How to avoid wasting money on poor quality recordings?

Dean (and also Graham),

Why bother with poor quality recordings? Well, because often that's the only way to sample certain artists. There may be less of an issue if you're not a fan of classical music or jazz, but if you are, and you rule out all poorly recorded discs you're dismissing many of the finest artists to have lived.

You talk about good labels with pride in their work, but many recordings that would now be regarded as poor were lovingly made and at the cutting edge in their day.

I have this conversation occasionally with people on other forums when they say things like that they cannot stand mono recordings. But I think of a Giulini recording of the Verdi Reqiuem delivered with more passion and more compellingly than any of the many technically faultless versions I've heard, I think of Knappertsbusch's Wagner or just about anything from Furtwangler (whose death came before the advent of stereo) and I feel rather sorry for them, because I couldn't bear to have a system on which those and many more were unlistenable.

Now, that said, I don't entirely disagree with the principle of garbage in and garbage out and, all other things being equal, would rather have better recorded discs - and no matter how good a system is it's not going to make bad discs sound like they were well recorded.

What it should do, though, is ensure that problems with a recording are not an irritation. And mine, thankfully, seems to.

You mention DVD-A and SACD, but I don't think their failure has much to do with the reasons you describe. In part, it was the inevitable result of a format war. It is also true that not all early digital recordings were entirely successful. However, for the most part, record companies have got very good at getting the best out of CD and in some cases the newer formats didn't offer a quantum leap.

But I make no apology for saying it's the music that counts. That's not to say all systems are equal. They're not. Nor that I can get the same enjoyment from my ipod that I can my hi-fi. I can't. But I only buy any of these things because of my passion for music and because a discriminating choice delivers both good and bad recordings more faithfully.

regards, Tam

quote:

Originally posted by Whizzkid:

quote:

Originally posted by Graham Russell:
I believe in the "garbage in, garbage out" philosophy.
Graham.

I'm with Graham on this one with so many good recordings and good labels out there who take a pride in the products why bother with bad recordings when there's plenty of good stuff to buy. I to get frustrated with poor recordings luckily I don't have many.

Dean.

I agree with garbage in, garbage out - so you'll never find a Phil Collins album in my CD Player - sorry.

However, there's some great music that I like to listen to - I wouldn't say Rubble Volumes 1-20 were great recordings, but you get a couple of hundred of the greatest songs ever captured on recorded media; not to be able to enjoy music by The Attack, The Beatles, The Bee Gees (pre-Jive Talking), Black Widow, Marc Bolan, Caravan, Dantallion's Chariot, Elmer Gantry, Episode Six, Felius Andromeda, Les Fleurs Des Lys, The Fox, The Hollies, The Idle Race, The Iveys, Jason Crest, Kaleidoscope, Kinks, Mike Stuart Span, The Move. Nirvana (the group led by Patrick Campbell-Lyons), Opal Butterfly, Penny Peeps, The Pink Floyd (including Lucy Leave - Magnesium Proverbs is a meodicre recording, but where else can you hear Scream Thy Last Scream and Vegetable Man), The Pretty Things (SF Sorrow is a well recorded timeless masterpiece, but the Electric Banana sessions are less well recorded but superb), Procal Harum, Rainbow Ffolly, Rupert's People, Sam Gopal, Smoke, Soft Machine (the stuff with Daevid Allen is not well recorded, but I wouldn't be without it), Spooky Tooth, The Syn, Timebox, Tintern Abbey, Tomorrow, Tractor, Traffic, The Uglys, Wimple Winch (Save My Soul is one of my favourite singles ever), World of Oz, Yardbirds and The Zombies (Odyssey and Oracle is well recorded BTW and is essential IMO, but the early stuff lees so) would be very sad indeed.

So my route is not to see what sounds best on my system, but what system could make my musical collection sound at its best - my system and musical taste wouldn't suit everyone, but I like it.

quote:

So many people have told me they have similar problems with the CDX2 that my guess is that's probably the main cause of my problems and I'm about to try other CDPs. I'm suspicious that the 200 isn't really that good either so maybe I should try a valve amp.

I haven't owned either a cdx2 or a 200 but from various posts the impression given is that neither have a very 'full' sound presentation and I suspect the combination of the two may be working against you in your particular listening room. In your position, I would still be very interested in ascertaining from a good Naim dealer if your current system could be improved through better setting up rather than by spending money on different equipment. You'd them be much better placed to decide where next to take your system.

