2. music
  3. 1042455898

Why aren't all CDs created equally?

The best part of my system upgrade, over this past year, is listening to music and hearing things (differently) for the very first time. You guys know the deal. I don't have to go there. What kills me, however, maybe more so now, then before, is that poor CDs are still poor--their inherent weaknesses even more highlighted. It's hard for me to get past the inadequacies of many CDs and just try to get into the music. I guess, the problem is, that after listening to, ie. Patricia Barber's CDs (which highlight what I've been trying to capture in my system) contrasted to a ho hum recording (which there are, frightfully, more) takes the wind out of my sails. I've paid a lot of money (for me that is) for those extended airy highs and, you know the rest, but they're just not there regardless of the system on many poorly recorded CDs. You can't listen to what's not there. The guys in the recording studios can't have tin ears, can they? Don't they hear what I hear? Perhaps the mass market really doesn't give a shit. I just don't get it. It's very frustrating. For older (jazz particulary) recordings and the like, I'm much more tolerant (though still frustrated by the poor sound), but new stuff? Anybody else relate? Can you suggest a good audio shrink to help me let go of this problem? Thanks in advance, guys...warren
P.S. And another corallary problem: when I get a shitty recording, (say, purchased from Tower Records) they don't let you return them anymore, due to the burning in thing. You used to be able, even after months, with a receipt, to return CDs. I get Beth Ortons new CD home, (Daybreaker-want to check her out) can't stomach the first four tracks. It's over. Her voice is so shrilly sounding and the music poorly recorded ( to my taste) I might as well chuck the Cd in the garbage. I'll give her a try again, but it's still very frustrating not being able to return it for an exchange. Anybody know where I buy CDs and return them, after being played, for credit toward other purchases? Sorry for all this rambling...
128x128warrenh
sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
There is something to be said for having a well balanced system, where each component compliments the others. Maybe you should aim for a system that makes the largest percentage of your software sound the best.

I guess I don't go with the theory that the most revealing system is automatically the best. If it makes a large number of CD's sound terrible, then maybe it should be considered the worst system.

Even if you listen to vinyl, do you want a system so revealing that it clearly broadcasts every defect, and every microscopic spec of dirt or scratch on an LP? Not me.

I do agree that many CD's are engineered poorly; or are engineered to sound good played on a boom box. They sound terrible on a good system.
warrenh's avatar
warrenh OP
2,299 posts
 
Great points guys. I understand much better, now. Now, to find those killer label/recordings. Thanks again. I'm at peace.... temporarily, that is..
maxcast
95 posts
 
Check out this first page article
http://www.audioholics.com/

Kind of a bummer.
garfish
1,840 posts
 
Sugarbrie; good post. Poor digital recordings are a fact of life for reasons given above. My stereo system is all digital and the components/speakers are capable of high resolution, so to partially compensate for the many lousy recordings of otherwise good music, I've actually gone to the extent of "de-tuning" my system to some extent, ie I use only high quality copper speaker cables, ICs, AC outlets etc-- no silver; carefully chosen NOS tubes in pre-amp etc. Vibration contol or modification can also noticeably affect sonic character.

My bias is towards a slightly warm, rich sound-- even a bit dark and rolled off in the highs. All the above things, and others, help tame excess digital brightness, edge, hardness, glare, and other digital nasties, and well recorded digital still sounds very good.

Finally, there are some good sounding digital recordings out there too. Hang in there Warren. Cheers. Craig
jlambrick
138 posts
 
I have a system that I would consider "ruthlessly revealing". My previous system is now our living room system is much less so although still pretty hi fi. It never called attention to how bad some recordings can sound but it also never created the sense of realism that the new system can. Overall, I guess I've chosen to take the good with the bad and listen to the best system the vast majority of the time.

One thing that has helped me deal with the huge amount of variability between recordings is trying to take apologists approach to listening. If I can, I try to categorize recordings stylistically. Here's what I mean:

Photorealistic: Instruments are life-sized, spread across a soundstage as they would be in a live venue.

Technicolor: Instruments sound real yet are embellished by a larger than life soundstage. An example of this is the piano being spread over a 15-foot stage or drum sounds being farther apart that a pair of human arms could stretch.

Impressionistic: Pleasant yet unfocused instrument sounds in a large soundstage. I like to have at least one real sounding instrument in the mix to add some kind of point of reference.

Weird yet appropriate: Nothing sound very realistic but everything works in some sort of musical netherworld.

Raw: Unpolished yet crackling with at least some kind of energy. These are the best of the garage recordings.

Background: Music that was never meant to be the listening focus. Also, some of the ethereal stuff to fall asleep by.

Shitty: Everything else.

It would be nice if nothing were ever shitty but that's probably never going to happen considering the mass-market focus of the music industry.
More to discover