• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
The latter. It is so that the other "audiophool" I was referring to has the habit to happily and reluctantly ignore the recording process, the making of the recording. How much of, reiterated, *abstraction* is used when translating an often only virtual performance to a recording which shall be listened to *not* critical but with joy and enlightment.

Every single time in the past I mentioned necessary *abstractions* I was ignored, systematically. As if the concept of an abstraction was too abstract. Despite the given example of a pencil sketch on paper, abstraction as an artform, as THE essence of art. Dare to reiterate, the recording--the audio enthusist's "SIGNAL", is everything else than an electric copy of a real thing.

I think I need someone else here to interpret this. I'm still sensing a whole lotta judgment...but not following what is being said specifically.

Given the very fact that a recording is an artifact of art, how could an audio enthusiast shell out the verdict "low-quality"?! Especially if he/she is ignorant of the very fact that it is an abstraction anyway?

You seem to be conflating two different things: A judgement of the art (music) and the judgement of the sound quality.

They are separate and, contra your apparent presumption, most people know this and don't mix it up. One can reasonably talk about "poor sound quality" even when discussing an "artifact of art" because that in itself isn't denying the intention of the artist.

Take and example like the electronica group Boards Of Canada. They use old analog synths and snippets of things like old Canadian public service anouncements, and they purposely degrade the sound by making many successive analog tape copies until the sound takes on that warbly, muffled quality of a very old tape. It's done to evoke a memory-like impression. They are making "lo-fi" or "low sound quality" versions deliberately - they know it, and their fans know it. We can identify these "lo-fi' elements in their albums without at all contradicting that it is wonderful art (for those who like it, like me). Sometimes a track will consist only of these degraded tape loop sounds. Often the tracks combine both very vivid and "high quality" recordings of synth/drum accompaniment, while some degraded tape loops play off in the background. One can easily talk about which elements are of higher or lower sound quality in a single track, and this does not imply therefore one is "ignorant of the fact it's an abstraction" (presumably, as the artist intended).

Likewise, anyone can talk about the sound quality of, say, a live concert recording, whether it's some crappy tape made by a Dead-Head, or something like the Eagles live in concert re-union tour. Are they "artistic artifacts?" Well, sure. Are all live recordings such? Maybe. Do they all represent the exact artistic intentions of the artists involved?
Probably a range of answers there. But none of that entails one can't discuss the differences in sound quality, judging one poorer than another, without making the "mistake" you presume those audiophiles are making.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
18
Likes
29
Hi
It is sometimes mentioned that some of the best speakers in the world only work well with the best recordings, because they are so good they will expose bad recordings.

It there some truth to that, and if so, what would cause it? It is not something I have experienced myself. Every time I do a substantial upgrade, I think all my music sounds better.
The headline is a direct quote from this review:

In my experience better speakers actually made bad recordings listenable.
 

fineMen

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 31, 2021
Messages
1,504
Likes
679
I think I need someone else here to interpret this. I'm still sensing a whole lotta judgment...but not following what is being said specifically.
What is it?
ou seem to be conflating two different things: A judgement of the art (music) and the judgement of the sound quality.
Please go ahead as I think you wish to define the terms 'music' in relation to a recording, what part of the recording is the music, and not the least what 'sound quality' is as another part of the recording.

You know, I tried to exlain to some avail with others my point several times. You may not agree!
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
What is it?

Please go ahead as I think you wish to define the terms 'music' in relation to a recording, what part of the recording is the music, and not the least what 'sound quality' is as another part of the recording.

You know, I tried to exlain to some avail with others my point several times. You may not agree!

I have no problems with conversations that involve subtle conceptual distinctions. But I think here we have the classic "failure to communicate" so I have to throw in the towel.
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,022
Likes
3,318
Location
bay area, ca
A more revealing chain will invariably also more clearly reveal flaws in ho-hum recordings (which covers a lot of music whether we like it or not). But that doesn't mean the music becomes unsatisfying - one of my favorite recordings of all time is Karl Muenchinger's "Canon" rendition from the late 1950s... very audible tape hiss. Still love it, and still use it as a reference.

I think the whole thing about "forgiving" audio equipment is yet another audio clichee.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
A more revealing chain will invariably also more clearly reveal flaws in ho-hum recordings (which covers a lot of music whether we like it or not). But that doesn't mean the music becomes unsatisfying - one of my favorite recordings of all time is Karl Muenchinger's "Canon" rendition from the late 1950s... very audible tape hiss. Still love it, and still use it as a reference.

I agree. At least that's my criteria for a "revealing/high performance" system. Ideally there will be no deficit - all the detail in a recording will be reproduced, the imaging, the specific timbres, and the dynamics. If the system is high performance in all those regards, then if one or two aspects are less than great in a recording - say thinner in the bass or maybe not very detailed, the system can still dig out the dynamics and excitement captured in the recording making it worthwhile.

I think the whole thing about "forgiving" audio equipment is yet another audio clichee.

