are you disappointed of some of your old favorite songs that sound like crap on you new hi fi equipment?

[b4nt]

Big difference, that is gone or often absent: loudness compensation function of volume.

 

[bluefuzz]

As an example Al Stewart-Year of the Cat the bass is so thin mids high are more or less dominating to much

Strange, I was just listening to Year of the cat on Spotify and both the 2001 remaster and 2020 remaster have quite prominent bass – dry and deep. I would definitely not call it thin. Sounds very even and well balanced production to my ear ...

 

[diddley]

the 2001 remaster has good bass on my amp without tone control

 

[Snarfie]

I have one of the first Cd releases but alsof the record was quite bad in my experience the sound is too thin if i play it neutrale (no subwoofers or targetcurve eq, bass, high, treble are neutral) as i do with alle my music. Will have a listen to the remaster.

 

[Snarfie]

Strange, I was just listening to Year of the cat on Spotify and both the 2001 remaster and 2020 remaster have quite prominent bass – dry and deep. I would definitely not call it thin. Sounds very even and well balanced production to my ear ...

Did listen to the Track year of the cat yes it is one of the best sounding tracks on the album. However on the border or track like Lord Greenville the S'ses in his voice are quite hard/irritating on the album bass of those songs are imo not in balance. I supose that al Stewart is a story teller An it could be that Al Stewart has choosen to master his album suche that his voice is more prominent. Al this is quite subjectieve from my side

 

[iMickey503]

I'm just going to hold my Hand up here and say yes.

 

[MattHooper]

I'm a "No."

It is so rare that I listen to something that I'm disappointed with due to sound/production quality, that I can't immediately recall any.

The more I got in to high end audio, the wider my appreciation of music genres became, until I was a musical omnivore. (Which is pretty common for audiophiles).

Part of the interest in listening is the differences between tracks, production quality, sound. I like those differences; I don't really want everything to sound the same. I have tons of wacky off-the-beaten-path music from the late 60's through the 70's, including compilations, and the sound quality/production style change wildly between tracks, from huge and rich sounding, to very odd distant placement way off to one side of drums, and voices in cheesy old reverb. But that's all part of the fun, for me.

One thing though: I did seek to put together a system that sounds solid and dynamically alive to my ears. If a system is only sort of nice sounding but dynamically limpid, then it only really wakes up with gutsy, well produced recordings. Play some old recording that sounds thinner, more distant etc, say some old R&B recordings, and that will translate in to a less punchy, less compelling experience. But I find a good system (of the type I like) will dig out the dynamics and solidity in the sound in any recording, so even if it's thinner or more distantly mic'd instruments, the energy
still translates, keeping the music compelling.

 

[Anton S]

There have been countless bad productions of great music released over the years, and better equipment, particularly better speakers, accentuates the contrast contrast between those and really good productions, so they sound relatively worse. In my mind, the only rational recourse is to adopt an aggressive approach to adjusting my system's playback parameters to compensate when necessary. This has enabled me to enjoy all but the very worst of the clinkers in my collection.

 

[MattHooper]

There have been countless bad productions of great music released over the years, and better equipment, particularly better speakers, accentuates the contrast contrast between those and really good productions, so they sound relatively worse. In my mind, the only rational recourse is to adopt an aggressive approach to adjusting my system's playback parameters to compensate when necessary. This has enabled me to enjoy all but the very worst of the clinkers in my collection.

Do you mean applying EQ to recordings you find unsatisfactory? If so, I am curious how often you find yourself adjusting your EQ settings

 

[Anton S]

Do you mean applying EQ to recordings you find unsatisfactory? If so, I am curious how often you find yourself adjusting your EQ settings

I wasn't referring to only EQ. I continually bend, fold, and spindle the sound coming from my primary system until what comes out sounds "real" to me. Every day and always - well almost always. I've been into music for a very long time. I was even into the professional end of it for over a decade and knew several hi-fi icons, including Paul Klipsch, Amar Bose, Bob Carver, and Frank McIntosh. Over the years, I went through my "horn" phase, my "tube" phase, my "straight wire with gain" phase, and just about every other phase you can imagine, except for the lunatic fringe phase that buys into the sort of ridiculous gadgets and magical thinking that are prevalent on another popular audio forum. At this point in my journey, I firmly believe the following: (1) there is no "perfect" recording, (2) there is no "perfect" room, and (3) there is no "perfect" audio system.

