The recording has a bigger influence on sound quality than any of our equipment

[Frank Dernie]

I don't know how many others have come to the same conclusion, and how it influences them.

When first debating with myself how much better CDs were than LPs back in the 1980s, it seemed to me that since I had some fabulous sounding LPs and some pretty ropey ones, and amongst the first 20 or so CDs I bought there were some with sublime audio quality and others were horrid, that it is certainly not the distribution medium which guarantees (or prohibits) sound quality.

Listening now to a very enjoyable 1945 recording of Pablo Casals it is obvious to me that as a recording it is way more coloured than all the good LPs I own never mind the finest CDs.

I tend to play what I want to listen to next regardless of sound quality, whether historic, LP or CD. I have put a fair bit of effort and money into buying hardware that appeals to my ears but, in the end, I rarely take a recording off because it sounds poor although I do rejoice when the sound is particularly good.
I think the last time I took a poor recording off was a REM CD which was hideously hammered into the limiters, but I was not being inspired by the music anyway - and I haven't tried playing it again.

Am I on my own in this?

 

[DonH56]

Musicians listen to the music, audiophiles listen to the gear, one of my "oldies". And one of my, and many others', primary complaints is the way so many earlier recordings have been remastered apparently for a world of cars and low-rate MP3's. I tend to think one reason many younger folk do not appreciate better sound is because they simply haven't heard it.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I suppose it is a much bigger problem with pop music, if I had really been a big REM fan I would have been stuck with the dire recording as the only thing to listen to.
My vintage Casals recording is just an example of one of the interpretations of music I have recorded by other musicians. I do have higher sound quality recordings of different interpretations too though often my favourite isn't the best recorded.

 

[Cosmik]

A good thread topic. My view:

I think that we (or people like me, anyway) are pretty tolerant of the mix: I probably won't hate a track on the basis of the relative levels of the various elements, panning, or even any EQ and effects applied to the individual elements. As long as the separation between elements is maintained and some of them are straight(-ish) I will probably adapt, or accept everything as 'the performance'. The 'straight' acoustic elements act as the anchor or backdrop against which the more synthetic elements can shine.

I think there is a big difference between this and blanket effects or distortions. If the whole track is passed through a distortion stage or double-tracking, for example, I may not like it on that basis. And by that I mean passing the recording through a single metaphorical 'fuzzbox' rather than using a separate fuzzbox for each of three guitars, say - the result is vastly different due to intermodulation.

The problem with dodgy audio systems is that they are effectively putting the whole track through the metaphorical fuzzbox.

Some recordings may suffer from having been passed through a blanket 'effect' (possibly a degraded master tape) and they sound awful. Whereas, a re-mixed recording from multiple tracks may suffer from vintage distortion and dodgy effects on the individual tracks, but you will still enjoy it and be able to hear that it is being played over a good hi-fi system due to the lack of intermodulation between the elements.

So I think a good hi-fi may be discernible in circumstances where you may not expect it.

 

[Old Listener]

I don't know how many others have come to the same conclusion, and how it influences them.

...

I tend to play what I want to listen to next regardless of sound quality, whether historic, LP or CD. I have put a fair bit of effort and money into buying hardware that appeals to my ears but, in the end, I rarely take a recording off because it sounds poor although I do rejoice when the sound is particularly good.
I think the last time I took a poor recording off was a REM CD which was hideously hammered into the limiters, but I was not being inspired by the music anyway - and I haven't tried playing it again.

Am I on my own in this?

You are not on your own. Listening to recorded music has been a major part of my life for more than 50 years. Having good sound adds to the pleasure but I haven't been an audiophile gearhead for years.

I'd much rather listen to Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw recordings originally on 78s than to mediocre performances recorded in modern sound.

Mostly, I listen to classical music. I've accumulated a good collection of the works that interest me. When I choose what to listen to next, I almost always pick based on performance rather than sound quality.

A word about remastered reissues. I've found that reissues of classical music often lessen the defects of older recordings. In pop music, reissues are likely to be more compressed and unpleasant to listen to.

 

[iridium]

I don't know how many others have come to the same conclusion, and how it influences them.

When first debating with myself how much better CDs were than LPs back in the 1980s, it seemed to me that since I had some fabulous sounding LPs and some pretty ropey ones, and amongst the first 20 or so CDs I bought there were some with sublime audio quality and others were horrid, that it is certainly not the distribution medium which guarantees (or prohibits) sound quality.

Listening now to a very enjoyable 1945 recording of Pablo Casals it is obvious to me that as a recording it is way more coloured than all the good LPs I own never mind the finest CDs.

I tend to play what I want to listen to next regardless of sound quality, whether historic, LP or CD. I have put a fair bit of effort and money into buying hardware that appeals to my ears but, in the end, I rarely take a recording off because it sounds poor although I do rejoice when the sound is particularly good.
I think the last time I took a poor recording off was a REM CD which was hideously hammered into the limiters, but I was not being inspired by the music anyway - and I haven't tried playing it again.

