Question: Having a much better hi fi sounds bad with your cd collection?

[himaniac]

Hello guys,

I heard a valve amplifier (4000 pounds) with a pair of speakers (600 pounds) but I can’t recall their brand name accidentally…….I heard the live cd Within temptation The silent Force Tour and the system was very transparent…I mean I heard stuff from the cd that with my current transistor amplifier couldn’t hear (my system cd player, amplifier and speakers costs around 2000 pounds). The hi fi was really bad, but with my system was a joy to listen to………but I tested the valve amplifier with electronic music and every cd sounded a lot better than my hi fi…..So what I heard in the live cd? Microphones, people walking, terrible small noises and the performance with the valve amplifier was really really bad. So my question is……having a pricey hi fi set up in the end limits your cd /flac files collection because of the bad recording? *yahoo*

Any hi-fi enthusiast?

 

[matthewpiano]

This is indeed an issue. It doesn't matter how expensive the equipment, it can only ever perform as well as the original recording. If it isn't in the recording it can't be added by the system, and if something is present in the recording that shouldn't be then the more accurate the equipment, the more you are going to hear it.

This is where the old 'source first' philosophy of the flat earthers has evolved to today. Linn now sets huge store in the quality of the recording, as shown by it's own record label, Linn Records. B&W's Society of Sound and the Naim Label also put recording quality at the forefront.

This is all very well if you like the music they record, but if you invest in gear to get the most out of those recordings, some of your favourites from the past are likely to suffer. If a system stops you from enjoying the music you love, it isn't the right one. However, that is when you have to question whether hi-fi in the strictest sense is actually of any real importance to you.

For me, the music comes first. One of the most significant unsettling factors for me over the last few years hasn't been how good the best recordings sound as most of the gear I've had has ticked that box very well. It has been about how poor some equipment makes some favourites sound. I can't stomach hi-fi that does that.

 

[hybridauth_Facebook_100004211376004]

Yep, that's why I'm staying where I'm at. Although I doubt 600 quid speakers are doing any justice to a 4k amp.

 

[lindsayt]

My definition of a good hi-fi system is one which makes relatively poor recordings sound better than on a meidocre system. It will also make good recordings sound better than on a mediocre system.

If a system makes only the better recordings sound better then I'd say that this indicates some flaw in that system.

 

[Covenanter]

My definition of a good hi-fi system is one which makes relatively poor recordings sound better than on a meidocre system. It will also make good recordings sound better than on a mediocre system.

If a system makes only the better recordings sound better then I'd say that this indicates some flaw in that system.

I'd like to disagree with that! i think a good hifi will make poor recordings sound worse because it will expose their failings. A good system will not add anything to good recordings, indeed a good system neither adds nor subtracts from a recording. If you think about it, if a system improves a bad recording all it can be doing is distorting it|!

Chris

 

[davedotco]

My definition of a good hi-fi system is one which makes relatively poor recordings sound better than on a meidocre system. It will also make good recordings sound better than on a mediocre system.

If a system makes only the better recordings sound better then I'd say that this indicates some flaw in that system.

I'd like to disagree with that! i think a good hifi will make poor recordings sound worse because it will expose their failings. A good system will not add anything to good recordings, indeed a good system neither adds nor subtracts from a recording. If you think about it, if a system improves a bad recording all it can be doing is distorting it|!

Chris

Actually Chris, Lindsayt is right on this one, (for once...*biggrin*). Well. more or less.

Poor systems have a nasty habit of emphasising problems on recordings. Sure there are some recordings that are beyond help, but generally a well balanced, good setup will make most things sound better.

I have heard plenty of systems that do just that, and a fair number that pull recordings apart at the slightest provocation, I know which sound best to me, but as always with hi-fi, the choice is with the listener.

