With improving audio technologies, Fair to blame Bad Sound on "Bad Recordings" or have Bad Systems?

I don't know if any of you have this recording (Double LP, or CD); if you do, what do you think of the sound?
I was listening to it yesterday, from the Redbook.

Coleman%2BHawkins%2B-%2BBody%2B%26%2BSoul.jpg


It was recorded low; I had to turn the volume up. Still, it was reserved and without much presence. The sax was certainly not full, not like a good sax recording.
I'm talking quality recording sound here; the mics weren't good, or I'm missing a better reproduction, perhaps from a remastered LP?
That's why I'm asking if some of you have that recording. Because I doubt that a $500,000 hi-fi sound system will make my CD sound better.
But I don't know how if the sound from the Double LP, or if there is a quality remastered recording of it. /// 1939 is getting quite old, and the audio recording equipment of that time wasn't quite "hi-fi" yet. Do you guys know some 1939 quality music recordings?

• Recording Date: October 11, 1939 - July 9, 1956
 
Last edited:
As high end gear has improved, with great analog digging so much information from the grooves and reference DACs pulling musical bits off digital sources in kinder and gentler ways, is it fair to blame bad sounding systems on "bad recordings"? Or do so many systems suck, with bad tone, poor dynamics, lack of recreation of spacial elements, inability to project sound energy from the point in space toward listener (blowing horn), etc.?

Obviously, I am not talking about a recording made by a guy holding up a microphone in a crowd or something severely compressed, but an average classical, jazz, blues, or rock record from 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s, or CDs created off those, with music one enjoys.

Shouldn't the best systems pull the best elements out of those recordings instead of having the whole thing sound like crap?

Yes.

your system should be liberating one to buy and listen to more music and more new music. Certainly these days there is so much fantastic new music around in almost every genre
 
I don't know if any of you have this recording (Double LP, or CD); if you do, what do you think of the sound?
I was listening to it yesterday, from the Redbook.

Coleman%2BHawkins%2B-%2BBody%2B%26%2BSoul.jpg


It was recorded low; I had to turn the volume up. Still, it was reserved and without much presence. The sax was certainly not full, not like a good sax recording.
I'm talking quality recording sound here; the mics weren't good, or I'm missing a better reproduction, perhaps from a remastered LP?
That's why I'm asking if some of you have that recording. Because I doubt that a $500,000 hi-fi sound system will make my CD sound better.
But I don't know how if the sound from the Double LP, or if there is a quality remastered recording of it. /// 1939 is getting quite old, and the audio recording equipment of that time wasn't quite "hi-fi" yet. Do you guys know some 1939 quality music recordings?

• Recording Date: October 11, 1939 - July 9, 1956

Hi Bob,

Ampex was founded in 1948. My Ampex 350's were built in May,1952 and those were a stereo pair. The best early recording I have is "I can't get started with you" on the "Chinatown" movie soundtrack. I think until modern magnetic tape recorders were used the recordings were just not up to the quality of the early 1950's.
 
Agree. Perhaps that is why exhibitors often just play the simple stuff at shows, because they know their sound would fall apart if they'd play something more challenging.

Agreed.

Tom
 
Hi Bob,

Ampex was founded in 1948. My Ampex 350's were built in May,1952 and those were a stereo pair. The best early recording I have is "I can't get started with you" on the "Chinatown" movie soundtrack. I think until modern magnetic tape recorders were used the recordings were just not up to the quality of the early 1950's.

Hi Roger,

After checking the date for that recording, from 1939, I thought that was the main reason the sound quality is not there on this particular recording.
The album itself is highly recommended for the music though. In the 50's yes, there are some quality sounding music recordings, from the better record labels and better sound recording engineers.
Normally audiophiles are into those, Jazz music of the 50s. With Classical music it's the same, but perhaps a little tougher. And old Blues music, Robert Johnson, ... the recordings are fantastic for the music, but the quality sound is ... very "noisy", evidently. Those are for the historical value.

Music has many facades viewed from that perspective in time...20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, etc.

The quality sound of today is from the recordings. The gear is very secondary because we'll get excellent sound from quality sound music recordings from very humble setups and gear made recently.
The emotional level from two systems is not a simple thing to measure, it's a subjective thing that dances around one percent...more or less.