Am I on my own in this?

I throw-away or give-away recordings on a regular basis.
Criteria to keep is simple:

1. Do I truly ever want to listen to this recording again?
2. I only need ONE track that I want to listen to again.

iridium.

 

[Burning Sounds]

In pop music, reissues are likely to be more compressed and unpleasant to listen to.

How true...and unfortunately not only reissues. In Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood's Live From Madison Square Garden CD most songs have a DR of 7. But "Rambling on my mind" has a DR of 14 and is consequently so much more enjoyable. Why everything else had to be so compressed puzzles me.
As I get older I find I'm less tolerant of poor recordings no matter how good the performance, which has led me to explore other genres where recording quality is often much better.

 

[Rodney Gold]

The better the recording and the better the gear and room , the better the sense of being involved in the music.
I find life too short to listen to drek productions , there are millions of other good ones with music content that take my fancy.. Roon and tidal make it easy to expand your music horizons

 

[Analog Scott]

I don't know how many others have come to the same conclusion, and how it influences them.

When first debating with myself how much better CDs were than LPs back in the 1980s, it seemed to me that since I had some fabulous sounding LPs and some pretty ropey ones, and amongst the first 20 or so CDs I bought there were some with sublime audio quality and others were horrid, that it is certainly not the distribution medium which guarantees (or prohibits) sound quality.

Listening now to a very enjoyable 1945 recording of Pablo Casals it is obvious to me that as a recording it is way more coloured than all the good LPs I own never mind the finest CDs.

I tend to play what I want to listen to next regardless of sound quality, whether historic, LP or CD. I have put a fair bit of effort and money into buying hardware that appeals to my ears but, in the end, I rarely take a recording off because it sounds poor although I do rejoice when the sound is particularly good.
I think the last time I took a poor recording off was a REM CD which was hideously hammered into the limiters, but I was not being inspired by the music anyway - and I haven't tried playing it again.

Am I on my own in this?

No! You are not alone.
For me audio serves one purpose, to give me the best possible sound quality when listening to the music I want to hear.
The music comes first, period. The audio is there in service of the music and not the other way around.
Variations in mastering and medium matter. They matter to me only in so much as they affect the sound quality of any given recording I want to listen to. My preferences in medium and mastering depends on what is available for a particular recording. It is always determined on a case by case basis.
I will look for the best sounding version of a recording that matters to me musically. I will settle for what is best no matter how bad that may be. I can live with good music suffering from bad sound.
I have no interest in great sounding recordings of music I don't care for.

That's how it goes for me. Not saying it's the right way or the only way. Just that it is my way.

 

[Thomas savage]

I’m the same, great music or music I find great.., the delivery method serves the music it’s a means to a end. I will accept terrible recordings if I love the music, but I no intrest in great recording of terrible music or music I find terrible.

 

[tomelex]

There is so much music out there now that pretty much if it catches my fancy AND it is recorded well, its a keeper. Just like food, I have a food budget, and for audio a time budget, and if it is not well mastered I will not digitize it to my favorites.

Music from my formative years, well, I put up with poorer recordings, just to have a listen once in a while, but its more for nostalgia than for the quality of the recording. I don't look back too often anymore.

I absolutely will not listen too any music that is compressed to hell or even near hell. I have too much good stuff to waste my time. And I agree that a lot of remasters are horrible, and a lot of greatest hits as well, I prefer greatest hits that say original recordings and original artists. Those are usually atleast OK.

 

[CuteStudio]

I think that mood has the most effect, but I agree that a good recording is more important than the equipment it's played on. I'm perhaps an unusual audiophile in a way because I see the gear as just something to get close to the music, or at least to not get in the way.

One of the issues in the HiFi religion is that the people who really believe in the hype and get their wooden blocks and cables miss (and have no idea about) the basics of what they are feeding into the front. Many after a few minutes with Audacity and their CD would I suspect be rather shocked at their 'bit imperfect' / 'terrible quality forever' CD data.

Recently I bought these CDs (amongst others, but these illustrate the point)

Luma Lane, absolutely fantastic quality recordings. Good dynamics, low compression, low or no clipping, 1980s quality even!!

Then some Susanne Sundfor, pretty variable but pretty good for modern recordings with some clipping (red horizontal bars) and compression on a few:

And then one that was a bit of a disappointment due to it's rather flat and shouty character caused by low dynamic range and high compression. Needless to say they are all badly clipped - into the tens of thousands of clips. It still has some good songs, but it could have been so much better and so much more.

So yes, recordings matter - agreed!

All 'Remastered' CDs I have are rubbish. Old Dire Straits still sounds the best, as does Pink Floyd that has no clipping and huge dynamic range and still sounds awesome, Comfortably Better than todays highly skilled processes that can surgically remove all interest from a recording, leaving a flat, dull terrible noise where there could have been real magic.

