As strange as it may seem, I really don't care about recording quality.

[fpitas]

The world of audio is a strange place. For example, no one thinks twice about a car guy tweaking the engine and suspension for that last little bit of performance on the track. It's kind of expected, in fact; that's what car guys do. I've never heard people criticize by saying, "It's all about the driving."

 

[Pandovski]

The world of audio is a strange place. For example, no one thinks twice about a car guy tweaking the engine and suspension for that last little bit of performance on the track. It's kind of expected, in fact; that's what car guys do. I've never heard people criticize by saying, "It's all about the driving."

Ever talked to the Cadillac / Rolls Royce / Bentley crowd?

 

[fpitas]

Ever talked to the Cadillac / Rolls Royce / Bentley crowd?

No; my main involvement with cars is racing. Most of those guys aren't much into racing

 

[kirk57]

It depends on the Bentley, I suppose.

My friend has a 1954 Bentley R-type Continental sedan, and rest assured that racing is not an activity one conducts with this motorcar.

Such violent means of transport might spill the tea of the occupants, and that simply would not do.

 

[Urchinn]

Great point, Brett. I like knowing that if the source is clean, I can hear it in my Cornwalls. Still, if I put on an old Dylan bootleg, I can look through the obvious fact that someone in the audience recorded the show. Growing up with The Beatles, and listening to their hits on our car radio (AM...mono), was more thrilling than ANYTHING a tube can reproduce in my living room.

 

[ofajen]

I find when I am assessing the quality of a recording, I'm not listening to what the artist wants me to hear, but rather what the engineer wants me to hear or similarly what the design and build engineers had in mind. And like so many have said already, it's really the muscician that is causing me to do all this.

You can choose to engage in diagnostic listening on the playback side, where you are focused on either the sound of the equipment with a reference recording or the sound of the recording from a known system. But you will generally not be susceptible to the core musical communication of the recording while doing so. It's a different type of listening and your experience is different.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[blackfly]

I have some recordings of music that I really like, but it is poorly recorded, and sadly, as my system got better, I listen to them less since the recording is poor. It seems the better the system the worse a bad recording sounds, and I find I cannot listen to it if it is that bad. I find the good, even the best, recordings more engaging, involving and interesting since you can hear more nuances and detail. And note, I am not talking about sound/music STYLE. That is becoming irrelevant to more moreso over the recording/performance sounding good.

 

[JoeESP9]

Yea, but the definition in the dictionary isn't the reality. I have 2 friends, one is an audiophile and the other is an audiophile.

Fist one frets over cable sound and speaker placement and only listens to audiophile music on his 50k system. Discussions with him always are about the gear and he uses all the "audiophile phrases" while enjoying a nice red wine at proper temperature.

Second one has a decent AVR with some ok KEF speakers but music is in his heart. He listens to everything he can find, even if the quality is youtube 360p. Discussions with him are always about artists and music while we drink a beer.


So, your dictionary is wrong.

Come on. Even you say they are both "audiophiles". The definition only refers to the actual meaning of the word.

Definition of AUDIOPHILE
: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

That leaves room for everyone, from the vintage lover, to the gear lover, to the music lover and everyone in-between.

 

[Ken Boyd]

You can choose to engage in diagnostic listening on the playback side, where you are focused on either the sound of the equipment with a reference recording or the sound of the recording from a known system. But you will generally not be susceptible to the core musical communication of the recording while doing so. It's a different type of listening and your experience is different.

Cheers,

Otto

For the most part are we not always just listening to the sound of the equipment because in most all cases we have no way of knowing what the core of the musical communication, as you put it, sounds like, we were not at the event.

 

[Brett a]

(...) It seems the better the system the worse a bad recording sounds /

I continue to wonder about this. I see different people report different experiences in this regard. Some of us find the better our systems get, the better everything sounds. But plenty of people report what you have reported here, blackfly.

I wonder why this is. :scratch2:

Are we listening differently? Are our systems assembled with different goals? I really dot know. But it's an engaging mystery.

For the most part are we not always just listening to the sound of the equipment because in most all cases we have no way of knowing what the core of the musical communication, as you put it, sounds like, we were not at the event.

