The Role of Program Material on Audio Quality:

[swan24]

I would like to know people's opinion as to the role of program material in the overall quality of any audio system... Some people feel it is paramount... Others, only that it plays a minor role... I've heard several only so-so systems really shine playing good recordings... Conversely, I've heard really good systems sound absolutely terrible with bad recordings...

Also, I've experienced disappointment trying to find adequate program material for some of the better systems I've owned over the years... And a few friends who have what I would characterise as superior equipment really lament that their current collection of CDs and LPs sounded terrible on their new equipment, and sent them into a purchasing frenzy to buy better program sources... ???... (m.)

[Feanor]

I would like to know people's opinion as to the role of program material in the overall quality of any audio system... Some people feel it is paramount... Others, only that it plays a minor role... I've heard several only so-so systems really shine playing good recordings... Conversely, I've heard really good systems sound absolutely terrible with bad recordings...

Also, I've experienced disappointment trying to find adequate program material for some of the better systems I've owned over the years... And a few friends who have what I would characterise as superior equipment really lament that their current collection of CDs and LPs sounded terrible on their new equipment, and sent them into a purchasing frenzy to buy better program sources... ???... (m.)

Quality of the recording is critical. Better quality recordings almost always sound better than lesser ones regardless of the system they're played. When comparing systems of roughly similar quality, the record quality will always outweigh system differences.

However superior record quality might not be appreciated on a inferior systems. In particular, recordings with excellent detail and air might not sound that way if the system isn't good at conveying these qualities.

Also, I firmly believe that many people select their equipment to mitigate the nasty qualities of their less-good recordings at the expense of optimizing the sound of their best recordings. I'm not sure how many of them would admint to that, though. Personally I optimized for the best.

[Mr Peabody]

All good comments. You want your system to be able to reflect whether a recording is good or not. The recording plays a large part in whether you hear a good presentation.

I remember when Supertramp released Breakfast In America they insisted on the cassette version being a high bias tape because they knew the sound would be better. There are recording companies who strives for excellence in their albums like Telarc or Mobile Fidelity.

[pixelthis]

I would like to know people's opinion as to the role of program material in the overall quality of any audio system... Some people feel it is paramount... Others, only that it plays a minor role... I've heard several only so-so systems really shine playing good recordings... Conversely, I've heard really good systems sound absolutely terrible with bad recordings...

Also, I've experienced disappointment trying to find adequate program material for some of the better systems I've owned over the years... And a few friends who have what I would characterise as superior equipment really lament that their current collection of CDs and LPs sounded terrible on their new equipment, and sent them into a purchasing frenzy to buy better program sources... ???... (m.)

THATS the prob with really decent equipment, it shows up the flaws in music, warts
and all.
Maybe Bose knows this, and makes their stuff suck deliberately.
But I prefer accurate. Was told that B&W would end a lot of love affairs with various
albums, and everybody was right.
But I still prefer as honest an image as possible.

[swan24]

THATS the prob with really decent equipment, it shows up the flaws in music, warts
and all.
Maybe Bose knows this, and makes their stuff suck deliberately.
But I prefer accurate. Was told that B&W would end a lot of love affairs with various
albums, and everybody was right.
But I still prefer as honest an image as possible.

Know what you mean... Previously had a pair of these:



B&W DM 620s... With the passive radiators...

Loved the speakers... Hated most of my CD collection [at the time]... (m.)

[atomicAdam]

See - I'm rather confused by this topic.

Lets start with a couple questions and possible answers.

What is a bad recording?

Is a bad recording something where you hear the background noise at a high level? Or is a bad recording something that is too compressed? Or how about is a bad recording something where the instruments or direct feed keyboards are so closely mic'd you don't get any since of air, space, and a stage that some recording engineer set up. Typically hard pan right and left sound, and dead on center?

What is a good recording?

Something where you can hear the air and stage around the musicians? What about something that is so clean you hear no back ground music. Something so produced every sound is so perfect and comes from such a deep black background that there is absolutely no since of space? What about a recording with all these qualities but with compressed dynamics shifts? Is a perfect recording something where you can't hear any mistakes, you know those things that happen all the time AT A LIVE SHOW?

I just don't understand. Yes, some recording are dense and it is hard to get every last detail out of the sound, because it just isn't there. Or some recordings are a bit thin in the low end. Or some recordings, like for instance, Belle & Sebastian's Tiger Milk on vinyl, in this Zu Melody combo I have right now,I put in on the other day and was blown away by all the mic and tape and back ground noise I could hear. Sure the staging wasn't great from the record, or instrument separation and a lot of things were panned hard left and right with too much right in the middle, but the damn detail I could hear was astounding. And you know what I LOVE IT. Does that mean I loved a bad recording or is this a good recording cause I could hear all of it or because I loved it?

I put on Massive Attack's Mezzanine on CD and was kind of bored because everything was so produced. Behind the sounds there was only blackness, there was no space. I figure I heard to just about the lowest level of detail and new that there could be more if it wasn't so produced. If it was more raw. So what type of recording is that?

I put on Heifetz playing Tchaikovsky and could hear little sounds from the string sections just before they would kick in. I figure they put down their instruments during the ungodly long solos and I heard the sounds of them picking them back up? Is that good or bad?

I played Dead Can Dance Towards the Within on CD on this Zu Melody combo, and heard more of the amphitheater/hall is was recorded in than I had ever before. Is that good or bad?

Honestly, the only thing I can constantly say kills a recording is too much compression. Everything else is subjective to what you get out of the recording.

[Feanor]

See - I'm rather confused by this topic.

Lets start with a couple questions and possible answers.

What is a bad recording?
...

What is not a good recording: see below.

...
What is a good recording?
....

A good recording has all of the following qualities:

• Excellent balance across the frequencies, including deep base.
• High resolution of detail which greatly contributes to 'air' and transparency, i.e. the ability to distiguish individual instruments and voices in larger ensembles
• Great soundstage appropriate to the type of ensemble; (this also contributes to transparency). In Classical music it pertains to the apparent perspective of the music, e.g. far back in the hall vs. front row, or even in the midst of the ensemble (which I generally hate). Chamber music generally tolerates a closer persepective than orchestral music.
• Freedom from excessive stridency and brightness. People often forget, however, that some instruments, (esp. brass, strings), can naturally sound strident depending on the performance venue and the performance itself. Personally I suspect the close-microphoning is often the culprit when these are excessive.
• Good dynamics appropriate to the type of music.
• Freedom from electronic noise and recording artifacts.

[swan24]

What is not a good recording: see below.


A good recording has all of the following qualities:

• Excellent balance across the frequencies, including deep base.
• High resolution of detail which greatly contributes to 'air' and transparency, i.e. the ability to distiguish individual instruments and voices in larger ensembles
• Great soundstage appropriate to the type of ensemble; (this also contributes to transparency). In Classical music it pertains to the apparent perspective of the music, e.g. far back in the hall vs. front row, or even in the midst of the ensemble (which I generally hate). Chamber music generally tolerates a closer persepective than orchestral music.
• Freedom from excessive stridency and brightness. People often forget, however, that some instruments, (esp. brass, strings), can naturally sound strident depending on the performance venue and the performance itself. Personally I suspect the close-microphoning is often the culprit when these are excessive.
• Good dynamics appropriate to the type of music.
• Freedom from electronic noise and recording artifacts.

I too think that close mic-ing is the culprit many times when music sounds too strident or even too fat... Esp. on piano... But contrabass as well... A piano does have a tendency to ring at certain freq./volume levels... And that is natural... (m.)

[atomicAdam]

Feanor -

While I agree with you in a way - I have to say your view is pretty jaded since you tend to listen to only classical. Do these "good records" points work in all music? I'm not sure they do.

[pixelthis]

Know what you mean... Previously had a pair of these:


B&W DM 620s... With the passive radiators...

Loved the speakers... Hated most of my CD collection [at the time]... (m.)

Know what you mean, old sot.
Excellent set of speakers, kudos.

[Mr Peabody]

Adam, you just had to come in and make the water murky . Good point though.

[swan24]

Ex: I put on a few Naxos label CDs this morning, and they sounded flat and lifeless... Now, Naxos is a discount label, no less... But every recording sounded as if it had been re-re-re-mastered, and the sound left me flat...

Took a BBC CD-- that I got free with the magazine-- of Brahms Clarinet Sonatas, and it sounded like I had cleaned out my ears... What was it?... More air around the instruments... More definition... Depth... The illusion of a performance right in front of you was evident in every selection... Now, this was a free CD... Obviously, care was taken for this CD to sound good on good equipment...

