In Reply to: RE: I think I'll put a nail in this silly recording quality myth once and for all! (long) posted by Presto on February 20, 2010 at 09:34:18:
system quality is something we have control over and IMO it's far more important than recording quality.
I have a couple of Lawerence Welk and the 3 Sons LPs. These recordings only stay in my collection because the quality of the recording is so good it makes hearing them interesting. I could say the same thing for the 75 or Classical recordings I own. The sound is absolutely dependent on the recording quality. There's no way I'd want to listen to these things without the dynamicism that is required to make them work for me.
On the other extreme I have old historical blues and folk recordings on both CDs and vinyl that sound like the were made on portable tape recorders and I appreciate the sound and feel of the music played back this way. I also have recordings, including bootlegs from modern bands, say the Pagens or the Avengers that IMO also sound good in the same way.
Surely the quality of our systems is what determines whether or not these recordings will sound good or bad. Certainly any system can tell you whether or not the recording is well made.
What's important is that the system can bring our focus onto the content of the recording without highlight the attributes of the recording in such a way we can appreciate the music we are hearing as the music that it actually is.
IMO one is selling themselves short settling for good recording quality = good sound and low quality recording = bad sound. That's baloney, in fact it is the epitome of the most medicre of systems.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Nice but... - Don Till 02/22/1020:54:56 02/22/10 (0)