ASR burning the wrong witches?

[Zensō]

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?

I agree. And I’d add that believing random forum users are going to change how recording engineers and producers work by “shaming” them is some pretty extreme hubris.

 

[Katji]

Ludicrous.

 

[ahofer]

Are we 'burning witches'? It seems to me most of the rest of the audio press is promoting witchcraft and ASR is mostly just pointing out that it doesn't actually work. As long as the witchcraft promoters don't come here to promote it, they don't even know we exist.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I agree. And I’d add that believing random forum users are going to change how recording engineers and producers work by “shaming” them is some pretty extreme hubris.

Totally. And even if there was some point in "shaming" recording engineers - even if it could possibly cause some sort of change in what they do - it wouldn't have any impact on the century or so of recorded music that's already "in the can" so to speak.

 

[ahofer]

Totally. And even if there was some point in "shaming" recording engineers - even if it could possibly cause some sort of change in what they do - it wouldn't have any impact on the century or so of recorded music that's already "in the can" so to speak.

True. If you can get more people to shift their consumption dollars towards better recordings, that would be good, though. And make sure there is a market for recordings that aren't engineered for bluetooth phone headsets outdoors.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

True. If you can get more people to shift their consumption dollars towards better recordings, that would be good, though. And make sure there is a market for recordings that aren't engineered for bluetooth phone headsets outdoors.

I guess...but as far as the music I listen to I don't feel like much of it is recorded for bluetooth headsets outdoors. Most of the stuff released in the past few years by my favorite artists has sounded fine...

 

[Zensō]

True. If you can get more people to shift their consumption dollars towards better recordings, that would be good, though. And make sure there is a market for recordings that aren't engineered for bluetooth phone headsets outdoors.

I don’t disagree, but the market has already loudly spoken. All of audiophilia is only a tiny drop in the larger music industry. This is a bit dated, but it illustrates the extent to which mobile has taken over audio.

 

[Shadrach]

I can't remember how many years ago it was when Amir was posting on Computer Audiophile and put up with the rabble attacks when he suggested that some of the audiophile products didn't perform as well as the faithful would have people believe. He started ASR and it grew. and now it carries some weight in the world of audio.
It got to the point where some manufactures of audio equipment improved their products mainly because of Amir's testing and the responses of those who posted on ASR stating they would no longer be buying from that manufacturer. Hubris indeed.
Essentially Amir and some of the contributors are naming and shaming the manufacturers.
It would seem that despite the negativity change can be brought about by such a method.

True one can't do much about the equipment already produced and the same is true of recordings.
There is a market for audiophile recordings and despite what some may believe the better recording can be sorted from the not so good and the truely horrendous.
A similar method to loudspeaker preference ratings is quite possible. At some point someone may even come up with a method of correlating the preferencees to some kind of measurement system.

For those who are content with the loudness wars and poor recording practices such an endevour would be of little interest.
Being an objectivist and of a more optomistic nature anything that can be done to improve recordings gets my vote and support.

Also true is the market base for such better recordings may be small but the market is there much like the better fidelity products reviewed here on ASR.

 

[Zensō]

 

[bluefuzz]

There is a market for audiophile recordings and despite what some may believe the better recording can be sorted from the not so good and the truely horrendous.

The market for 'audiophile' anything is infinitesimally small compared to the general music market. I've always found it odd that the few labels who do profile themselves as 'audiophile' recordings the music is almost universally bland.

It would be interesting if you could point to some concrete examples of what you consider good, not so good and 'truely (sic) horrendous' recordings. Preferably ones that are also musically interesting ...

 

[Shadrach]

The market for 'audiophile' anything is infinitesimally small compared to the general music market. I've always found it odd that the few labels who do profile themselves as 'audiophile' recordings the music is almost universally bland.

It would be interesting if you could point to some concrete examples of what you consider good, not so good and 'truely (sic) horrendous' recordings. Preferably ones that are also musically interesting ...

I'll do what I can probably tomorrow. I'm off to talk to some chickens now. A much more enjoyable experience I find than reading Hi Fi forums.

 

[JeremyFife]

Interesting thread.

My take (not off topic I hope): I can understand the recording process as being part of the artistic process - decisions made during the performance. That's kind of a one-off, you can't re-do it.
Mixing the resulting file(s) is also part of the artistic process. With access to the files you can re-mix if you want. That may be 'fixable'.

Mastering the final mix for release is more of a commercial decision (here I'd be interested in the thoughts of those who actually do this!) - choice of medium, consideration of the target market. It's here that you get the "make it loud, make it sound good on cheap headphones"

Is that final stage a better target for the OP's thinking? Would streaming services consider a different version for their hi-res / purchasing offering, would they consider offering more than one version and actually saying what the difference is?

I'd buy that

 

[Gorgonzola]

If we had a contest for the silliest, most useless thread this one would take the prize easily.

So I don't agree. The confusion exists because some refuse to acknowledge the difference between musical enjoyment and appreciation of great sound quality. The latter may be pointless without the former while the former doesn't rely on the latter. But as for this thread, it is about the latter.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

So I don't agree. The confusion exists because some refuse to acknowledge the difference between musical enjoyment and appreciation of great sound quality. The latter may be pointless without the former while the former doesn't rely on the latter. But as for this thread, it is about the latter.