Peter

Tam and ROTF


I feel that what PhilP and others are talking about are recordings that are intentionally bad and that they are refering to modern recording techniques on modern records and remasters. I have no problem with older music from before I was born which is something I'm interested in, there is not a lot you can do unless a reissue company can get the origianl masters and clean them up some way. My argument is really with modern recordings that seem to be poorly executed and are aimed at poor reproduction systems and people who buy the records should as I say vote with their wallets but you do hear the cry "its the music that counts" when if this is an old recording it may be true but with modern equipment this should never be the case and for me this is why you hear on some MP3 sites that it sounds just as good as a CD. I don't think we should tolerate this, I have avoided buying some albums because of poor sound and bought from labels that I know care about sound. The new Grinderman album (MUTE a consistantly good label) is a good example.

Also on the SACD/DVD-A debacle I feel that they knew that they could not produce a player at the £100 to £500 mark that would show enough of a clean pair of heals to a similar priced CD player so they did not promote the formats properly and thats why Sony charged heavy licence fees and high prices on software just to get back R+D costs. The real benefits only probably show themselves at a much higher cost and thats not a big enough market for the likes of Sony.



Dean.

Dean,

I take your point there - and it does frustrate me when I come across a recent disc that is badly recorded - simply because there's no excuse for it (as there was in days of yore). Sometimes I can see why they've done it (I'm convinced the harshness on the recent Abbado Magic Flute was to eliminate audience noise) others (the BBC relays from the summer's Edinburgh festival), stem from a lack of expertise.

regards, Tam

Tam


I should have put my last post in my with my first one to stop any confusion. But it was yours and ROTF's post that showed me the error of lumping all recordings past and present into the same boat.



Dean.

quote:

Originally posted by Whizzkid:
I also feel that using the cliche's that "its the music that counts" and "this hobby is about the music" are lazy arguments and has lead us to the situation where better digital products (DVD-A and SACD) get ignored for the convinience of MP3, we as purveyor's of quality sound and music should be saying with our wallets that if the quality is not up to scratch we will not buy it or the quality will be gone forever and there will not be a hobby for us to enjoy.

By the same token, a person could vote with their wallet when it comes to the hardware they purchase based on how capable it is at extracting the most pleasurable musical experience from each recording regardless of the production quality.

quote:

Originally posted by Tam:
I don't entirely disagree with the principle of garbage in and garbage out and, all other things being equal, would rather have better recorded discs - and no matter how good a system is it's not going to make bad discs sound like they were well recorded.

What it should do, though, is ensure that problems with a recording are not an irritation. And mine, thankfully, seems to.

Nicely stated - at least from my point of view as this is more in line with my thoughts on the topic. I can certainly easily identify those recordings of lesser production quality when I put them on for a spin. However, they still get played on my system regardless as I'm still able to enjoy them.

I used to filter out many of my favorite recordings for many of the same reasons that Phil has mentioned. I of course blamed the recording's production quality. I found this fact depressing and finally decided that I could no longer accept this, especially given how much I was spending on audio gear. I certainly can't accept that a good number of recordings would actually sound better on my car stereo than on my home system.

In the end, everyone has to determine their own priorities and decide how to best go about things in order to maximize their listening pleasure.

All the best,
Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Whizzkid:
Tam

I should have put my last post in my with my first one to stop any confusion. But it was yours and ROTF's post that showed me the error of lumping all recordings past and present into the same boat.

Dean.

Hi Dean

Now I understand and I agree entirely. There's no excuse for an artist recording in 2007 to produce a poor recording - even those from modest studios can sound good (Probe Plus), if the engineers put in the effort.

I have Rattle's English version of Cunning Little Vixen and it's not so much the recording as the use of insertion points every couple of minutes to let you select specific parts - when I play it I can end up listening to the insertion points rather than the performance. It's akin to a vinyl album with a large scratch that you know is going to click every so often. Personally I don't need the insertion points and listen to an Opera on CD as if it were a play with music (am I unusual?) so I listen to it in one go. Does anybody just select bits when listening to this work?

Of course - there's always Mr Lou Barlow, but his stance makes no sense to me. Wiki has some curious stuff on Lo Fi.

All the best, Rotf

quote:

Originally posted by Whizzkid:
Tam and ROTF


I feel that what PhilP and others are talking about are recordings that are intentionally bad and that they are refering to modern recording techniques on modern records and remasters. I have no problem with older music from before I was born

Dean.

