the recording if the recording is terrible?

When an equipment designer/manufacturer produces a below par product ASR has no problem pointing out it’s shortcomings and in a few cases the designer/manufacturer responds by addressing the issues.

Why don’t we do something similar with recordings; a name and shame type approach given it’s the recording that matters most.

There are plenty of contributors on ASR who describe themselves as recording engineers and it seems have no problem joining in the criticisms of the equipment manufactures. Lets hear what they’ve produced and rate their level of competency.

You never know, given enough pressure we might get some recordings that warrant the level of excellence the equipment used to produce them has.

The day I will stop playing some songs due to poor recording is the day I quit my interest in HiFi.

No matter how bad some recordings may be, listening to the music comes first. But that does not stop getting bad recordings to be reproduced as well as it can be via HiFi equipment.