Good vs. Bad Recordings...???

[StereoNut]

I know this is a topic that has been discussed before, but I don't remember when or where.

I have recently been tweaking my system with AMD products (which have been discussed on another thread here on AN) and think my stereo has been sounding really, really good of late.  (BTW - the purpose for this posting is not to discuss AMD products.) 

So, what's the problem you say?  Well, I am very happy for things to be sounding so good, but what's bothering me is the gap between a bad recording compared to a good or great recording.  That gap has seemingly widened considerably and is driving me crazy!  When I put something on that's recorded really well I can just get "lost" in the music, but crummy recordings are now sounding worse than ever in comparison.  It's all music I like (otherwise I wouldn't own it in my collection) but I can't seem to get through more than a song or two on a bad recording before I take it off.

I'm to the point where I can only tolerate the poorly recorded music in my car (LP's excluded of course!) because the (lack of) resolution of my car stereo (compared to home) and the road noise etc... actually make it more listenable there!

Comments?

[richidoo]

I had a similar problem with my previous system. Every change I made to improve it also increased my awareness of the problems that remained. The biggest problem was the midrange echo. The quieter and more dynamic my system became with upgrades, the more audible was the room noise.  I discovered the source of the irritation by listening to the same tracks on in-ear headhones. Even with mp3 files on cheap portable, the problem was gone. As I eliminated distortion in the equipment, I exposed distortion that was already there to the point that it was more irritating than before. Acoustic distortion is the largest percentage of overall distortion in the system, but usually the last to be fixed because it is ugly and expensive and not as fun as system tweeks. And we can usually learn to "listen past" acoustic distortion with practice.

But in your case it may not be acoustic, it could be an electronic or crossover distortion that is being exposed after a new tweak removed another masking distortion. Noise covers up a lot of things. The important thing to remember is that you feel that the tweaks improve your enjoyment of the better recordings. That's positive and means you are moving in the right direction, just meeting an obstacle, that's all. You are a thinker, you can find it!

[rollo]

  Bill, welcome to the world of resolution. Its just something we can zero about. Well almost. Your not going to like my opinion though.
  It is the system as well as the recording . First off correct polarity helps most of the nastiness. Especially vocal sibilants, screechy violins, bright sounding pianos and electric guitars. . Second the system itself is highlighting a part of the frequency range that bothers you. Most likely cause is a hyped up recording along with a flaw elsewhere. A synergy flaw.
  Saying that , ones system has a basic character. If that character leans towards neutral one must be carefull not to use cables , tubes or powercords that are neutral as well. We cannot rely on the recording as you have found. A little flavoring goes a long way in our hobby. Finding that nirvana is the chase.
  I believe that when ones system gets rid of the "microscope affect" it becomes musical instead of clinical. With so called bad recordings we really have no choice.
  Yesterday I had the opportunity to listen to fine system playing LPs. When M. Fremer put on a fresh demo lacquered LP the sound was so much better than anything previous to it. As wonderfull as the sound was prior to this LP, just killed the others in sonics. both 50 and 60 year old recordings sounded great as well. Only some rock recordings were a bit hard sounding but listenable.
  Saying that its a double edged sword. poor recording plus neutral system leads to boredom and fatigue. poor recording plus colored sound equals pleasure.
  Now the color thing. Live music has color.  The goal torwards neutrality IMO has removed the color meaning the soul;. Body and weight are lost and detail and clarity have taken over.
  Granted there are poor recordings but its just not the recording


charles
 

 

[StereoNut]

...The important thing to remember is that you feel that the tweaks improve your enjoyment of the better recordings. That's positive and means you are moving in the right direction, just meeting an obstacle, that's all. You are a thinker, you can find it!

Rich

I think you're giving me too much credit... I may be a "thinker", but what I really need to be is an "answerer" here!  LOL

I appreciate that you and Charles have responded here, but I'm still confused. All of our systems and homes have a multitude of variables to deal with; which is why they're like "snowflakes" - no two are exactly alike!  It is also why our hobby can be very challenging at times, because all too often (like you said) fixing one problem, exposes another.

What I am confused about is how to identify "what is causing what"... is it acoustic or electronic or a crossover or whatever, etc... (if that's what it truly is) and maybe more importantly, how do I continue to improve things without "un-doing" the progress I've already made??? 

