Lo-Fi

[mond]

I was wondering what your thoughts are on Lo-fi recordings – either intentionally or accidently so? It would appear that some artists intentionally record on low quality equipment or add distortion etc for effect. I have been recently listening to some (intentionally I think) Lo-Fi recordings by the Magnetic Fields and although I am aware this is how it is meant to sound, I can’t help wishing the SQ was of a bit higher quality .I imagine artists go to great lengths to create the sound they want either/or the best sound that their budget will stretch to at the time but sometimes recordings come out sounding poor. Also some systems will do a better job of making a poorer sounding track better and will iron out the rough spots so to speak but you cannot better the master tapes with your hi-fi (to the best of my knowledge)This got me thinking at what point would you not buy an album because you had read it was recorded in Lo-fi or would actually buy some music because the recording was reputed to be fantastic? I recently took a punt on the new Bryan Ferry album but soon lost interest in it partly because the sound quality was really dull (unfortunately most of the songs were too IMO but that's beside the point)I would hate to live in a world where the quality dictated what music I listen to but do we not automatically reach for the better recordings when we are auditioning new kit or just want to sit back and appreciate our beloved Hi-fi system?

 

[DocG]

I think it all depends if you're a music lover or an audiophile: use the hifi to listen to music, or use music to listen to your hifi. If the music is dull, well, that's an other matter altogether...

 

[mond]

Yes DocG, I totally agree, but it is always a massive bonus when the music and production are great

 

[Frank Harvey]

This is very similar to movies that have been recorded in black and white, with excessive grain, colour or contrast, or colour hues. This is how it was intended to be. Yes, we can all wish for perfection, but we have to respect the intentions/wishes of the artists/producers.

Lenny Kravitz's albums are all recorded on analogue equipment as he doesn't like digital, and my favourite album of his - The Circus - is purposely recorded with a lot of distortion. I was drawn to Justice's album Cross by a track called Nazareth which is extremely distorted. Foo Fighter's first album is also very lo-fi, almost like you're listening to it through a transistor radio.

Recording quality though, whether discussing music or film, has no bearing on content quality. Many forum users gush over some films that are truly awful, mainly because they sound good or have extremely low bass to excercise their subwoofer. Similarly, some people like certain genres of music because they sound good. This shouldn't really be the case, as you should listen to music you enjoy, regardless of its quality.

Of couse, if there is a better quality reproduction of our favourite albums out there, we will buy them. I have to say thought that there is no album that I would not buy because of it's low quality.

I personally think that many of these recordings aren't as bad as they're first supposed. A system can't improve on the data that the source is providing, it can only reproduce it somewhere between perfectly and extremely badly. A few albums spring to mind that sound quite messy and muddled, one of those being Neil Finn's Try Whistling This. Kate Bush's voice also varies wildly depending on the quality of the system you play her music on.

Some quality systems can also reproduce distortion better than others, and don't reproduce the nasties that others do along with it. It is these systems that can make supposedly bad recordings sound surprisingly good (because as mentioned earlier, they're not actually that bad in the first place).

 

[Jota180]

I have loads of Lo-Fi, Garage rock bands and the like and it sounds 'less good' on very revealing speakers than it does on something a bit more average.

They try to capture the raw, live experience rather than the over produced 'lies' of well recorded material. Very few of the bands and singers out there in popular music land can actually play or sing like their over produced CD's sound. Just like very few of the worlds most famous beautiful women actually look that good with their war paint off.

A lot of modern, popular music CD's remind me of photoshopped models, when you see them without the photoshopping it's never quite as 'perfect' but often more interesting.

 

[Glacialpath]

I love Lo-Fi audio. One day I plan to record a whole album in Lo-Fi. I would release it with a Hi-Fi version so every one can enjoy it. It would however be more of a sound scape than completely music but I love how punchy drums sound in Lo-Fi for example.

If it's intentional then I'm all for it. If it's down to some poor recording then I'm not likely to like it as I'm very particular when it comes to how things sound.

 

[mond]

Well said David, some good points made. I suppose you could compare music to painting or sculpture in some ways, It may be a bit messy or rough round the edges but can still be a masterpiece and perfect in it's own way. Look at the paintings of Rothko for example - would you want them "cleaned up"!

It is how it is and should be enjoyed for what it is. I enjoy songs on my very basic car audio system sometimes just as much as I do when I get home and turn on the hi-fi......

Mond

 

[yani]

I sometimes find a CD which is not sounding great through the system sounds fine in the car. Obvioulsy being less revealing it tends to mask the poorer recording quality. Bright discs become more listenable. A shame but at least I can enjoy the music without feeling my ears being torn off.