What Will Influence SQ the Most - Hardware or Source Materials

quick answer - source material

caveat

decent systems are good at making me forget the imperfections, and focus on the music. Some modern source material is irredeemable though! The music biz knows this and (where there's a profit) flat transfers are becoming more commonly available.

As an illustration of what a minefield music (to me) can be, I have two Gentle Giant CD discs to hand:

1st album Vertigo reissue, EDC pressing, just as I remember the vinyl, awful wooly sound first up, gradually getting more dynamic and cleaner as the music progresses (master tape disintegration most likely). SQ finishes slightly below par for 70s stuff.

4th album Vertigo reissue, EDC pressing, astounding clarity and realism, a joy to my ears, far better than my old LP. No need to buy a remaster, things can only get worse.

So tape hiss, poor overdubbing, badly set up mics, incorrect EQ, etc, etc can be annoying but a good system I feel will trump the lot and get you 'there' but just avoid the duff source offerings. I'm in no hurry to change that 1st GG album as I have lots of unheard music to catch up with first!

To state the obvious both quality of hardware and quality of source (the recording) are extremely important to achieving the most enjoyable musical experience.  I am not sure that I would even attempt to label one as more important than the other, however, the best hifi hardware in the world can only attempt to deliver accurately what it has been fed at source, so if that's no good, or even just not to ones taste, then it tends to sound bad anyway, even on a Statement I would imagine.  That said, I do not find that bad recordings sound worse as the system playing them becomes more capable, they are better and more enjoyable, but still clearly poor recordings.

I really do believe that the source quality is dictated to a much larger degree by the actions of sound engineers, EQ adjustments, and mixing desk arsing about, than the resolution of the audio at the end.  Similar to the hardware playing a bad recording situation, if you take a bad mix and output it to 192/24, guess what?  Exactly!  

Labels like Naim's and er..the Scottish one as an example, produce some good recordings, and I mean really good, though that's not to say every one of them achieves greatness, there are exceptions in my view, but on the whole pretty damn good.  And thankfully there are many others around, but as you point out, the genres covered are primarily Jazz and Classical, which happily suits me fine.

Not sure what your typical listening material is, but for the Rock, Metal and Pop titles, i do have a couple of observations that may be of interest, and something you could possibly experiment with when your Tidal update arrives next week.  First up, greatest hits complications, avoid them always, the mix has almost always been messed around with and not for the better.  Try comparing a few tracks on a compilation album to that on the original, which you prefer could go either way I suppose, but I bet you'll hear what I'm talking about.  

Second re-masters and hi-res remasters, this can go either way, and again an element of preference to consider, but the point is a re-master in hi-res, or otherwise, is not to be associated with being better by default, they can be, but often are not; latest batch of Led Zeppelin remasters being a good example of not,  Again someone has messed around with it, made them louder and more compressed, and output that at 24/96.  Slightly bitter on that one, because, yes, I did buy some of them, but still only ever play the CD versions from the Corn Circles box set, though they are actually re-masters themselves.   

In summary my view is that your concern is understandable, and there is a problem with the way certain genres are typically recorded, but HD, Hi-Res, 192/24 alone is not the solution.  Dismiss masters that are only available in CD quality and by default opt for the latest hi-res remasters at your peril.  

Wow. Three of the most loquacious posts I've seen here back-to-back-to-back. Interesting reading, and I tend to agree with the OP; it's a circular argument. Personally, I find myself drawn to play music with high quality mastering more often that any with poor SQ, regardless of how good the music is.

The hardware will improve the sound of the source material much more than the source material will improve the sound of the hardware.   I have a bunch of high quality vinyl, Classic Records and the like, which did not improve the sound of my Rega system all that much.    Improving the hardware makes a big different.  My wife and I were both vinyl people when we got married.  I took much better care of my records.   Many of hers were great selections but difficult to sit through because of the scratchiness.   With the Superline/Supercap, her crappy vinyl sounds great.  Pretty great anyway, and vastly improved.   I think I disagree with the post above.   I think hardware upgrades make much more difference than improving the vinyl or CD.

Laconic r us.  Not loquacious here.

