Music Recording Quality

[admin_exported]

I have been playing around with kit recently, and some of the community here have helped, so thanks. I am at a point where I don't think my components are too much of a limiting factor. The items are Primare CD31 CD, Primare i30 amp and PMC FB1+ speakers. Cabling is via Belden 1800F XLRs. Speaker wire is QED silver anniversary.

With some recording the system sings and the vocals and instruments make the back of the neck tingle. The details on The Eurythmics' "There must be an Angel", combined with the sonic purity of Annie Lennox for me was breathtaking.

Johnny Cash's American series III and IV are atmospheric and dark. Adele's 19 is good.

And.....some CD's sound awful.I don't mean the musical content, but rather the recording. Arcade Fire's Neon Bible sounded really bad, unclear and two dimensional. I have other CDs which vary in quality between the two extremes. It doesn't matter how old the recordings are, although I think the older ones in my are slightly less better, but don't have enough listening hours to statistically support this statement.

Is there such a huge gulf in recording quality? If there is I have to chuckle, as my next upgrade could be my music collection.

Any thoughts would always be received with interest and welcome.

 

[plastic penguin]

I think there's always been a disparity with recordings. With your system being of very high quality, it tends to highlight the deficiencies on certain recordings, as opposed to a budget system which is less revealing (IMHO).

Many of us tend to analyse or scrutinize the sound quality rather than just listening to it. Just enjoy your system. . .enjoy the music.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, there is such a gulf. I despair at the poor quality of some music I listen to. It sounds better on a mini system...

 

[Clare Newsome]

And age of recording has very little to do with it - i've spent an incredibly enjoyable morning listening to Verve-edition Ella Fitzgerald recordings from the 1950s. Impeccable - as are most of the Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole etc recordings on Capitol in the 50s/60s. I've also got some stonking DSD-remastered early-era Elvis, so i'm not just talking easy-listening here!

But PP is right - it's the music that counts. I'm not going to stop listening to the music I love if it's poorly recorded. Or, conversely, buy music I don't really like just because it's a great recording (it's the same argument with Blu-ray vs DVD, IMHO - it's still the movie that matters most, and you can't polish a t**d).

Admittedly, though, I increasingly tend to listen to more modern, compressed recordings on my iPod rather than my main system....

 

[Anonymous]

Some early German Rush CDs (A Farewell to Kings, Hemispheres, and Permanent Waves, cost me £18.49 each in 1986) are superb sounding though the hiss is terrible - totally class though and even a Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs Gold Disc of Permanent Waves doesn't have the same vitality......

 

[plastic penguin]

igglebert:Yes, there is such a gulf. I despair at the poor quality of some music I listen to. It sounds better on a mini system...

I concur with you totally, iggle. Is there an alternative? I think it's the joys of having a good hi-fi set-up. Upgrading won't solve the issue, possibly buying a cheapo or mini system will?

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think there's a satisfactory answer. I had wondered about getting a Beresford or similar to pipe poorer quality music through but I'm saving for a new amp instead! Quite often I enjoy listening to digital radio through my TV, through my hifi! Sounds rounded and bouncy and, well, less detailed!

 

[plastic penguin]

Adding an external DAC is fine. I wonder whether we're using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut? I think that most will agree there's no definitive answer. I believe if you have the room and the desire to go out and look for add-ons, that's fine - otherwise, embrace!

 

[mattc76]

Some of the enjoyment for me IS listening to well recorded stuff - i sit there for hours marvelling at how good it sounds so I listen to much more acoustic, classical, jazz because these tend to be better recorded and really dynamic.

Its the compression that ruins it for me - just undynamic, loud and rubbish sounding - thats why I think the old stuff sounds a lot better.

 

[Anonymous]

I am glad that I am not going nuts and others have found vast differences in recordings.

I have to say I am almost slightly annoyed that some modern recordings can sound so hashed up, given the large leap in technology and materials. I don't have enough old material on CD, so I was a bit tentative on drawing any conclusions on age of material in the original post. I do have a lot on Vinyl, but want to upgrade decks from a Project to a Rega, so waiting to do a deep dive into LPs on upgrade.

I am guessing the Arcade Fire album would sound better on my Onkyo all in one shoe box system. The recessed muffled sound may blend away.

A lot of respondents have suggested that it is the music that matters, but I think I would value less a hashed up recording of music I like, as I can only play on some of my systems and car.

Out of interest are there any non classical tracks and recordings which the forum would recommend to be good to give a system a good work out. I don't care on the artistic merit or music type, more on the number of layers and quality lay down on to cd. If I had to pick one of mine it would be Eurythmic's There must be an Angel, but am working through collection.

 

[Anonymous]

www . turnmeup . org without the spaces!

 

[Anonymous]

One of the best CDs i own for recording quality is dave brubecks take five it 40 years old its a disgrace that some new stuff is badly presented

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks igglebert for the info, and also to garethwd. I will look up Dave Brubeck, and I bet it will be an interesting listening experience.

