Rock and Roll Snobbery

Hey Ben...unfortunately, over-compression is unbelievably common thse days. The artists don't really (usually) have much say in the matter. The lables want their releases to be as loud as possible to make them "stand out" from other releases (and to make matters worse, most radio stations also overcompress). I've read many articles where all of the main mastering engineers say that it's gotten out of hand. THey realize that they're technically degrading the sound, but they won't get any business if they don't make it sound as "loud" as the labels prefer. It doesn't necessarily make a recording sound "bad" (not if it's engineered well), but it will make it sound flat and they quickly become fatiguing to listen to.

I'm with Sean. More than one system is the easiest and least compromised way to go. (Don't know if I can swing five systems, though.) If you are into the holographic/detail/transparency thang, your system is likely to be developed to maximize the potential of speakers that do this extremely well (i.e. Quads, CLS's, etc). I've recently reached the conclusion that building a second system around speakers that actually move air and have great LF extension is easier, ultimately less costly and infinitely less frustrating than trying to add LF to speakers that weren't designed to go there in the first place (and adding subs always subtracts from the magic that was designed into these speakers). If you think that you have a "great system" that works on all kinds of music, enjoy. There are systems that get both ends of the spectrum "mostly right" and are very enjoyable. But once you decide that you want to be more specific and get certain types of music all-the-way-there, it is always at the expense of something else. The kicker is.. to what degree? That's the fun -- and sometimes really frustrating -- aspect of this endeavor.

Mmmm-I went back and listened to the only CD I had that is mentioned above,the 2nd Stone Roses album and yup it is way overcooked(haven't listened to it in years it's from '94). It strikes me and this is just an observation that it may be distinctly a problem with Artists aiming at the American market..i.e lots of radio play..certainly the Stone Roses album on Geffen was a failed attempt to break the States(almost 4 years in the making)..I guess I tend not to buy some of the artists that are mentioned above..but I can appreciate it is a problem..it maybe proves my point that it is still down to those who are aiming for big commercial gain over artistic appeal (I'm going to get in trouble on this probably..)..take artists like Radiohead ,Madonna,(no.1 albums?)it can be done--- good modern recordings....I still find some of the recordings held-up by Audiogon members as excellent,Lucianda Williams, Cowboy Junkies et al as nothing more than ok and maybe a tad sterile but we all like different things I guess...personally prefer Eva Cassidy of that ilk and I still think that even now that a good modern recording ultimately sounds better than that of even a couple of years ago......... Regards, Ben

I'd say it comes to down recording for each of these. Pop music - music promoted over the radio is recorded with tons of compression and limiting to maximize sound for signal strength over radio. AND the frequency capacity of CD's is limited by the format - it doesn't go down as low as "full range speakers" ... so...you're going to hear more depth, more of the room...things that come from deep bass and sub bass. So...midrange focused systems will be pop-o-licious but their weaknesses will really be displayed by uncompressed unlimited recordings

It is often cited in these threads that you can't (shouldn't) attempt to rectify a major weakness in a component by changing something else that pulls the system in the opposite direction - ie, don't attempt to correct a bright amp by applying extra-warm speakers. If your amp is bright to the point that you really don't like the sound, you have to change the amp. So, it doesn't seem consistent to say that a poorly recorded pop album is going to sound a lot better on a mid-fi system than a high-end one. If a CD is recorded with tons of compression, as many are, it isn't going to sound good on any system, IMO. It's going to accomplish only two "positives" - you'll be able to hear all the parts of the song better in an environment with a lot of unrelated noise (ie, a car) and it will "catch" your ear more quickly wherever it's played, a phenomena most people on this site find appealing for somewhere between zero and two seconds. I find the very compressed recordings I've listened to to sound pretty horrible and fatiguing on every system, and don't find that lowering the quality of the system to make the situation any better.