Here @ high evaluation and assessment WBF, we go deep in the things that matter; everything.
One thread's subject of interest and we'll get everything out of it, or very almost.

The audio gear of today's is not to blame for poor sound quality, it's the gear used to record the music, and 80 years ago, or so, the mics and tape recorders were not as developed as they were few years later. So you are very right.

The music value is not only in sound quality, but historical value and performance from the artists of the time. Emotions don't come from quality sound, they come from soul's intensity...music that vibes our internal chords. It's a mix of many things, of everything.

One of our highly regarded forum members here said something many times over the years: "Everything is important." I really like that, it's true.
I don't have to say his name; it's like water from the faucet we use almost every day.

In the balance of everything the search for the music we love is like the discovery for the people worth loving; our families, children, elders, friends.
The other stuff, less important stuff/music, like ***** and ***** it's for other genres. And when we talk about music genres, we know how many there are and how many people live on this sphere called planet Earth...7.5 billion people globally.

Some music genres are getting much better attention on quality sound than others, and the best studio and live music record engineers are not all the same.
The performance, to me, is 90%+ of the overall impact. And performance (real talent) comes from experience and love interaction between the performers and their audiences.

Some of us spent over one million dollars on music software alone, over the years. Some people spent even more, few millions.
Some of us spent hundreds of thousands on gear alone, over the years. Others have spent much much more than that, bew billions. ;-)

The real value is in the music recordings of course, because not only it get remastered and we can throw away our old ones in the trash, but also in our own evolution...us the listeners, much more than the ultra high end gear, in my ultimate opinion. And the audio gear gets thrown away too. My experience here is extremely limited, so I am speaking very subjectively here and from a "dreamscape" vision...way of speech. But I still value my opinion, as a valid idea for an advanced discussion with others. All scientists are theorists. Everything counts, everything is worth listening to that has a message of value. Music is a message, words, chords, rhythms, the gear is just a mean. We don't even need any gear for acoustic music sounds. And we only use the first important watt more than all the rest following. A thousand watts mono amp is there for classical dynamics embedded in the recordings. We don't want to miss a thing, we want everything, we want to make sure of that, the assurance, the security, the confirmation, the secret vault.

So yes, it's fair to blame the bad sounding music recordings, and not the technologically advanced and improved audio gear, including the DACs, the speakers and the cables.
 
Last edited:
I knew a long time ago that I did not want a system to be exemplary on one thing/genre, at a cost to other things/genres. I am a firm believer in this statement;

You can't make chicken soup out of chicken chit.

I have designed my entire system to shine on all genre's of music, not concentrating solely on the female voice or classical/jazz for example. I want it all. I want my system to be great on all genre's and I have achieved my goal. I can put in headbanging hard rock, immediately switch to Dan Folgelburg, then on to a jazz album, reggae, move to AC/DC then throw a classical track on and finish with the worst of Eminem. All of them are equally enjoyable in my room and the goose bumps happen often with all of them. There is no congestion whatsoever and 95% of what I throw at the rig sounds superb, no matter how busy or demanding a particular passage may be.

Where it stops is bad recordings. Take Adele for example. Yes, it sounds "okay" (said with a great deal of hesitation and self doubt) but I prefer to listen to her flying down the highway with the windows down next to a 16 wheeler. That's when she sounds good. Please refer to the quote above with her albums.

When people come over or when my system is featured at an audio event, I ask them what they would like to hear. Most of them really love what they hear. Those that don't, have experiences like this one - I had a buddy of mine come over and listen to my rig. His favorite band was Rush. I know full well that Rush albums have subpar recordings but I let him listen anyways. He said that what he had heard on my system was the best he had ever heard Rush before but that he thought it would be better. I briefly explained to him why and asked if he had another band that he knew and listened too often. He stated that he liked the Eagles and that "Hotel California" was one of his reference albums.

I put in the DCC version of this album and hit play. The look on his face was priceless. He said that he never knew that Rush recordings sounded that bad before. He stated to me that going from Rush to this album was like changing entire rigs. He ended up staying for well into the evening and wee hours of the night listening to as much as he could on all genre's of music. We never did put a Rush album back in the rotation but he did eventually thank me because he had mentioned that he was trying to change things in his rig to make Rush sound good. Now he knows that that's a losing battle and that you can't make chicken soup out of chicken chit.

