I am being reminded once again that the recording quality makes the most difference

[Frank Dernie]

I have noticed it for decades, the quality of recordings varies far more than the difference in SQ of properly engineered bits of kit.
If my system is sounding very good it is because I have put on a particularly good recording but it is never clearer than I am experience with a collection of songs sung by Thomas Quasthoff "The Romantic songbook" which is recordings made at different times and places and the difference in quality between some of these sessions is very marked.
The differences are just as obvious as the difference between my loudspeakers.

 

[Soniclife]

Almost everything I play is at best 'not great' in sound quality, when I play something really well recorded it's a real shock.

 

[Fluffy]

It also depends on what is "good quality" for you. On one hand, there is objective quality, like lower noise floor and distortion, good acoustics, balanced mixing, etc. And on the other hand, there is how the sound fits the music. Listening to stoner metal that was recorded in "high quality" is an appalling experience – that music just needs to sound dirty and rough; clear and pristine isn't going to work.

On that note, I wanted to address the dreaded "loudness wars" that audiophiles are so afraid of – some things just sound better when they're loud and heavily compressed.

 

[Juhazi]

Yess!

I've noticed that you Frank listen a lot to BBC classic live. I am very happy of our national YLE live broadcast quality, and BBC sounds very good too, when I hear it as EBU co-operation. High craftmanship, experience, minimal post-production and compression etc. must be the reason. Same applies for most national radio orchestras.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/symphonyorchestra

https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/...e&utm_campaign=brandbar&a=bph_webseite&c=true

 

[Frank Dernie]

Yess!

I've noticed that you Frank listen a lot to BBC classic live. I am very happy of our national YLE live broadcast quality, and BBC sounds very good too, when I hear it as EBU co-operation. High craftmanship, experience, minimal post-production and compression etc. must be the reason. Same applies for most national radio orchestras.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/symphonyorchestra

https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/...e&utm_campaign=brandbar&a=bph_webseite&c=true

It used to be more. 50 years ago there was a live broadcast evey evening from somewhere. I used to record it and listen to learn new music. There aren't many now. I think by the 80s cuts were hitting hard.

 

[JJB70]

It amazes me that so many audiophiles go to extremes over audio equipment yet appear little interested in what they play. Peter Aczel used to say that the single most important determinant of SQ was the recording quality and he was right.

 

[Soniclife]

It amazes me that so many audiophiles go to extremes over audio equipment yet appear little interested in what they play. Peter Aczel used to say that the single most important determinant of SQ was the recording quality and he was right.

Are you saying we should only listen to good recordings? For me a hifi is a tool to access music, it's job is to get out of the way, if it's influencing the choice of what you play it's not doing it's job properly.

 

[MediumRare]

Almost everything I play is at best 'not great' in sound quality, when I play something really well recorded it's a real shock.

Yes, just now listening to Boston’s debut album. I wore out the album on vinyl back in high school, on Redbook FLAC now. Some of the tracks have shocking EQ and high end distortion, to my ears (and system) now.

 

[restorer-john]

Yes, just now listening to Boston’s debut album. I wore out the album on vinyl back in high school, on Redbook FLAC now. Some of the tracks have shocking EQ and high end distortion, to my ears (and system) now.

Well Boston was recorded in a basement...

An essential for any Audiophile's collection, go find yourself an original Japanese pressing of Donald Fagen's Nightfly and see what was possible back around 1982.

 

[Old Listener]

Other important things: the work you are listening and the performance.

If I don't care for the music, there is no point to good sound quality.

If the performance isn't adequate to convey the music, there is no point either.

 

[digitalfrost]

Wow that is a nice recording. Listening to the 1982 CD right now.

 

[MattHooper]

I have noticed it for decades, the quality of recordings varies far more than the difference in SQ of properly engineered bits of kit.
If my system is sounding very good it is because I have put on a particularly good recording but it is never clearer than I am experience with a collection of songs sung by Thomas Quasthoff "The Romantic songbook" which is recordings made at different times and places and the difference in quality between some of these sessions is very marked.
The differences are just as obvious as the difference between my loudspeakers.

True!

It's amazing how good a fantastic recording can sound on even "lesser" systems. Even my most meagre little speakers I own can sound startling with the right recording.

On the other hand...

It still impresses me how good kit can change the sonic experience as well.

I just bought new speakers (which I'm very happy with) and my brother, a musician was over tonight. He was curious about the new system but instead of choosing from among the wiz-bang guaranteed "sounds amazing" audiophile recordings, I just chose a track based on the music he likes. My brother is a bass player and a life long Jaco Pastorius fanatic, and has listened to Jacos first album so often it's probably weeved in to his DNA at this point.