I also believe there are key characteristics of live music performance that are frequently stripped away during commercial music production, and that there is no inherent evil in using the means at my disposal to recover those characteristics. My system's REQ is engaged all the time to compensate for the room. My sub's PEQ is also always engaged to compensate for a mild peak near 30Hz. The settings for those never change. But beyond them, my system is equipped with a boatload of pro and semi-pro equipment that enables me to compensate for deficiencies in various source material. My GEQ is preprogrammed with multiple different curves in its memory banks that enable me to instantly to compensate for different EQ screw-ups at the production end. And beyond EQ, I have a myriad of equipment to adjust dynamic range and transient response, to synthesize the very low bass that has been lopped off practically all commercial releases, and to adjust the imaging of the system for stage depth. I switch my processors in and out of the signal path as required to achieve a presentation that is the most natural sounding to my ear.

Audio enjoyment is a hobby that can be approached from either a passive or an active perspective. I prefer the active approach, because I know what sounds convincingly realistic to me. I further believe that endlessly swapping out equipment in one's quest to achieve "The One True Sound" is futile and does not qualify as an active approach, because at the end of the day, you're still at the mercy of almost universally compromised source material.

 

[MattHooper]

Wow that's some serious dedication to tweaking!

I certainly have empathy with your desire to have your system sound more "lifelike" to your ears. I have a similar goal. My main concession to a tweak in that regard I guess is my tube amps. It's a sort of one-size-fits-all coloration that helps me enjoy almost anything on my system (not that the other system choices, speakers etc, don't play a big role).

If there's anything I actively tweak it's room acoustics/speaker-seating position. I have a lot of flexibility in that regard in my room, so I do play with it now and again. I might open up the reflections on my room for a more live sound, or move my seat closer for more immersion, or further for more density and image focus. And then I'll tend to live with that change for a while.

 

[Anton S]

Wow that's some serious dedication to tweaking!

I certainly have empathy with your desire to have your system sound more "lifelike" to your ears. I have a similar goal. My main concession to a tweak in that regard I guess is my tube amps. It's a sort of one-size-fits-all coloration that helps me enjoy almost anything on my system (not that the other system choices, speakers etc, don't play a big role).

If there's anything I actively tweak it's room acoustics/speaker-seating position. I have a lot of flexibility in that regard in my room, so I do play with it now and again. I might open up the reflections on my room for a more live sound, or move my seat closer for more immersion, or further for more density and image focus. And then I'll tend to live with that change for a while.

Yes, since tube equipment tends to produce primarily even-order harmonics, it imparts a very pleasing sheen to whatever music you like, regardless of genre. All that matters is that your system sounds "right" to you, and that it makes you happy. We all choose our own individual paths.

 

[iMickey503]

you're still at the mercy of almost universally compromised source material.

I have to agree with this. One step that people fail to realize is that after the recording engineer and the mixing process is complete it then goes to mastering which also is another step in the chain and that's where all the problems I think happen.

this is true for a few CDs where I actually had errors on the mastering of the CD I was listening to.
Recently I've been able to find quite a few recordings on Spotify that also have the similar problem.

I have to wonder if the guys doing the live performances and their live sound Engineers have an ear for what a live performance should sound like and the guy who's doing the mixing and mastering for a format has a different idea in the recording/mastering studio what it should sound like compared to the guy doing it live; who actually gets to experience the real thing and has somewhat of an idea of what it sounded like when it was being played in the venue if that makes any sense.


as a side note, I really do miss at Nordstrom's where they actually had the piano player there while you were shopping it was a great experience. sometimes you can purchase compact discs of the person playing and I have to admit I preferred how it sounded live at the actual department store.

however, I also think this has to do with something of your mind of being at the actual live performance and experience of it versus a recording of a performance, since( I think) it makes sense to believe that since you were there, it's going to be more real to you. Like you have some sort of tangible extrasensory experience that get from being there at the physical location that A reproduction via audio equipment cannot do completely or Faithfully.

kind of like the feeling of having an entire Arena of people slamming their feet to the ground to the beat, and hearing and feeling that next to you, that would be difficult to reproduce on a recording. something similar to the l f e channel on a subwoofer for a movie for example. something like inaudible tactile feedback for example.

I can also attest that I hear things differently when a large saxophone like a bari sax is being played in front of you versus a recording for it it sounds different.

