Over the past two years, I’ve been loading up on Telarc, Chesky, and so many other outstanding recordings to keep them for historical purposes, and pass them down to my sons. There are plenty of great recordings out on the market. The issue is learning how to find them in advance of purchase. There are many great, UA-cam channels that review many of the best recordings from the past and present, and that’s a good place to start.
Glad you mentioned the 60"s,70's and 80's Paul.Was listening to a Thompson Twins album yesterday on Tidal and the sound quality literally startled me.The sound stage,sense of space,the dynamics.Amazing.All this and no "fizz" which I like to call "the frying steak effect"so common on today's recordings...the sibilant treble emphasis which makes me want to run away with my fingers in my ears. Thinking it must be a fluke,but no,many other 80's stuff was just as good.Nostalgia let me discover good recordings.
THANKS PAUL 🤗…for sharing the good and bad news about recordings, I am NOW ABLE to see the difference and looking for new recordings of all types of music 🎼 and sometimes I listen to my old favorites 🥲,also we have the option to listen to them remastered,PROVING,IMHHO…IT IS THE BEST TIME TO BE AN AUDIOPHILE 👍💚💚💚
So happy you addressed this issue and question. What a wonderful world it would be, if all recordings were of the highest quality. However, that's not reality. I am a music lover. I have systems to listen to the music I love: the music I connect with me and my spirit. Regardless of the recording quality. Just because a recording is of the highest quality: does not necessarily mean it will be music I connect with. So, my solution for many years, now: is to have a least one modest forgiving system ( in my house, the livingroom, where we spend a lot of time and company gathers there), and one higher quality, more revealing system. It is the only solution I could ever come up with.
But Paul, if everybody is wearing a mask, it's going to change the room dynamics! 😜(just kidding) But no, you're right. An upscale system really picks out deficiencies and poor recordings. I have a Dire Straits CD that I love, and it seems to be across the board. I've tried several of the same CDs and they all have the same problem. So, like you said, you just learn to live with it. Makes me wonder sometimes why I want more equipment to make the music 'better' when there is this problem of bad recordings that never goes away. The better you're equipment, the more it shows problems with the recordings. Oh well.....
very interesting your comment. I imagine some people buy high quality audio systems to listen what they like, not to listen the music world with better quality. *Immaculate Collection, Madonna:* it has tracks ery bad "clipped" and adjusted to cut the peaks! the waveform looks like your grass mowed! *Da uma chance, Ruanzinho:* electronic music, relaxed and goodie alike a "good regetón". it sounds good and the waveform is enough good too, a very good original.
Spot on Paul. I have been so disappointed at times when listening to certain recordings. I really like stuff from the 70’s and 80’s, and a few from the 90’s to current. They did it right back then. Earth Wind and Fire, Stealy Dan, Anita Baker, Michael Jackson….it all pulls me right in and brings emotion out. It’s like a drug.
When I was young, we use to have some filters, loudness and tone control on and amplifier to help the listening of bad recordings. It was useful and I miss it from time to time on hifi amplifier.
Yeah, it’s a huge bummer that those well-working refined tone controls and loudness control are gone. People used them because they could make music sound more pleasurable. The idiocy that tone control, loudness control and EQ are evils and even a bypass switch can’t be done without negative audible effect rules in audiophile gear nowadays. The facts of Fletcher Munson, my room, my hearing and some music tracks needing tweaking all seem to be ignored.
@@ThinkingBetter I have tone controls in my system (Legacy Audio Wavelet). This EQ is done on 6 bands and in the digital domain so there are no phase issues. The Wavelet is a digital preamp which also does room correction and 4 channel active crossover all in the digital domain, with 4 output DACs after processing. Tone controls are out there. Schiit Audio does provide ones ranging from $150 up to $1500.
@@matthewbarrow3727 Often notice about digital domain in band tone control. What is idea of pure digital tone control? How it may be excecuted? I doubt it may be done by counting digitaly by starting and ending the band with numbers because it would result in totaly sharp steps and equal level within limits resulting in distortion. I'd rather see it as conventional band EQ with volumes controlled digitaly in steps instead of old continuous by potentiometers . I have such in my B&O and it is two bands separate low and high in steps 1dB which for my High Fidelity I judge not enough fine
@@Mikexception Digital filtering including EQ is done using math running on a DSP or CPU. For example, I use the miniDSP Flex Eight in my home office setup to both do EQ and cross-over filtering for a total of 8 output channels. It allows me excellent tweaking and optimization. Compared to analog filters, using DSP, the noise and distortion is super low and phase can also be linear.
@@Mikexception The basic idea of digital tone control in analog equipment is that the tone control has a ADC to convert from analog to digital, then go through the appropriate filtering in the digital domain, then go through a DAC to get back to analog. The issue becomes one of whether the quality of going through an ADC and then DAC is going to be less of an issue than the phase issues that might come from analog tone controls. In my case, I am using digital for room correction and active cross-over. It is not possible to do room correction in the analog domain. The tone controls came as part of the system. I do not have the understanding of digital signal processing to answer your questions about the actual digital processing. However, as a programmer, I can say that once in the digital domain, you can pretty much do anything you want.
Great video, Paul. And thank you for the mention of Blue Coast Records. I very much agree with you that recording engineers learning in today's world have a different set of values and quality is not an issue. I opened my studio in the 80's and there was an expectation that we would make the best sounding recording we could. Those were the days of less overall compression (loudness wars didn't exist), learning about micrphone position and understanding 'gain control'. Sample libraries to create whole songs didn't exist. We recorded musicians playing real instruments and took pride in our studio craft. Over the last 40 years I've trained about 1000 young engineers and what I've seen is a change in their goals. I haven't had a student in my studio who wanted to be an engineer when they arrive. Most aspired to be songwriters and work from home. This is now reflected in how audio schools are approaching teaching the craft... it's geared towards game music and sample libraries. Few students know how to record live musicians. The good news is every now and then, I find a new student who is excited and open to the idea of making quality recordings and learning about how to capture a great performance. Better news, is when my former students come back and want to write books or create videos to pass these techniques on. I'm hopeful we're turning a page to better sound.
I had the same experience taking a college course on audio recording. The professor had us use sampling packs in pro tools. I wanted to record in a live setting and learn how to make a live recording sound good. He had no knowledge of that. I was disappointed. It wasn't my career choice but just an extra curriculum class, but I can imagine the frustration you mention and it's unfortunate to hear. I would love to be an engineer, but studios don't need engineers anymore. Those days are long gone and we may never see them again outside of a niche.
Paul very eloquently explained. Have a custom designed audio system in my Dining Room for the 70's thru early 2000's vinyl and digital format. Have a custom designed audio system (all PS Audio, minus speakers & TT) in an upstairs bedroom. I built both these systems for this exact reason.
I've often wondered if a high quality system could have a "switch" that allows you dial back the detail. Obviously the best recordings would be set at full detail, but poor recordings could be dialed back for a more pleasant and more musical experience. Some recordings are simply too harsh to hear at full detail. I realize that audiophiles typically reject any kind of signal processing (such as equalizers), but with digital signal processing I think the original signal could remain intact if desired, and the amount of "tweaking" could be kept at a minimum. It would be a shame if people stopped listening to their favorite recordings, simply because they upgraded the quality of their audio system.
I agree with Paul's words here. There was sort of a competition in the 60s for who could produce the best-sounding record. The labels thought that is what sold, and perhaps that is what sold when consumers cared more about having a HiFi setup in their homes.
Having had a variety of very different speakers over 6 decades I will say that no one system can do it all. Highly revealing speakers, like Paul said, is self explanatory, you get the good and the bad. But different speaker designs can do a better job averaging various frequencies to get even poorer recordings to not be overly harsh sometimes to the point of unlistenable. But more often a simple EQ , dynamic range enhancer or compressor, time lens or aural exciter can do wonders for poor recordings on better systems. Bob Carver's Sonic Holigraphy, or an SRS processor can also really increase the enjoyment with less than good productions. And computer based editing and processing can really go to the next levels. I have settled on having a multi speaker, multi configurable system. From single 1" tweeters, to multi tweeters to horns to small ribbons, and any combination from 4", 10", 12" or 15" mids and woofers, I can really improve my enjoyment and just on poor recordings. I'm very fickle and sometimes I want perfect imaging ande stage, ( small speakers perfectly placed while other times I want huge dynamics and spl like a big rock show, which are almost always mono so perfect stereo image isn't there to begin with and the blended sound of multi point sound sources is tolerable. And who doesn't like pounding bass on pipe organ and synth music. But in my maturity of age and experience I lean towards the small well defined system which really supports most of my musical tastes, with only minor modifications to address shortcomings on individual songs and genres.
I'll never forget my first experience with digital recordings was the theme from Chariots of Fire. It was the played on a good system and was the most horrendous recording I'd ever heard. It so shaped my attitude about digital that it was years before I invested in a CD player when I could no longer get albums I wanted. I still prefer vinyl no matter how it was recorded originally and I suppose most of my feelings were set by my original experience.
My fix for this problem is matching the quality level of music to the equipment. I play audiophile music on my best high end system. I play good music on my mid level system. And my low quality music on my earbuds while walking or working or on my car stereo. I purposely play the right music on the right system so I get to enjoy all my music at the appropriate time.
lol, that's what I do too. Music I cannot stand to listen to on my good system sounds ok on my other setup and my car can handle most anything I throw at it and sounds quite good.
Enjoying the defects, in a recording..... that is what you have to do, when listening through a high end system. This is like enjoying the graininess and small specs (appearing and disappearing quickly) in an old film. You don't expect an old film to look like a modern video. You enjoy it for what it is. The same thing has to be done with "less than perfect" audio recordings, when listening through a high end system. You literally have to enjoy the defects and look at them as character. Of course there a lots of less than perfect audio recordings. If you eliminated all of these from your listening repertoie, you'd have a much smaller collection of things to listen to. Of course this can apply to lots of things in life. If you drive a Model A Ford, you enjoy it for its limitations. That is part of the character if the experience. If you play a small cheap guitar, you don't expect it to sound like a big Taylor or Martin guitar. You enjoy it for what it is, inclusive of its limitations. So, get your high end system, and then use it to enjoy some of the defects present in many recordings, along with your audiophile recordings (and their pristine quality.) PS: This subject applies to us musicians, too. Lots of recording equipment is available that is less than pristine in quality, but quite good enough for listenablity. Musicians of lots of economic status have been liberated, in terms of multitrack recording equipment being made available to them, and being able to make good recordings (not great recordings, but good recordings.) Lots of us take full advantage of this economical gear, and make fun, enjoyable recordings. These are within the limitations of the price category that these are sold and made at, but they have their own charm, and communicate quite well (and isn't that the point of music?) If you need to sit around and tell youself that you only listen to the finest recordings, then knock yourself out: your ego leads the way. You can tell yourself that you're superior. However, if you want to enjoy the other 98% of recordings, then you need an attitude adjustment, if you're comming from the "superior point of view."
A lot of music was never meant to be audiophile, it was tuned to car stereo, or cheap transistor radio because that was where the target audience was listening on. Not expensive tuned audio set ups in sound treated rooms. But I think you should still be able to get the most out of it with your system. Maybe use less revealing components, switch to a vintage for some music. Switch DAC's amp or speakers. Use DSP. It is not all about the detail. It is about the entire feel of the music.
