Jaw dropping enhancements in sound quality

I still disagree. My system works acceptably good at very low levels, yet some albums are unlistenable no matter what level I play them at.

That either means that my system is shit, that I'm an audiophile or that I'm a snob.

 

Stereo Mic

The reason I started this thread was becuase I wanted to figure out what it would take to make most music sound good.

The answer is apparently quite a lot of dosh. Fair enough.

I'm not sure what you mean about judging playback levels. I havn't got a meter. I just setthe level based on what I feel comfortable listening to. I don't listen very loud.

I accept that system limitations could result in some CDs not being as tolerable. What I am not clear about is, in my system, where should I be looking to fix the problem.

I know part of the issue I have is the room. I have got Cara to determine speaker placement and I am looking to get an absorbtion panel behind the listening position as the back wallis flush against the listening position

 

Perhaps I came across defensive as I have not articulated properly my position.

Recording quality does affect my enjoyment of the music. I realise that my system has limitations/compromises that could also be affecting my enjoyment of the music. The room interaction certainly does as well.

However, I do not define good music in relation to recording quality. The latter is an attribute of a specific instance of the music's manifestation. All I am saying is it does affect my enjoyment of said music.

My intent is not to start an argument but to try an improve my system in the hope that the recording quality will be less of an issue for me.

 

Perhaps an invite to listen to Steroe Mics or Sideshow bob's systems would help

 

Or that your system has a peaky response - typically sounding sublime on some recordings and offensive on others.

 

Possible (I haven't measured it yet) but not very likely. FWIW my system never sounds offensive. Certain music does, but that music sounds offensive to me on other systems, too. And the offensiveness appears to be caused by distortion or excessive compression, not by FR-related phenomena.

 

Any examples Markus?

 

Sorry Simon I've just got to pull you up here, some performances that are truly outstanding are only available on crackly CD's as they were recorded in the 1st half of this century. They all have more worth than some Chesky noodly audiophoolery nonsense. The quality of the recording has nothing to do with how good the performance is. Personally I tend to keep a more modern version of these performances as well for those occasions I want to feel a little more cossetted. I wouldn't listen exclusively to Toscanini's Ring Cycle for instance (This is a really bad example because I hate the way he plays it but anyhow....) However I couldn't get rid of Casals playing the Cello for any money, his performances are irreplaceable.

By no means does a better recording equal more music.

I have a few Classic's and Speakers Corner pressings, but only because they are the only reasonable ways to get good LP pressings. I only own one 'audio wankery' recording, and that features stunning recordings of a stunning performer, playing some stunning violins. It's presented on single sided 45 rpm LP's. I suspect though it would sound stunning on a brick. I was more interested in the different violins and stuff when I got it.

The only reason I've bought any LP is I wanted to listen to the music on it. I swear hands down I've never bought one to listen to because it 'will show off my hi-fi'

 

This is ridiculus. Just because you care about recording quality does not mean you choose CDs or LPs purely because of the recording quality and don't care what music is on them!

Sound quality effects enjoyment of music. If you don't agree with that then you are either in denial, or you don't care at all about sound quality in which case you wouldn't be on this forum.

So you have some outstanding performances of good pieces of music but they are on crackly CDs. You enjoy them. Great. Would you not enjoy them even more if they were also beautifully recorded? Of course you would, you could hear more of what the performers were playing, more of the subtlety, more of the beauty.

My point about good performances was that they also just allow you to hear more of the beauty of the music, more subtlety. Otherwise all you have is notes played at a certain time for a certain duration. A computer could do that.

If you don't care about the extra subtleties and details that a good recording allows you to hear, then you should also not care about the subtleties and details that the performance itself has, because they ARE the same thing. A good recording only shows what the performers are doing.

If you don't want to hear what the performers were playing then go buy some sheet music and read that!

I don't see whats so wrong with 'allowing' (I can't help it) sound quality to effect how much you enjoy listening.

 

You're an audiophile. Sorry.

<Points and makes ner ner ner noises>

As I said before, I don't think it really comes down to the hi-fi system, it's more the listener. Some people are just very sensitive to recording quality regardless of what system they're listening to. IMO this is a mistake, but hey, we're all different. For sure, different systems highlight different things, which means some do better with certain recordings than others, but most half decent systems I've heard do a fair job with most of what they're asked to play. My point earlier on in the thread was not to attack anyone here in particular, but merely to bemoan a tendency on the part of many audiophiles to concern themselves far too much with recording quality - this is a slippery slope to listening to a few carefully picked recordings that show off the system but have no musical value at all, and as such is The Road To Hell.

-- Ian

 

Source first

And the first source is the music.

A well mastered CD played on an average HIFI will always sound better than a poorly mastered CD on a billion dollar system

here endeth the lesson

 

I don't choose to be sensitive to sound quality, I just am. So its not a mistake, its just personal difference.

 

Sorry,

I couldn't disagree more strongly.

 

Ah well, I've been called worse things.

 

No it's not. It's down to education and what you have read - nothing more. You almost certainly don't have better hearing than anyone else - and your analytical capabilities have improved immensely as you have read and absorbed more information about sound reproduction. If you read more music rags and less audio mags, you will find sound quality becomes of less importance to you. It also becomes less relevent when you get a truly good system, as is my original point.

 

So SM, tell me are you not an audiophile because you are enlightened enough not to care about the sound quality of your recordings or is it simply that your system is of such godlike stature that it you are above such mundane matters? And if the former what was the impetus to acquire the latter?

 

well you're wrong then and I can prove it anytime you want.

 

I would say that for years, starting off with a very humble system, my focus was on improving the sound. The sound came first. I bought more and more audiophile recordings, spent heavily on so called high end gear, and found myself more and more intolerant of less than pristine recordings.

Once I reached a certain level, my interest switched to the music more, I was able to enjoy all genres and was pretty oblivious to the quality of the recording with very few exceptions. The further I have progressed past that point, the less and less I think of recording quality, the less I buy audiophile pressings, and the more I enjoy a diverse selection of music. Whether it's a state of mind or an actual hardware change is difficult to say. I personally suspect the latter - and it's not the source ;-)

A good test is the dreaded Californification CD. If a system can make that enjoyable it's doing something right. I remember the Linn CD12 actually making it an enjoyable listening experience - so much so I went out and bought the album. And it's only recently that I have been able to enjoy it again. When demming, always take your worst possible recordings. If they sound good, buy the kit - the rest will be magical.

 

RHCP cd's are an audio disaster, compressed to f*ck and sound terrible on any system unless you like headaches.
Compare the CD of Arcadia to the later Steve Hofmann mastered LP , and it is a revelation, natural and dynamic. This pressing on a Rega P2 will sound more musical and closer to the original sound than the compressed CD on a CD12/Wadia/DCS etc

 

do you not listen or care about dynamic range in your hardware?

RHCP's CDs are compressed and have noise reduction - this will stop you from comparing the dynamic range in equipment.

BTW I HATE audiophile music like Diana Krall, Jazz at the Pawnsop, Sheffield Labs BUT you really are missing out not trying to get the best versions of the music you like.