 

[abacus]

I'm with Chris on this, a good Hi Fi system should not add or remove anything of the origiinal, if you want to make something sound better, use audio editing software, as while it cannot make a bad recording perfect, if used correctly it can certainly improve it. (Something no Hi Fi system will ever be able to do)

Bill

 

[hybridauth_Facebook_100004211376004]

If only carlsberg made music and recording studios.....

 

[Vladimir]

You are driving somewhere in the company fleet vehicle and Pearl Jam - Alive comes on the noisy radio station, through the horrible car speakers, rattling the plastic Korean door panels and you enjoy it like never before and turn up the volume to full clipping.

Next day you sit at your 2000 sterling pound 5 star awarded high fidelity stereo and the first CD that comes up in the pile in your hand is Pearl Jam - Ten and you think "I'm not listening to this sh*t" and move on to your kammerkonzerte.

I forgot what the moral of the story was in midst of writing this.

Carry on.

 

[Jota180]

My definition of a good hi-fi system is one which makes relatively poor recordings sound better than on a meidocre system. It will also make good recordings sound better than on a mediocre system.

If a system makes only the better recordings sound better then I'd say that this indicates some flaw in that system.

I'd like to disagree with that! i think a good hifi will make poor recordings sound worse because it will expose their failings. A good system will not add anything to good recordings, indeed a good system neither adds nor subtracts from a recording. If you think about it, if a system improves a bad recording all it can be doing is distorting it|!

Chris

Actually Chris, Lindsayt is right on this one, (for once...*biggrin*). Well. more or less.

Poor systems have a nasty habit of emphasising problems on recordings. Sure there are some recordings that are beyond help, but generally a well balanced, good setup will make most things sound better.

I have heard plenty of systems that do just that, and a fair number that pull recordings apart at the slightest provocation, I know which sound best to me, but as always with hi-fi, the choice is with the listener.

A good setup makes things sound better than a bad setup? Is that news?

I think we have to look at it another way, does the setup add/subtract or sugar coat a recording or not. It will come down to personal taste if a person likes their poor recordings to be sugar coated or not. If the good system does zero sugar coating then it's the bad system that's doing something untoward with the poor recording.

 

[Andrewjvt]

My definition of a good hi-fi system is one which makes relatively poor recordings sound better than on a meidocre system. It will also make good recordings sound better than on a mediocre system.

If a system makes only the better recordings sound better then I'd say that this indicates some flaw in that system.

I'd like to disagree with that!  i think a good hifi will make poor recordings sound worse because it will expose their failings.  A good system will not add anything to good recordings, indeed a good system neither adds nor subtracts from a recording.  If you think about it, if a system improves a bad recording all it can be doing is distorting it|!

Chris

+1

But ill add that good recordings on a lower end set up will also sound good but on a great system will sound very very great

 

[Andrewjvt]

You are driving somewhere in the company fleet vehicle and Pearl Jam - Alive comes on the noisy radio station, through the horrible car speakers, rattling the plastic Korean door panels and you enjoy it like never before and turn up the volume to full clipping.?

Next day you sit at your 2000 sterling pound 5 star awarded high fidelity stereo and the first CD that comes up in the pile in your hand is Pearl Jam - Ten and you think "I'm not listening to this sh*t" and move on to your kammerkonzerte.

I forgot what the moral of the story was in midst of writing this.?

Carry on.

 

But i hear you

I have every singl pearl jam cd and what confuses me is some songs sound really clear and well produced and others not so

 

[Vladimir]

The moral of the story was that fidelity is not a factor to enjoying music. Who are we fooling, this hobby is male knitting.

 

[davedotco]

My definition of a good hi-fi system is one which makes relatively poor recordings sound better than on a meidocre system. It will also make good recordings sound better than on a mediocre system.

If a system makes only the better recordings sound better then I'd say that this indicates some flaw in that system.

I'd like to disagree with that! i think a good hifi will make poor recordings sound worse because it will expose their failings. A good system will not add anything to good recordings, indeed a good system neither adds nor subtracts from a recording. If you think about it, if a system improves a bad recording all it can be doing is distorting it|!

