What does it mean?

True. There's loads of bad hi-fi out there. Price is no guarantee of quality.

 

I've NEVER heard this track sound awful - except on a CD12/ATC actives system (hint - it's not the ATCs' fault!).

Oh - if a system can play "Things can only get better" by Howard Jones (has to be off of "Dream into action", first or second CD press though) without your ears screaming for mercy from the brillo pad treble, caused by the 99p 1980 Binatone ADC they used to master it, it's doing something right

 

Seems there's few issues here, all being lumped in as 'bad recordings'. There's the recording & original production, then there's the quality of the pressing and then there's remasters/repressings.

If we assume that you're listening to an original pressing then I'd say there are very few bad recordings out there, there are lots of 'amazing' sounding records where the recording/production/pressing are all spot on; these recordings will sound good on any system.

If your system sounds amazing with 25% of your collection, average with 50% and shite with 25%, then it's not the recordings, it's your system that's shit.

 

No. Borrow FOUR, and use them as a cheap alternative to Linn Skeets/Naim Chips under the spikes of the Mana - hopefully at a ridiculously high phase, so the CDs explode under the weight!

Abba did, do and always WILL suck. I hate them! There's maybe 3 tracks worthwhile, and the rest is sonic torture.

 

I have the first two Oasis albums on vinyl - first pressings. The first one sounds sensationally good, the second perhaps a little less so, but still good.

Try "Elephant" by The White Stripes, or "The big come up" by The Black Keys for a similar 'live gig' feel.

 

James agreed with the White strips sounds Fooking good (all that 40% valve feedback), but the Oasis one is shite (CD) in no uncertain terms, I only have 3 cd's I won't play due to how naff there are, the other 2 really are mastered appallingly.

 

Give the black keys a go, Tony. Recommended.

 

James,

Very daja' Vu' I was in Virgin this morning (scary I've bouight 26 cd's in the 2 weeks ) and the in store radio was mentioning their new ? album? I'll drop and get some later cheers Tone

 

This is very wrong. Most people on here listen to a fairly narrow range of music, that is produced for comfortable reproduction in a BMW and is probably OK if you don't listen closely. However, there are any number of truely awful recordings out there.
Mastering and manufacturing QC are another matter entirely.

 

"Elephant" on CD is one of the most musical CDs I have...

...I also have it on vinyl; let's just say - easily 100% better than the CD. It raaaaawks, man. And it only cost about £12k to make IIRC - 8 track analog open reel and valve desks - nice.

 

Joel,

Yr sstm s crp.

 

I listen to classical, rock, metal, pop, country/folk, jazz, hip hop - I don't have any records that are unlistenable and only a couple I'd class as being badly recorded. Some of the pop stuff produced for kids/clowns may suck, production wise - I don't put that sort of stuff on my system so I can't really comment.

Re 'Elephant' - yep it sounds amazing. It's not a particularly complicated album though and the more stripped down you get in terms of what you're recording, usually the better/more realistic, IME/IMHO, etceterah, etceterah.

 

My point exactly.
Bub:
and you' e a de f o d gi so we're e en

 

When discussing actual music of any relevance/merit, I'd say there are very few bad recordings out there.

 

So what does not have any musical relevance/merit IYO?

 

Cheeky Girls maybe?

 

THis all boils down to invidual point of reference, (music aside), what I conside unlistenable (Sound reproduction wise) will be different from Joel/Merlin/Robbo/JU/Saab/Iaasc.
And most ££££ systems are unlistenable because of their presenation, not because it sounds naff (though to me presenation of music preformance is as bad )

 

"If your system sounds amazing with 25% of your collection, average with 50% and shite with 25%, then it's not the recordings, it's your system that's shit."


I love this kind of constructive comment it gives me faith in my fellow man.

 

What is a bad recording in the context of rock or pop? I'm really curious as to what people are complaining about here as IMHO there quite simply is no 'right'. Recording technique is an artistic and purely subjective choice made by the band and producer – it is naïve in the extreme to assume they were after a 'realistic' sound.

I notice people are using Elephant by The White Stripes as an example of a 'good recording' – I have no argument, I love it. At the other extreme I'm currently listening to The Plateau Phase by Crispy Ambulance, it is very processed and atmospheric, loads of effects on everything; the drums, voice and guitar don't sound 'natural' in any way, yet it is exactly right for the music. It simply would not work as well if it was as 'honest' as Elephant.

Half Man Half Biscuit are another great example – I was actually in the room when many of the tracks on their first album were recorded. As can be heard many 'mistakes' were made (mains hum / dodgy erase head on the deck / cheap mics etc), yet it is IMHO utterly brilliant. The kak-handedness of the recording enhances it. It just works with the music.

I honestly don't think I have anything that I would classify as a truly 'bad' recording (ok, I certainly wouldn't describe Yinferanodgie by Archbishop Kebab as a 'good' recording…). Certainly there are many I would have been interested to hear mixed in a different way out of curiosity, but 'bad' is far too strong a word.

Tony.

 

One that comes to mind is the Diary of Alicia Keys. This is an album that has some good ideas, but which has had the life squeezed out of it.
I have quite a few field recordings made by ethnomusicologists with handheld mics which are, shall we say, technically flawed. The music is absolutely fabulous, though.
I agree that there is no absolute right or wrong, but some approaches can be self-defeating.
YMG now playing