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
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.
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Allow me to offer a slightly different perspective: If you are focusing on the sound above the music, something's wrong. *Most* of what I play is not recorded to anything like audiophile standards. The day I require that, will be the day I lose most of my best-loved music. I would still rather hear a substandard or low-fidelity recording played back on a good system than on a boombox. True, the boombox *could* hide some flaws, but it will do so by literally losing a lot of the signal content, the good and important along with the bad and irritating. As I have repeatedly posted before, as my system has improved over the years, I have consistently found that I am less and less bothered by poor quality recordings. Yes, I suppose I am also more aware of bad mastering jobs, etc., but I am also getting more of the music in return. I feel I have almost nothing in common with the mythical audiophile stereotype of someone who's system is so perfect, they can only tolerate playing 3 equally perfect recordings through it. My advice: Make your system as resolving and accurate as you can, and then listen to music you enjoy and forget about the sound. No, it won't sound perfect, but it never will. Learn to ignore the imperfections in the sound, and concentrate on receiving the communication of the artistry in the performance.
davehrab's avatar
davehrab
380 posts
 
Musicans seem more concerned with the message in their performance, then how their performance sounded. I'm not saying they don't care how their performance sounds, most do, only it is secondary to the message.

Audiophiles seem more concerned with how the performance sounds, then the message. If it sounds GOOD a audiophile will listen to it. This is why an audiophile will listen to a wider variety of music, and require the ultimate from his play back system. How many of you listen to jazz, rock, and pop, also enjoy rap, funk, hiphop, and classical??

Do the musicans know what we crave and why, and do we (audiophiles) understand what they are trying to share with us???

What this has to do with warrenh's post I don't know. Try beveling and greening the edges. Also Revel works great to remove the mold release agent they use to get the discs to come out of mold. Then your favorite optical optimizer (I use LAT internationals C-diamond, its also an antistatic agent). Don't forget to degauss when finished. If you don't have these resources at your disposal I do. I live in CT. short hop from NYC. Email me

Some see the glass half full. Some see the glass half empty. I think the FREKIN glass is just too big!
Dave
sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
Zaikesman...I agree with you. I purchase recordings based on the performance only. I have a (couple) good systems because I want them to sound as good as possible. Sounding good does not mean going for the highest detail, resolution, etc. Musical rightness is my goal.

This is the one reason I have not gotten on the SACD bandwagon. I do not hardly any SACD software to my liking to justify the expense.
warrenh's avatar
warrenh OP
2,299 posts
 
Thanks Maxcast for the tip. I read the article. Very disheartening. It, truly is a "double edged sword." After listening, tonight, to Patricia Barbers, Modern Cool; I wish all my recordings, including Coltrane, Davis, Parker and the like, could be of "that quality." I was talking to an audiogoner about "getting" female vocal right.---from miking to all the other technicalities that can make for a great recording. It's a jungle out there. That's another thing entirely. Speaking of another thing entirely:
Rather, than start a new thread, while I have YOU guys here: what are some of the absolute pristine, state of the art, what- we- want- a- CD- to- do, recordings, that do it for you?
More to discover