Does well recorded music steer you away from listening to other?

[admin_exported]

This is something I've consciously noticed myself doing since upgrading my hifi.

As I flick through my CDs Ive started to think how it sounds before choosing what to play.

Hence I don't think I'm enjoying music in the same way as before. It works both ways though. I now listen to things I wouldn't normally choose because of how well it's recorded. Anyone else find that their choice in music is now influenced by the quality of the recording?

I listen to a wide range of music from The Strokes/Pink Floyd/Tracy Chapman/ACDC/Stone Roses/Rolling Stones/Led Zep/The Cribs.

 

[kevinJ]

I've been playing well recorded discs a lot more too, just because it sounds so much better now, and my electronics are very revealing.

On the other hand, bad recordings can still be played, but now it shows even more how bad they are.

 

[ESP2009]

In short - yes. Sad but true.

 

[jaxwired]

Yes, but this does not have to be a bad thing. I have many recordings that I find boring if played in a cheap system (like my car stereo), but they come alive on my home hifi. The quality of my system has allowed me to appreciate a much wider range of music genres.

In fact, I think that contributes to certain types of music being more popular, they sound good on cheap equipment.

 

[nlanks]

I absolutely find myself doing this, but as a result hve broadened my horizons by listening to stuff that I've not heard of because people have recommended I for sound quality or it being well mastered

 

[Electro]

Yes and no :doh:

My choice of what to buy and play is influenced by both the quality of the recording and the quality of the music in equal proportions, but luckily most of the music I like is well recorded too .

Sometimes a piece of music that I love is badly recorded and it actually makes me quite angry but I still listen to it and curse the recording or mastering engineers at the same time .

I have been that angry in the past about a very bad recording that I have thrown it away in disgust I see it as an insult to the artist playing the music , but I am a little eccentric

Like you finding good recordings opened up a much larger range of different types of music that I probably would not have looked at if sound quality was not a factor , also recommendations from other forum users on sound quality grounds have widened my musical horizons too.

 

[Alec]

Certainly not.

 

[ESP2009]

Yes and no :doh:

My choice of what to buy and play is influenced by both the quality of the recording and the quality of the music in equal proportions, but luckily most of the music I like is well recorded too .

Sometimes a piece of music that I love is badly recorded and it actually makes me quite angry but I still listen to it and curse the recording or mastering engineers at the same time .

I have been that angry in the past about a very bad recording that I have thrown it away in disgust I see it as an insult to the artist playing the music , but I am a little eccentric

Like you finding good recordings opened up a much larger range of different types of music that I probably would not have looked at if sound quality was not a factor , also recommendations from other forum users on sound quality grounds have widened my musical horizons too.

:clap:

 

[Paul.]

It affects where and how I listen, but not what I listen to. Hell is for Heroes album the Neon Handshake, or Rival School's album United by fate sounds awful on my stereo, but its not sitting still music so I wouldn't listen to it on the sofa anyway. Its good walking music, so I listen to it on headphones a lot, but United by Fate is an amazing driving album, its a favourite in the car. I find its mostly rock that is poorly produced, and I don't really listen to this at home.

The sort of music I listen to at home is either quite intimate and relaxing female vocals, or absolutely filthy breaks that take advantage of floor standers and a sub

 

[chebby]

What do you mean by a bad recording?

Simply recorded? No 'whizz-bang' effects from 24 track desks (like the drum kit appearing to orbit around the room?)

Old recordings? (Especially pre 1950s) where the 'faults' are an inescapable result of the technology available at the time.

Cheap/home-made recordings? Like a lot of original Reggae/Ska etc.

Over messed around with recordings? The result of bands and engineers (or more usually mates/hangers-on who thought they were engineers) - under the influence of various substances - multi-tracking an album to death.

Accidently 'archived' recordings? (Probably from a cassette.) Previously thought to no longer exist but uncovered - in a skip - when the studio is demolished or found amongst the estate/effects of an engineer who has recently died.

'Loudness Wars' style recordings/re-masters?

Added 'retro' effects? "Hey let's put some artistic groove noise and pops and clicks over this digital recording to make it a bit more hip".

Various permutations of the above and other factors.

Anyway, whatever the reason - if I like the music - i'll play it and make the necessary allowances for it's quirks or deficiencies.

 

[plastic penguin]

Just listen to the music, whether good, bad or indifferent. Too many people get too hung up on SQ of a recording (I've been guilty of this in the past) that it becomes less than enjoyable. Enjoy the music. That's what it's all about. The music. And not how it was recorded

 

[shafesk]

This is something I've consciously noticed myself doing since upgrading my hifi.

As I flick through my CDs Ive started to think how it sounds before choosing what to play.

Hence I don't think I'm enjoying music in the same way as before. It works both ways though. I now listen to things I wouldn't normally choose because of how well it's recorded. Anyone else find that their choice in music is now influenced by the quality of the recording?

I listen to a wide range of music from The Strokes/Pink Floyd/Tracy Chapman/ACDC/Stone Roses/Rolling Stones/Led Zep/The Cribs.

Hey Rodd, well this is something most audiophiles, myself included have to go through at some point. Its not a crime wanting to hear your system at its best, we've spent our time, money, effort and have had to make many compromises to own it after all. However, as you know its music we love that got us into hifi in the first place and surely they will hold a place in your heart whenever you play them. Its always worth having a dig around your old records and giving them a play every now and again...last night I got goose bumps from listening to 1 2 3 4 by the Plain White T's because I have a nice memory with my gf with it. Here's the thing, I listened over macbook speakers so surely hi-fi is not all that matters.

 

[6th.replicant]

What do you mean by a bad recording? ...

