[felixkrull6]

Garbage in = Garbage out imo but Fewtch does make a good point about the relative values of good recording vs. good source for each individual.

 

[felixkrull6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid Another factor is you don't have just one recording. I have over 600 CDs, it would probably cost me $7-12K to rebuild my library from scratch (which is part of the reason why I am ripping to lossless and backing up off-site). It is much cheaper to upgrade a source than upgrade your complete library, on the other hand a library of so-so recordings makes source upgrades pointless. And isn't finding excuses to upgrade the whole point of Head-Fi?

Is there really much of a choice in regards to the recordings you can get when it comes to most forms of music, especially modern ? Most of the CDs I have are of classical and opera and I know that there are tons of recordings of all the music in the canon but what about other forms of music? I'm asking out of complete ignorance.

 

[feckn_eejit]

I have a couple of nice sources - a California Audio Labs Icon mkII HDCD player, and a trio of nice transports into a Pass Labs D1 DAC.

I also have a crappy Sony CD player, and crappy Pioneer DVD player.

Everything sounds like crap coming out of the crap sources - so I rule out crappy sources.

Good recordings sound incredible on the D1, and very nearly as good with the CAL cd player.

Bad recordings can be a bit brutal on the D1, but are almost always still enjoyable with the CAL.

So, trade a bit of resolution for a somewhat more forgiving, musical player, and you can enjoy pretty much anything IMO.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

I have a US$69 CDP that's pretty good (and it's my cheapest source), so I'd rather have a good recording on that than a bad recording (Californication, etc.) on my best player.

 

[tk_suki]

Great media on great source why waste your precious listening time! But this is an OR hypo question so Media is first choice. Coz sooner or later can get a good, then great source. In short, if funds are limited build your high-quality media first then progress to better gear.

This is a silly question because most of us do both in parallel. I am constantly on the prowl for better albums and CD's as well as sources though the latter are major investments.

GIGO.

YMMV

tk

 

[virometal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk_suki Great media on great source why waste your precious listening time!

What if you happen to like music that isn't well recorded?

 

[majid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by felixkrull6 Is there really much of a choice in regards to the recordings you can get when it comes to most forms of music, especially modern ? Most of the CDs I have are of classical and opera and I know that there are tons of recordings of all the music in the canon but what about other forms of music? I'm asking out of complete ignorance.

I listen mostly to classical, your point is well taken. I do have some Jazz recordings, which have technical flaws. Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" has a low-level hiss that is not objectionable with speakers but very evident with good headphones. And of course much pop music suffers from compressed dynamics because of idiot producers who confuse loud with good.
Somebody once made the point Quad makes gear not so much for audiophiles as for people who want their music to sound good, even if the recordings are technically marginal.

 

[Michael G.]

If your talking about CD recordings and digital source components it's almost a toss up because I don't think that different CDP's sound all that different from each other. Even so, the good recording/mediocre source combo might sound better than a bad recording/stellar source because, theroetically at least, the more resolving source component would reveal recording flaws all the more. You certainly can't re-engineer a bad recording, so I'd probably take a good recording on a mediocre source hands down. For analog formats and source components the sonic differences between cheap and expensive analog components are much greater than in the digital realm, and even though increased musicality (as well as increased resolution) comes with the better analog source components, I'd probably take the "mediocre source/good recording" combo first. But, this issue seems to me to be more complex, and a little less clear in the analog world.

 

[jimholt]

Recording first crap in crap out its as simple as that.

 

[Patrick82]

I can listen to garbage whole day if the source is good.

Some videophiles rather watch grass grow in HDTV than normal movies in SDTV. It's the same with audio, once you listen to a good system you can't go back no matter how good the recording is.


I haven't really heard a crappy recording. I have some albums with hiss, distortion, clicks and pops and it freaked me out at first but then I got used to it! Now I love it because it reminds me I am listening to a recording and it makes me appreciate my audio system more.

I have many albums that sounded bad at first but are now my favorites after upgrading my system. Some of my trance albums sounded too bright (boosted treble), but now the brightness is smooth as silk and not fatiguing at all, I can listen all day. However, it sounds more detailed than real life because of the boosted treble which makes it sound less real.

Most of my trance albums sounded muddy and lacked in transparency (DJ Tiesto, Astral Projection), but that wasn't the problem with the mastering which I thought at first. After increasing resolution in my system it improved layering which made me hear each sound separately at different depths, I can shift my focus on each sound which makes it sound louder than the others, quiet sounds are now very clear!
When listening to those albums on a bad source all the sounds blend together and it sounds like a mess.

Trance music definitely benefits the most from a source with upsampling because often there are 5+ melodies playing at once. But for classical music I didn't hear much of an improvement, the instruments sound almost the same except for violins and flutes which sound amazing at 768 kHz upsampling.

'The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King' was the only classical album that improved as much as my trance albums did, because it is muddy with decay all over the place.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal What if you happen to like music that isn't well recorded?

IMO, a good source *can* improve poor recordings by making them sound more musical at least (and thus more enjoyable). Depends on the source... since I got my Rotel CDP, all my recordings are sounding more musical and involving.

 

[Girlsound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal What if you happen to like music that isn't well recorded?

Indeed. I can greatly injoy music that's played through a tinny "boom box" or other gad-awful source if the music is good. If the recording is total crap I can still enjoy it if the music is good. I can remember listening to nth generation tapes on my old Walkman through the worst headphones...being in bliss. I have listened to the "best" recorded material through the "best" set up ($$$$$$$ gear at Innovative Audio here in NY) and being totally bored...the music was dull, well recorded, meticulously reproduced, but dull. Don't get me wrong, I always seek out great recordings. But not of music I'm not going to enjoy. And the quest for better reproduction (no pun intended

) is a continuous journey. Listen to the music, not just the sound.

 

[Bosch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick82 Most of my trance albums sounded muddy and lacked in transparency (DJ Tiesto, Astral Projection), but that wasn't the problem with the mastering which I thought at first. After increasing resolution in my system it improved layering which made me hear each sound separately at different depths, I can shift my focus on each sound which makes it sound louder than the others, quiet sounds are now very clear! When listening to those albums on a bad source all the sounds blend together and it sounds like a mess. Trance music definitely benefits the most from a source with upsampling because often there are 5+ melodies playing at once. But for classical music I didn't hear much of an improvement, the instruments sound almost the same except for violins and flutes which sound amazing at 768 kHz upsampling.

I agree about trance sounding great on an upsampling player. I've got a couple of Yellow Sunshine Explosion prog Goa trance CDs, which to my ears are quite well mastered, and they just sound phenomenal on the G08. Ditto for electronica in general.