It's revealing that the steady deterioration in the mastering quality recorded music has been closely followed by the growing mass disinterest in HiFi, closure of HiFi shops and the switch away from real bands toward 12 year old starlets who can look cute and sing vaguely in tune on the X factor. The fact that most instruments today are 'invisible' in the way that an old Ford in a carpark is speaks volumes for what we lose when the dynamics are pressed out and we just get the pith.

Perhaps you are the same, but the first thing I notice with an older, better mastered recording is the sound of the drums, like spotting a shiny 57 Chevy, in today's music you know they are there but somehow they are invisible. I also find myself laughing at tracks from the bland modern generic rock when the snare drum is quieter than an acoustic guitar string. Needless to say they don't get played again, a shame as I guess some effort went into making the music before it was dissolved, sieved and processed into todays sausage shaped product for consumption.

 

[fas42]

I tend to play what I want to listen to next regardless of sound quality, whether historic, LP or CD. I have put a fair bit of effort and money into buying hardware that appeals to my ears but, in the end, I rarely take a recording off because it sounds poor although I do rejoice when the sound is particularly good.
I think the last time I took a poor recording off was a REM CD which was hideously hammered into the limiters, but I was not being inspired by the music anyway - and I haven't tried playing it again.

Am I on my own in this?

No. I also approach listening on the basis of what "tickles my fancy", at that moment. If a system is good enough to extract all what matters, and place it uppermost in my subjective experiencing, then I'm happy.

Recordings vary enormously, in their "quality" - and that's part of the experience. Like walking into different houses, or meeting different people ...

 

[fas42]

Some recordings may suffer from having been passed through a blanket 'effect' (possibly a degraded master tape) and they sound awful. Whereas, a re-mixed recording from multiple tracks may suffer from vintage distortion and dodgy effects on the individual tracks, but you will still enjoy it and be able to hear that it is being played over a good hi-fi system due to the lack of intermodulation between the elements.

So I think a good hi-fi may be discernible in circumstances where you may not expect it.

This is the area that I find particularly interesting ... when a recording was mastered from an extremely 'dodgy' source, typically something very old, worn out, etc - can it be 'rescued'?

Remarkably, I find that it can - the most amateurish, rough, dilapidated captures still retain enough of what matters, to make the subjective experience "work". I started my current audio journey thinking otherwise - but have always been proven to be wrong, in the end. Which allows me to discriminate the quality of systems very easily - can the particular rig reveal what I know is on that recording - or, does it screw it up ... ?

 

[dallasjustice]

If the artist signed off on it, then the recording is great. It needs no improvement.

If you find that many recordings to be bad, they all have one thing in common.

 

[watchnerd]

I thought the premise of this thread was well known common wisdom.

After all, GIGO.

 

[dallasjustice]

I thought the premise of this thread was well known common wisdom.

After all, GIGO.

Unassailable logic indeed!

But many folks take it a step too far. Many audiophiles extend the faulty logic called post hoc ergo propter hoc to system design. The logic goes something like this:

If you are to order rank from most to least significant contributor to seated position playback quality, GIGO principle mandates that the order rank descends from electrical outlet to the speakers in a linear way.

From this faulty perspective, it’s easy to blame all system deficiencies on the recording. Afterall, the recording came first in the playback chain; Right??

IMO, it’s alot of excuse making from folks who need to improve their own system playback before criticizing the artists’ work. IMO, the artist is sovereign and it’s the listener’s responsibility to adapt their playback to suit the art.

But what about loud pop music with lots of DR limiting? The answer is to find a playback chain that better compliments such music.

It’s really about the artist and their performance. If you love the music, make it happen.

 

[Cosmik]

But what about loud pop music with lots of DR limiting? The answer is to find a playback chain that better compliments such music.

What sort of system is that? Are you recommending different systems for different classes of recording?

 

[Thomas savage]

Unassailable logic indeed!

But many folks take it a step too far. Many audiophiles extend the faulty logic called post hoc ergo propter hoc to system design. The logic goes something like this:

If you are to order rank from most to least significant contributor to seated position playback quality, GIGO principle mandates that the order rank descends from electrical outlet to the speakers in a linear way.

From this faulty perspective, it’s easy to blame all system deficiencies on the recording. Afterall, the recording came first in the playback chain; Right??

IMO, it’s alot of excuse making from folks who need to improve their own system playback before criticizing the artists’ work. IMO, the artist is sovereign and it’s the listener’s responsibility to adapt their playback to suit the art.

But what about loud pop music with lots of DR limiting? The answer is to find a playback chain that better compliments such music.

It’s really about the artist and their performance. If you love the music, make it happen.

Right on sister ...

 

[Analog Scott]

If the artist signed off on it, then the recording is great. It needs no improvement.

If you find that many recordings to be bad, they all have one thing in common.

I think that is far too broad a brush.