• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

ASR burning the wrong witches?

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,151
Location
Winnipeg Canada
Again, I draw a distinction between appreciating sound quality and enjoyment of music. Some people enjoy music very much with out being much concerned about sound quality -- is that hard to imagine? In fact I do know undoubted music lovers who are totally content with very modest compact systems.

Oh, OK...well yeah. I do too. None of them are on this forum though.
 

DanielT

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
4,752
Likes
4,633
Location
Sweden - Слава Україні
Geez :eek: Aczel merely said the the foremost contribution to sound quality, (he wasn't talking about listening enjoyment), is the recording. I agree. After that came all the things he mentioned, most of which I also agree with.
Yes I know. Extremely. In practice nothing that concerns this forum but there should be a declining scale. Recordings from year / decade that.... HiFi, equipment sound reproduction in relationen to that type recordings ... and so on.:)
 
Last edited:

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
Floyd Toole has been talking about the circle of confusion for decades too.

Unless you go *way* back in recording history, it's mostly a matter of loudspeakers and rooms. The ones used for recording, and the ones used for playback.

Circle+of+Confusion.png
 

SKBubba

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
453
Likes
785
Recording quality definitely matters. AC/DC and contemporary smooth/fusion jazz sound consistently great on my mid-fi setup. But so do lesser quality recordings, like Woodstock or Allman Bros. at Fillmore East, because of the music.

For some reason, I'm reminded of Sam Philips and his "slap back" echo/reverb recording technique (a defnitely non-transparent non-audiophile sound) that he discovered by accident while recording Elvis. The rest is history.

Producers today probably spend millions on equipment and software and plugins in hopes of recording the next Elvis.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
 
Last edited:

HammerSandwich

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
1,137
Likes
1,497
That‘s simply wrong. The number one determinant is the loudspeaker, closely followed by the room.
Which sounds more like "Yesterday" from the Beatles in Mono CD on your system: the same track played on a $10 clock radio or Public Enemy on the same hardware?
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,820
The idea of "shaming" people producing "bad recordings" is a bit fraught.

On one hand, it's intuitive that we would prefer "good sound quality." As I've said before, I think that is actually what binds audiophiles together - an appreciation of good sound, whether you think you get there via accurate equipment or not.

On the other hand...who is to determine how any recording "Must" sound? Whose checklist of "good sound quality characteristics" must artists meet? And doesn't this suggest insisting on some level of conformity? If an artist wants something to sound a way that to you "sounds bad," why shouldn't that be their prerogative? Should they be shamed for it?

Personally I love tons of old music (especially "library/production" music) from the late 60's to the early 80's and the production and sonic characteristics are truly all over the map. One track will have giant in your face bass and drums, the next it sounds like they have been recorded in the back corner of a large hall, or stuffed in a close to one side of the mix, with other instruments leaping out all over the place. The sound can be thin, thick, forward, distant, and everything in between. And I love all of it...including those artistic choices and sonic idiosyncrasies.
 

DanielT

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
4,752
Likes
4,633
Location
Sweden - Слава Україні
Do I want recordings not to be compressed? Answer yes. It's sad with a smooth, thick batter to music.The smooth sound sausage is not fun.:oops:
Certainly no major demands on the HiFi equipment then, but it's sad. BUT I do not check the level, dB range and based on that determines if it is a song I can listen to! No! In the first place comes the music, the songs themselves, which I listen to. Then it's a bonus if they are not to compressed.:D

You who write in the thread know the story, but for others who read. Those interested in HiFi and sound reproduction should know this:


For the interested / curious:

(153485 albums total)

Edit:
Also if you really want to hear music with a lot of dynamics, there is only one choice::p
(which is not listening to Youtube, but going out and listening live).

See the guy, 4:09 into the video, he says wow. I would have said the same if I had been there.:)

 
Last edited:

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Again, I draw a distinction between appreciating sound quality and enjoyment of music. Some people enjoy music very much with out being much concerned about sound quality -- is that hard to imagine? In fact I do know undoubted music lovers who are totally content with very modest compact systems.
Yes, I can't relate to that at all?
If you truly love music, why wouldn't you want to hear it under the best possible conditions?
That's why many of us here have been chasing Higher Fidelity for 50, 60, even 70 years.