I don't know if any of you have ever paid attention to my signature before but I live and breath my audio life by my signature. "In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence." I feel that I have achieved excellence but refuse to chase perfection for one genre or reproductive effort (female voice for example) while accepting a loss of audio quality on another. There is simply too much music out there to concentrate on perfecting a rig to one genre or reproductive effort. I'd much rather have excellence on all and with some exceptions, I don't blame anything on the recordings.

If a system does not do what mine does, it's not necessarily a "bad system". It's just not what I would want in a system. With that said, I have heard plenty of truly bad systems out there and price means not one thing when it comes to these bad systems. I have heard 6 figure to million dollar plus rigs you couldn't pay me to listen too and 30K rigs that are outstanding. Here is a good example of a bad system....well, a bad speaker that was part of a bad system anyways. My one statement review would be this with regards to these speakers would be, "The song started and I was wondering where the music was". These were auditioned down at Hi-Fi Buys down in Atlanta, GA.

http://www.monitoraudiousa.com/products/platinum-ii/pl500-ii

Now considering that the front end of the system I heard this one was rather good (around the 60K mark), I would consider this a "bad system". On the flip side, I'd venture to bet that Rush and Adele wouldn't sound that bad on them because so much musical information is missing, you wouldn't be able to tell that the recordings were bad. LOL. My guess would be that to some, this would be considered a "good system".

Tom
 
Last edited:
Very good post, Tom.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I also like my system to excel on all genres and think I have gotten quite far in that quest.

Today, among many other things, I played Stravinsky conducts Stravinsky, Symphony in C, and also this (at high volume):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHCrgjsAFvU

(the youtube video sounds ridiculously bad and 'slow' compared to what I hear on my system)
 
(...) I have designed my entire system to shine on all genre's of music, not concentrating solely on the female voice or classical/jazz for example. (...)
(...) I also like my system to excel on all genres and think I have gotten quite far in that quest.(...)

I must say that IMHO my system does not shine or excel on all genres. I optimize it for the music I appreciate more and I have good conscience that if I wanted a system to play the Darkside of the Moon, Lamb lies down on Broadway, Klaus Schulze electronic music or rock I would build a completely different system, with much better performance on this type of music. But probably it would not shine in chamber or ancient music ...
 
I know a few audio buddies that have two or three systems. One for each of their respective preferred genres or reproductive preferences. Heck, even Bob Carver has a preference. His is the female voice. In particular Patricia Barber, if memory serves me correctly. If a system does not offer him a reproductive effort on the female voice worthy of what he is looking for, he does not want to listen to it...or (knowing him) he will dive in and tweak the system to perform it's best on the female voice. It's like he has a severe fetish for the female voice.

I have no problem with this approach for those who want to do it this way but the female voice is but one of a million different things I want a system to shine on. Perfection with just the female voice is but a small fraction of what I personally am looking for in a system.

Microstrip, in your case, I can respect that. There is nothing wrong with your approach as it is your own personal preference. Truth be told, if I won the lottery next week and I could have multiple rooms/systems? I would do the same thing. Pursue perfection on certain genre's/preferences with each rig. One can dream, right?

I knew of this guy once that instead of having different systems to pursue this, he had cables hanging in a room that were labeled for each preference or genre. If he wanted to move the system from one to another, he would simply swap the cables to have the system to give him what he wanted. That's way to much work for me. I have worked hard to get where I am at and at this point in my audio journey, I just want to sit down and enjoy the music....whatever music I throw at the rig.....and hopefully not have to worry about the recording.

Tom
 
I think we don't want to fix the warts of the music. we want to be able to hear differences between pressings, or setting up a tonearm, or formats. we want to be able to enjoy the full intentions of the artist or mix engineer, and when we listen for it we might want to be able to hear little tricks in the mix. grunge needs to be grungy, shrill needs to be shrill, there needs to be an 'in your face' gear when it's needed.

every different recording should be distinctly unique; yet the details of that should not hit us as the message.

yet the musical message needs to be present and we need to be enveloped with musical feelings. I don't see any conflict between these attributes.

but if a system is trying to do something and it runs out of gas, or cannot quite pull it off then you get degrees of distortion......or omission.

why can't a system do large scale orchestral, very subtle vocals, and sublime string quartets, and then flamingo or rock n' roll?

