I subscribe to the old adage, "Garbage in, garbage out"
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I subscribe to the old adage, "Garbage in, garbage out"
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I subscribe to the old adage that if you are obsessing over recording quality you went wrong with your system somewhere. A good system will make the differences in recordings obvious. But if it is spoiling your appreciation of the music then it needs a rethink.
Current Lash Up:
TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technics 1210/Mike New Bearing/Jelco SA750d/Goldring 2500/Paul Hynes SR5 21/27.
Cambridge Audio 840c CD. Squeezebox Touch. Synology NAS.
Teac A-3440.
Beresford Bushmaster.
Quad II monoblocks....Quad 44/405.....Croft Micro.....Cambridge Audio 840.
Celestion Ditton 66.....KEF Reference One
My view is that there are a lot less sows ears out there (recording-wise) than people think.
Incidentally how do those claiming that choosing hi-fi is very simple, 'you just play some music on it and if it sounds good then the kit is good', square that with the idea that there is a huge divergence in the quality of recordings?
Specifically what 'music' do you play to ascertain if the kit is good? The worst recordings? The best recordings? Recordings that are somewhere in the middle?
Will never forget listening to a very pricey system with several other people. A variety of stuff was played, Sound quality was not unacceptable but after the first couple of tunes I decided that there was an issue although no-one else seemed to notice/care. Then a particular recording was played and that really showed up the issue. Someone said 'That's a really bad recording' and everyone (except me) agreed.
Current Lash Up:
TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.
I go along with "Raw Power".Original Bowie mix sounds like mud, but still one of the greatest guitar albums ever.
Interesting line of reasoning. You said that there are a lot less bad recordings than people think. From that I surmise that you do think there are some bad recordings. The question is, how do you know? How do you distinguish a bad recording from a less than stellar system?
Don't you just hate it when you cannot detect where the post ends and a signature line begins?
Alex.
If by recording the question includes mastering then there are enough examples to make the forum crash. Rush had two stabs at "Vapor Trails", which I felt was a return to form musically after a bland patch, but the original Paul Northfield production is very dense (apparently down to compression) and the Paul Bottrill remix goes the opposite way in making each band member's contribution sound too separate from the others.
In terms of production the earlier post about Rainbow is well made. "Rising" uses a strange effect on Cozy Powell's cymbals which make it bright and irritating to my ears, the overall sound being cold and hard. The rough mix which was a bootleg for many years and included on the Deluxe Edition is warmer and more listenable as a result.
I tend to think less is more when it come to cymbals. I'd really like the White Stripes but for the splash-on-every-beat technique.
Pete
Most audio reviewers would say that the objective of a stereo is to recreate the original event. But the stereo is only half of the equation, to bring one to the original sound, to sound as much like the original event, will start at the recording process. To start with microphone choice and placement, etc. then how much engineering is applied, how the final product is produced. All of that takes place before we ever come into the picture with our hi fi stereos trying to take that recording and complete the second half of the equation, to bring that recording back to life!
And if that recording is trashed, if the damage was done during the process of capturing the original sounds, no stereo on earth is going to make it better. You can not undo poor microphone placement, you can not undo poor compression or incorrect master cutting techniques. Distortions introduced into the recording can not be removed by a later device in your stereo.
Of course this is basic and theoretical, reality is far more complicated. Modern music is much more than a close mic'd grand piano. But a good recording of a close mic'd piano may be a good ruler to measure your stereo. But my contention is, when a recording as bad as Live Rust is made, it makes no difference if you play it on a $35 child's record player, or a $100k reference system, it still sucks! The original recording was destroyed during the recording process, and no amount of audio trickery, or lack their of, can save it.
I will agree, most recordings are fairly decent, and many are outstanding achievements! But the rare case is made that some great performances are lost to the ages because the engineers blew it! And ruined the recording before it ever got to us.
Blaming recordings for the shortcomings of a system, is another matter. If that same recording sounds good on another system but not yours, then it's not the recording.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk