Why does the music played at AXPONA suck so bad?

[Chris A]

To really separate the good systems from the poor - pretty much anything non-acoustic by Led Zeppelin. Funny enough you very rarely get any of that played at shows.

I find it interesting that you picked something that is a "modulation distortion generator" ("IMD") as the sole discriminator among loudspeakers (......).

The problem I find with Led Zeppelin albums is that the period microphones and analog tape recorders that were used for their production quickly reveal their limitations. [I own the Led Zeppelin albums (CDs) but I don't generally listen to them because of this.] If you move forward to ~1982 when digital recorders and better microphones began to be used widely, I find that I no longer find myself listening to the problems in the recordings themselves--especially with this genre of music.

You could probably list anything that has thick harmonic content combined with heavy kick drum transients and the tendency for listeners to play the recordings well above 83 dB at the listening position (i.e., the average loudness level used by most mastering guys).

Chris

 

[Mart68]

You could probably list anything that has thick harmonic content combined with heavy kick drum transients

Probably yes but Zep's as good as anything.

I don't find showcase recordings give the same tells.

 

[Chris A]

I think my point was that the recordings you reference clearly have significant subjective listening issues by themselves, at least in my experience.

Move forward into the mid-1980s where the phase shifts of digital recorders and full-range microphones are greatly reduced, while listening on a phase-flattened set of loudspeakers having good full-range directivity control to control early reflections (or full absorption around the loudspeaker positions in-room out to 4-5 ms of radial distance--resulting in higher direct/reflected ratios). You'll clearly hear it: a flat, dull, opaque presentation relative to the better 80s recordings within the same genre.

Chris

 

[Mart68]

I think my point was that the recordings you reference clearly have significant subjective listening issues by themselves, at least in my experience.

Move forward into the mid-1980s where the phase shifts of digital recorders and full-range microphones are greatly reduced, while listening on a phase-flattened set of loudspeakers having good full-range directivity control to control early reflections (or full absorption around the loudspeaker positions in-room out to 4-5 ms of radial distance--resulting in higher direct/reflected ratios). You'll clearly hear it: a flat, dull, opaque presentation relative to the better 80s recordings within the same genre.

Chris

My point was that them being far from perfect recordings is what makes them useful to me. Give the speakers every chance to fail, not to succeed.

 

[paddycrow]

Taste in music is a personal matter, and people do take it personally. One thing to keep in mind is that there are plenty of people out there that intensely dislike your personal favorite (and like your least favorite). I happen to like some artists that get denigrated on this site, and dislike some that get held up as a standard by which all should be judged.

Try to disagree without being disagreeable...

 

[Sokel]

Richard Strauss and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, it's both truth and dare

(suspicious reps with limited dynamic gear won't touch them)

 

[Chris A]

Taste in music is a personal matter, and people do take it personally. One thing to keep in mind is that there are plenty of people out there that intensely dislike your personal favorite (and like your least favorite)...Try to disagree without being disagreeable...

I agree with this. There is much here in this thread that I don't agree with (purely personal preference discussions that are stated as facts). However, I do think that discussing the fidelity of certain recordings is "in bounds".

I do believe that there is something further at the root of this thread that actually deserves more discussion:

1. the notion that some hi-fi gear can make obviously flawed recorded music sound better than it inherently is, and...
2. if there are any subjective issues with what the listener hears (or wants to hear) with flawed reproduction due to the recording itself--it's primarily the fault of the loudspeakers--not the recording.

I've found there is a lot to be desired of many, many recordings nowadays. The Loudness War practices are at least one elephant in the room...but certainly not the only one, I'm afraid. There are a host of other issues that I've found, first hand, in the production of commercial music recordings. I've got over 10 years correcting some of those issues...(where it's possible).

Both of the above notions are alien to me. Although there are times when the second notion might be true, assuming that due diligence in selecting/building and setting up your listening room and setup has been accomplished well, it's much more often the fault of the recorded music itself.

I believe that the above two notions represent real impediments to achieving real hi-fi audio: reproducing recordings as closely to how they were created as is possible.

