Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › What makes or breaks a recording?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What makes or breaks a recording? - Page 2

post #16 of 28
6/3/07 at 4:31pm
Two words (for breaking purposes):
LOUDNESS WARS
Reply
post #17 of 28
6/3/07 at 6:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by j-curve View Post
Some of you guys must be easy to please... or am I just too picky?
Very easy to please. Out of the choices offered, I picked only the top three. If it's good music, I'll buy it. Anything else is gravy.
Reply
post #18 of 28
6/3/07 at 7:12pm
Publicity.
Reply
post #19 of 28
6/4/07 at 12:47am
For classical, jazz and folk music, my vote is on "ensembleship"

Pop recordings are more complicated, and to me only one thing is certain -- bad lyrics spoils a recording faster than a congregation of maggots.
Reply
post #20 of 28
6/4/07 at 12:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallijonn View Post
the producer, mixer and recording studio.
A good craftsman knows how to get the most out of their tools. Loud != better.
Reply
post #21 of 28
6/4/07 at 1:12am
General interpretation. I don't care if it's the best sounding recording I've ever heard, but if it's played uber slow/uber emotionless, it's a bad recording.

Which is why I prefer to listen my Paganini No.1 in D in an age old cassette by Berlin Philharmoniker rather than some of the newer releases.
Reply
post #22 of 28
6/4/07 at 1:17am
Quote:
Silent Performers: no grunts, singing along, foot-tapping, page-turning or heavy breathing
Anyone who chose this is probably not a Keith Jarrett fan. I couldn't really participate in this, since the choices are kind of a weird mix of sound issues and basic musical ones. I find the latter much more important, but still have sound preferences so wouldn't want to totally discount those factors as being meaningless.
Reply
post #23 of 28
6/4/07 at 4:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hijodeltiger View Post
Two words (for breaking purposes):
LOUDNESS WARS
Why did u bump a 4 year old thread? The OP prob hasn't been here for years....
Reply
post #24 of 28
6/4/07 at 9:09am
Thread Starter 
True, the OP isn't around much these days, but remains most interested in this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken36 View Post
Publicity.
Reply
post #25 of 28
6/4/07 at 2:40pm
Like J-Curve said, it's something I find interesting. Particularly the fact that people who started liking headphones because they gave them a greater insight into the music they already listened to became people who would critically analyze that which they used to enjoy.
It's something my brother (an environmentalist) tells me, we're in a vicious cycle in which you start spending more and more only to realize you are less and less satisfied.
It was only meant as a little food for thought.
Reply
post #26 of 28
6/4/07 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by s m @ View Post
Anyone who chose this is probably not a Keith Jarrett fan. I couldn't really participate in this, since the choices are kind of a weird mix of sound issues and basic musical ones. I find the latter much more important, but still have sound preferences so wouldn't want to totally discount those factors as being meaningless.
Yes that's so true. Too bad he doesn't hum in his WTC recordings.
Reply
post #27 of 28
6/4/07 at 2:44pm
I selected "other". I'd say microphone placement and technique (close-mic'ing, etc.) is absolutely nescessary for a good recording... oh, and tube equipment
Reply
post #28 of 28
6/4/07 at 2:48pm
I've heard some Bach Cello suites in horrible intonation, and that's totally unlistenable
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › What makes or breaks a recording?