Are you really that bothered by recording quality?

I also have two 'unlistenables'; 'Parallel Lines' by Blondie (poor pressing) and Lou Reed's self-titled solo album (poor production/mixing). Some records sound worse on a better system; for example, old 'mono re-processed for stereo' LPs are passable on a cheap system but wquite unpleasant on a higher-end one.

Generally speaking, however, it's surprising just how well some early mono records sound on good systems.

Yes and no. It's the music that counts and in the car or on the radio it doesn't matter. But in the comfort of the listening room recording quality becomes a bigger issue - it's like I'm not getting my money's worth. But on each successive upgrade either the recording quality seems to improve or it matters less, which I think is a good sign. But there are some real duffers - turds that probably can't be polished. But one should never say never because what I thought were poor recordings have in some cases come good (or at least considerably better) with upgrades. I spose at the end of the day it's mainly a question of if I'm having fun. And I am. So that's all right then.

Cheers

Harry

King of the Delta Blues - Robert Johnson
Wilde Flowers - Wilde Flowers (Soft Macine/Caravan)
Fairport Unconventional

All contain some music lost in the recording quality.

I understand the limitations with Robert Johnson, but I wonder why Fairport Convention released the Unconventional box set. I didn't expect the early recording sessions to have been completed in Ashley Hutchings's bathroom.

Not really.

A Naim system has a tendency to reveal the poor quality in recording than others, but it sounds so much more alive and involving than all-smothered sleepy hifi which might be easy on ears, but they make everything sound the same.

A good system should play any music well.
I hate a system that picks the music for me.

It might be depending on a listener's mindset, too.

When I put in not so great disc, some friends would say 'a bad recording'rather than commenting on the music. I am oblivibous sometimes how bad or good the recordings on the media sometimes.
I buy the music. Because I like the contents. ok. I have the Jack Johnson LP which everyone told me it's a good recording. I played it once. Never played again.
So, in this case, even tho the recording is superb, I can't listen to this record, cuz, I don't like his music!

If I'm into the music I like, I can block out the flaws in recordings all together.

It's one thing if I were evaluating a piece of kit to understand what's happeing. But it's a totally different mindset I'm at when I actually sit down or just putzing around the house listening to the music.

There are some 'indie' CDs that I have which seem to have been mixed with the aim of sounding good on personal stereos or ghetto blasters, which have sounded awful when I have tried them at every stage on my upgrade trail.

The worst offender has to be the Oasis CDs I have - Definitely, Maybe and What's the Story - they have become just about listenable with the acquisition of a CDS2, but even then its best from another room...

James

The short answer is no. And if, as a classical music lover (or indeed a jazz lover) you're going to be bothered by poor sound quality, you will end up shutting out a lot of excellent music. For example, my favourite recording of Beethoven's emperor concerto was made in the 50s in mono sound (rather excellent mono sound, it has to be said), but not nearly so well recorded as more recent efforts, but I couldn't much care since the playing is so fine. One could say much the same thing about the '53 Krauss Bayreuth Ring cycle (or worse, the 50 Furtwangler/Scala), the sound quality is terrible in places, but the music.....

There is but one work where sound quality really seriously bugs me. Mahler's 8th symphony. The reason being that, in no small part, Mahler was trying to show off what an amazing sound he could produce with an orchestra and choir of quite absurd proportions. As such (because the impact is more in the textures and orchestration than in the melodies), a poorly recorded account is something of a non-starter for me.

I'd also say I'm bothered when sound quality falls under the 'could have done better' heading. Some of the recent LSO Live issues have been terrible, especially the Rostropovich Shostakovich 5 (and given how recently these were don't there's no real excuse). However, I expect that if the performance was excellent it wouldn't bother me.

regards, Tam

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:
And if, as a classical music lover you're going to be bothered by poor sound quality, you will end up shutting out a lot of excellent music.

You certainly are.