I think the hardest conflict to resolve is scale and intimacy. extremely top notch examples of both of those in one system is the real challenge,
 
Well said, Mike.
 
The last line, with the word "intimacy" ... I like that.

As for scale vs. intimacy: as I have said before, if i had unlimited resources I would have two systems, one for large-scale music in a very large room, the other one for smaller scale down to initmate, in a smaller room.

There is a reason why many major concert venues have two halls, a large one for the 'big' events, and a smaller one for chamber music and the like.

***

When given the choice of compromise within one single system, I'd err on the initmate side. I'd rather have large-scale music reproduced with a smaller image (an error of omission) but small scale and intimate music at the right size, instead of large-scale music at a grand scale but small scale music blown up beyond proportions (error of commission).
 
You can have large scale reproduction with plenty of intimacy if your talking about a emotional connection. I'd rather start with large scale and develop intimacy. I wouldn't want to engineer the opposite.
 
As for scale vs. intimacy: as I have said before, if i had unlimited resources I would have two systems, one for large-scale music in a very large room, the other one for smaller scale down to initmate, in a smaller room.

There is a reason why many major concert venues have two halls, a large one for the 'big' events, and a smaller one for chamber music and the like.

***

When given the choice of compromise within one single system, I'd err on the initmate side. I'd rather have large-scale music reproduced with a smaller image (an error of omission) but small scale and intimate music at the right size, instead of large-scale music at a grand scale but small scale music blown up beyond proportions (error of commission).

the pursuit of intimacy, which covers a variety of aspects of reproduction, has been a major focus for me for years (not that I'm unique in that). it is something I had in spades with my previous smallish room and with my new room initially I thought I had it, but I did not, really. I did have a natural level of scale and energy instead. but in the last few years with all my room and system tuning it's now a significant strength. it's taken me so much effort to get it where I'm satisfied. and when the macro capabilities of the room are combined with uber intimacy it does take things far with any type of music that is out there.

but it is a level of commitment that is not for everyone, nor does everyone's musical tastes necessarily require that all bases are covered. and I agree if one were choosing, intimacy gets you closer to the music than scale of the two. but unless your room and system inherently have the bones for scale, it's challenging to add it. which was where I was with my previous room and system, and why I took the big step on switching homes and building a room. it was a strategic decision and I had no idea of the path it would take me down.

so to get them both likely you have to put up with less intimacy on the road to both. but when you do get all the way there the payoff is magnificent.
 
When I emphasized the word "intimacy" I wasn't thinking about the scale in particular (large or small) of the performance. But it sure is essential.
Each room has its own intimacy, its own scale, and intimacy comes with any scale. If the room is large and allows for a classical orchestra to breathe, from a proportional large audio setup with full range loudspeakers like Mike has, and Jack and Steve and their friends from the pictures that Steve shared when he was visiting Jack's friends over there, it is something that I can only imagine; the grandiose scale of intimacy from a symphony orchestral music piece. Eg.;

12698657_10153818214175953_535098218850692552_o.jpg

orchestra-overhead.jpg

Orchestre-de-Paris-696x329.jpg


And the very last line from Mike: "Extremely top notch examples of both of those in one system is the real challenge."

..."the real challenge". Yes, to reproduce what the musicians and recording engineers captured on the tape machines, with pinpoint accuracy, and with the room's ambiance, large or small, with the full emotional impact of the live performance.
Not all of us have the room to reproduce the grand scale of intimacy; we have to content with the smaller scale of intimacy...chamber classical, jazz ensemble, quartet, trio, quintet, ...

It is an advantage of higher level for the people like Mike, Jack, Steve...and gang with large rooms and large systems.
Spin a quality music recording (performance and sound) of a classical symphony, and it must be closer to intimate heavens.
...Like being there ...

