What of your CD's have good sonics?


I have been amazed at the number of CD's are so bad I can't bare to listen to them on my system. It seems like over half are difficult to listen to. Vinyl seems about the same. I have been buying some classic rock albums from a local used record store and am surprised at how many of them sound bad. Most of the jazz albums I buy are usually quite good. How is it with you guys?
catfishbob
I agree it is about the music as well, however if it is a bad recording or transfer that dimishes the enjoyment considerably. I compare it to attending a concert of a favorite performer with bad acoustics and crappy speakers. It doesn't do the artist or audience any good. I think the sad trutch for uys old rock fans is that the majority of the recordings were extra bright coming off the mixing board for the advantage of broadcast radio. It is a damn shame that so many great performances were not preserved as better recordings. So yes it is about the music first but if quality was a moot point we wouldn't be here on audiogon, would we. We love quality in all aspects of music. All just MHO.
CatfishBob,
In the past 1+ years I've known about A'gon, several buyers and sellers have turned me on to the daily double--great music that happens to sound great too on cd.
Rickie Lee Jones-first album, pretty much all of them for sound however
Marcus Miller--Free, Silver Rain (some dynamic, clear bass)
Stanley Clarke--East River Drive
Janis Ian--Breaking Silence
Eric Clapton--Unplugged
Brian Bromberg--Wood
George Duke--Illusions (pretty good sound--awesome music)
Dianne Reeves--Quiet in the Storm
Elton John--Tumbleweed Connection (remastered version)
1/2 rock 1/2 jazz fusion albums--try a couple
Why should a brutally honest system be automatically aligned with a hyper-detailed system when in fact they are mutually exclusive? Or at least should be. A brutally honest system will reveal far more musical detail including distortions (system shortcomings) than a brutally dishonest system or the more rare hyper detailed system would.

A musical performance consists of exactly 100% detail. Never more and never less. That implies there is no such thing as 101% detail. So aside from the the relatively rare component that is indeed zipped up or hyper detailed, I would think one would want to get as close to 100% of the detail embedded in the recording. The closer you get to the 100% detail the more abundant and natural are the warmth, bloom, harmonics, etc. that you get.

If you are experiencing what seems to be an abundance of poorly engineered recordings that seem flat or lifeless, grungy, overly detailed, or shouty, it's simply because your system is the victim of numerous distortions (which all are to one degree or another).

Any distortion whether electrical or mechanical will cause most all of the finer nuances and detail to smear to the point of dropping off into the noise floor and raise the noise floor so that much of the musicality of a presentation becomes inaudible.

Sadly, the vast majority of the magic or beauty of a performance lies in the low level detail and thus much of the believability of a performance is inaudible and is anything but believable. Thus leaving only a small percentage of the info embedded in the recording audible, (the bulk but not all of the high level detail and just a remnant of the low level detail).

Changing to a speaker or component that seems warmer or fuller most always adds a coloration that has nothing to do with getting closer to the original performance. As is usually the case when trying to cure the effects rather than the cause. In fact, because such products add new colorations to mitigate old colorations or distortions, I would contend that such 'warmer' components actually take you further away from the 100% detail of the live performance rather than closer to it. Even though they might make inferior systems and recordings seem more palatable and less fatiguing.

Especially since such a component would do nothing to recover the volumes of missing or inaudible detail which was the original problem anyway.

In other words, this has nothing to do with listening analytically or critically, or even just immersing yourself in the pleasure of music no matter how distorted it sounds.

As you probably know, there's real pleasure listening to the quality of magic of a given live performance and there is potential for real pleasure in listening to the quality of magic of recordings of same given live performance.

That's assuming of course that the reason you've invested your money in a 'high-end' system and participate in 'high-end' audio forums such as this one is to get closer to achieving that goal rather than seeking insight as to how invoking The Force might help convince yourself indulging in a 'high-end' audio hobby has nothing fundamentally to do with listening to the quality of the sound of the music.

To answer the original question, you should find that the vast majority of all CDs, including Redbook, contain enough music information to create superior musical presentations, even those we might consider to be our most inferior engineered recordings. It's the distortions plaguing our systems that keep us from hearing the vast majority of that information embedded in the recording medium.

-IMO
A Furutech RD2 or Acoustic Revive RD3 will definitely help with brighter older CDs if that is a problem in your system.
I certainly can't disagree with any opinions that have been given here. It's just that I am amazed at the difference in two CDs. One will grab me and pull me in and another will be unbearable.
Dorkwad,(gotta love that name)I have several of the albums on your list. I have the Rickie Lee Jones on L.P. and it is a truly awesome recording.
I'll look into some of this CD reviving technology you guys are referring too.
By the way, my subject line was supposed to read,"What % of your CDs have good sonics" Somehow the % was left out.