How important is the recording??

DaveyF · May 18, 2013

Today, I was listening to several LP's that ranged in recording quality from marginal to good. In the next few weeks, many of us are going to attend the Newport show. At the show, I'm sure all of the exhibitor's will be bringing only the best "demo" recordings. Funny thing is, that if we look at all of the music available to us in the various different formats, I am of the opinion that a small percentage is in fact 'correctly' recorded and of such quality that one would want to use it as a 'demo' disc.
This was made more obvious today to me as I listened to a 'marginal' recording of Basie meets Hefti on MFSL, and of the 'Sheffield Track record'. One is recorded well enough that the music can come through, BUT it is by no means a 'demo' disc ( the MFSL) and the other is well recorded ( demo quality?) BUT the music ( at least to my ears) is poor... ( The Track record). I also listened to the Weavers at Carnegie '63 on AP. Again, a good recording, BUT limited a little as to it's resolution, IMHO.
What is so very obvious, however, is how immensely important the original recording is as to the playback fidelity you are going to hear....seems obvious, BUT this is one area where I wonder if superb equipment has not been heard correctly due to the listener not actually hearing what the gear can do, but instead what the recording cannot. Or, the inverse may be true...the recording is so good that a marginal piece of gear sounds more than acceptable...I'm sure many of us have heard this example. ( Plus, I'm fairly sure that at Newport many more of us will

)
How good are our recordings that we hold up as 'demo' quality today??

mep · May 18, 2013

DaveyF said:
Today, I was listening to several LP's that ranged in recording quality from marginal to good. In the next few weeks, many of us are going to attend the Newport show. At the show, I'm sure all of the exhibitor's will be bringing only the best "demo" recordings. Funny thing is, that if we look at all of the music available to us in the various different formats, I am of the opinion that a small percentage is in fact 'correctly' recorded and of such quality that one would want to use it as a 'demo' disc.
This was made more obvious today to me as I listened to a 'marginal' recording of Basie meets Hefti on MFSL, and of the 'Sheffield Track record'. One is recorded well enough that the music can come through, BUT it is by no means a 'demo' disc ( the MFSL) and the other is well recorded ( demo quality?) BUT the music ( at least to my ears) is poor... ( The Track record). I also listened to the Weavers at Carnegie '63 on AP. Again, a good recording, BUT limited a little as to it's resolution, IMHO.
What is so very obvious, however, is how immensely important the original recording is as to the playback fidelity you are going to hear....seems obvious, BUT this is one area where I wonder if superb equipment has not been heard correctly due to the listener not actually hearing what the gear can do, but instead what the recording cannot. Or, the inverse may be true...the recording is so good that a marginal piece of gear sounds more than acceptable...I'm sure many of us have heard this example. ( Plus, I'm fairly sure that at Newport many more of us will)
How good are our recordings that we hold up as 'demo' quality today??

How about defining what "correctly recorded" means? If you don't have more LPs that sound great than records that sound "marginal," maybe you are seeing the inverse you mentioned above where the quality of your LP playback system needs some work. Can you explain how the Weavers at Carnegie is a "good" recording but limited as to it's (sic) resolution?

Phelonious Ponk · May 18, 2013

On the one hand, it is not at all important. I'll take a bad master of a mediocre recording of Cannonball over the most fabulous, dynamically mastered audiophile gem of Kenny G's finest work any day all day. On the other hand, a better master of the Cannonball record will do more for the quality of your playback than any piece of electronics money can buy.

Tim

mep · May 18, 2013

Phelonious Ponk said:
On the one hand, it is not at all important. On one hand, I'll take a bad master of a mediocre recording of Cannonball over the most fabulous, dynamically mastered audiophile gem of Kenny G's finest work any day all day.

Me too!

Phelonious Ponk said:
On the other hand, a better master of the Cannonball record will do more for the quality of your playback than any piece of electronics money can buy.

Tim

Now that statement is a stretch, but I get your point.

Phelonious Ponk · May 18, 2013

mep said:
Me too!

Now that statement is a stretch, but I get your point.

I don't think it's a stretch, really, the one exception being providing good amplification, sufficient headroom, to a badly underpowered system. That can make a pretty dramatic difference. I can't think of a single other electronic component change from good to great that wouldn't be subtle compared to an excellent remastering of a good recording buried in bad mastering. Of course that's absolutely a matter of opinion and YMMV.

Tim

NorthStar · May 18, 2013

A well recorded music session is superior to any ultra expensive high-end stereo systems in the world.
...And from music you love too.

still-one · May 18, 2013

When I am auditioning gear I take a compilation disc with different types of music. The quality of the recording is secondary for me. I listen and purchase music I like not music that will sound good on my system.

During a demo the tracks I choose should tell me if the gear can: reproduce a piano, differentiate the notes of a stand up bass, not make a mis-mash of cymbals and guitars on a poor rock recording, handle the scale of a full orchestra, reproduce the immediacy of a kick drum, etc.

c1ferrari · May 18, 2013

Davey, I believe the source may be the most critical piece of "gear"; however, it isn't essential for an evocative response to music.

mep · May 18, 2013

still-one said:
When I am auditioning gear I take a compilation disc with different types of music. The quality of the recording is secondary for me. I listen and purchase music I like not music that will sound good on my system.

