Speakers that are unforgiving of poor-quality recordings - is that a thing?

[YSC]

Your real suffering will begin when your audio system allows you to easily distinguish between bad mastered recordings and at least acceptable ones.
That's when the real suffering begins.

But everyone have their own favourite albums so I believe the actual process isn’t that different

 

[goat76]

Ah whatever, so nobody makes the mistake but it need that limitation and artefacts. And every single professional will occasionally mess up, the photographer do, medical doctor do, aircraft engineer and mechanics do, pilots do, even NASA and the military all so often got mistakes in their job and not done correctly, but mixing engineers never mess up and everything is intentional.

I will stop derail again but then, the topic is mostly urban myth to justify the worse hifi speakers by someone

I never said the music needed that limiter. If I was the person who made all the final decisions, there would never be any limiters applied at all in the mastering stage of any music production.

Of course the person who applies the limiter knows what that tool does and what artifacts that will lead to when used hard. Limiting the final master to be able to make it louder is basically a way of clipping the signal intentionally, it’s rare if any professional don't know that.

 

[YSC]

I never said the music needed that limiter. If I was the person who made all the final decisions, there would never be any limiters applied at all in the mastering stage of any music production.

Of course the person who applies the limiter knows what that tool does and what artifacts that will lead to when used hard. Limiting the final master to be able to make it louder is basically a way of clipping the signal intentionally, it’s rare if any professional don't know that.

I didn't say they don't know the tools, even hobbist knows half way of all those theories, what I mean is, the mixing or mastering engineer, be it himself or gear, do quite often mess up, so it's never "they know what they are doing and whatever goes into the finals are intentional" , it's like " the mixing or recording chain messed up, so what I could do is to make it hard clip yet having enough loudness"

 

[fineMen]

Do you really find the Birthday Party song sounding worse in some way on your main HiFi system than on your portable Bluetooth speakers?

No bass: the instrument is there, but not the tone, a guitar cutting through the mind like an iced scalpel and a psychopathically confident singer walking on pink clouds made of 'golden brown'--obviously.

Of course I get the artsy idea as a whole and times enjoy it. It has to be so, it's not a hifi-test-record for 'critical listening'. It's Birthday Party!

 

[HarmonicTHD]

No

 

[TurtlePaul]

the topic is mostly urban myth to justify the worse hifi speakers by someone

I don't think it is primarily to justify worse/cheaper speakers to avoid being too revealing. Most of the time it is people trying to justify why their more expensive new speakers sound worse. It is usually because they are too bright. Bright speakers sound great for five minutes on the showroom floor. “Revealing the recording” makes it seem like a positive that your new speakers often sound bad - a great trick.

edit: I interpreted your “worse” to mean cheaper speakers, but now that I reread it we may be saying exactly the same thing.

 

[ErVikingo]

IMHO they make the individual parts sound better but amplifies loss of imaging and highlights use of compression.

 

[YSC]

I don't think it is primarily to justify worse/cheaper speakers to avoid being too revealing. Most of the time it is people trying to justify why their more expensive new speakers sound worse. It is usually because they are too bright. Bright speakers sound great for five minutes on the showroom floor. “Revealing the recording” makes it seem like a positive that your new speakers often sound bad - a great trick.

edit: I interpreted your “worse” to mean cheaper speakers, but now that I reread it we may be saying exactly the same thing.

off topic but LMAO for this we've all been through similar cases

 

[ahofer]

I don't think it is primarily to justify worse/cheaper speakers to avoid being too revealing. Most of the time it is people trying to justify why their more expensive new speakers sound worse. It is usually because they are too bright. Bright speakers sound great for five minutes on the showroom floor. “Revealing the recording” makes it seem like a positive that your new speakers often sound bad - a great trick.

edit: I interpreted your “worse” to mean cheaper speakers, but now that I reread it we may be saying exactly the same thing.

Taking home the Showroom Treble by mistake?

 

[Philbo King]

Studio-grade monitors in an acoustically treated room are designed to do this exact thing.

 

[MattHooper]

I don't see anything wrong with your philosophy!

Though, it's not the only philosophy. Forgive me for playing devil's advocate...

My philosophy: It is not the job of the speaker, nor any other component in the reproduction chain, to compensated for poor recordings.

Unless of course that is the job one actually wants the speaker/component to do.

That is, with the exception of EQ that you can adjust depending on the individual recording.

What if a component "compensated" for poor recordings such that someone didn't feel the need for EQ? (I don't feel the need to EQ recordings).

Recordings can the deficient if different ways, however I've found over many years that the best recordings sound best played using the most accurate components. By "best" recordings I mean those that tend to sound best regardless of the components in the chain -- and yes, there are plenty of such recordings.

Understood.

One of the rationals I find interesting from those advocating for accurate, low coloration systems is that: If you buy a speaker because it has a certain coloration that pleases you, the problem is that coloration may work for some tracks but won't sound good for others, so you are hostage to that coloration.