Dean,

yes, that's exactly what I'm complaining about! I won't stop buying recordings of old performances. To say they're "intentionally bad" may be a bit unfair. I think they're just optimised for play via other media like radio or MTV rather than top quality Hi-fi systems.

Regards,

Philip

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:


Hi Dean

Now I understand and I agree entirely. There's no excuse for an artist recording in 2007 to produce a poor recording - even those from modest studios can sound good (Probe Plus), if the engineers put in the effort.

Hi ROTF


This is the case with early Hip Hop, Techno and House music and the only reason it can sound quite poor to today standards is that the people making and producing it were using budget pro equipment and it shows, but they were inventive enough for the artistry to shine through. This is especially true with Aphex Twins early work.

The work that I feel we should rally against is the cynically compressed, harsh, tinny sounding, mainly Indie rock and Pop stuff that many people moan about. Luckily I'm not into this stuff but from all accounts even groups who should know better (stand up U2) allow their music to be released like this, so how can up and coming groups learn how to record properly if their Heroes can't make a stand and get it right in the first place.



Dean.

quote:

Originally posted by PhilP:

Dean,

yes, that's exactly what I'm complaining about! I won't stop buying recordings of old performances. To say they're "intentionally bad" may be a bit unfair. I think they're just optimised for play via other media like radio or MTV rather than top quality Hi-fi systems.

Regards,

Philip

Hi Phil

I know what you are saying but they do know what they are doing when they use compressors to the extent that they are now so I feel intentional is fair, look at the equipment people used to use in the 60/70/80's and then tally that with whats happening today. If you record to the highest quality you can it will sound good on all "HiFi" not just select equipment. I do have a little experience in this area being a qualified sound engineer.

I agree, many of today's CDs sound very poor. A step backwards for hi-fi (I'm thinking primarily of rock/pop/folk not classical).

Buying secondhand is one solution. Earlier CD releases tend to suffer less from excessive compression, distorion and noise reduction. There are many examples where remasters sound worse than what they replace.

Tim

quote:

There are many examples where remasters sound worse than what they replace.

Yes but there are stacks that are much better. They really didn't bother, first time round.

For the classics, I have found that patiently waiting for issues from particualr companies yields a significant quality advantage. However I buy whatever I want and then patiently wait for a better issue if the quality is poor. One could wait a long time in some cases!

EMI have access to the original metal parts of the 78 archive, and often get fantastically clean results.

Testamant are just as blessed, and also have access to certain masters from other companies as well.

Tahra [France] always makes very fine efforts, as do Music and Arts in the US, though sometimes tahra still has the edge in quality.

Pearl manage things well but often leave more original shellac surface noise in. I like the best they do very well, but one or two are really too noisy they seem noisier than the 78s used to when reproduced directly in very rare cases like their Schnabel Beethoven series.

Apian Records [APR] manage some of the very best transfers of 78s to be found, and amazingly from shellac.

Naxos is proving very successful in their re-issue of out of copyright material.

The old majors such as EMI, Decca, DG, and Philips often make fantastic efforts to reveal the original quality of their tape recordings.

Beulah are a small company that does very well with its small catalogue.

If I have some companies out it is because I don't like their work nearly so well!

ATB from Fredrik

Frederik,

I was interested to read your comments on the quality of the results produced by the record companies that you list. For the companies whose recordings I know well I do tend to agree with your assessments.

For rock/pop I do find the results to be far less predictable than for the classics. For example one Black Eyed Peas album is quite well recorded - the other not. They are both by A&M Records.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
However I buy whatever I want and then patiently wait for a better issue if the quality is poor. One could wait a long time in some cases!

Could I ask whether, for recordings issued by companies that you don't know so well, you have found a reliable on-line source of information about recording quality or do you just buy the recording and then replace it later if its not to your satisfaction?

Dear Phil,

I suppose I am a bit old fashioned. I have bought a lot of LPs and CDs over the last 37 years, and every single one came out of a retail shop. 99% came from only three shops in Hereford and Worcester over the years!

Finally, I have a debit card, so one day I can try to buy something on-line. Sadly only one of the three shops is still going, though even they have gone into mail order to keep things jogging along.

Over the years the shops actually asked me what the best sources of re-issues were, and so it worked two ways, as they started to stock the records I would buy, and it created a bit of a following, to the point where if I ordered something they would get two copies and put one on the shelf! Obviously the new issues were from stock as a rule!