Strangely, as I've upgraded my hifi over the years, I've found myself playing more and more "historic" recordings; contrary to what one might think, the resolving power of my current system provides sufficient insight to allow fuller appreciation of some marvellous old performances. More and more often I now find myself turning to Toscanini, Furtwangler, Walter, Heifetz and Edwin Fischer, now that I can actually hear what they were doing.

EW

Dear EW,

I would echo that. I think a good hi-fi makes the most of bad recordings. Of course, there is a contrast, as I suggested above, between bad simply due to age and bad when one wonders just what the recording team might have been smoking (this second category contains the only recordings I ever struggle with).

regards, Tam

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:


The worst offender has to be the Oasis CDs I have - Definitely, Maybe and What's the Story - they have become just about listenable with the acquisition of a CDS2, but even then its best from another room...

James

preferably in another house

quote:

Originally posted by Sloop John B:

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:


The worst offender has to be the Oasis CDs I have - Definitely, Maybe and What's the Story - they have become just about listenable with the acquisition of a CDS2, but even then its best from another room...

James

preferably in another house

and preferably not mine

quote:

Originally posted by IanGtoo:

quote:

Originally posted by Sloop John B:

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

The worst offender has to be the Oasis CDs I have - Definitely, Maybe and What's the Story - they have become just about listenable with the acquisition of a CDS2, but even then its best from another room...

James

preferably in another house

and preferably not mine

Chaps - In making the comment, I did realise that the mention of Oasis would not be without controversy... Head on block and all that...

But, c'mon, be kind - at least it's not Coldplay.

James

James

I don't think What's The Story is a bad album (there are plenty worse - at least it's not off Pop Idol or such like). I agree with you it isn't a great technical recording - I'd never thought of the mixed for the portable idea, but I think you've hit on the problem.

Rotf

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:
The short answer is no. And if, as a classical music lover (or indeed a jazz lover) you're going to be bothered by poor sound quality, you will end up shutting out a lot of excellent music.

Historical recordings with limited dynamics or with less deep or high frequencies than we are used to today don´t bother me. I too have made the observation, that they become better with better reproduction. What bothers me, is distortion and wavering dynamic level or pitch. This tends to spoil the musical experience. Fortunately none of my most favoured recordings from the standpoint of interpretation has been that "ill" yet.

To answer the question rather than get into the nice points raised since. No. Well almost no, and I have no problem with the fine standards of engineering maintained by many companies as early as 1926.

Things that really disturb me are pitch anomalies, which I have on occasion corrected in Sonic Foundry, where the efforts was worth the time, and the irredemable phenomeonon that comes on some tape recordings of quick pitch waver. That is a turn it off before I explode, thing!

I easily cope with fairly narrow band recordings so long as the instrumental balance is clear. Most old recordings are fundamentally better musically balanced because with no chance to adjust this later, and considering how primitive were playback methods, older recording methods needed to be very clear and precise about balance issues. The rot started in this respect in the 1960s with multi-channel and mixing down to stereo. Mostly mono recordings are preferable for the musical balance standpoint - including, very often, the best off-air radio tapes...

Thought provoking Thread! Thanks from Fred

quote:

Shouldn't a good system make up for a poor recording?

I think a good system does well not to highlight a poor recording, sadly I have a handful of early digital that are best listened to from behind the sofa!

On the other hand I have a Caruso recording from nineteen hundred and frozen to death - that sound fine.

So age of recording is not usually the limiting factor IMO.

Regards,

Steve.

Well Steve, that about sums it up! Brilliant! Fred

There is a difference between a recording being poor quality and being badly done IMHO.

I'm happy with hiss, crackle and 'authenticity' and the worst recordings I own are probably all pretty recent and have being digitised (or 'blandified') to death

The former may still sound thrilling and alive, the latter sounds as though it has been over-processed and loses its essential spark. The new Calexico album is, frankly, just badly done, killing off any sense of atmosphere. U2's midlife albums seemd to be recorded through a heavy curtain and always gave me the sense they could be far more exciting if done better. I also own Jethro Tull albums that sound like they were recorded in a friends garage but they are fine because you still sense that people are playing their instruments and having a good time.