There are more things that come to mind, but they overlap with Charles, so I will continue this in my next post later on tonight.  (Unfortunately, I have to "post and run" right now.)

Bill

[richidoo]

Put your system back to how it was when you last liked it, then make one change at a time, once a week until you notice the problem again. Then remove that one tweak and try to continue adding more until you judge each new part. Hopefully you can get it down to one thing. Use the known good system config as your reference tool for judging each part. You may want to judge each part individually before adding more than one at a time to judge combinations. That's where the thinking comes in. Your mind will present solutions and experiments containing solutions if you have faith that the answer is within you, and if you are willing to do whatever is necessary to find the solution. Once you are willing, the answer will come easily without having to do all that you were willing to do. This works on any problem or ambition. Faith in your ability and willingness to use it opens the gate.

If the Maher electrical boxes are in the questionable pile then you have to weigh the value of finding the answer vs unplugging them.  I wonder if there is a way to remove their influence on the system without depowering them. Maybe using an unpowered battery UPS for keeping them hot while removed from the grid?

Just remember the possibility that an existing distortion was being covered up by a recently removed distortion. It can be confusing because you threw money at the system, heard an improvement, but now this new problem came from out of nowhere, right after the stimulation from the new sound wore off. No, it was there all the time, and making the system quieter revealed it. Upgrades breed more upgrades. There is no limit because the brain has infinite resolution.

[rollo]

  Man those would be some serious brains. Bringing brain food to a whole new level.


charles

[AcidJazz]

Hah...who needs brains when you got something like that. 

[StereoNut]

Thanks, Rich... I forgot what the hell we were talking about!

[StereoNut]

Charles

You (and Rich) have started to delve into specifics (E.g.: acoustics, crossovers, synergy etc...) but what I am hearing on "bad vs. good/great" recordings is a difference in the sound of my system on a much broader sense.  It's not a particular spectrum (highs/mids/lows) of the music that's being affected, it's the overall sound as a whole.

All of the things you (and Rich) have mentioned have merit;  E.g: adding (or eliminating) tweaks or making changes in your system one thing at a time is imperative if you want to have a fair chance at identifying "what is effecting what" and I wholeheartedly agree that synergy is of utmost importance in optimizing how good/great your system can sound.  But , none of that can account for how the same system is capable of making some recordings sound absolutely wonderful and others sound like crap!?!  With all things being the same within the system (as they currently are) the only variable has been the music and that is entirely the basis of my question in my original post.  (FWIW - I only mentioned AMD products because I wanted to point out that I thought my system was sounding better than ever now: not to draw attention to the tweaks themselves, which I think sidetracked everyone from the point I was trying to get at.)

Good/great recordings sound dimensional and expansive on my system right now.  They have good depth, a wonderfully wide soundstage.  There's texture, detail and subtleties with air/space between voices and instruments.  Complex passages and harmonies seem to present themselves in a layering of sound that just kind of draws you into the music.

Bad recordings have very few of the attributes I listed above for the good/great recordings.  Bad recordings sound flat and congested.  Soundstages on the bad recordings can be narrower, their overall range can seem compressed, everything musically seems to be "homogenized" into a nondescript musical blur.  The overall presentation on what I am considering bad recordings sounds much smaller. 

There's nothing I can pinpoint to sound-wise that needs to be addressed.  I'm not saying the highs are too hot or the system is lacking bottom end or there's "XYZ" missing, etc... because those problems would effect all recordings (good or bad) and that's not the case here.

The best analogy I can make is this: Good/great recordings are like eating a bowl of homemade beef and vegetable stew.  You can identify the meat and all of the veggies individually and yet savor all of the flavors working together in harmony for a satisfying meal.  Bad recordings are like serving up a jar of Gerber baby food!

Bill

P.S. - I have witnessed (heard) what the effects of correct polarity can be at your place, but I unfortunately don't have the availability to do that with my system. 

[tmazz]

Ok, we all strive to make our systems the best they can be, but we have to remember that as the resolving power of our systems gets better not only will it bring out the best of a goos recording, it will also expose the flaws in someing that was not well recorded. Just as a new high resolution speaker can expose some of the shortcomings of the electronics driving it so can a good system highlight the "warts" on a bad recording. Sure a given recoding can end up having some kind of "dis-synergy" (is that a word?) with your system and if you suspect that, try playing it at a friends house toi see if there  is some kind of bad interaction with your system or if it is just a bum recording. Some CDs and LPs just sound bad from the start. Remember, no  matter how hard you try, you just can'y polish a turd. Unfortunately some of those bad recodingsa contain some really good material from a musical perspective. If this is the case you may just have to relegate thos ablums to being listened to on youe ipod or in the car.