I don't listen to too many "events". I find I mostly listen to studio recordings which are crafted over time and often in many locations. There is no "event" involved in their creation. The event doesn't happen until the recording has been mastered and we sit in our living rooms to give a listen.

 

[ofajen]

For the most part are we not always just listening to the sound of the equipment because in most all cases we have no way of knowing what the core of the musical communication, as you put it, sounds like, we were not at the event.

My view is that there are many different types of listening, but the core musical values connect at some level of emotion and language, and at a deeper and more fundamental level than the bare auditory experience.

I can listen in a diagnostic way to equipment or recordings, but if I'm concentrating on those things, I will not experience the musical message in the way I do if I listen for the music, rather than the details of sound. When I'm listening to other people's music, I try to keep the diagnostic listening turned off, for the most part.

Sometimes it's interesting when I turn that back on, at times, and notice odd details of production that just washed over me when I was listening mainly to the music. It often is many years and many listenings later when I will notice with particularity some odd feature of the sound.

Actually, I might argue that I know the recording has been done well when those details aren't obvious and the musical message comes through without distraction.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[blackfly]

I continue to wonder about this. I see different people report different experiences in this regard. Some of us find the better our systems get, the better everything sounds. But plenty of people report what you have reported here, blackfly.

I wonder why this is. :scratch2:

Are we listening differently? Are our systems assembled with different goals? I really dot know. But it's an engaging mystery.



I don't listen to too many "events". I find I mostly listen to studio recordings which are crafted over time and often in many locations. There is no "event" involved in their creation. The event doesn't happen until the recording has been mastered and we sit in our living rooms to give a listen.

The better the system the more detail it gives. Which also points out if the miking was bad, a muffled master tape low in detail or bass...... the cleaner the window, the better the view out of it, regardless what you are looking at. Less resolving systems don't bring out this detail.

 

[sheltie dave]

A good recording allows me to directly hear what the artist is laying down. A great recording finds the artist and the engineers to be on the same page, and sympathetic to each others' needs and abilities. A poor recording can only succeed if the inspiration rises above the morass that is recorded.

I find it much easier to stomach a poor recording if I listen on a lower quality stereo, as my expectations are adjusted to fit limited means.

All things can be decent, but going out of one's way to say recording quality is of lesser importance is akin to listening to Led Zeppelin only on Dahlquist DQ10s, and using Cerwin Vegas for all your critical classical listening. Some music can transcend multiple issues, but why handicap the playing field so severely?

 

[N8Nagel]

I don't listen to too many "events". I find I mostly listen to studio recordings which are crafted over time and often in many locations. There is no "event" involved in their creation. The event doesn't happen until the recording has been mastered and we sit in our living rooms to give a listen.

I'm the exact opposite... I much prefer live recordings, at least when it comes to rock, blues, punk, etc. (I guess any symphonic recording is pretty much "live" although that's a different animal...) I'm happier when I find that nugget of energy that transcends any limitations of the recording than I am listening to a beautifully mastered studio recording. (of course, there are studio recordings where the music itself is just so great that it blows you away anyway, and those are wonderful too.)

I don't have any real high end stuff, although I have found a few things that might be considered very low level scores. I mostly hang out here so I don't make any dumb mistakes, and to find out what's good and what's not so I can improve my system when I need to buy a new component and/or see something at a garage sale worth picking up. But I'm definitely not the guy who obsesses over cables and such like, and I'd rather listen to music I like through a boom box than a great recording of something that doesn't float my boat through a true audiophile quality system.

 

[tomlinmgt]

Ever talked to the Cadillac / Rolls Royce / Bentley crowd?

Yeah, and my answer to them would be.... (see attachment)

...though personally I'd be inclined to black out all the chrome.

But I'm with you, fpitas. In the world of automotive enthusiasts the tweakers rule the day as the quest for ever higher levels of performance is the norm. Restore my '68 Camaro to stock? Why? So I can have a museum piece? Where's the fun in that? I feel the same about audio and my gear represents that as I'll tweak it if the opportunity is there and reasonable. And yeah, I do it because I want a little more SQ if I can get it...even if from crappy recordings. And if improved resolution happens to make the crappy recordings sound even more crappy then why should I care? It was crappy to begin with. I know the payoff comes with the good recordings, and since in my collection the good recordings outnumber the bad by about ten to one I'll stay on the tweaker's trajectory.