Spoken like someone that hasn't a clue about the recording process. No recording or mastering studio mixes to any format because the studio has no clue what format a listener will listen to it on. Recordings are mixed to a neutral environment so that the listener can make adjustments to the recording to suit their personal tastes.
The OP’s comment is false. Good and great audio engineers try very hard to ensure that the quality of all productions is as high as possible. But what should be known (and is what the OP might be guessing) is that the music is often at the endpoint played by the engineer on smaller and cheaper systems (e.g. automobile, iPhone) to ensure that the BALANCES of instruments and voices are pleasing. A bass guitar heard on a pair of big Wilson speakers might not be heard on an Android phone speaker, so the overall level of the bass guitar will be raised at the check to ensure folks listening to the Android phone will hear it.
Awesome video as usual. In my experience, a great recording is a great recording, period. It sound great on almost any system. When you play that great recording on a really nice hi-end system, it takes that recording to a whole other level of greatness. However, the opposite is also, in play. If you have a bad recording and play it on a entry level system, it can sound descent. Then when you play that same bad recording on a hi-end system that can reveal all the little details, that recording sounds even worse….. like the old computer saying, “ garbage in, garbage out.” Am I the only one that has had this experience: You listen to something on your streaming service of choice. You fall in love with that artist/ album. You decide you want to purchase that album on vinyl. Once you receive that album, it sounds awful. Nothing like it did when you streamed it? This is especially true with more modern music from the 1990’s to today
I am an audiophile wanna be . I have a dedicated home theatre with an Anthem receiver , but have set up a stand-alone integrated amp and turntable/CD player for music . As wonderful as the home theatre receiver is for movies and music , the IA does reveal much more - which makes the listening experience better . Yes , it does reveal some “bad parts” but I don’t have an issue with that - it make me appreciate the quality of the IA set-up all the more .
so much years ago, a lot of enthusiasts played Atari, and so searching for a better experience they got a better TV, with new games they wanted a better TV too, Contra, Double Dragon and so, with Street Fighter and Mario: a Sony Trinitron was a most have, more games and more demanding graphics the TV, Screens, consoles, graphic cards and so the games and the experience to play was increased and growing up to play, to play better Halo, Fifa, Forza, Witcher. *when was the label gamer invented?* everything was freedom, joy and game, the world was just enthusiasm, cartridges with games, playgame andfreedom to get a better experience without invented labels or stereotypes of _gamer, chair gamer, keyboard gamer, peanuts gamer, jacket gamer, headphones gamer_ and the add on, the curse: you are gamer if.... you aren't gamer if.... you can't say you're gamer if you don't . . . . . the gamer has.... so much years ago, listening music was joy, enthusiasm and searching for a better experience to listen music brings new tech, more devices, speakers. *when was the label gamer invented?* , the word "audiophile" didn't existed, the label, the stereotype to cut and enclose the liberty was invented with a wrong name: Audio - Philia. with the curse and imposed rule: you are audiophile if you are audiophile when . .. you aren't audiophile because you . .... you are _melophile_ an audiophile is.... tell me, *who could be a gamer wannabe?* playing Moon Patrol and Miss Pacman was for gamers or gamers wannabe? who is audiophile? is there a rule to join in? when so much years ago only existed freedom and joy. whatch the video on my channel named *what is audiophile (what audiophile is)* , if you want to join in, I only would say "Django Unchained".
That's why it's so important to have an eq in the system, as Paul said, most recordings are mediocre at best, even the best room acoustic treatment is not going to help here, at least with an eq you can make them sound half decent.
I do have tone controls on my system. I listened to the Doors on my record player last night. The tonal balance was on the brighter side, with less bass. The question then becomes one of: do I want to listen to what the band was trying to do, or do I dislike the band sound, and want to change it to my taste. I could certain change the tonal balance, but do I really want to.
from my experience of improving my system, bad recordings have both their bad and good qualities (if it ad no good qualities for me i would listen to it) enhanced. this keeps them at +-0 while the better the recording is, the more they gain in briliance. i also have an audio restaurative dsp running, which checks the sound for potential harmonic relations and selectively approximates both subharmonics and overtones where there are spectral holes. for well recorded music, this does basicly nothing as the natural harmonics are all present. for bad or lossy recordings this adds a vinyl like presence of harmonics, which often helps a lot. for things that are so disconected the algorythm no longer can find harmonics, its beyond saving. from the same restorative software i use a "declipper" too, which makes brickwalled digital clipping behave more like tape saturation while reducing the minimum loudness, effectively guessing back in some dynamic range. this of course has its limits too. the dsp i'm talking about is thimeo stereotool.
The key words here are "bad recordings" not "bad music". Just wanted to clear that up. Have a listen to Robert Johnson's 29 songs recorded in Dallas Texas, in November 1936 over a period of 5 days.
@@peterpipe9015 For some, the mono recordings and crackling and mic hum etc are a bit off putting. In my opinion, the recording technique matched the Blues music and made the songs and the album magical. Robert Johnson's recordings in single takes, without over dubbing, are the most important creative works in the Blues genre. (He also died at that mysterious age of 27, like Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, Alexandre Ley, Janis Joplin, Fat Pat, Joe Henderson, Kurt Curbain etc). Robert Johnson's playing sounds like there are overdubs or two guitarists playing in parts but it is just Robert playing one take of each song. Way ahead of his time. His classic song "crossroads" tells the story of a deal being made with the devil at a crossroad. Sweet Home Chicago is another classic. They say that Robert Johnson essentially recorded all these songs in one recording session with the entire album produced and out the door in 5 days. If you're interested the entire album can be listened to here: ua-cam.com/video/if7cEESOp54/v-deo.html
I don't know there's a lot that goes into that question and answering it at face value I would make the statement that it kind of depends. it kind of depends on a lot of things, the system of course but also the recordings and also what you're willing to tolerate. I am personally not a fan of over analytical systems mostly for that reason, because they have an ability to tear apart a recording to its base parts and lose the musical coherence of the performance. it's probably one of the reasons I love tube gear. matter of fact one of the things I always notice about various systems and let's specifically say amplifiers that I've had is their ability to make me want to listen to certain types of music, like some systems I've had I have this feel that I just want to listen to jazz because it sounds really good and that other systems I've had they make me want to listen to punk rock music. but one of my qualifications for a great HiFi system is the fact that it doesn't discriminate or cause me to discriminate against any particular genre of music. besides Paul mentioning octave records being a great source of fine recordings another one that I am always happy to recommend and they've got fantastic prices is in the company Mapleshade. now of course they don't just only sell records but they're very well known for their wood platforms and HiFi furniture that they produce but a lot of their recordings are recorded in house using one to two microphones and they're typically is no sort of over-processing or overproduction of the sound. basically what they recorded and what was played is what you hear and in a lot of cases especially if you really like your music to have great tone and timbre they are some of the best recordings I found in that respect.
I've been debating this after upgrading my computer setup at home (went from built in TCL TV speakers to an Aiyima A07 + 2x Neumi CS5's) Music is much better but I have mixed feelings about conference calls. You're either noticing the flaws in everyone's voices more or noticing who has good vs. cheap mics.
My antidotal experience agrees with Paul. I didn’t feel like I had spent audiophile money and I didn’t think this would be a problem, but I was so disappointed after assembling my new system last year and first listening to my sentimentally favorite album, Pink Floyd’s “Animals”. I had never heard it sound like that on my previous consumer grade gear.
@@cbcdesign001 I guess this, tangentially, was my story of how I came to that same conclusion. I never knew how bad it was until I got better gear. I’ve only listened to mp3s of the Animals remix so far, but, on my new system, the remix sounds better than my original CD. I’m expecting the remix SACD for the holidays 🤞🙂.
When I first started moving from lo fi to higher end equipment I thought it sounded crappy, only to realize it revealed the flaws of my other equipment. A bad recording sound sounded horrible.
It can be tough or maybe impossible to build a set up that does everything well. Having at least two systems can help make nearly everything in your collection listenable. For decades popular music was recorded for radio airplay and listening, (a way different set of variables than you'll find in a good dedicated listening room). Get a system that doesn't dissect too much during playback. If you're strapped for space maybe improve the system in your car to fall back on for the stuff that doesn't hold up well under intense scrutiny.
as some one from the recording world and uses Focal monitors for my everyday speakers. they make poorly mixed audio in particular things like you tube can be very hard to deal with depending on the DAC I use. With my MOTU my mixing DAC just brings forward all the flaws were as With my CA CXN V2 my HI-FI DAC things like you tube just sound so much warmer and inviting, but that is the point of the DAC I wanted a warmer less harsh DAC to enjoy music with.
Fully agree! More and more new recordings are weak…. Because sound « engineers » taste… or simply… because the cost and the rush they put on the process? The technology has ne rêve be so good… and we can not appreciate it…😢
I would be happy if someone would compare Octave recordings to something like Sessions From the 17th Ward by Amber Rubarth. That album is the best recording I've heard thus far, but I am not exactly ready to spend lots of money on Octave releases until I know how they compare (like, are they much, much better, for example?). And that album by Rubarth is one of my all time faves. Naturally I bought the DSD 128 version.
Almost all my vinyl records are from the 70's and 80's. On my record player, they sound rhythmic (when you just listen, you get attracted to the rhythm rather than the special affects). There is a liveliness to the sound. When I listen to the TIDAL versions, they sound dull in comparison. They may have great sound stage and placement of instruments, but the rhythm gets lost. It may be that the A to D converters back then were not very good quality so you lost that timing in the translation to digital. When I recently upgraded my record player (Linn Sondek LP12), I discovered that the sound stage depth got reduced. It is my sense that the reduction of resonance by upgrading reduced this depth in some way. I was a bit disappointed so looked to upgrade my phono stage, to see the different presentations that were available. One had great sound stage and detail and sounded a bit like my streamer. Probably no surprise as it converted to digital prior to the RIAA correction. One really exposed the rhythm of the music. This may be because the designer of this phono stage spent many years in the recording industry mixing, mastering, and producing music, and he wanted that liveliness to the sound. My vinyl and digital have quite different presentations. For vinyl, my focus is more on the rhythm. For digital, my focus is more on the sound stage. I was unable to get that rhythm from digital, even when demoing a very expensive DAC, so no longer try. This begs the question as to what exactly is a good recording. I have ordered both the 40th Anniversary Mofi transfer of Michael Jackson's Thriller, as well as the original pressing. Reviews show them to have very different presentations. The Mofi version is said to have great sound stage and detail. The original pressing was aimed as dance music, and may therefore be compressed. Both would give different experiences. Which is the better recording? I guess that it depends what you are looking for. Technically, the Mofi may be better. Emotionally, the original pressing may be better. Maybe, just get both, depending on what experience you want.
@@georgemartinezza When you compare an older LP versus TIDAL, the streaming version sounds dull in comparison. An interesting experiment to try out is to listen to the different remastering of Eurythmics Sweet Dreams on TIDAL against the original digital transfer (also on TIDAL). The original transfer sounds dull. The 2003 remaster sounds good. The 2015 remaster sounds dull, like the original version. The 2003 version sounds much closer to the original vinyl, but not quite to the level (even using a $40,000 Linn Klimax DSM streaming DAC). (The dates are approximate). The rhythm aspect is a tougher one. People also call this PRAT (Pace, Rhythm, and Timing). I would say that this depends on the turntable and phonostage. e.g. I felt this with the Zesto tube phonostage, but I did not feel it with a $20,000 Audio Research tube phonostage. The interconnect between the phonostage and preamp also made a difference. I could feel it clearly with the Cardas Clear cable, but less so with the other cables I demoed. It wasn't something I was looking for. It was something that grabbed my attention. It's like you phase lock to the rhythm. It was a strange feeling. It's something that one has to experience for oneself. I had never felt it before. One should bear in mind that the record player costs about $30,000, phonostage at $8000, and Cardas cables at $3000. The back end was a Legacy Audio Valor speaker system at $86,000. I have listened to a $40,000 Linn DSM streaming DAC but have not heard this type of rhythm lock-in. It's one of those things that once you feel it, you don't want to go back. I use the word "feel" rather than "hear" because it is more of a feeling. I enjoy being immersed in the music, and that lock-in pulls you even more into the music. Not sure if this makes sense. One generally needs a reference to compare against. Without such a reference, it's hard to even imagine.
@@georgemartinezza Children are much more complicated. More money, devices, technology. Complicated life. Stereo equipment is far simpler and more relaxing.
@@matthewbarrow3727 _"Stereo equipment is far simpler and more relaxing"_ it is, it should be for a lot of people, reading and hearing a lot of questions in forums, PS Audio, tutorials, I notice they don't enjoy they suffer the audio experience, like a "gamer" worried more about FPS and temperature than shout and release the tongue playing with wide open eyes .
A music system that can't play most of your music is no music system at all. Having to play the same great-sounding records over and over is one helluva compromise in the name justifying your system... but we do like to have a really good system! My solution is to have a bass-lite system in my bedroom which can play anything and my main system in the living room plays 60-70% of everything. That's my compromise.
It's the John Madden word salad for audio: "Great systems need great players...when you have bad players on a bad recording on a great system it's not that great but when you put great players on a great recording and play them on a great system...well...well... That' a great audio game !
you learn to listen past the "system" and get back to loving the music, if you love music the traits of your hi-fi will start to matter less and remain in context. then when you obtain some of those "great" recordings your system will be there for you too... it's not as big of a problem as it may seem
Are there any hifi devices or software that, through some sort of wizardry, can improve the sound quality of poorly recorded files, compressed files and inferior streaming platforms? I have a few live recordings I ripped to WAV from UA-cam and while they do seem to sound slightly better playing through Foobar than just playing the video on UA-cam on a browser, it still sounds very compressed. I also have a plugin for Foobar that allows for streaming playback of a UA-cam video's audio. I use it A LOT as certain channels upload bands new music with permission, for promotion. I don't want it to sound WORSE on a better system when I upgrade. I'm currently saving for my first real hifi system and while it won't be high end, I've heard the speakers I have in mind (Magnepan LRS+) can be revealing if paired with a revealing DAC &/or amp.
It's very much like buying a 75" 4K OLED TV. Avatar looks absolutely insane on it. Episodes of Cheers not so much. It's exactly the same with hifi. Most consumer grade products (smart speakers, AirPods, Sonos) sound ok across the board. Bad recordings sound a bit bad, good recordings sounds quite good. However throw a couple of thousand dollars or more at hifi system and that good recording sounds incredible, but that bad recording can sound absolutely terrible. I have heard $30,000 worth of audio gear butcher Rage Against The Machine and A Tribe Called Quest. Great albums, great music, but very badly recorded and it just completely killed the system, in the exact same way Cheers would kill the picture on a 75" 4K OLED.
I remember on one recording I could hear some really awful sound on my hifi speakers. I was flabbergasted as before on my small speakers (not some china low end mind you) it wasn't there. It made me curious what is happening - something wrong with the speaker, xover, amp etc.? So I reconnected my old small speakers. It was there as well but so much quieter, barely able to hear it. Had to really concentrate. Then I reconnected the towers, bam there it was again. Ok so I downloaded that track from some other better source and it wasn't there. Mind you the first one was 312kbit, I thought quite high quality, not FLAC, but still good. Nope somebody made somewhere a big mistake for sure. So yeah the source or recording for hifi speakers has to be quite good as well otherwise it's a pain to listen. Every micro mistake is revealed.
a great systems makes music sound good, even 'bad' recordings. After improving my system, al lot of recordings that sounded bad, sound good. Most recordings are good, most audio gear sounds bad. But there are great recordings.
I listen predominantly to pop music recorded from 60s to date. My understanding is that as a general rule of thumb, Classical recordings are recorded with the greatest of care in the studio, followed by Jazz with pop a poor third. Not always true but often as pop is by definition a throwaway culture. Also, as you know pop singles frequencies are highly compressed to be radio friendly so usually sound lacking on premium hi fi. A small % of classic albums like The Beatles Revolver are being remastered, as enough physical media sales can be generated aimed at niche audiophiliacs to make substantial profits Not a criticism that's just the way it is now. The majority of people largely consume music through streaming. So yes, a poor recordings are indeed exposed by a revealing system as its a wider istening window 🇬🇧
You're understanding would be incorrect. All recordings done in a commercial recording studio are done with the greatest of care and there is no order of care. Pop is not a throwaway culture, it is another genre of music like Orchestral (Classical defines a specific generation of past orchestral music) and Jazz. Pop IS NOT highly compressed to be radio-friendly, it is a part of the defining qualities of the genre. Just because you don't like Pop doesn't make the genre any less important in terms of production and recording.
@@JonAnderhub 98% of my collection is actually pop ! Although in recent years also listen to a little classic jazz I still think the dynamic range of many hit singles - especially are often limited to make them more impactful on radio. From the 90s much less studio time was spent on the majority of pop albums .On a traditional hi fi set up shortfalls /poor quality is revealed More recently many pop artists are over synthesised & auto tuned That's how I hear it - of course there are stand out exceptions 👍
On a good system you hear things you didn't know were there, that can take some getting used to...it can be like seeing someone up close without makeup for the first time...
Tone controls are a must when we are still away from ideal reproduction. I also want to to have them to make myself sure I get the best. . In rare cases, and also last few years I enjoy quite enough perfection of reproduction gear and to my surprise it leaded me (forced me) always to almost neutral position of tone controls. As I have no option to make it off it is adjusted to neutral sound by ear .
WHAT I AM INTO ARE LIVE RECORDED ROCK CONCERTS, AKA BOOTLEGS AND I HAVE A TON OF THE BANDS I LIKE. HOWEVER ALOT ARE MUFFLED OR AUDIENCES RECORDED AND SOUND IS POOR, I USE ALOT OF PLUGINS FOR NOISE REPAIR,EQ ETC BUT WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS CAN YOU OR ANYONE GIVE ME TO HELP? PLUGINS AND SPEAKERS. THANKS SO MUCH!!! 😊
I think the recording ethos and methodology is fundamentally different for music that is never meant to be heard live. The recording is the performance, and the engineer is at least a co-star. There's also no 'realism' to try to capture.
Yes a good transparent speaker will reveal the bad recordings even more witch can make them sound bad in those recordings their is just no way around it if you want a transparent system, a forgiving speaker might sound better with bad recordings but will never be as transparent with good material
The ultra high end systems can make good recordings sound amazing. They can also make mediocre to bad recordings sound (bearable) to listen to ( lipstick on a pig ). On Qbuz just because the Flaq file is high does not mean the recording will be good. I have had the best luck with 24/48 to 24/96 recordings with stragglers of lower or higher files still sounding good.
IMHO, a good system would have you enjoy music much more, in all formats, vinyl, CDs, and cassettes, yes sure the degree of sound difference would be there, but all of them would have one thing in common and that would be musicality and rhythm. The sound of an acoustic guitar, piano and human voice would make listener as if they are listening to live music. A highly revealing system would have a lot of detail, but it will become fatigue sounding in a very short time, and you would find your thoughts drifting to something else other than enjoying music. Why, well because that detail creates an unnatural picture of the the entire musical event.
What I don't understand is all of you who put together nice systems and then cripple your gear with vinyl. How so many of you have convinced yourself that records can sound good is beyond me. They are one of the worst mediums you could pick.
The vinyl sound is different from digital. Vinyl is continuous, whereas digital is sampled. The DACs all try to recreate the continuous signal, but the information is not there. The noise floor is much lower for digital. Almost all of my records are from the 70's and 80's. The problem is that the quality of the A to D converters back then were not very good quality as the digital industry was still young. As such, all my records sound much better than the streaming versions. While I do have a record player and streamer, my preamp is digital with room correction, tone controls, and 4 way active crossover. I do have Legacy Audio Valor speakers (so we are talking about a $100,000 system). When it comes to older recordings, I much prefer my record player. I will say that the timing aspects of digital are such that I get much more rhythmic sound from my record player than my streamer. For my system, my record player is focused at rhythm, with sound stage being secondary. For streaming, my focus is more on imagery and sound stage as I just can't get that same sense of rhythm. Detail occurs in both.
Yes - I think the same . But when I put any my LP on my turntable I feel gulity that I could even think about it because it is class for itself. Only exception happens for hunderd times played LPs on unknown tables. After I forget what I heard last time it and I start to think again like you. 😄
On headphones certain things don't sound better, especially detailed headphones. My Moody Blues sound wonky and Stevie Ray Vaughan albums sound bad; both sound better on a low end stereo from the 70s, or in a bar for Stevie. I think some things were just not mixed for cans, or detail in some cases
It does not sound worse. An audiophile system just reveals more details and you can realize that quality differs from record to record. This answer takes 30 seconds. The remaining 8 minutes are blablabla...
YES, it will sound worse. a very good quality audio system will reveal with more precision the details of the recording: *including the bad, trash and loud of the song* you will ralize the quality of the recording, listening how good it is or how bad and puke it is making it sound *WORSE* . and tell me, you being the expert with knowledge: when was invented the "audiophile system" ?
@1:49 "...and i'm sure all of that has great merit. Otherwise, they wouldn't be selling bazillions of copies of stuff." -- They sell crummy sounding songs, because people love the melodies. People have no alternative source for the song. They can buy only the crummy release from the studio. -- They sell crummy sounding songs, because most people do not own speakers on the level of FR30s, or anything close (most people think that Bose is the best money can buy). -- They sell crummy sounding songs, because most people do not hear the poor quality. Crummy sounding recordings is all they ever hear. Like being in a fart-filled room all your life. You do not smell the farts. When all of your music is poorly mixed/mastered, it is what you have always heard, and so it sounds right to most people. If you like chicken, and only one store sold chicken... Well, they would sell bazillions of chickens, even if the chicken quality was so-so. Bazillions of copies of songs are sold, not due to the work in the studio. Rather, due to the time, effort, and talent of the musicians. The songs sell in spite of the sub-par job done by studio personnel. The Beatles would have probably sold just as many albums, even if their songs were compressed to a brick.
Mediocre audio systems often function as a compressor, so wht is already compressed stays the same but good recordings with great dynamics gets downsized and everything good or bad sounds the same. With good audio systems good recordings shines in all their greatness, but recordings that are compressed sounds in all their awfulness, flat, uninteresting.
Seems an awful lot like audiophiles are fighting an uphill battle, no wonder why so many are angry and dissatisfied, but also arrogant and unaware of what they do and don't know. At best, you're trying to achieve something not possible (I play drums and you couldn't tolerate more than 5 seconds of real cymbals, so replicating reality isnt possible). At worst, it's mostly unconfirmed theories and wasted money when one can simply put those resources and efforts into more strongly aligning variables to achieve a better result from confirmation bias. Taking psychoacoustic principles and applying more psychology to things doesn't give you a deeper understanding of acoustics, so there's psychoacoustics, and then there's speculation based on an understanding of acoustics but a complete lack of comprehension of the most basic psychological principles.
I agree with your statement about people not knowing what they do not know. I recently upgraded my phono stage and cable from phono stage to preamp. The record player is a top spec Linn Sondek LP12. The phono stage is a Zesto Andros Deluxe 2 tube amp. The cables are Cardas Clear XLR cables. I do have a Legacy Audio Valor speaker system. With the Zesto / Cardas combination, the cymbals were louder than what I was used to. However, I could now hear a lot of cymbal work that I had never heard before. When comparing cables, I did notice that some, even very expensive ones, may roll off the treble to try to give that "audiophile" sound. I decided that I preferred the brighter sound as I got a greater sense of rhythm. I do think that understanding the bias of the equipment manufacturers can help a lot. The person who designed the phono stage likes Cardas Clear Beyond cables and was in the recording industry for a lot time, in various aspects of mixing, mastering, and producing. I did try out the Clear Beyond cables but it felt too uncomfortable for me. The speaker designer provides a lot of speakers to the recording industry for the mastering aspects. He is also very much into psychoacoustics.
I had someone once say they had heard i had a good system. And for him to know how good it is he plays his music on his friends system to see how it sounds. My first thought was what is the audio quality of the music first 🤣🤣🤣 i can easily blow him into another dimension if i played him couple sacd or real hi resolution audio 🤣🤣🤣
some records will sound better, some other will sound worse you have bad speakers and cheap ampliff. you listen in CD player *Da Doo Ron Ron* - logic and obvious it will sound terrible, like a slap in the eyes. you have very good speakers, a high quality amplifier, and you listen in CD player *Da Doo Ron Ron* - you will listen with more detail and precision the loud and mixed cuts of sounds. as the other guys say in their video: listening 60's music with a very good audio system of 60's will be the best. .
My audiophile system makes "normal" recordings shine, while those audiophile ones with unbelievable bass, stunning mids and breathtaking highs, a soundstage that is MARVELLOUSLY designed and so forth.. meh. Too much show off, not enough music.
When Paul talks about the old recording studios of the '70s and '80s, my aDs 910s were involved in that realm. They were made for recording studios as mains. Thankfully, I am most fortunate to own a pair and they are everything I was looking for. Efficient, full-range and detailed. But, they're also very forgiving, so not as resolving as some others I guess.
@@jasomkovac9115 If you research them, you'll find they're highly sought after. Very linear full-range response. The one drawback is the large baffle, so soundstage is not as great as the sound-quality. Of course, there is no perfect loudspeaker; the 910s are close-enough for me.
Ive ruined myself as Ive upgraded my rig, I cannot listen to some of my favorite music anymore. I now listen to quality recordings of music I like over so so recordings of music I love. Geez, thought this vid was 2 years old when he preached masks. Get over it or live in a bubble.
If you see your system as a magnification device that is your first mistake and leads inexorably to all the problems talked about here. Instead, see your system as a window through which you view recordings. There should be no magnification, that is distortion. There should be no coloration. It should be transparent. Do this and you will find that as you get closer and closer to this ideal situation then the better ALL your recordings will sound. Goofball still wearing masks. I am so outta here.
why are there some systems that make my music sound better? it is magnification or it is distortion? I bet it is magnification, obviously I'm listening better and with more quality the song, I listen better the frequencies, it means the system increases and magnifies what other audio system can't sound.
Sounds like crap is subjective to what type of music you like or are focused on. The best recording ever made on Planet Earth may indeed sound like crap to you simply because you are prejudice to that type of music you are listening to. Your brain says yuck 🤮 Don’t blame the system for the recording you don’t like, that’s dumb. The opposite is true also. Don’t blame the recording because your system says yuck 🤮 That recording may sound good on a phone @ 256 with Beats headphones. The music played has to match the type of listening system you are using. It’s no different than spending thousands of dollars on mismatched stereo components. Yuck 🤮
The equipment should serve the music. The music should not serve the equipment. Paul once again shows his ignorance of the recording process and the work of those involved in the recording industry. Just because he has spent a lot of money building a studio the wrong way doesn't make him qualified to pass judgment on Recording Engineers. Sadly, just like Paul, many "Audiophiles" are terribly ignorant of the recording process and who is ultimately responsible for how a recording sounds. It is the Artist and the Producer that ultimately have the say in how the music is produced, not the Recording Engineer. Truth be known if the recording is sounding bad on your system then the problem probably isn't the recording, the problem is probably with the operator and the system. Poor misguided "Audiophiles" are stuck to listening to only a very limited type of music that makes their system work, yet they find no satisfaction in their system and keep chasing an expensive and nonexistent dream, all the while being duped by snake oil salesmen that tell them their system is "alright" but here's something better and more expensive. Too bad, because there really is a lot of good music out there, that makes people want to dance, or makes people want to fall in love, or makes people sad, or that tells stories for people to hear and understand but "Audiophiles" must listen only to music that makes their system "resolve" and must create some illusion of a "soundscape" while they sit in their lonely little room.
Really? So the almost universal criticism of say just about every Genesis SACD is the fault of the systems on which it is being played is it rather than the diabolical choices made when they were mastered? For some of us music is played to listen too the artists, when that experience is spoilt by a wall of compressed over loud sound, don't tell me thats the fault of my system or me.
Relax. It’s a figure of speech. He could have just as easily said “To the extent one has tuned one’s system to be revealing, one might start avoiding poorly recorded material…”
Where's your problem? He speaks for audiophiles. I see myself as an audiophile and totally agree with him. If you don't then don't. No problem. There is no need to get rude.
Paul, are you telling me that everyone that works at PS audio where's a mask at all times while they're at work and out of work? There is no way that is happening. So yet you're going to go over the top with people visiting and make them wear a mask? Totally hypocritical and makes no sense.
Imagine being offered a free tour of someone’s business, and a listening opportunity in one of their specialized rooms, and being annoyed by a minor condition they place on your experience. 🙄
@@spectator1996 completely ignores what I said. Paul is being an absolute hypocrite if he's asking people to wear a mask while they come in to visit yet his workers are not wearing a mask at all times in and out of work. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
@@ryanschipp8513 My point was that you’re calling someone out for a choice they are making in running their own business, in the context of an offer to provide free services to current and prospective customers. It’s uncivil, unnecessary and absolutely ungrateful, even if their policies are inconsistent (which neither of us knows is the case; maybe they have multiple immunocompromised employees and don’t want to take any unnecessary risks with random guests?). Why not just not say anything and let him carry on with a policy that makes him comfortable coming to work, and doesn’t affect you in the slightest? This is totally different from a restaurant, movie theater or other public accommodation. PS Audio owes you nothing.
@@spectator1996 I'll say it for the Third time, it's quite clear what I'm saying. No one can dispute it. Paul is asking if people come and visit to wear a mask. Do you actually think that all of his employees in the entire building are wearing masks throughout the day everyday and then also implementing that out of work? There is no way that's happening. Anyone says that that's a possibility or yes it's happening is lying and being irrational. So my point is that he'll demand someone coming to visit puts on the mask but then yet his own employees that he's trying to protect so-called are not wearing a mask all the time in and out of work. It's completely inconsistent and hypocritical. It's illogical and nonsensical.
@@ryanschipp8513 Paul has decided that some humans beings are more biologically equal to others. How does the virus know the difference between the human beings that define themselves as workers and the human beings defining themselves as visitors and how does the biology change accordingly? If he can be this obtuse regarding biological science what are we to make of his credibility when discussing the science regarding Hi-Fi equipment 🤔
I find many recordings from the 60s, 70s and 80s to be phenomenal. It's to the point where despite my not liking a song I will still listen to it because the sound knocks my socks off. For example, I really don't like the group America (don't at me) but, knowing that they recorded on the cusp of the 60s and 70s, I put on Sandman. JEBUS! what a stellar recording. Then going into the nineties into the 2010s I've experienced a marked drop in quality and selection. Only now with acts such as Shakey Graves, Patrick Watson , The Palace Steps and others do i find that recordings are improving.
Agreed, but the late 80's for the next 30 years, they brickwalled, overcompressed and reduced the dynamic range to single digits, and thus started the "loudness wars" and ruining the music for us
Yes the band "America" does not have particularly good songs, but their recordings can sound quite good. Also their live concerts were surprisingly good even well into the 2000's (I'm not kidding) and presumably even today. Apparently they put a premium on sound quality and instrumentation more than lyrics or melody (i.e. the basic song).
Over the past two years, I’ve been loading up on Telarc, Chesky, and so many other outstanding recordings to keep them for historical purposes, and pass them down to my sons. There are plenty of great recordings out on the market. The issue is learning how to find them in advance of purchase. There are many great, UA-cam channels that review many of the best recordings from the past and present, and that’s a good place to start.
Try the "Higher Octave"recordings.Their stuff is diverse and good sounding, just stood out to me over the years(since the 90's).
Glad you mentioned the 60"s,70's and 80's Paul.Was listening to a Thompson Twins album yesterday on Tidal and the sound quality literally startled me.The sound stage,sense of space,the dynamics.Amazing.All this and no "fizz" which I like to call "the frying steak effect"so common on today's recordings...the sibilant treble emphasis which makes me want to run away with my fingers in my ears.
Thinking it must be a fluke,but no,many other 80's stuff was just as good.Nostalgia let me discover good recordings.
The older Depeche Mode sounds incredible. “Construction Time Again” especially
@@brentcollins9727 Yes,agree.Amazing sound.I bought all their lp's in the 80's.👍
Nice pick. Thompson twins are great. Try Fine Young Cannibals next. 😊
THANKS PAUL 🤗…for sharing the good and bad news about recordings, I am NOW ABLE to see the difference and looking for new recordings of all types of music 🎼 and sometimes I listen to my old favorites 🥲,also we have the option to listen to them remastered,PROVING,IMHHO…IT IS THE BEST TIME TO BE AN AUDIOPHILE 👍💚💚💚
So happy you addressed this issue and question.
What a wonderful world it would be, if all recordings were of the highest quality.
However, that's not reality.
I am a music lover. I have systems to listen to the music I love: the music I connect with me and my spirit.
Regardless of the recording quality.
Just because a recording is of the highest quality: does not necessarily mean it will be music I connect with.
So, my solution for many years, now: is to have a least one modest forgiving system ( in my house, the livingroom, where we spend a lot of time and company gathers there), and one higher quality, more revealing system.
It is the only solution I could ever come up with.
But Paul, if everybody is wearing a mask, it's going to change the room dynamics! 😜(just kidding) But no, you're right. An upscale system really picks out deficiencies and poor recordings. I have a Dire Straits CD that I love, and it seems to be across the board. I've tried several of the same CDs and they all have the same problem. So, like you said, you just learn to live with it. Makes me wonder sometimes why I want more equipment to make the music 'better' when there is this problem of bad recordings that never goes away. The better you're equipment, the more it shows problems with the recordings. Oh well.....
very interesting your comment. I imagine some people buy high quality audio systems to listen what they like, not to listen the music world with better quality.
*Immaculate Collection, Madonna:* it has tracks ery bad "clipped" and adjusted to cut the peaks! the waveform looks like your grass mowed!
*Da uma chance, Ruanzinho:* electronic music, relaxed and goodie alike a "good regetón". it sounds good and the waveform is enough good too, a very good original.
Spot on Paul. I have been so disappointed at times when listening to certain recordings. I really like stuff from the 70’s and 80’s, and a few from the 90’s to current. They did it right back then. Earth Wind and Fire, Stealy Dan, Anita Baker, Michael Jackson….it all pulls me right in and brings emotion out. It’s like a drug.
"We gotta have more cowbell!" 🔔😂
When I was young, we use to have some filters, loudness and tone control on and amplifier to help the listening of bad recordings. It was useful and I miss it from time to time on hifi amplifier.
Yeah, it’s a huge bummer that those well-working refined tone controls and loudness control are gone. People used them because they could make music sound more pleasurable. The idiocy that tone control, loudness control and EQ are evils and even a bypass switch can’t be done without negative audible effect rules in audiophile gear nowadays. The facts of Fletcher Munson, my room, my hearing and some music tracks needing tweaking all seem to be ignored.
@@ThinkingBetter I have tone controls in my system (Legacy Audio Wavelet). This EQ is done on 6 bands and in the digital domain so there are no phase issues. The Wavelet is a digital preamp which also does room correction and 4 channel active crossover all in the digital domain, with 4 output DACs after processing. Tone controls are out there. Schiit Audio does provide ones ranging from $150 up to $1500.
@@matthewbarrow3727 Often notice about digital domain in band tone control. What is idea of pure digital tone control? How it may be excecuted? I doubt it may be done by counting digitaly by starting and ending the band with numbers because it would result in totaly sharp steps and equal level within limits resulting in distortion.
I'd rather see it as conventional band EQ with volumes controlled digitaly in steps instead of old continuous by potentiometers . I have such in my B&O and it is two bands separate low and high in steps 1dB which for my High Fidelity I judge not enough fine
@@Mikexception Digital filtering including EQ is done using math running on a DSP or CPU. For example, I use the miniDSP Flex Eight in my home office setup to both do EQ and cross-over filtering for a total of 8 output channels. It allows me excellent tweaking and optimization. Compared to analog filters, using DSP, the noise and distortion is super low and phase can also be linear.
@@Mikexception The basic idea of digital tone control in analog equipment is that the tone control has a ADC to convert from analog to digital, then go through the appropriate filtering in the digital domain, then go through a DAC to get back to analog. The issue becomes one of whether the quality of going through an ADC and then DAC is going to be less of an issue than the phase issues that might come from analog tone controls. In my case, I am using digital for room correction and active cross-over. It is not possible to do room correction in the analog domain. The tone controls came as part of the system. I do not have the understanding of digital signal processing to answer your questions about the actual digital processing. However, as a programmer, I can say that once in the digital domain, you can pretty much do anything you want.
Great video, Paul. And thank you for the mention of Blue Coast Records. I very much agree with you that recording engineers learning in today's world have a different set of values and quality is not an issue. I opened my studio in the 80's and there was an expectation that we would make the best sounding recording we could. Those were the days of less overall compression (loudness wars didn't exist), learning about micrphone position and understanding 'gain control'. Sample libraries to create whole songs didn't exist. We recorded musicians playing real instruments and took pride in our studio craft.
Over the last 40 years I've trained about 1000 young engineers and what I've seen is a change in their goals. I haven't had a student in my studio who wanted to be an engineer when they arrive. Most aspired to be songwriters and work from home. This is now reflected in how audio schools are approaching teaching the craft... it's geared towards game music and sample libraries. Few students know how to record live musicians.
The good news is every now and then, I find a new student who is excited and open to the idea of making quality recordings and learning about how to capture a great performance. Better news, is when my former students come back and want to write books or create videos to pass these techniques on. I'm hopeful we're turning a page to better sound.
I had the same experience taking a college course on audio recording. The professor had us use sampling packs in pro tools. I wanted to record in a live setting and learn how to make a live recording sound good. He had no knowledge of that. I was disappointed. It wasn't my career choice but just an extra curriculum class, but I can imagine the frustration you mention and it's unfortunate to hear. I would love to be an engineer, but studios don't need engineers anymore. Those days are long gone and we may never see them again outside of a niche.
Paul very eloquently explained. Have a custom designed audio system in my Dining Room for the 70's thru early 2000's vinyl and digital format. Have a custom designed audio system (all PS Audio, minus speakers & TT) in an upstairs bedroom. I built both these systems for this exact reason.
I've often wondered if a high quality system could have a "switch" that allows you dial back the detail. Obviously the best recordings would be set at full detail, but poor recordings could be dialed back for a more pleasant and more musical experience. Some recordings are simply too harsh to hear at full detail.
I realize that audiophiles typically reject any kind of signal processing (such as equalizers), but with digital signal processing I think the original signal could remain intact if desired, and the amount of "tweaking" could be kept at a minimum. It would be a shame if people stopped listening to their favorite recordings, simply because they upgraded the quality of their audio system.
I don't know about anyone else but with a good quality recording my system sounds magical...but a bad recording sounds awful.
My system exactly Richard. Its comforting to know that its a problem across the board and not an issue with the system itself.
I agree with Paul's words here. There was sort of a competition in the 60s for who could produce the best-sounding record. The labels thought that is what sold, and perhaps that is what sold when consumers cared more about having a HiFi setup in their homes.
Having had a variety of very different speakers over 6 decades I will say that no one system can do it all. Highly revealing speakers, like Paul said, is self explanatory, you get the good and the bad. But different speaker designs can do a better job averaging various frequencies to get even poorer recordings to not be overly harsh sometimes to the point of unlistenable. But more often a simple EQ , dynamic range enhancer or compressor, time lens or aural exciter can do wonders for poor recordings on better systems. Bob Carver's Sonic Holigraphy, or an SRS processor can also really increase the enjoyment with less than good productions. And computer based editing and processing can really go to the next levels. I have settled on having a multi speaker, multi configurable system. From single 1" tweeters, to multi tweeters to horns to small ribbons, and any combination from 4", 10", 12" or 15" mids and woofers, I can really improve my enjoyment and just on poor recordings. I'm very fickle and sometimes I want perfect imaging ande stage, ( small speakers perfectly placed while other times I want huge dynamics and spl like a big rock show, which are almost always mono so perfect stereo image isn't there to begin with and the blended sound of multi point sound sources is tolerable. And who doesn't like pounding bass on pipe organ and synth music. But in my maturity of age and experience I lean towards the small well defined system which really supports most of my musical tastes, with only minor modifications to address shortcomings on individual songs and genres.
I'll never forget my first experience with digital recordings was the theme from Chariots of Fire. It was the played on a good system and was the most horrendous recording I'd ever heard. It so shaped my attitude about digital that it was years before I invested in a CD player when I could no longer get albums I wanted. I still prefer vinyl no matter how it was recorded originally and I suppose most of my feelings were set by my original experience.
My fix for this problem is matching the quality level of music to the equipment. I play audiophile music on my best high end system. I play good music on my mid level system. And my low quality music on my earbuds while walking or working or on my car stereo. I purposely play the right music on the right system so I get to enjoy all my music at the appropriate time.
lol, that's what I do too. Music I cannot stand to listen to on my good system sounds ok on my other setup and my car can handle most anything I throw at it and sounds quite good.
Enjoying the defects, in a recording..... that is what you have to do, when listening through a high end system. This is like enjoying the graininess and small specs (appearing and disappearing quickly) in an old film. You don't expect an old film to look like a modern video. You enjoy it for what it is. The same thing has to be done with "less than perfect" audio recordings, when listening through a high end system. You literally have to enjoy the defects and look at them as character. Of course there a lots of less than perfect audio recordings. If you eliminated all of these from your listening repertoie, you'd have a much smaller collection of things to listen to. Of course this can apply to lots of things in life. If you drive a Model A Ford, you enjoy it for its limitations. That is part of the character if the experience. If you play a small cheap guitar, you don't expect it to sound like a big Taylor or Martin guitar. You enjoy it for what it is, inclusive of its limitations. So, get your high end system, and then use it to enjoy some of the defects present in many recordings, along with your audiophile recordings (and their pristine quality.) PS: This subject applies to us musicians, too. Lots of recording equipment is available that is less than pristine in quality, but quite good enough for listenablity. Musicians of lots of economic status have been liberated, in terms of multitrack recording equipment being made available to them, and being able to make good recordings (not great recordings, but good recordings.) Lots of us take full advantage of this economical gear, and make fun, enjoyable recordings. These are within the limitations of the price category that these are sold and made at, but they have their own charm, and communicate quite well (and isn't that the point of music?) If you need to sit around and tell youself that you only listen to the finest recordings, then knock yourself out: your ego leads the way. You can tell yourself that you're superior. However, if you want to enjoy the other 98% of recordings, then you need an attitude adjustment, if you're comming from the "superior point of view."
A lot of music was never meant to be audiophile, it was tuned to car stereo, or cheap transistor radio because that was where the target audience was listening on. Not expensive tuned audio set ups in sound treated rooms. But I think you should still be able to get the most out of it with your system. Maybe use less revealing components, switch to a vintage for some music. Switch DAC's amp or speakers. Use DSP. It is not all about the detail. It is about the entire feel of the music.
Spoken like someone that hasn't a clue about the recording process.
No recording or mastering studio mixes to any format because the studio has no clue what format a listener will listen to it on.
Recordings are mixed to a neutral environment so that the listener can make adjustments to the recording to suit their personal tastes.
The OP’s comment is false. Good and great audio engineers try very hard to ensure that the quality of all productions is as high as possible. But what should be known (and is what the OP might be guessing) is that the music is often at the endpoint played by the engineer on smaller and cheaper systems (e.g. automobile, iPhone) to ensure that the BALANCES of instruments and voices are pleasing. A bass guitar heard on a pair of big Wilson speakers might not be heard on an Android phone speaker, so the overall level of the bass guitar will be raised at the check to ensure folks listening to the Android phone will hear it.
I got to take a tour a little while ago... the FR30 system is quite revealing, "for better or for worse" indeed.
Awesome video as usual. In my experience, a great recording is a great recording, period. It sound great on almost any system. When you play that great recording on a really nice hi-end system, it takes that recording to a whole other level of greatness. However, the opposite is also, in play. If you have a bad recording and play it on a entry level system, it can sound descent. Then when you play that same bad recording on a hi-end system that can reveal all the little details, that recording sounds even worse….. like the old computer saying, “ garbage in, garbage out.”
Am I the only one that has had this experience:
You listen to something on your streaming service of choice. You fall in love with that artist/ album. You decide you want to purchase that album on vinyl. Once you receive that album, it sounds awful. Nothing like it did when you streamed it? This is especially true with more modern music from the 1990’s to today
You had me until MASKS
I am an audiophile wanna be . I have a dedicated home theatre with an Anthem receiver , but have set up a stand-alone integrated amp and turntable/CD player for music .
As wonderful as the home theatre receiver is for movies and music , the IA does reveal much more - which makes the listening experience better . Yes , it does reveal some “bad parts” but I don’t have an issue with that - it make me appreciate the quality of the IA set-up all the more .
so much years ago, a lot of enthusiasts played Atari, and so searching for a better experience they got a better TV, with new games they wanted a better TV too, Contra, Double Dragon and so, with Street Fighter and Mario: a Sony Trinitron was a most have, more games and more demanding graphics the TV, Screens, consoles, graphic cards and so the games and the experience to play was increased and growing up to play, to play better Halo, Fifa, Forza, Witcher.
*when was the label gamer invented?* everything was freedom, joy and game, the world was just enthusiasm, cartridges with games, playgame andfreedom to get a better experience without invented labels or stereotypes of _gamer, chair gamer, keyboard gamer, peanuts gamer, jacket gamer, headphones gamer_ and the add on, the curse:
you are gamer if....
you aren't gamer if....
you can't say you're gamer if you don't . . . . .
the gamer has....
so much years ago, listening music was joy, enthusiasm and searching for a better experience to listen music brings new tech, more devices, speakers.
*when was the label gamer invented?* , the word "audiophile" didn't existed, the label, the stereotype to cut and enclose the liberty was invented with a wrong name: Audio - Philia. with the curse and imposed rule:
you are audiophile if
you are audiophile when . .. you aren't audiophile because you . .... you are _melophile_ an audiophile is....
tell me, *who could be a gamer wannabe?*
playing Moon Patrol and Miss Pacman was for gamers or gamers wannabe?
who is audiophile? is there a rule to join in? when so much years ago only existed freedom and joy.
whatch the video on my channel named *what is audiophile (what audiophile is)* , if you want to join in, I only would say "Django Unchained".
That's why it's so important to have an eq in the system, as Paul said, most recordings are mediocre at best, even the best room acoustic treatment is not going to help here, at least with an eq you can make them sound half decent.
I do have tone controls on my system. I listened to the Doors on my record player last night. The tonal balance was on the brighter side, with less bass. The question then becomes one of: do I want to listen to what the band was trying to do, or do I dislike the band sound, and want to change it to my taste. I could certain change the tonal balance, but do I really want to.
from my experience of improving my system, bad recordings have both their bad and good qualities (if it ad no good qualities for me i would listen to it) enhanced. this keeps them at +-0 while the better the recording is, the more they gain in briliance.
i also have an audio restaurative dsp running, which checks the sound for potential harmonic relations and selectively approximates both subharmonics and overtones where there are spectral holes. for well recorded music, this does basicly nothing as the natural harmonics are all present. for bad or lossy recordings this adds a vinyl like presence of harmonics, which often helps a lot. for things that are so disconected the algorythm no longer can find harmonics, its beyond saving.
from the same restorative software i use a "declipper" too, which makes brickwalled digital clipping behave more like tape saturation while reducing the minimum loudness, effectively guessing back in some dynamic range. this of course has its limits too.
the dsp i'm talking about is thimeo stereotool.
Hi Paul. I agree the Octave recordings are fantastic. Could you perhaps do a video of your favourite recordings of all time
The key words here are "bad recordings" not "bad music".
Just wanted to clear that up.
Have a listen to Robert Johnson's 29 songs recorded in Dallas Texas, in November 1936 over a period of 5 days.
Are they good or bad recordings
@@peterpipe9015 For some, the mono recordings and crackling and mic hum etc are a bit off putting. In my opinion, the recording technique matched the Blues music and made the songs and the album magical.
Robert Johnson's recordings in single takes, without over dubbing, are the most important creative works in the Blues genre. (He also died at that mysterious age of 27, like Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, Alexandre Ley, Janis Joplin, Fat Pat, Joe Henderson, Kurt Curbain etc).
Robert Johnson's playing sounds like there are overdubs or two guitarists playing in parts but it is just Robert playing one take of each song. Way ahead of his time. His classic song "crossroads" tells the story of a deal being made with the devil at a crossroad. Sweet Home Chicago is another classic. They say that Robert Johnson essentially recorded all these songs in one recording session with the entire album produced and out the door in 5 days.
If you're interested the entire album can be listened to here:
ua-cam.com/video/if7cEESOp54/v-deo.html
@@PetraKann thank you
I kinda went to jazz-soul when I first listened to rock on high Rez equipment
Some Rock is great, but it's amazing how many classics aren't, really
I don't know there's a lot that goes into that question and answering it at face value I would make the statement that it kind of depends. it kind of depends on a lot of things, the system of course but also the recordings and also what you're willing to tolerate. I am personally not a fan of over analytical systems mostly for that reason, because they have an ability to tear apart a recording to its base parts and lose the musical coherence of the performance. it's probably one of the reasons I love tube gear.
matter of fact one of the things I always notice about various systems and let's specifically say amplifiers that I've had is their ability to make me want to listen to certain types of music, like some systems I've had I have this feel that I just want to listen to jazz because it sounds really good and that other systems I've had they make me want to listen to punk rock music. but one of my qualifications for a great HiFi system is the fact that it doesn't discriminate or cause me to discriminate against any particular genre of music.
besides Paul mentioning octave records being a great source of fine recordings another one that I am always happy to recommend and they've got fantastic prices is in the company Mapleshade. now of course they don't just only sell records but they're very well known for their wood platforms and HiFi furniture that they produce but a lot of their recordings are recorded in house using one to two microphones and they're typically is no sort of over-processing or overproduction of the sound. basically what they recorded and what was played is what you hear and in a lot of cases especially if you really like your music to have great tone and timbre they are some of the best recordings I found in that respect.
I've been debating this after upgrading my computer setup at home (went from built in TCL TV speakers to an Aiyima A07 + 2x Neumi CS5's)
Music is much better but I have mixed feelings about conference calls. You're either noticing the flaws in everyone's voices more or noticing who has good vs. cheap mics.
My antidotal experience agrees with Paul. I didn’t feel like I had spent audiophile money and I didn’t think this would be a problem, but I was so disappointed after assembling my new system last year and first listening to my sentimentally favorite album, Pink Floyd’s “Animals”. I had never heard it sound like that on my previous consumer grade gear.
when was invented the "consumer system" and or - when was invented the audiophile system ?
what is audiophile money?
Animals, the original recording is fairly poor actually. Have you tried the new master on SACD?
@@cbcdesign001 first . if that human has the system to play SACD
@@cbcdesign001 I guess this, tangentially, was my story of how I came to that same conclusion. I never knew how bad it was until I got better gear. I’ve only listened to mp3s of the Animals remix so far, but, on my new system, the remix sounds better than my original CD. I’m expecting the remix SACD for the holidays 🤞🙂.
When I first started moving from lo fi to higher end equipment I thought it sounded crappy, only to realize it revealed the flaws of my other equipment. A bad recording sound sounded horrible.
It can be tough or maybe impossible to build a set up that does everything well. Having at least two systems can help make nearly everything in your collection listenable. For decades popular music was recorded for radio airplay and listening, (a way different set of variables than you'll find in a good dedicated listening room). Get a system that doesn't dissect too much during playback. If you're strapped for space maybe improve the system in your car to fall back on for the stuff that doesn't hold up well under intense scrutiny.
as some one from the recording world and uses Focal monitors for my everyday speakers. they make poorly mixed audio in particular things like you tube can be very hard to deal with depending on the DAC I use. With my MOTU my mixing DAC just brings forward all the flaws were as With my CA CXN V2 my HI-FI DAC things like you tube just sound so much warmer and inviting, but that is the point of the DAC I wanted a warmer less harsh DAC to enjoy music with.
Somewhat related to this video's topic, would love to hear Paul's thoughts on Mobile Fidelity's choice of mastering on their Thriller release
Fully agree! More and more new recordings are weak…. Because sound « engineers » taste… or simply… because the cost and the rush they put on the process? The technology has ne rêve be so good… and we can not appreciate it…😢
I would describe some recordings as entertaining in the same boring way.😁
I would be happy if someone would compare Octave recordings to something like Sessions From the 17th Ward by Amber Rubarth. That album is the best recording I've heard thus far, but I am not exactly ready to spend lots of money on Octave releases until I know how they compare (like, are they much, much better, for example?). And that album by Rubarth is one of my all time faves. Naturally I bought the DSD 128 version.
Interesting question. If your stereo seems unforgiving to most recordings you might want to reevaluate the synergy of your system.
Almost all my vinyl records are from the 70's and 80's. On my record player, they sound rhythmic (when you just listen, you get attracted to the rhythm rather than the special affects). There is a liveliness to the sound. When I listen to the TIDAL versions, they sound dull in comparison. They may have great sound stage and placement of instruments, but the rhythm gets lost. It may be that the A to D converters back then were not very good quality so you lost that timing in the translation to digital. When I recently upgraded my record player (Linn Sondek LP12), I discovered that the sound stage depth got reduced. It is my sense that the reduction of resonance by upgrading reduced this depth in some way. I was a bit disappointed so looked to upgrade my phono stage, to see the different presentations that were available. One had great sound stage and detail and sounded a bit like my streamer. Probably no surprise as it converted to digital prior to the RIAA correction. One really exposed the rhythm of the music. This may be because the designer of this phono stage spent many years in the recording industry mixing, mastering, and producing music, and he wanted that liveliness to the sound. My vinyl and digital have quite different presentations. For vinyl, my focus is more on the rhythm. For digital, my focus is more on the sound stage. I was unable to get that rhythm from digital, even when demoing a very expensive DAC, so no longer try. This begs the question as to what exactly is a good recording. I have ordered both the 40th Anniversary Mofi transfer of Michael Jackson's Thriller, as well as the original pressing. Reviews show them to have very different presentations. The Mofi version is said to have great sound stage and detail. The original pressing was aimed as dance music, and may therefore be compressed. Both would give different experiences. Which is the better recording? I guess that it depends what you are looking for. Technically, the Mofi may be better. Emotionally, the original pressing may be better. Maybe, just get both, depending on what experience you want.
did you say
"the same song has different rythim in your records than TIAL?"
@@georgemartinezza When you compare an older LP versus TIDAL, the streaming version sounds dull in comparison. An interesting experiment to try out is to listen to the different remastering of Eurythmics Sweet Dreams on TIDAL against the original digital transfer (also on TIDAL). The original transfer sounds dull. The 2003 remaster sounds good. The 2015 remaster sounds dull, like the original version. The 2003 version sounds much closer to the original vinyl, but not quite to the level (even using a $40,000 Linn Klimax DSM streaming DAC). (The dates are approximate). The rhythm aspect is a tougher one. People also call this PRAT (Pace, Rhythm, and Timing). I would say that this depends on the turntable and phonostage. e.g. I felt this with the Zesto tube phonostage, but I did not feel it with a $20,000 Audio Research tube phonostage. The interconnect between the phonostage and preamp also made a difference. I could feel it clearly with the Cardas Clear cable, but less so with the other cables I demoed. It wasn't something I was looking for. It was something that grabbed my attention. It's like you phase lock to the rhythm. It was a strange feeling. It's something that one has to experience for oneself. I had never felt it before. One should bear in mind that the record player costs about $30,000, phonostage at $8000, and Cardas cables at $3000. The back end was a Legacy Audio Valor speaker system at $86,000. I have listened to a $40,000 Linn DSM streaming DAC but have not heard this type of rhythm lock-in. It's one of those things that once you feel it, you don't want to go back. I use the word "feel" rather than "hear" because it is more of a feeling. I enjoy being immersed in the music, and that lock-in pulls you even more into the music. Not sure if this makes sense. One generally needs a reference to compare against. Without such a reference, it's hard to even imagine.
@@matthewbarrow3727 I see.
more money, devices, tehncology:
complicated life.
@@georgemartinezza Children are much more complicated. More money, devices, technology. Complicated life. Stereo equipment is far simpler and more relaxing.
@@matthewbarrow3727 _"Stereo equipment is far simpler and more relaxing"_
it is, it should be for a lot of people,
reading and hearing a lot of questions in forums, PS Audio, tutorials, I notice they don't enjoy they suffer the audio experience, like a "gamer" worried more about FPS and temperature than shout and release the tongue playing with wide open eyes .
IDK, Tom Scholz was recording in his basement in the 1970's and created one of the best debut albums in the history of rock and roll.
An interesting subject
It’s been my fight for years
The music I collect is mostly in the mid range
If I get too many highs I lose the balance.
Thanks Sir for the info
Great picture quality!
A music system that can't play most of your music is no music system at all. Having to play the same great-sounding records over and over is one helluva compromise in the name justifying your system... but we do like to have a really good system! My solution is to have a bass-lite system in my bedroom which can play anything and my main system in the living room plays 60-70% of everything. That's my compromise.
It's the John Madden word salad for audio: "Great systems need great players...when you have bad players on a bad recording on a great system it's not that great but when you put great players on a great recording and play them on a great system...well...well... That' a great audio game !
😂 love this - next up , circling the sweat marks on the amplifier
you learn to listen past the "system" and get back to loving the music, if you love music the traits of your hi-fi will start to matter less and remain in context. then when you obtain some of those "great" recordings your system will be there for you too... it's not as big of a problem as it may seem
Are there any hifi devices or software that, through some sort of wizardry, can improve the sound quality of poorly recorded files, compressed files and inferior streaming platforms? I have a few live recordings I ripped to WAV from UA-cam and while they do seem to sound slightly better playing through Foobar than just playing the video on UA-cam on a browser, it still sounds very compressed. I also have a plugin for Foobar that allows for streaming playback of a UA-cam video's audio. I use it A LOT as certain channels upload bands new music with permission, for promotion. I don't want it to sound WORSE on a better system when I upgrade. I'm currently saving for my first real hifi system and while it won't be high end, I've heard the speakers I have in mind (Magnepan LRS+) can be revealing if paired with a revealing DAC &/or amp.
No, a system cannot sound worse
It's the recording that is bad
I thankyou
It's very much like buying a 75" 4K OLED TV. Avatar looks absolutely insane on it. Episodes of Cheers not so much. It's exactly the same with hifi.
Most consumer grade products (smart speakers, AirPods, Sonos) sound ok across the board. Bad recordings sound a bit bad, good recordings sounds quite good. However throw a couple of thousand dollars or more at hifi system and that good recording sounds incredible, but that bad recording can sound absolutely terrible.
I have heard $30,000 worth of audio gear butcher Rage Against The Machine and A Tribe Called Quest. Great albums, great music, but very badly recorded and it just completely killed the system, in the exact same way Cheers would kill the picture on a 75" 4K OLED.
I remember on one recording I could hear some really awful sound on my hifi speakers. I was flabbergasted as before on my small speakers (not some china low end mind you) it wasn't there. It made me curious what is happening - something wrong with the speaker, xover, amp etc.? So I reconnected my old small speakers. It was there as well but so much quieter, barely able to hear it. Had to really concentrate. Then I reconnected the towers, bam there it was again. Ok so I downloaded that track from some other better source and it wasn't there. Mind you the first one was 312kbit, I thought quite high quality, not FLAC, but still good. Nope somebody made somewhere a big mistake for sure. So yeah the source or recording for hifi speakers has to be quite good as well otherwise it's a pain to listen. Every micro mistake is revealed.
Phil Spector is a good example. On a good modern, good gear, not even high end, his productions sound bad today.
a great systems makes music sound good, even 'bad' recordings. After improving my system, al lot of recordings that sounded bad, sound good. Most recordings are good, most audio gear sounds bad. But there are great recordings.
I listen predominantly to pop music recorded from 60s to date.
My understanding is that as a general rule of thumb, Classical recordings are recorded with the greatest of care in the studio, followed by Jazz with pop a poor third. Not always true but often as pop is by definition a throwaway culture.
Also, as you know pop singles frequencies are highly compressed to be radio friendly so usually sound lacking on premium hi fi.
A small % of classic albums like The Beatles Revolver are being remastered, as enough physical media sales can be generated aimed at niche audiophiliacs to make substantial profits
Not a criticism that's just the way it is now.
The majority of people largely consume music through streaming.
So yes, a poor recordings are indeed exposed by a revealing system as its a wider istening window 🇬🇧
You're understanding would be incorrect.
All recordings done in a commercial recording studio are done with the greatest of care and there is no order of care.
Pop is not a throwaway culture, it is another genre of music like Orchestral (Classical defines a specific generation of past orchestral music) and Jazz.
Pop IS NOT highly compressed to be radio-friendly, it is a part of the defining qualities of the genre.
Just because you don't like Pop doesn't make the genre any less important in terms of production and recording.
@@JonAnderhub 98% of my collection is actually pop !
Although in recent years also listen to a little classic jazz
I still think the dynamic range of many hit singles - especially are often limited to make them more impactful on radio.
From the 90s much less studio time was spent on the majority of pop albums .On a traditional hi fi set up shortfalls /poor quality is revealed
More recently many pop artists are over synthesised & auto tuned
That's how I hear it - of course there are stand out exceptions 👍
The one thing I can always tell how good or bad a mix is on my system , many recordings are just laid bare in the poor recording quality !!
On a good system you hear things you didn't know were there, that can take some getting used to...it can be like seeing someone up close without makeup for the first time...
Once again, tone controls - with a defeat switch - can help less than ideal recordings, with no down side whatsoever.
Tone controls are a must when we are still away from ideal reproduction. I also want to to have them to make myself sure I get the best. . In rare cases, and also last few years I enjoy quite enough perfection of reproduction gear and to my surprise it leaded me (forced me) always to almost neutral position of tone controls. As I have no option to make it off it is adjusted to neutral sound by ear .
WHAT I AM INTO ARE LIVE RECORDED ROCK CONCERTS, AKA BOOTLEGS AND I HAVE A TON OF THE BANDS I LIKE. HOWEVER ALOT ARE MUFFLED OR AUDIENCES RECORDED AND SOUND IS POOR, I USE ALOT OF PLUGINS FOR NOISE REPAIR,EQ ETC BUT WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS CAN YOU OR ANYONE GIVE ME TO HELP? PLUGINS AND SPEAKERS. THANKS SO MUCH!!! 😊
I think the recording ethos and methodology is fundamentally different for music that is never meant to be heard live.
The recording is the performance, and the engineer is at least a co-star.
There's also no 'realism' to try to capture.
Yes a good transparent speaker will reveal the bad recordings even more witch can make them sound bad in those recordings their is just no way around it if you want a transparent system, a forgiving speaker might sound better with bad recordings but will never be as transparent with good material
The ultra high end systems can make good recordings sound amazing. They can also make mediocre to bad recordings sound (bearable) to listen to ( lipstick on a pig ). On Qbuz just because the Flaq file is high does not mean the recording will be good. I have had the best luck with 24/48 to 24/96 recordings with stragglers of lower or higher files still sounding good.
IMHO, a good system would have you enjoy music much more, in all formats, vinyl, CDs, and cassettes, yes sure the degree of sound difference would be there, but all of them would have one thing in common and that would be musicality and rhythm. The sound of an acoustic guitar, piano and human voice would make listener as if they are listening to live music. A highly revealing system would have a lot of detail, but it will become fatigue sounding in a very short time, and you would find your thoughts drifting to something else other than enjoying music. Why, well because that detail creates an unnatural picture of the the entire musical event.
What I don't understand is all of you who put together nice systems and then cripple your gear with vinyl. How so many of you have convinced yourself that records can sound good is beyond me. They are one of the worst mediums you could pick.
Seriously, move on
The vinyl sound is different from digital. Vinyl is continuous, whereas digital is sampled. The DACs all try to recreate the continuous signal, but the information is not there. The noise floor is much lower for digital. Almost all of my records are from the 70's and 80's. The problem is that the quality of the A to D converters back then were not very good quality as the digital industry was still young. As such, all my records sound much better than the streaming versions. While I do have a record player and streamer, my preamp is digital with room correction, tone controls, and 4 way active crossover. I do have Legacy Audio Valor speakers (so we are talking about a $100,000 system). When it comes to older recordings, I much prefer my record player. I will say that the timing aspects of digital are such that I get much more rhythmic sound from my record player than my streamer. For my system, my record player is focused at rhythm, with sound stage being secondary. For streaming, my focus is more on imagery and sound stage as I just can't get that same sense of rhythm. Detail occurs in both.
Yes - I think the same . But when I put any my LP on my turntable I feel gulity that I could even think about it because it is class for itself. Only exception happens for hunderd times played LPs on unknown tables. After I forget what I heard last time it and I start to think again like you. 😄
No, the system doesn't sound worse; the recordings do.
For bad recordings or some UA-cam videos I flip a switch on my crossovers that pads the Tweeters 2 dB down.
On headphones certain things don't sound better, especially detailed headphones. My Moody Blues sound wonky and Stevie Ray Vaughan albums sound bad; both sound better on a low end stereo from the 70s, or in a bar for Stevie. I think some things were just not mixed for cans, or detail in some cases
Yes, I have heard all that and am at my happy place. lol
It does not sound worse. An audiophile system just reveals more details and you can realize that quality differs from record to record.
This answer takes 30 seconds. The remaining 8 minutes are blablabla...
YES, it will sound worse.
a very good quality audio system will reveal with more precision the details of the recording: *including the bad, trash and loud of the song*
you will ralize the quality of the recording, listening how good it is or how bad and puke it is making it sound *WORSE* .
and tell me, you being the expert with knowledge: when was invented the "audiophile system" ?
@1:49 "...and i'm sure all of that has great merit. Otherwise, they wouldn't be selling bazillions of copies of stuff."
-- They sell crummy sounding songs, because people love the melodies. People have no alternative source for the song. They can buy only the crummy release from the studio.
-- They sell crummy sounding songs, because most people do not own speakers on the level of FR30s, or anything close (most people think that Bose is the best money can buy).
-- They sell crummy sounding songs, because most people do not hear the poor quality. Crummy sounding recordings is all they ever hear. Like being in a fart-filled room all your life. You do not smell the farts. When all of your music is poorly mixed/mastered, it is what you have always heard, and so it sounds right to most people.
If you like chicken, and only one store sold chicken...
Well, they would sell bazillions of chickens, even if the chicken quality was so-so.
Bazillions of copies of songs are sold, not due to the work in the studio. Rather, due to the time, effort, and talent of the musicians.
The songs sell in spite of the sub-par job done by studio personnel.
The Beatles would have probably sold just as many albums, even if their songs were compressed to a brick.
Mediocre audio systems often function as a compressor, so wht is already compressed stays the same but good recordings with great dynamics gets downsized and everything good or bad sounds the same.
With good audio systems good recordings shines in all their greatness, but recordings that are compressed sounds in all their awfulness, flat, uninteresting.
Seems an awful lot like audiophiles are fighting an uphill battle, no wonder why so many are angry and dissatisfied, but also arrogant and unaware of what they do and don't know. At best, you're trying to achieve something not possible (I play drums and you couldn't tolerate more than 5 seconds of real cymbals, so replicating reality isnt possible). At worst, it's mostly unconfirmed theories and wasted money when one can simply put those resources and efforts into more strongly aligning variables to achieve a better result from confirmation bias. Taking psychoacoustic principles and applying more psychology to things doesn't give you a deeper understanding of acoustics, so there's psychoacoustics, and then there's speculation based on an understanding of acoustics but a complete lack of comprehension of the most basic psychological principles.
I agree with your statement about people not knowing what they do not know. I recently upgraded my phono stage and cable from phono stage to preamp. The record player is a top spec Linn Sondek LP12. The phono stage is a Zesto Andros Deluxe 2 tube amp. The cables are Cardas Clear XLR cables. I do have a Legacy Audio Valor speaker system. With the Zesto / Cardas combination, the cymbals were louder than what I was used to. However, I could now hear a lot of cymbal work that I had never heard before. When comparing cables, I did notice that some, even very expensive ones, may roll off the treble to try to give that "audiophile" sound. I decided that I preferred the brighter sound as I got a greater sense of rhythm. I do think that understanding the bias of the equipment manufacturers can help a lot. The person who designed the phono stage likes Cardas Clear Beyond cables and was in the recording industry for a lot time, in various aspects of mixing, mastering, and producing. I did try out the Clear Beyond cables but it felt too uncomfortable for me. The speaker designer provides a lot of speakers to the recording industry for the mastering aspects. He is also very much into psychoacoustics.
I had someone once say they had heard i had a good system. And for him to know how good it is he plays his music on his friends system to see how it sounds. My first thought was what is the audio quality of the music first 🤣🤣🤣 i can easily blow him into another dimension if i played him couple sacd or real hi resolution audio 🤣🤣🤣
some records will sound better, some other will sound worse
you have bad speakers and cheap ampliff. you listen in CD player *Da Doo Ron Ron* - logic and obvious it will sound terrible, like a slap in the eyes.
you have very good speakers, a high quality amplifier, and you listen in CD player *Da Doo Ron Ron* - you will listen with more detail and precision the loud and mixed cuts of sounds.
as the other guys say in their video: listening 60's music with a very good audio system of 60's will be the best. .
My audiophile system makes "normal" recordings shine, while those audiophile ones with unbelievable bass, stunning mids and breathtaking highs, a soundstage that is MARVELLOUSLY designed and so forth.. meh. Too much show off, not enough music.
When Paul talks about the old recording studios of the '70s and '80s, my aDs 910s were involved in that realm. They were made for recording studios as mains. Thankfully, I am most fortunate to own a pair and they are everything I was looking for. Efficient, full-range and detailed. But, they're also very forgiving, so not as resolving as some others I guess.
@@trog69, well just because they were used to make the music doesn't mean they are good enough to play the music.
@@jasomkovac9115 If you research them, you'll find they're highly sought after. Very linear full-range response. The one drawback is the large baffle, so soundstage is not as great as the sound-quality. Of course, there is no perfect loudspeaker; the 910s are close-enough for me.
@@trog69 ,sorry, thought you would catch the sarcasm about "high end$40,000 speakers" vs ones that made the music.
💯💯💯💯 agree
Garbage in garbage out, plain and simple.
I wont to hear 78's on a high end audio🤣
Ive ruined myself as Ive upgraded my rig, I cannot listen to some of my favorite music anymore. I now listen to quality recordings of music I like over so so recordings of music I love.
Geez, thought this vid was 2 years old when he preached masks. Get over it or live in a bubble.
If you see your system as a magnification device that is your first mistake and leads inexorably to all the problems talked about here. Instead, see your system as a window through which you view recordings. There should be no magnification, that is distortion. There should be no coloration. It should be transparent. Do this and you will find that as you get closer and closer to this ideal situation then the better ALL your recordings will sound. Goofball still wearing masks. I am so outta here.
why are there some systems that make my music sound better?
it is magnification or it is distortion? I bet it is magnification, obviously I'm listening better and with more quality the song, I listen better the frequencies, it means the system increases and magnifies what other audio system can't sound.
👊👊🙏
Who lissen to bad recordings anymore? Throw away your old crap and try something New.
Octave records sounds pretty crap too. Plus, you're there, so that's already a strike.
Remember the old saying that I guess your mom DIDN'T teach you.
Sterile???🤔
Sounds like crap is subjective to what type of music you like or are focused on. The best recording ever made on Planet Earth may indeed sound like crap to you simply because you are prejudice to that type of music you are listening to. Your brain says yuck 🤮
Don’t blame the system for the recording you don’t like, that’s dumb.
The opposite is true also. Don’t blame the recording because your system says yuck 🤮 That recording may sound good on a phone @ 256 with Beats headphones. The music played has to match the type of listening system you are using.
It’s no different than spending thousands of dollars on mismatched stereo components. Yuck 🤮
OH jeez your still on the Biden mask band wagon!!!! Please......
Sorry to burst your bubble but the mask bandwagon started under Trump.
The masks didn't start coming off till Biden was in office.
The masks that don't work? Shocker
The equipment should serve the music.
The music should not serve the equipment.
Paul once again shows his ignorance of the recording process and the work of those involved in the recording industry.
Just because he has spent a lot of money building a studio the wrong way doesn't make him qualified to pass judgment on Recording Engineers.
Sadly, just like Paul, many "Audiophiles" are terribly ignorant of the recording process and who is ultimately responsible for how a recording sounds.
It is the Artist and the Producer that ultimately have the say in how the music is produced, not the Recording Engineer.
Truth be known if the recording is sounding bad on your system then the problem probably isn't the recording, the problem is probably with the operator and the system.
Poor misguided "Audiophiles" are stuck to listening to only a very limited type of music that makes their system work, yet they find no satisfaction in their system and keep chasing an expensive and nonexistent dream, all the while being duped by snake oil salesmen that tell them their system is "alright" but here's something better and more expensive.
Too bad, because there really is a lot of good music out there, that makes people want to dance, or makes people want to fall in love, or makes people sad, or that tells stories for people to hear and understand but "Audiophiles" must listen only to music that makes their system "resolve" and must create some illusion of a "soundscape" while they sit in their lonely little room.
Well, that's a bad attitude. 😆
Really? So the almost universal criticism of say just about every Genesis SACD is the fault of the systems on which it is being played is it rather than the diabolical choices made when they were mastered? For some of us music is played to listen too the artists, when that experience is spoilt by a wall of compressed over loud sound, don't tell me thats the fault of my system or me.
Masks. Lol.
Please *stop* using the word "we"!?!? You are only speaking for yourself, and nobody else.
its not his fault that your system is underperforming
Are you talking about the vaccinations?
Relax. It’s a figure of speech. He could have just as easily said “To the extent one has tuned one’s system to be revealing, one might start avoiding poorly recorded material…”
Where's your problem? He speaks for audiophiles. I see myself as an audiophile and totally agree with him. If you don't then don't. No problem. There is no need to get rude.
Someone needs a nap
Paul, are you telling me that everyone that works at PS audio where's a mask at all times while they're at work and out of work? There is no way that is happening. So yet you're going to go over the top with people visiting and make them wear a mask? Totally hypocritical and makes no sense.
Imagine being offered a free tour of someone’s business, and a listening opportunity in one of their specialized rooms, and being annoyed by a minor condition they place on your experience. 🙄
@@spectator1996 completely ignores what I said. Paul is being an absolute hypocrite if he's asking people to wear a mask while they come in to visit yet his workers are not wearing a mask at all times in and out of work. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
@@ryanschipp8513 My point was that you’re calling someone out for a choice they are making in running their own business, in the context of an offer to provide free services to current and prospective customers. It’s uncivil, unnecessary and absolutely ungrateful, even if their policies are inconsistent (which neither of us knows is the case; maybe they have multiple immunocompromised employees and don’t want to take any unnecessary risks with random guests?). Why not just not say anything and let him carry on with a policy that makes him comfortable coming to work, and doesn’t affect you in the slightest? This is totally different from a restaurant, movie theater or other public accommodation. PS Audio owes you nothing.
@@spectator1996 I'll say it for the Third time, it's quite clear what I'm saying. No one can dispute it. Paul is asking if people come and visit to wear a mask. Do you actually think that all of his employees in the entire building are wearing masks throughout the day everyday and then also implementing that out of work? There is no way that's happening. Anyone says that that's a possibility or yes it's happening is lying and being irrational. So my point is that he'll demand someone coming to visit puts on the mask but then yet his own employees that he's trying to protect so-called are not wearing a mask all the time in and out of work. It's completely inconsistent and hypocritical. It's illogical and nonsensical.
@@ryanschipp8513 Paul has decided that some humans beings are more biologically equal to others. How does the virus know the difference between the human beings that define themselves as workers and the human beings defining themselves as visitors and how does the biology change accordingly? If he can be this obtuse regarding biological science what are we to make of his credibility when discussing the science regarding Hi-Fi equipment 🤔
I find many recordings from the 60s, 70s and 80s to be phenomenal. It's to the point where despite my not liking a song I will still listen to it because the sound knocks my socks off. For example, I really don't like the group America (don't at me) but, knowing that they recorded on the cusp of the 60s and 70s, I put on Sandman. JEBUS! what a stellar recording. Then going into the nineties into the 2010s I've experienced a marked drop in quality and selection. Only now with acts such as Shakey Graves, Patrick Watson , The Palace Steps and others do i find that recordings are improving.
Agreed, but the late 80's for the next 30 years, they brickwalled, overcompressed and reduced the dynamic range to single digits, and thus started the "loudness wars" and ruining the music for us
That is probably their best cut.
Yes the band "America" does not have particularly good songs, but their recordings can sound quite good. Also their live concerts were surprisingly good even well into the 2000's (I'm not kidding) and presumably even today. Apparently they put a premium on sound quality and instrumentation more than lyrics or melody (i.e. the basic song).