Well Slappy , here is what i think about your two cents..... I give you five bucks. You hit on something touched on many times but I am wrestling with now. I grew up on Zep , Floyd , Yes , Elp , Doors ect. I have embraced the likes of Krall , Barber , Davis ect im my quest to create high resolution systems. I am getting some fantastic sounds when I demo say.....Janice Ian s " Breaking Silence" and I am so proud of the efforts i have made. On the other hand , Rock and roll sounds horrible. I put on Toys In The Attic SACD and a remastered Zeppelin this weekend at a party and I could have died. I thought it was just my reconditioned ears and expectations but a friend with tin ears said I should get a pair of Bose 901 s . He was dead serious too. We use to listen to all that stuff with my old series 4 901 s in high school. And I do remember it sounding better then. Could it possibly be true that an old sansui reciever , radio shak cables and a pair of bose speakers make my favorite rock recordings sound better than my 137,000.00 Pipedream system. Dont get me wrong. Some rock recordings like Rammstein sound incredible in there. I assume its the compression but what is the reasoning for this phenonenon?
What bugs you most about sound quality?
I would have to say that excessive compression is the most bothersome quality issue on recordings. Over the years I have periodically purchased recordings that I have either returned to the seller or demoted to coaster duty because of excessive compression. I cannot even begin to get near the music on these recordings as they take the very life out of the music, all the nuance of a human playing an instrument is lost in the machine-like drone of equalized dynamics.
I guess what bugs me most is that some poducers/engineers and many consumers doesn't give a rip. I can go over to the many review forums and there won't be a single negative comment (out of hundreds) about the sound quality on these garbage recordings. The producer/engineers often contend that highly compressed recordings sound better/jump out at you when played over average audio equipment. I believe this is a disingenuous argument at best. Taking the worst case scenario of a highly compressed recording played over a highly compressed radio signal, how can one tell the difference between a highly compressed recording and one with dynamic range? Perhaps you can with classical music with it's inherent greater dynamic range, but with most pop music I just don't hear it. I know I can't, which is why I purchased the drek in the first place! Therefore, if you can't tell the difference why would you do harm to the recording (at least when played over better equipment)? The contention that compressed recordings sound better on lesser equipment doesn't wash either. I have an average quality car stereo and micro system at work and I can hear the dynamics when playing cd's just fine. The compressed recording sounds more lifeless than the dynamic recording.
I don't believe these producers/engineers have any excuses to give those who have anything better than tin ears. While consumers who have only heard mediocre or worse audio rigs may be excused for having tin ears, most of these producers/engineers have to know better. I don't necessarily hear lack of transparency on most of these compressed recordings, ie. I assume the studio equipment if of high enough quality to hear the dynamic compression. In fact I have heard good quality recordings (good dynamics) come out of the same studio these compressed recordings came from.
I guess the point of this post is that we audiophiles owe it to ourselves and the greater public to bring awareness to this issue. Perhaps we can go on music review forums and post negative reviews in regard to sound quality issues. I have done so in the past and it is often surprising how many then come forward with similar responses (many of the so called tin ears are really just not able to pinpoint why they might not like a recording, they just don't know how to describe it from a technical viewpoint so they keep quiet). I assume most audiophiles don't intentionally purchase poor sounding recordings, perhaps we should make our buying decisions (or lack of) public. On the other hand perhaps I'm just spittin into the wind...
I guess what bugs me most is that some poducers/engineers and many consumers doesn't give a rip. I can go over to the many review forums and there won't be a single negative comment (out of hundreds) about the sound quality on these garbage recordings. The producer/engineers often contend that highly compressed recordings sound better/jump out at you when played over average audio equipment. I believe this is a disingenuous argument at best. Taking the worst case scenario of a highly compressed recording played over a highly compressed radio signal, how can one tell the difference between a highly compressed recording and one with dynamic range? Perhaps you can with classical music with it's inherent greater dynamic range, but with most pop music I just don't hear it. I know I can't, which is why I purchased the drek in the first place! Therefore, if you can't tell the difference why would you do harm to the recording (at least when played over better equipment)? The contention that compressed recordings sound better on lesser equipment doesn't wash either. I have an average quality car stereo and micro system at work and I can hear the dynamics when playing cd's just fine. The compressed recording sounds more lifeless than the dynamic recording.
I don't believe these producers/engineers have any excuses to give those who have anything better than tin ears. While consumers who have only heard mediocre or worse audio rigs may be excused for having tin ears, most of these producers/engineers have to know better. I don't necessarily hear lack of transparency on most of these compressed recordings, ie. I assume the studio equipment if of high enough quality to hear the dynamic compression. In fact I have heard good quality recordings (good dynamics) come out of the same studio these compressed recordings came from.
I guess the point of this post is that we audiophiles owe it to ourselves and the greater public to bring awareness to this issue. Perhaps we can go on music review forums and post negative reviews in regard to sound quality issues. I have done so in the past and it is often surprising how many then come forward with similar responses (many of the so called tin ears are really just not able to pinpoint why they might not like a recording, they just don't know how to describe it from a technical viewpoint so they keep quiet). I assume most audiophiles don't intentionally purchase poor sounding recordings, perhaps we should make our buying decisions (or lack of) public. On the other hand perhaps I'm just spittin into the wind...