2. misc-audio
  3. 1070296948

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...
sns
slappy
903 posts
 
Im not a big fan of compression, it makes real heavy rock passages sound like crap.

However, i agree that some music sounds better on lower-end rigs, and most likley IS a result o the compression.
Heavy rock like System of a Down sounds downright terrible on a real nice rig. You need something grungier and dirtier to make it sound good.
weird but true.

You also gotta think, Pop recording companys dont give two shits about audiophiles because most audiophiles call the music "Crap" or dont even regard it as music at all. Audiophiles are also a very very small market for them.

They want to get the music out to make the bucks. They compress it, and in your average joe's system, which is a 100-200 stereo system, it sounds just fine to them.

You can say that we need to give negative reviews on the sound quality, but in the end, nobody will care, and nothing will change. This music is made for the masses, not the privledged few with a high end system. The masses do not own big expencive stereo systems.

The best thing to do is just not buy it if you dont like it. Most people dont understand or care about this arguement, because for them it is good enough. And as long as it is good enough for the masses, dont expect any spending in R&D to fix this issue...

Just my humble 2 cents.
brainwater
520 posts
 
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?
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Brainwater: The reason is that real rock & roll wasn't made for audiophiles, it was made for kids in high school. (And I personally would rather listen to TITA over my high school's intercom system than Rammstein through an audiophile rig ;^)

Onhwy61: IMO, the sound of pop music hit the skids over a decade ago - right about the same time as the content ;^)

OK, what bugs me most about the sound of pop recordings today? Yes, compression abuse is a biggie, but also the utter lack of any natural acoustic environment (ROOM SOUND, baby!), as well as "Aural Exciter"-type harmonic 'enhancement' effects, particularly on vocals (for that unnaturally 'breathy' sheen that pierces the ears). And oh yeah, the way the music really sucks too.
brainwater
520 posts
 
aaaa man come on Zaikes , tell me its not true. Rammstein rules dude!!
fetguy
90 posts
 
Compression,definately. Watching most of my disks on a scope was pretty annoying; the average dynamic range was still less than a phono or tape could hold! Many pop disks have no more than 20db of dynamic range!!

I grant that this makes sense on pop records that are expected to be played in a car; with a back-ground noise level of at least 70db even a compressed disk is pushing the upper safe limit of human hearing.

I remember a singer by the name of Shawn Phillips. My wife was always going on about how good he was (she heard him live as a young hippy). Listening to his records and cd's made me think that he sucked; I couldnt hear anything interesting. Then, one day he came into town and put on a live show. My wife dragged my very reluctant ass down to see him. Well, out comes this aged-looking hippy who, as he is sitting down, asks "How many of you were dragged here by your Significant Other?". About two-thirds of the hands went into the air, including mine. Shawn just smiled knowingly and started playing.

In three seconds we were his. The subtle (and not so subtle) dynamics of his guitar playing and singing captured us immediately. This man knew how to use ALL the aspects of music to his advantage, timing, harmonics, dynamics and etc.

Yet what does the recording company do? It compresses the life out of Shawns music leaving only the harmonics and some of the timing intact. I call it music murder. He should get the same recording people that Patricia Barber has. And his recording engineer should get life.
More to discover