View Full Version : Best music-Worst recording?
Magic's posts about Aqualung Selling England prompted me to think, what are the worst recorded albums that you own, that the music is so great you tolerate it?
For instance, I'd say Robin Trower Live. What a great performance! He totally rocks out and performs those extended solos you won't hear anywhere else! But, the overall sound quality is quite poor. A lot of hiss, crowd noise, and poor dynamics. But, every time I pull this one out I am moved! One of the great guitarists of ever.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170412/50e6dd5a2ae487ab76c42334d70f92c6.jpg
So what comes to mind?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Any Rainbow album really. And quite a few Van Halen albums too! Come to think about it a lot of metal and hard rock acts deliver mediocre results from recording and mixing. But then again Rainbow has to be recorded and mixed by "Deaf Society" :)
Rothchild
12-04-2017, 07:33
Sly and the Family Stone, There's a Riot Goin' On
Hot, fuzzy, scuzzy, intimate, noisy and totally fabulous.
The Black Adder
12-04-2017, 08:09
Oasis, Definitely Maybe. Superb debut album. But it's irritating, saying that, so is Liam.
King Gizzard and the Electric Wizzard - Nonagon Infinity
Arrgh... Truly the worst recording quality I've ever heard. Apparently they tried to get a vintage sound but it missed the mark spectacularly. It sounds like they down-mixed it to 8khz and had no idea how to use the VU's. Compressed, flat as a fart, aftifacts-a-plenty, distorted... Yuk... But superb tracks.
Half Man Half Biscuit 'Back in the DHSS'
Velvet Underground: 'Live at Max's Kansas City'
Iggy and the Stooges: 'Raw Power'
martian sunrise
12-04-2017, 10:32
Kyuss - Welcome to Sky Valley
Arkless Electronics
12-04-2017, 11:44
Meatloaf-Bat out of hell. I'm not sure if i have a copy but it always struck me as a truly dire recording.
Aqualung-Tull I thought not that bad in its own way.
Canetoad
12-04-2017, 13:58
Toto - Hydra. My copy is just so sibilant.
To me Bat out of Hell is a dire noise, as also is OK Computer, which in sound terms is so inharmonic as to be painful.
Sometimes it is the art itself which is so offensive, and Higher fidelity makes it worse, not better.
Arkless Electronics
12-04-2017, 14:15
To me Bat out of Hell is a dire noise, as also is OK Computer, which in sound terms is so inharmonic as to be painful.
Sometimes it is the art itself which is so offensive, and Higher fidelity makes it worse, not better.
Both excellent albums artistically. Especially BOOH which has excellent melody, this being probably the single most important issue in music for me. The thing I most dislike and "don't get" is stuff which has 2 chords and seems to exist to show how much of a thrashy, aggressive, inharmonious racket they can make! eg Anthrax, Metallica etc and most heavy metal after about 1985. I also can't stand pretty much everything "urban" ie hip hop, grime, drum n bass "R n B" etc
Colinijohnson
12-04-2017, 14:36
Wings over America double album. Err awful
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can't really think of anything that is that bad. Got a vinyl copy of 'Born To Run' that sounds a bit poxy, but it isn't a favourite album so never gets played, and I've no idea if that is just what it's like or if I have a piss-poor pressing.
Got the Sly and The Family Stone mentioned earlier on, okay so it is not exactly a showcase recording but it isn't objectionable.
Recordings so bad they are objectionable are very few and far between, at least those that were done by professionals. If you are thinking that a professional recording is so bad it is unlistenable I'm afraid that is a problem with the system you are playing it on.
The musical content being unlistenable, or just crap, now that is a different matter. Got a fair few of them.
hard1175
12-04-2017, 16:12
Totally agree the recording quality of Bat out of hell was absolutely C- - p.
magiccarpetride
12-04-2017, 16:56
Magic's posts about Aqualung Selling England prompted me to think, what are the worst recorded albums that you own, that the music is so great you tolerate it?