A good recording connnects you to the artist and to the music, a bad recording gets in the way.

Bruce

I have inherited some late ‘50s mono jazz, Modern Jazz Quartet, from my dad and they suffer from the narrow bandwidth issue, along with sounding “bright”, but they still sound like 4 guys enjoying making music.

I think that is the bigger issue, namely if the performer/s are just going through the motions of fulfilling a contractual requirement then they tend not to care about the production and quality of the recordings.

My wife bought Jack Johnson’s first two albums and they sound like someone enjoying the music making process and are really nicely mixed. Not high brow deep and meaningful, but great to listen to.

Jono

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
King of the Delta Blues - Robert Johnson

I( always thought that the Robert Johnson recordings were easily among the best of the 30's blues recordings. Just try comparing them with Charlie Patton or Blind Lemon Jefferson. The music on them is also pretty amazing

quote:

Originally posted by jcs_smith:
I get the feeling that some people are so much into hi-fi that the music is secondary and a good pressing or recording is the only thing that matters.

Agreed, and when I sense myself starting to behave like this I just put on one of those crap recordings of great music and it snaps me out of it.

Mark

Dear Mark,

Completely agreed! But as far as I am concerned quite irrelelvant, in respect of the fact that I have perhaps only twenty out of lot (Record library thread!) where the recording is up to the modern state of the art! If someone comes here to find out out how well my old set can sound I find myself scratching my head.

We always dive into the live New Year's Day Concert (VPO under Kleiber on CBS from 1989) as this has everything including some really tangible 'noises off' to convince the auditor.

If you play always lesser quality recordings of great music in great performances then you never get tempted into the phenomonen of 'audiophilia nervosa!'

Fredrik

Of course, there is a valid question as to whether recording quality can be too good. Legend (or, at least, a recent Gramophone article) has it that upon its remastering for CD, it became apparent that on the Du Pre Elgar cello concerto there was a phone going in the background. I have a recording of various of Purcel's music for Queen Mary from Westminster Abbey where there are audible traffic noises....

regards, Tam

Dear Tam,

It is ststed by the producers for Archiv that the reason they abandoned Lubeck in 1947 for the first Walcha Bach Organ Recordings is that there was audible traffic noise in the records! If it is there then I have not yet heard it, but then I did find what was meant to be there quite enough to concentrate on!

I have heard that there is anti-aircraft fire audible in some of those old German Radio Tapes, but again have not noted it. It seems amazing that they did not empty the Hall in the event of an air-raid, but maybe on balance it would have taken a direct hit and so the risk was no more than the people being at home in many different shelters...

Fredrik

As I think about it, I have been particularly disappointed with the pressing quality of quite a lot of new rock/pop/indie vinyl recently, produced as part of the new vogue back to vinyl.

When superb jobs can be done - e.g (from my knowledge) all of the Gomez albums on vinyl (the now-defunct Hut label), Portishead 'Live NY Roseland' (staggeringly good), Calexico 'Hot Rail', - then why does so much modern vinyl, which is clearly aimed at a specialist market these days, sound so poor.

I'm not actually talking about the mix necessarily, but the physical property of the record itself! I have a number of offenders, but the worst must be the Killers' first album, which sounds like it's been pre-played with a 6" nail!!

I have s/h 70's 'wobble board' thin records that received all sorts of teenage abuse which sound better...

So to return to part of jcs' original post:

"I get the feeling that some people are so much into hi-fi that the music is secondary and a good pressing or recording is the only thing that matters."

For me, it's not so much "a good pressing or recording is the only thing that matters", rather it's a bad recording, or particularly a bad pressing!!

And I want the music. The 'frying eggs and bacon' on, for example, my Floyd 'Meddle', which I bought s/h on Ipswich market aged 13 in 1977, has all become an organic part of the music, it doesn't detract.

But a badly pressed brand new LP is another thing altogether, and really there should be no excuse when such good vinyl can be, and is, pressed these days and sold at reasonable cost.

James