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

[Burning Sounds]

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??

Agree completely here.....

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.

But not completely here...

As music lovers we can hear through poor recordings and enjoy the essence of the event - this is especially true of live recordings. Poor recordings can be a result of several reasons, whether older technology or other technical issues. Several examples come to mind - The Who Live at Leeds was supposed to be a trial run for a later recording, but the power of that concert was captured brilliantly even if it is not of the highest fidelity.

Lee Perry's Black Ark recordings were all done on a 4 track Akai tape deck that showcases his ability at the mixing desk, but it's hardly high fidelity. It doesn't need to be as his genius (madness ) comes through.

The kind of thing that is unforgivable is typified by the new release of Eva Cassidy's Live at Blues Alley. The original single CD release is a good example of a great concert with pretty decent recording quality. The new extended 2 CD release (with DVD which is great, BTW) has had more compression applied than the original- I wonder who approved that?

 

[March Audio]

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

Now that is something that has always blown my mind, where you see recommendations for systems or components that are “better for genre X or Y”, say classic or rock.

That just means they are deficient in a way that isn’t overly noticeable in certain circumstances.

 

[dallasjustice]

If the music was intended to be played loud, then play it loud. If loud doesn’t sound good, there are changes that can be made to make loud sound better.

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

 

[Frank Dernie]

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 am not going to go out to listen to all modern releases in my car, or listen to it on my iPhone using earbuds.
99.9% of music is listened to thus and 99.9% of recordings are signed off by the artist with this in mind.
Most of the recordings I find to be bad were released in the last 10 years, and that is what they have in common.

 

[dallasjustice]

It is true that music has changed in the last ten years. What’s funny to me is that we still see the light jazz trio music played in hotel room demonstrations on delicate audiophile gear.

If the music has indeed changed and you still love the artists and their performances, you should consider changing how you play it back. What that means for you, I can’t say.

For me,speakers that play very loud with low distortion, subwoofers and DSP make the arrist’s performance at home sound great.

I am not going to go out to listen to all modern releases in my car, or listen to it on my iPhone using earbuds.
99.9% of music is listened to thus and 99.9% of recordings are signed off by the artist with this in mind.
Most of the recordings I find to be bad were released in the last 10 years, and that is what they have in common.

 

[Cosmik]

What’s funny to me is that we still see the light jazz trio music played in hotel room demonstrations on delicate audiophile gear.

I'm with you on that one. It's almost as though people are choosing music that will sound 'acceptable' on pretty much any equipment rather than something that will really reveal the system's capabilities.

 

[RayDunzl]

For me,speakers that play very loud

At what SPL do you listen?

 

[Analog Scott]

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.

Artista are sovereign? News to me. Artists are subject to critical review by critics, fans and their peers. Thyey ultimately answer to whomever pays the bills. Usually dudes in 3 piece suits who know nothing about art but think they do. A few artists in this world sometime in their lives will accend to a level of sovereigncy. But most live a life of servitude.

 

[Frank Dernie]

It is true that music has changed in the last ten years. What’s funny to me is that we still see the light jazz trio music played in hotel room demonstrations on delicate audiophile gear.

If the music has indeed changed and you still love the artists and their performances, you should consider changing how you play it back. What that means for you, I can’t say.

For me,speakers that play very loud with low distortion, subwoofers and DSP make the arrist’s performance at home sound great.

I have 109bB/watt horns with either a 40 watt valve or 1000 watt SS amp. Being able to play loud isn't a problem.
I rarely bother with modern music any more. That is more because I am an old fogey and don't particularly like it though. I have plenty of the music I -do- like to listen to enjoy for the rest of my life. I streamed Puccini's Tosca in video from the Berliner Philharmoniker "digital concert hall" last evening. I still find it hugely emotional after 30 years since I first discovered it and enjoying it 100s of times. None of the contemporary music I was enjoying years ago has stood the test of time.

The thread came about because one member announced that LPs weren't hifi, which I thought was a ridiculous statement because I have fabulous sounding LPs as well as horrid ones. Ditto CDs. It risks transmogrifying into another loudness wars borefest.

My point was only that being holier-than-thou about format when recordings vary more than format differences is daft.

 

[dallasjustice]

Artista are sovereign? News to me.

I’m glad you now know.

If you don’t like the artist’s music, about what are you complaining? Just don’t listen to the art if you don’t like it.

 

[Analog Scott]

It is true that music has changed in the last ten years. What’s funny to me is that we still see the light jazz trio music played in hotel room demonstrations on delicate audiophile gear.

If the music has indeed changed and you still love the artists and their performances, you should consider changing how you play it back. What that means for you, I can’t say.

For me,speakers that play very loud with low distortion, subwoofers and DSP make the arrist’s performance at home sound great.

Pretty sure most Jazz trios have a far greater DR than most compressed pop music. Playing overly compressed music at higher SPLs just makes the problem worse. Just making loud louder.

 

[Analog Scott]

I’m glad you now know.

As an artist working in the entertainment industry I already know that in most cases artists are not sovereign. Not even close

If you don’t like the artist’s music, about what are you complaining? Just don’t listen to the art if you don’t like it.

If I don't like the artists' music that's exactly what I do.

But if like the music but not the sound quality then it's a different story.

I don't just accept crap sound from good music because of some notion that the artist signed off on crap sound or that it the sound quality is sacred for any other reason. If there are options with any given recording I take the option that sounds best to me not the one I imagine the artist signed off on if that even actually happened.