Everything else seems to be "magical thinking".

These two notions seem to pervade even into the ranks of the "objectivist crowd" found on this site, even though they clearly are not rationally based.

Chris

 

[kemmler3D]

I agree with this. There is much here in this thread that I don't agree with (purely personal preference discussions that are stated as facts). However, I do think that discussing the fidelity of certain recordings is "in bounds".

I do believe that there is something further at the root of this thread that actually deserves more discussion:

1. the notion that some hi-fi gear can make obviously flawed recorded music sound better than it inherently is, and...
2. if there are any subjective issues with what the listener hears (or wants to hear) with flawed reproduction due to the recording itself--it's primarily the fault of the loudspeakers--not the recording.

I've found there is a lot to be desired of many, many recordings nowadays. The Loudness War practices are at least one elephant in the room...but certainly not the only one, I'm afraid. There are a host of other issues that I've found, first hand, in the production of commercial music recordings. I've got over 10 years correcting some of those issues...(where it's possible).

Both of the above notions are alien to me. Although there are times when the second notion might be true, assuming that due diligence in selecting/building and setting up your listening room and setup has been accomplished well, it's much more often the fault of the recorded music itself.

I believe that the above two notions represent real impediments to achieving real hi-fi audio: reproducing recordings as closely to how they were created as is possible.

Everything else seems to be "magical thinking".

These two notions seem to pervade even into the ranks of the "objectivist crowd" found on this site, even though they clearly are not rationally based.

Chris

Flawed hi-fi gear can definitely enhance some recordings, you just need a lucky match between a problem with the spectral balance of the recording and a problem with the frequency response of the gear. A speaker that is objectively too bright can make some bad recordings sound nice, for example.

Still, this is not a good reason to seek flawed gear any more than the slim possibility of safely landing in a lake is a good reason to jump without a parachute.

On #2 I totally agree. Recordings should come through as they are, good or bad, on good speakers.

 

[Chris A]

Flawed hi-fi gear can definitely enhance some recordings, you just need a lucky match between a problem with the spectral balance of the recording and a problem with the frequency response of the gear. A speaker that is objectively too bright can make some bad recordings sound nice, for example.

If you click on the second link I posted, above--you can fix all of those kind of issues.

That's why that link was posted--to eliminate those sort of "choices among bad alternatives".

Chris

 

[Puddingbuks]

You can say that the mix translated , for example Ace Of Base "the sign" would sound horrible on all systems , from your iPhone speakers to Genelec or Revel flagship speakers .

Just played this song twice and just can see how "horrible" this should sound...? Fits the song / genre nicely. Punchy defined bass.

This (fantastic) Eva Cassidy song is often played by audiophiles, but I find the voice distorting and almost hurting my ears at around 0:53 - 0:59...? and at 2:25?

Listened on my new set studio monitors Focal Solo ST6 with Focal CMS sub subwoofer.

 

[sigbergaudio]

The less problems a speaker has, the more music will sound great/good or at least okay. While there can be flawed speakers that have "lucky matches" with some tracks, overall, more tracks will sound better on a competent speaker.

 

[LTig]

To really separate the good systems from the poor - pretty much anything non-acoustic by Led Zeppelin. Funny enough you very rarely get any of that played at shows.

I listened to a Led Zeppelin song on request of another listener, played on a half million Euro system (Naim Audio Statement amplification, Focal Grande Utopia EM Evo speakers). The sound was strange and unconvincing, nothing I would invest any money in. I think one of the causes was the room and lack of room EQ.

 

[DanielT]

I don't think I've ever been to a show - and I've been to lots - where at least one room I went in did not play Chris Isaac 'Wicked Game.'

Although musically I don't think it sucks, it's one of those recordings that sounds good on any system from the best to total junk. I think such recordings tend to be the staple at shows for obvious reasons.

...sounds good on any system....
Speaking of which. Natalie Cole's version of Mona Lisa

Sounds both intimate and big (the strings). Suitable for boosting small speakers (not so demanding bass). Makes small speakers seem big so to speak.