Which of course could be true. Yet...how is that different from the scenario of having an accurate system? It's not. Recording quality is highly variable, which means the accurate system will reproduce some recordings as "sounding poor" and others which sound great. Same scenario, you are simply held hostage to alternating sound quality but by another method. So it's ultimately a pick-your-own poison.

 

[Gorgonzola]

I don't see anything wrong with your philosophy!

Though, it's not the only philosophy. Forgive me for playing devil's advocate... ...

One of the rationals I find interesting from those advocating for accurate, low coloration systems is that: If you buy a speaker because it has a certain coloration that pleases you, the problem is that coloration may work for some tracks but won't sound good for others, so you are hostage to that coloration.

Which of course could be true. Yet...how is that different from the scenario of having an accurate system? It's not. Recording quality is highly variable, which means the accurate system will reproduce some recordings as "sounding poor" and others which sound great. Same scenario, you are simply held hostage to alternating sound quality but by another method. So it's ultimately a pick-your-own poison.

Well exactly. Coloration might sound good often, even most of the time, but at others if could be the very opposite of what's need. Better the "middle course" of tonal accuracy and neutrality.

Personally what I find most often lacking in recordings is a lack of detail, transparency, or "air". This defect isn't coloration and can't improved by EQ to any degree. I think only a low distortion speaker can reveal the transparency, although controlling room reflects might help too.

 

[maverickronin]

By now "poor recording" is basically just a dog whistle word for modern non-acoustic genres.

As far as I can tell, "unforgiving" means the transducer is a peaky mess which superficially seems to reveal more detail with sparse compositions but is unmasked by denser music which covers the entire frequency spectrum.

 

[MattHooper]

Well exactly. Coloration might sound good often, even most of the time, but at others if could be the very opposite of what's need.

But that's exactly the same for "tonal accuracy and neutrality," which had been my point.

Better the "middle course" of tonal accuracy and neutrality.

See above.

If the majority of recordings were of excellent sound quality then the most accurate system could be the best choice for good sound. But that's far from the situation we are in given the variabilty of recorded music. That's why colored gear works for some, neutral for others. Sound quality will be variable to some degree in either case. Basically then it's reasonable to play a range of the type of music you are apt to listen to and select the speaker that sounds best to you overall.

Personally what I find most often lacking in recordings is a lack of detail, transparency, or "air". This defect isn't coloration and can't improved by EQ to any degree. I think only a low distortion speaker can reveal the transparency, although controlling room reflects might help too.

Fair enough. I appreciate recordings that tick most of the "impressive sound quality" boxes - tonal richness, clarity, dynamics etc. But I can enjoy a very wide variety of recordings. Bass and richness can be especially variable (i.e. some of the music I listen to is older and can sound quite thin by modern standards). I think the thing that will turn me off most is dull sound, too rolled off or just lacking detail. A thin sounding recording can still sound dynamic and tonally vivid and exciting. But sound that is just "lo-fi" and muffled is for me the worst. (Except when it's deliberate, e.g. some electronic music like Boards Of Canada will lo-fi their sounds).

 

[fineMen]

Fair enough. I appreciate recordings that tick most of the "impressive sound quality" boxes ... A thin sounding recording can still sound dynamic and ... is for me the worst.

A quite 'dialectic' approach. One and the other combined reveal the very nature of recorded music. It depends on the recording as an individual artform. The artform uses abstractions like a pencil sketch of the real scene uses the outline as to show, to the human mind, the shape. Thing is to inspire the imaginaton. Look there:

It very much expresses the audiophool's distance to music. Listen to the speaker system in 'critical listening' mode or to a piece of art, recording process included? The more 'revealing' the speakers, the more the recording can be understood. The more understanding, the more imagination. The more imagination, the more music in the artificial presentation. Conclusively, the o/p's question is ill posed, again. The most unforgiving speaker is the poor one, a good speaker makes you forgive. Understanding is forgiving.

 

[subframe]

As with all subjective things in audio, it depends on what you mean. What is a ‘bad recording’? Is it distorted, thin, muddy, too noisy? Or is the problem not the recording at all, but the arrangement or the mix or even the mastering?

If you've a record where the recording itself is distorted or thin/bright or too noisy, then a muffled and syrupy speaker might make the distortion a little less audible - but to the detriment of all recordings (unless you like that sort of sound as many seem to).

On the other hand, if the problem is with the arrangement or the mix - too dense or thin or muddy, where elements of the mix are being masked for whatever reason - then speakers with flatter FR or reduced distortion can actually help. When I audition speakers, I always include tracks where the arrangement is problematic, where the mix is problematic, and to the degree I can tell, where the master is problematic. These are extremely illuminating tests for speakers. More than one speaker has performed very well with material that's arranged well, recorded well, mixed well, but failed miserably with these tests. Better speakers are able to reveal each element in the mix to the maximum possible give the recording, which allows you to at least somewhat discern the details and intent of the artists and engineers involved. The problems remain, but a good speaker can at least present all the information to you as clearly as possible.