 

[rifftrax]

Recording quality is different than mixing quality is different than mastering quality.

I can almost guarantee you no-one likes something that's recorded badly, many people have trouble enjoying something that was mixed badly and seldom do people really care or even detect when something is mastered badly.

True story.

 

[Pandovski]

Yeah, and my answer to them would be.... (see attachment)

...though personally I'd be inclined to black out all the chrome.

But I'm with you, fpitas. In the world of automotive enthusiasts the tweakers rule the day as the quest for ever higher levels of performance is the norm. Restore my '68 Camaro to stock? Why? So I can have a museum piece? Where's the fun in that? I feel the same about audio and my gear represents that as I'll tweak it if the opportunity is there and reasonable. And yeah, I do it because I want a little more SQ if I can get it...even if from crappy recordings. And if improved resolution happens to make the crappy recordings sound even more crappy then why should I care? It was crappy to begin with. I know the payoff comes with the good recordings, and since in my collection the good recordings outnumber the bad by about ten to one I'll stay on the tweaker's trajectory.

LOL. If I wanted a performance car, I wouldn't tune and mod a Rolls Royce. That's done just for shits and giggles. I'd rather restore it and enjoy its comfort and luxury. But then again the giggles are fun too.

And yes, more black!

 

[AnalogDigit]

Like everyone here, I like listening to music. I also enjoy listening to my equipment sometimes. (Ever choose to listen to something becasue it sounds good? I have).

But the other night I was listening to a really badly mastered CD ("Home Again" by Michael Kiwanuka) but I wasn't experiencing the lack of anything. I would not have gotten up to change the CD b/c it was poorly mastered, nor did I wish I had tone controls.

And it dawned on me; To a great degree, really don't care how well something is recorded or mastered. I mean, I can hear and appreciate an impeccably presented recording, but it's not important in the delivery of the music IME.

This may sound a little strange considering I've spent as much on my sytem as I have on my car, but it's not money wasted. I have put together a system where everything -without exception- sounds good to me I never have the need to adjust anything (tone controls or loudness for instance) nor the need to work to "listen through" defects or accept a shitty recording b/c the music is good.

No; I mean something different. I mean, for the most part, I really don't care how well something is recorded and mastered.

You?

I agree. The best pop/rock recordings ever recorded were not done to perfection. However, it does not cause me to not enjoy it.

 

[Brett a]

The better the system the more detail it gives. Which also points out if the miking was bad, a muffled master tape low in detail or bass...... the cleaner the window, the better the view out of it, regardless what you are looking at. Less resolving systems don't bring out this detail.

So if this is what's going on for everyone (b/c it's what my experience is as well), it seems some people simply perceive this as better and some as worse.

I think I'm understanding more clearly that some folks find adding layers of veiling over bad recordings makes them sound better. (Crappy recordings sound better on lower-fi equipment). This would explain the occasional thread here by a person finding they prefer the sound of a CD more after it is recorded onto, then played back from, a cassette; Decreasing fidelity increases enjoyment. Am I understanding this correctly?

Personally, I find the more I hear of any recordings (as you described above) the better the music sounds; the more I enjoy it. I find a better system makes everything sound better and makes nothing sound worse.

Recording quality is different than mixing quality is different than mastering quality.

I can almost guarantee you no-one likes something that's recorded badly, many people have trouble enjoying something that was mixed badly and seldom do people really care or even detect when something is mastered badly.

True story.

I have a different take. I think people (at least around here) are quite sensitive to mastering. Then some of us just have plain ol preferences when it comes to engineering. I really don't like close mic'ed recordings. I prefer the binaural method. But that's a simple preference. I don't lose sleep over it.

And it's relevant to the thread topic to add that many of us don't have trouble enjoying poorly recorded, mixed, or mastered recordings. I mean, that's what I was saying when I started this thread. I enjoy music. It doesn't matter THAT MUCH how it's presented from the source (CD, LP etc).

 

[onepixel]

I only settle for poor recordings when there is nothing better. A great recording captures the true character, emotion and the soul of the music.