I have found that a better way of putting it has to include ‘….the accuracy of instrument and voice reproduction in the specific venue of the actual recording’ for the simple fact that almost every recording venue subtly (or unsubtly) changes the sound signatures of voice and instrumentation.
Very important observation thanks
I am of the belief that the only truly bad recordings are the ones that have undergone so much post-production sound engineering so as to present parodies of the instruments, and of voices.
verry well explained thanks...
My list of ‘poor’ recordings became eroded so much over time, I began to realise that in the world of unoverly sound engineered albums, there are actually very few recordings I should dismiss as bad, for the reason my sound/room system may not (yet) be good enough to playback the subtlest cues of reverberation, decay and atmospheric quality that we call realism. It is for this reason that I said a truly poor recording is very difficult to identify.
You explained way better than me the fact that better the system is and better the speakers room is controlled alleged "bad" recordings become "interesting" yes and the numbers of alleged "bad " recordings decrease because our GEAR/room improve and manifest ALL acoustic recorded cues in the acoustic language of our room ...
This confirm what i speak about already:
There is no perfect reproduction in recording engineering, but A TRANSLATION of some acoustic original perspective and trade-off choices by the recording engineer INTO another acoustic context : the speakers/room/ears relation...
Resolving power of gear is not synonymus of better sound either because all other acoustic cues matter also not only frequencies resolution ....
Thanks for this marvellous post...