I don't know what this confusion is that you keep referring to. I think we all understand the difference between musical enjoyment and great sound quality.

 

[ex audiophile]

So I don't agree. The confusion exists because some refuse to acknowledge the difference between musical enjoyment and appreciation of great sound quality. The latter may be pointless without the former while the former doesn't rely on the latter. But as for this thread, it is about the latter.

I don't see the confusion. Perhaps you're concerned that "some" refuse to consider these two totally subjective concepts worthy of pages of inane debate. Perhaps you said it best, "The latter may be pointless without the former while the former doesn't rely on the latter. But as for this thread, it is about the latter."

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

True one can't do much about the equipment already produced and the same is true of recordings.
There is a market for audiophile recordings and despite what some may believe the better recording can be sorted from the not so good and the truely horrendous.
A similar method to loudspeaker preference ratings is quite possible. At some point someone may even come up with a method of correlating the preferencees to some kind of measurement system.

Even if such a system were possible (and it isn't)...to what end? For what purpose? To prevent people from accidently listening to recordings they don't like the sound of? I hate to say it, but the "loudness wars" started largely as a consequence of listener preference. Smashed recordings sell better. There already are audiophile recordings...and they barely sell at all. Plus, they often don't even sound that great (Chesky stuff for instance which to me sounds weirdly-mixed and too low-volume most of the time). And ultimately, as I said earlier...it's not what this particular site is about. If that's your thing, go start a site called Recording Science Review or something. Managing to bring an end to the loudness wars (or whatever else this thread may be about) wouldn't change anything about the premises here regarding how to go about setting up a great system for reproducing recordings.

 

[Geert]

Totally. And even if there was some point in "shaming" recording engineers - even if it could possibly cause some sort of change in what they do - it wouldn't have any impact on the century or so of recorded music that's already "in the can" so to speak.

And how would you know who played what role in the final sound of a recording? Most record productions are not a one man show. It's often a collaboration of a tracking engineer, a mix engineer, a producer and the artists (where you regularly need to deal with strong personalities). And often it's multiple tracking and mixing engineers as a lot of albums have tracks recorded in different studios.

If you really want to shame someone you would need to track his involvement in different productions, and check if they consistently sound bad. I expect such a guy to be out of a job before you figured it out.

 

[Gorgonzola]

Even if such a system were possible (and it isn't)...to what end? For what purpose? To prevent people from accidently listening to recordings they don't like the sound of? I hate to say it, but the "loudness wars" started largely as a consequence of listener preference. Smashed recordings sell better. There already are audiophile recordings...and they barely sell at all. Plus, they often don't even sound that great (Chesky stuff for instance which to me sounds weirdly-mixed and too low-volume most of the time). And ultimately, as I said earlier...it's not what this particular site is about. If that's your thing, go start a site called Recording Science Review or something. Managing to bring an end to the loudness wars (or whatever else this thread may be about) wouldn't change anything about the premises here regarding how to go about setting up a great system for reproducing recordings.

Sadly it looks to me like some folks here, including you Sgt., and maybe me, have made a mountain out of a mole hill.

The only purpose of the OP, IMO, was to point out that he quality of the recording is the greatest contributor to sound quality. OK, and maybe that accordingly, that preoccupation with repro system performance is clouding that point.

Extraneous and specious in this context, some people decided to insist that musical enjoyment doesn't depend on sound quality to any significant extent. It doesn't nor was I nor the OP implying any such thing.

But I agree that this thread has become a gong show. I shall be withdrawing.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Sadly it looks to me like some folks here, including you Sgt., and maybe me, have made a mountain out of a mole hill.

The only purpose of the OP, IMO, was to point out that he quality of the recording is the greatest contributor to sound quality. OK, and maybe that accordingly, that preoccupation with repro system performance is clouding that point.

OK, but I don't know why that point (which certainly isn't a new or revolutionary point since it's been discussed over and over here on pretty much a bi-weekly basis) changes or impacts our "preoccupation" with repro system performance. Repro system performance is what ASR is about. Just like any other HiFi audio gear site. Head-Fi is about repro system performance. Are we more "pre-occupied" than them? Audio Karma? All the others? The approach here is different sure, but we're all pre-occupied with systems. We are more concerned with accurately reproducing the recording yes...but the quality of the recording doesn't alter that. Good or bad, we still want to accurately reproduce it. The reason for that isn't because we wouldn't like the bad recordings to sound better...it's because we don't want them to sound better at the expense of damaging the good recordings.

 

[MattHooper]

"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.

It's because they are two different things: "art" and the reproduction of the art.

IF you take the stance of Amir and many ASR members that you simply want to reproduce that artistic signal with as much fidelity as possible (and with as little distortion) then it makes sense you can point out which gear strays more or less from that goal.

But that's not the same as demanding the artist themselves conform to some goal YOU have. How would that even work? "You can only produce sound with perfectly flat frequency response and use no form of distortion, and it must have THIS bandwidth?"

I certainly get the appreciation of, generically speaking, "good sounding recordings" (which we can generally take as sounding rich, clear, dynamic, etc). But as I say, it is indeed fraught to start demanding recordings conform in this way, for the reasons given.

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.

Those choices are part of the artistic process. Everything is done so as to achieve, as best as possible, the desired sonic goal.