After listening to a track through the new speakers it was like he'd seen a ghost. He couldn't believe it. Said it was one of the most amazing listening/musical experiences he's ever had. He said he wants to come back and listen to a lot more music he loves on the system, to have his mind expanded again.

So, yeah, gear can still make a difference. That's why we are all here, right? ;-)

 

[nscrivener]

On that note, I wanted to address the dreaded "loudness wars" that audiophiles are so afraid of – some things just sound better when they're loud and heavily compressed.

The problem is not with compression in mastering, it's that the loudness wars took that idea well and truly past the point of improving the sound and into degrading it instead.

 

[Ceburaska]

On that note, I wanted to address the dreaded "loudness wars" that audiophiles are so afraid of – some things just sound better when they're loud and heavily compressed.

I find usually that those things sound even better with the volume at zero.

 

[Ceburaska]

It used to be more. 50 years ago there was a live broadcast evey evening from somewhere. I used to record it and listen to learn new music. There aren't many now. I think by the 80s cuts were hitting hard.

@Frank Dernie I don’t listen to them all the time, but it’s my impression that Radio 3 has a concert at 7.30pm each night. A quick look at next week’s schedule confirms that.
I guess that sometimes these aren’t live-that-night but are recordings of live shows.

 

[JJB70]

Are you saying we should only listen to good recordings? For me a hifi is a tool to access music, it's job is to get out of the way, if it's influencing the choice of what you play it's not doing it's job properly.

Not at all. Sound quality in this context to me is the technical quality of the recording, not the artistic merit of the music and performance. I think it is a given that people listen to music and artists they enjoy, regardless of recording quality. Beautifully recorded junk to our taste is still junk. I have a lot of recordings of artists like Callas, Furtwangler, Klemperer, the Krauss ring recordings at Bayreuth etc. I listen to and enjoy these recordings despite poor technical audio quality. However, if people want great technical audio quality then rubbish in = rubbish out. No amount of brilliance in the reproduction chain will save a rubbish recording, equally a brilliant recording doesn't need a particularly great system to sound great. I find it infuriating when really good music is hobbled by awful recording and being compressed to death. The music is still good but in some cases it is so bad that it does put me off listening. I love the Neil Diamond album "12 Songs" (yes, I like Neil Diamond......) but it is so heavily compressed that it is really rather unpleasant via headphones, and most of my listening is via headphones.

 

[Frank Dernie]

@Frank Dernie I don’t listen to them all the time, but it’s my impression that Radio 3 has a concert at 7.30pm each night. A quick look at next week’s schedule confirms that.
I guess that sometimes these aren’t live-that-night but are recordings of live shows.

Thats it. They used to be live now most are recordings. Mind you I don't listen to them very often any more, though the live ones usually have superb sound.

 

[Tks]

It also depends on what is "good quality" for you. On one hand, there is objective quality, like lower noise floor and distortion, good acoustics, balanced mixing, etc. And on the other hand, there is how the sound fits the music. Listening to stoner metal that was recorded in "high quality" is an appalling experience – that music just needs to sound dirty and rough; clear and pristine isn't going to work.

On that note, I wanted to address the dreaded "loudness wars" that audiophiles are so afraid of – some things just sound better when they're loud and heavily compressed.

You pretty much got it, the things that make a good recording is distortion/noise keeping to as minimum as possible, and DR not being compressed to trash.

There are secondary factors like studio or non studio setting, mic settings/placement, and recording type (binaural etc..).

Outside of that, I don’t see anything else much to it aside from the acutely logistics being much worse than my simple exclamations.

Evidently also, some genres go against this. But that need not be had from the recording procedure itself. You can have heavy distortions in Rock music for example, by simply having high quality recording of a distorting guitar for example. You don’t need to use odd recording choices in order to get there.

 

[Ron Texas]

Bad recordings can wind up sounding worse on good gear than on car radios and bluetooth earpods, both in a noisy environment.

 

[Tks]

Bad recordings can wind up sounding worse on good gear than on car radios and bluetooth earpods, both in a noisy environment.

I can attest to this, but not just music where it's obvious, in youtube videos and podcasts as well. People spending hundreds if not thousands on a pretty good mic, only to be plagued with P popping, zero bass roll off so it sounds like I have my ear perched on their uvula, and also someone talking to me right to my ears with their hands cupped as if they were trying to whisper something very secretive.

And the best part, it's all visible. The spectrum analyzer on the RME shows especially people not rolling off some the over bloated bass in their voice recordings. Sounds so awful and simply annoying I can't even begin to describe. I need an EQ profile for most of these.

As for actual music, well, there are artists that will walk right up to the engineers mastering their music, turn off the speakers, and plug in iPhone earbuds, or take the music and play it in a car, and come back and tell the poor sap who wasted his time producing the album it doesn't sound good in those settings...

PURE CANCER.