Click title to read one, or click date to read all below it.
02-27-10
In my experience,a bad recording is a bad recording.better e ... Tpreaves
02-27-10
Maybe the recordings actually were not 'bad'. something in y ... Elizabeth
02-27-10
Hi bryon, here is another thread on essentially the same ... Almarg
02-27-10
Bad recordings should sound better but the differences betwe ... Mapman
02-28-10
Thanks for the responses so far. elizabeth - there's some ... Bryoncunningham
02-28-10
I believe as you improve your system, the ability to play ba ... Audioquest4life
02-28-10
Audioquest4life says it best. you can't get something out o ... Tonywinsc
02-28-10
I believe a bad recording is a bad recording, garbage in gar ... Rrog
02-28-10
Truly bad pop recordings of the late 1990s are digital horro ... Tbg
02-28-10
Hi byron: the issue is what is meant by "improves" ... Mrtennis
02-28-10
"as system improves, do bad recordings sound worse?&quo ... Craig_hoch
03-01-10
As system improves, do bad recordings sound worse? in my ex ... Satch
03-01-10
Depends on what you compare to. they may be more disappoint ... Mapman
03-01-10
As system quality improves, it becomes increasingly difficul ... Psychicanimal
03-01-10
I don't know if they consistently sound worse or not, but as ... Onhwy61
03-01-10
"as system improves, do bad recordings sound worse?&quo ... Gawdbless
03-01-10
Absolutely, not...after chasing the audio gods for a few yea ... Alextychkin
03-01-10
There seems to be quite a difference of opinion so far, rang ... Bryoncunningham
03-02-10
The difference in opinions is because the professional is ab ... Psychicanimal
03-02-10
This discussion has not included a statement of definition o ... Mrtennis
03-03-10
Moving from a warm system to a neutral and highly resolving ... Cyclonicman
03-03-10: Cbw723
One theory: As your system improved, you simply became more aware of what those recordings actually sounded like, and with time "acclimated" to their sound.
To disprove this theory you could define specifically what made the recordings sound bad, and confirm that those elements were alleviated by system enhancements. As another test, you could listen to recordings you thought sounded bad earlier in the upgrade cycle, but have not listened to for some time (and some upgrades): do they sound bad in the way they did before (indicates acclimation is the cause of your changing perception), or have they improved (indicates something other than acclimation)?
A second theory: Part of what you hear (and this is always true) is your system, and your system's interaction with certain recordings was unpleasant. But, as you became more familiar with the sound of your system, you were able to separate it from the recording, and the recording no longer stood out the way it initially did. (Or, possibly, later upgrades mitigated the unpleasant interaction.)
To determine if it is a system interaction issue, you could try the recordings on one or more completely different systems and see if the recordings still sound bad, and in the same way.
There is, of course, the possibility that the overall effect is a combination of these two phenomena.
I agree with Mrtennis, however, that it is important to define in what way a recording is "bad." For instance, I can think of four experiences I've had with bad recordings:
1. A recorded voice distorted because of poorly chosen recording levels, a bad microphone, or whatever. I didn't hear it with a lo-fi system, but it became apparent with upgrades. Nothing I've ever done has made it better, however.
2. Recordings that simply have a rough, "raw" sound. Again, it became more apparent with upgrades, but I realized that that was what the music really sounded like, and I adapted and learned to appreciate it.
3. Low-resolution recordings. Initially, upgrades (which improved the system's resolution) made these recordings sound rough, low-res, and ugly. Later upgrades (which improved musicality), made them prettier, and improved apparent resolution.
4. In my experience, better components (and especially better chosen components) handle shrillness better, so recordings with that characteristic will tend to sound better as your system evolves toward your personal tonal preferences.
I guess what I'm saying is that in addition to more than one type of listener, there is more than one type of bad recording. And the specific way in which a recording is bad may affect how we experience it later in time and later in the upgrade cycle.
Cbw723 (Answers | This Thread)
03-03-10
I am increasingly of the opinion that the mark of a good sys ... Mapman
03-05-10
Mrtennis wrote: to a large extent, i agree with this. i beli ... Bryoncunningham
03-05-10
As the speed of the amp increases, the irritating limitation ... Csontos
03-05-10
"no longer bothersome, just limited" that is a ve ... Mapman
03-05-10
Sometimes the opposite!! i found over the yrs that as the q ... Chazro
03-05-10
" the better yr system gets at resolving details from t ... Mapman
03-05-10
Chazro, if it gets better at resolving details, should it no ... Csontos
03-05-10
"if it gets better at resolving details, should it not ... Chazro
03-06-10
I hear you. i guess it's what we have to live with. they're ... Csontos
03-06-10
The last 2 paragraphs of this review by a very well respecte ... Gawdbless
03-07-10
no, they sound exactly the same. the only difference is you ... Musicman07
03-07-10
Interesting thread, bryon, and i think that you are probably ... Learsfool
03-26-10
I have experienced both. i have invested and upgraded my sys ... Kclone
|
|