For instance, I'd say Robin Trower Live. What a great performance! He totally rocks out and performs those extended solos you won't hear anywhere else! But, the overall sound quality is quite poor. A lot of hiss, crowd noise, and poor dynamics. But, every time I pull this one out I am moved! One of the great guitarists of ever.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170412/50e6dd5a2ae487ab76c42334d70f92c6.jpg
So what comes to mind?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Fabulous thread. I have a few duds, will have to jog my memory, but for now:
Larry Coryell "The Restful Mind" -- mine is a French pressing, which may explain the congested sound, but boy, is it flat sounding! I find any Larry's playing just breathtaking, he is so unorthodox, a real original. But this recording doesn't seem to breathe. Especially Colin Walcott's tabla, sounds like he is banging on some coffee table and cardboard boxes. Glen Moore's bass is buried in the mix, and only serve to provide some form of warm lower frequencies. I'd say the substandard presentation is down to poor mixing, but it could be also due to the poor French pressing (I don't have an alternative source to compare).
Dave Liebman "Lookout Farm" -- Liebman is another favourite of mine, a great original. His ECM debut sounds castrated due to shocking absence of lower frequencies. Mids and highs are amazing, soundstage and imaging are awesome, but where are the bass tones? Even Badal Roy's tabla sounds shallow, like a toy instrument. His followup LP ("Drum Ode", also on ECM), in stark contrast, is chock full of lavish deep bass tones, so I don't know what happened at that session in the ECM studios (I have the original German pressing).
Chick Corea "My Spanish Heart" -- I love pretty much anything involving Chick, but this album delivers underwhelming sonic experience. Too bad, because the playing is top notch, the music is romantic and dreamy and deeply satisfying. Very unusual for Chick, because all his other solo LPs are thunderous and a true audiophile delight.
I'll think of more and post later...
Re Robin Trower Live -- I have it only on digital, and it sounds exactly as you describe it. However, I've heard people raving about the LP sound, which I haven't heard yet. For some reason thought that the poor sound is due to botched transfer to digital?
Oasis, Definitely Maybe. Superb debut album. But it's irritating, saying that, so is Liam.
King Gizzard and the Electric Wizzard - Nonagon Infinity
And the Lizard Wizard?
It is listenable via TIDAL to a Bluetooth Ultimate Ears II speaker.
Had to listen to it with a band name like that.
TBH low Res systems are where shite production sounds OK. So if it does sound bad I generally listen on something that isn't capable of exposing the lack of sonic niceness too obviously.
Re Robin Trower Live -- I have it only on digital, and it sounds exactly as you describe it. However, I've heard people raving about the LP sound, which I haven't heard yet. For some reason thought that the poor sound is due to botched transfer to digital?
I bought a used vinyl copy of Trower Live that I believe to be the original, the sleeve looks its age but the vinyl looks new. So it's most likely the original master. You'd think maybe they would attempt to clean up the background noise when they moved it to digital? But, sounds like they did not.
It has turned into a good thread, apparently there is a lot of good music on bad recordings. But like the Trower, despite how bad it is, I still play it because the performance is so amazing. What magazine was it that used to rate albums separately for performance and sound quality? It was not unusual to see new albums that rated a 5 for performance and a 1 for recording. Almost never a 5/5 to be seen.
Ok another album that occurs to me, Neil Young Live Rust. Wow it's like they trashed it on purpose.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170413/d90a5c48163bf1af0876677f370def28.jpg
Over modulated and totally distorted, torturous to listen to. Sounds like a great show! But I can't bring myself to play this one.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Addendum to my last post, the Neil Young Live Rust is over modulated and completely distorted, torturous to listen to. It sounded like a great show! But I can't bring myself to play this one.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
TBH low Res systems are where shite production sounds OK. So if it does sound bad I generally listen on something that isn't capable of exposing the lack of sonic niceness too obviously.
Poor systems flatter bad recordings? No way, worse the system surely the less you want to listen to ropey recordings on it? Isn't that why they like to stick to 'audiophile' recordings at shows?
fatmarley
13-04-2017, 07:39
Poor systems flatter bad recordings? No way, worse the system surely the less you want to listen to ropey recordings on it? Isn't that why they like to stick to 'audiophile' recordings at shows?