 

[Thomas savage]

We don’t want a “ loudness war borefest” or ‘another’ format war borefest ..

Unless you have coffins filled with Swedish bog Pete hooked up to your gear your all listening to lo-fi anyway ..

 

[Thomas savage]

Pretty sure most Jazz trios have a far greater DR than most compressed pop music. Playing overly compressed music at higher SPLs just makes the problem worse. Just making loud louder.

You say that like it’s a bad thing

 

[sergeauckland]

Now that is something that has always blown my mind, where you see recommendations for systems or components that are “better for genre X or Y”, say classic or rock.

That just means they are deficient in a way that isn’t overly noticeable in certain circumstances.

I see it slightly differently. My system(s) are of the low coloration, flat frequency response, low distortion sort, and do a good job on good recordings of any genre. What it doesn't do a good job on is bad recordings, as it shows up the limitations all too clearly.

Two particular examples. Raising Sand by Alison Krauss and Robert Plant. Good songs and fine voices, but terrible recording, clipped and flat-tops all over the place. Human by Rag and Bone Man, fine modern blues, but again, clipped and flat-topped and unlistenable on my system. However, if I play them in the car or in the kitchen using the tiny TV 'speakers, it's fine, I can enjoy the musical content as the poor recording isn't noticeable, indeed might even make it better in getting over the inevitable background noise of the car or cooking.

These are only two examples of several modern recordings of this type.

I therefore have come to the conclusion that it's deliberately done this way for the ear-buds generation for whom sitting still in front of a hifi system is just not the way they consume music.

S

 

[Analog Scott]

I see it slightly differently. My system(s) are of the low coloration, flat frequency response, low distortion sort, and do a good job on good recordings of any genre. What it doesn't do a good job on is bad recordings, as it shows up the limitations all too clearly.

Two particular examples. Raising Sand by Alison Krauss and Robert Plant. Good songs and fine voices, but terrible recording, clipped and flat-tops all over the place. Human by Rag and Bone Man, fine modern blues, but again, clipped and flat-topped and unlistenable on my system. However, if I play them in the car or in the kitchen using the tiny TV 'speakers, it's fine, I can enjoy the musical content as the poor recording isn't noticeable, indeed might even make it better in getting over the inevitable background noise of the car or cooking.

These are only two examples of several modern recordings of this type.

I therefore have come to the conclusion that it's deliberately done this way for the ear-buds generation for whom sitting still in front of a hifi system is just not the way they consume music.

S

Raising Sand is a classic example of the LP being many many times superior to the CD.

 

[fas42]

I see it slightly differently. My system(s) are of the low coloration, flat frequency response, low distortion sort, and do a good job on good recordings of any genre. What it doesn't do a good job on is bad recordings, as it shows up the limitations all too clearly.

Two particular examples. Raising Sand by Alison Krauss and Robert Plant. Good songs and fine voices, but terrible recording, clipped and flat-tops all over the place. Human by Rag and Bone Man, fine modern blues, but again, clipped and flat-topped and unlistenable on my system. However, if I play them in the car or in the kitchen using the tiny TV 'speakers, it's fine, I can enjoy the musical content as the poor recording isn't noticeable, indeed might even make it better in getting over the inevitable background noise of the car or cooking.

Completely unfamiliar with Raising Sand - just tried playing some clips via YouTube on the laptop ... where's the problem? I have heard vastly "worse" recordings come together on a decent system - to my ears, this should be spectacularly good when the replay is up to it ...

 

[Wombat]

Completely unfamiliar with Raising Sand - just tried playing some clips via YouTube on the laptop ... where's the problem? I have heard vastly "worse" recordings come together on a decent system - to my ears, this should be spectacularly good when the replay is up to it ...

Possibly not the CD version?

DR scale ratings: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=krauss&album=raising+sand

 

[March Audio]

I see it slightly differently. My system(s) are of the low coloration, flat frequency response, low distortion sort, and do a good job on good recordings of any genre. What it doesn't do a good job on is bad recordings, as it shows up the limitations all too clearly.

Two particular examples. Raising Sand by Alison Krauss and Robert Plant. Good songs and fine voices, but terrible recording, clipped and flat-tops all over the place. Human by Rag and Bone Man, fine modern blues, but again, clipped and flat-topped and unlistenable on my system. However, if I play them in the car or in the kitchen using the tiny TV 'speakers, it's fine, I can enjoy the musical content as the poor recording isn't noticeable, indeed might even make it better in getting over the inevitable background noise of the car or cooking.

These are only two examples of several modern recordings of this type.

I therefore have come to the conclusion that it's deliberately done this way for the ear-buds generation for whom sitting still in front of a hifi system is just not the way they consume music.

S

SLightly different point to the one I was making. A bad recording is a bad recording and as you allude to low fi equipment may not expose it as such. To say that equipment is good for a genre of music is another (erroneous) thing imo.

 

[sergeauckland]

Completely unfamiliar with Raising Sand - just tried playing some clips via YouTube on the laptop ... where's the problem? I have heard vastly "worse" recordings come together on a decent system - to my ears, this should be spectacularly good when the replay is up to it ...

My bitstream analyser indicates that the track hits 0dBFS many times during each track, so showing clear signs of limiting. Limiting wouldn't be so bad, but ripping the CD and looking at the waveform, there's many a flat-top indicating that it's not just limiting, but clipping.

S.