Truth be told, I've often purged my CDs, just throwing out as many as 50 at a clip... Just because they don't do it for me... I didn't even give them away, because I think it's really bad karma to give away things you don't think are any good... (m.)

[Feanor]

Ex: I put on a few Naxos label CDs this morning, and they sounded flat and lifeless... Now, Naxos is a discount label, no less... But every recording sounded as if it had been re-re-re-mastered, and the sound left me flat...

Took a BBC CD-- that I got free with the magazine-- of Brahms Clarinet Sonatas, and it sounded like I had cleaned out my ears... What was it?... More air around the instruments... More definition... Depth... The illusion of a performance right in front of you was evident in every selection... Now, this was a free CD... Obviously, care was taken for this CD to sound good on good equipment...
... (m.)

I own many Naxos CDs and I don't agree that they are all bad. But I think Naxos has generally improved in recent years; earlier Naxos tended to be much as you described.

Naxos still tends, like most labels, to be quite variable. Telarc tended to be more consistently better than average, and Reference Recordings output is pretty much all excellent.

[Worf101]

Hey Adam thanks for making my brain hurt so early in the morning.

Bad Recordings: To me a bad recording is one where, regarless of technology at the time, there are key areas of the musical soundscape missing. No bass, no mids, no treble or too much of the above is a bad recording. There are also some recordings where the music is just plain wrong or corners were obviously cut, but that often is the fault of the record producer as anyone else.

Good Recordings: Regardless of the era or the equipment used a "good" recording has sufficient bass, mids and treble to hear the full musical spectrum. The presentation is "balanced" and works. Some leeway can be given for "live' recordings where obvious compromises need be made. And addditional consideration must be given to mono recordings and still some of those are masterfull. It's amazing what George Marting and Berry Gordy were able to do with such primative gear.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Worf

[atomicAdam]

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Worf

Worf -

What about dynamics, clarity, staging? All these play a huge roll in music. Frequency unbalance can be addressed with an EQ. Granted most hi fi don't have any tone controls - but I find it much easier to drop in a high roll off IC or bass thickening speaker cables than it is to create a stage that just isn't there or breath dynamic life into a recording that is too compressed.

Sorry if I make your brain hurt more - but I prob wouldn't have said anything if you didn't say 'that's my story and i'm sticking to it' - cause now of course i want to un-stick you. (umm...don't take that in a nasty way)

[Mr Peabody]

It's really hard for me to pin down a distinct good and bad, recording characteristics vary a lot but we know good or bad when we hear it. For instance, I have an early CD of Zepplin 2 which has a lot of noise but I am afraid to buy a remaster because I like the basic way it sounds. Many discs that aren't great to me are like 80's Rock and almost all Pop. As Adam mentioned compression makes a recording not so enjoyable. I don't like recordings that sound thin. I don't throw albums away even though the recording may not be great it's still about the music, most of the Stones early stuff isn't very well recorded but I couldn't do without them. There were a couple exceptions, I bought a Jerry Lee Lewis out of a budget bin and it sounded like it was recorded from the bathroom of the bar, I couldn't believe something that bad was ever released. Another discard was a Staple Singers CD that sounded like it was recorded on a shoebox tape recorder from the back of the church. Something like these two examples was beyond my listening tolerability.

Any way Swan don't worry about your mojo just send your next batch of rejects to me.

[swan24]

Any way Swan don't worry about your mojo just send your next batch of rejects to me.

Mine is not a smoke-free home, I'll warn you... I smoke a pipe... Constantly...

[Mr Peabody]

Mine is not a smoke-free home, I'll warn you... I smoke a pipe... Constantly...

Medical use only I presume, LOL

[swan24]

Medical use only I presume, LOL

Mostly Irish Peterson Pipes, like this one...

[Mr Peabody]

Good job framing an explanation Worf.

[dean_martin]

I was excited about and in to analog FM tuners for a while. I found a Yamaha T-2 that I really like. My interest didn't last long because I could get only ONE station that did not use compression. It sounded great - extension in both bass and treble, smooth shimmering top end, wonderfully warm, but the station's programming changed from jazz/world music in the evening (when I would listen) and classical during the day to all classical all the time. I rarely listen anymore. Imagine your favorite source was FM broadcast. You'd be listening to compressed, crappy sound all the time.

[recoveryone]

Great info Adam, and I would not just go with how the recording was engineered, but I would throw in the type of music (Jazz, Classical, PoP, Hip Hop, Rock.....)