I think you're both right.
You can have a poor system that smooths over detail, res and also dynamics. You can also have a poor system that Is full of distortion and makes bad recordings sound even more harsh.
I think you're both right.
You can have a poor system that smooths over detail, res and also dynamics. You can also have a poor system that Is full of distortion and makes bad recordings sound even more harsh.
Fair point
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.
http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag89/Jrb1961/image_zps7a8b2886.jpg (http://s1300.photobucket.com/user/Jrb1961/media/image_zps7a8b2886.jpg.html)
Original Bowie mix sounds like mud, but still one of the greatest guitar albums ever.
Half Man Half Biscuit 'Back in the DHSS'
Velvet Underground: 'Live at Max's Kansas City'
Iggy and the Stooges: 'Raw Power'
Aye, anyone listening to HMHB for the production quality has clearly missed the point.
Saw them again live last year. Still brilliant.
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.
Even the most forgiving system has its limits. While we toss about old adages, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
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.
Original Bowie mix sounds like mud, but still one of the greatest guitar albums ever.
I go along with "Raw Power".
magiccarpetride
16-04-2017, 01:07
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.
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?
Pete The Cat
16-04-2017, 07:02
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
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?
What I call the 'Fun Lovin Criminals' test.
There are certain recording/mixing 'styles' for want of a better word, that will produce records that sound 'good' on pretty much any competent system. FLC albums fall under this. Even flawed systems can pass the FLC test. If you hear issues in the FLC test then you can guarantee that the system has issues.
Passing the test means nothing, system may still be flawed and other material may show this up, but the FLC test is the first fence. Doesn't have to be FLC of course there are other 'glossy' productions you can use to do the same test.
Anyway this does depend on the definition of 'bad recording' and I suspect we all have at least a slightly different definition going on.
Personally I don't find it too hard to distinguish a problem with the recording from a problem with the system. Most of the time at least. They are quite different things. One thing I have learned is that you really need to listen with a huge variety of music before you can say that the system is 100%, and music that you know and have heard on many other systems.
You know when you make a change and the first five albums you play sound fantastic, you think you have cracked it, then number six just sounds 'wrong' and you realise you haven't?
Anyway this does depend on the definition of 'bad recording' and I suspect we all have at least a slightly different definition going on.
I have several categories of 'bad recording'. Firstly, there's a poorly-mixed recording; on Lou Reed's first solo album, for example, the drums are so loud they overpower the music. Secondly, there's deliberately 'lo-fi' recordings that have a rough edge; 'Raw Power' is perhaps the best example of this. Then there's stuff recorded on cheap equipment in a less-than-perfect environment (eg VU 'Live at Max's Kansas City'; HMHB 'Back in the DHSS'). Then there's recordings 'bodged' by attempted improvements; the most obvious early examples being 'mono re-processed for stereo' LPs. My copy of Chuck Berry's 'Golden Decade' is a victim of this, and has sounded progressively worse as my hifi has improved, making the artifice impossible to ignore. Finally, there's rubbish pressings of otherwise OK albums, such as my German-pressed copy of Blondie's 'Parallel Lines'.
Don't think you can count how the drums are mixed, recorded or whatever because that is - presumably - the artistic intention.
Maybe would help if we make a list
1) Overly compressed
2) Poor pressing - although that is not actually problem with the recording as such. Get a better pressing, problem solved
3) Cheap and nasty studio - I suppose this is a bit general and could manifest in many ways
4) Lot of tape hiss and noise
5) Very little bass - again could be deliberate artistic choice
The artistic choice is the key thing really - take Oasis for example, had 3 goes at the first album because they decided the first effort was too polished and they wanted something that sounded a bit rawer - not everyone sets out to make a showcase recording, this is where it all falls down. Just playing showcase recordings because they sound good rather than for the actual musical enjoyment, that is not right.
A good system should make sense of what they were trying to achieve, mostly that is why recording sound like they do, not because someone screwed up or didn't know what they were doing.