Chris

Actually Chris, Lindsayt is right on this one, (for once...*biggrin*). Well. more or less.

Poor systems have a nasty habit of emphasising problems on recordings. Sure there are some recordings that are beyond help, but generally a well balanced, good setup will make most things sound better.

I have heard plenty of systems that do just that, and a fair number that pull recordings apart at the slightest provocation, I know which sound best to me, but as always with hi-fi, the choice is with the listener.

A good setup makes things sound better than a bad setup? Is that news?

I think we have to look at it another way, does the setup add/subtract or sugar coat a recording or not. It will come down to personal taste if a person likes their poor recordings to be sugar coated or not. If the good system does zero sugar coating then it's the bad system that's doing something untoward with the poor recording.

It is not so much a question of 'suger coating' poor recordings, this is a very questionable practice even with the best of intentions.

This is really a question of how less well sorted systems can make mediocre recordings sound worse. It is often difficult to work out why they do that, but they do, often bringing a fractured, grainy quality to the sound that simply does not happen on better setups.

Personally I put this down to less good recordings exciting distortions or resonances in the system then failing to control them but, turntables aside, I have no evidence of this.

The listeners viewpoint is important here too, a 'bright' system may sound wonderfully open and airy on top class recordings, but it is still a 'bright' system as more mundane recordings will show.

Clearly there is a balance to be drawn here and this will vary from listener to listener and their reactions will be different.

 

[lindsayt]

My definition of a good hi-fi system is one which makes relatively poor recordings sound better than on a meidocre system. It will also make good recordings sound better than on a mediocre system.

If a system makes only the better recordings sound better then I'd say that this indicates some flaw in that system.

I'd like to disagree with that! i think a good hifi will make poor recordings sound worse because it will expose their failings. A good system will not add anything to good recordings, indeed a good system neither adds nor subtracts from a recording. If you think about it, if a system improves a bad recording all it can be doing is distorting it|!

Chris

Can anyone from the school of thought that a good system will make good recordings sound good and poor recordings sound poor give specific examples.

IE name the system and name some poor recordings.

For example, some people say that a Benchmark DAC into active ATC 50's are a good system. One that makes good recordings sound really good and poor recordings sound poor. A system that doesn't add or subtract anything. But that's not true. If you place the ATC 50's close to the wall - in most rooms - you get too much bass echo, which sounds bad as the bass sounds too muddled. Pull them out into the room - as most owners do - and you get cleaner bass. Trouble is you also get a lack of bass extension, an overall lean tonal balance. And in any location the ATC 50's suffer from a certain amount of dynamic compression plus a little bit of a synthetic sounding midrange and treble which is most noitceable on vocals and solo piano.

I've come across ATC 50 owners that listen at relatively high volumes. Part of the explanation of that is that at lower volumes they sound flat. Turn them up and they come alive. So you have a speaker that is on the lean side of neutral, with some compression that many owners listen to at loud average volumes. That's going to suit recordings that have a high dynamic range, as you can afford to lose a bit of the dynamics and still have a dynamically impactful performance. It will also suit recordings without a lot lower bass content as the lack of bass extension will not be filtering out lower bass instruments. Or recordings with an excess amount of lower bass.

Now give the ATC 50's a recording like Stranglers No More Heroes album. This has a DR rating of 12 on the DR database: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=stranglers&album=heroes

This recording has a certain amount of compression. This recording sounds flat and uninvolving on ATC50's. ATC 50 owners may well conclude that it's a poor recording and that their system is just playing it like it is. But play it on a system with a more neutral tonal balance with a more extended bass and less compression and you'll discover that this is a not bad recording. That most of the dynamic interest comes from the bass guitar and drums on this album. We're not talking about sugar coating this album. We're talking about not filtering out the lower bass and we're talking about minimising the compression.

That is just one specific example. And I'd rate the ATC 50's as better than many speakers I've heard.

So Covenanter, Abacus et al, come on please give us examples of your definition of a good system.