After some of igglebert's info I went from being slightly annoyed to really mad. How can the producers and artists push to produce such awful tat.

I think I'll start looking backwards in time with a view of obtaining interesting recordings, and enjoyable music (not to forget that).

 

[Anonymous]

two examples of bad: oasis and groove armada.

two examples of good: Leftfield and thievery corporation.

I too was shocked by the difference when i started auditioning good kit.

 

[Anonymous]

TNTTNT:

After some of igglebert's info I went from being slightly annoyed to really mad.

Ah, sorry! Unfort it really is that frustrating. The ability to produce to superb quality is abundant, but hey, it's not about quality is it...

 

[plastic penguin]

igglebert:TNTTNT:

After some of igglebert's info I went from being slightly annoyed to really mad.

Ah, sorry! Unfort it really is that frustrating. The ability to produce to superb quality is abundant, but hey, it's not about quality is it...

Never mind the quality. . .feel the width? You can tell I come from a family of taylors

 

[Greenwich_Man]

I too find it frustrating when recordings are poor

I have a couple that I regard as really good...

1) Peter Green Splinter Group - Greatest Hits

2) John Mayall's 70th Birthday Concert

As for poor

Early Beatles CD's

 

[Anonymous]

I think it's actually the mastering process that spoils a lot of modern CD's. Music goes on to a conveyer belt and by default is compressed and heavily EQ'd and that just seems to be what is demanded these days by record companies.

 

[plastic penguin]

Greenwich_Man:

I too find it frustrating when recordings are poor

I have a couple that I regard as really good...

1) Peter Green Splinter Group - Greatest Hits

2) John Mayall's 70th Birthday Concert

As for poor

Early Beatles CD's

What is it about the sound quality you find frustrating? Is it a lack of clarity, punch, bass depth, detail or presence? Because I have a load of Beatles stuff. . .and you have to allow for that any Beatles albums are recorded original 4 & 5 track analogue recorders. Therefore there's only so much techno guys can do, limited by the fact that most were originally done in mono.

I can understand the irritation, but I think we have to accept that some older recordings [and newer ones] just don't translate to digital as well as others (IMHO).

 

[Anonymous]

I think that nearly all reasonable minded people would try to take the best out of an older recording, if it was limited by technology or techniques of the day.

What I find frustrating is the disregard for some recordings made currently. I get two sources of enjoyment listening to music. One is the content - the lyrics, the basslines and melodies. The other is the live factor, so if I went to see a band that wasn't my cup of tea, I would still get some stimulation from watching strings being strummed and drums crashed. I am starting to get the latter for the first time from my kit, and am miffed as hell that this is being taken away due to some fad for recording compression.

The best way to counter frustration is to look for positives. The positives are that I am starting to research recording quality as well as content of music. This way I can't lose.... because even if the band I order turn out to be a bit of a mess, at least they took the trouble to visit me in person in my lounge.

 

[biggus_1961]

Yep...Frank Sinatra sounds better than a lot of 2008 cd's. I bought Frank Sinatra's "nothing but the best" cd and it sounds superb.....i then bought The presets yuk is a rubbish recording which is a shame as i like the songs but not the recording quality...I only listen to it via imac and logitec 2.1 computer speaker system which allows it to sound quite good...

 

[the record spot]

TNTTNT:

Is there such a huge gulf in recording quality? If there is I have to chuckle, as my next upgrade could be my music collection.

Any thoughts would always be received with interest and welcome.

Yes, there is a HUGE difference in recording quality; from the individual preferences of the band, producer, mastering engineer and equipment used throughout the process. Go to the Steve Hoffman (famous mastering engineer renowned for not adding effects to music and keeping it as natural as possible) site and see what the opinions are regarding the recent Genesis boxsets...

 

[matthewpiano]

This is where my love of music becomes far more important than my love for hi-fi and its probably the reason why me and higher end kit just don't get along. I listen to a huge range of music including rock, pop, classical, jazz, folk, jazz etc. The really good recordings from any era sound fantastic on more expensive gear but some of the less perfect recordings sound terrible when put under an intensive spotlight by ultra revealing gear. To me a hi-fi that can't make EVERY recording enjoyable isn't worth having. I don't particularly want my hi-fi to reveal every inadequacy in a recording, I just want it to allow me to enjoy the music which is my primary reason for being interested in hi-fi.

 

[Anonymous]

Talking about Groove Armada's poor quality - I was listening to the "Down by the river" CD once and took the covers off my speakers as something sounded wrong only to see tonnes of subsonic rumble causing some serious woofer excursion...nasty stuff.

 

[Don Guess]

All Diana Krall recordings that I've heard are of excellent quality. Also, Patsy Cline stuff from the 50s.

Most annoying CD I've heard lately must be Duffy's. Some of the tracks on it are ruined by compression.