Yes it's a cliche, but I think it's a worthwhile description so long as someone is clear how they are using it. It's been advocated by a number of folks on this site to have a neutral system but employ EQ if you want for hard to listen to recordings. For instance if you find a recording too shrill or lacking in richness you can goose the EQ settings, to a more "forgiving" less bright, warmer sound. A speaker may have similar traits in it's frequency response and so can rightly be described as "more forgiving of poor recordings." But of course if you go too far you can end up losing some of the traits that allow great recordings to be more exciting.
 

Wseaton

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
41
Likes
60
Friend of mine has a pair of older Legacy Focus, and those things are utterly brutal when it comes to subpar recordings, especially older rock.. The Focus are basically giant, 5-way monitors with an absurdly massive frequency range and damn near horn like sensitivity They are also d'apolito which I've always found those designs when designed right almost too revealing given their lack of vertical 'air' . Pinpoint, razor sharp imaging across the entire room - and 6" tall - lol. Why MTMs kinda faded out I guess. Oddly the Focus are extremely tolerant of electronics.

I've heard hundreds of high end speakers in my life time, but nothing as intolerant of mediocre mastering as those things.

Wilson shreds bad mastering as well. Watt Puppies are tough on icky recordings. Basically any time aligned speaker is going to be tough on recordings because its usually dynamic compression either analog or digital that bugs us.
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
I have noticed the opposite. :)

I see a lot of "traditional" non-technical audiophiles with audio equipment they had for about 20-30 years, and they still seem satisfied with their gear with no apparent longing for upgrades.

But on this very forum, I see a lot of people running amock for the next upgrade of their current gear, like small technical refinements of the very same speaker or amp they already have. Those small technical refinements have (most likely) very small audible benefits, but still, they can't wait to make the upgrade. KEF's lineup of Meta upgrades comes to mind, in a similar fashion as the car industry selling this year's version to the people who bought last year's version of the same car model. :)
individual observations varies, but in my understanding and my community, traditional audiophiles have so much myths they purchase a main system and a few small passives, paried with a few types of cables and cable risers, vinyl head (I agree though the needle quality does matter) and a few diff flavor of tube amps for that sake, while tech ppl just use basic cables that do the job and enjoy the whole music.

I won't generalize from special forum discussion trend, coz in any gear forum, be it traditional audiophile/here in ASR, you lurk in a gear forum and post only when you really wanted to upgrade, traditional/subjective just audiophiles won't post their upgrade post here. generally technical ppl don't have that much to upgrade itch as often and non-technical ppl may not change their huge, main speakers often, but tinkering with parts is a hack more frequent
 

Cote Dazur

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
619
Likes
758
Location
Canada
Hi
It is sometimes mentioned that some of the best speakers in the world only work well with the best recordings, because they are so good they will expose bad recordings.

It there some truth to that, and if so, what would cause it? It is not something I have experienced myself. Every time I do a substantial upgrade, I think all my
The headline is a direct quote from this review:

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

Such a great question, thank for this thread. Just as an answer to the question, yes some system will reveal particular aspect of the recordings better than other. speaker sound do not exist out side the room, very dependent on where they are listen to and where they are positioned in the said room specific acoustic.
Revealing can be great or not so great depending on what is there to reveal in the first place.
Balance might be the better approach, we want the best to shine, but not artificially, you want to look at all the details but not too close as to loose all the perspective on what is to be seen.
A balanced FR response, minimal distortion and resonance will allow to hear what is in the recording without giving to much importance to one aspect or the other. Placing the system away from boundaries and away from room modes will minimize coloration of the sound, more than changing speaker a for speaker b, if well done, all recording will be presented in a fair way, much like a neutral headphone or IEM will do. Once coloration is eliminated, it is quite amazing how great most recordings are at letting trough the emotion of the music, allowing attentive listening session without listening fatigue. We might prefer one producer to an other, but should always refrain to modify, alter, what is in the recording to have a better chance to understand, appreciate, what that recording is about. It might take a song or two to enter the new universe when switching from one record to an other, but it is worth the patience to access all the variety we have access to, much like we would not alter the light when watching different paintings, just because we might prefer a colder light to a warmer light.
Coloration, is not a sign of greatness, it is a sign of tempering and should be avoided at all cost.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
18
Likes
29
All I know is that terribly mixed music wasn't enjoyable at all, at times unbearable on my previous speakers (Kali IN-8 v2, phenomenal speakers, but their on/off axis mismatch is very apparent in my untreated room) to KH120s.

You can always colour your own music with an EQ or saturator plugin if that's your shtick.