In terms of finding the best quality, it was pure trial and error! That is why I am happy to pass on the experience. I learned the long way, and seem not to always agree with what quite a few critics think is a grand performance or even a decent transfer or basic recording. It is strange, because I have learned that even truly ancient recordings, well remastered, usually play well on a good set.

In another life I could happily have run a record shop, but the days are over for that I reckon if they have large overheads as most shop rents lead to in most cases nowadays. So I am going to have to learn how to buy on-line, against my wish in reality...

Does anyone know where Japanese EMI Toshiba CDs may be bought in UK? On-line, anywhere in the world will do now. I want old Helmut Walcha's EMI integral [13 CDs] of the Bach Harpsichord music, which is issued, but only in Japan, except for five discs from Pathe Marconi [EMI France] containing the Well temperered Clvier and Goldbergs. The trouble is that the French discs are cheap and the Japanese ones are issued at premium price in one big album! Not much planning there... I do have access to these, so there is no rush, but I would like to look into it at least.

ATB from Fredrik

One idea of how to stop bad recordings... Ban X-Factor and Pop-Idol (Sorry read the thread title and couldn't resist...)

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:
Yes but there are stacks that are much better. They really didn't bother, first time round.

Maybe, but "not bothering" can be better than excessive noise reduction or maxing out the volume at the expense of dynamic range.

Tim

There are lots of crap recordings and on vinyl as well as CD. The CBS recordings of Serkin, for example, are horrible, muddy close-miked disasters, but the performances are wonderful....

Most Motorhead recordings (he says lurching to the other extreme) are also atrocious, with the possible exception of Overkill, but I'm not going to stop listening to Lemmy either, thank you very much

i think we need to differentiate here between limitations in original recordings and the sonic atrocities that are done in the name of (re)mastering.


The only way to change this is for the record company bottom line to be effected, for people like us who care about getting the most out of a particular recording saying " we're mad as hell and not going to take anymore" (perhaps a name and shame thread?)

It is so frustrating to have a recording where the dynamics are sucked out of it entirely and increasing the volume doesn't cause any more separation or potentiation merely a loader molasses.

I came across this review on amazon yesterday which stopped me from buying Eurythmics - Sweet Dreams

quote:

Reviewer: A music fan
First I have to say that I love this album. This is one of my all times favorites, superb songwriting and innovative in production, but beware of the concept of remastering. Remastering should bring you a better recording but the truth is that in most cases you end up with a recording that is far worse than the original cd. Just compare the trumpet on track five ( The Walk )on the remastered version with the original cd version. The new version is very harsh and much to noisy.
The problem is that remastering in most cases only means turning up the loudness of the record. It gives you an impression of more power an appearance in the production, but if you put to much loudness into a media like the cd you lose some of the original sound. If the recording reaches more than 0 db you get a distorted sound i these parts. In the sound production you try to compensate by simply cutting out these parts but this also gives noise. The result is a very loud cd with a distorted treble. This production technique is very common in the recording industry today. The idea is that you have to create at " wall of sound " so the record company can get their product at maximum attention level to the potential buyer.
Bad speakers in cars, noisy cafés or record shops are the medias that many ( big )record company's today have in mind when they produce their music. The end of story is that you if you care just tiny bit about sound quality and run a cd like this on a fairly good sound system, well then you got a headache coming your way. My advice is to buy the old version, it´s cheaper and the sound is so much better. Conclusion 5 stars for album and 1 for the mastering.

SJB

Hi Sloop


Great post at least its not just us in the rarefied air of HiFi that notice these things. I did suggest in another thread to put up a sticky in the music room of labels that are trustworthy with their output. What do others think.



Dean....

quote:

Originally posted by Whizzkid:
I did suggest in another thread to put up a sticky in the music room of labels that are trustworthy with their output. What do others think.



Dean....

Hi Dean,

I don't know if it's a label specific thing. Certainly it's not a problem I'm aware of with jazz and classical. I have some of the 1999 EMI Bowie re-masters which are brighter than the brightest button on Shiny McBrights Sunday best. Whereas the previous EMI re-masters that I have a greatest hits from sound fine. Mind you the older RCA albums (on cd) sound best.


SJB

Look on the internet for websites that list the HDCD recorded CD's that have been released. Joni Mitchel has just re-released several of her CDs with HDCD encoding. The CDXII and other Naim CD players has the ability to decode HDCD and this does make a difference. This is a nice way to find good music and use all that your front end can provide.