I predict that your "good" systems will suffer from similar flaws to the ATC 50's.

 

[entrails]

I think there are two issues. The first is down to personal choice and philosophy over whether someone wants hifi to be a bit warm and forgiving with less than perfect recordings or whether someone considers this a cop out and not true reproduction.

I am definitely of the first camp and built my analogue and digital systems around testing combinations using CD's, vinyl and shellac of Duke Ellington's recordings from the 20's and 40's; two awesome periods for his orchestra. I chose separates based on how much they were able to make such performances, compromised by the equipment of the time, feel alive and real. What I found was that when I later used much higher quality recordings, eg Decca classical 60's recordings, the same qualities shone out and also lo-fi classics like the Velvets recordings sounded great too. I think this supports the common advice when doing listening tests don't only bring along treasured fantastic sounding discs, eg TAS recommendations, instead bring along some of the compromised, underperforming recordings in your current system and see which equipment gives the best results.

I think though there are some heavily compressed recordings that are best left to the car stereo. When I listen to these recordings on my forgiving but musical system after about 15 mins I do tend to feel I've had enough and need to move on to a palate cleanser. This could, however, be partly down to me being increasingly old and nerdy. I'm sure my whole family would strongly support that possibility.

 

[lindsayt]

The moral of the story was that fidelity is not a factor to enjoying music. Who are we fooling, this hobby is male knitting.

For me and my tastes that's not true.

I'm not into jazz. It's not my cup of tea. But I can go to a live jazz performance and sit there utterly enthralled. I can also sit at home and listen to a decent recording on a good system and be thoroughly entertained too. Play the same recording on my car radio and chances are I'll be swapping channels within a few seconds.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Yep, that's why I'm staying where I'm at. Although I doubt 600 quid speakers are doing any justice to a 4k amp.

You'd be surprised at what a capable, relatively budget pair of speakers can do on a high quality system if they've been designed well enough.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'm with Dave and Lindsay on this. Whilst a better system may uncover some unwanted aspects of a recording, a system that deals with the signal better (analogue or digital) will make what you thought were poor recordings sound surprisingly good. This comes back to what I've been finding out over the past few years. It is surprising how good some of the recordings are that many people trash. I've read about people stating that some albums are "unlistenable", but when I've tried them on various systems here, that's not been the case. Even recordings you thought you knew inside out can take on a whole new level of quality when you move to a system that can do what it is supposed to do. There's a few albums like Neil Finn's Try Whistling This that just sounds muddled on the average system, but play it on a high quality system and it suddenly takes on the sort of clarity you'd expect from some audiophile recording. A system shouldn't make bad recordings sound worse.

 

[chebby]

Some people love the 'groove' and want to dance/play air-guitar/pretend drums/conduct the orchestra etc. They want a system that moves them to get off their a###s and join in.

Others love a system that has uber detail and holographic properties so they can tell which direction the distant tube train is going or how full the cocktail glasses are at the back of the jazz club (from the clinking noises between tracks) and the music pages being turned on their stands (which musician?) ... etc.

Both populations are sort of hardwired in these responses to their respective hi-fi systems and will eventually hone completely different set-ups given enough time and money.

I have only mentioned two stereotypical 'types'. Add in those who look to the future and who crave sleek, modernist, minimalist, high-tech gear with lots of automation and those who look to the past and who crave 'big' kit with acres of polished wood and big, heavy old turntables with the potential for lots of 'user-engineering' skills in arm/cartridge set-up and alignment and ongoing tweaks. (And visually arresting machines like big 1/4" open reel tape recorders.)

Some of them will also enjoy the 'user-engineer' scope for 'tube rolling' afforded by their valve amps. (And a good dose of nostalgia if they are old enough to remember valve stuff from their childhood.)

I doubt if anyone (except maybe Lindsayt) actually have systems that at are purely one of these types but we'll all have something that at least 'nods' in one direction or another depending on our personalities.