I've tried to use tactile transducers in order to get the same effect and it's close but no cigar.

for the interest of Science, does anybody have a link to this kind of phenomenon and how it's been studied either by the audio engineering Society or by any other body that actually conducts scientific experiments on reproduction of sound?

on a side note, I actually prefer video recordings like DVDs on how a life performance was done for example Yanni live at the Acropolis. till this day it's still one of my favorite video performances. but it's also the very first time I saw it and heard it being performed and maybe that has something to do with it but I prefer listening to it on a DVD and watching the video of it being performed rather than the audio recording of it.

it just seems so much more involving to me.

I know it goes against the audiophile Mantra but I kind of prefer the vibrations as they remind me more of how it's like when you're actually at the venue.

I know this may be weird to some of you but try taking your speakers and putting them outside. See how the recording sounds when they're outside. Personally I think it sounds more realistic on some recordings.

I don't know if any of you have experienced this but a recording studio to me from an audible perspective sounds different then in another space and a space I think impacts greatly the final product of the recording.

there has been some discussion in the past that having tubes gear in your audio chain has some benefit as reproducing a live performance as it's very sensitive to vibrations and you are able to "sense" those in the audio chain.
I understand that it's a source of distortion technically but I think maybe that kind of distortion is beneficial to the overall realism.

I think this deals with psychoacoustics but again I'm just shooting in the dark here I'm not really an audio engineer or a person that understands everything about it because quite honestly it's probably more technical than being a doctor.

I would just like to throw this out there as I've heard this comment many more times then I would like to admit but people who originally saw Fleetwood Mac say that they sound better live than they ever did in the recordings even after they started putting the recordings on compact disc. after going to one of their homes I would have to agree with them since their playback equipment was absolute garbage but again that's just my opinion.

I do agree that the source material may be flawed in some ways but I have to say that the room you play it back in and the characteristics of that room probably play a much bigger part than the actual Source material if it's done properly.

McIntosh used to go ahead and do performances of their speakers at venues in New York City from what I believe in people thought there are actual performers performing on the stage behind the curtain. this can't be a coincidence.

 

[Snarfie]

Wow that's some serious dedication to tweaking!

I certainly have empathy with your desire to

If there's anything I actively tweak it's room acoustics/speaker-seating position. I have a lot of flexibility in that regard in my room, so I do play with it now and again. I might open up the reflections on my room for a more live sound, or move my seat closer for more immersion, or further for more density and image focus. And then I'll tend to live with that change for a while.

+1

 

[HiFidFan]

The trick is to weed through all the releases to find the good recordings. Can be maddening.

 

[gsp1971]

The trick is to weed through all the releases to find the good recordings. Can be maddening.

This can help.
https://dr.loudness-war.info/

 

[HiFidFan]

This can help.
https://dr.loudness-war.info/

To some extent, yes.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Yop, had that problem back in the day with the "The Dark Knight" soundtrack when I bought my DT-880.
Ever since then I have come to grudgingly accept that recordings are flawed.

._.

 

[David Harper]

I've always felt that the Beatles music, IMO some of the greatest music ever recorded, never had any detail or transparency. I'm not sure whether this was just because of the technology back in the day, or because of the way it was mastered. Some of their last recordings (The White Album) does seem to have better sq though. "Blackbird" and "Rocky Racoon" and "Julia" seem to sound much better than their earlier stuff. I have one CD of "Sgt. Pepper"
that has horrible sq. It sounds compressed to the point that it's not worth listening to. The crescendo at the end of "a Day in the Life", in particular,
has been ruined on this particular CD.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Late to the party here, but no from me as well. If your expensive gear makes everything but pristine recordings sound bad, the reason is likely:

• The system doesn't have enough bass (flat response in-room is not the goal)
• The system has excessive amounts of treble (in order to sound "detailed" in the show room)
• The system has an uneven frequency response, making some frequencies stand out, resulting in an unpleasant listening response and listeners fatigue.

Most of these problems are due to the speakers. Less often, it could be a bad match with the amplifier due to an amplifier that is forced into clipping and/or matched with a speaker that is a difficult load. Speakers that are "unforgiving" to bad recordings are simply bad speakers.

So your speakers aren't "revealing" to bad recordings, the "bad" recordings are revealing to your bad speakers.

There are surely lots of older records with a lot less bass and omph than newer recordings. But recordings that are downright unpleasant to listen to on a balanced system are few and far between.