1471967017sistine-chapel-hero.jpg

Rome%2B-%2BChurch%2B3.jpg
 
Last edited:
the pursuit of intimacy, which covers a variety of aspects of reproduction, has been a major focus for me for years (not that I'm unique in that). it is something I had in spades with my previous smallish room and with my new room initially I thought I had it, but I did not, really. I did have a natural level of scale and energy instead. but in the last few years with all my room and system tuning it's now a significant strength. it's taken me so much effort to get it where I'm satisfied. and when the macro capabilities of the room are combined with uber intimacy it does take things far with any type of music that is out there.

but it is a level of commitment that is not for everyone, nor does everyone's musical tastes necessarily require that all bases are covered. and I agree if one were choosing, intimacy gets you closer to the music than scale of the two. but unless your room and system inherently have the bones for scale, it's challenging to add it. which was where I was with my previous room and system, and why I took the big step on switching homes and building a room. it was a strategic decision and I had no idea of the path it would take me down.

so to get them both likely you have to put up with less intimacy on the road to both. but when you do get all the way there the payoff is magnificent.

That makes sense. I have much more scale now than I used to, and when people visit they routinely comment on the 'big sound', but it's not really what it should be -- to be honest, so far I have never heard any system that can reprduce orchestral music 'on scale'.

It may be possible, depending on where you sit in the concert hall. First 3 or 4 rows, forget it. The image is just so hugely wide that you'd need a super large room with an array of several speakers, not just two. A bit further back, perhaps. Mid-hall -- no problem. The image there actually can become really small, when you close your eyes for a more accurate sonic assessment; unlike the image, the power though does not become 'small'.

However, the sonics of many orchestral recordings clearly indicate that they are not recorded mid-hall, but further upfront (the issue of multi-miking aside). So that right there becomes a primary challenge of scale.

Intimacy in my system -- up to perfect, depending on recording. Reproducing the complexities and separation of instruments (rather than the full image) of large-scale music -- system is quite good at that by now.
 
Yet even if you had a system that could reproduce closer to the width of a full orchestra relatively upfront, you might have another problem of scale. Players in a string quartets usually just don't sit 30 feet apart. Yet that is what it sounds like on some 'big' systems in large rooms. This is not realistic either. Even in my own system string quartet recordings sound sometimes at the very limit of 'permissible' width.

So fully complying to the demands of vastly different scales in a single system is difficult. I am not claiming it cannot be done, I just haven't heard it yet.

I still think the ideal, if you had unlimited resources, would be two different systems in two very different size rooms.
 
Yet even if you had a system that could reproduce closer to the width of a full orchestra relatively upfront, you might have another problem of scale. Players in a string quartets usually just don't sit 30 feet apart. Yet that is what it sounds like on some 'big' systems in large rooms. This is not realistic either. Even in my own system string quartet recordings sound sometimes at the very limit of 'permissible' width.

So fully complying to the demands of vastly different scales in a single system is difficult. I am not claiming it cannot be done, I just haven't heard it yet.

you have to start with scale without any limits. there has to be headroom (where the system capability exceeds musical demands substantially) in the room and gear and coherence too. the room and system have to have that ease and the music has to be able to breathe. then you go to work removing obstacles to intimacy one step at a time, along the way with a clear reference in your mind of where you are going. and don't stop.

I still think the ideal, if you had unlimited resources, would be two different systems in two very different size rooms.

I disagree.

it turns out that once the smoke clears the best aspects of each complement both. scale supercharges intimacy with exceptional nuance ability. and intimacy humanizes scale with soul and inner meaning. there is scale in intimate recordings, and intimacy in large scale recordings.

there is no conflict when it all works. the recording process provides the proper perspective for any type music. if your system can allow for any presentation then all can work.

certainly taste can be an influence. if you have to use low power tubes to get the color you crave then that can be a reason to have another system......or something like that. I'm not saying that there are not reasons to have multiple systems. but my own opinion is that the best possible way to listen to intimacy is with a system that also exceeds at scale too. all music benefits from both characteristics. but we all chose what we like.

recently I wrote about how I sit in the extreme near-field in my large room. people had a hard time getting their heads around it; sitting so close to -4- 7 foot tall 750 pound towers. but this is exactly the sort of approach it took to achieve scale and intimacy......at the end of a very long road.

how can you sit so close?

it's where I found the extreme performance for both viewpoints, at the same time.

it was the last piece of the puzzle.

and interestingly and logically, scale cost me lots and lots of money; there is no easy way for this. intimacy was almost pure time and effort and zero dollar cost.
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu