Good Music Trumps Recording Quality
 |
| "Perfectionist Jazz" - Enjoyable but Not the best. Sound quality 100% |
In my experience the journey though audiophilia really went in several stages. The first ones were yearning, and the initial plunge into a high quality stereo, followed by adjustment of components and other ancillary items to tease the most out of the stereo. But for music, there was a long dark period of musical enjoyment that I eventually busted out of. That part was probably the most important thing I had to do ...
Music bought only for sound quality is death to enjoyment ...
 |
| Yes, sounds great. "Meh" for enjoyment (Though fallen out of favor in audiophile circles these days) |
Found out I loved Jazz, and Blues, too, which was a big plus that pays dividends even today. (Ok, this pre-dates me. I have always known that I love Jazz and Blues, thanks to my dad and my band instructors. I am glad the DH found Jazz and Blues before we met, though, so he had a nice collection started before we joined forces. )
As time went on, I found myself listening less and less casually, and then listening for the great "soundstaging," "moments of realism" and "dynamics" of some recordings, and I tinkered and adjusted things. Something was wrong. As sound quality improved, clearly I sought out music less. My enjoyment went down. I'd listen when I got some new gear, but rarely when I didn't. This period (from 2005-2008 was a dark period for music for me) (For those keeping score at home, this is the "can't see the forest for the trees" moment)
Miles Davis shows that soul makes the music, not audio quality
 |
| Recording quality from 1947, but Man, oh, man, does this music have the spirit and soul we all look for! |
Yes, the sound quality was better. Yes it was nearly holographic in its presence, and while that was all true ... it was lacking in ... soul. By comparison the band was phoning it in, with a technically perfect performance and recording, the song wasn't anything special in their hands.
Back in went Miles Davis, and the flatter, mono, rolled off in frequency extension which I was shying away from, his version, warts and all, and it hit me ... POW ... it had it all. At this point, I realized the error of my ways, and while I didn't regret buying all those "audiophile perfectionist" records (some still find their way into the rotation, even!), I realized that the soul and message of the music was far more important than the recording quality.
Over the ensuing years, I changed my focus. As I upgraded components, I used good examples of "our" music to see if something would work or not, and started focusing on the experience of our music over the hyper-realistic detail of the recording. We still buy "special press" versions of our favorite records, but we never fuss about it if we can't find them - and while our system has more detail and realism now than it ever has, we erred on the forgiving side of things. It shows when a recording isn't good, but it won't beat you over the head with it. Our stereo is really now built around extracting the best from the music we love. The realism does enhance the music for us. We figured only the very worst quality recordings would fail to entrance us, considering how much additional enjoyment we got when our favorite recordings got kicked up a notch.
 |
| The Paramount "Wonder Box" |
Enter Paramount Records, and the Roaring 20's ...
We recently purchased and took delivery of The Rise and Fall of Paramount Records, vol. 1 sold by Third Man Records. They ripped and remastered 800 old Paramount 78 rmp records from the 1920's into MP3 (!) and pressed some of them into 6 LP's. As we explored this set, sonically the music is closed in, it is all in mono, noise is sometimes so high that it rivals the music in volume, and there is virtually no treble or bass. It was a product of it's era in the 1920's (and even then, they didn't use state of the art gear). There is no level of playback gear that could overcome the deficit in sonic quality. In fact, if you wanted to do worse, you might need to listen to a band play on Shortwave Radio from a weak or distant station (for those that don't know, that is really bad for sound quality).
Despite all of that, the music shone through, and we have been absolutely transported - both with the MP3 and LP. When we have had our fill in a listening session, and spun a modern jazz recording, it isn't always a musical improvement (though it is leaps and bounds better in sound quality). So we're flabbergasted.
Jack White mentioned in a post that some of the goodness and immediacy is because they generally were recorded in 1 take, and the small errors the bands made when playing, and the lack of post-production processing adds to the musical goodness (we really can't dispute this). This is what makes the 78rpm record fans seek it out.
But we have to conclude that good music can transcend the limitations in recording sound quality.
Sound Quality for playback is still important
I know we might be sending a mixed message here, but we are really not. We still feel a quality stereo will enhance the sound and increase enjoyment - even on terribly compromised recordings. We still think you will be better served by a good stereo than a mediocre one. But in our estimation, you shouldn't fuss too much about sound quality if you enjoy the music. And when you love something and it sounds fantastic as it sometimes does - well, you have a holy grail of sorts and should really enjoy yourself!
This speaks to a difference in how the two of us listen to music on an average evening. The DH often notices the details and differences well before I do. Unless I am attempting to listen "critically" to a component, cable, or recording, I tend to open my focus and take in the "whole" of the performance rather than the parts. It is a bit like how you must open and blur your focus for those "magic 3D" style images from a decade ago, or you will see the little pictures rather than the 3D image they intend you to see. My personal preference is to listen to the overall performance and feel the music, rather than notice whether the treble is a bit tipped up or rolled off. I am learning how to classify these details when I prefer one performance or component over another, but it requires effort that I don't want to expend many evenings. Sometimes I just want to love the music.
[Actually I think my wife is a "leveler" and I am a "subtractor" - meaning she notices how things are the same, and I tend to notice differences more often. No right way or wrong way, but when she points out how things are the same, I take note. When I draw her to differences, she will hear those, too. Sure we perceive things slightly differently, but in the end, for the both of us it is about musical enjoyment. I end up pickier about sound quality more than she is, but she also reminds me to listen to the music, too! In the end this balance has kicked up the amount of music we listen to, and the emjoyment of it.]
If we were to sum up something, it is this: never buy a record just because it should "sound good" and avoid one by a favorite musician because it doesn't. You should build your stereo around the music you prefer to listen to, to bring out as much realism and quality as you can from it. Frankly, good playback will oftentimes reveal nuance that lesser playback will skip, even when recording quality is poor - which is our experience. But you have to ask yourself, what is your goal? We feel is should all be about enjoyment of music!
Now ... we have a dollar bin Commodore's album to spin, so bid you farewell! :-)
Good article; I learned that lesson many moons ago, and I've been an audiophile and musician for some 50 years now. That sounds like a long time, but I got bit by the audio bug when I was still a stripling in the 60's.
ReplyDeleteDiscovering high quality audio and pursuing it will ultimately lead you back to the music.
I was into pre-recorded open reel tape, and have many that were purchased simply because the sound was amazing (still is), but it also opened me up to jazz. I'm a rocker and blues fanatic, but jazz is my special place of retreat.
I grew up in a home with 78's (still have many; swing, blues and country swing as well as many acoustic recording that are pre 1926), and have always enjoyed the music for it's own sake, before becoming exposed.
As far as recordings that in my own opinion could have used a tweak here or there, I either process them myself in real time or re-master to high res digital (mastering engineer for nearly 30 year now).
There is a reason for EQ controls on older gear, and things like companders, graphic and parametric EQ components. Not all engineers or facilities are the same. Rather than upgrade, I process.
But it all comes back to the music. My acoustic recordings, not unlike the Paramount recordings, can be stressful for some to listen to. With the advent of electrical recording in 1926-27, you'd be surprised just how much better these later records sound. I have spent many an evening with friends listening to my Fats Waller BlueBird 78's or Benny Goodman Victor recordings, and getting a great musical buzz, and afterwards, it dawns on us how good these really sound.
I too, will sometime listen to something simply for it's sonic purity, but that is seldom compared to listening to the music.
I would suggest to any audiophile that has made the discovery you have, that you should go to the next level to set up and buy some 78's of your own. There are still quite a few floating around with excellent and powerful performances, that were recorded live in studio, and as you pointed out, without a lot of post work or editing; it didn't exist until the advent of tape. It will give you a very tangible feel for the music recorded. But you will need to do a fair amount of homework to set up for a proper playback, but hey, that's part of the fun. Cheers!