I think your point is correct it's and and. While I have in general the feeling that the biggest challenges are coming from the recordings themselves. As already mentioned loudness war, bad remastering, even sometimes bad recording quality....., in my opinion does more harm to the overall sound quality than the hardware. I would formulate a general statement on this source material can make things worse good hardware can make better, good source material and good hardware defining so the current definition of audio heaven. And audio heaven will improve due to technical developments on the hardware side mainly.

Yes.

Yes here also.

Everything is affected by everything else, so it is indeed a tricky question (WRT the OP). So I’ll put my tunnel vision goggles on.

Recordings which have sounded challenging to get through have (for me) tended to resolve better and better as the capability of the hardware has gone up. It doesn’t matter so much to me now that a recording is, for example thin and bright.  This still comes across but is a foot note to the performance. I think that systems which appear to do “warts and all” are in many cases not performing optimally. There are very few true warts in a well-played musical performance or multi tracked assemblage. As the “how it was played” aspect comes into a more equal focus with the “what was played” part, so appreciation (and often admiration) of the music increases and I have tended to regard some music and musicians differently.

Which brings us to the second part of the thing.  Something which is a truly awful recording - just about any pop song and many rock tracks which have been brick walled to shit since the late 1990s will sound even shittier as the system resolves them better. I have HiRes versions of albums (Christ knows why I bought them – desperate, straw clutching optimism?) where I can clearly hear the clipping and distortion.  Through a Muso or in the car they sound OK.

So I’ll go with hardware but it’s a tricky one.  And of course, all other things being equal (which we have chosen to disregard for the purposes of this discussion) the quality of the source material is the logical starting point and is paramount. Assuming you can find much to listen to which is decently recorded. You could argue that without an excellent quality file to start with, you may as well not bother to upgrade.  Conversely, you will need some good resolving power (and your ears) to hear just how good or bad a recording is. My journey has tended to show me that more things were better than I might have previously thought. And some things really are worse than I could previously imagine!

Harry,

Pretty much agree with everything you have said. I really dispair when I manage to track down a 'so called' hi res version of an album I used to enjoy way back when only to find it is poorly produced and poorly remastered. It shatters all you memories of said album and said band.

Just as you are beginning to doubt digital sources as the longterm answer (i.e. to play new and old stuff on) you get a wonderful surprise. Mine was in the form of a Tracy Chapman album (called strangely Tracy Chapman) I picked up cheap on CD and ripped it. I used to listen to this years ago and, although I liked the album, was never impressed with the recording/reproduction. Anyway with very low expectations I listened to it via my NDS the other day and was staggered by how wonderful it sounded with incredible detail that gave new meaning (and a better understanding) of each and every track. This was in no small part due to the fact that all the lyrics were now entirely intelligible. What a marvellous experience and I now hold this artist in far higher regard than I ever did before.

In short it restored my faith in digital sources, not so much the hardware but the fact that there are still available some excellent source material out there, new and old. However I still feel that the laziness (or greed or ineptitude) of record labels and producers and the drive to maximise profit at the expense of high quality production and remastering could hold up the struggle towards better and better in-home music reproduction, certainly outside of Classical and Jazz. It might also ultimately stifle the sales of the higher end audio gear. Why spend shedloads of money on hifi to be letdown by the music that is played on it. Maybe we haven't reached that stage yet and let's hope the music industry wakes up to the fact that there are many of us out there that will never be satisfied with an iPhone and iTines and some crappy ear buds.

So glad to get that off my chest!

Couldn't agree more. Like you when choosing what I want to listen to next I am usually drawn to a well produced album (at usually a higher resolution) and listen less and less to albums I like but I know are poorly produced or poorly remastered.

I think it is really sad that one often avoids playing an old favourite. The music is great but it sounds terrible. This situation seems to be exacerbated as the gap between the SQ of different albums increases.

There is a bit of me I am ashamed to say the wants to get a 'return' on the money I have spent on my hifi (particularly the digital source bits) and revelling in the best sounding albums helps but I know deep down I am missing out on some of the old stuff I love because it sounds so poor in comparison to the best. I think the only answer is to lower expectations accordingly when playing some of the oldies!