Any of Arcade Fire's albums - great music, but all sound as if they were recorded on the top deck of an old Routemaster using a portable '70s cassette player, and then mastered with max' 'loudness war' compression.

 

[manicm]

What do you mean by a bad recording? ...

Any of Arcade Fire's albums - great music, but all sound as if they were recorded on the top deck of an old Routemaster using a portable '70s cassette player, and then mastered with max' 'loudness war' compression.

Completely disagree with you here. I'll admit it's a matter of hifi taste though. I have Arcade Fire's debut and I never ever thought 'hmmm I wish they'd recorded it better'. I just focussed on the music because my system - at the time a compact Panasonic DVD all-comer - let me do so enjoyably.

I'm going to drag Chebby in here and play devil's advocate - the truth is more often than not you don't know what a bad recording is especially if the artist/producer meant to record it in a certain way, even if there is this perceived loudness compression. I'm not saying that it's not a problem - the last Interpol album for example - but it's the great music that grabs me everytime.

 

[steve_1979]

Does well recorded music steer you away from listening to other?

No.

I still enjoy listening to badly mastered music from bands such as the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Although I do now appreciate well recorded and well mastered music more than I used to.

 

[chebby]

I'm going to drag Chebby in here and play devil's advocate - the truth is more often than not you don't know what a bad recording is especially if the artist/producer meant to record it in a certain way, even if there is this perceived loudness compression. I'm not saying that it's not a problem - the last Interpol album for example - but it's the great music that grabs me everytime.

So some of those early Ska records/1930s Benny Goodman recordings/1920s Louis Armstrong/1930s Quintette du Hot Club De France Django/Grapelli stuff could have sounded really good if only their producers weren't trying to fake an 'old' sound?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

this is an interesting topic.

as a young man I loved loud distorted music, bass with no definition that passed through me, that could be felt in my chest. Back in the day listening to reggea on soundsystems bass buzzing top end fizzing on backyard built speakers, I miss that. Listening to the original pressings now on a civilised system I am shocked at the quality of these recordings, but driven hard with distortion they still have the power to send a man into a trance.

saying that everything as its place.

at home now I love the clarity of recordings, I love hearing the spit in an artist mouth as their tongue hits their pallette or being able to hear how many fags a singer as had before a recording its ok to enjoy your music the way you like it is'nt it?

 

[omnibeard]

Hell no!

Some of my favourite recordings are quite frankly appalling - tape recordings of live performances by some of my fave bands. But that just adds to the excitement.

I think when you get to the point of worrying about the quality of the recording, you might be missing the point.

I say "might" - I mean "are".

You gonna miss out on some of the great recordings of the 40s/50s/60s/70s/80s/90s cos they weren't mastered in the appropriate quality?

Hell no I say!

 

[idc]

Yes it does spoil the experience when listening on a quality hifi and the poor recording is obvious. But if listening off a basic radio on boombox, no.

 

[moon]

Does well recorded music steer you away from listening to other?

NO!

 

[Anonymous]

Having a better system has made me search out better quality versions of the stuff I like and have, like ripping CD's to Flac where I might had a copy at 96 or 128.

I also avoid compilations where I can, the difference between a Bon Dylan's greatest hits type compilation to the albums that the 'hits' came from can be enormous in recorded/production quality.

Still, can't ever get rid of the hiss on Kind Of Blue, and, as with many older recordings you wouldn't want to as its part of the sound of the era.

 

[omnibeard]

I also avoid compilations where I can, the difference between a Bon Dylan's greatest hits type compilation to the albums that the 'hits' came from can be enormous in recorded/production quality.

Is that a Bon Jovi/Bob Dylan mashup?

I have to say I would avoid that too!

 

[Anonymous]

I also avoid compilations where I can, the difference between a Bon Dylan's greatest hits type compilation to the albums that the 'hits' came from can be enormous in recorded/production quality.

Is that a Bon Jovi/Bob Dylan mashup?

I have to say I would avoid that too!

[/quote

Oh I don't know, can just see His Bobness jamming with Slash and Co., sort of Tangled up In Spaghetti vibe..........

 

[6th.replicant]

What do you mean by a bad recording? ...

Any of Arcade Fire's albums - great music, but all sound as if they were recorded on the top deck of an old Routemaster using a portable '70s cassette player, and then mastered with max' 'loudness war' compression.

Completely disagree with you here. I'll admit it's a matter of hifi taste though. I have Arcade Fire's debut and I never ever thought 'hmmm I wish they'd recorded it better'. I just focussed on the music because my system - at the time a compact Panasonic DVD all-comer - let me do so enjoyably.

I'm going to drag Chebby in here and play devil's advocate - the truth is more often than not you don't know what a bad recording is especially if the artist/producer meant to record it in a certain way, even if there is this perceived loudness compression. I'm not saying that it's not a problem - the last Interpol album for example - but it's the great music that grabs me everytime.

Horses for etc, but to my ears much of Funeral, for example, sounds so distorted it actually distracts from enjoying the music.

And as for the compression being "perceived", try running any of Funeral's tracks through Audacity and check the waveform - nothing but slabs of blue and red 'slashes'.

 

[manicm]

I'm going to drag Chebby in here and play devil's advocate - the truth is more often than not you don't know what a bad recording is especially if the artist/producer meant to record it in a certain way, even if there is this perceived loudness compression. I'm not saying that it's not a problem - the last Interpol album for example - but it's the great music that grabs me everytime.

So some of those early Ska records/1930s Benny Goodman recordings/1920s Louis Armstrong/1930s Quintette du Hot Club De France Django/Grapelli stuff could have sounded really good if only their producers weren't trying to fake an 'old' sound?

I should have qualified my comment to more modern CD recordings.