as your system improves do you hear more and more flaws in recordings?

[Mike Lavigne]

yes; a 'trick' thread title....and incomplete from where i stand.

the real question should be 'as your system improves do you hear more and more of everything?'....flaws, detail, tonal texture, bass articulation, and ambience?

for me the answer is absolutely.

then maybe another question would be, 'do those more prominent recording artifacts which might be distracting become more of a problem as your system improves?'

my answer is that it depends on the type of recordings that you listen to mostly.....and maybe how you listen. and....how much you listen. i listen 30-40 hours a week....or more. only a couple hours a week do listen critically.

in my case i don't find system improvement to cause 'warts' in a recording to become more of a problem because i mostly listen to acoustic recordings or recordings i have such reverence for that a few flaws get filtered out by my emotional connection to the music. when i hear a 30-50 year old loved recording come alive by system improvement or finding a better pressing or a 15ips master tape dub i'm not too concerned that it might not be perfect.

to me art is perfectly imperfect.

i have chased format optimization for many years. very rarely do i hear any recording that is perfect. but i try not to listen in 'critical mode' any more than i need to. it's just not that much fun.

as my system improves i find it harder and harder to get myself away from 'music as an emotionally involving event' to 'sound to be analyzed'......the music has too strong a pull.

 

[mep]

Mike-I have always found that when you truly make an improvement to your system, ALL music benefits from it. That is where the old cliche came from about "having to rediscover your record collection." When I read those posts on other threads on this forum about how certain people "improved" their stereos to the point that all music sounds like garbage I just shook my head in disbelief. If you buy a new component/speaker and install it in your system and now all of your music sounds like crap, guess what? You need to get rid of that component/speaker you just bought because it is hosing your system.

Remember that song "I'm Too Sexy for Myself?" It kind of reminds me of people who would tell you that they really can't play their stereo for you because now their system is so good it has made all of their recordings unlistenable. I mean it is a joke, I howled when I read those statements.

In summary, every true impprovement in my system has always resulted in my hearing more information and bringing the illusion of listening to live music a little closer-warts and all.

MEP

 

[DaveyF]

Mike, that's a good question. As my system has evolved and improved over the years, I have noticed that some recordings that I felt were special are in fact not so special and visa-versa. I agree that it also seems to be a little bit dependent on the type of music you are listening to.. I find that I am more conscious of flaws in classical pieces where there is a lot going on than in say your example of acoustic recordings. If I am trying to listen critically, then a flaw is certainly more annoying and obvious than if I am listening as background...I'm also the opposite as I try to listen to my system critically as much as possible vs. when I need to.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

a few other general thoughts on this subject.

--as system performance or recording media improved many percieved flaws in a recording get revealed as system or media/mastering flaws. this is dramatically more likely than finding a recording that has a fundamental flaw.

--16 years ago i never listened to classical music. i 'heard' it but it did not draw me in; in fact, it was not enjoyable to me. now i listen to maybe 50% classical music....and my transition to it has been parallel to my system improvement. i am not a musician. music is simply art to be enjoyed to me. and now that my system is more linear and natural sounding the classical music has come alive. system limitations restricted the flow. i'm sure there are plenty of flaws in classical recordings, but they are dwarfed by the musical energy.

 

[garylkoh]

Mike,
I agree with your experience regarding classical music. I grew up and lived with classical music, but could not listen to it until about 15 years ago when my system got to the point where the system did not lose the point of classical music. There is tremendous musical energy in classical music - and that performance dwarfs the flaws in the recording and makes it so much more enjoyable on a good system.

Moreover, once the system gets to a certain point, I've found that mono- and restricted-bandwidth music becomes so much more enjoyable. Some of the oldest recordings have a "flow" that is hard to pull away from. It can be difficult to stop a record, or even a CD, before the end of the side.

 

[DaveyF]

Mike and Gary, That is basically my feelings with classical as well. However, I do feel, particularly listening to classical, if the recording has a flaw or the media has a flaw, such as a scratch in an LP or a drop-out in a CD; that is more annoying and noticeable in this type of music than any other.
IMHO, most music is better served the better the system is...which is why we are all a'philes
BTW, Gary, I don't fully agree with your comment regarding mono recordings or age of recordings, if it's a great piece of music, it's a great piece of music regardless of the medium or the age.

 

[jazdoc]

I'll take this a little further. In my experience, better analog systems somehow move the software flaws to a different 'plane' which is less obstrusive to the music. The music is somehow more involving/vivid and the faults recede...

 

[MylesBAstor]

yes; a 'trick' thread title....and incomplete from where i stand.

the real question should be 'as your system improves do you hear more and more of everything?'....flaws, detail, tonal texture, bass articulation, and ambience?

for me the answer is absolutely.

then maybe another question would be, 'do those more prominent recording artifacts which might be distracting become more of a problem as your system improves?'

my answer is that it depends on the type of recordings that you listen to mostly.....and maybe how you listen. and....how much you listen. i listen 30-40 hours a week....or more. only a couple hours a week do listen critically.

in my case i don't find system improvement to cause 'warts' in a recording to become more of a problem because i mostly listen to acoustic recordings or recordings i have such reverence for that a few flaws get filtered out by my emotional connection to the music. when i hear a 30-50 year old loved recording come alive by system improvement or finding a better pressing or a 15ips master tape dub i'm not too concerned that it might not be perfect.

to me art is perfectly imperfect.

i have chased format optimization for many years. very rarely do i hear any recording that is perfect. but i try not to listen in 'critical mode' any more than i need to. it's just not that much fun.

as my system improves i find it harder and harder to get myself away from 'music as an emotionally involving event' to 'sound to be analyzed'......the music has too strong a pull.

One could write a novelette in response to your question Mike

Let's throw this out there for discussion. As your system improves, you should hear greater differences between each recording. Perspective. Tonal balance. Miking patterns and their tradeoffs. Hall or studio sounds. Live vs. studio and all that brings. Etc., etc.

If all your recordings sound the same, one is moving in the wrong direction eg. being too colored. If all your recordings sound bloody awful or you can't stand to listen to any of your LPs, CDs, tapes, etc, then one is moving toward the opposite extreme direction of being musical eg. hyperanalytical.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I'll take this a little further. In my experience, better analog systems somehow move the software flaws to a different 'plane' which is less obstrusive to the music. The music is somehow more involving/vivid and the faults recede...

I disagree. That dislocation, which does permit the listener to learn to ignore some faults, is restricted to surface noises and other mechanical noises of the turntable setup but not the flaws inherent in the LP itself. IMHO, of course.

 

[Robert]

With regard to the question in the title, I experience the opposite. Each improvement brings a greater sense of realism and musical technique.

I listen exclusively to classical music, and I really don't understand when people ask what are some good recordings. We are fortunate to have thousands of recordings that are treasures. I would say <10% are recorded less than ideally. If the recording sounds dry, distant, or overly close, my experience is that the stereo is not resolving the information properly.

While any recording flaws become less evident, system improvements do reveal weak links. A little grain, a slight haze, a touch of treble roll-off. I can hear the flaws in cables, and getting these correct will be the final pieces of the puzzle.

 

[Ethan Winer]

the real question should be 'as your system improves do you hear more and more of everything?'....flaws, detail, tonal texture, bass articulation, and ambience?

It depends on the nature of the improvement. If your previous "not so good" speakers had too much treble, then normal flat speakers will sound less detailed and less revealing. But they'll likely sound better (not so harsh) and certainly they'll be higher fidelity.

One recent trend I find very disturbing is many speakers sold to pro mix engineers have a 2 to 8 dB dip in the harshness range between 2 and 4 KHz. This makes the speakers sound less harsh and less fatiguing, and more pleasant. So these speakers often get good reviews in magazines and audio forums. But mixes made on such speakers will tend to be harsh when played on better speakers that are more flat. And this penalizes people with better speakers.

--Ethan

 

[mep]

Let's look at this from another angle. I am going to name two LPs that will knock your socks off assuming you have a decent system: Sonny Rollins "Way Out West" and the 45 RPM version of Herbie Hancock "Maiden Voyage." Way out West was recorded in 1957 and Maiden Voyage was recorded in 1965. Does anyone think that with the level of consumer gear available in both 1957 and 1965 that anyone heard close to what we are hearing today on both of these remarkable albums? I'm sure there were a select few who were pulling off some pretty good sound in those days, specially by 1965. However, I dare say that the amount of info we are pulling off these recordings today would shock those who bought them back in the day. And what a testimony to the recording engineers, analog tape, and vacuum tubes. Most modern day engineers should be ashamed of themselves after listening to the quality of sound that was laid down in 1957. Specially those engineers who are involved in the loudness wars where they record everything at 0dB so there is zero dynamic range.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I agree completely. One of the (few) great sounding CDs I have is a 1960s recording of Bert Kaempfert's greatest hits. Pop music engineers today would do well to listen to those wonderful older recordings. Though in my opinion those recordings sound great in spite of the "vintage" gear that was used, not because of it.