In my youth, no self respecting boomer would be without a decent quality stereo system in the living room.
They might have the speakers in all sort of inappropriate places, like right next to their chairs doing double duty as end-tables, but at least they had something.

But times and even they changed. The great majority of them can't name a artist today who wasn't recording before 1970, If I play anything post Beatles they have no idea who it is. Now the youngin's mostly listen to garbage sounding recordings on crap earplugs and just don't care.
 

DanielT

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
4,752
Likes
4,633
Location
Sweden - Слава Україні
If you truly love music, why wouldn't you want to hear it under the best possible conditions?
That's why many of us here have been chasing Higher Fidelity for 50, 60, even 70 years.
That's why we hang out here at ASR. We want a good HiFi system and here at ASR there are many good tips and advice on how to get it. You can certainly be on ASR for many different reasons but I think that, for most, is the main reason to be active on this forum.:)

In addition. It's a roller coaster to read Amir's reviews and tests. Expensive stuff that can be rubbish and cheap that can be really good. HiFi is a fascinating world.:)
 
Last edited:

mcdn

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
559
Likes
780
Which sounds more like "Yesterday" from the Beatles in Mono CD on your system: the same track played on a $10 clock radio or Public Enemy on the same hardware?
That's hardly the point under discussion. The initial claim was that recording quality is the primary determinant of sound quality in an audio system. If your audio system is a clock radio, then a better clock radio with a subwoofer is going to make more difference than two different recordings of "Yesterday".

There's going to be some cutoff (a 5th generation cassette copy left out in the sun?) but for the majority of realistic scenarios you probably want the better playback system not the better recording.

For a practical example, how about Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska? Overdubbed 4-track demo recordings that will send a shiver down your spine on decent speakers, and sound pretty ordinary on a clock radio.
 

mcdn

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
559
Likes
780
You have found loudspeakers that can make bad recordings sound good, very interesting, Please share with us what those would be.
That's a strawman. Take two recordings, let's say a nice analogue classic, how about "Dreams" by Fleetwood Mac. Then take its nasty "remaster" with compression and other rubbish. The remaster sounds better in a system with room EQ and deep bass than the original does on otherwise nice standmounts just plonked down against a wall. Obviously the _best_ sound is the original on the good speakers.

Now not everyone will agree, but that's my preference, and the science says the majority of people would share it. It's OK if you don't, but the original assertion that recording quality is the most important factor just doesn't hold much water except in extreme circumstances.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,588
Likes
38,291
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
I'll let you argue with Peter Aczel.

Funny guy.

I often agreed with Aczel's ramblings, but 'any hardware component in a half decent playback system' is about a vague and meaningless as it gets.
 

mcdn

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
559
Likes
780
I'll let you argue with Peter Aczel.
It would be more enlightening if Peter Aczel could debate it with Floyd Toole. But really the question is poorly formed. Obviously once and audio system is "good enough" - controlled directivity, room EQ, bass extension, low distortion, reasonable loudness - then the recording matters more than any system tweaks. But most people don't have a system that meets even 3 of those 5 criteria, and would benefit more from fixing their system than lobbying for better recordings.
 

Sokel

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
5,854
Likes
5,790
I would really like not hearing the people cough in the old classical recordings (had to do with the conditions of the time).
Will I stop listening to it?Of course not,I absolutely adore this recordings.
The only thing I try to do is to extract as much I as can through it.Listening is not an obligation,is fun.
And I want to keep it this way with all the respect to the people who worked to produce it.
We all know the limitations,the compromises,bad choices some times.

One example.I mostly listen to classical but I like bands like Low.The recordings are horrible.So?I listen to Lullaby and I sink into it without caring for the "system",sinad's and the rest.
There always something or someone to blame.
That's until the first note plays.
 
OP
Shadrach

Shadrach

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
664
Likes
950
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.:)
Why not strive to have both, good recordings and good replay equipment?
 
OP
Shadrach

Shadrach

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
664
Likes
950
It's often an artistic choice. These days, when digital recording is the standard in studio's, many have "tape emulators" that add the tape distortion to sound because that is what is wanted. In electronic music, bitcrushing drum tracks is often done as artistic choice. And colouring trough tubes, transformers, semiconductors (mostly FET's) and opamps are common in recording of pop and other modern music styles.

