ASR burning the wrong witches?

[Sokel]

Measure it by dynamic range?

Compared with the actuall instrument playing live beside you?Nothing will come even close.
Let's not think about a big church organ,just listen to the forte of a single clarinet (110db easy).

 

[Shadrach]

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).

It wouldn't be an easy undertaking.
Dynamic range is one thing that can be measured.
Instrument placement is another.
Out of sync layering is another.
There is of course that good old consensus a bit like the preference rating there is for loudspeakers. You play various recordings to a range of people and eventually you will get some consensus as to what sounds good to them which with a bit of statistics could then be translated to the famous "given a choice between A and B most people prefered A or B.

 

[Shadrach]

Compared with the actuall instrument playing live beside you?Nothing will come even close.
Let's not think about a big church organ,just listen to the forte of a single clarinet (110db easy).

I get the impression at times that those who comment on how close to reality their system sounds have never heard a saxaphone being played in their listening space. No stereo system as you point out comes close.
It's why I can't listen to classical music on my stereo.

 

[Sokel]

A little extreme but think of the choices one has to make when it comes to capture something like the Symphony of a Thousand.
120 musicians,3 choirs,8 lead vocalists (often divas who would like to be on top of everyone else).
Sisyphean.

 

[bluefuzz]

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.

All completely irrelevant IMO. The only thing that matters is what ends up on the master tape. I don't see any point in second guessing what the artist 'intended' or what he or she did or didn't hear in the studio, or whether the producer/mixer/manager'/record label's vision is the same as the 'artist'. It simply doesn't matter. Either I like the result or I don't ...

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

"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'm sorry, but what are you talking about here? Why is ASR special to you? Does your point apply equally to all other Hifi forums and sites? I see audiophiles and reviewers all over criticize gear for reasons far less valid than that it costs way more than it's measurements show it to warrant. What does "shaming" mean? And as far as the weird what-aboutism of holding recording engineers accountable for "bad" recordings, what is the point? I mean you either like the sound of a recording or you don't. If you don't, you don't likely listen to it much. There are lots of music review sites out there and presumably the sound quality of recordings comes into play there to whatever degree. Why would you expect this site (separate from any other hifi gear site) to pay special attention to that beyond the many threads already existing here dedicated to recommending "audiophile/reference quality" music?

 

[Blumlein 88]

With a recent direction this thread is taking it might be worth looking at this existing thread.

Reality Is Overrated When It Comes to Recordings (Article from music Engineer/Producer)

This article appeared a while back in an on-line audiophile review site. (The type I'd guess most people here wouldn't visit). I thought it was quite insightful as a message from a recording engineer/mixer/producer to audiophiles wanting naturalistic recordings and realism. It does cover...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I get the impression at times that those who comment on how close to reality their system sounds have never heard a saxaphone being played in their listening space. No stereo system as you point out comes close.
It's why I can't listen to classical music on my stereo.

So? I mean those sorts of comments are hardly unique to ASR. In fact, I don't see comments like that here nearly as much as I do at most other "audiophile" sites and forums. You should let the manufacturers of boutique equipment know about that juicy reality because based on their advertising they all seem to think their expensive dacs and amps are super close to reality.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

All completely irrelevant IMO. The only thing that matters is what ends up on the master tape. I don't see any point in second guessing what the artist 'intended' or what he or she did or didn't hear in the studio, or whether the producer/mixer/manager'/record label's vision is the same as the 'artist'. It simply doesn't matter. Either I like the result or I don't ...

exactly. When somebody comes up with a device that measures "artist intent", let me know.

 

[clearnfc]

It wouldn't be an easy undertaking.
Dynamic range is one thing that can be measured.
Instrument placement is another.
Out of sync layering is another.
There is of course that good old consensus a bit like the preference rating there is for loudspeakers. You play various recordings to a range of people and eventually you will get some consensus as to what sounds good to them which with a bit of statistics could then be translated to the famous "given a choice between A and B most people prefered A or B.

Thanks for the reply. So far, i dont think anyone ever measured a recording and post results. So, without any data, how can someone objectively say that a recording is good or bad?

 

[Gorgonzola]

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've been pursuing real hi-fi for over 50 years myself, and it remains surprising to me that some music lovers -- including Classical musical lovers like myself -- are content with quite modest audio systems. There are couple of Classical music forums visit regularly where members' system run the gamut for systems worth tens of thousands to modest compact systems of the sort I illustrated in my first post on the subject.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Thanks for the reply. So far, i dont think anyone ever measured a recording and post results. So, without any data, how can someone objectively say that a recording is good or bad?

More importantly, why does it matter?

 

[clearnfc]

Compared with the actuall instrument playing live beside you?Nothing will come even close.
Let's not think about a big church organ,just listen to the forte of a single clarinet (110db easy).

Ok, and how do you quantify this difference?? How do you show others with evidence that its different and what are the differences??

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks for the reply. So far, i dont think anyone ever measured a recording and post results. So, without any data, how can someone objectively say that a recording is good or bad?

Well I've heard old recordings that unintentionally had 60 hz hum audible in them. Or distortion from something overdriven. Or was just way too noisy from tape noise being amplified. Bad recordings for sure. Of course some of it was of music I loved. So I listen to it.

I seem to recall one of the tracks on Eric Clapton's Unplugged album his guitar is distorted by noise like a poor connection. Quite obvious. Yet otherwise this is a good recording on all the other tracks. Would I present data about how bad the noise is and tell people bad recording don't listen to it? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[clearnfc]

More importantly, why does it matter?

Because if you are unable to measure it by some means (be it measurement by equipment or dbx test), then good or bad is just a matter of personal opinion instead of fact.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I play guitar. I own both acoustic and electric guitars...and the sound that comes out of my system sounds quite close to the live sound of both.

 

[Sokel]

Ok, and how do you quantify this difference?? How do you show others with evidence that its different and what are the differences??

I just don't try to.
I enjoy both and keep myself far from the neurosis of chasing to reproduce it at home.Fresh is fresh and can is can.
(bad english,I know)

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Because if you are unable to measure it by some means (be it measurement by equipment or dbx test), then good or bad is just a matter of personal opinion instead of fact.

Well, you could certainly do it by dbx testing. I'm pretty sure if you were to take 2 recordings of the same piece of music - one made in the 1920s and the other made in 2022, you'd be able to identify the older recording. But mostly, it IS a matter of personal opinion. That's why it doesn't matter in the end - especially in so far as a site focused on the equipment used to reproduce recordings is concerned.

 

[clearnfc]

Well, you could certainly do it be dbx testing. I'm pretty sure if you were to take 2 recordings of the same piece of music - one made in the 1920s and the other made in 2022, you'd be able to identify the older recording. But mostly, it IS a matter of personal opinion. That's why it doesn't matter in the end - especially in so far as a site focused on the equipment used to reproduce recordings is concerned.

Cheers! Thanks for the reply. I really appreciate it.

 

[clearnfc]

Well I've heard old recordings that unintentionally had 60 hz hum audible in them. Or distortion from something overdriven. Or was just way too noisy from tape noise being amplified. Bad recordings for sure. Of course some of it was of music I loved. So I listen to it.

I seem to recall one of the tracks on Eric Clapton's Unplugged album his guitar is distorted by noise like a poor connection. Quite obvious. Yet otherwise this is a good recording on all the other tracks. Would I present data about how bad the noise is and tell people bad recording don't listen to it? Don't be ridiculous.

Thanks for the reply. You just mentioned a way which pple could quantify a bad recording. 60hz hum is easily audible and measurable.