A good version of that song I must say. Not really my go to music, but still.

 

[Mart68]

1. the notion that some hi-fi gear can make obviously flawed recorded music sound better than it inherently is, and...
2. if there are any subjective issues with what the listener hears (or wants to hear) with flawed reproduction due to the recording itself--it's primarily the fault of the loudspeakers--not the recording.

1. 'sound better' is in itself subjective. I'd suggest a 'BBC Dip' might make some recordings easier/more pleasant to listen to.

2. Sometimes it is the fault of the loudspeakers. All recordings get listened to on multiple speakers before completion and release so we'd have to assume that 'bad recordings' got through that net somehow. Maybe time and/or money ran out, or maybe they sounded okay to the people making that judgement. Either way it is the case that there are quite a lot of 'bad loudspeakers' on the market.

I have an expander/compressor in the pre-amp but never felt compelled to try it although I keep saying I will.

 

[Mart68]

I listened to a Led Zeppelin song on request of another listener, played on a half million Euro system (Naim Audio Statement amplification, Focal Grande Utopia EM Evo speakers). The sound was strange and unconvincing, nothing I would invest any money in. I think one the causes was the room and lack of room EQ.

They had the very same system at the last show I went to. I thought it was pretty good except it rattled some of the fitments in the room. Amps were overkill though and the less said about the cost of the other components the better. Streamer alone was forty five thousand.

 

[DSJR]

I'll show up with this

Angine de Poitrine

Oh my Lord I love this pair along with the music they create and so accurately replay live

Totally addictive, superbly recorded (I think some of the better live-direct feeds on YouTube may even be better than the already great Bandcamp-purchased files), they make for a great speaker-system workout

Vol II now downloaded and ready to play - after our son gets up and we've watched the 'returned' first three episodes of The Dalek Masterplan together (I'm old enough to remember watching them back in 1966 - yikes!)...

 

[DSJR]

To the OP, or anyone else being subjected to dull hifi show music, why not enquire why they are staying in the music safety lane? I'm guessing their response will tell you how much confidence they have in the dem system.

Now elderly vinyl lovers attending such shows? maybe not AXPONA, but 60+ seems to be a sizeable age of UK show attendees with a bottom limit of maybe 40 (offspring going with 'dad?')

 

[DSJR]

Probably yes but Zep's as good as anything.

I don't find showcase recordings give the same tells.

I love 'Zep's music, but have to agree the recordings are a bit odd sounding when played back digitally today (I think I got rid of my original vinyls over twenty years ago sadly but still have an original Canadian pressing of II). My now awful hearing tends to make these worse and 'Houses Of The Holy' was unlistenable at one point with screaming upper mids and no bass (I'm sure it's not really quite as bad as this).

 

[Mart68]

I love 'Zep's music, but have to agree the recordings are a bit odd sounding when played back digitally today (I think I got rid of my original vinyls over twenty years ago sadly but still have an original Canadian pressing of II). My now awful hearing tends to make these worse and 'Houses Of The Holy' was unlistenable at one point with screaming upper mids and no bass (I'm sure it's not really quite as bad as this).

Nothing to do with whether you like the music or not. The topic is what's best to play at shows to give some idea of the capability of the system being exhibited. So musical taste doesn't come into it.

I probably listened to Zep too much when I was young and don't listen to them that often now. I have all the albums on vinyl but only replaced a couple of them on CD (Physical Graffiti and Houses). I got the original CD releases from the 1980s not the remasters. I don't hear any 'issues' with them beyond the limitations of the recording tech of the time and the production choices that were made (which for me are intrinsic to the sound of those recordings and not a fault to be corrected).

I think they challenge a system to 'make sense' of them, not to make them 'sound good' in some undefined way. If it becomes a racket that just makes you want to switch it off = bad system.

 

[DanielT]

Keith Don't Go – Nils Lofgren. With its shimmering guitar flageolets. Put it on if you're selling some mediocre speakers and the buyer will think they're superb in resolution and detail.

Starting at 3:15 in the video: