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
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.
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.
Lack of bass and too bright highs. Although I think newer recordings are getting better in this respect.
Also a lot of rock/pop recordings seem to be filled with NOISE. I don't know if this is some grunge carry over but I used to love Rush. Their latest CD was so full of noise I could hardly make out any melody.
CS Lewis says Heaven will be filled with music and silence. Hell, and the future of our universe as we know it, will be comsumed by noise.
Had anyone ever heard of this happening?

I too had found purchasing compressed recording to be quite irksome and basically a ripoff. But in the last year, I've entered a pretty unique situation that I've not heard of before.

After only a few upgrades a year ago, I noticed most of my otherwise older compressed and otherwise mediocre recordings had new life. In fact, aside from a bit of digit hash in some of them, many of these formally very poor to decent cd formatted recordings now sounded near reference level.

The bass can be absolutely phenominal, soundstaging almost as good as I've heard, pinpoint imaging, the cymbals shining thru with an air around them (perhaps with a bit of hash but again it depends on the recording).

Some of the more lifeless recordings (non-audiophile grade) I have been thoroughly enjoying over the last year include Chicago's Greatest Hits, Al Stewart, Isley Brother's Greatest Hits, Jethro Tull, Grover Washington, Bob James, and most of my Alan Parsons Project cd's or even my wife's Amy Grant's Christmas cd. Most of the Alan Parsons cd's are pretty decent recordings anyway but are now very good, especially the cymbals.

Dare I mention I tried my wife's Culture Club greatest hits a few years ago and found it pretty lifeless and put it away within 10 minutes or so. I just put it in again a few weeks ago. The percussions on track 4 are as tight, deep, and pronounced as I've ever heard in my more reference-like recordings. Almost all of the other tracks are quite good as well. There are many other cds, but I see no reason to embarass myself further.

The Isley Brother's cd is perhaps one of the worst I've heard(before last year). I contemplated numerous times about returning it for a refund. I actually felt that a crime had occurred with my purchasing this cd. And now almost of the songs are so involving with warmth and bloom that people who listen to it are tapping their foot for the duration. 'Harvest For the World' is something else. The PR&T is in many of these otherwise flat and lifeless recordings.

Perhaps an even better example would be a Vivaldi Four Seasons cd my wife purchased around 1991 found in a bin near the Warehouse Records checkout counter for $4.99 (regular price). Again, flat and lifeless and lack of dynamics. Today, I'd put it up against many finer recordings. It will lose but it would still place a very competitive second.

When I invite guests over to listen, I never suggest anymore that they bring their better recordings, but now I always suggest they bring their older and worst recordings they wish sounded better. And they always seem pretty amazed at the quality of these otherwise worthless recordings. A reviewer/columnist was at my home to evaluate my system last summer. He had mentioned that he had purchased 3 different pressings of Al Stewart in order to find the best one, so I put on that cd and he was quite impressed with the sound and especially the bass on these older recordings. He took a stab at explaining why he thought it sounded so good.

There's only been a few recordings that appear completely unsalvageable on my system. Two of which come to mind include an old 1968 Grand Funk Railroad recording on cd and some of the songs on Tears for Fears greatest hits cd.

Now it's most always fun to load up an old cd and see what I've missed in the past. Sure there's plenty of songs I still don't care for, but it's almost never due to inferior engineering quality now. However, in my heart of hearts J.Geils will always sound inferior.

-IMO