[BobM]

I tend to listen to jazz at home, mostly, and jazz ecordings in general sound pretty good, if not great. However, when I put on some rock it can go either way. Some are good and som ejust plain suck. The sucky ones aren't going to sound good on anything other than a car stereo, so I either don't play them at home or I listen in the car or on my Walkman.

However, over the course of years of tweaking I have had my system at the point where only really good recordinigs sounded good and others showed all their faults. This was not a recipe for long term enjoyment. I like my system to sound good on most things and great on great things. It's up to you to find the balance that you can live with and make it so.

Besides, the experimentation is half the fun.

[tmazz]

The sucky ones aren't going to sound good on anything other than a car stereo, so I either don't play them at home or I listen in the car or on my Walkman.

However, over the course of years of tweaking I have had my system at the point where only really good recordinigs sounded good and others showed all their faults. This was not a recipe for long term enjoyment. I like my system to sound good on most things and great on great things. It's up to you to find the balance that you can live with and make it so.

Wow Bob, on your Walkman? You're really dating yourself. 

I agree that you should try and balance you setup between optimizing good recordings vs maximizing the number of recordings that are listenable. But the fact remains that not matter what you do with your system, there will always be some albums that are just beyond help.  (Unless of course you are doing the same drugs that the artists were doing at the recording session. Then it sounds great )

[BobM]

Wow Bob, on your Walkman? You're really dating yourself. 

OK, my portable CD player, for my commute to work. It is made by Sony though.

[richidoo]

But , none of that can account for how the same system is capable of making some recordings sound absolutely wonderful and others sound like crap!?!  With all things being the same within the system (as they currently are) the only variable has been the music and that is entirely the basis of my question in my original post.  (FWIW - I only mentioned AMD products because I wanted to point out that I thought my system was sounding better than ever now: not to draw attention to the tweaks themselves, which I think sidetracked everyone from the point I was trying to get at.)

Warning, rant...

Good/great recordings sound dimensional and expansive on my system right now.  They have good depth, a wonderfully wide soundstage.  There's texture, detail and subtleties with air/space between voices and instruments.  Complex passages and harmonies seem to present themselves in a layering of sound that just kind of draws you into the music.

Bad recordings have very few of the attributes I listed above for the good/great recordings.  Bad recordings sound flat and congested.  Soundstages on the bad recordings can be narrower, their overall range can seem compressed, everything musically seems to be "homogenized" into a nondescript musical blur.  The overall presentation on what I am considering bad recordings sounds much smaller. 

Everyone has that problem. Most old recordings have little of the spatial cues of modern audiophile recordings. They were meant to be played on single speaker, which was common for consumer playback until 1980 and beyond. Some of the spatial cues on older recordings would be better off in mono.

You pose the sound of old recordings as a problem. You said it started after recent tweaks. The solution would be simple, remove them, except that you are emotionally addicted to the feeling you get from the system in the new form.  You are torn between choosing the feeling of music enjoyment from the old records and sound enjoyment from the new recordings with the tweaks.

Fortunately all audio tweaks do wear off as the brain seeks homeostasis from the increased dopamine that you are enjoying now from the stimulation of increased fidelity. When it does wear off and your system sounds "normal" again, then you have a choice. You may be able to tolerate the old recordings again after the craving for dopamine has subsided, and then you can be content enjoying musical content emotionally but without the mental stimulation of ear candy. Or you can decide you prefer the stimulation for an ongoing high without requiring your emotional musical involvement, in which case you have to find more tweaks to further reduce overall distortion. As the distortion level falls lower, the cost of tweaks to take it even further become more expensive. But they are always available and they will always work, because the system can never reach the resolution of the brain. And the brain gets better at hearing details with each new tweak, the sonic details become even more precious and stimulating. The recordings that contain that level of detail are harder to find, and the musical content may not be your preference.

Eventually you realize that the sonic details are mentally stimulating, but not fulfilling your heart like good music does. And the thrills are not worth the money anymore. Then you decide to find a cheaper stimulant, or dial back the resolution and seek emotional fulfillment from music. The only risk is that anything that raises dopamine can be addictive and the addiction may continue after the audio bubble bursts. Dopamine addiction is the driver of modern culture. Having it at the touch of a remote control button has made it too easy. It used to be you had to play, hunt or fight for sex to get dopamine. Now just drive thru starbucks or listen to G-105. It's everywhere. But the addictive nature of it requires greater and greater stimulation to maintain unnaturally high levels. No problem, Apple will come up with something. A broadband internet connected portable TV in your pocket? WTF? Who really needs that? Dopamine is "want." 

What kind of system do you need (to emotionally interact with quality music) vs. want (to be mentally stimulated with ear candy and exaggerated dynamic range?)

I was done until i read Bob's response. Rant continues...

I went down the rabbit hole with my last system. Replacing every part of a very musically satisfying system in order to increase resolution to get a sound quality buzz. At some points, with borrowed gear added to mine, the resolution was extreme, dynamic range was way more than the room could handle. I found myself listening to music that I otherwise wouldn't listen to because that's what sounded good on the system. Sounded good? WTF? Fourplay and Chris Botti instead of Kenny Dorham? Something is wrong here. Fortunately I found enough things wrong with the Ushers that I could hang blame for my listening dissatisfaction on them. I sold them as quick as I could once I believed they were the problem. I couldn't identify a specific thing wrong with them, but I made up things in my head because somehow i knew that they were the root of the listening dissatisfaction. Like the importer bad mouthing them on avguide forum, or being made in China, or the lies about the bogosium drivers, none of that had anything to do with the sound of them, but I used those excuses to bail myself out of a painful situation. Actually they were awesome speakers, for an audiophile who loves sound quality more than musical interaction. But I could not get past the stimulating effect they had. They weren't meant for someone who does not want to be mentally stimulated by sound. They were not meant for music lovers. Now I know they had too much resolution for my needs. After they were gone I felt a huge relief. I couldn't understand why, because I mentally knew that I would never have speakers "that good" again. But I was relieved. It took a year to get unhooked from sound quality and start to listen to my old jazz recordings again. I first switched to in-ears for sound quality stimulation, but gradually that wore off too when I learned to recognize the missing musical satisfaction. I have no desire to increase resolution again. The Ushers taught me a valuable lesson about how much resolution I want and how much I can stand. The feastrexs had the right amount of resolution, but not flat FR. My Legacys had too little resolution. The only thing I have bought in 2 years that increases resolution is a set of interconnects, but I had auditioned those many times over 4 years and knew I loved them in every system.  OK preview button, maybe done... YES End of Rant!

So cathartic! Thank you Bill!!   Don't worry about it, it will work itself out in time. Just enjoy your nice recordings for now. Enjoy that feeling of being in love and winning the lottery, and taking coke, legally, at the touch of a button. WOW What a hobby!

[StereoNut]

...OK preview button, maybe done... YES End of Rant!

So cathartic! Thank you Bill!!   Don't worry about it, it will work itself out in time. Just enjoy your nice recordings for now. Enjoy that feeling of being in love and winning the lottery, and taking coke, legally, at the touch of a button. WOW What a hobby!

WOW, Rich!  That's not a rant, it's an epic!

You have touched upon the issue in a completely different way than I would've ever thought of by myself and think the completely different tact you've taken here is great.  You've provided both a psychological and psycho-acoustical evaluation of the problem, that goes way beyond the normal audiophile jargon that usually accompanies this sort of discussion! 

I guess the issue that still remains for me is how to find a balance that gives me the best of both worlds.  (Sounds like a re-make of a light beer commercial... "less filling, no tastes great!")  And as I think more and more about what you've said on the subject, the problem is based more in the psychology of it all, than equipment and source material itself.

I'm just having a hard time thinking that in order to enjoy more (most?) of the recordings in my collection, I need to "dumb-down" the resolution of my system.  It really goes against the grain of what all of us audio crazies spend so much time with day to day; which is how to get MORE out of one's system - not less!

Help, I need to be de-programmed!  I think I'm the one who need's a catharsis right about now!  Maybe, some more analysis by Dr. Rich will do the trick?  Do you take GHI and if so, how much are the co-pays? 

Thanks for the fresh look at all of this. 

Bill