This is because a music production is mostly not recording what is played live, but a assembly of music, that is made to sound a certain way how the artist or the producer wants it. That has always been the case since multitracks were availeble. It's only for classic music, and some styles of jazz that they try to stay close to the original sound of the instruments in the room. The rest is heavy processed with eq, compression, reverb, delay ao tools to sound in a certain way. And mostly it's not recorded in one take, but in several takes and edited and mixed later.

Some tracks are even not fully recorded in the same studio. This song was largely recorded in the UK by Isobel Campbell (including some session musicians), while Mark Lanegan recorded his parts (mainly some of the guitars and his vocal parts) in the US. They only met physically after the album where it was on (Ballad of the Broken Seas) was done fully trough the internet connection they had...

This is the first point that I think needs to be understood. The majority of recordings are not what the musicians sounded like if one had stood in the engineers booth listening on the live mics. In some cases all the musicians were not in the room together when the recording was made.
The recordings we buy are what the recording engineer/producer thinks sounds okay, not necessarily what the musicians would want their audience to hear.
Very few of the musicians I know understand much about the recording process and many don't care enough about the choices the engineer makes to argue even if they think the recording sounds rough.
Basically what we listen to is what the recording engineer/producer/label thinks will sell.
 

clearnfc

Active Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
236
Likes
72
Ask you all a question. How do you measure whats well recorded and whats poorly recorded? Keyword here is measure. Do you measure it by the noise level (eg. Hissing sound)? Measure it by dynamic range? Length of song? How do you measure it?
 

clearnfc

Active Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
236
Likes
72
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.

How do you determine a recording is good or bad?? Are there some any ways to measure it?? I am asking because i see pple commenting on bad recordings but i have never seen anyone posting any data/numbers.

I would love to know what parameters are used to determine a good/bad recording (just like thd, sinad, snr etc etc for gears).
 
OP
Shadrach

Shadrach

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
664
Likes
950
The idea of "shaming" people producing "bad recordings" is a bit fraught.

On one hand, it's intuitive that we would prefer "good sound quality." As I've said before, I think that is actually what binds audiophiles together - an appreciation of good sound, whether you think you get there via accurate equipment or not.

On the other hand...who is to determine how any recording "Must" sound? Whose checklist of "good sound quality characteristics" must artists meet? And doesn't this suggest insisting on some level of conformity? If an artist wants something to sound a way that to you "sounds bad," why shouldn't that be their prerogative? Should they be shamed for it?

Personally I love tons of old music (especially "library/production" music) from the late 60's to the early 80's and the production and sonic characteristics are truly all over the map. One track will have giant in your face bass and drums, the next it sounds like they have been recorded in the back corner of a large hall, or stuffed in a close to one side of the mix, with other instruments leaping out all over the place. The sound can be thin, thick, forward, distant, and everything in between. And I love all of it...including those artistic choices and sonic idiosyncrasies.
"The idea of "shaming" people producing "bad recordings" is a bit fraught."
ASR does it regularly for below par equipment from Amir's comments to the ribald remarks in the later comments from the forum contributors. I can't see why recording engineers should be exempt.

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between performance quality and recording quality.

"One track will have giant in your face bass and drums, the next it sounds like they have been recorded in the back corner of a large hall, or stuffed in a close to one side of the mix, with other instruments leaping out all over the place. The sound can be thin, thick, forward, distant, and everything in between. And I love all of it...including those artistic choices and sonic idiosyncrasies."

I think in most of the above these are engineering choices rather than artistic choices.
 
OP
Shadrach

Shadrach

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
664
Likes
950
Yes, I can't relate to that at all?
If you truly love music, why wouldn't you want to hear it under the best possible conditions?
That's why many of us here have been chasing Higher Fidelity for 50, 60, even 70 years.

In my youth, no self respecting boomer would be without a decent quality stereo system in the living room.
They might have the speakers in all sort of inappropriate places, like right next to their chairs doing double duty as end-tables, but at least they had something.

But times and even they changed. The great majority of them can't name a artist today who wasn't recording before 1970, If I play anything post Beatles they have no idea who it is. Now the youngin's mostly listen to garbage sounding recordings on crap earplugs and just don't care.
I think there is an opportunity to get past the "the recordings are going to be listened to by kids that don't care on crap mp3 players" type mentality. A lot of the ear buds and headphones now are capable of greater fidelity than many of the seperates type systems we use.
 
Top Bottom