[meat01]

Team Recording First! No Contest. You can't polish a turd. A crappy recording will still sound like crap on a $5k source and Dire Straits still sounds great on an iPod.

 

[byronyu]

Seems like a lot of u are confusing a bad recording with "bad" music. A bad recording has no relflection of the music.. it's based on the actual recording. Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, Nina Simone.. great music that's not recorded well.

Also, source isn't the end of the reproduction.. it's also the amp, the speakers and the room.

I had this issue before i got my Apogee Ribbon speakers which will make bad recordings very apparent.

For me? Give me the "source". Sure i can hear all the hiss and crackle of the old recordings now, but it's more alive then it ever was as well. Plus, the great recording on my system are even more magic now.

 

[A<aA?]

recording, any day of the week. thats what makes awesome songs, the sound. Having bad recordings with a good source, it'll still sound the same.

At least with good recordings, you can always upgrade the source. Once the cd's are sold, you can't change the sound of them.

At the moment its my source thats holding me back - I have well produced CDs, I just need a better source. if the cd quality was worse, i probably wouldn't mind so much, nothing i could do about it.

 

[panda]

no level of playback quality is going to compensate for poor recordings. but that shouldn't be any reason to not get good gear if most of your source material is poorly recorded...

 

[Bosch]

Ha, well...I've played Californication on my Meridian G08, and it sounded pretty good! Not Steely Dan 'good' mind you, but the rough edges were smoothed off enough that when turned up loud, the glare and thinness were acceptable.

 

[gtortorella]

A VERY, VERY difficult question...

Since everything begins at the beginning, I would tend to give a SLIGHT nod to the recording. Since most of the music I enjoy is well recorded, I do not experience many of the issues that have been mentioned in this thread. Certainly, though, I have heard my share of bad recordings.

In my view, the noise content of a recording plays an important role in the quality of the recording itself. Noise, whether emanating from the playback material or components, is a constant reminder that one is listening to recorded music. Some listeners contend that they are able to "overlook" the flaws of a noisy recording. Some of these listeners also brand those who find noise distracting as people who are "listening to the equipment." Well, if we are not listening to and evaluating the equipment, then why do we care about the sonic quality of various sources, amplifiers, headphones, loudspeakers, etc.? If such is the case, one might best purchase a $59 boom box and be happy with its inherent shortcomings.

Again, the recording vs. source question is extremely difficult--but very interseting.

 

[ilovesocks]

Definitely good recording with mediocre source. Crappy recording ruins everything, no matter how good the source.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtortorella Again, the recording vs. source question is extremely difficult--but very interseting.

One thing that makes the question so interesting is that a person who prefers crappily recorded genres may have a slightly different take on what makes a good source. I.E. a "good source" to someone who listens mostly to crappy recordings might be a forgiving one that rounds off flaws and makes it more listenable, and that same source might be unacceptable to someone who listens to mostly good recordings.

Very interesting question...

 

[carlosgp]

Music first. I would choose a record following my tastes. If the recording is good and I have to live with a bad source, thus be it

. If the recording is bad, well, at least I would have a good source

 

[majid]

For me it's a no-brainer. Switching to a good source (Benchmark DAC-1) made me realize how bad some of my recordings are, something that was not apparent with lesser sources. I can only imagine how unbearable bad recordings would be under the harsh light of a good source's scrutiny.

 

[Tachikoma]

Good source for me. Recording quality doesn't bother me as much as most people here, I guess.

 

[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?

 

[virometal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch One thing that makes the question so interesting is that a person who prefers crappily recorded genres may have a slightly different take on what makes a good source. I.E. a "good source" to someone who listens mostly to crappy recordings might be a forgiving one that rounds off flaws

Indeed, this is a good point. A good source is revealing "relative to my standards," but in my ignorance I forgot some may not feel that way.

TBO, I feared this would be a recording landslide. Imagine my surprise at the thoughtful answers that have made me question my own assumptions.

 

[gtortorella]

Good point, fewtch. The term "good source" has a variety of meanings. In my view, a good source faithfully reproduces what is on the disc or record, bad or good.

 

[Riordan]

i've been a "recording matters most" proponent for a long time - but my answer depends on the amount of crappiness. the hardware equivalent to some very old and some very new recordings is an alarm clock or a mobile phone, and i wouldn't want to listen to anything on that as long as similar music/devices are available. so as long as the source is halfway decent, i'd choose the marvellous recordings. if the recording is halfway decent, i'd choose a fine source.