There is some fantastic 24bit stuff out there. Never mind the maths and the endless theory about what people actually hear, they sound superb and superior to their 16bit originals. Which is no easy thing to establish given that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to get anyone to tell you definitively where the source material came from. 

Sadly the good stuff is overshadowed by awful recordings and remasterings. But this is not the sole province of HiRes. We've always has this tug of war - not for nothing do I still have a cupboard full of Japanese vinyl imports from the 80s (and no TT to play them on). In the past couple of weeks I've had opportunities to broaden my enjoyment in HiRes with a Hookless New Order release which is being well received and Garbage's first album in lovely 24bit.  But just check out the DR values. EEK!

Apart from not wanting to pay to be insulted I wouldn't like to give anyone the impression that this kind of nonsense is in any way acceptable. So Grace Under Pressure 24/48 it is then. Actually that's not too brilliant SQ wise because it never was. But at least you can hear the music.

+1, sometimes it is worth reflecting on the fact that we hear with our ears, there would be a lot less endless threads arguing debating nothing if more people remembered that

Has there ever been an attempt by Naim music lovers to compile an ever-growing list of 'recommended' quality recordings (Artist / Album / Vendor / resolution / price ). Restricted to legacy music that has been reissued time again, so as to help each other secure the best source ( a bit like comparing / recommending the hardware which we do already )? I ask here as I'm sure we've all got a broadly similar (apart from George!) taste in how we want our music to sound.

In a nutshell.

An audiophile friend of mine is convinced that the relative (analogue) simplicity of recording techniques and mixing desks of yesteryear plays a big part in this. Current digital technology allows (and encourages) all manner of mangling of the original signal, and the results are obvious on a high resolution domestic system.

T'other evening I played a couple of vinyl albums from the mid 1970's. The eponymous Joan Armatrading album and 'Captain Fantastic' by Sir Reginald Dwight. They are good examples of a glorious transparency and clarity on a lot of recordings of that era which is audibly absent on the vast majority of popular music recording and mastering today.

Less is more?

John.

Yup, GIGO.

Back in the day, Joan Armatrading's first album was used a lot to show high quality systems. It's still great.

Even high quality, complex stuff benefits from better replay. Until I got a CDS3/555, Duke Ellington's "Money Jungle" didn't make a bit of musical sense to me. I can't say I'm crazy about it even now, but at least I have some idea of what's happening.

'Show Some Emotion' even better imho.

G

John

I really like Joan Armatrading - which album are you referring to?

There is no comprehensive/definitive list because discussions tend to ramble and twist and turn. Computer Audiophile is a good source. Also the Steve Hoffman forum. For the most part you have to sift and stumble. Or ask a question on a forum like CA.

Worth setting up a thread perhaps just for 24 bit recommendations and nothing else?

Listened to some sonny boy Williams on a melco through a TT no network into 252- 300 and neat speakers this week probably the best digital I have heard yet!

set up at my dealers.( sounds like a drug den) 

Hilz 

 DSD recording

 was very impressive !

Yes definitely, yourself and Harry would know something about Rush and how to avoid the lemons!

I would not be averse to good 16bit recommends too, some here still prefer to own some'thing'. For instance the current Roxy Music complete studio CD box set is of a higher quality than the HDCD remasters (which I sold on) and the 1st gen. CD reissues. Pan Sonic's rare and high priced 4 CD release 'Kesto' sounds great and I picked it up as a 16bit download for €15 from Qobuz.

Armatrading's debut album: 'Whatever's For Us'

This original UK pressing does sound quite good.

I'd certainly appreciate such a thread and chip in what I could. 16/44 also - a case in point being the MFSL CD of The Yes Album sounding better than any HiRes release (to my ears) until Steve Wilson's release. HDCD is also interesting. Sounded really good on CDX2 into Graaff GM50 but most of them now sound artificially pumped up on the NDS/552/500. 

Potential issues with such a thread include meandering sideways and crapping, as in "how can you possibly hear anything at 192....." or "how can you possibly listen to that crappy band/album/genre....." but nothing ventured.......

I've started one in the music room, lets see how far we get