Those suggesting 'Raw Power' as a bad recording, would you be happier if they re-recorded all polished it so it sounded like it was Dire Straits rocking out? I wouldn't.
fatmarley
16-04-2017, 17:58
What I call the 'Fun Lovin Criminals' test.
There are certain recording/mixing 'styles' for want of a better word, that will produce records that sound 'good' on pretty much any competent system. FLC albums fall under this. Even flawed systems can pass the FLC test. If you hear issues in the FLC test then you can guarantee that the system has issues.
Passing the test means nothing, system may still be flawed and other material may show this up, but the FLC test is the first fence. Doesn't have to be FLC of course there are other 'glossy' productions you can use to do the same test.
Thought It was an odd choice for someone to play when I was at the Scalford Hifiwigwam show - Now I know why.
I never thought It would be possible to make Tracy Chapman sound bad but some commercial prototype speakers managed It. Sounded like she was singing through a miniature PA horn In a small bathroom (that Is honestly not an exaggeration).
Both of the above were caused by the simple crossover, done by ear approach.
Thought It was an odd choice for someone to play when I was at the Scalford Hifiwigwam show - Now I know why.
I never thought It would be possible to make Tracy Chapman sound bad but some commercial prototype speakers managed It. Sounded like she was singing through a miniature PA horn In a small bathroom (that Is honestly not an exaggeration).
Both of the above were caused by the simple crossover, done by ear approach.
Used to play cards regularly at mate's house. He had a pretty good collection of albums, maybe 3 or 4 hundred, but you could guarantee that when he put some music on it was always either Lenny Kravitz first album, Robert Cray 'Smooth Persuader' or FLC '100% Columbian' because they were the only 3 records that sounded properly good on his rig, which had multiple issues. It was nearly always FLC first, hence the name.
walpurgis
16-04-2017, 18:33
Both of the above were caused by the simple crossover, done by ear approach.
That's not to say that this method always produces problems though.
fatmarley
16-04-2017, 22:22
That's not to say that this method always produces problems though.
Yes It can be done but there aren't many off-the-shelf drivers that will work with a simple crossover. The Eminence B102 and Seas A26 both have a smooth roll-off but they are 10" drivers and will be beaming quite badly at the crossover point. This would cause 'bunching' In the off-axis response with most tweeters and you would probably need a wonky on-axis frequency response to give a subjectively flat response.
Joe Akroyd did It but he used to treat the woofers with a substance to achieve the correct roll-off. The tweeter circuit In the Minstrel at least, still had to have around 5 elements to give the correct response though.
Epos also did It but the drivers were specially made.
Acoustic research were another company that used simple crossover but the AR18s that I owned had a nasty peak in the high frequencies that only showed Itself on certain tracks and they lacked the resolution of more modern speakers.
walpurgis
16-04-2017, 22:31
Acoustic research were another company that used simple crossover but the AR18s that I owned had a nasty peak in the high frequencies that only showed Itself on certain tracks and they lacked the resolution of more modern speakers.
As did KLH and Advent. Henry Kloss was involved in developing their earlier designs too. The peaks in upper response were in the nature of the cone or ring cone tweeters of the day. Similar things can be heard from old Goodmans and EMI paper coned units. i.e., beaming and ragged peaks around and beyond cone breakup.
I must admit, I rather like the sound of the seventies KLH and Advent speakers.
The artistic choice is the key thing really - take Oasis for example, had 3 goes at the first album because they decided the first effort was too polished and they wanted something that sounded a bit rawer - not everyone sets out to make a showcase recording, this is where it all falls down. Just playing showcase recordings because they sound good rather than for the actual musical enjoyment, that is not right.
The artistic choice thing is interesting in the context of 'Raw Power'. Iggy was reportedly unhappy with Bowie's production, but as Bowie was essentially funding the recording (Iggy being broke at this point), the artistic control lay with Bowie rather than Iggy. The 1997 remixed version is how Iggy wanted it to sound, but most prefer Bowie's mix. There's a similar difference of opinion over the Velvet Underground's third album (imaginatively titled 'The Velvet Underground'). Most people know it from the so-called 'closet mix' by the producer, Tom Wilson, but Lou Reed preferred his own mix, with very different versions of some songs. So which version represents 'artistic choice'?