During a demo the tracks I choose should tell me if the gear can: reproduce a piano, differentiate the notes of a stand up bass, not make a mis-mash of cymbals and guitars on a poor rock recording, handle the scale of a full orchestra, reproduce the immediacy of a kick drum, etc.

If it's a poor rock recording, won't there already be a mishmash of cymbals and guitars?

still-one · May 18, 2013

mep said:
If it's a poor rock recording, won't there already be a mishmash of cymbals and guitars?

Yes. I have a couple of recordings I use to see how CD players/DAC's handle this. Some players do a better job of differentiating the instruments while others leave just generate a crappy top end. Even the better units will not clean these up all the way, but that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable music.

NorthStar · May 18, 2013

Also, cross your fingers that the music they'll play at The Show was properly recorded 'in phase'. :b
...LPs, R2R Tapes, CDs, SACDs, and Hi-Res music downloads.

rockitman · May 18, 2013

Replying strictly to the thread title, the recording is everything with regard to sound quality. The quality and execution of the music, emotionally with impact is another and can be of greater importance or not depending on listening preference.

GaryProtein · May 18, 2013

The recording is extremely important.

That's why so many recordings (especially pop music) sound bad on excellent systems.

jazdoc · May 18, 2013

Phelonious Ponk said:
On the one hand, it is not at all important. I'll take a bad master of a mediocre recording of Cannonball over the most fabulous, dynamically mastered audiophile gem of Kenny G's finest work any day all day. On the other hand, a better master of the Cannonball record will do more for the quality of your playback than any piece of electronics money can buy.

Tim

Tim nailed it!

still-one · May 18, 2013

rockitman said:
Replying strictly to the thread title, the recording is everything with regard to sound quality. The quality and execution of the music, emotionally with impact is another and can be of greater importance or not depending on listening preference.

There are a lot of great recordings of bad performances. Performances void of emotion or substance. I prefer a good performance to a good recording. Naturally I prefer both.

NorthStar · May 18, 2013

Phelonious Ponk said:
On the one hand, it is not at all important. I'll take a bad master of a mediocre recording of Cannonball over the most fabulous, dynamically mastered audiophile gem of Kenny G's finest work any day all day. On the other hand, a better master of the Cannonball record will do more for the quality of your playback than any piece of electronics money can buy.

Tim

jazdoc said:
Tim nailed it!

Yes I agree.

DaveyF · May 19, 2013

GaryProtein said:
The recording is extremely important.

That's why so many recordings (especially pop music) sound bad on excellent systems.

Gary, I agree with that statement. Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that there really aren't that many truly great recordings. One's wherein the producer/engineer has captured all of the various nuances of the performance--- the exact placement of images on the stage, the precise sound of a brush as it hits the drum head, the true sound of a piano, the impact and resolution of a drum skin as it is hit, the smallest sound of air as it escapes the brass or woodwind instrument and on and on. VERY VERY difficult to get the whole enchilada!
Which is why I started another thread a while back asking which recordings were the one's that the members believed had captured these nuances. In other words which are the true "reference recordings"?

mep · May 19, 2013

tomelex said:
once we get past personal taste, then yes indeed, with systems we own as our personal "bias", the quality of the recording is everything...and if you go to tape, it changes while sitting on the shelf for 72 hours*. But, for me, quality is the way the recording is laid out, the balance, the tone, the details, and least the "stereo" effect.

*listen in starting at 2:35 as many times as you need to (it helps if you have headphones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgH99wyRoVc

So you believe this to be true because you saw a YouTube video? I have never heard of tape deteriorating in 72 hours before I saw this hatchet job video. None of the levels were matched in the comparisons and looking at that Studer deck, I'm not sure how well maintained it was. I could see one part that wasn't turning true and that is not typical for a Studer machine.

tomelex said:
and this link, its digital, it sounds superb, it is well recorded, and , ....but the secret is that its only three instruments playing...about the limit of our current technology to get right before the intermodulation disotortions throughout the electronics chain and the speakers become overwhelming and distorting the sounds so much.....audio has such a long way to go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjlcOjDCltI

Where do you come up with this stuff? We can only record 3 instruments before horrible distortion sets in with our electronics and speakers? Says who?

Ronm1 · May 19, 2013

Performance, recording, and source player all play an important part IMHO, when any is degraded it doesn't matter how good the h/w is further down the chain. Something is lost, it may be accepted but its nothing like when the planets align.....that's when I get lost in the music, speakers, and room disappear. It's just me and the performer.

treitz3 · May 19, 2013

Hello and good afternoon, gentlemen. The recording is the very first part of the chain that leads to the end result. Two phrases apply here.

One can't polish a terd by the clean end.
One can't make chicken soup out of chicken sh*t.

While better systems can and will have the ability to overcome some of the deficiencies of any recording, any system is ultimately limited to what the recording can offer. It becomes akin to putting a governor on a Bugatti. For a "music lover", this does not concern them. They simply enjoy the music. For the extremely discriminate audiophile, this can sometimes present frustration, disappointment and a distraction to the listening session and the sheer enjoyment of the music itself even on the best of systems.

For me, finding the superb and enjoyable performance along with the stellar recording is simply a slice of heaven offered here on Earth by the audio Gods. Unfortunately, they are far and few between but I'll take that slice of heaven anytime of the week and twice on Tuesday. In between those truly exceptional slices of heaven, I'll simply enjoy the music.

Tom

How important is the recording??

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

New Member

Member

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

Member

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor

Super Moderator

Similar threads