--Ethan

 

[mep]

I don't agree with you Ethan. I believe the recordings sound the way they do precisely because of the gear they were using. Please name me one jazz recording that has been made in the last 15-20 years using all the *finest* digital technology and non-tube microphones that can rival just the two LPs I named in terms of sound quality. And frankly, I don't don't know of any genre of music besides classical where so much care was always taken to capture as accurately as possible the sound of the instruments and the room like jazz.

 

[Robert]

There are some wonderful sounding older recordings, but don't forget there is a selection bias for good recordings and great performances over time. Many examples of poorly engineered recordings exist from the good-ol-days. Artificial channel separation, overly close miking, and very large instrumental images can also make for an unrealistic and disorienting presentation. Today, voice filters and electronic-generated sounds make most music unlistenable.

I think for classical music, there was alot of pride starting from the late '50s to record for legacy, with the very best sound. Decca and Philips, in particular, seem to have put a high priority on engineering. For example, when the first stereo Ring Cycle was recorded by Decca, the producer knew that this needed to be something very special. Over 50 years later, it could still be regarded as the most authoratative stereo recording with the best stereo-recorded singers and the best sound.

 

[mep]

Robert-I agree with your points. There are certainly many examples of crappy recordings made during the golden era. I just don't know if anything being made today clearly beats the best from yesteryear.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I believe the recordings sound the way they do precisely because of the gear they were using.

On what do you base that? Please be very specific. Maybe you can describe your own experiences recording jazz trios using both old and new equipment in various studios and venues.

Please name me one jazz recording that has been made in the last 15-20 years using all the *finest* digital technology and non-tube microphones that can rival just the two LPs I named in terms of sound quality.

I never heard either of the recordings you mentioned so I can't even guess. But I do have a jazz trio recording made about ten years ago by Tom Jung (famous engineer) that was done entirely on the then-new Yamaha ProMix 01 digital recording console. Since this was done by a talented engineer as a demo for a company with a large budget, I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that it sounds amazing. Clearer to my ears than anything ever done using analog tape, if only for the lack of tape hiss.

--Ethan

 

[FrantzM]

I don't agree with you Ethan. I believe the recordings sound the way they do precisely because of the gear they were using. Please name me one jazz recording that has been made in the last 15-20 years using all the *finest* digital technology and non-tube microphones that can rival just the two LPs I named in terms of sound quality. And frankly, I don't don't know of any genre of music besides classical where so much care was always taken to capture as accurately as possible the sound of the instruments and the room like jazz.

While I will not go as far as Ethan

Though in my opinion those recordings sound great in spite of the "vintage" gear that was used, not because of it.

The tools available today be they SS or tubes are superior to what was available to these engineers and in the correct hands ( for example those of the aforementioned Tom Jung or Keith Johnson or Kavi Alexander to only name the three , there are others) provide results that surpass yesteryear's best...
And before we get swept by the wave of nostalgia, let's not forget that indeed while there some gems there were many recordings of this era were serious duds...

Now trying to answer the original question: Yes with a "but". The better recording presents even more information, the lesser ones can become truly atrocious in some instances ... or simply remain listenable but bad recordings .. The better system let you "see"/know why... It can in some instances magnify faults that were masked by a less resolving system .. the degree to which they become objectionable vary with the listener

 

[MylesBAstor]

On what do you base that? Please be very specific. Maybe you can describe your own experiences recording jazz trios using both old and new equipment in various studios and venues.



I never heard either of the recordings you mentioned so I can't even guess. But I do have a jazz trio recording made about ten years ago by Tom Jung (famous engineer) that was done entirely on the then-new Yamaha ProMix 01 digital recording console. Since this was done by a talented engineer as a demo for a company with a large budget, I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that it sounds amazing. Clearer to my ears than anything ever done using analog tape, if only for the lack of tape hiss.

--Ethan

Not to knock Tom but I find his DMP recordings being referred too way too closely miked and multi-miked. The mikes must be inside the instruments.

 

[mep]

On what do you base that? Please be very specific. Maybe you can describe your own experiences recording jazz trios using both old and new equipment in various studios and venues.


-Ethan

This one is a no-brainer to answer. Uh, the recordings were made using an analog recorder, tube microphones, and a tube mixer. An all analog, all tube recording chain. So therefore, the recordings have to sound like the gear that was used to make them. Nobody jumped in a time travel machine and gave them a digital recorder to use. And who ever said that I have recorded anyone using anything?? Not me. So therefore I have no experience recording jazz trios or people singing in the shower for that matter and nor did I claim to. And yes, I know who Tom Jung from DMP fame is. For some reason, I don't own anything he has done. You can speculate.