Of course, some speakers are very tilted up (or peaky as @maverickronin noted) - the opposite of the muffled syrupy speaker above. With these speakers, yes you may notice problems in the sonics of a 'bad recording' immediately, and conclude that the speaker sounds great but is simply 'unforgiving'. However, with more listening, it will likely become apparent that in fact all music ends up sound pretty bad due to issues with frequency response, it just takes a while for the showroom 'sparkle' to become 'grating'. As with the muffled and syrupy speaker, the tilt will be to the detriment of all recordings. Unless you like a super bright sound, which some claim to, though I cannot understand it personally.

 

[robwpdx]

The point of studio monitors is exactly reveal the weak point of a mix: that's why they are used in a studio

Studio monitors vs HiFi speakers:
While both categories share common ground in many cases, you’ll generally find a few disparities across the board. Here’s a selection of the main technical differences:

• Active/passive – studio monitors tend to be active i.e. they have built-in power amplifiers. Hi-fi and other home speakers are generally passive, receiving power from a dedicated standalone amplifier.
• Individual power amplifiers – with active speakers, particularly studio monitors, you tend to have multiple power amps in one unit. This means that woofer (bass), midrange and tweeter (treble) cones are each powered individually, making for a more precise sound.
• Crossovers – an extension of the previous point, a crossover splits frequencies to ensure they go to the right driver (speaker). This again adds clarity and precision, so that you can hear every detail across the EQ range.
• Sound – kinda covered in the points above, but studio monitors are designed to have a flat, precise sound for nearfield use. This means they don’t emphasise any one frequency, giving you the most accurate impression of your mix so you can easily pick out imperfections.

Note:
There are a lot of Hi Fi speakers that are based on aesthetics rather than sound engineering, this basically means that they will please your eyes but not your ears

This is the answer. The ideal is listening in a good hall at reasonable volumes with your own ears.

The listener in their own room is comparing the recording reproduced by the speaker to what the would have heard live with whatever the artistic processes the recording engineer and producer added.

There are a handful or two of accepted by professionals studio monitor makers. Tracking and mixing engineers will listen to each instrument for accuracy. Then they will go back and forth between track-stem sound and final mix sound for artistic intent towards the end listener.

They use accurate clinical monitors for stems and final mix. I like speakers like that in the home, others like other.

 

[MattHooper]

A quite 'dialectic' approach. One and the other combined reveal the very nature of recorded music. It depends on the recording as an individual artform. The artform uses abstractions like a pencil sketch of the real scene uses the outline as to show, to the human mind, the shape. Thing is to inspire the imaginaton. Look there:

It very much expresses the audiophool's distance to music. Listen to the speaker system in 'critical listening' mode or to a piece of art, recording process included? The more 'revealing' the speakers, the more the recording can be understood. The more understanding, the more imagination. The more imagination, the more music in the artificial presentation. Conclusively, the o/p's question is ill posed, again. The most unforgiving speaker is the poor one, a good speaker makes you forgive. Understanding is forgiving.

Not that I understood much of what you wrote, but I don't find it productive to call other audiophiles "fools" in the way your post suggests. Certainly we can talk about what is likely true, and what may be imagination or snake oil. But beyond that, I don't see any reason to disparage some other audiophile for "not listening the right way, or not doing the hobby the right way." We all have our own bliss. For some it's just buying some gear we heard at a store, setting it up and enjoying music. For others, it means spending endless hours on a site like this going over audio engineering theory and measurements. If someone has a $100,000 system and only listens to 50 albums because he is so in to the gear aspect, who am I to say "you are doing it wrong." His bliss is his bliss. Once you go down that road of critiquing, it's glass houses all around. (E.g., normal non audiophiles would say to virtually anyone here "why the heck do you need to spend all this time, thinking, effort and money on a sound system? Why can't you just enjoy music on modest systems like normal people?")

 

[subframe]

normal non audiophiles would say to virtually anyone here "why the heck do you need to spend all this time, thinking, effort and money on a sound system? Why can't you just enjoy music on your phone like normal people?")

FTFY

 

[YSC]

Not that I understood much of what you wrote, but I don't find it productive to call other audiophiles "fools" in the way your post suggests. Certainly we can talk about what is likely true, and what may be imagination or snake oil. But beyond that, I don't see any reason to disparage some other audiophile for "not listening the right way, or not doing the hobby the right way." We all have our own bliss. For some it's just buying some gear we heard at a store, setting it up and enjoying music. For others, it means spending endless hours on a site like this going over audio engineering theory and measurements. If someone has a $100,000 system and only listens to 50 albums because he is so in to the gear aspect, who am I to say "you are doing it wrong." His bliss is his bliss. Once you go down that road of critiquing, it's glass houses all around. (E.g., normal non audiophiles would say to virtually anyone here "why the heck do you need to spend all this time, thinking, effort and money on a sound system? Why can't you just enjoy music on modest systems like normal people?")

But more often than not, those sticking to technical side will just keep a good system, properly treat the room if they can and enjoy it for decades before it finally breaks, while solely purchase by subjective review/ brand name / by ear in showroom will often try to acquire the next best thing or a second system for different type of music which the speaker set suits.

This of course can be my observation bias by limited sample size