What songs/albums/artists actually sound worse when played through audiophile systems?

The time coherence stuff is super interesting to think about too. Not sure how it would affect some recordings more than others, though. Any ideas about that?

It has been a few years since I performed a lot of comparisons in my system between having my DEQX HDP-5’s function which improves a speaker’s time coherence turned on vs. turned off. (My speakers are Daedalus Ulysses, btw). But as far as I can recall mediocre recordings of complex material, such as the example I cited earlier of orchestral recordings having overly bright massed string sound, particularly tended to benefit.

The degree of improvement provided by that function was less predictable with other types of material, and I wasn’t able to identify any particular type of recording (e.g., poorly recorded/well recorded; simply mic’d/heavily multi-mic’d; classical chamber music/pop/rock/jazz; vocal/instrumental; etc.) which was especially likely or unlikely to benefit.

In any event, though, it was rare for a recording to sound worse with that function engaged than with it disengaged. And most recordings sounded noticeably better with it than without it.

Regards,
-- Al

Perhaps a poor choice of words to say good speakers/system make bad recordings sound worse. Of course they don’t but when your good recordings start sounding better and your bad ones pale in comparison the difference is enough to make me get rid of bad ones. Yes the system as a whole has a lot to do with it but the OP made mention of the quality problem AFTER he added the Forte 3 so I assume the speaker is what he was directing his comment too.

  As to a list of bad recordings you ask about OP none come to mind but I do get rid of many over time. The same album can be different and what you download or get from a friend may have been tinkered with so a list is not much use when your source can vary so much.  Joe Satriani for one seems to generally be OK and Telmark recordings generally are good.

To my ears, anything with compressed DR sounds bad on a hi-fi system.

In the car it makes no difference. With ear buds it makes no difference. On my system at home ear fatigue comes quickly on highly compressed albums. Alabama Shakes (who I really like), both albums, are among the worst. I get the impression that their albums are mixed and engineered well and then DR compressed before distribution.


Someone in another thread said they could make them sound good with the proper system set up. With my level of inexperience I have no basis to deny it but I wouldn't believe it unless I heard it.

I just don't understand how you can make DR compressed music sound good when the range simply, by definition, is not there.

Why do they compress the dynamic range on some recordings and not others? Why do you think it makes it sound harsh? 

I think it sounds harsh simply because the range of volumes (?) is compressed so you get a narrower range of variation between soft and loud. This removes nuance, for lack of a better term....I’m not an expert.

It is also important to note the DR compression can and must be used to make a track listenable at normal volumes. Like a symphony with soft strings and then booming horns. The DR has to be compressed so that you can hear both at normal listening volumes.

It is heavy handed or 'over' DR compression that I’m talking about.

Why is it done wrong? It is my understanding that DR was compressed heavily to increase the relative loudness of the track or album making it more noticeable (??). This would be most effective in the car or with ear buds etc.

It is why some songs will sound ’louder’ than others if there is no equalization applied in iTunes, etc.

I have no idea why it is still done. To be honest, I’m not sure there is a lot of talent on the final production side of the recording industry these days and I think it is done simply because that’s been a standard practice since the 1990s. Metallica was one of the first bands to get significant bad press for the practice.

A recent example is a band called the Teskey Brothers who I really like. They do their own production on older analog equipment and they do a good job. But on their most recent album the CD is very compressed and unpleasant to listen to, while the vinyl is superb. Somewhere in the production process of the CD the DR was compressed while on the album it was not. Why? I have no idea.

The Dynamic Range Database is an excellent tool for finding the best recordings and I use it religiously as, in my opinion, it does not matter how meticulously a track is recorded, if the DR is compressed it doesn’t sound good. So that’s where I start.

I have found that certain artists are better about not over compressing. Steely Dan and Mark Knopfler come to mind. I have also noticed that within the Jazz genre there seems to be less DR compression. That alone is telling in my opinion.

Anyway, sorry about the rant. Of all the nuances audiophiles hear, I am not particularly sophisticated but DR compression for me is always noticeable and unpleasant. Also sorry about any inaccuracies or improper terms. If I’ve got something wrong I hope someone will chime in. There is a lot of info about DR compression out there. I think Wikipedia even has some good info.