A simply EQ is great (on top of room correction filters, of course), but anything beyond that doesn't sound better to my ears.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806

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

Such a great question, thank for this thread. Just as an answer to the question, yes some system will reveal particular aspect of the recordings better than other. speaker sound do not exist out side the room, very dependent on where they are listen to and where they are positioned in the said room specific acoustic.
Revealing can be great or not so great depending on what is there to reveal in the first place.
Balance might be the better approach, we want the best to shine, but not artificially, you want to look at all the details but not too close as to loose all the perspective on what is to be seen.
A balanced FR response, minimal distortion and resonance will allow to hear what is in the recording without giving to much importance to one aspect or the other. Placing the system away from boundaries and away from room modes will minimize coloration of the sound, more than changing speaker a for speaker b, if well done, all recording will be presented in a fair way, much like a neutral headphone or IEM will do. Once coloration is eliminated, it is quite amazing how great most recordings are at letting trough the emotion of the music, allowing attentive listening session without listening fatigue. We might prefer one producer to an other, but should always refrain to modify, alter, what is in the recording to have a better chance to understand, appreciate, what that recording is about. It might take a song or two to enter the new universe when switching from one record to an other, but it is worth the patience to access all the variety we have access to, much like we would not alter the light when watching different paintings, just because we might prefer a colder light to a warmer light.
Coloration, is not a sign of greatness, it is a sign of tempering and should be avoided at all cost.

Some good suggestions if one desires the most accurate possible sound reproduction.

Though...I do find the general theme of the necessity for such a system to let the nature of the recordings (and the "emotion") come through, to be a bit oversold. I hold that
the specific qualities contained in recordings - everything from the songwriting, performance, choice of instruments, production choices etc, vastly swamp any colorations
most systems might impose. I mean, the distinctive recordings of everything from The Beatles, The Stones, The Beach Boys, Phil Specter's production etc, came through on a massive variety of pretty crappy equipment when those bands were popular (from transistor radios on the beach, car radios, to cheap turntables teenagers or whoever used to hear their favorite groups). The colorations in most audiophile set ups - cite the poor measuring amp or speaker of your choice - still let through an amount of recorded detail well beyond the average music lover's set up, and different recordings sound different on all of them.

The type of colorations sweated over here are very minor in the big picture. But, that's what we audiophiles do. :).
 
D

Deleted member 48726

Guest
Well. I've experienced speakers that seems to not play "all of the instruments" in a track. Lately I've experienced it on a pair of Cerwin Vega CLS215's. It was a strange feeling because I listened to a song that I knew very well from back home and on this system I swear only half the instruments where playing.. :)
 

theREALdotnet

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,036
I mean, the distinctive recordings of everything from The Beatles, The Stones, The Beach Boys, Phil Specter's production etc, came through on a massive variety of pretty crappy equipment when those bands were popular (from transistor radios on the beach, car radios, to cheap turntables teenagers or whoever used to hear their favorite groups).

Some of the early Beatles “stereo” recordings can only be enjoyed on AM radio. They sound atrocious on a stereo system.
 

theREALdotnet

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,036
The worst produced album I ever heard is this:

View attachment 284177

Fun fact,CD costs 79$ euro in Amazon.
Try it,your speakers are not broken,don't worry.

That’s the worst produced album you’ve heard? It sounds fine through my speakers. Far from the best, but I’ve heard much worse. It’s not an album I’d recommend to anyone – for starters, I don’t care for the string arrangement of the Goldberg variations (then again, one of the most popular recordings is a questionable arrangement for Steinway and baritone ;)). The violins playing the main voices here are way too much spotlighted for my taste, but overall the recording isn’t too bad.
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,213
Likes
24,172
If y'all need a test track, might I (with characteristic humility) suggest the Moody Blues' early hit, Go Now?

low-res ;) example:

I don't think any loudspeaker will make it sound good.

Oh, and I'd also like to mention my bias against most much early to mid 1980s pop music (at least as originally released on LP): The 'big hits' of the era were often (IMO/IME) distressingly (over) compressed, thin, and steely sounding. I don't think much will help 'em.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
If y'all need a test track, might I (with characteristic humility) suggest the Moody Blues' early hit, Go Now?

low-res ;) example:

I don't think any loudspeaker will make it sound good.

Oh, and I'd also like to mention my bias against most much early to mid 1980s pop music (at least as originally released on LP): The 'big hits' of the era were often (IMO/IME) distressingly (over) compressed, thin, and steely sounding. I don't think much will help 'em.
I remember Eddy Offord complaining about bad valves when recording ELP, when they were out of favor and consigned to the back studio. This sounds like a similar situation.
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,213
Likes
24,172
I remember Eddy Offord complaining about bad valves when recording ELP, when they were out of favor and consigned to the back studio. This sounds like a similar situation.
It does frankly sound overmodulated to me.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
It does frankly sound overmodulated to me.
Gotta think the studio just didn't care if they released something that grainy sounding.
 

Sokel

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
5,840
Likes
5,772
That’s the worst produced album you’ve heard? It sounds fine through my speakers. Far from the best, but I’ve heard much worse. It’s not an album I’d recommend to anyone – for starters, I don’t care for the string arrangement of the Goldberg variations (then again, one of the most popular recordings is a questionable arrangement for Steinway and baritone ;)). The violins playing the main voices here are way too much spotlighted for my taste, but overall the recording isn’t too bad.
It's not only the violins,Image is all over the place too in some points.
(It's bright in a torture way in some points,for me at least,perfomance is another conversation)
 
Top Bottom