I have an amp that looks to the past in it's styling and traditional class A/B nature and RCA analogue inputs, but it contains a 24/192 DAC with 2x optical, USB A, USB B and Bluetooth.

My speakers look like - and have the dimensions/proportions of - something made in the 1980s including paper cones and foam surrounds and real rosewood effect vinyl wrap.

The system could be accused of being 'lifestyle' in function because of the compact integrated amp/DAC & Bluetooth but any typical 'lifestyle' system customer wouldn't look twice at the Quad or the speakers (and especially not the speaker stands!)

Anyway, I would err on the side of a system that makes the best it can manage of all recordings whether pristine or 'marginal'.

WHF? reviewed the ATCSCM20ASLs recently and commented ...

"ATCs – like other speakers from the brand – are ruthlessly honest. If your recording isn’t made with care or your preamp is a bit on the aggressive side don’t expect the ATCs to sound great."

That sounds like one 'snobby' speaker system. "Don't come near me with any sub-optimal recordings or i'll make them sound crap"

Actually that's a bit unfair as the ATCs reviewed are professional monitors and that is part of their job description.

The problem would be if ATC's domestic hi-fi loudspeakers sounded just as 'ruthless'.

 

[Pedro2]

This is a really tricky one to answer but gets right to the heart of recorded music appreciation and the nature of ‘hi fi’. Is good hi fi about accurate reproduction of what was put together in the recording studio or is it something else?

The truth is, some recordings leave the studio having the potential to sound great, whether or not you’re listening on an iPhone or on a top flight hi fi. It sometimes amazes me why musicians over the years have spent hours of their lives making music only to allow recording studios to foul up the sound (on vinyl or digital media).

I don’t think the genre of music is the issue here. Some rock/pop music sounds great whereas some sounds sh*te. Interestingly,over the years, I have found American based production to sound ‘better’ (to my ears) than much UK stuff although this is a generalisation which many, I am sure, will disagree with. Many years ago, my brother (who has played guitar and sung for most of his life) pointed out that the ‘mix’ of American rock/pop often had the drums far more to the front than their Brit counterparts. Having said that, the Beatles spent years with George Martin, a perfectionist with regard to getting their distinctive sound ‘just right’. At the other end of the scale, Oasis must have had a recording engineer with tinnitus (sorry Oasis fans).

I think what I’m trying to write is that poorly recorded music is poorly recorded music and if that’s what you’re hearing, then don’t blame the hi fi. On the other hand, if the music is sounding clinical and you can’t get emotionally involved, then the kit may be at fault…… or it maybe you because you’ve got a cold, or you’re tired, or stressed ………

Which is why this is a really tricky one to answer …..

 

[Native_bon]

So basically the rule is, there are no rules. As far as a system can give me full & tight bass am good.*music2*

 

[Vladimir]

The moral of the story was that fidelity is not a factor to enjoying music. Who are we fooling, this hobby is male knitting.

For me and my tastes that's not true.

I'm not into jazz. It's not my cup of tea. But I can go to a live jazz performance and sit there utterly enthralled. I can also sit at home and listen to a decent recording on a good system and be thoroughly entertained too. Play the same recording on my car radio and chances are I'll be swapping channels within a few seconds.

You never ever enjoyed music on a low fidelity device?

 

[Covenanter]

I did try to post a lengthy reply but the bl**dy spam filter stopped me posting it. I will try again later.

Chris

 

[lindsayt]

The moral of the story was that fidelity is not a factor to enjoying music. Who are we fooling, this hobby is male knitting.

For me and my tastes that's not true.

I'm not into jazz. It's not my cup of tea. But I can go to a live jazz performance and sit there utterly enthralled. I can also sit at home and listen to a decent recording on a good system and be thoroughly entertained too. Play the same recording on my car radio and chances are I'll be swapping channels within a few seconds.

You never ever enjoyed music on a low fidelity device?

Yes, but not as much as hearing the same music live. Or hearing the same recording on a better system.