The original one is the original one. Does it matter who made the choice?
Do you want to watch original 1977 Star Wars or re-mixed 1997 Star Wars with cartoon Jawas cocking about in the background?
Nobody ever says 1997
The original one is the original one. Does it matter who made the choice?
Probably not. Producers are easy targets, anyway. The New York Dolls blamed Todd Rundgren's production for the lack of commercial success of their first album. They hired the 'legendary' Shadow Morton to produce the follow-up, but unfortunately they'd run out of ideas by then, and their second album was a stinker.
Dynamics
17-04-2017, 17:31
Seems to me any digital music based on 60s and 50s music etc, just sounds flat compared to digital recordings based on newer music.
Arkless Electronics
17-04-2017, 17:49
That's not to say that this method always produces problems though.
It does in most cases IME. measurement is the way to go.
Magic's posts about Aqualung Selling England prompted me to think, what are the worst recorded albums that you own, that the music is so great you tolerate it?
For instance, I'd say Robin Trower Live. What a great performance! He totally rocks out and performs those extended solos you won't hear anywhere else! But, the overall sound quality is quite poor. A lot of hiss, crowd noise, and poor dynamics. But, every time I pull this one out I am moved! One of the great guitarists of ever.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170412/50e6dd5a2ae487ab76c42334d70f92c6.jpg
So what comes to mind?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I thought it was just my copy. Agree with you, great music terrible sound quality.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Pete The Cat
30-04-2017, 18:17
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.
Listening to "Down To Earth" today suddenly made me want to clarify my previous point. The cold, hard sound that I was referring to is really just restricted to "Rising" and "Long Live Rock 'N' Roll", which is a shame since I think it makes the magnificent "Stargazer" quite a difficult listen, to my ears at least. My comment didn't apply to the subsequent albums.
Hopefully Roger Glover hasn't crossed me off his Christmas card list :)
Pete
magiccarpetride
01-05-2017, 17:05
I thought it was just my copy. Agree with you, great music terrible sound quality.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Not sure I'd agree that Robin Trower's Live is of terrible sound quality. I mean, it's not stellar, but it's kind of adequate. I always enjoy the full bodied experience of a live venue it gives me.
Listening to "Down To Earth" today suddenly made me want to clarify my previous point. The cold, hard sound that I was referring to is really just restricted to "Rising" and "Long Live Rock 'N' Roll", which is a shame since I think it makes the magnificent "Stargazer" quite a difficult listen, to my ears at least. My comment didn't apply to the subsequent albums.
Hopefully Roger Glover hasn't crossed me off his Christmas card list :)
Pete
"Straight Between the Eyes", has always been my favorite! A fairly good recording if I recall.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Not sure I'd agree that Robin Trower's Live is of terrible sound quality. I mean, it's not stellar, but it's kind of adequate. I always enjoy the full bodied experience of a live venue it gives me.
It's not so bad that I don't play it. Maybe I just wish it were better?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
magiccarpetride
02-05-2017, 16:21
It's not so bad that I don't play it. Maybe I just wish it were better?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yeah, the amazing playing on there deserves to be heard in the best possible light. But the cymbals sizzle quite nicely, and the guitar is squealing and rumbling menacingly, so I'm happy ;)
Colinijohnson
07-05-2017, 17:55
I take back my comments regarding "wings over America " - its actually not too bad now I'm using my new Arkless Pre amp. I thank you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
magiccarpetride
07-05-2017, 20:44
I take back my comments regarding "wings over America " - its actually not too bad now I'm using my new Arkless Pre amp. I thank you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Too late, you can't revoke your previous statement!
Anthony K
07-05-2017, 21:38
Red hot chili peppers - Californication
Absolutely horrendous recording
Rick Braun - The sessions
Sublime
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.