Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Optimum sound reproduction (Read 3750 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Optimum sound reproduction

I have Cyrus Mono X amps driving a pair of Tannoy DC8's; I know these things take a while to run in. However, the mid-range still seems compressed and lacking in depth. It does, however, shine with certain recordings - usually remasters/24bit WAV or any work that is well recorded, produced + mastered. This begs the question; are the bulk of music recordings on CD of inferior file quality? Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs, Sheffield Lab recordings, Brian Eno's "Original Masters", amongst others, all provide superior quality mastering, reproduced in higher quality sound file formats. I begin to grow confused - why would anyone go to the trouble of recording, producing, engineering and mastering a record (let alone marketing and promoting it!) only to release in ANYTHING LESS THAN THE BEST POSSIBLE FORMAT?! If it has been recorded at the top end, simply reproduce that file in as good quality a format as you can fit on a CD and release it; those with cheaper systems or ears of tin will not lose out, and those who are a bit more picky will appreciate (or at least think they appreciate) the best possible sound recording. So perhaps it is my speakers, perhaps my room, or perhaps the fact that I need to spend 20K+ to get good sound reproduction (although I do not think that this is the case, personally). Or is it simply the variance in the quality of my many different CDs? Any feedback or ideas would be valued!

Optimum sound reproduction

Reply #1 –
Quote from: tobymalik on
This begs the question; are the bulk of music recordings on CD of inferior file quality?

I would not suggest that, purely for the purposes of listening, 16-bit/44.1 kHz audio is in any way "inferior" to any higher-resolution format. The bit depth and sample rate of CD audio are not limiting factors.

Quote from: tobymalik on
I begin to grow confused - why would anyone go to the trouble of recording, producing, engineering and mastering a record (let alone marketing and promoting it!) only to release in ANYTHING LESS THAN THE BEST POSSIBLE FORMAT?

If you define "best possible format" as the absolute pinnacle in current digital audio technology, then such a release would only be playable on...a few systems. You can see why releasing material on the "best possible format" would be problematic for a commercial release.

Optimum sound reproduction

Reply #2 –
Quote
Or is it simply the variance in the quality of my many different CDs?
Right...  It's the CD production.  Consumer taste is driving the Loudness War[/u] and that boomy bass that's so popular.

You can find classical & jazz that doesn't have all of the dynamics squished out of them, and there are some older recordings that aren't messed-up during remastering.

Quote
I have Cyrus Mono X amps driving a pair of Tannoy DC8's;  I know these things take a while to run in.
That sounds like typical "audiophile nonsense to me".    Any reputable manufacturer is should make sure the product meets specs before shipping.    Does the manufacturer actually claim that these products improve over time?  The manufacturer is doing a very poor job if the design/performance is not reliable & stable!  If the performance drifts after a short period of use, chances are it's going to get worse, not better.  Where I work (non audio electronics) everything gets burned-in for a week at elevated temperature.  That's not because the specs/performance change.  It's to weed-out any early failures.

OTOH, human perception and memory can drift quite a bit over a period of weeks. 

Quote
However, the mid-range still seems compressed and lacking in depth.
There's always equalization.  EQ can be used to adjust for the equipment, the room, or the recording.  So assuming your equipment and room are perfect, don't feel guilty about adjusting poor or or mediocre recordings.

Optimum sound reproduction

Reply #3 –
Quote
I know these things take a while to run in


How do you know this? Where is the evidence that this is what is happening and not your processor that adjusts itself to whatever sound you think you perceive it to be?

Quote
Or is it simply the variance in the quality of my many different CD


That and the fact that quite a few CD's are compressed to impress with that nice boomy bass and those aggregated highs. Nothing to do with the limits of 44.1/16 ( I had at one time tried SACD vs. CD and for the life of me could on two records not hear a bit of difference on a player where I could switch layers). But everything to do with mastering choices.

Optimum sound reproduction

Reply #4 –
Another reason is that the mastering between vinyl LPs, redbook audio CDs, and SACDs is usually different for the same respective title.

Optimum sound reproduction

Reply #5 –
Aside from the Loudness war and other intentional lo-fi treatments, production and mastering on some recordings is just plain worse. The reason many of the high resolution recordings sound so good is because the producers of these recordings know they'll be selling them to people who appreciate good audio. It is the extra care and skill applied in production that makes it sound good.

Optimum sound reproduction

Reply #6 –
Quote from: tobymalik on
I begin to grow confused - why would anyone go to the trouble of recording, producing, engineering and mastering a record (let alone marketing and promoting it!) only to release in ANYTHING LESS THAN THE BEST POSSIBLE FORMAT?!


Formats are easy. Making a quality recording is hard.

For all practical intents and purposes the Audio CD format is the best possible 2-channel format.

Optimum sound reproduction

Reply #7 –
It's also worth remembering the audio wasn't mastered in the room your stereo is in so as already said there's nothing wrong with a bit of EQ. I know a lot of AVRs do room correction nowadays.
 

Optimum sound reproduction

Reply #8 –
Quote from: tobymalik on
This begs the question; are the bulk of music recordings on CD of inferior file quality? Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs, Sheffield Lab recordings, Brian Eno's "Original Masters", amongst others, all provide superior quality mastering, reproduced in higher quality sound file formats. I begin to grow confused - why would anyone go to the trouble of recording, producing, engineering and mastering a record (let alone marketing and promoting it!) only to release in ANYTHING LESS THAN THE BEST POSSIBLE FORMAT?! If it has been recorded at the top end, simply reproduce that file in as good quality a format as you can fit on a CD and release it…Or is it simply the variance in the quality of my many different CDs?
What’s all this about file formats?